Almost every discussion I have with someone about movies reveals that such things are purely subjective. What is entertaining to one person may be boring to another; what is horrifying to me might make another person laugh. But there are probably a few general rules of good taste with which most people agree. For the purposes of this essay I will break the subjects down to "movies that merely entertain" and "movies that make us think."
What do I mean by “movies that merely entertain”? Movies that have little depth, are not challenging, do not contain original ideas, have predictable plots, recycle plots and characters from earlier movies but with a "modern twist" (not necessarily a re-make), have wall-to-wall action with no purpose to it, confuse the viewer, bore the serious moviegoer, and/or contain little or no emotional truth.
That is not an exhaustive definition, but maybe you understand what I mean. And there are always exceptions to the rule. Just because a movie is "deep" doesn't mean it's not entertaining. To a certain degree, all movies should, first and foremost, be entertaining. Otherwise, why watch them at all? Truly exceptional movies go beyond the entertainment level and engage our thoughts and feelings.
...Depending on who you are and what your tastes are. Some people don't want to watch movies with any depth, don't want anything required in the way of a thought process, but want to simply sit and watch. Is this wrong? Of course not. There is no right and wrong. Are there better experiences to be had? Certainly, but only for those who yearn for more.
Now, what do I mean by “movies that make us think”? Let’s briefly discuss a few.
Gabriele Muccino’s Seven Pounds stars Will Smith, which is probably why many people went to see it, but it surprises us with characters that make their own choices and aren’t slaves to a plot. What really surprises us is the final act of one of the characters, something the movie was leading up to all along. It is a powerful story, but we, as the audience, are left to decide how we feel about what has happened.
The first time I saw Seven Pounds I didn’t want to talk to anyone about it for a few hours. The issues it raised needed to settle in my mind before I was comfortable discussing them. Are the final actions in the movie noble or misguided? Could a sane and rational person make the same decisions, or were they the result of circumstance pushing a mind over the edge? What makes this intriguing, for me, is that the movie raises these issues so gently through the simple act of presentation. No comment or discussion. That is left for the viewer.
Let’s move on to Clint Eastwood’s Hereafter. Matt Damon plays a psychic who might really be able to communicate with the dead, Cecile de France plays a journalist who survives a near-death experience, and Frankie and George McLaren play twins who are very close until one dies in an accident. All these stories connect at the end, but we’re left to decide a few things. Is Matt Damon’s character really psychic? The movie is careful not to convince us that he’s not, but it could also be argued that the evidence doesn’t prove that he is. He doesn’t tell people anything they couldn’t have created in their own minds, and there’s the possibility that he is more telepathic than psychic. Mr. Eastwood and his screenwriter, Peter Morgan, leave the possibilities open.
Christopher Nolan’s Inception is the latest and greatest example of a movie that entertains and makes you think. You have to; so many things are happening on so many different levels (literally), that you have to be completely mentally engaged to understand what is happening. Nolan reportedly worked on the story for ten years before making it into a movie, and it shows. There’s a complexity to it that is rare and exciting. It all boils down to a brilliant last shot that some people will find extremely frustrating, but I found to be thrilling. Was it all in the mind of Leonardo DiCaprio’s character, or did it really happen? You have no choice but to decide for yourself. (Of course, I do have an opinion about this and the evidence that supports my decision, but that is for another essay.)
Probably one of the most misunderstood “thinking” movies to come out recently is Alex Proyas’s Knowing. I love this movie. Nicolas Cage plays a man who comes upon a page of numbers that seem to predict the time and place of many disasters, leading up to the end of the world. His character is a college professor whose discussions of these matters with a colleague seem to be completely rooted in reality. The story raises many issues about predictions and patterns, but the characters actually discuss the issues! That in itself is impressive. In other “end-of-the-world” movies, the characters hardly discuss the implications of what is happening and are reduced to shouting their dialogue over special effects.
The problem people seem to have with Knowing is entirely different. There are characters, credited as the Strangers, whose function is generally misinterpreted. The story even dares to involve religious implications and possibilities, but director Alex Proyas purposefully walks the line between religion and science. I don’t want to give anything away, and will probably write about this in a future essay, but the ending is careful not to lean one way or the other. I like that. I like the ambiguity. I also enjoyed listening to the director’s commentary where he discussed it in more detail. So we are left with another “open” ending, where the audience has to decide what really took place.
Could this type of story be abused? Definitely. In the movies I’ve mentioned, I think the stories are well told. In other movies, you may feel like the director is jerking your chain. Much of the effect depends on the viewer. Roger Ebert wrote in his review of Letters to Juliet, “…our response to every film depends on the person we bring to it. Pauline Kael said she went to a movie, the movie happened, and she wrote about what changed within her after she saw it. This is quite valid. Sometimes, however, we go to a movie, and our lives have happened, and we write about what hasn’t changed.”
These are movies I love, but not everyone will feel the same. That’s OK. There are all kinds of movies for all kinds of audiences. Even though I want to use my brain during a movie, I still want to have fun. Sherlock Holmes is a great example of this. And sometimes I want to see a “dumb” comedy like RV. So sue me, I’m human. But I think we can get caught in a steady diet of “fast food” films, when there are many out there that can challenge, inspire and uplift. Finding the right balance is up to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment