Based on the films that I have seen thus far in my life a plot is necessary for a film to be considered "good". Plot is what keeps the audience interested in the film. Any screenwriting book that I have ever read demands that there needs to be some sort of want by the main character. It is what gets them up from sipping coffee at the kitchen table. This simple want is what puts the plot in motion. If this is equated to our own lives it is quite simple. There has to be a want that gets me out of bed each morning. First want may be primal, but I want breakfast. My day has started. If I was just a depressed person then I would never get out of bed and there would be no story to my life. BORING.
A film could have the most interesting characters, but if they are not doing anything (not that we would know that they are interesting from lack of plot) then the audience does not care about them or really what happens to them. The audience will not care about the outcome, because there is no outcome. No plot = no outcome.
A film can be beautiful because of the score, the cinematography, the dialogue, and essentially everything else. However, if there is no story then the film is crap. What is the point of that. It is sort of like a photo of a flower. Beautiful, but I am not going to look at this photo for two hours.
It could be argued that the Thin Red Line used the element of not having a plot to its advantage. Perhaps it was a tool. This movies was completely anti-war. Maybe the directer wanted to show that soldiers in war do not have a "plot" besides survival. This survival is just day to day battling. No one is going after the salvation of humanity. Perhaps war has no "plot". However, this interpretation did not work for me.
I was bored the entire film because NOTHING HAPPENED! I felt no emotional draw to the characters or anyone's situations. The film was a failure. It may seem cold that I say this, but it is true. Plot is essential to develop characters. There was no character development (and honestly too many characters) therefore I did not "know" any of these men. They were fake. They were not real for me, so I did not care about them.
Maybe if there was a plot then the message could have been delivered more economically and meaningfully. At the end of this film I felt nothing and thought nothing. My mind was bored to mush.
Films should absolutely be approached on a case by case basis. No two films are alike, so they should not all be treated the same. A film is a director's craft. Their art. He/She should do whatever their vision is. However, the audience is not obligated to like the film. From the audience's criticisms it is up to the director how they will take it. Should they do something different or should they stick to their guns and keep making art they way they like it? Completely up to them. Art is subjective. There is no one formula for a film that everyone will enjoy.
The director's vision for the Thin Red Line was a failure for the audience. It was a mess. Sure film is unpredictable, but it is the filmmaker's responsibility to control the content of their film. He failed to relate his message to the audience. He failed his vision.
Tuesday, February 15, 2011
Tuesday, February 8, 2011
Necessity of Pan's Labyrinth
Even though Pan's Labyrinth was a "fantasy" film, it was also realistic. This realism is what makes the film so great.
Having the story occur with a real historic even adds to the "believability" and the ability for the audience to relate to the situation of the characters. One of the keys to a great film is that every element adds to the plot/story. Nothing is able to be trimmed. Lets say that the civil war was chopped out. Now where is my real life situation? The variables that the war brought help bring out the character of the Captain, and just how evil he was. If there was no civil war then the Captain would have been home rather than tending to the outpost. This means Ofelia would have never gone and met the faun. The civil war was a necessary tool to get Ofelia on her journey.
It can also be argued that the director/writer could have used some other scenario instead of the civil war. Perhaps something that would have never happened in our history. This would be horribly useless. An audience needs this fantasy to be pulled back to reality. The audience needs to relate. The ability to relate to a story allows the audience to become more accepting of the validity and therefore, more emotionally invested in the characters/protagonist. The more emotionally invested the audience is the larger the emotional release/catharsis is in the end of the film. I am not saying this means the audience will take this story as history. As a member of the audience I allow a film I watch (a convincing one) to throw me into their "story" or "reality". I become apart of the story.
The civil war was essential to the story. Ofelia needed to escape our world and get to her real parents. This is a spanish film. So the director needed to pick an even that was notable to him and to his people. This would definitely be a spanish historical event.
The civil war also made this fantasy more for adults who could understand the events that had already happened.
Sure, this film could have been told as a gothic fantasy. However, it would have not been as effective. It would have just been another wacky fantasy movie. Elements of the story are subjective to the director and producers. His choice was necessary to the success of his film being unique and not just another "kiddie" fairy tale.
Both worlds were needed.
The themes of obedience/disobedience and sacrifice occurred throughout the film. Ofelia had to deal with the obedience factor with her mother, the Captain, and the faun. She would be disobedient to all of the characters, but eventually she would become obedient toward some of them. For instance she destroys the dress that her mother got her and gets filthy for the dinner party . Ofelia does feel remorse about the stress that she causes her mother. Also she places the bowl of the mandrake root and milk underneath her mother's bed knowing the Captain would not approve. She also does not listen to the faun about her mission and causes the fairies deaths. She would eventually come to listen to the faun and try to follow his rules. She also decides not to grow up like her mother mentioned when she saw Ofelia was still reading fairy tale books. Ofelia chooses a completely different world. Her biggest disobedience would be leaving the kingdom because of her curiosity.
The theme of sacrifice in the film was beautifully presented. At first it seems like she would have to sacrifice her brother to get back to her kingdom, but that would not really be a sacrifice at all. Like the faun tells Ofelia that she does not even know this child that has caused her so much trouble. Ofelia denies the faun and makes the ultimate sacrifice of not being able to go home for her little brother, which would allow the Captain to shoot her. She sacrificed herself instead of her brother which would allow for her to go back to the kingdom.
This ending was fantastic and allowed for an intense emotional release of the audience.
Perfect.
Having the story occur with a real historic even adds to the "believability" and the ability for the audience to relate to the situation of the characters. One of the keys to a great film is that every element adds to the plot/story. Nothing is able to be trimmed. Lets say that the civil war was chopped out. Now where is my real life situation? The variables that the war brought help bring out the character of the Captain, and just how evil he was. If there was no civil war then the Captain would have been home rather than tending to the outpost. This means Ofelia would have never gone and met the faun. The civil war was a necessary tool to get Ofelia on her journey.
It can also be argued that the director/writer could have used some other scenario instead of the civil war. Perhaps something that would have never happened in our history. This would be horribly useless. An audience needs this fantasy to be pulled back to reality. The audience needs to relate. The ability to relate to a story allows the audience to become more accepting of the validity and therefore, more emotionally invested in the characters/protagonist. The more emotionally invested the audience is the larger the emotional release/catharsis is in the end of the film. I am not saying this means the audience will take this story as history. As a member of the audience I allow a film I watch (a convincing one) to throw me into their "story" or "reality". I become apart of the story.
The civil war was essential to the story. Ofelia needed to escape our world and get to her real parents. This is a spanish film. So the director needed to pick an even that was notable to him and to his people. This would definitely be a spanish historical event.
The civil war also made this fantasy more for adults who could understand the events that had already happened.
Sure, this film could have been told as a gothic fantasy. However, it would have not been as effective. It would have just been another wacky fantasy movie. Elements of the story are subjective to the director and producers. His choice was necessary to the success of his film being unique and not just another "kiddie" fairy tale.
Both worlds were needed.
The themes of obedience/disobedience and sacrifice occurred throughout the film. Ofelia had to deal with the obedience factor with her mother, the Captain, and the faun. She would be disobedient to all of the characters, but eventually she would become obedient toward some of them. For instance she destroys the dress that her mother got her and gets filthy for the dinner party . Ofelia does feel remorse about the stress that she causes her mother. Also she places the bowl of the mandrake root and milk underneath her mother's bed knowing the Captain would not approve. She also does not listen to the faun about her mission and causes the fairies deaths. She would eventually come to listen to the faun and try to follow his rules. She also decides not to grow up like her mother mentioned when she saw Ofelia was still reading fairy tale books. Ofelia chooses a completely different world. Her biggest disobedience would be leaving the kingdom because of her curiosity.
The theme of sacrifice in the film was beautifully presented. At first it seems like she would have to sacrifice her brother to get back to her kingdom, but that would not really be a sacrifice at all. Like the faun tells Ofelia that she does not even know this child that has caused her so much trouble. Ofelia denies the faun and makes the ultimate sacrifice of not being able to go home for her little brother, which would allow the Captain to shoot her. She sacrificed herself instead of her brother which would allow for her to go back to the kingdom.
This ending was fantastic and allowed for an intense emotional release of the audience.
Perfect.
Tuesday, February 1, 2011
Reality Regarding Robocop
The violence in Robocop was not realistic. The violence was conducted in a mock sort of way. This might be my interpretation because they did not have the special effects that we have today to make the violence sequences realistic. However, I believe that it was the director's choice to make the violence cheesy.
Honestly, the violence and gore and me laughing. It was just so ridiculous. There was a moment I was "horrified". One of the gang members was engulfed by toxic waste. His skin began to melt. I was not horrified because this was realistic, only because it was a bit gross.
This movie was in no way realistic. The setting is in an alternate Detroit that has robot capabilities. It is an alternate reality. I always found myself looking in on the characters and their conflicts from the outside. Never able to connect. There is a direct relationship to the violence that the character receives and gives out. The audience is detached, and therefore, can take it lightly.
This can be compared to Pan's Labyrinth. This film is arguably way more unrealistic than Robocop. However, it was real to me. I felt this emotional connection to the story, and more importantly to Ofelia. When the Captain showed disdain or even hinted at violence toward Ofelia, I felt anger toward the man. The violence was perfect in serving its purpose as an emotional trigger. The violence made that film all the more real.
The audience is also removed from the story because the character is 99% robot. He has mental programming to defend people from bad guys even if it means enacting violence toward that person. In this instance there is no moral objections from the audience. Seeing a robot killing someone is completely difference from seeing another human being killing someone.
It is easy to support the protagonist when he is killing the bad guys because they deserve to be punished after what they did to him. So the audience is more likely to get behind the protagonist's actions. However, if he decided to shoot a random person in the face this would no longer be the case.
Robocop is certainly a unique film, but artistic? Art is subjective. In my eyes Robocop is not artistic. However, this does not mean that I was not entertained by it, even if it was in a superficial way. Robocop is definitely an entertaining movie. The violence was hilarious, and was probably the only aspect of the film that could have been considered art.
Honestly, the violence and gore and me laughing. It was just so ridiculous. There was a moment I was "horrified". One of the gang members was engulfed by toxic waste. His skin began to melt. I was not horrified because this was realistic, only because it was a bit gross.
This movie was in no way realistic. The setting is in an alternate Detroit that has robot capabilities. It is an alternate reality. I always found myself looking in on the characters and their conflicts from the outside. Never able to connect. There is a direct relationship to the violence that the character receives and gives out. The audience is detached, and therefore, can take it lightly.
This can be compared to Pan's Labyrinth. This film is arguably way more unrealistic than Robocop. However, it was real to me. I felt this emotional connection to the story, and more importantly to Ofelia. When the Captain showed disdain or even hinted at violence toward Ofelia, I felt anger toward the man. The violence was perfect in serving its purpose as an emotional trigger. The violence made that film all the more real.
The audience is also removed from the story because the character is 99% robot. He has mental programming to defend people from bad guys even if it means enacting violence toward that person. In this instance there is no moral objections from the audience. Seeing a robot killing someone is completely difference from seeing another human being killing someone.
It is easy to support the protagonist when he is killing the bad guys because they deserve to be punished after what they did to him. So the audience is more likely to get behind the protagonist's actions. However, if he decided to shoot a random person in the face this would no longer be the case.
Robocop is certainly a unique film, but artistic? Art is subjective. In my eyes Robocop is not artistic. However, this does not mean that I was not entertained by it, even if it was in a superficial way. Robocop is definitely an entertaining movie. The violence was hilarious, and was probably the only aspect of the film that could have been considered art.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)