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.
No comments:
Post a Comment