Day 143
I'm fully willing to suspend my beliefs and knowledge about the world in order to get into the plot of a movie. The fact is that adventure and action flicks wouldn't be all too interesting if the characters weren't at least superhuman to some degree. We're such fragile creatures; a slight bump against the funny bone will leave a person cringing, a stubbed toe or small cut will turn one's focus away from very important matters.
So in the movie, none of that can be true anymore. People need to be able to take serious beatings, fall out of cars, get shot, cut, bruised, burned, and all the rest, while still going ahead with their heroic quests. And I understand this; removing certain human characteristics is a necessary condition for a traditionally entertaining movie. Aside from being to withstand or ignore tremendous amounts of pain, movie characters are very good bullet-dodgers, they never have to stop and take a shit, the women never happen to have their periods when the romantic sex scene comes along, and hero characters always die in such a way that they can get in a few noble words first.
Romantic comedies typically rely on portraying people as creatures who refrain from telling the honest truth when doing so would really get them out of a jam. So many movies' plots would be completely moot, especially romantic comedy movies, if the main characters would just take 30 seconds to say how they feel and stop dicking around with needlessly complicated schemes.
Of course in reality, we're very much the opposite. We talk too much in relationships. We fight about the same crap over and over again, we constantly repeat ourselves, and we never ignore the opportunity to redeem ourselves just by saying 'what really happened,' unlike romantic comedy charcters who stand there with silent angst right when they should say something!
And this is when I feel it is taken too far on the silver screen. Again, I am happy to ignore the laws of nature, and the absence of physical human weaknesses and uninteresting proclivities, but I draw the line when characters who are supposed to be the heroes are stuck doing stupid and counterproductive things just for the sake of holding the plot's progression together. The new Indiana Jones movie commits this crime several times.
And then there's George Lucas. It's weird, when I watched the new Star Wars trilogy, and the new Indy movie, I could almost sense in him that he knows his old movies were so much better, and were meaningfully original works. The new movies are so overtly nostalgic, self-congratlatory, and meta-referential to the actors, catch phrases, and famous set pieces themselves. The movie screams "remember how great it used to be?" There are (in both Star Wars and Indy) useless characters (often animals) clearly inserted just to sell toys, and action sequences that could all-too-conveniently be turned into rides at Disneyland. It is, in a way, somewhat insulting.
But in another way it is unfair to criticise a movie, or for that matter an artist, director, musician, or any other performer, for trying to make money. Music, art, and film are and always have been businesses, money making ventures. Frankly if we want to go see a production that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and advertize, we sould be prepared to watch as the producers do everything they can to make their money back and turn a profit. It's unfair and irrational to go see a Star Wars movie and then criticise it for making money through action figures and dvds and product placements. How are those profit-seeking ventures any different from the production of the movie itself? The movie is always a product, first and foremost. It is art second.
The same goes for music. The whole idea that a "real rocker" or "real artist" in general must turn down advertizing, or turn down millions, is ridiculous. The logical connection isn't there: you can't assume that someone is just in it for the money simply because they make a lot of it. The money may just be the icing, and even if it is the primary motivation, why should any of us care? Besides, the whole notion of "counterculture," "anti-establishment" or "real" music and movies is yet another marketing technique to nab the gullible. You can rest assured that if something you're watching is well-known, it is also a highly capitalistic and lucritive venture.
If the music is good, then it should stand on its own merit, and shouldn't be judged by how much money is passing hands. Likewise with art, or movies, or anything else in the world for that matter. If you want musicians to make less, then you'll have to stop giving them your money. If you want to cheat the system (which many do) you can tacitly support it by not giving your money, but downloading the media illegally. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not ideologically undermining anything or anybody. Don't kid yourselves, it's just plain old petty, selfish theft.
We always know precisely what to expect when we pay 11 bucks for a big-budget hollywood production, yet we try to live the double life of handing out our money, indulging in it all, then complaining about how expensive and capitalistic the production was. Does anybody else see how funny that really is?
So in the movie, none of that can be true anymore. People need to be able to take serious beatings, fall out of cars, get shot, cut, bruised, burned, and all the rest, while still going ahead with their heroic quests. And I understand this; removing certain human characteristics is a necessary condition for a traditionally entertaining movie. Aside from being to withstand or ignore tremendous amounts of pain, movie characters are very good bullet-dodgers, they never have to stop and take a shit, the women never happen to have their periods when the romantic sex scene comes along, and hero characters always die in such a way that they can get in a few noble words first.
Romantic comedies typically rely on portraying people as creatures who refrain from telling the honest truth when doing so would really get them out of a jam. So many movies' plots would be completely moot, especially romantic comedy movies, if the main characters would just take 30 seconds to say how they feel and stop dicking around with needlessly complicated schemes.
Of course in reality, we're very much the opposite. We talk too much in relationships. We fight about the same crap over and over again, we constantly repeat ourselves, and we never ignore the opportunity to redeem ourselves just by saying 'what really happened,' unlike romantic comedy charcters who stand there with silent angst right when they should say something!
And this is when I feel it is taken too far on the silver screen. Again, I am happy to ignore the laws of nature, and the absence of physical human weaknesses and uninteresting proclivities, but I draw the line when characters who are supposed to be the heroes are stuck doing stupid and counterproductive things just for the sake of holding the plot's progression together. The new Indiana Jones movie commits this crime several times.
And then there's George Lucas. It's weird, when I watched the new Star Wars trilogy, and the new Indy movie, I could almost sense in him that he knows his old movies were so much better, and were meaningfully original works. The new movies are so overtly nostalgic, self-congratlatory, and meta-referential to the actors, catch phrases, and famous set pieces themselves. The movie screams "remember how great it used to be?" There are (in both Star Wars and Indy) useless characters (often animals) clearly inserted just to sell toys, and action sequences that could all-too-conveniently be turned into rides at Disneyland. It is, in a way, somewhat insulting.
But in another way it is unfair to criticise a movie, or for that matter an artist, director, musician, or any other performer, for trying to make money. Music, art, and film are and always have been businesses, money making ventures. Frankly if we want to go see a production that cost hundreds of millions of dollars to make and advertize, we sould be prepared to watch as the producers do everything they can to make their money back and turn a profit. It's unfair and irrational to go see a Star Wars movie and then criticise it for making money through action figures and dvds and product placements. How are those profit-seeking ventures any different from the production of the movie itself? The movie is always a product, first and foremost. It is art second.
The same goes for music. The whole idea that a "real rocker" or "real artist" in general must turn down advertizing, or turn down millions, is ridiculous. The logical connection isn't there: you can't assume that someone is just in it for the money simply because they make a lot of it. The money may just be the icing, and even if it is the primary motivation, why should any of us care? Besides, the whole notion of "counterculture," "anti-establishment" or "real" music and movies is yet another marketing technique to nab the gullible. You can rest assured that if something you're watching is well-known, it is also a highly capitalistic and lucritive venture.
If the music is good, then it should stand on its own merit, and shouldn't be judged by how much money is passing hands. Likewise with art, or movies, or anything else in the world for that matter. If you want musicians to make less, then you'll have to stop giving them your money. If you want to cheat the system (which many do) you can tacitly support it by not giving your money, but downloading the media illegally. This, ladies and gentlemen, is not ideologically undermining anything or anybody. Don't kid yourselves, it's just plain old petty, selfish theft.
We always know precisely what to expect when we pay 11 bucks for a big-budget hollywood production, yet we try to live the double life of handing out our money, indulging in it all, then complaining about how expensive and capitalistic the production was. Does anybody else see how funny that really is?
Comments