So, my sister's been admitted to the local children's hospital. Dunno why, exactly.
Ciao,
Marter
Tuesday, February 14, 2012
Sunday, February 05, 2012
"Influential" and "Good"
I read something on a comment on an Alien review that got me a little riled up. For the record, it wasn't on my own review of it, and I never read the review, but the comment. It read something like this: "Thank you for recognizing true brilliance. Alien was great because it, like Star Wars, was more of a dirty sci-fi, not showing a picturesque future but a less-than-perfect one. It was also great because it featured a strong woman character, and that was influential."
The gist of it is that it's great because (1) it reinforced the fact that sci-fi movies didn't have to be overly positive, and (2) because it had a strong female character and that idea has been influential in movies nowadays.
Ignoring the fact that the first point isn't really something to praise of criticize (it's just there), let's move onto the second point. While having a strong female character is something to praise, especially for a 1970s flick, the addition that it was "influential" is what I take issue with, largely because I don't believe that films suddenly become "good" if enough movies use some of its elements. They're either always good, or contained one good idea but overall don't become classics because they've helped influence other movies. If that were the case, only a few movies ever would be great, while all others would be ripoffs. Citizen Kane isn't a great movie because its non-linear storytelling (among many other things) was used after it -- it's just great because it was well-made and engaging. Sure, it was innovative, but that just goes into how well-made it is. Innovation in and of itself isn't a big deal. I could shoot a film that's entirely upside down and call it "innovative." But would it be good? And if it were copied, would it retroactively become "good"?
I don't think so. A good movie is a good movie, and whatever comes after it will not change that for better or for worse.
Ciao,
Marter
The gist of it is that it's great because (1) it reinforced the fact that sci-fi movies didn't have to be overly positive, and (2) because it had a strong female character and that idea has been influential in movies nowadays.
Ignoring the fact that the first point isn't really something to praise of criticize (it's just there), let's move onto the second point. While having a strong female character is something to praise, especially for a 1970s flick, the addition that it was "influential" is what I take issue with, largely because I don't believe that films suddenly become "good" if enough movies use some of its elements. They're either always good, or contained one good idea but overall don't become classics because they've helped influence other movies. If that were the case, only a few movies ever would be great, while all others would be ripoffs. Citizen Kane isn't a great movie because its non-linear storytelling (among many other things) was used after it -- it's just great because it was well-made and engaging. Sure, it was innovative, but that just goes into how well-made it is. Innovation in and of itself isn't a big deal. I could shoot a film that's entirely upside down and call it "innovative." But would it be good? And if it were copied, would it retroactively become "good"?
I don't think so. A good movie is a good movie, and whatever comes after it will not change that for better or for worse.
Ciao,
Marter
Movies and Their Sources
I posted my review of Troy earlier today -- earlier than usual, in fact, as I was watching the Superbowl when I normally would be posting a review. So far, it has gotten three comments, two of which disagreed with my assessment (extremely positive), while the final one agreed. I have no qualms about that. Everyone is, after all, entitled to their opinion. I actually don't even have any issues or disagreements about the reasoning behind the complaints about the film. Both comments have claimed that it wasn't a good film because of the differences to its source material, namely Homer's Iliad.
Like I said, I have no problem with that. If you're promised an adaptation of a book, and the film doesn't deliver on how "epic" the book is or whatever, then by all means, go ahead and hate it. Maybe you had certain expectations, and the film didn't match them. That's fine. I like judging the films based on its own merits, but that's very difficult to do and I know I fall into the trap of comparing them if I read the book beforehand. It happens.
However, what I don't understand is the idea that if something is explained in the book, then it automatically holds true for the film. For instance, in Troy, I made an offhand comment about Achilles' disdain for not wearing armor during the battle scenes. I didn't make a big issue of it, but his reasoning didn't make a lot of sense to me. In one of the comments, I had it all explained to me:
I'll leave spelling mistakes there, because far be it for me to alter someone else's writing.
Now, and maybe I'm crazy for thinking this, but if this isn't explained in the film, then you can't use it in assuming that this is what's motivating the character. A great deal of other things were changed from The Iliad, so explain to me exactly why we're taking that book's explanation when a lot of it has otherwise been disregarded. If it's not in the film, it doesn't count.
When fans of a film try to use non-film material to try to defend it, it bothers me. The same thing happened, if I'm remembering correctly, with American Psycho. I was "wrong" in criticizing its non-existent point because, in the book, it's totally clear. How does that make any sense? If the film doesn't do a good enough of bringing something across, then that's the film's fault. (And the filmmakers', I suppose.) If it's in the book, then that's all good and dandy, but the book isn't what we're watching on-screen. It is a separate entity and if it's not translated properly, then it's not the audience's fault for not picking up on something they're not being exposed to.
Ciao,
Marter
Like I said, I have no problem with that. If you're promised an adaptation of a book, and the film doesn't deliver on how "epic" the book is or whatever, then by all means, go ahead and hate it. Maybe you had certain expectations, and the film didn't match them. That's fine. I like judging the films based on its own merits, but that's very difficult to do and I know I fall into the trap of comparing them if I read the book beforehand. It happens.
However, what I don't understand is the idea that if something is explained in the book, then it automatically holds true for the film. For instance, in Troy, I made an offhand comment about Achilles' disdain for not wearing armor during the battle scenes. I didn't make a big issue of it, but his reasoning didn't make a lot of sense to me. In one of the comments, I had it all explained to me:
As for the not wearing armour thing - A major point in the Iliad was that Patroklos scared the Trojans shitless wearing Achilleus' armour, until he wound up dead - the reason Achilleus came back into the fight and had a grudge against Hektor.
I'll leave spelling mistakes there, because far be it for me to alter someone else's writing.
Now, and maybe I'm crazy for thinking this, but if this isn't explained in the film, then you can't use it in assuming that this is what's motivating the character. A great deal of other things were changed from The Iliad, so explain to me exactly why we're taking that book's explanation when a lot of it has otherwise been disregarded. If it's not in the film, it doesn't count.
When fans of a film try to use non-film material to try to defend it, it bothers me. The same thing happened, if I'm remembering correctly, with American Psycho. I was "wrong" in criticizing its non-existent point because, in the book, it's totally clear. How does that make any sense? If the film doesn't do a good enough of bringing something across, then that's the film's fault. (And the filmmakers', I suppose.) If it's in the book, then that's all good and dandy, but the book isn't what we're watching on-screen. It is a separate entity and if it's not translated properly, then it's not the audience's fault for not picking up on something they're not being exposed to.
Ciao,
Marter
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)