I'm starting again with Pixar. I'm watching Ratatouille now,...
I'm starting again with Pixar. I'm watching Ratatouille now, and sure enough, it has the same sense of simplicity driving the plot as "Up!" But that doesn't mean that complexity is lost completely - watching Remy scurry about the kitchen like a furry Sam Fisher is an extremely complicated - and worthwhile - sequence.
But at the core, it's still the story about a rat who desperately dreams of being a Paris cook.
Compare this with the other movie I saw -- Transformers 2: Revenge of the Fallen. You've probably heard a lot about this movie in the last couple days. I'll try to sum it up as best I can.
It's long (150 minutes).
It's loud (It's directed by Michael Bay)
It's confusing (again, Michael Bay)
In spite of all of this, I really enjoyed the film. It wasn't a masterpiece by any means - the "critical praise" the TV spots show for Transformers 2 is kind of laughable how much it's been lampooned. And to be fair, it's filled to the brim with throwaway characters, unexplained mythos and plot holes so large they put the pot holes along my native Illinois roads to shame.
But I still found it entertaining. I still liked following the action. I still plan on buying the DVD.
This has lead me to re-think my conclusions on simplicity, because at the end of the day, both Transformers 2 and Ratatouille have the same goal to entertain.
Pretentiousness occurs when intent to entertain becomes insufficient. This isn't to say entertainment can't be multi-purposed. Some movies educate. Others satirize. And still others ponder. But when the aim of entertainment is seen as insufficient or entirely unnecessary, that's when pretentiousness sets in.
Pretensiousness is the deathblow - whether in works simple or complex.
PS - On a totally unrelated note, please check out my One Page Challege Pinch! I need some feedback!
Comments
17:35 Thu Jul 2nd, 2009
I like how you said "umm...characters (?)" - that's pretty generous in the case of Mudflap and Skids. Still, I thought it was an enjoyable movie. One of the things which inspired me to write this was all the punches it's taken from critics, many who are basically saying "This movie will never succeed because we don't like it."
And I agree with you, BDStevens, that it's really a question of how they entertain, with Transformers right following into the "shock and awe" category. Roger Ebert, in this lengthy write-up, compared the failing of Transformers 2 to the success of Wall-E, but I don't think that's fair. They are both very different films, and you have to respect that difference if you want to improve on it.
19:48 Thu Jul 2nd, 2009
I haven't seen Transformers 2, but I would assume it would succeed simply because it's Transformers. That's what annoys me about major properties like that: people will ignore a really good indy film, but they'll flock to a piece of crap simply because it contains characters they love and it looks flashy.
21:24 Thu Jul 2nd, 2009
I really gotta disagree with you about Dog Soldiers - that's one of my favorite films actually. I think they succeeded because when they brought the werewolves into the light they had a unique design. Sure, it was clear they had a limited budget - but they had the clarity of vision to put their money where their mouth (or fangs) were and back it up with something original instead of just inserting the same Howling-style werewolf we've seen a million times over since the 80's.
I also don't think you can blame people for wanting to see the characters they love and are familiar with. In many ways, those characters are sort of like family to them, in some ways meaningful and other ways nostalgic.
I think the argument of mainstream vs. indy is ultimately counter-constructive, just like comparing Wall-E to Transformers. Something I want to think and feel and sometimes I want to watch giant robots beat the tar out of one another. It's apple and oranges.
I do agree people need to be more open-minded towards the indy side of things, but I think the argument needs to be how to we make good and entertaining works period instead of one or the other.
00:13 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
I never saw 'Dog Soldiers' but I have to support Sturstein on this one. More scary movies are ruined by showing us too much of the "villain" or monster too soon (or at all). Gore is not scary (gross maybe), suspense and mystery is.
The first Halloween movie worked because of the suspense. Every time you turned a corner you bumped into something unexpected, sometimes benign, sometimes not.
The later ones failed (aside from Halloween III which Bombed with a capital B) because we already knew Michael Myers and the suspense and mystery were gone.
I don't know any way around this, however, because if you have something that works once, Hollywood will never stop doing it over and over and over again.
I'm not going to pile on the Transformers 2, since I'm sure plenty of others will, I'll just add that yes, it will succeed because it is Transformers.
It's just like the Stephen King/Richard Bachman experiment. If you don't know, once King started selling millions of copies of each book he wrote (no matter how good or bad) he wanted to see if he could make it without the King name. He started publishing books under the name Richard Bachman and was not nearly as successful. I think he published five before he was caught, and only the fifth one sold nearly as much as his first novel Carrie did in its first run.
Often things will succeed because of the name attached.
04:37 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@RP: You're right: if I spent that much time, effort and love on making a cool monster, I'd want to show it off too. I just think that sometimes the director needs to make an executive decision (in this case a really tough one) and say 'sorry, but we're going to keep them in the shadows for dramatic effect.'
07:24 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@TK - I think Dog Soldiers was mostly along those lines, though. It was the classic "Don't show the monster till the end." My favorite scene is in the forest, which British soldiers fighting at these tall, emaciated 7 foot-tall wolf-forms darting in-between the tree.
The thing I liked the most about it was the werewolves were made 95% CGI-free. Most werewolves made since the 90's have been completely CGI - and looked more like giant shrews than anything else. Van Helsing, anyone? Didn't think so.
@STURSTEIN: Last night I saw Guillermo Del Toro on Charlie Rose on PBS, and he said something I'm certain you'll approve of:
He designs the silhouettes and shadows of his monsters before he does anything else. He says he drives a lot of sculptors nuts because they want to move to the meat of the matter - the details - but he reasons if the silhouette isn't compelling, the rest won't be any better.
@TK & STURSTEIN: The whole Bachman thing is funny because it's "Stephen King without a conscience." It's Stephen King using himself to market a pen name with the same talents and very little of his success.
Although I can't help but think of Joe Hill. He was able to establish himself for a couple years - publish a few short stories and win a couple Bram Stoker awards - but the press learned who he was shortly after his novel - Heart-Shaped Box - was published.
(Which I definitely recommend by the way.)
10:52 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@ Puff Daddy: I don't think you can blame King for marketing the Bachman books after the fact. Once he was "outed", naturally all of his fans wanted to pick up the books to see how they were. I was guilty of this myself back in the day. The thing is, he really was trying to establish himself as a successful writer without the name to see if he could do it and I admire him for that.
Now, the machine has taken over.
12:40 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@TK - I can't really blame King anyway since I don't think I really became a die-hard King fan until after Bachman was outed. I'm not a huge fan of most of the Bachman books - except Thinner and the latest, Blaze.
I don't know if I'd say the machine has taken over. It seems like King's always trying something new, but he's not getting any younger. And you have to give Joe Hill credit for (at least) one thing - he's writing a lot of comic books these days, which shines a well-deserved light on the medium.
19:18 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
I love del Toro, and his sounds like a really neat approach to monster making.
19:28 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@RP: Before last night it'd been a while since I'd seen DS. As soon as I started watching it I realised I'd seen Cooper in something else, and recently. I could even picture his expressions and movement, but could I remember what I'd seen him in? Noooo. It bugged me all the way through the film.
20:44 Fri Jul 3rd, 2009
@STURSTEIN: That's another good thing Dog Soldiers has going for it - good actors. Actually, no matter how you feel about the creatures themselves, I think DS does everything else pretty spectacularly. The characters are enjoyable and hardly any of them feel wasted. The dialogue is quick and enjoyable. And the pacing is very strong. All of these things combine the make a better final product.
You should also know the director's last movie "Doomsday" used basically the same cast, minus Kevin McKidd.
And for one last note on the cast - if you read the names of the character, you'll notice one character is actually listed as Corporal Bruce Campbell! Brilliant!
00:21 Sat Jul 4th, 2009
@RP: True that.
06:30 Sat Jul 4th, 2009
Doomsday is pretty good. I liked watching it. It's somewhere between Escape from New York and 28 Days Later, with a little Apocalypse Now thrown in for good measure.
That said, it's nowhere near as a good as Dog Soldiers. It's a lot more violent, and there's at least one glaring plot hole.
Bruce Campbell always makes a movie better - even if he's not actually in it!
13:22 Sat Jul 4th, 2009
Big, entertaining films need not be COMPLETELY AND UTTERLY F**KING STUPID either.
I'll give Michael Bay credit though, he's directed a couple films that are the equivalent of posters on an 13 year-old's bedroom wall. Masturbatory.
Pretentious? Not a bit. It's a factual opinion.
18:13 Sat Jul 4th, 2009
@RP: - and especially if he's playing Ash or a has-been Elvis Presley :D
05:38 Sun Jul 5th, 2009
@MorganJ - You're right - they need not be, and there are more than a couple films released between the two Transformers films which prove that point. But I also think big, entertaining films can be both stupid and enjoyable.
There are close to a million things I would have done differently if I were writing Transformers 2. But at the end of the day, I still liked the movie - and that's what count.
I guess what frustrates me about the whole deal is how high opinion the critics have of their impact. It's just like Peter O'Toole's character in Ratatouille (which I just finished last evening. One of his lines is "I gave this restaruant one less star last time! How can it still be open?"
My advice to the critics:
There are three things you can count on in this world. Death.
Taxes.
And really big, loud Michael Bay films.
Deal with it.
@STURSTEIN: Bruce Campbell goes good on a anything.
Please login or register to comment
BDStevens
17:02 Thu Jul 2nd, 2009
Yeah I actually had to go to Wikipedia after seeing Transformers so I could identify all of the un-introduced characters. Though I was no less entertained. Would have liked to see more of Ironhide and Ratchet. I would have definitely traded the new college roommate for more time with the Autobot strike team.
I think the difference between the two movies is how they entertain. While Transformers takes the obvious shock and awe path, and... oh yeah... um... characters(?), Ratatouille takes inobvious subject matter and makes it entertaining through the force of character and story almost exclusively, though admittedly there's still a lot of technical and artists "wow" to it.