Nothing is more fun than watching two movies back to back that have absolutely nothing in common.
Last night I pulled off a doozy.
It was...
STAR WARS EP IV: A NEW HOPE (77) dir. Georgie Lucas
VERSUS / CONJOINED WITH...
BLUE VALENTINE (2010) dir. Derek Cianfrance
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on each film, but rather on the juxtapostion of the two against eachother.
STAR WARS, the iconic adventure that changed the film industry as a business and a medium. A human story that resonated with a mass audience...and subsequently made enough money to build a fleet of solid gold garbage trucks to haul the rest of the money it also made.
...and then there is BLUE VALENTINE, a small low budget film starring some young up-and-coming actors in the story of a relationship as it forms and collapses. Very well photographed, and amazing performances. I cannot really summarize it much more clearly than that. It's very raw, very human, and probably very boring to most viewers.
So why did STAR WARS resonate more than BLUE VALENTINE? There are a whole lot of people who get paid to tell you why, and how to make your movie do the same. Seriously, do a google search for "star wars script analysis."
Why do I think it resonated? I think it's the story of a nice small town kid who gets the chance to escape a hum drum life into an amazing adventure. As the audience, you get to go with him on the amazing trip into the "used future," a very hyper realistic and tangible fantasy world. Add a dash of the spiritual guidance of the aged teacher, as well as some other new friends working as a team to accomplish a big goal, and you've got a universal story. People will sell you books on how to put that lightning back into a bottle; but what they can't sell you is a generation of dreamers raised on the space race keen on getting some wish fulfillment.
LET'S COMPARE!
The two stories could not be farther apart. They have opposite functions, structures, objectives. Star wars is a plot centered story, with the minimal possible time being spent in each scene, as there are so many scenes in the story. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed the rush of the story, with the movie never spending much time in reflection, but as I get older I enjoy the moments of reflection for the characters to breathe.
Blue Valentine spends the entire film focused completely on character. It is a character driven film.
I suppose the reality of the situation is that film is a business, and Star wars has made 4 billion dollars, while Blue Valentine has made 12 million. Foreign and young audiences do not have the need for focused character pictures, but they are compelled by escapist epics.
Personally, I tend to feel alienated during and after plot-driven films, which tend to set up a protagonist that you can identify with, but only just enough in order to keep you invested in the plot. As I get older, I need more in order to care about protagonists, and I notice that older films I used to love now leave me feeling cold. When your a kid, you don't have the patience, experience, or ability to understand the adult world, and character films are about the mental stress that experience places on people, whereas action plot-driven films usually include all the information you need to satisfy the story's function*.
It's makes sense when you think about it. Humans want to see the big picture, and be a part of something that has social implications. We are social animals, and an epic film let's us feel like we are part of the winning team. It's interesting that people get that connection from the epic, but do not feel the social connection from the intimate. I suppose the intimate picture has less time for world building, thus requiring the audience to already know the world the characters live in. As you require more audience knowledge outside of the picture, you shrink the possible number of people who can understand the film.
Perhaps the way to get around that is by adding more time to the film, allowing more time for character and world development, as well as a more plotted narrative. I would argue that the recent success of television programs like MAD MEN, as well as another favorite of mine, DOWNTON ABBEY, show that character pieces can find a large audience if the filmmakers explain the world enough.
The main thing about the two films that I enjoyed so much was their contrasts. Comparing them back to back felt like applying some kind of dialectic to story structure and purpose. Out of that contrast came a bit of a realization for me on a personal level which was:
There is no one right way to make a film. Every genre has its conventions and exceptions, which is a subtle way of saying there are no real rules, other than that the creator better be doing things for a reason. Both of these films worked. I enjoyed them both in very different ways. One was not better than the other, they were too different.
I think it's important to remember when you're creating something that you cannot follow a roadmap to success. The only real way you can be confident in your project is to do your homework, and have a personal reason behind your choices. Hopefully that reason has something to do with connecting with an audience by communicating a real human emotion. Otherwise what are you talking to them for...and why would they want to listen?
If you really want to get into star wars analysis, the most compelling treatment of how the earlier films worked, and the latter failed can be found here:
The narrator takes on the persona of BUFFALO BILL from SILENCE OF THE LAMBS as he explains with exhaustive detail in seven 10 minute sections. It's pretty weird, but worth a watch for structure hounds.
*I know Robert McKee say's in STORY that there is no difference between character films and plot films, as all films are character films, but he is trying to sell a rule book, and he really wants his rules to be applicable to all types of customers/writers/films.
Last night I pulled off a doozy.
It was...
 |
| double dare! |
STAR WARS EP IV: A NEW HOPE (77) dir. Georgie Lucas
VERSUS / CONJOINED WITH...
BLUE VALENTINE (2010) dir. Derek Cianfrance
I'm not going to go into a lot of detail on each film, but rather on the juxtapostion of the two against eachother.
STAR WARS, the iconic adventure that changed the film industry as a business and a medium. A human story that resonated with a mass audience...and subsequently made enough money to build a fleet of solid gold garbage trucks to haul the rest of the money it also made.
...and then there is BLUE VALENTINE, a small low budget film starring some young up-and-coming actors in the story of a relationship as it forms and collapses. Very well photographed, and amazing performances. I cannot really summarize it much more clearly than that. It's very raw, very human, and probably very boring to most viewers.
So why did STAR WARS resonate more than BLUE VALENTINE? There are a whole lot of people who get paid to tell you why, and how to make your movie do the same. Seriously, do a google search for "star wars script analysis."
Why do I think it resonated? I think it's the story of a nice small town kid who gets the chance to escape a hum drum life into an amazing adventure. As the audience, you get to go with him on the amazing trip into the "used future," a very hyper realistic and tangible fantasy world. Add a dash of the spiritual guidance of the aged teacher, as well as some other new friends working as a team to accomplish a big goal, and you've got a universal story. People will sell you books on how to put that lightning back into a bottle; but what they can't sell you is a generation of dreamers raised on the space race keen on getting some wish fulfillment.
LET'S COMPARE!
The two stories could not be farther apart. They have opposite functions, structures, objectives. Star wars is a plot centered story, with the minimal possible time being spent in each scene, as there are so many scenes in the story. When I was a kid, I really enjoyed the rush of the story, with the movie never spending much time in reflection, but as I get older I enjoy the moments of reflection for the characters to breathe.
Blue Valentine spends the entire film focused completely on character. It is a character driven film.
I suppose the reality of the situation is that film is a business, and Star wars has made 4 billion dollars, while Blue Valentine has made 12 million. Foreign and young audiences do not have the need for focused character pictures, but they are compelled by escapist epics.
Personally, I tend to feel alienated during and after plot-driven films, which tend to set up a protagonist that you can identify with, but only just enough in order to keep you invested in the plot. As I get older, I need more in order to care about protagonists, and I notice that older films I used to love now leave me feeling cold. When your a kid, you don't have the patience, experience, or ability to understand the adult world, and character films are about the mental stress that experience places on people, whereas action plot-driven films usually include all the information you need to satisfy the story's function*.
It's makes sense when you think about it. Humans want to see the big picture, and be a part of something that has social implications. We are social animals, and an epic film let's us feel like we are part of the winning team. It's interesting that people get that connection from the epic, but do not feel the social connection from the intimate. I suppose the intimate picture has less time for world building, thus requiring the audience to already know the world the characters live in. As you require more audience knowledge outside of the picture, you shrink the possible number of people who can understand the film.
Perhaps the way to get around that is by adding more time to the film, allowing more time for character and world development, as well as a more plotted narrative. I would argue that the recent success of television programs like MAD MEN, as well as another favorite of mine, DOWNTON ABBEY, show that character pieces can find a large audience if the filmmakers explain the world enough.
The main thing about the two films that I enjoyed so much was their contrasts. Comparing them back to back felt like applying some kind of dialectic to story structure and purpose. Out of that contrast came a bit of a realization for me on a personal level which was:
There is no one right way to make a film. Every genre has its conventions and exceptions, which is a subtle way of saying there are no real rules, other than that the creator better be doing things for a reason. Both of these films worked. I enjoyed them both in very different ways. One was not better than the other, they were too different.
I think it's important to remember when you're creating something that you cannot follow a roadmap to success. The only real way you can be confident in your project is to do your homework, and have a personal reason behind your choices. Hopefully that reason has something to do with connecting with an audience by communicating a real human emotion. Otherwise what are you talking to them for...and why would they want to listen?
If you really want to get into star wars analysis, the most compelling treatment of how the earlier films worked, and the latter failed can be found here:
The narrator takes on the persona of BUFFALO BILL from SILENCE OF THE LAMBS as he explains with exhaustive detail in seven 10 minute sections. It's pretty weird, but worth a watch for structure hounds.
*I know Robert McKee say's in STORY that there is no difference between character films and plot films, as all films are character films, but he is trying to sell a rule book, and he really wants his rules to be applicable to all types of customers/writers/films.
No comments:
Post a Comment