|
|
|
I'm not against DPW's statements as they are in fact true about each film and were the director's stated intents, but I have to point out the one thing wrong with making films like that. The problem with it is that he goes to tongue-in-cheek for his message to have any meaning. He gets so lost in his attempt at hidden meaning within obvious circumstance that he misses the point of the film entirely, even though it is his film. As a fan of the original Starship Troopers novel I think its a miracle that I love that one, but I completely got what he was going for with it. Having said that it accomplishes what film was always originally intended for - entertainment. Total Recall also captured that. But he himself didn't. Film, much like paintings or novels or even video games, can be a statement and a commentary but it is all first and foremost a facet of entertainment and some directors forget this notion, which is why some of their better ideas remain half-realized on film sometimes. I don't think we should be making film easy, because when we do that we get trash like Suckerpunch or Alien 3 (ok so that last one wasn't a director's fault, but still...). The line has to be in the middle somewhere, its why there are so many bad movies and so many that will be stated as "only for the high-minded" when in reality they're pretentious nonsense. Part of the reason I love film is because some make me think, some just give me a good time. I'm picky, but I'm able to enjoy film on its baser levels. Thinks like Total Recall should be considered science fiction films first and mediums for message second, but they aren't. That's why we get stuck with people arguing over validity when in truth if you catch the director's hidden meaning good for you but if you don't you still have the entire "its so bad its good" argument. No one is ever going to get the same idea out of a film as someone else, and that's why director commentary and such has ruined film.
Look at Zack Snyder's 300 (DPW I specifically choose this one because I know you hate him. Its not meant as an insult, merely my view on film perspective and its an example that will open the discussion a bit further). As a movie for the public its exciting, violent, sexy, and contains barely enough history to be considered enough to get the gist of what happened at the actual battle even though its MILES away from what actually happened. But to the pretentious (myself among them) if we really want to justify it we can look at it as a portrayal of extremes, of a commentary of the over-sexualization of men in modern cinema, of homo-erotic undertones being looked down upon, and the general idea that the undertones combined with insults towards homosexuality can be masking one's own homosexuality. Persian culture is not accurately portrayed, but its far kinder in some ways than what they actually did to their conquered peoples. All of this is contained in a movie by Zack Snyder and Frank Miller and it could be purposeful, it could not be. But it exists and is there for all to find. But you shouldn't have to dig so far down just as those who hate Snyder shouldn't have to dig so deep to find something they liked about the movie.
Film is all perspective, and there are no wrong answers. That's the great thing about it, you can take away any message you want as long as you were able to follow the plot. Whatever is intended by the director or writers doesn't matter, its what the audience sees. The student teaches the teacher just as much as he is taught, Da Vinci saw something in the Mona Lisa when he painted it that is so beyond different than what people probably see in it today. These things are all about interpretation. Did Miller or Snyder intend any of that for 300? Beyond doubtful, but nonetheless its all there and not too deep to catch honestly. But most people didn't see any of it, so other aspects of the story get looked at instead. All this because of perspective, the most powerful tool in the director's toolbox.
_________________
Perfection is a lifelong pursuit requiring sacrifice. The only way to get it quicker is to sacrifice the most.
|
|
), for being "so bad it's good" as Caedus put accurately.
