 |
|
Deeply Important Thoughts On Pretension
 From Chicago, this is The Dope Sheet... I'm Adam Kempenaar.
Our Filmranter this week, Mark Trencher (see below), asks: "What
is a manipulative film, and why?" It's a great topic, one that has
come up on the show before and would provide great fodder for a
future Dope Sheet. But a word I've been struggling with lately --
pretty much since seeing
and reviewing Darren Aronofsky's "The Fountain"
-- is "pretentious." What is a pretentious film, and why?
Here are a couple of dictionary definitions: "Expressive of
affected, unwarranted, or exaggerated importance, worth, or stature."
So here it's a pejorative term -- the way film critics typically
employ it. A pretentious film takes itself too seriously.
But there's also this: "Making demands on one's skill, ability,
or means: AMBITIOUS." The connotation here isn't necessarily
negative. A pretentious film is one that requires a certain amount of
technical proficiency and determination. ["The pretentious daring of
the Green Mountain Boys in crossing the lake -- American Guide
Series: Vermont]
Mash the two definitions together and it's easy to see why a
visually dazzling film such as "The Fountain" was saddled with the
pretentious tag. Other highly stylized films such as "Brick" and my
Overlooked DVD Pick "Stay" (see below) also earned jeers of
pretentiousness. It comes down to the age-old dilemma of style over
substance, right? Want to determine whether or not a film is
pretentious? One thought, for all of our math geniuses out there,
would be to put your style 'score' over your substance 'score'; if
the ratio is high, you might be watching a pretentious movie.
I think the key to this discussion, though, is that a
'pretentious' movie doesn't just make demands on the filmmaker's
"skill, ability, or means"; it also makes demands on the viewers'
"skill, ability, or means" to watch and interpret it. All three films
I mentioned above are 'difficult' to follow and decipher. And that's
probably acceptable for most critics and moviegoers. But if the
viewer makes it through that struggle and comes out at the end with
nothing to show for it -- with no new insights about the subject
matter in question (or, perhaps, the power of cinema itself) -- the
response can be akin to betrayal. I sat through all of your technical
wizardry and narrative obtuseness for THAT!? I crown you King of
Pretension!
Despite my sarcasm, I actually believe this is a perfectly
reasonable criterion. What confounds me, I guess, is that it seems to
be only the highly stylized movies (and filmmakers) that earn the
pretension tag. Furthermore, I wonder if it has been so liberally
applied by critics that it has lost much of its meaning.
Sam argued that "The Fountain's" exploration of important topics
such as love and mortality was ultimately simple (I recall something
about a Hallmark card?). So he would probably have to concede that,
despite liking the film, he considers it somewhat pretentious. But I
would argue that what keeps "The Fountain" out of the realm of 'bad'
pretension is that I don't think Aronofsky really believes he is
saying something profound -- that he is handing down wisdom for us to
live by. He is truly 'exploring.' Similarly, Rian Johnson doesn't
believe he is re-inventing cinema by setting a film noir in high
school. He, too, is exploring. And we should indulge this type of
artistic exploration, not quash it.
So, what is a pretentious movie? Well, I want to hear your
thoughts. In fact, feel free to share your Top 5 --
feedback@filmspotting.net.
It may just be a topic for an upcoming show.
For me, as much as I hate to continue piling on this movie --
honestly, I take no pleasure in this -- I don't think "Babel"
received enough criticism for being pretentious simply because it is
not as obviously stylized as something like "The Fountain." But with
apologies to
Salon's Andrew O'Hehir,
maybe it should have.
The film's lessons, which I know I am simplifying, are that the
world is a complex, troubled place .... that seemingly minor choices
can have serious consequences ... that we all need to communicate
better. Not necessarily earth-shattering stuff. And what demands did
the movie put on our "skill, ability, or means"? What did we have to
suffer through to get to those lessons? ACTUAL SUFFERING. Watching
good people, for no good reason, go through horrific experiences. I'm
sorry, but I'll happily indulge Aronofsky's bald-headed yogi,
obsessive elliptical editing and birth canal imagery, or Rian
Johnson's 'absurd' appropriation of hard-boiled dialogue, any day
over that.
Let me be clear: my goal here is not to ignite (or re-ignite) the
"Babel" debate. My point is to question the de rigeur usage of the
word pretentious among critics, and "Babel" was the first movie that
came to mind that helped express my discomfort. Again, I look forward
to your submissions.
|
|
|
| |
|
Overlooked DVD Pick: "Stay"
 Malcolm Gladwell has a fascinating article
in last week's edition of The New Yorker that discusses the
distinction between a "puzzle" and a "mystery." Briefly, a puzzle is
a problem that can be solved through the acquisition of the right
information (i.e., the location of Osama bin Laden); a mystery is a
problem that doesn't have a factual answer. As Gladwell writes:
"Mysteries require judgments and the assessment of uncertainty, and
the hard part is not that we have too little information but that we
have too much."
Great, so what does this have to do with movies? Well, how much
you enjoy the 2005 movie
"Stay," directed by Marc
Forster ("Stranger Than Fiction") and written by David Benioff ("25th
Hour"), could be largely determined by how you approach it. If you
see the stylish, convoluted story as a puzzle to be solved -- as I
did initially -- you'll likely be terribly disappointed. In fact, you
might be so angry as to call it, "A steaming compost heap of high-art
PRETENSE," as Scout Foundas of LA Weekly did.
If, however, you accept the story of a NYC shrink (Ewan
MacGregor) trying desperately to save a suicidal art student (Ryan
Gosling) as a mystery -- one that, perhaps like Gladwell's Enron
example, actually presents too much information, not too little --
you might find it more rewarding.
The number of confusing, inexplicable events that occur in "Stay"
are too numerous to detail, but Forster and Benioff can't really be
accused of withholding anything. The "answers" to the mystery are
laid out for you through the film's visual system of seamless
transitions, repetitive edits and 'flash' frames.
I mentioned above how many critics, including Foundas, hated
"Stay" for its apparent pretentiousness --
see Metacritic.
But as stylized as the film is, I would argue with anyone who thinks
Forster is merely indulging his filmmaking fantasies with fancy cuts,
camera movements and ectoplasmic imagery. (My apologies again to
Andrew O'Hehir, this time for use of "ectoplasm.") The style is in
the service of the story, not the director's ego.
Ewan MacGregor gives a flat performance and offers an awkward New
York accent, but his girlfriend is played by the always brilliant
Naomi Watts. And Gosling is, well, Gosling. His troubled Henry Letham
is more one-note than "Half Nelson's" Dan Dunne, but I'll be damned
if I can tell you exactly what note he is hitting.
|
|
|
| |
|
Filmranting
The Dope Sheet recently gave a shout-out to all you dope readers to
send us your movie rants. Someone near Sam's old stompin' grounds has
stepped up to the challenge...
---
From West Hartford, Connecticut, this is Filmranting... I'm Mark
Trencher.
I'm amused when I hear talk of a particular film being
"manipulative." What is a manipulative film, and why? I Googled
"manipulative movie" and the results are interesting. In the first 20
hits (out of 773,000!), I found:
Central Station -- "one of the best shamelessly
manipulative movies I have ever seen"
Crash - "one of the most crassly manipulative movies of
all time. (That scene with the little girl and the gun pisses me off
more every time I think about it)."
I Am Sam - "From its beginning shot to its
self-congratulatory ending, I Am Sam is one of the most blatantly
manipulative movies of the year."
Babel - "Manipulative and Mean-Spirited"
The adjectives -- shameless, crass, blatant, etc. -- are
generally negative. But one review had the word "manipulative" in the
same sentence as "tugs at the heartstrings," and I guess that's
sometimes closer to the crux of the issue. A guy trying to
surreptitiously wipe away a tear has been ... manipulated, I guess.
And he may have conflicted feelings about that. People sometimes
don't like to get too close to their emotions. So we blame it on the
ridiculous story, the use of smarmy music, etc. ... and call it crass
or shameless.
Hey ... film is a manipulative medium. Let it take you to places and understandings that might be alien to you ... yeah, you're being manipulated, but enjoy the ride.
---
Well put, Mark -- and thanks. The Dope Sheet can only hope Peter
Travers was listening. And to everyone else: send your rant to
dopesheet@filmspotting.net
|
|
|
| |
|
Dope Links
Sacha Baron Cohen as Himself
Since the promotional tour for "Borat" began, star Sacha Baron
Cohen has required that all interviews be done in the Borat
character. Until now. NPR talks for 45 minutes with this calm,
intelligent, and crazy genius. And for good measure, Borat shows up,
too.
3 Mexicans Walk Into a PBS Studio...
...and have an hour-long sit-down with Charlie Rose. Three of
the year's most acclaimed films - "Babel", "Children of Men", and
"Pan's Labyrinth" - were all directed by Mexican filmmakers:
Alejandro González Iñárritu, Alfonso Cuarón, and Guillermo del Toro,
respectively. These guys are more than professional peers or even
fellow countrymen; they're kindred spirits.
Edward Norton Strips His Veil
The A.V. Club's Scott Tobias (contributor to Filmspotting's Top
10 of 2006 podcast) has an insightful and enthusiastic conversation
with Edward Norton. In it, Norton A) confirms all of Adam's
suspicions about his involvement in "Down in the Valley", B) props
one of the all-time great Coen Brothers film performances (and that's
saying something), and C) rightly filmrants the conventional wisdom
that, when referencing 70s cinema, "you can't get films like that
made today."
--Jeff Huston
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
