"Everybody is saying" and "A lot of people are talking about" are two phrases my wife rolls her eyes at each time they escape my lips. She's often called me on my blanket assertions that a legitimately sizable percentage of the domestic populace is united on a given pop culture opinion or talking point. Of course I objectively understand that what I perceive to be unified consensus across the board is nothing more than an above average sampling from the hardcore online movie nerd contingency. It's merely the cloistered Internet circles I run in and such cinematic matters mean little to most. Subjectively though, I CAN say that on message boards, twitter, film websites and their respective podcasts, there tends to be a tiresome menagerie of core positions taken as granted gospel that ceaselessly raise my ire.
Before I begin dismantling that with which I vehemently disagree, let me state plainly: I do not mean to give insult in either a general or specific sense. If I have ever argued these points with you specifically (recently in particular), please don't surmise this piece is directed at you. It is simply an expression of aggregate opposition positions. A thesis statement antithetical to my imagined status quo. Sure, I like to be out on my own and might come across as pompous in my individuality, but I assure you I fully believe all that I am about to espouse.
Maybe the most irritating and predictable sentiment I regularly encounter online is the snide, sneering derision toward Zach Snyder, particularly Sucker Punch. I've reread my Sucker Punch piece recently, and while I'll admit it's over the top and juvenile in its efforts to be purposely shocking, I stand by the core of it. Namely, that the film is unique, gorgeously shot and full of interesting thematic layers without being heavy handed or drowning you in exposition. People smugly, relentlessly use it as a go-to whipping boy and rarely offer any credible criticism to back it up.
My favorite gripe is the omnipresent one concerning a purported "lack of stakes". This is predominantly forwarded by people who loved The Avengers and similar Marvel superhero fare, films entirely without stakes if ever there were. Whenever you're dealing with a gaggle of CGI constructs bobbling around weightlessly in an animated world, you're bound to have a bit of a disconnect and lose sight of stakes. Also, the presence of numerous god like super beings usually robs me of most concern or connection to reality, so, needless to say, the wearying harping about stakes has worn a bit thin for me.
The film seemed to have been ordained to fail by the critical community before it was even released, regardless of its quality. It was Snyder's reckoning, his Waterworld. I've watched it twice since hitting home video and it holds up beautifully. It is heartfelt, passionate, daring and most importantly, an original work. Effort was made to give the audience something different. A new kind of action film with a new kind of protagonist, having the temerity to entertain subtext wholly different than the usual superhero or sci-fi fare.
Snyder eschewed working from a preexisting comic template to craft his own iconography and I think he succeeded wildly. All Snyder's films are magnificent at achieving what they set out to do. His Dawn remake a grisly, high octane accompaniment to the original. 300 a brutal, beautiful, blustery ode to hyper masculine nationalism. Watchmen an impressive synthesis of the salient points of its source material. Sucker Punch an artistic examination of the deleterious effect the male gaze has. Hell, even his CGI owl movie is a perfect kiddie film. Short and sweet with sweeping visuals and important life lessons. The damn thing looks better than Tree of Life if you ask me.
I couldn't do an article like this without a righteous defense of my beloved Saw franchise. This is aimed primarily at fellow horror fans, for I totally understand the average film buff being put off by such an extreme series. The typical genre enthusiast of today seems content with wallowing in the past, inexplicably inclined to exalt cynical garbage like the Friday the 13th, Halloween and Nightmare on Elm Street series. They have fond memories of these films because they're what got us into horror in the first place as children of the 80's. But, they're for the most part inexcusably lazy, lowest common denominator crud churned out callously to appeal to the indiscriminate.
Ironically, that's often the accusation laid at Saw's severed feet. Upon closer examination however, one sees a unified experience with the Saw films, a consistency of quality control sadly lacking in the aforementioned "big 3". Saw made an effort to keep the crew in front of and behind the camera largely intact, from film to film. Of course that approach was a concession to accommodate making a release date each year, but again, there's that EFFORT being made. The crazy, convoluted soap opera mythology that built with each entry was part of the escalating fun. Jigsaw becoming a deliciously hammy surrogate for a disappointed and disgusted right-wing god entirely emblematic of the era that spawned him.
Marvelously gory and bafflingly intricate, the Saw series was full tilt horror with an agenda. Genre film making that had the courage of its convictions. It has a philosophy and an aesthetic. The anemic, execrable Paranormal Activity franchise that usurped it is sadly indicative of the genres decline into toothless irrelevance. A bunch of teenagers watching static shots of doors slowly opening in suburban mansions. No thanks. I miss the upsetting viscera, shocking twists and pitch black sensibility of my beloved Saw films.
I could go on for days, but I'll take care to break up such outbursts. Perhaps future entries are in order. A topic set aside for another time when I don't feel compelled to get out to the theater or write about what I've recently been watching. Lord knows I've got a million more axes to grind, forever sharpening my childish implements and hacking away at meaningless forests.
0 comments:
Post a Comment