There’s a certain type of “significant” movie (Babel, Crash, Philadelphia, Schindler’s List, et al) about an important subject (war, AIDS, racism) that I’m suspicious of. The directors and producers of these movies pat themselves on the back(s), show up on lots of magazine covers, get awards, but people keep blowing each other up, dying of AIDS or being otherwise put upon by life. And what is the moviegoer's response? I can’t think of a movie, or a series of movies on the same topic, that changed public opinion about a cause. One could argue that the cumulative effect of seeing gay people or black people portrayed in the media has altered our public consciousness for the better, but that’s only if we ignore Hurricane Katrina and the gay marriage brouhaha. If only disasters could happen after the movie - then everything would work out just fine.
An acquaintance saw United 93, and I asked her why. Her response - the movie was “cathartic”. I suppose that’s good for my acquaintance, but what about the people on the planes? I’m left with the unfortunate conclusion that these movies are cheats, exploitative reenactments of real suffering served as entertainment for those lucky enough not to be suffering.
Significant movies don’t age well, resistance to or transformation through aging being an arguable potential indication of quality. (A favorite example of mine is Petulia, a 1968 drama about marital infidelity. It didn’t cause much of a stir at the time of its release, but it has acquired a gemlike perfection due to its burnished visual style and its acquired identity as a time capsule.) However, I acknowledge that dreck sometimes lives forever, The Sound of Music and It’s a Wonderful Life being the archetypes.* Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner (topic: racism) won a lot of awards in 1968. Now it’s seems like a simpleminded puppet show - “Look, children, black people have feelings too! One of them might even want to marry our lilywhite daughter!” In Philadelphia, Tom Hanks’ character never shows any physical affection to his boyfriend. This was was widely remarked upon at the time of its release. Ten years later it looks worse, since I’ve had time to wonder why, if the moviemakers were so “brave” about the subject, were they so cowardly about showing it?
Most of these movies have no sense of humor, either about the subject or about being a movie on that subject, and Pan’s Labyrinth is an egregious example of that. No one ever smiles or laughs or tells a joke, martyrs being notoriously dreary company. Having lived through a couple of disasters I can attest that I still found time to laugh occasionally.
The middle-aged and very crotchety Kingsley Amis once claimed “I won’t read any book that doesn’t start with ‘And then a shot rang out!” I’m inclined to agree. I like movies that are pure entertainment. I don’t need to know that the world is a difficult place. After all, I ride the subway every day.
*Please feel free to insert moans of dismay.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
It's true that most of these movies don't have a sense of humor. If they'd had one, they might have lasted longer.
As for Pan's Labyrinth, I agree again. But, have you seen "El Espiritu de la Colmena" (The Spirit of the Beehive) by Spanish director, Victor Erice? Much of the material in Pan comes from Espiritu. But Espiritu has a sense of humor. Espiritu is a great movie. Pan isn't.
Post a Comment