Evening Finger Lickers! Wow, what a title, one that is surely a matter of infinite academic debate, not some rather limited bloggage on what is admittedly a rather good, if somewhat up and coming, website in the darkness of the interweb. However, without wishing to mislead, I am not proposing one blog on this topic. I would like to begin a series entitled “The Trouble with Hollywood” in which I will discuss (rant about) the shortcomings of the industry. In an attempt to avoid complete negativity I will suggest ways in which Hollywood can learn from the Independents in terms of storytelling, production and distribution.
With the concept for this blog series in mind, I found myself in the cinema with some friends this weekend, viewing Vantage Point. This would not typically be my choice of weekend entertainment, however sometimes we film snobs have to go with the flow and embrace the mainstream.
Before I really get into things, here’s a little bit of film theory for us all to mull over: the difference between story and plot. Those of you who already know how to differentiate between these two facets of narrative should skip to the next paragraph. However, it’s always worth refreshing one’s memory. So, story (or fabula as film scholars call it) is the series of actions, in chronological order, within a narrative that the viewer constructs in his or her own head in order to make sense of what they are watching on film. Story is subjective, meaning that there can be as many stories as there are viewers. Plot (or syuzhet), on the other hand, is the order of events as laid down by the author (writer/director/editor); typically, there is only one plot that is perceived by all.
Warning! Outrageous spoilers ahead.
Right, firstly story… my understanding of the film’s basic premise is that the President of the United States is visiting Spain to announce a new initiative to eradicate international terrorism – sounds highly plausible so far. During the course of his public address the President is shot several times, and subsequently two explosions destroy both the stage and surrounding area. Luckily, for the future of the world, it transpires that the shooting victim was a Presidential double and that the big man is safe and sound in a nearby hotel. However, in a shocking twist, he is kidnapped from the hotel and is driven away from the scene disguised in an ambulance. The abduction of the President results in a high-speed chase sequence with the secret service, and the film culminates in the death of the terrorists and the president being salvaged, unharmed, from the back of said ambulance. God bless America! It fills you with a red, white and blue fuzzy feelin’ doesn’t it?
So with that I mind, let’s move onto plot. The film begins by restricting the viewers’ information to the points of view of eight of the individual characters attending the public address. The points of view are shown back to back with repeated CSI-style rewind sequences to demonstrate that this is the same period of time being replayed. Ultimately, the whole story is exposed divulging how each character’s actions interlock with one another.
My reason for dissecting this obviously shockingly poor film is to demonstrate where the Hollywood machine has gone wrong with this flick. The premise itself has potential. The two main elements that I’m particularly interested in are the perspective stuff, which is what semi-attracted me to the picture in the first place, and the political motives of the flick. As the film opened I was hopeful; we’re shown the proceedings from the point of view of Sigourney Weaver’s character Rex Brooks. My first inclination was that her perspective was included to show the role of the American media machine in such a situation, her character is a Producer for GNN a fictional TV station with an uncanny resemblance to CNN. As it turns out, this perspective is purely a rather shoddy plot device utilised later in the film. However, there is some particularly interesting dialogue, one of the news anchors talks about American media dumbing down of news content, and complains about the station not covering the anti-American protesters at the public address. However, shortly after, this obvious indiscretion puts her in a body bag. Hollywood’s retribution for anti-patriotic views is swift, and exacting it would seem. The only prominent character to die that isn’t a terrorist is the one to question the pure perfection of America and how it is perceived internationally.
The handling of terrorism is equally as tactless. The film clumsily hints at the terrorists being something along the lines of ETA the Basque nationalist separatist group, but obviously never really solidly confirms this, and then goes and links this group with names such as Darfur. It felt to me, at this stage, that the screenwriter was just dropping in the names of well known internationally atrocities in order to sell their monstrous nature. This is not only inaccurate, what ETA has to do with Darfur I’m not sure, but it’s also irresponsible.
Had this film taken the Indie approach to the subject matter you could have produced a true Rashomon narrative style and politically controversial flick. There was the potential to properly highlight the international perception of America; they used the protesters in the film as more of a hindrance to the secret service doing their job than individuals with valid political views. The president is painted as a Good Samaritan, desperate to do the right thing against the better judgment of his advisors, and the film ends leaving a dreadful propaganda aftertaste. Had Hollywood trusted the viewer to use their intelligence the hideously patronising rewind sequences would not be required, if a mainstream audience can understand Pulp Fiction’s fractured narrative then they can understand that the same period of time is being retold time and time again. Finally, and I think this is the most important point, if Hollywood understood that by Indie crediting its audiences with some intellect they open up whole new avenues for storytelling, and that keeps your product fresh.
That’s it from me finger lickers! God that was a long post!
K
Evening Fingerlickers! Sooooo, again big gappage in the time since my last post. Life gets in the way. Anyway, X-Files madness is back! Okay, so it’s absolutely nothing to do with independent film but lets face it us finger lickers love a bit of geekage. And what better for a true all-American geekfest than some X-Files new-movie sneakpeekage - enough of the wordage - on with the story.
(206 customer reviews)
(60 customer reviews)
(3 customer reviews)
(396 customer reviews)
