Wait. What just happened?
So. I just saw Dan in Real Life. It was--uhhh....
In the book 1984, there's one part where it talks about how the government has computers that generate innocuous music based on formulas. That's kinda how this movie struck me; did anyone really write this, or has Hollywood finally admitted a lack of artistry and created some algorithm that produces movies filled with uninteresting characters enacting a predictable plot that's based upon a contrived conflict?
The interesting thing is that I don't hate this movie. It was so fluffy-bunny harmless that it failed to evoke emotion in me insomuch that I have no opinion of it; I find myself entirely unable to say one objective thing about it. I didn't like it, but it was substantial enough to provoke hatred or even mild distaste. I went with a group, and on the ride home, I tried to give some criticism like, "The whole thing was based around the bookstore scene, but I thought that the bookstore scene was--" and at that point, I realized that I had absolutely no motivation to be speaking and that my audience was neither interested in what I was saying nor opposed to me saying it; I probably could have stopped right there without anyone noticing. But I am not one to stop mid-sentence, so I trudged onward and finished my thought.
It's not something I want to do again, so I declare this post finished.
"I didn't like it, but it was substantial enough to provoke hatred or even mild distaste."
ReplyDeleteI think you meant to say that it wasn't substantial enough. Regardless, I have to agree with you; there wasn't much to this film. I blame this on Dane Cook. He is, and always will be, box-office poison.
I only disagree with you on one thing. I don't feel its right to write off the story as contrived because it follows a formula. Nearly every great work does. There is something innate in all of us that makes stories recur again and again, making the best writers merely consummate borrowers.
Take a look at writers such as Shakespeare and Dickens. They borrowed so freely, from so many different authors, that it was almost silly. What made them great was their ability to take the familiar,adopted it, and then to infuse new life into it.
When Samuel Johnson wrote a criticism on Shakespeare he made note of this. To put his entire work simply he said that Shakespeare was guilty of consistently butchering the three unities of plot, and that when he wasn't butchering plot he was borrowing it from others; but through it all, he somehow captured human nature so beautifully that these failings didn't matter. He said this is what makes Shakespeare a timeless genius.
Thats how I feel, I don't care if writers re-hash a story. There are tons of stories out there that have, and should, be told again and again. The important thing is that when a story is retold it find new life in the telling. That's where this movie failed. The characters had no life.
I needed to see the characters rise up out of their generic plot with an element of life. I needed to know how they felt, what they said, and to see how what they felt and said is a reflection of what I feel and say Thats how you re-invent the wheel of a story told a thousand times before. If this is done no one cares about the rest.
If the writers could have figured this out before filming, they might have actually made a decent movie.
.
ReplyDeleteThat's the exact experience I had with Forrest Gump.