BEFORE: I had a sit-down with the boss on Wednesday, to sort of figure out what happened last week and why we were arguing over the phone. Lately it seems like all we do is fight, and I'm trying very hard not to compare it to other long-term relationships, like a marriage where the spark is gone and the spouses just fight all of the time. I've worked for the guy for 21 years, and the problem is that we disagree about the way business should be conducted - sometimes on the smallest points I'll stand my ground, because I know I'm right. But then when I disagree with him, he gets defensive and he takes it personally, then lashes back with a personal attack of his own. I won't be bullied into doing business his way if I don't agree with it, so my only recourse seems to be to stand back and let him do things the wrong way, and then step in when things need to be fixed.
But his main argument is always about saving money. And there are ways to save money in the film business, for example you can call in favors and get people to make DCPs or BluRays for you, at little or no cost. But if those people don't know what they're doing, they could make terrible versions of your film (this was my point, which he chose to ignore) and then you end up spending MORE money down the road when you have to fix the mistakes that were made. You can actually save money in the beginning by spending a little, and making sure that things get done right the first time. But I wasn't even allowed to make this point last week before I was verbally abused.
This one comes next in the sci-fi chain because of the linking - Morgan Freeman links to Tim Robbins through "The Shawshank Redemption", and Tom Cruise also links to him through "Top Gun".
FOLLOW-UP TO: "Jumanji" (Movie #924)
AFTER: OK, so the message of the film seems to be to not fight with people - but that seems specifically geared toward family members, so really, the message doesn't apply to me. But where does fighting between family members come from? It's probably because they spend so much damn time with each other, and that's my point. Familiarity breeds contempt. You hate your little brother just because he's annoying, or you hate your older sister because she gets to do things you can't do yet.
Isn't it nice when brothers and sisters can just sit down together and play a nice, old-fashioned board game - one that launches their house into space and gets them attacked by Zorgons. Wait, what?
This sort of touches on the quandaries I've had with several films this week, brought on by those magic films that used special effects to enhance the tricks - am I supposed to believe that what I'm seeing on the screen is really happening? Can I possibly forget that movies are enhanced by special effects companies, whose best work is admittedly mostly invisible? The trouble is, I can't. That's why I've never, ever watched the extras on a DVD, or those "making of" segments that run on Showtime or whatever. I went to film school, I don't NEED to know how movies are made. I already know too much, and that interferes with my ability to believe in what's taking place on the screen.
And the more fantastic the effects are, the more trouble I have believing in them - so it's very easy for a movie to overstep, to present things that I just can't take seriously. Whereas some people may be the opposite - the better the FX, the more they'll believe. With me, it's almost as if less is more. A drama-driven film with great dialogue and just a few FX can really stand out for me - like "The Dark Knight Rises", I know that the earthquakes and the blowing up of the bridges was FX-heavy, but the rest of the film was more action-oriented, with fights and other situations that could have been filmed (mostly, anyway) in straight live-action.
So when I see a house get launched - nay, teleported - into space, right off the bat I think we might have problems. And as the kids play the mysterious board game, more and more fantastic, unbelievable space-related things take place. So the film aims kind of high, but in the end lost me for being so far-fetched.
Am I supposed to believe the events taking place on the screen are a real part of these kids' experiences, or it is easier for me to believe that they're imagining the whole thing? Perhaps they were delusional, or the game released some kind of psychotropic drug that made them hallucinate? Yeah, that's it - the Zathura board game was made during the hippie 1960's, and the game pieces were laced with LSD, so that when they were given a card from the deck, they were open to the suggestions of the events depicted on the card, and those fed the hallucinations. That's the ticket.
Otherwise, I'm forced to believe that the game has magic powers, the ability to teleport a house, the ability to maintain an air bubble around the house in space, the ability to fly the house close to a star and a black hole without getting sucked in, and then the power to put the house back together again at the end. Let's see Monopoly do THAT.
There's a part of the film I can't talk about, for the same reason I couldn't discuss the events in the 2nd half of "Oblivion". I just have to marvel at the fact that it's the same EXACT depiction of a particular occurrence, and leave it at that. But I do love it when successive movies have similar plot points.
There are a ton of NITPICK POINTS I could make: there's no air in space, so how can a couch burn? Why did they build a fire to repel the aliens the second time, when the aliens were attracted to fire? How come a meteor can go through the roof of the house, but gets stuck in the floor? And so on. I can only conclude that it's not worth it, because none of what's happening is meant to be taken seriously, either because it's not really happening to the characters, or it's not really happening because it's a movie. Take your pick.
Also starring Josh Hutcherson (last seen in "The Kids Are All Right"), Kristen Stewart (last seen in "Jumper"), Dax Shepard (last seen in "Knocked Up"), Jonah Bobo, and the voice of Frank Oz (last heard in "Muppets From Space").
RATING: 5 out of 10 four-eyed goats
As an audience member, I have a contract with the storyteller: they get to set all of the rules by which their "world" operates, and in return, I have the right to expect the filmmaker to obey those rules.
ReplyDeleteSo, "Bill Watterson" has told me that the reality of Hobbes The Tiger isn't important. He's consistent in that little rule, and therefore I don't give it any thought whether Hobbes is magical or just a figment of Calvin's imagination. I had a problem with "Now You See Me" because the storyteller was saying "No, this isn't a world in which real magic exists. I'm asking you to wonder how, exactly, these four stage performers are making all of this work." And on that basis, once the storyteller has things happen that breaks that rule...I'm out. Maybe I'll still be entertained? But I'm annoyed and it becomes a totally different experience for me.
I didn't see "Zathura" but I did see "Jumanji." I liked it. "The things you're seeing happening are really happening. But it's not important for me to explain HOW they're happening." I'm perfectly okay with that; carry on.
I find that I'm quite pleased at these little moments in a story when it seems clear that the screenwriter thought "Wait...this isn't a documentary on how this works. All I have to do is have one line of dialogue in which someone says 'I got the engines running again, but we're only going to be able to make eight knots' and then move on. I can get away with it, because I didn't tell the audience that there was no way to fix the ship's engines."