Some thoughts on Clone Wars
I took my kids Sam (7) and Kit (5) to see The Clone Wars. I’ve been reading so much invective directed against this movie, I honestly didn’t know what to expect. Online voices are torn: some people seem to hate it, some people seem to merely dislike it, some people feel it is a monstrous act of betrayal. My favorite, a hysterical non-review by “Moriarty” at Ain’t-It-Cool-News, is so full of hurt and anger that it goes so far as to insist that the reviewer will never write about Star Wars ever again — You hear him? Never! Take that, George Lucas! Moriarty shuts the Iron Door.
I went in fully braced for an atrocity, a soul-scorching, childish, grating, dead-end cinematic nightmare.
Sorry haters — it’s actually not bad. It’s actually pretty good.
Well, I think neither is true. The movies — the six movies — are what they are. The Clone Wars isn’t pretending to be Episode II & 1/2, it’s its own thing. It makes that clear right off the bat: the music is different, the introduction is spoken instead of written, and the characters have been dramatically re-designed. This is all intentional, and the result, while less grand, less “important,” is more colloquial and human-scaled. (I’m a little baffled by the fans who think the Genndy Tartakovsky Clone Wars shorts are somehow “better” than Episodes I-III — they strike me as very much Genndy Tartakovsky shorts — jaw-dropping fights, no plot, and The Clone Wars kicks their ass around the block.)
The older fans think that Episodes I-III are bad enough, but The Clone Wars is just gratuitous salt in the wound. Well, I don’t know how to break it to those folks, but Sam has seen all six movies many times, and his favorite is Revenge of the Sith, followed by Attack of the Clones, followed by followed by Return of the Jedi. A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back don’t even make the list. Sam talks about Anakin Skywalker all the time, the battle on Mustafar and the slaughter of the Sandpeople and the fight in the droid factory and the arena on Geonosis. He reads Clone Wars Adventures and counts the animated shorts as canon. That is Star Wars to my 7-year-old, and The Clone Wars was an absolute feast for him, all Anakin and droid battles and crashing spaceships and well-staged, bloodless carnage. He watched The Clone Wars with a look on his face like he was worried that he was never going to remember all the cool stuff he was seeing. Both he and Kit loved the battle droids and their charming stupidity, they both loved Stinky the Hutt and felt genuine concern for his health. (Sam even checked with me afterwards to make sure if he had an accurate understanding of the “ticking clock” concept: he said “When Anakin had the Huttlet, and it was getting sicker and sicker, didn’t that make it more dramatic, because you didn’t know if they were going to make it back to Tatooine in time to save him?”) They’re too young to get the joke of a Hutt who sounds like Truman Capote (both of them thought Ziro the Hutt was a female, but they cheerfully went along with it when they found out he was not). I’ve read reviews by people disgusted by the idea of a stereotypical gay Hutt, or disgusted at the idea of a stereotypical black Hutt, or a stereotypical “Mammy” Hutt, all of which only proves to me that the joke went over these folks’ heads.
And both my kids love Asoka, the girl Jedi who acts as Anakin’s protege and foil. And you know what? I love her too — she’s a great character, the teenage girl who seems to be the only person in the galaxy who doesn’t seem that impressed with Anakin Skywalker. She gets a lot of screen time, she’s a girl of action, she’s smart and funny and she doesn’t take shit from anyone, much less Anakin. (Okay, she’s stuck holding the baby for a stretch, but credit where credit is due — she’s a huge improvement over the whining, helpless Padme of Sith.)
I’m also really impressed with the look of the thing. Sure, it looks cheap — we’re not talking about Wall-E here — we’re not even talking about Kung-Fu Panda, but the animators have taken the limitations of their budget and turned it into an asset. They do exactly what animators on a budget should do, they lean into their limitations, they make the characters look like they’ve been carved out of wood and then painted with some kind of sticky, quick-drying paint, which makes them both strongly stylized and minutely detailed. Take, for example, the lipstick on Asajj Ventress — she’s got these cruel black lips, but in close-ups we can actually see that her lipstick isn’t applied evenly: it gets caught in the creases of her mouth and, here and there, doesn’t actually make it out to the edges of her lips. Similarly, Asoka’s face paint looks like it’s been applied in layers over a period of time — she’s got streaks and splotches here and there, and in other places her salmon-colored skin shows through.
If there is a complaint to be made, it’s that, for a feature film, there’s a lot of plot but nothing of consequence. Nobody important dies, there are no dramatic reveals or reversals, we don’t find out that Anakin is really a woman or that his father is really a B’omarr Monk. Essentially, it’s a lot of busywork, a bunch of “plot,” at the end of which everyone goes back to doing what they were doing when the movie started. And, as the movie is mostly plot, let me hasten to add that the plot is well-executed, well-paced, and fun to watch.
What The Clone Wars resembles is a pilot for a TV show, which it is, which is bad news for your feature-film dollar. But what it also resembles is my son’s home-made Star Wars movies, where he lines up the characters and then just lets them have at each other, with titanic battles and shifting alliances and dramatic duels and last-minute rescues and jaws-of-defeat victories. The older fans are outraged that Star Wars keeps getting diminished, but to my eyes The Clone Wars really is a new beginning, a redefinition for a different medium.
Venture Bros: The Family that Slays Together, Stays Together, Part Two
One thing is certain: no one in this episode knows who is doing what to who why.
(The counselor thinks that Brock is a figment of Hank and Dean’s imaginations. And, in a way, we will find out he is.)
Identity, typically, asserts itself as a theme. Most importantly, Brock, the “tool” of “Viva Los Muertes!” gets smart and starts to think above his pay cut. Specifically, he stops being the brutal assassin of Part 1 and starts thinking in the manner of his superiors at the OSI. He plots, pretends to be the chess-master, thinking he’s pretty clever as he sits back, lights a cigarette and lets the OSI wipe out the Monarch’s henchmen (presumably the OSI also suffers casualties, but the numbers look pretty grim from where I’m sitting). What Brock does not count on is Hank, who has always taken after him, “opening his Christmas present” and demonstrating a flair for bloodshed himself.
(Exposing children to horror is also a theme here: the counselor at the police station thinks Hank and Dean have been tortured and abused, ironically just as Helper is being tortured and abused, Rusty and Hatred trade stories of childhood abuse, Hatred is, himself, a child molester, The Monarch sends all his “children” into battle, Rusty sends his “backup” children into battle as well — strangely, he shows affection for Hank, a desire to protect him from the harshness of the world that none of the other father-figures of the show seem to posess — with the exception of Gen. Treister, who, we learn, has only fatherly affection for Brock. Hank seems too stupid to understand the horror he’s being shown, but Dean, in the panic room at least, shows signs of a full-scale breakdown. Not that anyone would care about that.)
As Brock tries to adjust his identity upward and fails, Sgt Hatred tries to downscale his and also fails. He tries to live the role of a love-struck victim, but comes to the realization that he’s a killer through and through — a realization that allows him to march a platoon of naked teenaged boy-clones (in their Sting-from-Dune metal jockstraps) into the valley of death. What will become of Hatred now? Has he regained his killer instinct, after his suburbanization by the guild and his humiliation at the hands of his wife? At the end of the episode, he asks General Treister if he can have a job — does he mean a job with OSI (which indicates that the barrier between OSI and the Guild is semi-permeable at best and nonexistent at worst) or does he mean, literally, Brock’s job (which involves being the “bodyguard” of a pair of teenaged boys)?
Like Syriana, this episode links governmental actions to familial actions. The Venture Bros is often about father figures, and the government is, after all, the ultimate father figure (at least here on Earth anyway — God, to my memory, hasn’t made it into the show as a character yet). Brock has been trained not to trust his father figure, and who can blame him? Not only does he think the OSI is trying to kill him, the nearest father-figure to hand is Rusty — why would he think a father has his son’s best interests at heart? To make matters worse, his real father figure, the one who Brock thinks does care for him, has “crossed over to the other side” in more ways than one — not only is he no longer a man, he’s joined Brock’s enemy (who is, of course, also his lover).
With excellent timing, this episode manages to quote both Iron Man (with the Monarch’s “Death’s Head Panoply” battle suit) and The Dark Knight (with the scenes of torture and interrogation, and their attendent questions of governmental incompetence and the value of individual action). Why Rusty and Brock are dressed as convicts when they haven’t even been arraigned yet is a tougher question, but Rusty’s line about his jumpsuit being the most uncomfortable thing ever is worth it.
One mystery left to solve: who detonated Helper?
Sam Alcott and the Theological Struggle of Doom
INT. SCREENING ROOM — NIGHT
SAM (7) and DAD watch Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for the fourth or fifth time together. In the movie, late in Act I, Indy and Bald Village Priest converse. BVP tells Indy that Shiva has sent him to recover the village’s magic rock. Indy corrects him, saying that nobody “sent” him, his plane crashed.
Sam, alarmed, sits up.
Sam grabs the remote and reverses the movie for a minute. He plays the scene back, then freezes the playback.
SAM. Who’s “Shiva?”
DAD. Shiva? Shiva is the Indian guy’s god.
SAM. He said Shiva “sent” him.
DAD. Yeah?
SAM. Why did he say that?
DAD. Well that’s what he thinks.
SAM. Why does he think that?
DAD. Well, he’s a priest, Shiva’s his god, he was praying to Shiva to send help and Indy fell out of the sky. So the Indian guy thinks —
SAM. But did he?
DAD. Did who what?
SAM. Did Shiva send him?
DAD. Did Shiva send Indy? To find the Sankara Stone?
SAM. Did Shiva send him?
DAD. Well, that’s what the Indian guy —
SAM. But did he?
DAD. Well, what do you think?
SAM. I’m asking you. Did Shiva send Indy?
DAD. Well, that’s a good question, and that’s kind of what the movie’s about. Indy goes to Pankot to get the rock, right? But he doesn’t really believe the legends, he just thinks it’s superstition. He doesn’t think Shiva is real or anything, he’s in it for the “fortune and glory.” And he goes through the whole movie that way. But then, remember, at the end, when he’s hanging from the bridge with Mola Ram, it looks like he’s going to lose and then he says “You betrayed Shiva!” And he says the magic words and the rocks catch on fire and fall out of the backpack. So you could say that it isn’t until Indy believes that Shiva is real and the rocks are really magic that he’s able to beat Mola Ram.
SAM. So Shiva did send him.
DAD. Well, sure, if you want to look at it —
SAM. Did he? It soundslike he did.
DAD. Well, maybe he did.
SAM. So, did Shiva make those guys jump out of the plane, and make the plane crash, and the whole thing in Shanghai, with the gangsters and the nightclub and the dance number and the car chase? Did Shiva make all that happen?
DAD. Well, you know what they say dude, gods work in mysterious ways.
Festival news! Bentfootes (almost) beats Baldwin!
I have been informed by Ms. Kriota Willberg that the movie she and I made, The Bentfootes, starring our own James
, has won second place in the Narrative Feature category in Iowa City’s Landlocked Film Festival! We were beat by The Flyboys, a brand new low-budge comedy starring Stephen Baldwin, a movie not to be confused with the 2006 James Franco WWI flying-ace vehicle Fly Boys. The creators of the second-place movie receive a multi-milliondollar prize and a big fat studio contract a t-shirt and certificate.
Spielberg: The Lost World: Jurassic Park part 2
As is the case with Jurassic Park, the last half of The Lost World is a cinematic trebuchet of suspense and action set-pieces. Spielberg combines people, landscape, dinosaurs and machines in increasingly humorous and thrilling ways. He’s clearly having a ball here, and thematic elements recede as mechanical elements — how do we get from here to there, how do we evade the dinosaurs, etc — take over.
Spielberg: The Lost World: Jurassic Park part 1
As should be expected from Spielberg at this point, The Lost World takes many of the ideas from its predecessor Jurassic Park and, yes, stands them on their heads. In the first movie, the dinosaurs were fearsome creatures to run away from, here they are heroic, almost protagonists, creatures to be protected and cherished, not feared. The “teams” in Jurassic Park were “Nature” and “Technology,” here they are slightly different. They are “Hunters” and “Gatherers,” exploitative capitalists who rape and pillage vs kind scientists who wish only to study and protect. These teams are placed in camps that reveal a spirit of class warfare in The Lost World, warm-and-fuzzy environmentalists vs cruel, heartless capitalists, as though the “lost world” of the title refers not to the Conan Doyle novel but to the world of 60s radicalism.
Spielberg puts a mock-shock-cut from the screaming mother to a yawning Ian Malcolm, who is our protagonist this time around. Ian, in contrast to the wealthy family on the beach, is scruffy and unkempt and schlepping through the subways of New York. After contrasting Ian with the wealthy family, in case we didn’t get the point Spielberg then contrasts him with another wealthy family, depositing Ian at the door of John Hammond’s sterile, baroque mansion. There, Ian meets Bad Guy Peter Ludlow, a capitalist so cold and heartless he makes the foolish John Hammond seem like a jolly bumbler in comparison. Ludlow has ruined Ian’s career, taken away his “rock-star” status, by painting him as a loon in the media, exercising his perogative as a capitalist to ruin the lives of those who get in his way. When Ian asks Peter what his uncle John thinks of his cruelty, Peter says that he does not answer to Hammond, he answers to the Ingen board. This lays out the argument of The Lost World perfectly: in this world, capitalism doesn’t just destroy worlds, it destroys families, emphasizing profit over blood.
(Ian is, by the way, I think, Spielberg’s first Jewish protagonist. Richard Dreyfuss and Harrison Ford don’t count, they’re playing goyim. Ian is presented as an almost stereotypical New York Jew — uncomfortable in nature, dressed wrong for the work, intellectual, sardonic and cowardly. He’s practically Woody Allen, who, come to think of it, twenty years earlier, would have been great in the part. Of course, Spielberg was in the middle of casting Woody Allen in another action-adventure movie while shooting The Lost World, but that is, of course, another story.)
Ian goes to meet with John, who has lost control of his company to Peter. What follows is one of Spielberg’s better expository scenes. While cinematically unremarkable, the writing of this scene is full of humor, surprises and twists as the situation slowly is revealed to Ian, and anyone in the business of writing expository scenes for science-fiction thrillers would be wise to check it out. We learn, in it, that the attack of the little dinosaurs on the wealthy British girl has provoked a lawsuit against Ingen and brought a whole host of corporate problems to the foreground, and Hammond wants Ian to go to Isla Sorna to help document the dinosaurs there before word gets out and the public demands them to be destroyed. Another reversal from the first movie, where Hammond was the capitalist, now he is an environmentalist, and, as such, is powerless in the face of the imperatives of business. Ian, who barely made it off the island alive last time, is extremely reluctant to go study dinosaurs; Hammond must tell him that his girlfriend Sarah is already on the island, acting as a paleontological Dian Fossey, before Ian will be convinced to go.
Ian then reports to the staging ground of his expedition, where we meet his other two crew members, techie Eddie and video documentarian Nick. Eddie, short and bald, has “expendable” written all over him, while Nick, with his wily opportunism and leering boyishness, seems to be there to stand as a counterpart to Ian’s goofiness and, later, Sarah’s earnestness. Spielberg doesn’t want us to think that all environmentalists are stick-in-the-mud idealists.
Then there is Ian’s daughter Kelly, who poses an entirely different problem, or at least she did for audiences at the time. For some reason, people were angry and upset that Ian, who is played by Jeff Goldblum, should have a daughter who is black. Some people couldn’t get past the incongruity, others thought she was arbitrarily inserted into the narrative, others saw an affirmative-action agenda being pushed. To me, the choice was obvious and kind of inarguable. Ian Malcolm has a black daughter because Steven Spielberg has a black daughter.
And so Ian is, kind of out of the blue, a father, and, in the tradition of Spielberg fathers, an inattentive father. Again, Spielberg takes the accepted notion and stands it on its head: ordinarily, a Spielberg “bad father” is obsessed with work and can’t be bothered with family; here, the father is chastised for being to liberal, and responds by wanting to leave the kid at home in order to protect her from the dangers he knows are out in the world. Ian spends a lot of time in The Lost World trying to figure out what it means to be a good husband (or boyfriend anyway) and father, and the dinosaurs generously respond by providing their own behavior as examples. And I’m guessing Ian is a different kind of Spielberg father because Spielberg was, at the time, becoming a different kind of Spielberg father. Just as Oskar Schindler renounces his dreams of fortune and glory in order to become a good husband to his wife and a good father to his “children,” Ian seems to want to get out of the dinosaur business as quickly as possible to save his patchwork family. And Ian’s fretfulness about parenting echoes the larger argument of the movie. Who, the narrative asks, is a better “parent” for the world? If the dinosaurs represent “nature,” who is a better steward for them, a patchwork team of do-gooders or a well-organized army of expensively-outfitted capitalists?
Ian, Eddie and Nick arrive on the island and find Sarah photographing some Stegosauruses. Ian wants to grab her and get her the hell off the island, but here Spielberg stands yet another Spielbergism on its head — here, it’s Sarah who’s the one too obsessed with work to care about the feelings of her loved ones. Sarah doesn’t want to leave the island until she’s proven that dinosaurs are good parents, which reflects the movies larger concerns of who will be good parents for the dinosaurs. They come back to camp and find Kelly there; she has stowed away in order to be with her father. A family argument ensues between Kelly, Ian and Sarah, in the makeshift “home” of their trailer-science lab.
Their argument is interrupted by the beginning of Act II, which Spielberg announces with the arrival of the hunters. Bad Peter has brought his army of mercenaries to the Lost World, to trap and subdue the dinosaurs and take them back to San Diego to put in a zoo, to save his company and make his shareholders happy. The contrast between the gee-whiz attitudes of the scientists and the smash-and-grab tactics of the capitalists couldn’t be more sharply drawn.
We meet Roland, the big game hunter who wants only to kill a Tyrannosaurus, and Dieter, his second-in-command, who we know is going to get it because he’s played by the psycho from Fargo. Roland’s plan for bagging his T-Rex buck is to kidnap a T-Rex baby, cripple it, and leave it staked out in a clearing — again, an assault on the family from the forces of capitalism.
(Oddly enough, I was watching Syriana last night, another movie that draws an explicit connection between the forces of capitalism and the destruction of families. But I digress.)
Once Peter has rounded up his catch and got them into cages, he sets up a satellite link to broadcast a pitch meeting to the Ingen board, where he explains his Bad Guy Plot. His intent is to sell his board on the profit potential of caged dinosaurs, but the “Gatherers” team sneak in and perform a little hippie-style civil disobedience, freeing the giant reptiles and turning the pitch meeting into a disaster scene. Their actions free the dinosaurs, but set another series of problems into motion, as we will see.
Nick finds and frees the crippled T-Rex baby and takes it back to the Gatherers’ camp. This sets into motion what, up to this point, is the longest sustained suspense-action setpiece in the Spielberg canon, a rather incredible 20-minute sequence of rain, mud, dinosaurs and vehicles, a literal cliff-hanger that only slightly plays fast-and-loose with the laws of physics.
At the end of this sequence, the two teams, the Hunters and Gatherers, are brought together, united in their mutual predicament: they are lost in the lost world, facing the problems of parenthood in a house where the kids have outgrown the parents and the parents no longer have their tools of authority.
Space Chimps, by guest reviewer John McCain
My friends, greetings. First off, I’d like to thank
for giving me an opportunity to address a forum that’s generally overlooked on the campaign circuit, and for giving me a break from discussing the issues of the day. Campaigning is a tiring exercise and I, like a lot of Americans in the summertime, like nothing better to escape into the world of the movies. For the five and a half years I was held prisoner and tortured by the Vietnamese, I didn’t get a chance to see any movies at all.
Ham gets into big trouble with an alien race in Space Chimps, just as a lot of people are in big trouble today with failing mortgages and high gas prices. But Ham’s troubles, and America’s, are nothing compared to the five and a half years of torture I underwent as a POW in the infamous “Hanoi Hilton,” days I’m extremely reluctant to discuss. In the movie, Ham and his pals must face down the evil overlord Zartog, just as we Americans must face down the evils of international terrorism, wherever they may be, just as I had to face the evils of communism in the form of my Vietnamese captors, some of whom were homosexuals, although never towards me.
Ham gets out of his situation on the alien planet through cleverness and determination; I didn’t have that choice as a prisoner of war, I had to wait five long years until I was rescued. I don’t like to keep bringing this up, but there are people today who seem to think that being tortured for five and a half years isn’t such a big deal, there are people who think that me leaving my wife, while she’s hospitalized, to go marry an heiress, or that me having over $100 million, or that me having more houses than I can keep track of is somehow a bad thing.
There are even some who say that since the tortures inflicted on me are the same as the tortures our government is inflicting upon our detainees at Guantanamo, and since I’ve said that our detainees at Guantanamo aren’t being tortured, that I wasn’t actually tortured for five and a half years by the Vietnamese in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. Some point to stories I’ve told about being captive, about how some of them seem to be stolen from other sources, about how I’ve “changed” them to suit different audiences over the years, about how I remember things about my time as a POW that didn’t happen until years later. Well my friends, let’s lock you up and torture you for five and a half years and see how you hold up.
Ham leads his pals to freedom and victory, just as I will lead this nation to freedom and victory, even though I suffered terribly for five and a half years as a POW in the infamous Hanoi Hilton. My opponent may look more like a chimp than I do, and he may have a scary middle name and he may, like Ham, have the gift of gab, but he does not have the experience I do, and he certainly was not tortured for five and a half long years at the infamous Hanoi Hilton, and I want you to remember that when you go to the polls in November. How dare my opponent question my integrity, my great wealth, my hypocrisy and my unwavering support for the worst president in American history? He was not tortured as a prisoner of war, he has no right to say anything about anything.
In conclusion, my friends, Space Chimps is the kind of movie we can believe in, and I should know, because I was a prisoner of war who was tortured for five and a half long years by the Vietnamese in the infamous Hanoi Hilton, and I’m extremely reluctant to talk about that.
Favorite screenplays
Heads up, people: when I get done analyzing the screenplays of Steven Spielberg’s movies (hey, I’ve only got nine more to go!) I plan to move on to general analysis of some of my favorite screenplays. Some of these screenplays are universally acknowledged as masterworks of the form, others are simply my personal favorites, screenplays that, for one reason or another, changed my understanding of what a screenplay is, or could be. There are many, many screenplays I admire that are not on this list, primarily because when I think of those movies, I think of the movie first and the screenplay second. A movie like, say, 8 1/2, I think of first as a triumph of filmmaking and secondarily as a work of screenwriting. A movie like Alien has a very strong script and is a wonderful motion picture, but didn’t open my eyes the way that its sequel did. A movie like Seven has a solid script and a phenomenally talented director who really elevated it into another realm. These movies, for me anyway, are more successes of interpretation than of writing, whereas the movies on my list below I think would have been excellent, or at least watchable, no matter who was directing them. A few of them I admire in spite of, or because of, their flaws. All of them are movies I keep coming back to in order to steal things draw inspiration.
In the order their DVDs happen to be in on my shelf:
Annie Hall
Manhattan
Hannah and Her Sisters
The Purple Rose of Cairo
Husbands and Wives
Deconstructing Harry
All the President’s Men
Boogie Nights
Bambi
Ben-Hur
Winter Light
Persona
Shame
Le Femme Nikita
Raising Arizona
Barton Fink
Fargo
The Big Lebowski
The Man Who Wasn’t There
No Country for Old Men
Diabolique
Die Hard
Die Hard with a Vengeance
The Outlaw Josey Wales
Unforgiven
Fatal Attraction
The Fugitive
The Godfather
The Godfather Part II
Groundhog Day
It’s a Wonderful Life
Jacob’s Ladder
Down by Law
Mystery Train
2001: A Space Odyssey
Barry Lyndon
The Shining
Seven Samurai
The Hidden Fortress
High and Low
Sanjuro
The Bourne Identity
Dog Day Afternoon
Network
The Untouchables
Things Change
The Edge
The Mask of Zorro
The Matrix
Mona Lisa
Ocean’s 11 (2001)
One Hour Photo
Floating Weeds
Primer
The Poseidon Adventure
Rosemary’s Baby
Ringu
Snatch
Robocop
Run Lola Run
Taxi Driver
The King of Comedy
Cape Fear
Casino
The Silence of the Lambs
A Simple Plan
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
E.T.
Star Wars
The Empire Strikes Back
The Sting
Terminator 2
The Thomas Crown Affair
Three Kings
Sunset Blvd
Some Like it Hot
The Apartment
Beauty and the Beast
The Lion King
Toy Story
Finding Nemo
And I’m sure there are more that are escaping my mind at the moment. Some of these I’ve already discussed in detail — specifically, the Coens and the Spielbergs — and I invite interested parties to seek out those entries in the index to your left. As always, I invite my readers to goad my imagination with their suggestions.
Screenwriting 101: a tale of two beginnings
With regards to yesterday’s animated discussion of prologues:
I was in my local video store the other day. I found a copy of Oliver Stone’s 2004 bio-pic Alexander for $3. My wife is a sucker for ancient Greek history and I’m a sucker for biographical drama and I said “that’s my price!” and snapped it up. I took it home, put it in the machine, and what do you know? It starts with an elaborate prologue! About the history of ancient Greece!
So instead, he goes in the exact opposite direction with equally disastrous results. First, there is an elaborate death scene where we see someone, we’re guessing Alexander (although Stone does not show us his face) dying, having not made an important decision of some sort. Everyone around the bed pleads with the dying man as strong winds blow outside and the dying man stares wildly and flails his hands and then expires. Before we have any idea what the hell that was all about, Stone then jumps forward 40 years, after Alexander’s empire has collapsed, and there’s Anthony Hopkins in a toga on a balcony near the harbor at Alexandria (we can tell it’s Alexandria because we can see the Lighthouse of Alexandria in the background) telling a scribe the story of Alexander, but not about the mysterious death scene we just watched. We’re still waiting to find out what was going on during the death scene and Hopkins is giving us a history lesson.
Now, Stone doesn’t want to give us a history lesson so he renders the dialogue through Hopkins’s character, a guy who apparently worked alongside Alexander, although we don’t know how or in what manner. Hopkins speaks of Alexander with great love, so we get that Alexander was apparently loved, but the rest of it is still just a history lesson about a bunch of people we haven’t met yet. Hopkins wanders around his back porch overlooking the harbor, and the porch is covered with Greek statuary that Hopkins fondles as he walks past. We’re supposed to be taking notes on his history lesson, but instead we’re wondering who Hopkins is and why he’s telling us all this and why he’s got a back porch covered with statuary.
After he’s wandered around his back porch for a while, Hopkins then heads inside, where there is what looks to be an Alexander Museum in his living room. There are more statues, and elaborate displays and maps and mosaics. Hopkins launches into some serious history here gesturing to this statue and that map, telling us all the same things we would have read in the text-on-black version, but instead of understanding the information we’re more lost than ever, because we’re still wondering what the death scene was all about and then we’re wondering who Hopkins is supposed to be (since he’s obviously not the elderly Alexander) and we’re wondering why he’s telling someone the story of Alexander and we’re wondering why he’s walking around his Alexander Museum gesturing to things that the guy he’s talking to already knows about. We’re now about ten minutes into the movie and we’re still waiting for it to start.
Then, just as we’re catching up to whatever the heck Anthony Hopkins is talking about, we jump back in time and now Alexander is alive and well and he’s in a tent somewhere in a desert just before a big battle of some kind against some Persians, and he’s making battle plans with his team of generals. And we think “Finally! The movie’s starting!” But no. Instead of getting some drama, we get yet another history lesson, as Alexander tells his generals all about the upcoming battle and how they’re going to win it. We don’t know where we are, why we’re fighting, who anyone in the tent is or what is at stake, we’re just getting Alexander lecturing his generals on strategy.
yesterday mentioned the “As you know, Bob” problem in narratives, and that’s what this scene is, one big long “As you know, Bob” scene. Except it’s worse, because there’s, like, six of them, and their names aren’t Bob, they’re Ptolemy and Hephaistion and Cassander and Antigonus. So you’ve got Alexander walking around the map room pointing at things and saying things like “As you know, Antigonus, you are my most trusted warrior…” These lines are there so that the Greek scholars in the house can nod in understanding and say “Aha, so that’s Antigonus, got it…” but the rest of us are just burdened with more and more information we have no idea what to do with. The scene is supposed to help us understand the big battle scene we’re about to see, but it does the opposite. Because we’re still wondering about the death scene and who Anthony Hopkins was and why he has an Alexander Museum in his living room and who all these people in the tent are supposed to be and the movie is already 15 or 20 minutes along.
We finally head out into the big battle scene, and it is very big indeed — enormous, sprawling, ridiculously elaborate. It is, in fact, so elaborate that each section of the army gets its own title card so we know where we are in the battle. Unfortunately, we’re still not following any of it because we couldn’t follow the strategy session in the tent earlier. So now there’s a hugely chaotic battle sequence featuring tens of thousands of extras in period battle gear, but we don’t know what the objective is or who they are really or what they’re fighting for or why any of this is important.
Compare this to the opening of Saving Private Ryan.
Saving Private Ryan opens with an old man in a military cemetery in France with his family. One shot of one French flag tells us we’re in France. The old man comes to a field of gravestones and collapses in tears. There is no dialogue, no museum, no scrolling text, no narrator telling us about the history of World War II, no newsreel catchingus up to the story so far, no history lesson, no room of generals discussing strategy and reminding each other of things they already know. There is an old man who is grief-stricken at the sight of a field of gravestones and that’s it.
Then, we cut to the past, where an army captain is on a boat with a bunch of other soldiers and is about to storm a beach. We think the captain is the younger version of the old man at the cemetery (the narrative, it turns out, hinges on this deliberate misdirect). The men on the boat are terrified and nauseous and the captain’s hands are shaking. A title card tells us that it’s June 6. 1944 and that we’re at Omaha Beach. It doesn’t say that it’s D-Day, an important turning point in World War II, nothing tells us who the soldiers are fighting, or why this beach is important — and it doesn’t matter. What matters is the simple physical predicament of the protagonist. The captain in the boat has a bunch of men in his charge and it’s his job to get them up the beach and kill the enemy. And that’s it. He gives no speech about the glories of freedom or the evils of Nazism, the information he gives them is technical and sparse. The tension is palpable, the concerns are immediate and physical, not historical and philosophical. Then, the front of the boat drops down and half the men in the boat are slaughtered by sniper fire, and the ensuing 25 minutes of insane, mind-shattering carnage go on to become the greatest battle sequence ever shot and one of the great opening sequences of all time. We still don’t know who anybody is (except that the captain is Tom Hanks and we like Tom Hanks), there is no dialogue where the captain says to a soldier “As you know, Billy, you are my most accurate sniper…” The captain and his team that we will follow through the rest of the movie are revealed solely by their actions.
Oliver Stone sincerely thought he was doing us a favor by giving us all this complicated information about the history of Alexander before we ever got a look at the guy, and he thought he was demonstrating his generosity and good will toward the audience by dramatising the exposition instead of just putting some text up on the screen. But instead he shot his movie in the foot before it even got started, he drew the exposition out to painful lengths and made us more confused than ever. We don’t learn anything from Stone’s prologue, our minds check out after the first minute and by the tenth minute we’ve forgotten why we came to see the movie. Spielberg knew that none of that matters — cinema is about the here and now, the simple physical predicament of the protagonist.
UPDATE:
points out in the comments that Alexander and Saving Private Ryan describe two different historical scenarios, one of which the audience might be expected to be familiar with, the other not so much. I will go further: the two movies belong to two different genres — Alexander is a biographical drama and Saving Private Ryan is a war movie — and so perhaps should not be judged side by side. Fair enough, let’s compare an apple to an apple. Alexander begins with its elaborate history lesson and Schindler’s List begins with its protagonist getting dressed for a night on the town — again, little historical context (we know only that Jews are being concentrated into cities), no scroll of text, no narrator telling us who these people are, just the immediate physical concerns of the protagonist — he’s getting dressed up for a night on the town — we never even see his face! — and his ensemble is complete when he places his Nazi pin on his lapel. The sequence that follows — Schindler impressing the local Nazi officers at the nightclub — lays out the information we need to know about Schindler and nothing else. The result is that for the first 20 minutes of Schindler we lean forward, wanting to know more about the protagonist and what he’s after, whereas the first 20 minutes of Alexander make us lean back, wanting to get out of this classroom.