On Movie Critiques

**To follow the On Writing Blog on Facebook, click HERE and click the "Like" button**

“Well I hope you come and see me in the movies

Then I’ll know that you will plainly see

The biggest fool that ever hit the big time

And all I’ve got to do is act naturally”

~ ‘Act Naturally’ by Johnny Russell

from the Buck Owens and the Buckaroos album “The Best of Buck Owens”, 1963

A couple of weeks ago I discussed at some length my very favourite movie from the Pixar Movie Studios, that being 2004’s The Incredibles, and that got me thinking about storytelling.  While this movie is very definitely a particular favourite movie of mine, I also mentioned that I was rather enamoured with Pixar as a whole.  The reasons for that are legion; amazing production values, dedication to character and story, and absolute, unwavering commitment to quality.  That kind of steadfast pursuit of quality is rare in films these days, especially in the bombastic Hollywood tent-pole blockbusters we’ve all seen at some point.

There’s most definitely a place for these kinds of movies no doubt.  It’s a fine thing to suspend one’s disbelief and enter into a fantasy world and be taken on a fanciful ride.  I have a good friend who will accept anything in a movie, no matter how outlandish, as long as the film-makers make some attempt at explanation, even if it is far-fetched.  He will at once accept the movie on face value and has an enviable ability to just enjoy it for what it is.  I am a little jealous of him for that.

There’s a sometime contributor to Ain’tItCoolNews.com and professional astrophysicist who goes by the handle Copernicus, who writes up reviews for the site based not on the merits of story or character, but on the science.  He’s written at length about James Cameron’s Avatar (2009)* and even found an astonishing amount to comment on in the trailer (albeit an extended trailer) for New Zealand filmmaker Martin Campbell’s as-yet-unreleased Green Lantern movie.  You understand, Copernicus is arguing about the relative scientific merits of a comic book-based story about a man who joins an intergalactic police force and uses a lantern and a ring to create green things out of thin air in order to, you know, fight crime and save the universe.  Furthermore, Copernicus was arguing not about the contents of that film, only the contents of the trailer.

I possibly fit somewhere in the middle.  Where Copernicus and I find a common ground is where Copernicus says (in his discussion about Avatar): “Copernicus’ Law of Science Fiction: Bending the laws of physics out of service to the story is fine, doing it out of ignorance is unconscionable.”  I would have to agree with this ‘law’, that is to say that to bend the basic laws of physics because you don’t get them and couldn’t be bothered learning about them is just simply lazy.  Laziness is fairly prevalent in modern cinematic storytelling.  One of the more intriguing special features in the Pixar movie Up (2009) is one where the filmmakers actually travelled to South America in order to experience first-hand some of the environments in which the story takes place.  They did this not because they were making a factual documentary, but because they understood the value of a realistic canvas on which to portray their story.  I use that analogy purposefully: if one tries to create a masterpiece on a blemished canvas, it almost doesn’t matter how good the painting is, the flaws in the basis of the art can become glaring.

What I do insist on in my movies is internal logic.  Internal logic is best described as a consistency within a particular story, even when a suspension of disbelief is in operation.  In other words, if you’ve established in your movie that Superman is a really nice guy that can fly, I can accept it just fine. If two scenes later he doesn’t fly but only jumps really far and he was being mean to Lois Lane, and there’s not adequate explanation for why this is, then the filmmaker is not following the rules he himself has established.  Internal logic is vitally important to any storytelling, not just ones where the central characters can leap tall buildings in a single bound.  The Hollywood remake of Godzilla (1998) was roundly criticised for being inconsistent in its depiction of the eponymous beast’s abilities.  I find irregularities pull me out of the story, and my interest begins to wane.

I remember David Letterman once having a guest on his show who had starred in a rather good film. Letterman addressed filmmakers during the interview and essentially saying “If you can’t do something this good, please don’t bother”.  Life’s too short to spend your time experiencing poor quality in storytelling.  Which gets us back to what’s good and bad, which remains subjective.  Copernicus, my friend and I may all differ wildly in what we think is quality and what we do and don’t enjoy but for myself, I figure if I’m laying down ever-increasing piles of my hard-earned for the privilege of watching the story you’re telling, I’ll want you at least to be making a decent effort.

* It can be found HERE. Worth a read!