As I'd like to accurately think myself a critic, I'm attempting to reserve my judgements of the films I "review." Here, then, I offer a single critique, which fiction writers might make use of.
An achievement of this film's storytelling is the invasion of the humans just after Jake Sully and Neytiri make Omaticayan love. We find here a simple principle, which you can use in your fiction: once something good happens, have something bad happen.
Avatar employs this simple principle in a sophisticated way. For one, the scenes I mention answer two major dramatic questions in close succession. The two questions are: Will Sully and Neytiri become lovers? Will the humans attack the Omaticayans? The reader / viewer feels gratified that the major questions are answered. Additionally, the reader / viewer experiences opposite emotions as the mood of the juxtaposed scenes changes suddenly. Finally, this simple principle works on a conceptual level as well. The union of Sully and Neytiri is a joining of the humans and Omaticayans. The next scene, when the humans attack, is the opposite. The union accomplished by "making love" is destroyed by "making war."
Wednesday, February 24, 2010
Sleepless in Seattle (1993)
...caught the last five minutes of this today
...that's like a disclaimer
So…at the end of this film Meg Ryan is on a date with her fiancé and they see on the Empire State Building red lights forming a heart. The fiancé says, “It’s a sign.” She agrees and ditches him for Tom Hanks.
So…after all the hugging and kissing the film concludes with a computer-generated image of the NYC skyline, the Empire State Building and its red heart. In fiction, we might call this shift in “tone” problematic. For ninety minutes, the screen has had a “realistic” tone, and then we get a computer-generated tone. SS illustrates the jarring effect a tonal shift can have.
…However, I’m one who doesn’t necessarily consider “jarring” a pejorative critique.
…However, sometimes jarring works and sometimes jarring doesn’t. To measure its success, we might ask: Is the fiction conscious of the sudden shift in tone? And, what is the lasting effect? In SS, we can’t answer these questions, as this computer-generated image is our last until the credits roll. SS changes its visual tone more out of convenience (how else than a computer can we make the image of a heart on the Empire State Building?) than for artistic effect.
…To all of which, you might reply: “It’s just a movie, Scott.”
…Fair enough.
...that's like a disclaimer
So…at the end of this film Meg Ryan is on a date with her fiancé and they see on the Empire State Building red lights forming a heart. The fiancé says, “It’s a sign.” She agrees and ditches him for Tom Hanks.
So…after all the hugging and kissing the film concludes with a computer-generated image of the NYC skyline, the Empire State Building and its red heart. In fiction, we might call this shift in “tone” problematic. For ninety minutes, the screen has had a “realistic” tone, and then we get a computer-generated tone. SS illustrates the jarring effect a tonal shift can have.
…However, I’m one who doesn’t necessarily consider “jarring” a pejorative critique.
…However, sometimes jarring works and sometimes jarring doesn’t. To measure its success, we might ask: Is the fiction conscious of the sudden shift in tone? And, what is the lasting effect? In SS, we can’t answer these questions, as this computer-generated image is our last until the credits roll. SS changes its visual tone more out of convenience (how else than a computer can we make the image of a heart on the Empire State Building?) than for artistic effect.
…To all of which, you might reply: “It’s just a movie, Scott.”
…Fair enough.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)