I love that people find movies seminal in their lives and they consider them good friends. Stories have a way of changing the way we see the world or of saying something we believe in a new way that resonates inside of us so profoundly that we can never think about a subject without thinking about that story. I can honestly say that To Kill a Mockingbird and The Lord of the Rings (both the novels and movies) have affected my ethics so that I think of Atticus Finch or Frodo when facing a tough decision.
Every so often a movie comes out that seems to garner near universal praise and adulation from people I know, and yet it doesn’t work for me. Sometimes I can’t stand the film. Usually, I like the movie just ok, but for various reasons, I don’t like it as much as other people. This is a touchy subject because we take those stories that transform us very personally. Thus, a disclaimer: I may say I missed the boat on your movie, but I’m not saying I think you’re a bad person or less than me for liking it as much as you do.
- The Matrix [d. Wachowski brothers, 1999]
- Gladiator [d. Scott, 2000]
- Life is Beautiful [d. Benigni, 1998]
- Whale Rider [d. Caro, 2002]
- Chicago [d. Marshall, 2002]
- Training Day [d. Fuqua, 2001]
- Napoleon Dynamite [d. Hess, 2004]
I can elaborate further if you’d like, or if you’d prefer just to call me a heartless idiot, feel free.
12 comments
Comments feed for this article
April 1, 2008 at 12:30 pm
Chase
The Sixth Sense and Dreamgirls. The Sixth Sense was really well-liked when it came out (despite the subsequent backlash), but I didn’t really understand then appeal of it. I thought Dreamgirls was awful.
April 1, 2008 at 12:38 pm
Chase
Oh, and I have to say this: I saw Napoleon Dynamite in the theater when it first came out in super-limited distribution (before Fox Searchlight picked it up) and I didn’t know what to make of it. Nobody in the theater really did either, it seemed like — there was almost no laughter. But the weird little world Napoleon lives in stuck with me and I ended up seeing it twice again in the theater, because it was so weird and intriguing. So I’m not sure what everybody else likes about Napoleon Dynamite, but for me it’s all about the “world.” Also, the fact that the original Lazlo Hollyfeld is in it.
April 1, 2008 at 12:46 pm
Tyler Watson
I remember liking The Sixth Sense but not as much as the people around me. I don’t think I was affected by the hype, but I came out of it not sure why some of my friends were calling it their favorite movie. Still, I liked it enough so that it didn’t make the list.
As for Napoleon Dynamite, I was affected by the hype. People built it up way too high. It was quirky and I like quirky, but I couldn’t understand why it was so quirky. The characters’ tics seemed to be put in there just for laughs and didn’t affect the story much. Also, it felt very derivative of Wes Anderson’s work.
April 1, 2008 at 1:12 pm
capnwatsisname
You heartless idiot.
April 1, 2008 at 6:00 pm
capnwatsisname
Actually, 2 and 7 were both on my list, when I first saw them. But Gladiator grew on me, not as a moral/hero story, but as an impressive spectacle with Joachin Phoenix playing his heart out in the middle. And I now have an “appreciation” for TD, even though I don’t want to watch it again. I try and try, but I just don’t like Ethan Hawke. This list is reminding me of a post I wanted to write about movies I was supposed to hate, but didn’t.
April 1, 2008 at 7:44 pm
Tom
Fun.
Wish most of my friends felt art the way you obviously do.
Quick take.
I’ll join you in throwing Training Day overboard.
The rest, from my point of view, have got a case.
Since you’ve asked us to give you permission to elaborate :^), I’d enjoy hearing your low down on these flicks.
April 2, 2008 at 6:59 am
Tyler
Ok, I’ll take the films in the order in the post (I wasn’t ranking them). Just remember these are my opinions and a lot of it has to do with my context at the time.
The Matrix. I was never excited about the first one, even before the bizarre and confusing sequels. I thought it was entertaining and interesting to a certain degree. What kept me from loving it was that I thought the gnostic philosophical discussions were interesting at first, but then became a mush. I’ve never really enjoyed Keanu Reeves aside from Bill and Ted’s. I thought some of the dialogue was really bad. And ultimately I didn’t think it was all that original, especially when comparing it to Dark City which came out the year before. My faith community at the time resonated a lot with it as some kind of Christian metaphor, but I couldn’t get past the gnostic superiority of the characters and I continue to be deeply concerned with gnosticism in Christianity — I’m not sure we’ve ever moved beyond it.
Gladiator. I thought it was entertaining, good but not great. We had this discussion before. Russel Crowe’s performance saved the film for me because he could deliver the overwrought lines with sincerity. Other actors would have destroyed the dialogue. The anachronisms really bothered me more than other films. I thought the special effects were poorly done. And I thought the meeting of the hero and villain was contrived. But I only saw it once, when it was first released in the theaters, and I suppose I should give it another chance.
Life is Beautiful. This one is tough because I have several friends who love this film deeply. I thought the first half of the film was better than the second. Roberto Benigni’s performance was an interesting Charlie Chaplain impression, but I didn’t see it break out beyond that. I thought the second half trivialized to a certain extent the death camps. If it’s only a story about the father trying to protect his son, it’s very sweet and touching. But considering they are in community, I found Guido’s actions reckless and I didn’t see much character development in him. The scene where the Nazi describes the camp and Guido “translates” and creates the game to protect his son works if it’s only about the two of them. Because other prisoners’ lives are at stake, his creativity puts people in danger and I saw it as a selfish act rather than the selfless act of love I know that many see. Sure, Benigni wasn’t trying to make a realistic film, yet I couldn’t help but think of the accounts of the death camps I had seen and read. We never really see the danger of the camp aside from one shot of a pile of bodies.
Whale Rider. Very well done, but I could basically see where this movie was going in the first ten minutes. I really liked the characters; the film just didn’t have dramatic tension. There is a difference between predictability and inevitability in stories — that’s a post I’ve got in development — and I thought Caro’s film was more predictable than inevitable and that kept me from really engaging.
Chicago. The film fulfilled my demands by creating a world where I believe people would break out into song — I thought the device that the musical numbers were in Roxie’s head was really inventive. This movie, however, knocked me out of it in the first five minutes. I had no sympathy or empathy for Roxie after murdering the man with whom she’s cheating on her husband betrayed her. The only person who did garner any sympathy from me was her husband. I didn’t find the characters engaging enough either to keep my interest. I remember sitting in the theater being bored and thinking about half way through, “I don’t know how this is going to end and I don’t care.”
Training Day. Most of the praise for this movie is for the acting, which is good, but I think it’s mostly for the fact that Denzel Washington plays against type. His performance seemed to be an Al Pacino impression and his character Alonzo doesn’t develop. The film keeps tension extremely well, but I thought the last act was so unbelievable that I sat with a confused look on my face for the final twenty minutes. I really didn’t like this movie.
Napoleon Dynamite. I refer you to the comments above. I hear a second viewing greatly helps this film and I haven’t given it that opportunity. Maybe I should.
April 3, 2008 at 2:22 pm
Tom
Insightful stuff and interesting.
I was struck that your primary reasons for not liking some of these flicks revolved more around moral and theological issues than aesthetic concerns. Is that part of a broader approach to film/art that you’ve thought through, or is it mostly an intuitive ‘gut reaction?’
I’ve largely abandoned moral/theological issues in deciding whether I think a film (or other piece of art) is a strong piece of work. That doesn’t mean I wouldn’t then subject it to a moral/theological critique after deciding whether it’s strong or not; it just means I no longer make that more basic decision with specifically Christian moral or theological concerns in mind.
Boy, I experienced Life Is Beautiful pretty differently than you did. I thought the Charlie Chaplin imitation—in many respects–was the heart and point of the movie. In real life Chaplin took on the Nazis in his satires. Basically, I thought LIB was about the power of the clown/court jester armed with comedy in the face of evil and a terrible abuse of power. The flick was very “Franciscan” in that respect. If I understand the way you’re using the word correctly, the dad in the movie ‘inevitably’ had to satirize pompous government officials in the scene where he pretends to be a fascist government education minister and inevitably had to ridicule the prison guard’s harsh speech in that (to me) hilarious scene when he creates the game for his son in the concentration camp barracks. The movie was made by Europeans and takes as a given the horrors of the holocaust. To me the LIB is a satire and a comedy—I’m not sure how you could make a comedy about the holocaust that also plays like a documentary of the horrors of prison camps. The point, to me, was to make thinking about those horrors more possible by using comedy as a doorway. “The Producers” comes to mind as another example; I guess you could argue that the song “Springtime for Hitler” minimizes Nazism, but I think Mel Brooks was trying to keep the memory of Hitler’s atrocities alive through (very funny) comedy. In any case, I left LIB having laughed a lot, touched, and deeply saddened by the terrible experiences the characters—and people in the 30’s and 40’s—were forced to live through. It didn’t deserve to get best picture, but it definitely worked for me.
April 3, 2008 at 10:31 pm
Tyler
Tom, you’re right that the reason some of these films didn’t do it for me as much as others does have to do with moral/theological issues. All of the films are technically proficient, some are even groundbreaking, and the vast majority of them have engaging stories. I compared my responses to that of others around me and I would argue the reason these stories resonate with people is precisely because the power of these movies go beyond aesthetics and into the moral and theological realms. If I were to review them purely in technical or aesthetic terms (though I would argue that aesthetics do include moral and theological issues), I would probably rate these films higher.
Your read of Life is Beautiful is probably the read that Benigni had in mind. I agree that the Chaplainesque performance was the heart of the film. For whatever reason I didn’t see it in the same way you did. My parents took me to see it for my birthday when I was home one spring break and I remember enjoying it. When I got back to school others had also seen it and were talking about how moved they were, how poignant they found the film, and how it immediately became one of their favorite movies. I didn’t relate to that sentiment.
For what it’s worth, I use inevitable and predictable almost purely as plot terms. In my use, it isn’t inevitable that Guido has to satirize the Nazis, but it was inevitable that he dies. One could see that coming, but it still works as a powerful piece given that he never breaks his commitment to protect his son. Inevitable happens when you leave the theater thinking a film ended in the only appropriate way, whether you could see the ending coming or not. Life is Beautiful is a great example of an inevitable ending. Predictable is more about being able to see the ending or plot turns in advance in a way that removes dramatic tension. I found Whale Rider predictable.
April 5, 2008 at 9:01 pm
Tom
I look forward to the ‘inevitable’ vs. ‘predictable’ plot development discussion. Sounds cool and interesting. Keep plugging away–religious folks that want to get into the arts will come if you build it.
One more thought about using morality and theology as a template for judging art. I think the whole thing is important for cross-cultural ministry.
No question that morality and meaning are at the heart of art.
When trying to live cross-culturally, though, I guess the question is ‘which morality and which meaning?’
Aesthetics is one of those things that hold promise for cutting through the same old same old divisions and opening a door.
I think suspending judgment of art on the basis of morality and theology can help.
April 7, 2008 at 10:57 pm
DL
I’m in almost complete agreement with this list, except #6. I appreciated Training Day, but I concur in your estimation of the rest as merely decent or at worst: “Meh.”
“Meh” especially to The Matrix. What bothers me most about the film is that it is completely derivative parroting of postmodern perspectives aligning most closely with Baudrillard. If I remember correctly, the trilogy opens with a quote from said theorist. I’m of the view that theory has run too far ahead of art and film, and that it is time for art to reverse the roles, to be the object of theory… The flip side is that art becomes reactionary and illustrative. Nothing could be worse for art or theory.
April 14, 2008 at 7:51 am
In My Own Boat « The Space Between the Arts
[...] My Own Boat I previously wrote a post about movies that evoked love in a lot of people, but didn’t garner the same response from [...]