"Kong" considered
While browsing the blog this evening, I noticed a pretty scathing comment on my "King Kong" post of a couple weeks ago. You can see the post and the comment here. (It's the one below Josh's, duh.)
I wasn't going to bother writing a rebuttal to the comment, since I'd generally prefer to ignore antagonistic feedback. But I don't believe that my philosophy of how a film should be judged is all that unreasonable, so I can't in good conscience let the commenter's accusation (that my characterization of myself as a film buff is "absurd") go unanswered.
First of all, the initial "Kong" post was not a review of the movie, which hadn't even been released when the post was written. The point was to contrast what I expected out of the film with what I was reading about it. I freely admit that my prerogative was negatively biased, but I'm well within my rights as a filmgoer to dislike Jackson as a director (more on that later). And maybe the last paragraph of the post was excessively sardonic, but again, I wasn't making any specific criticisms of "Kong." Yet.
I have seen "Kong" since writing that post, and my review of it would be mixed. I was impressed with the way Jackson was able to carry off the relationship (if that's what you'd call it) between Anne Darrow and the gorilla. This was the part I was most skeptical about prior to seeing the film. To my surprise, I never once doubted the motivations of either player. It made perfect sense that a giant gorilla would be protective of a pretty young thing that danced and did tricks; and it also made sense that a pretty young thing whose life had been saved many times over by a giant gorilla would have reasonable objections to raise when that gorilla was captured, exploited, and shot at. Also, I thought that the scene atop the Empire State Building was magnificent--one of the most beautiful and engaging scenes on film this year.
Now to the negative: If we needed any more proof that Peter Jackson has no concept of what constitutes cinematic excess, "Kong" would be it. Every scene in the film could have been shortened by half. Every chase, every fight sequence, every long gaze, every establishing shot. The commenter mentions "Kong"'s "shit screenplay," which is an assessment I'm inclined to agree with. But this movie was never about the screenplay, and it didn't need to be. Better films have been made from worse screenplays ("The Matrix" comes first to mind). It's the "awkward pacing" of "Kong" that threatens to be its fatal flaw. As an English major in college, I was often told that "economy of language" is a mark of good writing. That is to say: write sparingly, not excessively. It's a concept Jackson would do well to consider. His films are bloated. Seriously, who ever heard of a remake being twice as long as the original? At the risk of sounding snarky, I'd advise Jackson to take a cue from his recent physical transformation. Trimmer is better, at least as far as movies are concerned.
The commenter says that Jackson "employs cg better than anyone else in Hollywood." I'm not sure how well-equipped I am to take that one up, but I think A.O. Scott got it right with his point that "the blending of computer-generated imagery and live action is pushed to a point where the seams begin to show." But that's Scott's (and my) opinion.
The main point of the comment seems to be that "King Kong" is the most entertaining movie of the year in spite of any flaws it may have. Whether one bases his assessment of entertainment value on the use of computer-generated imagery--or more minor considerations such as screenplay, pacing, etc.--is, of course, one's own business.
I don't think it's fair to say that it's absurd for me to call myself a film buff because I'm not "into" Peter Jackson. I'm not even really sure what that means, and maybe I've spent too much time defending myself against a vague accusation. My guess is that the commenter means to say that I'm ignorant and pretentious because I don't respect Peter Jackson for his technical accomplishments. Of course, my rewording of the accusation relies heavily on the belief that my dislike of Jackson's movies is indicative of disrespect. I'm fine with acknowledging that Jackson has pushed his kind of filmmaking to impressive new levels. But I don't have to like the movies he makes. I doubt that anyone who invests a lot of emotion in films can say that they appreciate every filmmaker who's supposedly at the forefront of his genre. I'm sure lots of film buffs feel fine about disliking Wes Craven's horror movies, Merchant Ivory's period pieces or Nora Ephron's romantic comedies.
I guess this comment struck a nerve with me. I love watching movies, I love talking about movies, and I love writing about movies. And I've long understood that my taste in movies is a lot different than most everyone else's. But I've obviously got a right to my own opinion, especially when (as I hope I've done here) I can back it up in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
I wasn't going to bother writing a rebuttal to the comment, since I'd generally prefer to ignore antagonistic feedback. But I don't believe that my philosophy of how a film should be judged is all that unreasonable, so I can't in good conscience let the commenter's accusation (that my characterization of myself as a film buff is "absurd") go unanswered.
First of all, the initial "Kong" post was not a review of the movie, which hadn't even been released when the post was written. The point was to contrast what I expected out of the film with what I was reading about it. I freely admit that my prerogative was negatively biased, but I'm well within my rights as a filmgoer to dislike Jackson as a director (more on that later). And maybe the last paragraph of the post was excessively sardonic, but again, I wasn't making any specific criticisms of "Kong." Yet.
I have seen "Kong" since writing that post, and my review of it would be mixed. I was impressed with the way Jackson was able to carry off the relationship (if that's what you'd call it) between Anne Darrow and the gorilla. This was the part I was most skeptical about prior to seeing the film. To my surprise, I never once doubted the motivations of either player. It made perfect sense that a giant gorilla would be protective of a pretty young thing that danced and did tricks; and it also made sense that a pretty young thing whose life had been saved many times over by a giant gorilla would have reasonable objections to raise when that gorilla was captured, exploited, and shot at. Also, I thought that the scene atop the Empire State Building was magnificent--one of the most beautiful and engaging scenes on film this year.
Now to the negative: If we needed any more proof that Peter Jackson has no concept of what constitutes cinematic excess, "Kong" would be it. Every scene in the film could have been shortened by half. Every chase, every fight sequence, every long gaze, every establishing shot. The commenter mentions "Kong"'s "shit screenplay," which is an assessment I'm inclined to agree with. But this movie was never about the screenplay, and it didn't need to be. Better films have been made from worse screenplays ("The Matrix" comes first to mind). It's the "awkward pacing" of "Kong" that threatens to be its fatal flaw. As an English major in college, I was often told that "economy of language" is a mark of good writing. That is to say: write sparingly, not excessively. It's a concept Jackson would do well to consider. His films are bloated. Seriously, who ever heard of a remake being twice as long as the original? At the risk of sounding snarky, I'd advise Jackson to take a cue from his recent physical transformation. Trimmer is better, at least as far as movies are concerned.
The commenter says that Jackson "employs cg better than anyone else in Hollywood." I'm not sure how well-equipped I am to take that one up, but I think A.O. Scott got it right with his point that "the blending of computer-generated imagery and live action is pushed to a point where the seams begin to show." But that's Scott's (and my) opinion.
The main point of the comment seems to be that "King Kong" is the most entertaining movie of the year in spite of any flaws it may have. Whether one bases his assessment of entertainment value on the use of computer-generated imagery--or more minor considerations such as screenplay, pacing, etc.--is, of course, one's own business.
I don't think it's fair to say that it's absurd for me to call myself a film buff because I'm not "into" Peter Jackson. I'm not even really sure what that means, and maybe I've spent too much time defending myself against a vague accusation. My guess is that the commenter means to say that I'm ignorant and pretentious because I don't respect Peter Jackson for his technical accomplishments. Of course, my rewording of the accusation relies heavily on the belief that my dislike of Jackson's movies is indicative of disrespect. I'm fine with acknowledging that Jackson has pushed his kind of filmmaking to impressive new levels. But I don't have to like the movies he makes. I doubt that anyone who invests a lot of emotion in films can say that they appreciate every filmmaker who's supposedly at the forefront of his genre. I'm sure lots of film buffs feel fine about disliking Wes Craven's horror movies, Merchant Ivory's period pieces or Nora Ephron's romantic comedies.
I guess this comment struck a nerve with me. I love watching movies, I love talking about movies, and I love writing about movies. And I've long understood that my taste in movies is a lot different than most everyone else's. But I've obviously got a right to my own opinion, especially when (as I hope I've done here) I can back it up in a thoughtful and reasonable manner.
posted by temporarily unemployed at 21:05
3 Comments:
Your rebuttal was ridiculous. Nine paragraphs of hemming and hawing to essentially say that I was right; the film was entertaining despite its flaws. I don't think your Peter Jackson dismissal reveals pretension at all on your part. On the contrary, I think your inability to fully grasp the artistry of Jackson's computer generated imagery--as displayed in your awkward deference to A.O. Scott's ramblings--exposes you as something of a Philistine.
Additionally, your "economy is everything" talk is simply rubbish. Economy of language, imagery, and duration is a style. You may like that style. Great for you. Does that mean that Proust was a hack? Tolstoy? Kubrick? Coppola?
And yes, if you were a true film buff, or rather, a true patron of the arts, you'd be mesmerized by Peter Jackson's work. Jackson is at the forefront of CGI, an art form whose aim is nothing short of the duplication of reality. Computer generated imagery is not only changing the way films are made but will be the backbone of the next great popular art form of our time, interactive media. To compare Jackson's artistic pioneering with Nora Ephron's romantic comedies proves just how gravely you miss the point.
I may have hemmed and hawed, but I don't believe I said that you were right. I said that you're free to use any criteria you like in determing which movies you find entertaining.
I never said "economy is everything." I thought that most of the scenes in "King Kong," especially the CG-heavy scenes, were too long--almost to the point of ostentation. I drew on my academic background for a remedy, which I never meant to claim was universal.
I guess you're too busy trying to make me look foolish to see that you're the one fixating on a single style of filmmaking. The use of CGI is certainly a stylistic choice. You may like that style. Great for you. Does that make Woody Allen a hack? Wes Anderson? Kubrick? Coppola? Obviously not. But it's reasonable to expect that intelligent people may have strong preferences for or against any number of styles. Just because they aren't mesmerized by the same things that mesmerize you doesn't mean their opinions aren't valid.
A true film buff, or rather, a true patron of the arts would never be so arrogant as to deride and demean anyone whose tastes in art differ from their own. I never said I didn't respect CGI. But you've been incredibly disrespectful to me.
That part about me being a Philistine was an especially sharp jab...for little while. But then I reminded myself that there will always be people out there who are smarter and more cultured than I am. I guess you're one of them.
Thanks for your time, but go sell obnoxious somewhere else.
Sorry if I offended you. Debating about film is like a war to me. I never meant to do anything but engage you. I still think that your characterization of CG is a little off. CG is a medium, not a style. To say you don't like a medium--like you dislike painting or photography or music--is silly to me. I think all media, when imbued with creativity, can soar. By the way, I'm a huge fan of the blog. If the worst thing anyone ever says to you is that you're a better writer than critic, I think you're doing just fine.
Post a Comment
<< Home