Normally I prefer not to comment on someone else’s writing, whether book or film. I prefer to leave that to lit professors milking tenure in their ivory towers. But, sometimes, just sometimes you see something so appalling that you have to just say enough is enough!
The last straw for me was a film (I’m not going to do any marketing for them by mentioning the title—but if you saw it you’ll recognize it). Now, I could be wrong in thinking that fault lay with the writer, that the director saw the script and said, yeah, whatever….
But, I’m pretty sure it’s the writer’s fault: characters that have no business being in the film!
Ever watch a movie and wonder what’s this guy, or gal, is doing in the scene? Well, last week while watching a film On Demand (I’m so happy I didn’t plunk down hard-earned money for even seeing it at a matinee) I was reminded of this question.
Basically it was a loser character, who was supposed to be the comedy foil for a film about a groom who died before reaching the altar. We then find out that the groom has a child from a one-night stand while he was away from his hometown.
First all there were problems with the whole storyline. The real protagonist was the guy who died off screen at the beginning of the film: an opening preparation of flowers becomes changes to flower for a funeral, interesting but clichéd.
So, throughout the film we’re left with only the supporting characters, who try to make sense of their deceased friend and his illegitimate son. What it became was a really bad copy of The Big Chill.
Why was the The Big Chill such a good film?
The group of mourners was the protagonist, they and the remembrance of their times together in the late 1960s and early 1970s and what they stood for, with the antagonist being the people they had become: the image of the people they had rebelled against, their parents.
The friend who had killed himself, was actually only the impetus for the story become. Is it any wonder that the character, who died was never shown, played by Kevin Costner? It would have completely confused the story either through flashback, something considered, or to start the film with Kevin Costner’s character still alive.
What a powerful open to see a man being dressed, only to soon realize that it’s a corpse being prepared for an open casket funeral.
The producers of The Big Chill did the story right.
…I wish the producers and director of the other piece, that will go nameless, had done the same. First of all, it’s a generational thing. There was connectivity in the ‘60s generation that just isn’t there in Generation X and later groups—and even an innocent and idealism lost on later generations (Still, Ben Stiller’s delivery of Reality Bites did well with the topic of maturation angst for a later generation). But, still a big difference between wondering if you’re going to be drafted for Vietnam, and whether you’re parents will buy you a new car so that you can look good to your classmates. Relative quality of risk and conflict makes cohesion in compelling drama, or even a good comedy.
Storyline disasters aside, let’s look at that character who was just annoying. Basically the actor’s playing the same character he’s played in every film he’s ever done since his acting/writing/directing debut: nagging slob. That he’s friends with the husband of the female lead was no surprise—and Hollywood complains that audiences just don’t go to films the way they used to?
People pay for entertainment and escape: remind me of every loser I’ve ever had to deal with and expect me to pay for it, and hold me to listening to this guy for two hours and I get angry. Sure, you want to teach me some of your wisdom about life and people? No problem, great masterpieces came about as the result of such great idealisms—just don’t do it at the cost of my escaping the depressing thoughts hitting me as the result of daily grinds and national and global news.
First of all, I’m not into being a sounding board for a nag in my daily life. I’m especially not going to pay for the disastrous privilege of listening to one throughout a film. Secondly you better get that character changing pretty quick and getting those redeeming qualities appearing long before the middle of the film.
Most of all, you better have a reason for him or her even being in the film, and comedy foils just suck if they don’t have my respect. Take for example the comedy foil in Big Chill: Jeff Goldblum. Why was he integral?
We all know or recall someone like him. And an ex-journalist, I knew many of them just like him. But, he had a redeeming quality: he was a professional, he did become the investigative journalist he had aspired to be, he was just slightly annoying. His redeeming qualities were apparent. Though a little annoying, he was also endearing. Compare that with the Loser in the no-name flick and there’s no redeeming quality, only a nag.
Remember redeeming qualities: for all main characters! Think I’m kidding? Wait until I talk about antagonists: those bad guys and gals we love to hate and hate to love.
Until then, I’ll be up in the Eastern Sierra teasing a rainbow with a fly…Tight lines!
