The Decline of Film Noir

       A few weeks ago, we were asked to watch Double Indemnity, a film noir that I thoroughly enjoyed. It made me wonder why we don't seem to see as many film noir movies coming out of Hollywood today. Everything the genre is famous for are things that I love in movies: a distinct mood, flawed characters, action, mystery, and a complicated, well thought out plot. So why has the film noir lost popularity? I would argue that Hollywood doesn't think audiences are interested in it anymore.

     There was a movie made in 2005 that I would consider a film noir in every aspect. When I saw it a few years ago, it instantly became one of my favorite films. It's a film called Brick that is based around a high school student who goes missing and winds up dead. Her friend Brendan goes on the hunt for the killer, and ends up being entrenched in a plot filled with drugs, scandal, and plenty of action. The entire time he keeps calm and collected and always seems to be one step ahead of the competition. The whole feel of the film is what sold it for me. Since I saw it, I have shown it to nearly all of my friends (since most had never heard of it) and they all loved it. It was generally well reviewed by critics and customer reviews on websites like imdb are relatively high as well. So why doesn't Hollywood come out with more films in this genre? 

     It's true, these films don't have the fasted moving plot when compared to action films or even chick flicks. They take time to introduce the characters and build a distinctive mood that will last for the duration of the movie. But once that action gets going, it doesn't tend to stop. Hollywood might believe that audiences don't want to put as much thought into watching a movie nowadays. There's no question that you need to pay attention when you watch a film like this. There are twists and clues and if you miss one little detail, you could find yourself confused and lost amid the convoluted plot. But films like Inception that ask the audiences to learn about an entirely new and not very easily explained concept in only a couple of scenes should have shown Hollywood that people are okay with thinking during a movie. They can handle complex ideas and the film doesn't feel bogged down by them. If anything, I find that a film that you have to really pay attention to, draws me in far more than one where you can check your brain at the door and just let it happen to you. Many of my favorite movies like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and Memento require constant attention if you want to catch all the little nuances they have sprinkled throughout.

     I personally would like to see more film noirs coming out of Hollywood. I think audiences can handle and would very much enjoy seeing movies based in that all-but- forgotten genre but at this point, the film noir appears to be a quickly dying concept, and in my opinion, that's a true shame.

Class Differences and Epic Tragedy: A Winning Combo

     James Cameron boasts some of the highest box office profits of all time for his films Titanic and Avatar. Why are these films so popular with audiences? I would argue that Cameron has found a winning combo that works and that these films are far more similar than they first appear.

 

     Chapter 9 in "America On Film" mentions the fact that class struggle is often ignored or downplayed in film, even mentioning Titanic as doing that very thing in favor of an epic love story and special effects. What has a more epic love story than Avatar? What has bigger special effects than Avatar? Here's what I believe James Cameron has found works out for him and why:

     1) Start with a love story

     It's simple, love stories tend to sell pretty well. Audiences like to see two attractive characters build a relationship from acquaintance to true love on screen over the course of a film. It's what most people want for themselves and so there's a certain satisfaction that comes along with two people finding their "soul mate." This is the most straightforward thing that Cameron has discovered is a definite winner. It's not all that surprising or revolutionary in and of itself until he introduces class into that plot.

     While the book suggests that Titanic glosses over the topic of class, I would argue that it's there just as much as Cameron feels it needs to be. Jack and Rose are from different social backgrounds when they meet, suggesting that neither one is the most obvious choice for the other. In Avatar, Jake and Neytiri are from even more mismatched social backgrounds. One is a paraplegic human marine while the other is an 8-foot tall blue alien from another planet. And yet, just like Titanic, they somehow overlook these differences to find true love. 

     2) Add in an epic tragedy

     In Titanic, the boat sinks. In Avatar, the peaceful Na'vi has there home bombed to the ground by a massive military force. Cameron has apparently found that people seem to care for and connect to characters more if they are in imminent and large-scale danger. It's uplifting for an audience to see the romantic couple overcome seemingly impossible odds in order to be together. It's instant box office gold. By combining the newly formed, somewhat mismatched couple with a horrific tragedy, you're basically forcing the audience to care. It's a pretty simple trick, but Cameron has found that it's very effective. 

     So those are the big things that stand out to me between the two films. They essentially tell the same basic plot: two people from different social classes (or even species) meet, fall in love after spending a lot of time with one another, and then must undergo an epic tragedy that tests their dedication to one another and often includes one of them sacrificing (or nearly sacrificing) themselves for the other. Credits roll. The end. This is the combo that has made James Cameron a millionaire and I wouldn't be surprised in the least to see his next film use this same story arc.

The Princess Mentality

            Chapter 10 talks about how women in film used to be represented as virginal girls whose only goal in life was to settle down with a nice husband that will provide for them. While these ideas have been, for the most part, greatly reduced in films today, but the mentality still exists in some of the most popular kid’s films: Disney princess movies. Granted, while the majority of these are from several decades ago, the products based on the movies are still packed onto toy store shelves and fed to kids through television advertisements everyday. But what are these films teaching young girls? Nothing good, in my opinion.

            First off, there’s the obvious fact that all the heroines in these movies are royal and beautiful. They are princesses by birth and are thus entitled to wealth, power, and anything their heart desires. What girls seem to learn from this is that money and beauty are the key to getting boys to like you and gaining overall happiness in life. That’s why it astounds me that parents are so quick to spoon feed this idea to their daughters. My mother owned an in-home daycare for the first fifteen years of my life, so I’ve spent a lot of time around kids and their parents. You’d be surprised how many of these parents bought their daughter’s all the pink, frilly princess clothes, back packs, etc. While there’s nothing inherently wrong about that, these parents are generally the ones who also call their daughters their little “princess.” This is where things hit a level that I don’t think is healthy. These are the kids that always seemed to feel like they should be able to get their own way, have the toys they want, and think they know the answer to everything. Now, some might say that this is simply because of their age and that every kid acts like that, and there’s definitely some truth in that. But in my experience, these girls that are told repeatedly that they are princesses and royalty tend to have these tendencies far more often and on a much bigger scale.

            The thing that really connects these films to sexist themes is the fact that all of the princesses are searching for their “true love”, generally in the form of a rich prince that will be able to care and provide for them. Sleeping Beauty even has the iconic song where the young princess sings, “some day my prince will come.” This mentality is so blatant in many of these films that it surprises me they are still so popular today. You’d think parents would see something like that on screen and not want their child to see it and be influenced by it. Very few of the characters are represented as strong women, instead being shown as homemakers (Snow White spends most of the movie cleaning up the house and preparing food for the seven dwarves), and completely helpless (Sleeping Beauty will literally die without loves true kiss). Does no one see anything wrong with this? Really?

            The one heroine that is, I think, represented well in these films, isn’t actually a princess. Belle from Beauty and the Beast is a strong-willed woman with book smarts, who actually turns down a direct proposal for marriage early on in the film, an unheard-of act when you look at the other princess characters she’s often associated with. She sacrifices herself for her father, showing bravery the ability to think beyond herself. While she does fall in love throughout the course of the movie to a man (beast) who turns out to be a prince, it never feels like her ultimate goal is to find a man to settle down with and have care for her. Not to mention, she actually spends some time with the guy and gets to know him before “falling in love.” In fact, she doesn’t even like him at first. The couple actually has a realistic story arc, which is more than most of these films can say. Sleeping Beauty sees her prince in the forest and is instantly entranced by him. Snow White falls in love when the guy kisses her to wake her up after eating a poison apple from a witch. Cinderella seems set on marrying the prince long before she’s even met him. What this is teaching children is that there is a single moment when you will meet your true love and it will be magical and you’ll live happily ever after. Call me a pessimist if you like, but I believe relationships have stages. You don’t go from meeting a person on the street to being deeply and endlessly in love with them in a matter of seconds. Relationships take work, and Belle seems to be the only Disney heroine that knows that.

            Movies that are made nowadays have, for the most part, moved away from the mentality that a woman’s only goal in life is to find a good man to care for and care for them. Unfortunately, as long as parents continue to feed their children the blatantly sexist Disney princess films, that idea will still exist to some extent. Regardless of the fact these films are considered classics, I will think long and hard about whether or not I want my kids to see them when I have children, and I’d encourage others to do the same.

The Role of the Parents When it Comes to Censorship

          I recently saw the movie "This Film is Not Yet Rated" and thoroughly enjoyed it. All the talk about censorship got me thinking about the censorship I have experienced in my own life and where I think it's gone too far. My mother has always been very against violence in video games, movies, etc. and has attempted to keep me sheltered from these things pretty severely. I am nineteen years old and still not allowed to see R-rated films (not to mention many PG-13) or play M-rated games (not to mention many/most T-rated games) and I'm still not fully aware of the reason why. I understand that her argument has always been that I don't need to fill my head with mindless violence and sex, but I'm still unsure of what she thinks it will do to me. I have honestly come under a fair amount of criticism due to the strict rules set upon me by my mother and have, in many cases, played video games she would consider inappropriate and seen films she would not approve of. It's true, most of my favorite films are R-rated because they tend to give a more honest and gritty look at whatever topic they're dealing with. Having spent years with films and video games that are violent, contain strong language, and are overall things my mother would never approve of, I don't feel like the experience has had any sort of negative effect on me whatsoever.

            I'm not a violent person. I don't enjoy seeing people hurt or injured, and I feel like I am almost more aware of the effects that things like guns and knives and even fists can have on a human body as a result of M-rated games and R-rated movies. As "This Film is Not Yet Rated" states, it very well may be messing our children up more by letting films with gunfights that have no actual blood be rated PG-13 because it gives an unrealistic view of the horrors a weapon can inflict on a human being. Films that accurately depict violence are rarely the ones who seem to be glamorizing the act itself. They are the ones who are often taking a direct stance against it by showing the viewer exactly what the result of violent actions can be. That being said, I don't believe you should show your child "Saving Private Ryan" at age 8. I worked at GameStop for a while not too long ago and constantly saw parents buying violent M-rated games for their very young kids. There's a careful line to walk between being overly protective regarding violence and thus sheltering them from the realities of it, and exposing it to them far to early in life and desensitizing them to it.

            What my mother did very well was keep me from being a violent child. She knew where to draw the line with guns and violence and I believe helped me very much by doing so. She set boundaries, allowing me to own toy swords and such but keeping plastic firearms out of my possession for a long time. Ultimately, I'm very glad she was as protective about violence as she was because I fully believe that if kids are exposed to it too young and too vividly, they can be effected negatively by it. The problem I have now though, is that she never really allowed the boundaries to age along with me. I grew more mature with age and more understanding of the real world and the line she drew never really changed based on my maturity level. I fully believe I could handle playing a game like "Call of Duty" for an hour or two, setting down the controller, and going back to my everyday life without the game itself affecting me. I fully believe I could see a film like "Pan's Labyrinth" and leave the theater thinking about the well told story and the amazing visuals rather than thinking about how I want to try beating someone to death with a broken bottle. I know the difference between a form of entertainment that uses violence to tell a story, create character, or enhance its game play and real life. 

 

            So basically my opinion on the topic of parental censorship is this: while the child is easily influenced by things they see, generally at a young age, it is very important for parents to take a good, hard look at what they are putting into that child's head. These development years should be handled with care and parents need to be aware of the maturity and development level of their kid. However, this censorship needs to adapt to the child as their age and maturity level change. The hope is that by protecting your child as they build up their opinions on violence and its effects on fellow human beings and the world around them, by the time to decide they are old enough for violent films and video games, they will be able to easily differentiate between reality and the fictitious nature of these forms of entertainment, and ultimately be unaffected by them negatively.

Popcorn Flicks

     For the most part, films are made first for entertainment's sake and secondly to make a statement or comment about life or an opinion of the director. Even back in the films of Harold Lloyd and Charlie Chaplin this was true. These lighthearted comedies were extremely goofy and off the wall, yet still spoke to the public about social standings and the economy etc. But what about films today? While many still seem to have something relevant to say, there appear to be an increasingly large number of "popcorn flicks" coming out of Hollywood.

1) A dumb flick that thinks it's funny: Zookeeper

            Not every film needs a lesson or a moral. Not every film needs to take a stance on some important topic. But do movies need to continue being dumbed down so people will buy tickets to them? A film that was recently released to pretty terrible reviews was a movie called "Zookeeper." Seeing the trailers for this film made me shake my head in disgust. It's about a "loveable" zookeeper played by Kevin James who wants to find a woman. The animals he takes care of decide to reveal that they have the ability to talk and proceed to help him discover his true love. Doesn't that sound like it could be written by a five year old? This is what Hollywood puts its money into? What makes a director read that script and think, "yeah, this'll make a great film!" Now, I haven't seen the movie so there very well may be some sweet moments hidden in amongst the talking animal jokes, but if a thirty second trailer can annoy me to the extent that every stupid TV-spot for Zookeeper did, it is so obviously not a film I want to sit through.

 

2) A superficial effects show: Transformers: Dark of the Moon

           

            Transformers: Dark of the Moon was released recently. It's the third movie in a series that thrives on fast-paced action and incredible special effects. I must admit, when I saw trailers for the film, I was genuinely excited to see it. But I knew from the first teaser exactly what kind of movie it would be. It would be the kind of film where it's best to check your brain at the door, sit down with a bag of popcorn, and let it happen to you. You're not going to leave the theater changed in any sort of way. It's fun, loud, explosive, money-making filmmaking, but as long as you go in expecting that, for the most part you'll enjoy your stay. The characters were very two dimensional, the plot was so bizarre and convoluted that it was hard to follow, and the overtly patriotic "we must fight for freedom" theme was repeatedly shoved at you with no attempt at subtlety. It was a film that knew exactly what demographic it was being made for, and pandered to that crowd perfectly. While it should never be considered for any Oscar other than best CGI, it is what it is: a mindless special effects display with attractive girls, nice cars, and (thankfully) zero talking animals.

3) An action movie in its smartest form: Inception

            It's true, I have many friends who would tell me this is not a popcorn flick. I both agree and disagree with that statement. I believe it is a popcorn flick in the sense that most of the characters aren't really that deep and seem to have been put there to simply serve some sort of purpose. It also contains several over-the-top and ultimately unnecessary action sequences with explosions, guns, and car chases. Finally, there is no real moral to the film other than "let go of the past" or something like that. On the other hand, it is not your everyday, mindless romp through CGI locations with superhuman protagonists that the audience never truly care for. When I talk to people who absolutely hate Inception, my main argument is: at least they did something different.

            The film's concept is confusing, but at least the director is obviously aware of that and takes the time to attempt to explain it enough for the film to make sense. It took a second or third viewing for me to make all the connections between the different dream levels and how the whole idea of inception works. What this shows me, though, is that the director at least took the time to think of a relatively complex and interesting plot device that the audience wants to understand and involve themselves in. The whole concept of inception feels original enough to involve the people who want a psychological thriller, and the action sequences are cool enough to entertain those who want violence and really cool guns. This way the film works on multiple levels and is appealing to a slightly wider audience than most summer blockbusters.

            So basically, all the movies mentioned above I would consider "popcorn flicks" with no real comment on society, the economy, or political points of view. Yet people still buy tickets and enjoy them just as much as a character driven film that has something legitimate to say to the world. These films will no doubt continue to slow forth from Hollywood each year and people will no doubt continue to see them, but as long as well written plots, subtext, themes and fully fleshed out characters are held in higher regard than these shallow, action packed lightshows, I won't have a problem with that.

The Happy Ending

     The Horatio Alger myth abounded in films in the 1920s, showing the protagonists overcoming nearly impossible odds in order to become successful and triumphant in the end. While back then the characters often found economic and social success, nowadays films show just as much of that "everything will work out" mentality, almost to an annoying point.

            Films tend to have happy endings. That's completely understandable, right? People don't generally want to leave a theater depressed and unsatisfied. But it seems nowadays that every film seems to have all its issues (no matter how big or difficult at the time) get wrapped up nicely in the last two or three scenes of the film. Personally, I'd like to see a little less of that.

            It's fine to have the characters achieve their main objective for the most part, or find peace with something that's been troubling them, but I feel that a film having a bittersweet tone to it as the screen fades to black adds a lot more depth to the story. It makes the audience feel like the characters still exist after they leave the theater because they still have unfinished business or still have a goal to work for. If every little thing gets wrapped up with a little bow, then that's it. The character has found their perfect place in the world. They're completely content with their life and thus there is nothing more for them to do. A lot of kid's movies tend to do this, which I have no problem with. But films for the older audiences should challenge the audience member a bit more by leaving some unfinished business exist at the end of the film. Luckily, there have been a few examples of this somewhat recently:

1) 500 Days of Summer

            I find that this film is generally considered a "chick flick." I disagree completely. Chick flicks tend to follow a very specific formula: boy meets girl, they fall for each other (often accidentally), they enjoy it for a while, a big secret comes out, the guy or girl or both is disgusted with the other, turns out it was all a huge misunderstanding, they reconnect, laugh it off, all is right with the world. I absolutely hate that formula. What 500 Days of Summer does differently, is it builds a pretty genuine picture of a relationship from the start. They have problems that a realistic and they get emotionally hurt in legitimate and understandable ways. The director gets you to love seeing them happy and thus has you rooting for them pretty early on in the film. Toward the end, however, is when the movie truly separates itself from the chick flick format.

            They do not end up together.

            That's the last thing you'd expect from a chick flick, right? Everything always works out for the couple, right? Not in 500 Days of Summer. Nope. Instead, we see Tom, our male protagonist, left on a bench from earlier in the film as the woman who has become his ultimate goal in life walks away, married to another man. This paints an extremely realistic picture of relationships and how they don't always work out, and since the director got us to like the couple so much early on, we feel his pain as she strolls out of his life. Then comes an ending that many people I know absolutely hate: Tom meets another woman. Sure, he and Summer made a cute couple and seemed truly happy for a while, but there are other women out there. I think people who dislike this ending are still longing for the "everything will turn out alright" feeling. Imagining that Tom will never love again because of his devotion to Summer and that he'll stop at nothing to get her back. What ­I think this ending does perfectly is keeps Tom alive as a character. Life goes on for him and there will be other women. This is just the start of the next chapter of his life. It makes the entire film more realistic and paints the characters as three dimensional people instead of cardboard cutouts destined to live happily ever after.

2) Memento

            I have mentioned this film before in one of my previous blogs, but I come back to it here because it contains one of the best endings to a film I have ever seen. The entire film is based on the fact that Leonard Shelby is dead set on tracking down the man who murdered his wife, dealing with his extreme short-term memory loss at the same time. The entire film plays backwards, jumping back in time and having the scene play up to where the last one left off (very hard to explain here, as you can imagine). Because of this format, we are shown the ending at the very beginning, where Leonard has found his wife's killer and shoots him in cold blood. Doing this made me believe that the rest of the film would simply show how he came to discover the identity of the murderer, even with his debilitating disorder. By the end of the film (which doubles back to show the same scene at the beginning), I found it was something completely different. Leonard had found the killer already, years ago, but had since forgotten. A police officer had helped him solve the case and had seen the joy on his face when he killed the man. The officer then decided to help Leonard find another "killer", using him to track down a drug dealer who fit the description of the murderer. The big shocker of the ending though, is that Leonard realizes that he already killed the true criminal but decides to set up another scenario for himself to give him purpose in life. He plants evidence for himself, knowing that he will "solve" the mystery again and kill yet another innocent man. It changes our entire idea of Leonard upside down, painting him as a villain in his own way.

            What is ingenious about this finale is how it makes the character exist beyond the film, just like in 500 Days of Summer. It gives us the feeling that we've only seen a fraction of this person's life and that the story continues from there, with Leonard starting another investigation that will ultimately lead to another and another. What could have simply been a murder mystery film told in an interestingly twisted way, instead turns into a dark, tragic story of a man's desperate search for satisfaction in a world that resets for him every few minutes.

 

            While the happy ending has its time and place, I am encouraged by the fact that films like 500 Days of Summer and Memento don't seem satisfied with the quick fix and instead keep the audience asking questions long after the credits roll. It's a nice change of pace from the "happily ever after" mold that so many films still cater to.

Escapism Through Film

     Chapter 2 of "America On Film" touches on the subject of Hollywood providing escapism for their audiences during WWII. While people obviously don't go to theaters nowadays to escape World War II, they most certainly go (even if not intending to) in order to escape several other things.

            Going to the movies often consists of a couple friends deciding they want to go see the latest blockbuster to be released at their local theater. A simple enough desire. But try to think of a time when you went to see a movie that now, looking back, was really well made and enthralling. How often were you thinking about your life and your problems while watching that film? Probably not much. You were drawn into the story and characters so deeply, and pulled out of yourself so completely, that things that very well may have been weighing heavily on your mind took a back seat to what the director wanted you to think and feel in that moment. This doesn't just happen as individuals however. As with WWII, entire groupings people can go to see a film as a form of escapism from an event on a much grander scale. When the recent tsunami devastated Japan, a film came out around the same time called Battle: Los Angeles. Did people not go to the film because it depicted large scale destruction and chaos? Nope. If anything, more people went as a way of escaping the terrifyingly real tragedy, replacing it with CGI death and destruction that could easily be written off as, "oh, it's just a movie." Is this right? Who's to say? But regardless of whether it was right or not, it's what people did. They used glamorized, computer generated devastation as a way of escaping the painful facts of reality. 

            People watch films to lose themselves within the world the director has created. They want to feel what the characters feel and react accordingly. Outside of the theater, you aren't guaranteed a happy ending. You aren't told how to feel or when to feel it, and you don't have that same sense of community you have in a movie theater. There's a certain feeling of togetherness that occurs when you're watching a film with a few dozen other people. You are all experiencing essentially the same thing for the duration of the movie. When you're going through your everyday life, you have plenty of things to think about and worry about and it's a relief, honestly, to have other people thinking and worrying about the same thing, even for a relatively short period of time. Sitting down in a theater is like stepping outside of the world and its issues for just a little while in order to escape into a place where you don't have any worries or say in what goes on. Sure, you may "feel" for the characters and "worry" for the characters, but it's not to the same extent as real life and real situations.

            

           With the war going on and the economy in the toilet and any number of other troublesome issues happening in the world today, it's no surprise that a lot of people have a lot to think about. But we all still love movies. We all love to sit down and lose ourselves in the perfectly paced stories and dramatic performances. It's easy to do. It doesn't take much effort on our part and we like it that way. Escapism through film is alive and well, and while we might not always know it or acknowledge it, we experience it and enjoy it all the time.

The Loss of Historic Theaters

Chapter two of “America on Film” takes a brief look at the elegant and artistic theaters that were built in the early 1900s. Nowadays, it isn’t as easy to find theaters like that that are still standing, sadly. Many have been shut down due to lack of interest and funds, and have fallen into disrepair. In Everett Washington, one such theater that is very close to my heart still struggles to pay the bills. My father recently became the film coordinator up at the Historic Everett Theater, setting up showings of classic films in an attempt to garner more interest in this century old structure. The beautiful building has stood for over one hundred years and is filled with beautiful architecture and character. When you enter the Historic Everett Theater, you can feel the history that is held within its walls and it is an incredible sensation to say the least. But theaters like this across the country are being closed down everyday because people just aren’t going to shows there anymore. Even with the attempt to gain interest by showing films at the Everett Historic, my father and the staff of the theater repeatedly receive audiences of maybe a dozen people.

My father’s friend Jason Toews recently got the opportunity to take photos of the inside of the abandoned Victory Theater in Holyoke, Massachusetts. Seats were overturned, walls had peeling paint, and the ancient movie screen had been torn apart. Everything appeared to be covered in a heavy layer of dust, and the air was thick with it. It was a depressing sight to say the least. Here are a number of photos from the shoot, used with his permission.

I recently spent the last seven months working on my second feature film, entitled “The Historic” which placed several teenagers as employees at the Everett Historic Theater, and documents there attempts to save the structure from being shut down. Over the course of filming the movie, I spent many many hours in the theater, from the top of the balcony, to the basement that holds dozens of props and set pieces. I quickly grew to love the theater and thus put all the donations I received at the rough cut showing of the film toward preserving it. It wasn’t much and it’s apparent that the theater is still struggling, but I hope to continue to help out any way I can. A theater like that has a certain role to fill in a community, but it seems most people have lost sight of that. The building itself is a work of art and the shows put on there are labors of love.

It is sad to see places like that fall into disrepair and neglect, especially with the long, lively history they have attached to them.

Why Pixar Works

     Pixar is widely and consistently considered one of the best film making companies in the industry. With a nearly flawless track record and two dozen films under their belt, one has to wonder what makes their movies so darn appealing. Here are just a few of the reasons.

1) Every Character has a Soul

    

     A writing instructor I had once told me that a story is never about what happens, but rather who it happens to. The people that make up the cast of the film should be the driving force behind everything that happens and it should be exciting to experience the plot with them. Pixar is the master when it comes to creating characters that are likeable but still deep. Dory in Finding Nemo is one of the most endearing characters that has come from Pixar. While it's true that she is funny, energetic, and just goofy at times, Pixar doesn't just keep her there as comic relief. She has feelings and emotions, something that they aren't afraid to show near the end of the film as Marlon leaves her when they think Nemo is dead. Many films coming out of Hollywood today have characters that are so obviously there just to add humor to the film and nothing more (Jar Jar Binks, anyone?). But those are the characters I personally tend to get really annoyed with because they lack any depth whatsoever (again, Jar Jar Binks ringing any bells?). Pixar takes these characters that could so easily be an empty shell of jokes and one-liners and makes them three dimensional. In the film Monster's Inc., it's true that Mike Wazowski provides many of the laughs throughout the movie, but that's not why he's in the film. He's so much more than that. He's not there just to get into trouble so the audience can chuckle and shake their heads saying, "oh, that Mike is always getting himself into crazy situations." He's there because the other characters and the story need him to be there. Just like every other character in a Pixar film, he has purpose and a soul.

 

2) The Combination of Characters

     Marlon is uptight and always worried while Dory goes with the flow and doesn't take life too seriously. Carl Fredricksen is a grumpy old man while Russell is full of energy and joy. Woody is a realist and down to Earth while Buzz thinks he's lost on an alien planet. The list goes on and on. The majority of Pixar's films feature characters that shouldn't play well together. They are the type to get annoyed with the other very easily. Lightning McQueen does not like Mater at the beginning of Cars. Why? Because common sense says the two are incompatible. Lightning is a slick, speedy race car and Mater is a slow, bulky tow truck. And their personalities match their outward appearance. So why does Pixar place these two together? Because it adds tension, humor, and a dynamic between the characters that keeps them from feeling truly comfortable with the other. Instant conflict. In Ratatouille, a rat and a human are the main characters. Does that sound compatible to you? Nope. But by the end of these films, the characters grow to appreciate the other's point of view and way of life, bringing a sense of closure to that part of the story. These relationship driven subplots are very often surrounded by a much bigger, louder plot, but they are always there and are really what I believe give Pixar films their heart.

 

3) Simple Stories for a Wider Audience

     The success of Pixar can be attributed to any number of things, but I believe one of the main reasons is that they don't dumb down anything. People of any age can enjoy a Pixar film because the core plot is not a children's story. Finding Nemo is about a father looking for his kidnapped son. It's interesting and relevant for parents and adults, simple enough for a kid to understand and connect with, and colorful enough for a toddler to say, "look at the funny fishy!" The range of Pixar's audience is ridiculously broad. Why? Because they take human stories, and place them in exciting settings with interesting characters that kids and adults alike will fall in love with. The Incredibles is ultimately about a family working through their difficult personal issues in order to earn a greater respect and appreciation for one another. Does that sound like a film your kid would be interested in? Nope. But make it about super heroes on an exotic uncharted island, battling robots with metal tentacles, and yeah, your child is gonna love it! I often hear Pixar describe as a studio that makes kid's films, but I don't believe that for a second.

 

These are just a few reasons why I believe Pixar has so quickly risen to the top of the film making industry, taking the idea of the animated children's film and changing it forever. They make films about real human emotions, yet hardly ever have humans experiencing them onscreen. They build characters that have history and humanity to them, even if on the surface the appear to be there for a quick laugh. They don't pander to children by making dumb films that they think they'll better understand, and they don't pander to adults by creating films that kids will ultimately find boring or too complex. Pixar makes films about real life emotion and drama but in a way to appeal to children as much as adults. As long as they keep that the focus of their work, I'll always be looking forward to the next project coming out of their studio with bated breath.

Profanity in Film

     Films nowadays don't tend to pull any punches when it comes to things like violence, sex, and yes, profanity. Any number of films in theaters right now contain various forms of profanity, whether it be racist, homophobic, or someone simply dropping an f-bomb here and there. But when is it appropriate (if ever) to use language widely considered derogatory and lowbrow in film? Here's my opinion:

When profanity adds to a film:

    

     1) When used to establish character.

     While there are dozens of ways to show a character is a rebel or a "bad-boy" type without resorting to profanity, a casual swear here and there early on can establish it relatively quickly, but that's only when not every character is doing it. Once every person on screen is throwing around profanity, it instantly loses any power or character building possibility it could have had.

     If a character is supposed to be severely racist, not having them ever use a racial slur would actually take away from the fact they are supposed to be this offensive, abrasive person. The way I see it (and this may just be because I don't enjoy hearing swearing on a regular basis), swearing to build character should mostly be used to make the audience dislike the person or at least give them a bit of a disconnect from them.

     2) When the situation warrants.

     There is a scene in the film "Memento" between two characters: Leonard Shelby (a man with extreme short-term memory loss), and Natalie (a woman who, up to this point, we think is trying to help Leonard). The scene in the movie is the moment (SPOILER ALERT!) when we realize Natalie is using Leonard for her own means and has no real desire to help him find the man who killed his wife. In the shouting match that follows, fuck, shit, and cunt are used to excess, with Natalie revealing that she is going to use his disability for her own purposes, knowing that he won't remember ever having the conversation in a few minutes. While the vulgar use of these words can make the scene very uncomfortable, that's because it's supposed to be. The director (Christopher Nolan) wanted the audience to hate Natalie in this moment just as much as Leonard does so he used the strong language to his advantage, having her repeatedly insult and him and his dead wife until Leonard goes so far as to strike her. As the scene ends and Natalie storms out, we see the emotional anguish on Leonard's face and the exact moment when the verbal assault he just underwent is stricken from his memory. It's at this moment that Natalie walks back in the house, pretending everything is normal, and begins doing exactly what she told him she would: using him for his own needs.

     This one scene needed to make the audience turn on a relatively likeable character, and the language is used to achieve that goal.  

     3) For comedic effect (but used wisely and rarely)

     I'm not going to deny it: there are times when someone dropping an unexpected f-bomb is humorous, but it all depends on when, where, and why. I recently saw the movie "Super 8" about a group of young kids witnessing a train wreck and the chaos that follows as an inhuman creature escapes from one of the derailed cars. A few "shits" are sprinkled throughout the film but are (for the most part) used in appropriate situations full of action and near death experiences. Still going for a PG-13 rating, "fuck" is not heard until late in the film after the bus the kids were riding in is attacked, overturned, and nearly crushed by the beast. A pot-smoking teenager who had been helping them, drives up in his car and sees the kids all standing on the road, still in shock after the trauma they just went through. He gets out of the car and begins chatting with them casually then slowly notices the mashed bus lying sideways on the road. He pauses to take it all in and then says, "what the fuck?" It is the only f-bomb dropped in the movie and I feel it was a good decision on the writer's part to not throw it in during one of the many action sequences and to not have it said by one of the kids. It was a very basic and understandable use of profanity and it broke the tension the audience was feeling after the loud, violent, chaotic bus attack they'd just been put through.

When profanity detracts from a film:

     1) When everyone uses it.

     I saw the film "Kick-ass" not too long ago and, being a comic book geek, I was as excited as anyone to see a nerdy kid attempt to become a real life super hero. Not too far into the film, however, the main character Dave is hanging out with his buddies at a comic book store, discussing the possibility of an average person taking on a super hero's role. In this simple conversational scene, several f-bombs are dropped for no discernable reason. They're just chatting away about comics and superhero's but it's "effin' this" and "effin' that." It was at that moment, I started to dislike the film. We had barely started and already I felt disconnected to the main character and his friends because of the fact they couldn't put a simple sentence together without putting the word "fuck" between every other word. Now, I realize the film is based on a graphic novel and (to my understanding) profanity is used just as often in the comic, but it could at least be toned down for the general public, right? Several things are often lost in a book-to-film adaptation, so why not have some of the pointless swearing be written out of the script? As the film continues, this idea that everyone swears is taken to the next level as we meet "Hit-girl", a kid no more than maybe ten or eleven years old who fancies herself a super hero vigilante. To get this "tough girl" point across, she swears like a sailor non-stop, which I found very uncomfortable and unnecessary (especially since I felt it was supposed to be comedic relief).

     If swearing is used far too often or by the wrong people, it will lose all meaning instantaneously and fade into the background of the dialogue. My rule of thumb: if the meaning and power of a statement doesn't change if you simply remove the profane word from it, it doesn't need to be there.

     2) When a character we're supposed to like uses it in excess.

    

     When did swearing become endearing? This next point connects pretty directly to my last one: if you want the audience to like and care about a character in your film, maybe they should be able to form a complete sentence without dropping some sort of swear word in amongst their dialogue. Let's look at one of the most likeable characters in cinema history. A man that people quote tirelessly and always have fond memories of when they first "met" him on the screen: Forrest Gump. First off, the film is not a children's movie. There is drug use and nudity etc. so it's not like the filmmakers felt they had to pull any punches in order to keep it from an "R" rating. So why doesn't Forrest swear as profusely as ever other movie character seems to do nowadays? Because it would have been ridiculously out of character. It would have caught the audience off guard if the famous quote had been, "my mama always said, 'life's like a box of fucking chocolates.'" It just wouldn't have made sense to the character. So why do I have this feeling that if "Forrest Gump" had been made nowadays, there is a much greater possibility that he would have sworn a number of times over the course of the film? Probably because the majority of Hollywood writers don't seem to know how to think about how a character talks as being a part of who the character is. It's almost like you could read any line from "Kick-ass" and find the same line said by a completely different character from the movie "Superbad" or "The Hangover." Dialogue just isn't distinct and varied as it used to be, and I think profanity plays a big role in that.

So that's my stance on swearing in film. I am not against the fact that it has its time and place, but I just feel that maybe people need to take a step back and find that line again. Profanity can be a powerful thing, used to show strong emotion and conviction. But, like anything, when it is overused, it gets tiresome very quickly.