Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.

Underground > Film, TV & Theatre >

The Untouchable Topics?

The Return Of Rothkoid

14:45 / 10.07.01

Just a thought that I've had for a while - probably not very well formulated, but I'm hoping someone will tease it out...

It seems that in film (and probably in other disciplines, too) that there's topics that filmmakers can tackle, and be assured that they're reasonably free from critical attack. Or, rather, the subject-matter is so loaded that criticising the film is taken, invariably, as criticising the subject, not necessarily the handling. Case in point: Dead Man Walking shat me to tears. I thought it was overacted pap, with Sean Penn's last-minute walk being overwrought black comedy in extremis. However, when this was voiced - when I pointed out the performance problems I had with the film - it was as if I'd said that what the film was about was bad. I'd commented on technique, or handling, and it'd been taken as a statement on the topic of the death penalty. Which is not the same thing. I've run into this a couple of times before, too; anyone else?

Would this explain films like Titanic, Philadelphia, Born On The 4th of July, Schindler's List, Saving Private Ryan et al (though, thankfully, the same thing hasn't happened with Pearl Harbour) being critically lauded and winning awards, even when there were other - perhaps more technically deserving - films being passed over? Admittedly, the Academy is largely a case of playing favourites, but still... thoughts?

In other words: does Hollywood play with loaded subject-matter dice? And is there any way that this can be negated, to enable criticism on a meaningful level? Are studios choosing the critically untouchable to ensure smoother box-office sailing? How do people feel about this? It makes me distinctly uncomfortable. It seems like an extension of a PR's job. Is it one we should be more concerned about? Is this coercive positive criticism?

16:57 / 10.07.01

I see it as the writer/director's method of hedging their bets (much like an actor's choice to play a mentally handicapped character) - certain topics provide an effective shield for the creator because they are so powerful (and overwhelmingly important to some) that the subject and the work become intertwined.

Topics like abortion, capital punishment, racism, sexism, etc. All you have to do is play it safe (i.e. "sexism is bad!") and you weave that shield into your work.

It's cheap, if you ask me, and does little to (a)entertain or (b)raise questions and/or discussion. To use your examples - what did Saving Private Ryan do in the way of encouraging serious thought about the Second World War? It certainly wasn't meant to be a "fun" movie - so you'd think that there was a point to it, beyond "war is bad".

17:40 / 10.07.01

this may have little to do with anything but
I did see the beginning of Saving Private Ryan and the artistry of and my visceral "oh my gawd" reaction to the battle that opens the film surprised. even watching on a small screen. though Schindler's List had no effect on me. it looked so consciously crafted. so slick.

wembley can change in 28 days

17:35 / 11.07.01

I'll pretty much agree with Rothkoid on this one. But perhaps one thought - is it the inherent sense of illusion that does not allow us to separate the content from the form in film? While I'm not sure about this myself, one of my friends will always argue that when she's in a movie theatre, unless the movie's really crap, she actually forgets that she's in a theatre at all.

I don't know what it would be about film that could cause this, but I think it's true: suspension of disbelief can go really far in film. What we see on the screen are huge, high-resolution representations of people, and we eventually buy into their identity.

A lot of folks were really upset about Life is Beautiful - which has its good moments, but essentially can be distilled to "the holocaust wasn't that bad if you just had the right attitude." And somehow it ate all those awards, and even I completely overlooked that inherent message while watching it, because I was totally willing to accept the subject matter. Is it a case of "I wasn't there, so I have no right to judge this topic, and the filmmakers know better?"

On the other hand, I end up in tears watching Schnindler's List, and I was sick to my stomach ten minutes into Saving Private Ryan. Well done there.

And another thing: Schindler, Titanic, Saving Private, etc are all films based on true historical events, and also events that have not yet vanished from living memory. Maybe that has something to do with it.

17:52 / 11.07.01

On the other hand, people who tend to make movies about "controversial" subjects also tend to get a free pass by critics, even if their subject and execution are piss poor. Witness the sloppy blow job given to Todd Solondz's excreble "Happiness"

19:27 / 21.07.01

Ooh. Interesting stuff, but I'm brain dead today, sadly... so I'll just add that I hated Schindler's List, I thought it was sloppily made and exploitative (and far, far, far too long), and I *never* understood why people thought Kathy Burke's acting was so great in 'Nil by Mouth' - what made me angry about that is that, even when you call it "a brilliantly-acted depiction of a difficult theme", we/audiences still get to see women being beaten up, crying, expressing violent emotion in reaction to violence being done to them... Like, everyone says Marilyn Monroe was at her best in 'Bus Stop' and 'The Misfits', where as far as I can tell the only difference between those and her other films is that she gets to cry in those two.

But then I have a thing about watching women cry: it's oddly compelling and cathartic (and contagious) and yet it pisses me off.

Ho hum.

We're The Great Old Ones Now

15:28 / 22.05.02

This is something you see in short and student films a great deal. In a short movie, you have, say, ten minutes to make an impact. You've got time for one extended joke or one lovers' tiff or one death or whatever. Your job is to move the audience. The easiest way to do that is with a loaded topic, like domestic violence.

I hated 'Leaving Las Vegas', not just because Nic Cage was the healthiest, most coherent, non-violent alcoholic ever, nor because Shue as a streetwalker is the most ridiculous idea since Minnie Driver auditioned to play Hannibal Lecter. I hated it because it was manipulative and false. But it was untouchable, because of all that notional suffering and unreal grit.

Our Lady of The Two Towers

15:46 / 22.05.02

I always suspected that Tom Hanks did 'Forest Gump' and 'Philedelphia' because he knew no-one would dare to be nasty about him playing a retard or a dying faggot.

07:04 / 22.06.02

i found 'forrest gump' pretty offensive, actually. apart from the way learning difficulties were dealt with - as lada says, not many care if people with any kind of mental handicap are either patronised or have the piss taken out of them - i felt the film was one long video to the greatest hits of the era. 'philadelphia' i didn't see, and hanks' "every aids victim is another angel in heaven" speech has kept me well away.

i thought leonardo dicaprio's performance as a young adult with a mental handicap in 'what's eating gilbert grape?' was incredibly good. i used to work in an adult special needs training centre, and he seemed convincing without being patronising or 'sweet'. perhaps it was because he was just a character in the film, rather than the film centring around him as an 'issue'.