WHEN HULK WATCHES A HOMELESS PERSON ON THE STREET WHO IS SAD, HULK GETS SAD TOO. IT'S HARD NOT TO, RIGHT? THAT HOMELESS PERSON IS A PERSON TOO AND THEY ARE SUFFERING AND IT WOULD TAKE THE LEAST GRACIOUS AND THE COLDEST AMONG US NOT TO FEEL AT LEAST SOMETHING FOR THEM. BUT STILL, THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND PAST THAT AS HUMAN BEINGS. AND IT'S OFTEN BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE PERSON. AND USUALLY OUR SADNESS IS NOT ABOUT "THEM" BUT BECAUSE WE PROJECT OUR FEELINGS AND LIVES ONTO THE HOMELESS PERSON. INSTEAD OF "Oh, no! That other person I don't know!" WE PROJECT AND ASK "What if that was me? What if that was someone I cared about?" AND YES IT CAN AFFECT US, BUT NO MATTER HOW SAD IT MAY BE IT IS STILL SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM US.
MEANWHILE, WHEN HULK WATCHES A LOVED ONE WHO IS SAD ABOUT EVEN THE MOST TRIVIAL OF THINGS, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO BREAK HULK'S HEART IMMEDIATELY (ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON IS NORMALLY STOIC).
WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN? THE HOMELESS PERSON'S PLIGHT IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH MORE SERIOUS, RIGHT? BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT MATTERS TO HUMAN BEINGS. IT IS BECAUSE HULK ACTUALLY HAS A DEEP CONNECTION TO THE LOVED ONE. HULK HAS YEARS OF LOVE AND SUPPORT AND KINDNESS. WE ARE ATTACHED ON THE MOST BASIC LEVEL BECAUSE WE HAVE HISTORY AND UNDERSTANDING. WE'VE GONE THROUGH THE DRAMA OF LIFE TOGETHER AND THUS WE CAN FEEL EVERY EMOTION WITH THEM IN A HEIGHTENED STATE. WE INTRINSICALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY ARE SAD AND EMPATHIZE, FOR PERHAPS THAT LOVED ONE IS CARRYING A BURDEN FROM A PREVIOUS EVENT. THEY SIMPLY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE A PART OF US. THEREFORE, WE ROOT FOR WHAT THAT PERSON WANTS AND NEEDS.
AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MOST BLOCKBUSTERS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
THEY ALWAYS FALL FOR EMPHASIZING THE "SCALE" OF THE CONFLICT EVEN WITHOUT TRYING TO MAKE IT EVER FEEL INTIMATE, PERSONAL OR EVEN EARNED. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ANY PROBLEM CAN FEEL LIKE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM IN THE WORLD IF IT IS YOURS. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY YOU HAVE TO BUILD UP A RELATIONSHIP AND A CONNECTION.
THESE BLOCKBUSTERS DON'T REALIZE YOU HAVE TO CREATE SOMETHING MEANINGFUL ENOUGH THAT COULD ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE WE ARE LOSING SOMETHING WHEN IT GOES AWAY.
THAT MEANS CREATING RELATIONSHIPS WE UNDERSTAND AND FEEL FOR, JUST LIKE WE HAVE WITH OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN A MOVIE'S INTEREST TO DO SO. SO WHY DO SO MANY REACH OUT FOR THE TANGENTIAL CONNECTION? WHY DO SO MANY RELY ON SCALE AND FALLING BUILDINGS? WHY DO SO MANY THROW SCORES OF STRANGERS' FACES AT YOU AS THEY PERISH? WHY IS IT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS A PLOT ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD WHEN THEY NEVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A WORLD WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? AND WHY DO GOOD FILMMAKERS ALWAYS TRY TO SOLELY RELY ON THE FILMMAKING CRAFT OF A GOOD MUSIC CUE AND A PRETTY IMAGE TO CLAW AT YOUR EMOTIONS THAN BUILDING SOMETHING REAL? LIKE THE HOMELESS PERSON, THEY WANT YOU TO PROJECT YOURSELF ONTO AN UNKNOWN TRAGEDY RATHER THAN JUST BE YOUR FRIEND. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN SHOW THE SADDEST DEATH IN THE WORLD WITH THE MOST HEARTBREAKING MUSIC CUE, BUT IF THERE'S NO REAL MEANING. SERIOUSLY, IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ACTUALLY LOST SOMETHING, THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY DRAMATIZATION MATTERS SO MUCH. WHEN AN EXPERIENCE IS SHOWN AND FELT AND SHARED, IT DIRECTLY EFFECTS HOW YOU FEEL WHEN THAT RELATIONSHIP IS PUT IN JEOPARDY.
You are the end result of a “would you push the button” prompt where the prompt was “you have unlimited godlike powers but you appear to all and sundry to be an impetuous child” – Zero, 2022
ANSWER TIME, COME ON GRAB YOUR FRIENDS
Yes, Anonus is very handsome! ^_^
He does have curly hair and glasses, though he's not nerdy-looking in the Hollywood stereotype sense.
Of course we have autistic superpowers! Why just today he deduced our hotel's secret identity.
No pony fursuits. At least not yet. Maybe a later meetup. :P
Python is great if it's got "Monty" before it
Yes, we do like each other IRL. We're Anonymous Freaking Avenue, silly, we're inseparable real life or internet!
Hey, my human-form (achieved by pressing L and R when I hide under a cardboard box after reaching level 27) has curly hair and glasses, but isn't so much nerdy-looking as dirty, ugly, scruffy, androgynous and short..
How tall is Anonus? Why can't you just live together?
TO BEST EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS, LET’S GET HYPOTHETICAL: IF YOU (THE REAL YOU READING THIS NOW) WERE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND SOMEONE CAME UP TO YOU AND YELLED, “Quick! I'm your long-lost brother you never knew you had! Someone's after me! We have to run!!!!" YOU WOULD BE COMPLETELY TAKEN OFF-GUARD, WOULDN'T YOU? NOW, WOULD YOU BE CURIOUS? WOULD IT BE CRAZY? WOULD IT BE EXCITING? SURE! BUT YOU WOULDN’T EXACTLY BE INVESTED. YOU WOULD BE SUSPICIOUS. YOU WOULD DISTANCE YOURSELF. MEANWHILE, IF YOUR ACTUAL BROTHER THAT YOU'VE KNOWN AND LOVED YOUR WHOLE LIFE SHOWED UP AND SAID “Quick! Someone's after me! We have to run!" YOU WOULD BE MUCH MORE INVESTED! IT’S YOUR BROTHER, AFTER ALL. BOTH ARE YOUR "BROTHERS" BUT ONE IS A PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A SHARED HISTORY AND LOVE. YOU HAVE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO YOUR BOND THUS THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL ROOTING INTEREST. AND BETWEEN THESE TWO SCENARIOS, THE MORE DRAMATIC AND COMPELLING SITUATION SHOULD BE OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
SO WHY DO SO MANY MODERN BLOCKBUSTERS OPT FOR THE FIRST OPTION?
IT IS THE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THAT STORYTELLING WORKS THE SAME WAY AS ANY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP: IT REQUIRES TIME AND UNDERSTANDING AND A PREHISTORY OF REASONS TO DO THINGS. THE AUDIENCE NEEDS TO NOT JUST SEE THAT THE TWO ARE BROTHERS, BUT ESSENTIALLY "HAVE" THE SAME EXPERIENCES AND AFFECTION THAT LEAD THEM UP TO THAT POINT IN ORDER FOR IT TO PROPERLY RESONATE WITH THEM. WHICH MEANS THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDING THIS INFORMATION IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN TWO PEOPLE SECRETLY KNOWING IT ON SCREEN. BUT FILMMAKERS KEEP MISSING THAT. THEY ASSUME EMPATHY IS JUST THERE. THEY STRIVE TO REVEAL. AND THEN THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THIS LACK OF RESONANCE BY SOAKING EMOTIONAL MOMENTS WITH ALL THE CINEMATIC BOMBAST AND GUSTO THEY CAN, BUT WITHOUT PRE-EXISTING CLARITY IT’S UTTERLY WITHOUT IMPORT. WE SIMPLY NEED THE NECESSARY CONTEXT. AND WITHOUT IT, ALL OF TODAY’S BLOCKBUSTERS ARE NOTHING BUT THE CRAZY, RANDOM STRANGER RUNNING UP TO YOU ON THE STREET AND DEMANDING THAT YOU COME ALONG ON A WILD ADVENTURE.
IT'S A SHAME BECAUSE ALL A WRITER NEEDS TO MAKE A REVEAL WORK IS TO ASK TWO SIMPLE QUESTIONS: “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT BEING CREATED BY NOT KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND “WHAT IS THE SPECIFIC CONFLICT CREATED BY NOW KNOWING THIS INFORMATION?” AND DEPENDING ON THE STRENGTH AND VIABILITY OF THAT CONFLICT YOU HAVE YOUR ANSWER ON WHEN TO REVEAL. FOR INSTANCE, WHY WOULD GARETH EVANS WANT TO WAIT UNTIL TO THE END OF THE RAID TO REVEAL THAT THE HERO’S WIFE IS PREGNANT WHEN WE GAIN SO MUCH TENSION AND DRAMA KNOWING THIS FATHER-TO-BE IS IN HARMS WAY? THUS, THE INFORMATION BEST SERVES THE STORY BEING OFFERED UP FRONT. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH STANTON'S EARLIER FILM FINDING NEMO, WHEREIN THE MAIN CHARACTER OF MARLIN SUFFERS A TRAUMATIC LOSS IN THE OPENING, WHICH PERFECTLY JUSTIFIES HIS OVER-PROTECTIVE AND FEARFUL BEHAVIOR THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE. WE JUST FELT FOR HIM. AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION WE WOULD THINK HE'S JUST A JERK. RATHER TELLING IS THE FACT THAT STANTON ORIGINALLY WANTED TO HANG ONTO THAT TRAGEDY REVEAL (EXACTLY LIKE HE DID IN JOHN CARTER). WHICH HULK HONESTLY BELIEVES IS JUST A HUGE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE FUNCTION OF CHARACTERIZATION. IT MEANS THE STORYTELLER WOULD PREFER TO SAY "Aha! I knew what I was doing all along with this story and you doubted me! INSTEAD OF EXPERIENCING THE BEST FUNCTIONING STORY. WHICH MEANS YOU ARE MAKING YOUR AUDIENCE SUFFER FOR YOUR WANTING TO SEEM SMART. BUT FOR A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW TO ACTUALLY WAIT ON A REVEAL, HULK ALWAYS LIKES TO TURN TO PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES. THE DRAMATIC / COMEDIC FUNCTION OF THE FILM IS PURELY BASED A SIMPLE DYNAMIC: YOU IDENTIFY WITH STEVE MARTIN’S AUDIENCE SURROGATE AND THUS YOU ARE COMEDICALLY-STRESSED-OUT BY THE ANNOYING JOHN CANDY CHARACTER. AND SO IT IS NOT UNTIL THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE TWO IS FINALLY REQUIRED THAT JOHN CANDY’S CHARACTER REVEALS HIS WIFE HAS DIED AND HE’S JUST A LONELY SOUL. AND IF WE KNEW THIS INFORMATION BEFOREHAND? THEN WE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME SPECIFIC COMEDIC CONFLICT. STEVE MARTIN’S ANNOYANCE WOULD JUST HAVE MADE HIM SEEM LIKE A JERK. THIS IS SIMPLE STUFF, BUT IT’S LIKE WE’VE LOST OUR SENSE OF BASIC FUNCTIONALITY. WANTING TO BE THE MAGICIAN IS A FINE ENOUGH INSTINCT FOR A STORYTELLER, BUT IT CAN'T HAPPEN AT THE BEHEST OF THE DRAMA. OTHERWISE YOU ARE JUST GOING TO PERFORM A WELL-ORCHESTRATED SHELL GAME.
SO LET'S START WITH BROAD STROKES HERE... TO HULK'S DYING DAY HULK WOULD NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF OUTRIGHT BELITTLING SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERESTS. ON A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN LEVEL IT JUST SEEMS STRANGE. SURE, THERE ARE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM THAT CAN CERTAINLY RAISE AN EYEBROW (BRONIES FOR ONE), BUT THE FACT THAT WE CAN LUMP IN SOMETHING THAT EFFECTIVELY REGISTERS TO THE PUBLIC AS "A GIRL SHOW" WITH SOMETHING WITH THAT SPECIFICITY IS A LITTLE WEIRD TO HULK. GRANTED, IT IS PRECISELY THIS KIND OF "THIS IS GOOD/THAT IS BAD" BRAND OF REFLEXIVITY THAT USUALLY SETS OFF PEOPLE'S POST-MODERN-BELLS ABOUT HOW EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE AND TRUTH IS A LIE... THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD, BUT PLEASE EXCUSE HULK FOR TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF PRODUCTIVE ANSWER ON HOW TO MAKE FUCKING SENSE OF THIS SITUATION. REFLEXIVITY DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE JUST ABANDON ALL SENSE OF OBJECTIVITY, IT JUST MEANS WE SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE HUMANITY AND UNDERSTANDING WHILE DOING IT. SO WHEN LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERESTS PERHAPS WE SHOULD JUST MEET THEM WITH A SHRUG AND NOT OUTRIGHT ANIMOSITY AND LONG-WINDED COMMENTS ABOUT HOW LENA DUNHAM IS VACUOUS AND DOESN'T DESERVE ANY OF HER SUCCESS (BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE OF, IT'S FEMALE FILMMAKERS BEING TOLD THEY DON'T "DESERVE THEIR SUCCESS"). AND QUITE HONESTLY, EVEN SOMETHING EXTREME LIKE THE BRONY THING CAN BE UNDERSTANDABLE... IN A CERTAIN LIGHT. (2)
Where has this blog been all these years. I could have cited this to get people to not belittle my interests.
THAT MEANS CREATING RELATIONSHIPS WE UNDERSTAND AND FEEL FOR, JUST LIKE WE HAVE WITH OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN A MOVIE'S INTEREST TO DO SO. SO WHY DO SO MANY REACH OUT FOR THE TANGENTIAL CONNECTION? WHY DO SO MANY RELY ON SCALE AND FALLING BUILDINGS? WHY DO SO MANY THROW SCORES OF STRANGERS' FACES AT YOU AS THEY PERISH? WHY IS IT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS A PLOT ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD WHEN THEY NEVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A WORLD WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? AND WHY DO GOOD FILMMAKERS ALWAYS TRY TO SOLELY RELY ON THE FILMMAKING CRAFT OF A GOOD MUSIC CUE AND A PRETTY IMAGE TO CLAW AT YOUR EMOTIONS THAN BUILDING SOMETHING REAL? LIKE THE HOMELESS PERSON, THEY WANT YOU TO PROJECT YOURSELF ONTO AN UNKNOWN TRAGEDY RATHER THAN JUST BE YOUR FRIEND. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN SHOW THE SADDEST DEATH IN THE WORLD WITH THE MOST HEARTBREAKING MUSIC CUE, BUT IF THERE'S NO REAL MEANING. SERIOUSLY, IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ACTUALLY LOST SOMETHING, THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY DRAMATIZATION MATTERS SO MUCH. WHEN AN EXPERIENCE IS SHOWN AND FELT AND SHARED, IT DIRECTLY EFFECTS HOW YOU FEEL WHEN THAT RELATIONSHIP IS PUT IN JEOPARDY.
THE OPENING OF PIXAR'S UP WANTS TO ESTABLISH THAT CARL IS A SAD, LONELY, CURMUDGEONLY PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED GREAT LOSS. THAT'S THE ONLY INFORMATION WE NEED TO GET HIS DYNAMIC AND MIND STATE, RIGHT?
WHICH MEANS THE MOVIE COULD HAVE VERY WELL JUST SHOWN A SCENE WITH CARL ALONE AT THE FUNERAL HOME AFTER HIS WIFE ELIE HAD DIED. HE THEN COULD HAVE GIVEN A SPEECH TO HER GRAVE ABOUT WHAT SHE MEANT AND ALL THE AMAZING THINGS THEY WANTED TO DO. AND WE WOULD GET THE SAME INFORMATION, RIGHT? AND BECAUSE IT'S PIXAR IT WOULD HAVE HAD GREAT FILMMAKING AND MUSIC CUES AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RATHER SAD INDEED.
BUT INSTEAD, THEY GIVE US SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY. WE FIRST GET A SIX MINUTE SCENE OF THE TWO OF THEM MEETING AS KIDS AND HAVING FUN PLAYING ADVENTURE. THE FILM THEN INSTANTLY JUMP CUTS TO THE TWO OF THEM GETTING MARRIED, FOLLOWED BY ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE FOUR MINUTE MONTAGES IN MOVIE HISTORY. IT TELLS A COMPLETE STORY AND ARC OF THEIR LIVES, EACH TRANSITION BUILDING INTO THE NEXT, SOME MOMENTS FULL OF JOY, SOME MOMENTS INCREDIBLY SAD, BUT IT'S ALL PURPOSEFULLY TO THE SAME INEVITABLE CONCLUSION OF LOSS...
GO AHEAD. WATCH IT AGAIN AND SEE WHAT THEY BUILT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME...
*HANDS YOU TISSUE*
THE TAKEAWAY IS SIMPLE: WE DON'T FEEL SAD BECAUSE SHE DIES...
WE FEEL SAD BECAUSE WE SAW HOW THE TWO OF THEM LIVED.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY YOU HAVE TO DRAMATIZE YOUR ARCS. YOU HAVE TO PRESENT CHARACTERS WITH JOYS AND WANTS AND THEN PUT THOSE JOYS AND WANTS IN CONFLICT. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE EMOTIONAL RESULTS OF THAT CONFLICT. AND AS UP PROVES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY A WORD AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ALL THAT MUCH TIME. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CHARACTERS WAX PHILOSOPHICAL OR DIRECTLY ENGAGE A DEEP THEME OR HAVE THEM SPEAK TO A GRAVE. YOU HAVE TO JUST SHOW WHO THEY ARE FIRST. NOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TACT AND JUST CAN'T BE CHEAP ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE TO MEAN IT. YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEIR LIVES IN AWAY THAT LETS THE AUDIENCES NOT JUST HAVE A PEEK, BUT FULLY EXPERIENCE IT. AND IN DOING THAT, AUDIENCES ACROSS THE BOARD WILL JUST FUCKING GET IT. THE STORY AND ITS CONFLICT WILL SPEAK TO THEIR SOULS. AND FROM THERE YOU CAN TAKE THEM ON ON A JOURNEY FULL OF ALL KINDS OF CHANGES AND TRANSITIONS, NEARLY EVERY FACET AND CAPACITY OF LIFE.
WITH UP, WE WON'T ACTUALLY CRY JUST BECAUSE CARL'S WIFE HAS DIED, WE CRY BECAUSE ELLIE DIED. AND ELLIE WAS A CHARACTER WE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE WE WATCHED HER GROW AND UNDERSTOOD HER AS IT ALL UNFOLDED. WE TRULY FELT LIKE WE KNEW HER FROM JUST 4 DAMN MINUTES OF SCREEN TIME.
FOR BOTH CARL AND ELLIE, THAT IS PERFECT CHARACTERIZATION.
AND HULK ARGUES THAT EVEN THE MOST TEPID FOLLOW-THROUGH OF DRAMATIZATION AND EARNING THE POTENTIAL OF LOSS WILL YIELD SOLID AND MEANINGFUL RESULTS. FOR FILMS THAT CAN ACHIEVE INTIMACY OF CHARACTERS WITHIN THE STORY ALWAYS SEEM TO BE THE ONES THAT RESONATE WHEN THE CONFLICTS COME TO FRUITION...
WHICH MEANS THE BIG FAILURE OF MAN OF STEEL IS THAT IT SEEMS TO HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DRAMATIZE EVEN THE MOST BASIC CHARACTERIZATION... ON ANY LEVEL... FOR, LIKE, ANYONE.
^ Who is MovieBob? Can you tell me more about him.
HULK TALKED ABOUT THIS DYNAMIC LAST YEAR IN THIS OLD HULK PIECE FOR THE NEW YORKER WHEN HULK SAID THE FOLLOWING: "ONE OF THE ONGOING PROBLEMS OF BLOCKBUSTER CINEMA THESE DAYS IS ASSUMED EMPATHY. IT’S AS IF OUR STORYTELLERS JUST PLOP A FILM IN OUR LAPS AND SAY, 'HERE’S OUR MAIN CHARACTER AND WE’RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU’RE INTERESTED IN THEM FOR THAT REASON ALONE. THEY’RE THE MAIN CHARACTER!'” WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THEN SHALLOW ATTEMPTS AT STORYTELLING SHORTCUTS. FILMMAKERS ARE GOOD AT TRYING TO WRING THE AFFECTION OUT OF YOU WITH CINEMATIC LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S LIKE THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO TETHER AN ACTUAL MEANINGFUL ETHOS BETWEEN CHARACTERS AND THUS THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO MAKE YOU CONNECT TO THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SEEING ON SCREEN.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU REALIZE MAN OF STEEL IS ALL ABOUT ASSUMED EMPATHY.
WHEN HE PUNCHES DOWN THE DRONE AT THE END OF THE FILM AND THE SOLDIER ASKS HOW THEY KNOW HE HAS AMERICAN INTERESTS AT HEART, HE JUST SHOUTS BACK "I'm from Kansas!" IT'S DEFINITELY A FUNNY LINE, BUT UTTERLY SYMBOLIC OF THE REDUCTIVE SHORTHAND THE FILM IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO ACHIEVE. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HIS REASON FOR SAVING EVERYTHING. HE SIMPLY IS A GOOD PERSON. HE IS SIMPLY FROM AMERICA. WHEN THEY WANT HIM TO PRETEND TO BE CONFLICTED ABOUT THESE THINGS HE SO OBVIOUSLY IS, THEY HAVE HIM SAY THINGS LIKE "I'm conflicted!" AND THEY ASSUME THOSE THINGS WILL SUFFICE. WHEN HULK USES TERM "LIP SERVICE" THAT'S EXACTLY THE MEANINGLESS, EMPTY JABBERING THAT HULK MEANS. IT'S A MOVIE TRYING TO EXPLAIN AWAY A PROBLEM WITH REDUCTIVE STATEMENTS, RATHER THAN DRAMATIZING ONE. RATHER THAN EXPRESSING THOSE IDEAS AS STORY AND CINEMA. WHICH SUCKS FOR US BECAUSE TRUST, CARE AND UNDERSTANDING HAVE TO BE BUILT ON SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL, MOST NOTABLY: A SUCCESSION OF CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS WE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CHARACTER.
THINK ABOUT UP AGAIN AND HOW MUCH IT ACHIEVES IN THE WAY OF MAKING YOU CARE ABOUT SOMEONE IN 4 SIMPLE MINUTES. COMPARE THAT ECONOMY TO MAN OF STEEL, WHICH IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO GET BY ON OUR SHORTHAND WITH SUPERMAN INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO THE DRAMATIC WORK AND INSTEAD IT JUST ENDS UP TREADING WATER FOR 40 MINUTES WITH ALL THIS NEAT TEXTURE AND PRETTY SHOTS. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT IT TAKES SO LONG (AND STILL DOESN'T GET THERE) BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE "NORMAL ORIGIN WORK" IN THE FIRST PLACE, SO IT PRACTICALLY HAS TO BEG US TO PROJECT OUR ESTABLISHED FEELINGS OF PREVIOUS EVENTS AND CHARACTERS. LOOK IT'S SMALLVILLE! IT'S THE KENTS! IT'S LOIS LANE! AND PERRY WHITE! AND A GIRL VERSION OF JIMMY OLSEN! AND YEAH, THEY BARELY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO THAT STRIKES US WITH POSITIVE OR INDEPENDENT RESPONSE, BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THEM!
THINK ABOUT ONE OF THE BETTER SEQUENCES IN MAN OF STEEL WHERE SUPERMAN LEARNS TO FLY (HULK WOULD SAY "FINALLY FLY" BUT THE FILM IS OUT OF SEQUENCE). HE STARTS JUMPING AROUND ALL HAPPILY AND THEN FINALLY WHEN HE TAKES FLIGHT AND CIRCLES AROUND THE GLOBE, SMILING IN GLORIOUS FASHION. WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN WITH SUPERMAN 1000 TIMES, BUT IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW MOMENTS OF HIS CHARACTERIZATION THAT THEY BOTHER TO EARN IN THIS FILM. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHARACTER'S ORIGIN FEEL LIKE THE AFOREMENTIONED 4 MINUTES IN UP, YOU HAVE TO EARN IT. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRAMATIZE (NOT EXPLAIN) WHO A CHARACTER IS, WHY THEY ARE THAT WAY AND HOW THEY GOT THERE (AND THEN BRING THOSE SAME THINGS INTO DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STORY). IT'S NOT THE ORIGIN STORY THAT'S OUR PROBLEM, IT'S OUR LAZINESS.
1. SUPERMAN CAN SEE LOTS OF LAYERS OF THE THINGS OF EARTH AND BURNS A DOOR HANDLE WITH HIS EYES. HIS MOM SHOWS UP TO TALK HIM DOWN FROM BEING ANGRY. AT FIRST HULK THINKS THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STARTING POINT FOR THEIR RELATIONSHIP.
2. CLARK SAVES A BUS FULL OF KIDS, BUT SUPERMAN'S DAD THOUGHT HE SHOULD LET KIDS DIE RATHER THAN SAVE THEM (ALSO THAT HE WILL CHANGE THE WORLD AND HAS TO BE A GOOD PERSON! ... PA KENT IS KINDA NUTS).
3. SUPERMAN WANTS TO PUNCH BULLIES, BUT DOESN'T. HIS DAD COMES OVER AND TALKS ABOUT IT UNEVENLY AGAIN (OH YEAH, APPARENTLY HIS DAD IS OFF TO THE SIDE WATCHING THIS, DOING NOTHING).
4. SUPERMAN LETS HIS DAD DIE TO GO SAVE A DOG WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE (SHORTHAND!) AND PROTECT HIS SECRET IN A SITUATION WHICH HAS ABOUT A MILLION WAYS TO RESOLVE IT WITHOUT REVEALING SAID SECRET.
NOW, THE FUN PART: LET'S EXAMINE THE WAYS THOSE FLASHBACKS COME TO LATER MATTER ON THE STORY / CHARACTER LEVEL!
1. ASIDE FROM ESTABLISHING THAT MOMMY IS THE SUPERMAN WHISPERER AND THEN NEVER USING THAT RELATIONSHIP TO HELP HIM AGAIN, THERE IS JUST ONE MOMENTARY BIT WHERE ZOD GOES THROUGH THE SAME "LAYERS" THING OF ADJUSTING TO HOW TO SEE LIFE ON EARTH... THAT'S IT.
2. PA KENT'S CRAZY NONSENSICAL SPEECH BECOMES THE MAIN REASON CLARK IS QUICK TO TALK ABOUT HIS HESITATION TO SAVE PEOPLE, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY SHOWING NO ACTIVE HESITATION TO SAVE PEOPLE.
3. AFTER LEARNING NOT TO PUNCH BULLIES, SUPERMAN BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF ZOD AFTER HE THREATENS HIS MOM, THEN BEATS HIM UP FOR REST OF MOVIE, BEFORE FINALLY MURDERING THE DUDE.
4. AFTER HIS FATHER DIES, WE IN NO REAL WAY SEE HOW THIS IMPACTS HIM OTHER THAN THE FACT HE HAS HAS RUN AWAY IN SECRET AND KEEPS SAVING PEOPLE ANYWAY.
Comments
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
How, I ask you, does a bite end up on my lip? How?
At least they haven't gotten to your eye yet, that would be bad.
WHEN HULK WATCHES A HOMELESS PERSON ON THE STREET WHO IS SAD, HULK GETS
SAD TOO. IT'S HARD NOT TO, RIGHT? THAT HOMELESS PERSON IS A PERSON TOO
AND THEY ARE SUFFERING AND IT WOULD TAKE THE LEAST GRACIOUS AND THE
COLDEST AMONG US NOT TO FEEL AT LEAST SOMETHING FOR THEM. BUT STILL,
THERE IS A WAY THAT WE CAN ALL TRANSCEND PAST THAT AS HUMAN BEINGS. AND
IT'S OFTEN BECAUSE WE DON'T KNOW THE PERSON. AND USUALLY OUR SADNESS IS
NOT ABOUT "THEM" BUT BECAUSE WE PROJECT OUR FEELINGS AND LIVES ONTO THE
HOMELESS PERSON. INSTEAD OF "Oh, no! That other person I don't know!" WE
PROJECT AND ASK "What if that was me? What if that was someone I cared
about?" AND YES IT CAN AFFECT US, BUT NO MATTER HOW SAD IT MAY BE IT IS STILL SOMETHING SEPARATE FROM US.
MEANWHILE, WHEN HULK WATCHES A LOVED ONE WHO IS SAD ABOUT EVEN THE MOST
TRIVIAL OF THINGS, IT HAS THE ABILITY TO BREAK HULK'S HEART IMMEDIATELY
(ESPECIALLY IF THAT PERSON IS NORMALLY STOIC).
WHY DOES THIS HAPPEN? THE HOMELESS PERSON'S PLIGHT IS OBVIOUSLY MUCH
MORE SERIOUS, RIGHT? BUT THAT ISN'T WHAT MATTERS TO HUMAN BEINGS. IT IS
BECAUSE HULK ACTUALLY HAS A DEEP CONNECTION TO THE LOVED ONE. HULK HAS
YEARS OF LOVE AND SUPPORT AND KINDNESS. WE ARE ATTACHED ON THE MOST
BASIC LEVEL BECAUSE WE HAVE HISTORY AND UNDERSTANDING. WE'VE GONE
THROUGH THE DRAMA OF LIFE TOGETHER AND THUS WE CAN FEEL EVERY EMOTION
WITH THEM IN A HEIGHTENED STATE. WE INTRINSICALLY UNDERSTAND WHY THEY
ARE SAD AND EMPATHIZE, FOR PERHAPS THAT LOVED ONE IS CARRYING A BURDEN
FROM A PREVIOUS EVENT. THEY SIMPLY FEEL LIKE THEY ARE A PART OF US.
THEREFORE, WE ROOT FOR WHAT THAT PERSON WANTS AND NEEDS.
AND THIS IS PRECISELY WHAT MOST BLOCKBUSTERS FAIL TO UNDERSTAND.
THEY ALWAYS FALL FOR EMPHASIZING THE "SCALE" OF THE CONFLICT EVEN
WITHOUT TRYING TO MAKE IT EVER FEEL INTIMATE, PERSONAL OR EVEN EARNED.
THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT ANY PROBLEM CAN FEEL LIKE THE BIGGEST PROBLEM
IN THE WORLD IF IT IS YOURS. WHICH IS EXACTLY WHY YOU HAVE TO BUILD UP A RELATIONSHIP AND A CONNECTION.
THESE BLOCKBUSTERS DON'T REALIZE YOU HAVE TO CREATE SOMETHING MEANINGFUL ENOUGH THAT COULD ACTUALLY FEEL LIKE WE ARE LOSING SOMETHING WHEN IT GOES AWAY.
THAT MEANS CREATING RELATIONSHIPS WE UNDERSTAND AND FEEL FOR, JUST LIKE
WE HAVE WITH OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN A MOVIE'S
INTEREST TO DO SO. SO WHY DO SO MANY REACH OUT FOR THE TANGENTIAL
CONNECTION? WHY DO SO MANY RELY ON SCALE AND FALLING BUILDINGS? WHY DO
SO MANY THROW SCORES OF STRANGERS' FACES AT YOU AS THEY PERISH? WHY IS
IT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS A PLOT ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD WHEN THEY
NEVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A WORLD WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? AND WHY
DO GOOD FILMMAKERS ALWAYS TRY TO SOLELY RELY ON THE FILMMAKING CRAFT OF A
GOOD MUSIC CUE AND A PRETTY IMAGE TO CLAW AT YOUR EMOTIONS THAN
BUILDING SOMETHING REAL? LIKE THE HOMELESS PERSON, THEY WANT YOU TO
PROJECT YOURSELF ONTO AN UNKNOWN TRAGEDY RATHER THAN JUST BE YOUR
FRIEND. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN SHOW THE SADDEST DEATH IN THE
WORLD WITH THE MOST HEARTBREAKING MUSIC CUE, BUT IF THERE'S NO REAL
MEANING. SERIOUSLY, IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ACTUALLY LOST SOMETHING, THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY DRAMATIZATION MATTERS SO MUCH. WHEN AN EXPERIENCE IS
SHOWN AND FELT AND SHARED, IT DIRECTLY EFFECTS HOW YOU FEEL WHEN THAT
RELATIONSHIP IS PUT IN JEOPARDY.
How tall is Anonus? Why can't you just live together?
And when do you two have to separate?
TO BEST EXPLAIN WHY THIS MATTERS, LET’S GET HYPOTHETICAL: IF YOU (THE
REAL YOU READING THIS NOW) WERE WALKING DOWN THE STREET AND SOMEONE CAME
UP TO YOU AND YELLED, “Quick! I'm your long-lost brother you never knew
you had! Someone's after me! We have to run!!!!" YOU WOULD BE
COMPLETELY TAKEN OFF-GUARD, WOULDN'T YOU? NOW, WOULD YOU BE CURIOUS?
WOULD IT BE CRAZY? WOULD IT BE EXCITING? SURE! BUT YOU WOULDN’T EXACTLY BE INVESTED. YOU WOULD BE SUSPICIOUS. YOU WOULD DISTANCE YOURSELF. MEANWHILE, IF YOUR ACTUAL BROTHER
THAT YOU'VE KNOWN AND LOVED YOUR WHOLE LIFE SHOWED UP AND SAID “Quick!
Someone's after me! We have to run!" YOU WOULD BE MUCH MORE INVESTED!
IT’S YOUR BROTHER, AFTER ALL. BOTH ARE YOUR "BROTHERS" BUT ONE IS A
PERSON WITH WHOM YOU HAVE A SHARED HISTORY AND LOVE. YOU HAVE ALL THE RELEVANT INFORMATION TO YOUR BOND
THUS THERE WOULD BE A SUBSTANTIAL ROOTING INTEREST. AND BETWEEN THESE
TWO SCENARIOS, THE MORE DRAMATIC AND COMPELLING SITUATION SHOULD BE
OBVIOUS, RIGHT?
SO WHY DO SO MANY MODERN BLOCKBUSTERS OPT FOR THE FIRST OPTION?
IT IS THE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THAT STORYTELLING WORKS THE SAME WAY AS
ANY HUMAN RELATIONSHIP: IT REQUIRES TIME AND UNDERSTANDING AND A
PREHISTORY OF REASONS TO DO THINGS. THE AUDIENCE NEEDS TO NOT JUST SEE
THAT THE TWO ARE BROTHERS, BUT ESSENTIALLY "HAVE" THE SAME EXPERIENCES
AND AFFECTION THAT LEAD THEM UP TO THAT POINT IN ORDER FOR IT TO
PROPERLY RESONATE WITH THEM. WHICH MEANS THE AUDIENCE UNDERSTANDING THIS
INFORMATION IS FAR MORE IMPORTANT THAN TWO PEOPLE SECRETLY KNOWING IT
ON SCREEN. BUT FILMMAKERS KEEP MISSING THAT. THEY ASSUME EMPATHY IS JUST
THERE. THEY STRIVE TO REVEAL. AND THEN THEY TRY TO OVERCOME THIS LACK
OF RESONANCE BY SOAKING EMOTIONAL MOMENTS WITH ALL THE CINEMATIC BOMBAST
AND GUSTO THEY CAN, BUT WITHOUT PRE-EXISTING CLARITY IT’S UTTERLY
WITHOUT IMPORT. WE SIMPLY NEED THE NECESSARY CONTEXT. AND WITHOUT IT,
ALL OF TODAY’S BLOCKBUSTERS ARE NOTHING BUT THE CRAZY, RANDOM STRANGER
RUNNING UP TO YOU ON THE STREET AND DEMANDING THAT YOU COME ALONG ON A
WILD ADVENTURE.
AND DEPENDING ON THE STRENGTH AND VIABILITY OF THAT CONFLICT YOU HAVE
YOUR ANSWER ON WHEN TO REVEAL. FOR INSTANCE, WHY WOULD GARETH EVANS WANT
TO WAIT UNTIL TO THE END OF THE RAID TO REVEAL THAT
THE HERO’S WIFE IS PREGNANT WHEN WE GAIN SO MUCH TENSION AND DRAMA
KNOWING THIS FATHER-TO-BE IS IN HARMS WAY? THUS, THE INFORMATION BEST
SERVES THE STORY BEING OFFERED UP FRONT. THE SAME IS TRUE WITH STANTON'S
EARLIER FILM FINDING NEMO, WHEREIN THE MAIN CHARACTER
OF MARLIN SUFFERS A TRAUMATIC LOSS IN THE OPENING, WHICH PERFECTLY
JUSTIFIES HIS OVER-PROTECTIVE AND FEARFUL BEHAVIOR THROUGHOUT THE MOVIE.
WE JUST FELT FOR HIM. AND WITHOUT THAT INFORMATION WE WOULD THINK HE'S
JUST A JERK. RATHER TELLING IS THE FACT THAT STANTON ORIGINALLY WANTED
TO HANG ONTO THAT TRAGEDY REVEAL (EXACTLY LIKE HE DID IN JOHN CARTER).
WHICH HULK HONESTLY BELIEVES IS JUST A HUGE FAILURE TO UNDERSTAND THE
FUNCTION OF CHARACTERIZATION. IT MEANS THE STORYTELLER WOULD PREFER TO
SAY "Aha! I knew what I was doing all along with this story and you
doubted me! INSTEAD OF EXPERIENCING THE BEST FUNCTIONING STORY. WHICH
MEANS YOU ARE MAKING YOUR AUDIENCE SUFFER FOR YOUR WANTING TO SEEM
SMART. BUT FOR A GOOD EXAMPLE OF HOW TO ACTUALLY WAIT ON A REVEAL, HULK
ALWAYS LIKES TO TURN TO PLANES, TRAINS, AND AUTOMOBILES.
THE DRAMATIC / COMEDIC FUNCTION OF THE FILM IS PURELY BASED A SIMPLE
DYNAMIC: YOU IDENTIFY WITH STEVE MARTIN’S AUDIENCE SURROGATE AND THUS
YOU ARE COMEDICALLY-STRESSED-OUT BY THE ANNOYING JOHN CANDY CHARACTER.
AND SO IT IS NOT UNTIL THE RECONCILIATION BETWEEN THE TWO IS FINALLY
REQUIRED THAT JOHN CANDY’S CHARACTER REVEALS HIS WIFE HAS DIED AND HE’S
JUST A LONELY SOUL. AND IF WE KNEW THIS INFORMATION BEFOREHAND? THEN WE
WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ABLE TO ACHIEVE THE SAME SPECIFIC COMEDIC CONFLICT.
STEVE MARTIN’S ANNOYANCE WOULD JUST HAVE MADE HIM SEEM LIKE A JERK. THIS
IS SIMPLE STUFF, BUT IT’S LIKE WE’VE LOST OUR SENSE OF BASIC
FUNCTIONALITY. WANTING TO BE THE MAGICIAN IS A FINE ENOUGH INSTINCT FOR A
STORYTELLER, BUT IT CAN'T HAPPEN AT THE BEHEST OF THE DRAMA. OTHERWISE
YOU ARE JUST GOING TO PERFORM A WELL-ORCHESTRATED SHELL GAME.
SO LET'S START WITH BROAD STROKES HERE... TO HULK'S DYING DAY HULK WOULD NOT FULLY UNDERSTAND THE IDEA OF OUTRIGHT BELITTLING
SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERESTS. ON A FUNDAMENTAL HUMAN LEVEL IT JUST SEEMS
STRANGE. SURE, THERE ARE ENDS OF THE SPECTRUM THAT CAN CERTAINLY RAISE
AN EYEBROW (BRONIES FOR ONE), BUT THE FACT THAT WE CAN LUMP IN SOMETHING
THAT EFFECTIVELY REGISTERS TO THE PUBLIC AS "A GIRL SHOW" WITH
SOMETHING WITH THAT SPECIFICITY IS A LITTLE WEIRD TO HULK. GRANTED, IT
IS PRECISELY THIS KIND OF "THIS IS GOOD/THAT IS BAD" BRAND OF
REFLEXIVITY THAT USUALLY SETS OFF PEOPLE'S POST-MODERN-BELLS ABOUT HOW
EVERYTHING IS RELATIVE AND TRUTH IS A LIE... THAT'S ALL WELL AND GOOD,
BUT PLEASE EXCUSE HULK FOR TRYING TO COME UP WITH SOME KIND OF
PRODUCTIVE ANSWER ON HOW TO MAKE FUCKING SENSE OF THIS SITUATION.
REFLEXIVITY DOESN'T MEAN THAT WE JUST ABANDON ALL SENSE OF OBJECTIVITY,
IT JUST MEANS WE SHOULD HAVE A LITTLE HUMANITY AND UNDERSTANDING WHILE
DOING IT. SO WHEN LOOKING AT SOMEONE ELSE'S INTERESTS PERHAPS WE SHOULD
JUST MEET THEM WITH A SHRUG AND NOT OUTRIGHT ANIMOSITY AND LONG-WINDED
COMMENTS ABOUT HOW LENA DUNHAM IS VACUOUS AND DOESN'T DESERVE ANY OF HER
SUCCESS (BECAUSE IF THERE'S ANYTHING THIS WORLD NEEDS MORE OF, IT'S
FEMALE FILMMAKERS BEING TOLD THEY DON'T "DESERVE THEIR SUCCESS"). AND
QUITE HONESTLY, EVEN SOMETHING EXTREME LIKE THE BRONY THING CAN BE
UNDERSTANDABLE... IN A CERTAIN LIGHT. (2)
Where has this blog been all these years. I could have cited this to get people to not belittle my interests.
THAT MEANS CREATING RELATIONSHIPS WE UNDERSTAND AND FEEL FOR, JUST LIKE
WE HAVE WITH OUR FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS COMPLETELY WITHIN A MOVIE'S
INTEREST TO DO SO. SO WHY DO SO MANY REACH OUT FOR THE TANGENTIAL
CONNECTION? WHY DO SO MANY RELY ON SCALE AND FALLING BUILDINGS? WHY DO
SO MANY THROW SCORES OF STRANGERS' FACES AT YOU AS THEY PERISH? WHY IS
IT ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS A PLOT ABOUT THE END OF THE WORLD WHEN THEY
NEVER BOTHER TO EXPLAIN WHY IT'S A WORLD WE SHOULD CARE ABOUT? AND WHY
DO GOOD FILMMAKERS ALWAYS TRY TO SOLELY RELY ON THE FILMMAKING CRAFT OF A
GOOD MUSIC CUE AND A PRETTY IMAGE TO CLAW AT YOUR EMOTIONS THAN
BUILDING SOMETHING REAL? LIKE THE HOMELESS PERSON, THEY WANT YOU TO
PROJECT YOURSELF ONTO AN UNKNOWN TRAGEDY RATHER THAN JUST BE YOUR
FRIEND. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT YOU CAN SHOW THE SADDEST DEATH IN THE
WORLD WITH THE MOST HEARTBREAKING MUSIC CUE, BUT IF THERE'S NO REAL
MEANING. SERIOUSLY, IF WE DON'T FEEL LIKE WE ACTUALLY LOST SOMETHING, THEN WHAT DOES IT MATTER?
THAT'S EXACTLY WHY DRAMATIZATION MATTERS SO MUCH. WHEN AN EXPERIENCE IS
SHOWN AND FELT AND SHARED, IT DIRECTLY EFFECTS HOW YOU FEEL WHEN THAT
RELATIONSHIP IS PUT IN JEOPARDY.
THE OPENING OF PIXAR'S UP WANTS TO ESTABLISH
THAT CARL IS A SAD, LONELY, CURMUDGEONLY PERSON WHO HAS SUFFERED GREAT
LOSS. THAT'S THE ONLY INFORMATION WE NEED TO GET HIS DYNAMIC AND MIND
STATE, RIGHT?
WHICH MEANS THE MOVIE COULD HAVE VERY WELL JUST SHOWN A SCENE WITH CARL
ALONE AT THE FUNERAL HOME AFTER HIS WIFE ELIE HAD DIED. HE THEN COULD
HAVE GIVEN A SPEECH TO HER GRAVE ABOUT WHAT SHE MEANT AND ALL THE
AMAZING THINGS THEY WANTED TO DO. AND WE WOULD GET THE SAME INFORMATION,
RIGHT? AND BECAUSE IT'S PIXAR IT WOULD HAVE HAD GREAT FILMMAKING AND
MUSIC CUES AND IT WOULD HAVE BEEN RATHER SAD INDEED.
BUT INSTEAD, THEY GIVE US SOMETHING ELSE ENTIRELY. WE FIRST GET A SIX
MINUTE SCENE OF THE TWO OF THEM MEETING AS KIDS AND HAVING FUN PLAYING
ADVENTURE. THE FILM THEN INSTANTLY JUMP CUTS TO THE TWO OF THEM GETTING
MARRIED, FOLLOWED BY ONE OF THE MOST EFFECTIVE FOUR MINUTE MONTAGES IN
MOVIE HISTORY. IT TELLS A COMPLETE STORY AND ARC OF THEIR LIVES, EACH
TRANSITION BUILDING INTO THE NEXT, SOME MOMENTS FULL OF JOY, SOME
MOMENTS INCREDIBLY SAD, BUT IT'S ALL PURPOSEFULLY TO THE SAME INEVITABLE
CONCLUSION OF LOSS...
GO AHEAD. WATCH IT AGAIN AND SEE WHAT THEY BUILT IN SUCH A SHORT TIME...
*HANDS YOU TISSUE*
THE TAKEAWAY IS SIMPLE: WE DON'T FEEL SAD BECAUSE SHE DIES...
WE FEEL SAD BECAUSE WE SAW HOW THE TWO OF THEM LIVED.
THIS IS EXACTLY WHY YOU HAVE TO DRAMATIZE YOUR ARCS. YOU HAVE TO PRESENT CHARACTERS WITH JOYS AND WANTS AND THEN PUT THOSE JOYS AND WANTS IN CONFLICT. AND THEN YOU HAVE TO SHOW THE EMOTIONAL RESULTS OF THAT CONFLICT. AND AS UP
PROVES, YOU DON'T HAVE TO SAY A WORD AND YOU DON'T HAVE TO TAKE ALL
THAT MUCH TIME. YOU DON'T HAVE TO HAVE YOUR CHARACTERS WAX PHILOSOPHICAL
OR DIRECTLY ENGAGE A DEEP THEME OR HAVE THEM SPEAK TO A GRAVE. YOU HAVE
TO JUST SHOW WHO THEY ARE FIRST. NOW, YOU HAVE TO HAVE TACT AND JUST
CAN'T BE CHEAP ABOUT IT. YOU HAVE TO MEAN IT. YOU HAVE TO SHOW THEIR
LIVES IN AWAY THAT LETS THE AUDIENCES NOT JUST HAVE A PEEK, BUT FULLY
EXPERIENCE IT. AND IN DOING THAT, AUDIENCES ACROSS THE BOARD WILL JUST
FUCKING GET IT. THE STORY AND ITS CONFLICT WILL SPEAK TO THEIR
SOULS. AND FROM THERE YOU CAN TAKE THEM ON ON A JOURNEY FULL OF ALL
KINDS OF CHANGES AND TRANSITIONS, NEARLY EVERY FACET AND CAPACITY OF
LIFE.
WITH UP, WE WON'T ACTUALLY CRY JUST BECAUSE
CARL'S WIFE HAS DIED, WE CRY BECAUSE ELLIE DIED. AND ELLIE WAS A
CHARACTER WE KNEW AND UNDERSTOOD BECAUSE WE WATCHED HER GROW AND
UNDERSTOOD HER AS IT ALL UNFOLDED. WE TRULY FELT LIKE WE KNEW HER FROM
JUST 4 DAMN MINUTES OF SCREEN TIME.
FOR BOTH CARL AND ELLIE, THAT IS PERFECT CHARACTERIZATION.
AND HULK ARGUES THAT EVEN THE MOST TEPID FOLLOW-THROUGH OF
DRAMATIZATION AND EARNING THE POTENTIAL OF LOSS WILL YIELD SOLID AND
MEANINGFUL RESULTS. FOR FILMS THAT CAN ACHIEVE INTIMACY OF CHARACTERS
WITHIN THE STORY ALWAYS SEEM TO BE THE ONES THAT RESONATE WHEN THE
CONFLICTS COME TO FRUITION...
WHICH MEANS THE BIG FAILURE OF MAN OF STEEL IS THAT IT SEEMS TO HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO DRAMATIZE EVEN THE MOST BASIC CHARACTERIZATION... ON ANY LEVEL... FOR, LIKE, ANYONE.
^ Who is MovieBob? Can you tell me more about him.
HULK TALKED ABOUT THIS DYNAMIC LAST YEAR IN THIS OLD HULK PIECE FOR THE NEW YORKER WHEN HULK SAID THE FOLLOWING: "ONE OF THE ONGOING PROBLEMS OF BLOCKBUSTER CINEMA THESE DAYS IS ASSUMED EMPATHY.
IT’S AS IF OUR STORYTELLERS JUST PLOP A FILM IN OUR LAPS AND SAY,
'HERE’S OUR MAIN CHARACTER AND WE’RE GOING TO ASSUME THAT YOU’RE
INTERESTED IN THEM FOR THAT REASON ALONE. THEY’RE THE MAIN CHARACTER!'”
WHICH IS NOTHING MORE THEN SHALLOW ATTEMPTS AT STORYTELLING SHORTCUTS.
FILMMAKERS ARE GOOD AT TRYING TO WRING THE AFFECTION OUT OF YOU WITH
CINEMATIC LANGUAGE, BUT IT'S LIKE THEY HAVE NO IDEA HOW TO TETHER AN
ACTUAL MEANINGFUL ETHOS BETWEEN CHARACTERS AND THUS THEY HAVE NO IDEA
HOW TO MAKE YOU CONNECT TO THE PEOPLE YOU ARE SEEING ON SCREEN.
AND WHEN YOU LOOK AT IT, YOU REALIZE MAN OF STEEL IS ALL ABOUT ASSUMED EMPATHY.
WHEN HE PUNCHES DOWN THE DRONE AT THE END OF THE FILM AND THE SOLDIER
ASKS HOW THEY KNOW HE HAS AMERICAN INTERESTS AT HEART, HE JUST SHOUTS
BACK "I'm from Kansas!" IT'S DEFINITELY A FUNNY LINE, BUT UTTERLY
SYMBOLIC OF THE REDUCTIVE SHORTHAND THE FILM IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO
ACHIEVE. THAT'S ESSENTIALLY HIS REASON FOR SAVING EVERYTHING. HE SIMPLY
IS A GOOD PERSON. HE IS SIMPLY FROM AMERICA. WHEN THEY WANT HIM TO
PRETEND TO BE CONFLICTED ABOUT THESE THINGS HE SO OBVIOUSLY IS, THEY
HAVE HIM SAY THINGS LIKE "I'm conflicted!" AND THEY ASSUME THOSE THINGS
WILL SUFFICE. WHEN HULK USES TERM "LIP SERVICE" THAT'S EXACTLY THE
MEANINGLESS, EMPTY JABBERING THAT HULK MEANS. IT'S A MOVIE TRYING TO
EXPLAIN AWAY A PROBLEM WITH REDUCTIVE STATEMENTS, RATHER THAN
DRAMATIZING ONE. RATHER THAN EXPRESSING THOSE IDEAS AS STORY AND CINEMA.
WHICH SUCKS FOR US BECAUSE TRUST, CARE AND UNDERSTANDING HAVE TO BE
BUILT ON SOMETHING SUBSTANTIAL, MOST NOTABLY: A SUCCESSION OF
CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS WE EXPERIENCE WITH THE CHARACTER.
THINK ABOUT UP AGAIN AND HOW MUCH IT ACHIEVES IN THE WAY OF MAKING YOU CARE ABOUT SOMEONE IN 4 SIMPLE MINUTES. COMPARE THAT ECONOMY TO MAN OF STEEL,
WHICH IS CONSTANTLY TRYING TO GET BY ON OUR SHORTHAND WITH SUPERMAN
INSTEAD OF TRYING TO DO THE DRAMATIC WORK AND INSTEAD IT JUST ENDS UP
TREADING WATER FOR 40 MINUTES WITH ALL THIS NEAT TEXTURE AND PRETTY
SHOTS. THEY FAIL TO REALIZE THAT IT TAKES SO LONG (AND STILL DOESN'T GET
THERE) BECAUSE THEY DIDN'T WANT TO DO THE "NORMAL ORIGIN WORK" IN THE
FIRST PLACE, SO IT PRACTICALLY HAS TO BEG US TO PROJECT OUR ESTABLISHED
FEELINGS OF PREVIOUS EVENTS AND CHARACTERS. LOOK IT'S SMALLVILLE!
IT'S THE KENTS! IT'S LOIS LANE! AND PERRY WHITE! AND A GIRL VERSION OF
JIMMY OLSEN! AND YEAH, THEY BARELY HAVE ANYTHING TO DO THAT STRIKES US
WITH POSITIVE OR INDEPENDENT RESPONSE, BUT WE'RE SUPPOSED TO LIKE THEM!
THINK ABOUT ONE OF THE BETTER SEQUENCES IN MAN OF STEEL
WHERE SUPERMAN LEARNS TO FLY (HULK WOULD SAY "FINALLY FLY" BUT THE FILM
IS OUT OF SEQUENCE). HE STARTS JUMPING AROUND ALL HAPPILY AND THEN
FINALLY WHEN HE TAKES FLIGHT AND CIRCLES AROUND THE GLOBE, SMILING IN
GLORIOUS FASHION. WE'VE SEEN THIS HAPPEN WITH SUPERMAN 1000 TIMES, BUT
IT DOESN'T MATTER. IT'S ONE OF THE FEW MOMENTS OF HIS CHARACTERIZATION
THAT THEY BOTHER TO EARN IN THIS FILM. THAT'S WHAT IT'S ALL ABOUT. IF YOU WANT TO MAKE A CHARACTER'S ORIGIN FEEL LIKE THE AFOREMENTIONED 4 MINUTES IN UP,
YOU HAVE TO EARN IT. IT'S AN OPPORTUNITY TO DRAMATIZE (NOT EXPLAIN) WHO
A CHARACTER IS, WHY THEY ARE THAT WAY AND HOW THEY GOT THERE (AND THEN
BRING THOSE SAME THINGS INTO DIRECT CONFLICT WITH THE STORY). IT'S NOT
THE ORIGIN STORY THAT'S OUR PROBLEM, IT'S OUR LAZINESS.
1. SUPERMAN CAN SEE LOTS OF LAYERS OF THE THINGS OF EARTH AND BURNS A
DOOR HANDLE WITH HIS EYES. HIS MOM SHOWS UP TO TALK HIM DOWN FROM BEING
ANGRY. AT FIRST HULK THINKS THIS IS GOING TO BE THE STARTING POINT FOR
THEIR RELATIONSHIP.
2. CLARK SAVES A BUS FULL OF KIDS, BUT SUPERMAN'S DAD THOUGHT HE SHOULD
LET KIDS DIE RATHER THAN SAVE THEM (ALSO THAT HE WILL CHANGE THE WORLD
AND HAS TO BE A GOOD PERSON! ... PA KENT IS KINDA NUTS).
3. SUPERMAN WANTS TO PUNCH BULLIES, BUT DOESN'T. HIS DAD COMES OVER AND
TALKS ABOUT IT UNEVENLY AGAIN (OH YEAH, APPARENTLY HIS DAD IS OFF TO
THE SIDE WATCHING THIS, DOING NOTHING).
4. SUPERMAN LETS HIS DAD DIE TO GO SAVE A DOG WE'VE NEVER SEEN BEFORE
(SHORTHAND!) AND PROTECT HIS SECRET IN A SITUATION WHICH HAS ABOUT A
MILLION WAYS TO RESOLVE IT WITHOUT REVEALING SAID SECRET.
NOW, THE FUN PART: LET'S EXAMINE THE WAYS THOSE FLASHBACKS COME TO LATER MATTER ON THE STORY / CHARACTER LEVEL!
1. ASIDE FROM ESTABLISHING THAT MOMMY IS THE SUPERMAN WHISPERER AND
THEN NEVER USING THAT RELATIONSHIP TO HELP HIM AGAIN, THERE IS JUST ONE
MOMENTARY BIT WHERE ZOD GOES THROUGH THE SAME "LAYERS" THING OF
ADJUSTING TO HOW TO SEE LIFE ON EARTH... THAT'S IT.
2. PA KENT'S CRAZY NONSENSICAL SPEECH BECOMES THE MAIN REASON CLARK IS
QUICK TO TALK ABOUT HIS HESITATION TO SAVE PEOPLE, WHILE SIMULTANEOUSLY
SHOWING NO ACTIVE HESITATION TO SAVE PEOPLE.
3. AFTER LEARNING NOT TO PUNCH BULLIES, SUPERMAN BEATS THE SHIT OUT OF
ZOD AFTER HE THREATENS HIS MOM, THEN BEATS HIM UP FOR REST OF MOVIE,
BEFORE FINALLY MURDERING THE DUDE.
4. AFTER HIS FATHER DIES, WE IN NO REAL WAY SEE HOW THIS IMPACTS HIM
OTHER THAN THE FACT HE HAS HAS RUN AWAY IN SECRET AND KEEPS SAVING
PEOPLE ANYWAY.
emotional investment
I never get any of this stuff
so he key on my keyboard is broken.
has nice.
oh my god is like half of hem
fck how do i fix his
fucking christ
my keyboard is busted. typing this with the on-screen one. half the buttons just don't work.
help
Assassin poems, Poems that shoot
guns. Poems that wrestle cops into alleys
and take their weapons leaving them dead
^$10 too much then, I guess!
My skin is a light shade of brown
The two of us slept all day after getting back from COSI
I should not be awake