So I'm reading the screenplay to Shawshank Redemption when I decide to check my facts on IMDb. Until recently, I referred to IMDb as the Internet Movie Database. Upon calling it this in front of a co-worker, I was told that I was uncool and that I should call it IMDb. She didn't even know what I was talking about when I used the site's full name. This was perceived as a mistake that I made. So now it is IMDb. She would have me capitalize the "B," I'm sure, but that is a concession I will not make. A concession I cannot make. But the folly of youth is not my point here. If you are so inclined to check out the Top 250 movies rated on IMDb, you will see that The Shawshank Redemption is #1, barely edging out The Godfather. I feel like I might be somewhat qualified to comment on this absurdity. I minored in film studies in college, which is to say I fulfilled the requirements for a minor in film studies but never actually filled out the paperwork to get a piece of paper that confirmed that I did indeed minor in film studies. Such a piece of paper seemed worthless to me, just slightly less valuable than a piece of paper saying that I majored in American Studies, to pick an example at random.
Citizen Kane is the greatest movie of all time. Do I believe that? Eh. Do I have a problem with it? Ehhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh. Not really. For what that's worth. It's problematic though. The problem with Citizen Kane is that people don't watch it. It is an intellectually dense work that is rewarding to experience in the right context. Shawshank, or "The 'Shank," as it's commonly known, is not these things. It is a workingman's intellectual movie. If someone said that about a movie I loved, I would assume it to be an insult, and in this case I would be right. This type of movie makes you think enough to say things like, "This movie is deep. It has themes and stuff." If you felt this way, congratulations, you get a cookie. You may be dismissed now while the grownups talk.
Shawshank is based on "Rita Hayworth and the Shawshank Redemption" by Stephen King, in case you didn't know. The source material is some of King's best. You'll find it in his book Different Seasons along with three other novellas. From the four novellas, three have become movies. Other than Shawshank, "Apt Pupil" was turned into Bryan Singer's fever dream, Gay Nazis Take a Shower. Although I think they might have changed that title back to Apt Pupil for DVD release. In a more recognizable form, "The Body" became Stand By Me, famously subtitled Rob Reiner Stops Eating Long Enough to Pretend He Can Direct. The last quarter of the book hasn't been filmed...yet. But the prophecy has foretold its coming.
So we have established the austere provenance of the source material. Not really, but go with me. This is a great novella. Now we arrive at Shawshank's director, Frank Darabont. If you don't know his career outside of Shawshank, please refer to The Green Mile, The Mist, Nightshift Collection...wait, aren't those all Stephen King works? Yes, they are. Is there a point in that? Wellllllll...okay, yes. There has to be. Stephen King is an excellent writer. Clearly Frank Darabont has King wrapped around his finger. Stephen King actually stated that he preferred the ending of The Mist film to the ending of his story. No. Bad Stephen! You are wrong and you should feel bad for saying so. But my point here is that if I got to pick and choose my screenplay ideas from the collected works of Stephen King, I think I could come up with a couple solid stories.
You may be familiar with Darabont as the creator of the Walking Dead television series. He was fired after the first season for unknown reasons. If you like the Walking Dead, you probably have cancer. That's science and you can't fight it.
The notion that Frank Darabont created wholesale a world as rewarding as Shawshank is laughable. And he probably actually filled in a couple feet of that pool in order to make it more accessible as the "I don't read" crowd. He can't compete with the mind of Orson Welles. Citizen Kane is #63 on the list, by the way. Behind The Prestige. I will "No Comment" the shit out of that one.
Now we arrive at my point. And I might not have one. Film criticism is dying. Pauline Kael is dead, Siskel & Ebert are dead. Why are we basing lists on what the public at large have to say. No dominant figures are shaping the way we watch movies. In the long run, box office figures are given higher billing than film quality. If enough people see something, it must be good, right? This depresses me. The art of film is suffocating under the weight of the public consuming it. They don't push themselves to understand the art they are watching. They like 'splosions and think Thor is interesting. Forgotten is the power of the message. And this is where Shawshank falls short. Well made? Yes. Inspiring? Perhaps. Thought provoking? Not original thought. By allowing Shawshank to stand atop any list, we lower the bar on the ideal. There are always fewer athletes competing in the high jump than the limbo. Let's hold up a few masterpieces and see who they inspire to even loftier heights. Talk about Citizen Kane. You don't have to watch it, just do me a favor and pretend like you did. Set an example and see where it leads.
Tuesday, May 20, 2014
Thursday, May 15, 2014
A Return Most Triumphant
I realized today that it has been over a year since I began this blog and nearly a year since my last post. Part of me loves this immensely. Perhaps some stranger searching through blogs came across the Blah Blah Blog and said to himself, "His brilliance was too much to bear. His light shined brighter than 1,000 suns and he could not keep it up. I'm amazed he was able to produce as many entries as he did. Goodnight, sweet prince." If you were one of the people who thought this, you're not un-right. I like to think of myself as a latter day John Kennedy Toole who found his perfect match and became happily married rather than committing suicide, but who knows what the future holds. Sidebar - If you are unfamiliar with JKT's Confederacy of Dunces, please do go find it right now and read it...I'll wait...k, u ready? You're welcome. I would rather this blog die a painful, dysenteric death than become a series of me standing in front of rocks in western states while pretending that I didn't get pregnant so I don't have to work anymore. That's a very specific reference and I'm not even sure I fully understand what I'm doing here today.
Here are the facts as I understand them. Earlier today I came across an article at the AV Club that provided a critical breakdown of an episode of Clarissa Explains It All. Because this is what our society does now. We think about shows we watched as children and elevate them to elite status through some delusional pretext that they serve as commentaries on our culture. Dammit, Steve, I can't argue with that. Why did you state that so succinctly? But my point is this, children are little idiots. We prop them up in front of televisions and wait for them to grow up into full-blown idiots.
Sidebar #2 - I saw Anderson Cooper discussing his interview with Magic Johnson re: Donald Sterling's racist comments about him. In reacting to the statement that Magic Johnson has AIDS, Anderson Cooper pointed out that Magic has HIV, not "full-blown AIDS." What is it about AIDS that necessitates the preceding full-blown? Is it not sufficient to say he has AIDS, not HIV, since they are two different things. Yet these words are always found together. There is something so much more ominous about these words together. "Do you have full-blown AIDS?" "Naw, man. I just got a touch of the AIDS. It's cool." - Sidebar end.
My knowledge of Clarissa Explains It All is minimal. I was aware of it during my formative years, but I was not then, nor have I ever been, a "girl." I know it as the show that gave the world Melissa Joan Hart. So thanks for that. It was a beautiful thing to watch MJH blossom from an awkward young girl into an awkward woman that mistakenly began to believe she was hot and started arching her back slightly in pictures as if to prove her viability as a Maxim cover model. But the article in question went deeper. It dared to cite My So-Called Life, Wonder Years, Full House and Boy Meets World as cultural touchstones as well. Let me single out Boy Meets World here because I loathed the show. I believe this summer we finally get the relaunched Girl Meets World that someone somewhere apparently wanted so that we could catch up on the lives of some shitty middle schoolers. This is a show that aired on ABC's TGIF lineup. As you probably know, TGIF was primarily a money laundering scheme by the Cosa Nostra and the resulting TV shows were not intended for human consumption. The AV Club goes so far as to separate Full House and Boy Meets World into a sub-genre called "normcore." I don't know what this means. Genre naming is a practice that has plagued music criticism for far too long. They seem to be hanging their hat on the notion that labeling something makes it legitimate as a topic of study. But sometimes pop culture is exactly as shallow as it seems. In fact, I believe that is the exact thing that gives it the "pop."
Perhaps this is an extension of our increasing cultural tendency to draw a line in the sand and fight pointlessly for something that someone else dares not like. Is it possible for people to admit that they might just enjoy something on a visceral level? Or does the world need to understand why you had a much deeper understanding of Salute Your Shorts? Whatever the reasoning, it needs to stop. I loved He-man when I was little, but I got over it. Was it better than Transformers? I don't care. Why are we wasting critical thought on the television equivalent of a dirty tissue? I am continually amazed at where our society is headed. A recent article indicated that the U.S. ranks in the mid-20s among the 30 most developed countries in terms of education, while simultaneously achieving #1 status on the list of countries whose people believe they are the smartest. Purple mountain majesties! God help us all.
But credit where it's due, here's that Clarissa Explains It All article if you'd like to give it a whirl: http://www.avclub.com/article/clarissa-explains-it-all-tried-ban-tv-tv-204252
It definitely gave me plenty to think about.
Here are the facts as I understand them. Earlier today I came across an article at the AV Club that provided a critical breakdown of an episode of Clarissa Explains It All. Because this is what our society does now. We think about shows we watched as children and elevate them to elite status through some delusional pretext that they serve as commentaries on our culture. Dammit, Steve, I can't argue with that. Why did you state that so succinctly? But my point is this, children are little idiots. We prop them up in front of televisions and wait for them to grow up into full-blown idiots.
Sidebar #2 - I saw Anderson Cooper discussing his interview with Magic Johnson re: Donald Sterling's racist comments about him. In reacting to the statement that Magic Johnson has AIDS, Anderson Cooper pointed out that Magic has HIV, not "full-blown AIDS." What is it about AIDS that necessitates the preceding full-blown? Is it not sufficient to say he has AIDS, not HIV, since they are two different things. Yet these words are always found together. There is something so much more ominous about these words together. "Do you have full-blown AIDS?" "Naw, man. I just got a touch of the AIDS. It's cool." - Sidebar end.
My knowledge of Clarissa Explains It All is minimal. I was aware of it during my formative years, but I was not then, nor have I ever been, a "girl." I know it as the show that gave the world Melissa Joan Hart. So thanks for that. It was a beautiful thing to watch MJH blossom from an awkward young girl into an awkward woman that mistakenly began to believe she was hot and started arching her back slightly in pictures as if to prove her viability as a Maxim cover model. But the article in question went deeper. It dared to cite My So-Called Life, Wonder Years, Full House and Boy Meets World as cultural touchstones as well. Let me single out Boy Meets World here because I loathed the show. I believe this summer we finally get the relaunched Girl Meets World that someone somewhere apparently wanted so that we could catch up on the lives of some shitty middle schoolers. This is a show that aired on ABC's TGIF lineup. As you probably know, TGIF was primarily a money laundering scheme by the Cosa Nostra and the resulting TV shows were not intended for human consumption. The AV Club goes so far as to separate Full House and Boy Meets World into a sub-genre called "normcore." I don't know what this means. Genre naming is a practice that has plagued music criticism for far too long. They seem to be hanging their hat on the notion that labeling something makes it legitimate as a topic of study. But sometimes pop culture is exactly as shallow as it seems. In fact, I believe that is the exact thing that gives it the "pop."
Perhaps this is an extension of our increasing cultural tendency to draw a line in the sand and fight pointlessly for something that someone else dares not like. Is it possible for people to admit that they might just enjoy something on a visceral level? Or does the world need to understand why you had a much deeper understanding of Salute Your Shorts? Whatever the reasoning, it needs to stop. I loved He-man when I was little, but I got over it. Was it better than Transformers? I don't care. Why are we wasting critical thought on the television equivalent of a dirty tissue? I am continually amazed at where our society is headed. A recent article indicated that the U.S. ranks in the mid-20s among the 30 most developed countries in terms of education, while simultaneously achieving #1 status on the list of countries whose people believe they are the smartest. Purple mountain majesties! God help us all.
But credit where it's due, here's that Clarissa Explains It All article if you'd like to give it a whirl: http://www.avclub.com/article/clarissa-explains-it-all-tried-ban-tv-tv-204252
It definitely gave me plenty to think about.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)