Theres been something on my mind for a long time in regards to big budget blockbuster films. I apologise for the rant in advance, however, Id like to see what others think and this would seem to be the best platform. (In retrospect, I realize Ive put more time into this than most essays I wrote in 1st year. Again, Im really sorry for the length.) Death has oversaturated films to the point that 99% of the time its essentially meaningless. Movies seem to be emulating video games, where hundreds, thousands, and in some cases, millions of innocent people can be slaughtered for the purpose of plot - at least video games take time to appreciate the weight of that problem. From Pacific Rims Jaeger fights in the middle of populated city centres to Man of Steels climax involving the mindless death of literally millions, few summer blockbusters seem to actually appreciate the importance of death - unless its about our starry-eyed lead or a few select extras whose death is used to bring humanity back to the main character or film in total (Im looking at you, Man of Steel). Before things get going, Id like to be clear that Im talking about the deaths of people we dont even see. Henchmen death is in every single action movie, and thats a discussion on its own. These huge summer hits - The Avengers, Star Trek, Pacific Rim, and Man of Steel - are good movies on their own rite. Well... other than Man of Steel, who is easily the most egregious offender of using mindless, off-screen death to fuel the protagonist. When the enemy attempts to terraform an entire planet (or something along those lines) he levels entire cities. Cities. Plural. He destroys entire populations of people because the movie plot needs it. Aside from maybe a few throwaway lines, the film makes no attempt to initiate dialogue regarding it. The audience was supposed to care that people were dying because oh no people are dying! but it was given no true emotional weight. This is lazy writing. This attempts to humanize the lead by throwing a number and expecting the audience to care. Why would we? One death is a tragedy, millions are a statistic. Pacific Rim, as much as I love it (because ELBOW ROCKET!) attempted to avoid this very same problem by showcasing fights in the city that had strangely completely empty buildings, as if hundreds were supposed to be able to clear out of a 30-story building within 5 minutes. Del Toro gave death respect and he tried to solve this by constantly taking the fights out of space and giving many different extras a moment to shine. The bunker scene involving Charlie Day and the citizens is a decent example of this, however the Jaeger fights in the middle of Sidney or San Fransisco are examples of the other side. At least the emotional introduction brought it up. Regarding Star Trek: Into Darkness, though, there is simply no excuse. Theres some Man of Steel-level useless carnage. Spoilers ahead. Kahn crashes a ship that is literally so massive it levels multiple skyscrapers without an issue. Why did he do it? HUMANS SUCK, BRO and Kahns a little frustrated. This is never mentioned because there was no time for it. Spock had to avenge Kirk, and youre damn right that sequence was fun as hell because holy shit Spock is the man. The death of what must have been thousands was completely ignored because running really fast is really, really fun. Kirk later has as throwaway line in the epilogue regarding the dead. Thanks Kirk. Youre the man. Lastly we have the Avengers, who valiantly attempted to avoid this issue in similar style to Del Toro by involving avoiding these needless off-screen deaths into the plot. Again, spoilers. Tony Stark doesnt want the people of his city to die. Nick Fury refuses to nuke a civilian population. They make a point of saying that they contained the damage within a few city blocks. The nuke didnt go off. Tony Stark is the man. Capt. America has a scene where he saves random people. Nice. This one isnt even so bad but its hard to ignore the amount of insanity occurring in Manhattan. At least Whedon brought the problem to light. What Im trying to prove here is that theres a pattern growing. As movies get bigger and their problems become more universal in scale, so does the death associated with it. But it doesnt need to be this way. Two big-budget films have been released within the past 6 months prove this fact: the most recent Captain America film (just let me explain) and Edge of Tomorrow. Ill start with Captain America. Where Captain America: The Winter Soldier could have gone wrong, it didnt. I want to believe this was intentional. Againx2, spoilers. When the three Helicarriers take flight, they remain, for the most part, over water. When they shoot each other down, they land again in the water. It seems like the directors even avoided showing any debris hitting the surrounding city in what would have made a great setpiece and instead opted to have 99% of the wreckage hit the water (save the one SHIELD building the final Helicarrier collided with.) When the Helicarriers were about to target the innocent civilians theyre stopped just in the nick of time, thus serving as a standard movie trope used well. If they had wanted maximum edginess, theyd have had a few hundred people shot and just THEN the Helicarriers reprogrammed. But they didnt. They respected that killing unseen extras is just a waste of time. Edge of Tomorrow spoilers. If you havent seen it, see it now. Edge of Tomorrows entire plot is about the concept of humanity and what it means to die, as shown beautifully in its penultimate act. Tom Cruise can no longer die and restart. His crew only has one life. Emily Blunt gives what she believes to be her last life for the cause. These have true emotional weight because the film took death and changed its mechanics. When it becomes clear that there are no second chances, we care. We care because of all the deaths it took to get to that point and the attachment we grew with Cruise and Blunt (ft others). In short, Tony Gilroy actually gave a shit about death and tackled it head-on with a film that spat in the face of those who utilized pointless death. End Spoilers. There have been a few other movies who have tackled this problem - Thor 1 showcased its big fight in the middle of Nowhere, America. Yes, people died, but not nearly at the scale. Even Saving Private Ryan, a film whose opening 20 minutes is nothing but WWII brutality (RIP Vin Diesel), acknowledged this issue by giving a painstaking level of attention and detail to death. While Edge of Tomorrows solution is eloquent, its solution cannot be replicated in other films. The same goes to Private Ryan, as most films dont have the time to take that it did. How can we solve this problem? I admit I cannot give specific answers other than, simply, give a shit about death. If you dont have time to talk about the problem that killing thousands would cause, then dont kill thousands. Commit to either side - you cant have both. I love big set pieces as much as the next. Its so much fun to watch insanity on screen watch the hero overcome these obstacles. I remember enjoying the shit out of Star Trek Into Darkness because of how mad it was the scale it has. The one-take in Avengers? Unreal. Im fairly certain a Jaegar is my Patronus. But that doesnt mean that theyre right. No film is above analysis, but some are extremely aware of themselves and act accordingly - the Expendables is a great example of this, and Im sure that the upcoming Mad Max reboot will be the same. The more films use needless setpieces, maximum carnage, and useless violence against people we never even see purely for the purpose of BRO THAT WAS SO SICK, the less human these films become. The best movies are the ones that connect to use on a human level; have an inherent depth. The less movies are human, the more movies are Transformers 4.
Posted on: Tue, 05 Aug 2014 16:23:23 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015