Roger Ebert is quite possibly the World's Greatest Critic of modern expression. If you follow his words, whether written, said, or even the look in his eyes as he is focused on his dissipation (or lack there of), you may find a man whose words are carried by others who share the same joys, the same fears, or even the same doubts of intent. But there are many who criticize the critic. The war of words can start with a single expression of doubt. And unfortunately, a war was sparked and dissuaded by one doubt of intention.
The newest medium of Storytelling is the video game. Barely around 40 years old, the Video Game medium is the great digital medium. As the medium has progressed, the advancements of it's works has been found useful to the many forms of visual expressionism. But the World's Greatest Critic has been wary of the medium since the start. The people who hold video games as the highest form of art have held many reservations about Ebert since he turned his eye towards the concept of the interactive entertainment formulae. But this year, to many video game fans, Ebert announced that "video games can never be art". And on that note, many people were up in arms about Ebert's opinions. But the question must be asked: Was he wrong? Are the people who took serious offense to his comments wrong? Is there some area that they have ignored to breach, or is everything they said all there is?
The answer, in my opinion, is an emphatic yes. Yes, Roger Ebert is wrong. Yes, the offended are wrong, And yes, there are areas that they have forgotten, and have also said all there is to be said about this matter. But the matter doesn't lie with whether either side is right or wrong. It lies in the matter of criticism. What constitutes evolution of art? What constitutes great storytelling? And what constitutes a hallmark to the evolution of expression?
In cinema, there are many films which are considered greats. Pick a film by Fellini, and you'll find many telltale notes of passion, loss, social conflict and conceptual relationships. F. W. Murnau gave us the notion that all drama can be done visually as well as thematically. Cecil B. DeMille gave us the concept of epic scope. Steven Spielberg gave us whimsy and scale. Rob Reiner and Ron Howard reminded us just how people act in everyday life and how we are our own comedies and dramas.
A prime example of storytelling in cinema that I can provide is The Adventures of Robin Hood, starring the indelible Errol Flynn. It's not like more modern films, with the focus on believability and detail. Instead, it's taken like a stage play, with the focus on entertainment and wonder. Everyone knows the story. Robin returns from the Crusades, and finds his homeland is in trouble. Branded as an outlaw, Robin finds allies in Sherwood Forest. With his Merry Men, he proceeds to right what has gone wrong, have Maid Marian fall in love with him, and restore his honor and the honor of the English Court.
It is truly a most enjoyable film because they put effort into how it is done, and not into how it is made. Errol Flynn is one of the most lively Robin Hood actors ever caught on film. The choreography is engaging, the acting very Shakespearean, and the overall quality of film making, with William Keighley as director, really does carry the film. Special note has to be made for Leo F. Forbstein, whose score is both memorable and incredibly dynamic. One listen and you will be remembering certain progressions in the orchestration for quite a while.
Now take Robin Hood, made in 2010. It is a very competent movie. Higher detail, larger scope, more action oriented, in truth a "modern" take on the film. Russel Crowe plays Robin Hood once again, and in this take of the character, he is very gruff and action prone. In truth, playing him more as a soldier who turned bandit when he becomes branded as an outlaw, and the characterization does lack because of it. Directed by Ridley Scott, the director's eye was firmly on detail. Gone is the wonder of a man whose entire purpose in life is disobedience to a crown that does not recognize him nor the people that make the kingdom what it is. Instead, we get a half hearted attempt as political intrigue that at it's heart is really a historically-based action film with political overtones.
Marc Streitenfeld does a competent job with the soundtrack, but there is no part of the score that is truly considered "classic" or "memorable". The concept of choreography in this film is expansive warfare. From basic fight scenes to full on cotillion on cotillion battle, the film focuses on the scope of the battle, rather than on the scope of the people in the battle themselves. The film falters because it loses focus on the personalities, rather spending it's time making you believe that the events happened, instead of making you believe the characters are real.
One series that many people grew up on was the Adventures of Superman. Starring George Reeves (who got his start in movies like Gone with the Wind), it's about DC's most iconic character: Batman. Sorry, I meant Superman. Superman is the first chronicled definition of the Modern Superhero. We all know the story. Born on the planet Krypton, the baby Kal-El is sent to Earth in a rocket just before the planet explodes. When he lands, he's found by John and Martha Kent, who take him to an orphanage, get him registered as having no home, and then adopt him. As he grows, he finds he has abilities well beyond those of normal men. Moving from Smallville, Kansas to Metropolis (wherever the hell it is), Clark Kent becomes a journalist in order to get the heads up on where trouble is. Seen using his amazing skills, a fellow reporter (Lois Lane) calls the mystery person Superman. Because calling someone "Oh my goodness, that is really keen" Man just doesn't quite have the same ring to it.
Admittedly hokey, the series does ONE THING right: it points out that Superman and Clark Kent are two separate identities, but are indelibly the same man. It was light on action (it was the 50's, after all), and always prevalent with a moral message, it was still an enjoyable series, that can still somewhat hold up to today's standards (if only meagerly). The series is readily available on DVD, so if you haven't seen it, give the series a chance. You might just find an episode or two of the series with Mr. Reeves (the man before... Reeves. Well, Christopher anyway. No relation).
A modern example of a reinterpretation of the Superman Mythos is Smallville. Focusing on the life of a young Clark Kent, it tells his discovery of his heritage, his burgeoning super powers, and his development to adulthood. The major differences between the Adventures of Superman and Smallville must be noted: Cast, tone, and effects. While both shows have the same overall purpose (the life of Superman and his friends and family), in the end, they accomplish very different goals.
Smallville does one thing that a lot of other shows tend to do, nowadays: adapt a property to market towards a largely new type of audience. Sure, we have Clark, his family and friends. And we get both Lana Lang (his first girlfriend) and Lois Lane (his main love focus for the rest of the mythos). And of course, we get Lex Luthor, Clark's ultimate foil. But outside of that, things proceed to change rather rapidly. Most important to note is the cast. Whereas Superman had a somewhat large cast to rely on, they expounded that fact by making his most important members involved in his early years. Some examples of this include the introduction of Lois before he graduates College, his father's death before the introduction of Doomsday unlike in the comics, his interaction with the JSA, and the interactions between Clark, Zod, and as of the 10th and final season, Darkseid. And we have a prime example of the Harley Quinn effect, with the introduction of Chloe Sullivan into the regular DC Universe.
Tone wise, it's hardly preachy. Characters screw up and make mistakes that they don't always learn from, are too fool hardy in their approach, or are just generally outside what had been established before and taken in directions that made sense but was hardly logical. In a sense, we go from Superman: the Adventure to Superman: the Melodrama. Is it totally unexpected? Not in the least. The series was capitalizing on the bread and butter of the late 90's to early aughts. If it wasn't for shows like Dawson's Creek and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, we most likely would have been left with Lois and Clark: the New Adventures of Superman as the pinnacle of what Superman was.
And effects? Fuggedaboutit! Definite step up, but in my opinion, the show relies too heavily on effects to carry the story. Might just be me, but I like the cheesy whooshing of Superman flying in the old 50's show. There's an All American charm that I found sorely lacking from Smallville, and unfortunately it's one of the things that Superman (ANY Superman, really) needs to sell the show.
There are countless examples to compare and contrast any given topic. Film to film, show to show, game to game, it doesn't matter. What does matter is the enjoyment one gets from viewing said material. I may have let my biases slip into this a little, but that pales to the fact that I ENJOYED everything I listed. Sure, every film or show has both it's high and low points, but what does that matter? My opinion is vastly different than other people's, and I'm willing to let my thoughts slide if I know I liked something at least a little bit. A modicum of outrage is good for a critic, but a modicum of restraint is good for a viewer. Letting things get beyond what you expected is a flaw a lot of viewers have, but it's easily forgivable. As long as you go into it with the opinion of being entertained rather than impressed, you might find that certain things are worth sitting through.
Except the (insert adjective here) Movies. God, those films are pure, Grade A, 100% deep fried, weaponized shit.
No comments:
Post a Comment