Mister Tee wrote:Sabin and Oscar Guy, some of your responses to my critique appear to amount to "but that's how it is in video games".
It is true that this reliance on video game conventions might be alienating for some viewers, but having to interrupt narrative flow to witness largely self-contained sequences of wonder is nothing new: it describes just about every non-revue musical ever made.
That's a thought: the day when I teach a musical class, perhaps I should should end it with Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. Depending on how I structure the rest of the class, it could make a lot of sense.
Mister Tee wrote:Sabin and Oscar Guy, some of your responses to my critique appear to amount to "but that's how it is in video games".
And this is where I part company too. I don't think I'm the best person to debate this movie, because I think, at heart, I just don't like what Scott Pilgrim is. A lot of people I know have praised the movie because they felt it captured with excitement the look and feel of video games. But however well the film may have done that, I didn't care at all to see a movie that was doing that in the first place. I grew woefully tired of the text on-screen, the pop-ups, and the constant noises and sounds that cluttered up the film. And I didn't think there was much variety to them as the story went on -- it felt to me like the movie revealed its hand in the first five minutes, and then the next two hours were just a lot more of that.
I also am fairly baffled that so many have found this movie inventive -- the fight scenes seemed utterly standard to me, and there were far too many of them that all felt the same and went on way too long. And I thought the "stakes" were virtually non-existent -- I remember Inception's detractors arguing that it was difficult to care about anything or anybody involved in that film because everything was taking place in a dream state. And that's how I feel about Scott Pilgrim -- our hero defeats his nemeses in thoroughly arbitrary ways, and even gets a second chance when he fails the first time. And so, I wasn't remotely invested in these characters or their struggles, because anything could happen in a world that didn't seem at all defined by any consistent rules.
And I really didn't care about the relationship between Scott and Ramona, as perfunctory an on-screen romance as I've ever seen.
I admire the ambition that went into this film, and I have to appreciate the obvious attention to detail...but because I was so thoroughly uninterested in any of those details I found little to actually enjoy here.
Sabin and Oscar Guy, some of your responses to my critique appear to amount to "but that's how it is in video games". This reminds me a bit of a college professor explaining some (American) film whose climax made no sense to most of us by saying it was clear if you were acquainted with some obscure customs in Asian drama. (1) I don't think movies should have pre-requisites to make sense; and (2) this particular set of video game customs seems to exempt itself from the rules of drama -- i.e., the medium in which the story is being told. For actions to be reversible by do-over, for characters to be capable of anything the geek with the joystick can imagine -- well, that takes the drama out of the drama for me. So, there we have to part company.
I don't entirely agree with Wes' analysis of Scott Pilgrim essentially operating as a ladykiller Scott Pilgrim through the projection of a couch-bound miserablist Scott Pilgrim, but I suppose it can be taken as such as to validate the casting of Michael Cera and to make it all make sense.
I don't believe one needs to be endeared to source material or platform to "get" a film. That's my biggest gripe against Harry Potter films. They don't operate as films. I do not believe the love of video games present in Scott Pilgrim extends beyond subculture representation and/or surface jokes. When people burst into gold coins, this is a video game reference one doesn't need to understand the origin of to get. The same is true of the clearly Street Fighter inspired gags, the Zelda mount ending, etc.
To be clear wrt your issues with Scott "getting an extra life", did you have the same issues with Run Lola Run?
flipp525 wrote:Moving onto more interesting movies...did I miss it? Where is the discussion topic for Winter's Bone?
I don't think there ever was one. I'm pretty sure I threw my comments into this thread last summer, and a few others did, as well.
Sabin and Oscar Guy, some of your responses to my critique appear to amount to "but that's how it is in video games". This reminds me a bit of a college professor explaining some (American) film whose climax made no sense to most of us by saying it was clear if you were acquainted with some obscure customs in Asian drama. (1) I don't think movies should have pre-requisites to make sense; and (2) this particular set of video game customs seems to exempt itself from the rules of drama -- i.e., the medium in which the story is being told. For actions to be reversible by do-over, for characters to be capable of anything the geek with the joystick can imagine -- well, that takes the drama out of the drama for me. So, there we have to part company.
The Video Game of Scott Pilgrim's life is about a "ladykiller" as you say, but conjured the idea of any non-ladykilling geek as a player of this video game, thereby injecting himself into the role of ladykiller, even if he himself is not one.
It's like the 250 lb video game player becoming the muscle-bound Call of Duty hero. Video games often represent lives that the gamer would live if they had the talent or the capability. It's like a role-playing game. So, I picture it as Michael Cera sitting at home on his couch, socially inept taking up the controller to play the game of Scott Pilgrim vs. the World. He becomes Scott Pilgrim even if in reality he is Michael Cera.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I have to disagree with this. Cera is not only meant to represent the film's central protagonist, but he's meant to represent the larger body of video gamers out there. The miserable geek that has relationship troubles.
I'm not sure if I entirely agree with this. I mean, Scott has a reputation that is vocalized throughout the film as being something of a ladykiller. He's consistently being forbidden to go after Ramona. He casually dates a high schooler. He's in a band with a girl whose heart he's broken. There's nothing terribly miserable about him. I think that's what's so wrong about the casting of Michael Cera. It's in direct contrast to the vivacious energy projected onto Scott Pilgrim by everyone around him. Scott Pilgrim is an active character played by a passive actor.
I also had a problem with something Sonic mentioned a while back: a lack of identification with the main characters. My problem with Cera was not that he gave a familiar performance, but that he seemed miscast. This guy's supposed to be a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort? Does not compute. And there's certainly no explanation as to how this little twerp manages to defeat every behemoth who comes his way.
This is a very big problem, and Michael Cera is miscast. I was a fan of his back in the Arrested Development days, but he does not work in this kind of a role. He never comes across as fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants enough to be convincingly Street Fighter. This is what keeps it from being a great film, in my opinion. I think he is better than usual here but he fails as a romantic lead.
I have to disagree with this. Cera is not only meant to represent the film's central protagonist, but he's meant to represent the larger body of video gamers out there. The miserable geek that has relationship troubles. The movie is not about a guy whose life is like a video game, it's a movie about a guy whose life IS a video game. It's a voyeuristic approach to storytelling attempting to put the lonely, socially inept geek into a situation that fellow geeks may not be able to identify with, but which they wish they could have. Every action Cera's character takes is almost as if he is being controlled by a gamer outside of the film. Date the cute Asian chick, dump her for another girl and so forth. The film let's the gamer make the decision and along the way learn something about the miserable wretch they've turned into.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Tee, I think a couple of your problems with the film come down to a lack of familiarity with Video Gaming conceits, which this film ostensibly celebrates.
The endless martial arts sequences is part and parcel of its attachment to video games like Street Fighter and its ilk. They were highly popular mainstays of the video game industry for years and have only in the last decade seemed to have minimized. In addition, the general familiarity of video game geeks with Asian products (video games are largely a product of Asia these days with most major productions, especially fighting games, coming out of Nintendo and Sony). The influence is unmistakable, which is why it's such a key element of the film.
And you mention the constant pop-ups in the film. This is also a heavily video game-oriented idea. From the beginning of video games until today, pop-ups showing points received, items looted, hearts collected and so forth are as uniformly associated with video games as anything else, thus why the film has so many of them.
Then there's that ending where he re-dose the fight. Another common video game concept. If you lose the fight, you can re-play it until you win the fight. It's an entirely fitting and appropriate way to resolve a film that is akin to one giant hodge podge of video games.
One of the things I respect most about the film is how it manages to maintain a lot of these visual stimuli throughout the film. A lot of movies have a tendency to come up with a clever visual storytelling technique and then virtually abandon it an hour into the film only to briefly touch upon it again later, but in an inferior manner.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
I had no idea middle group on this film was possible. I'm KO'd.
(Mister Tee @ Jan. 10 2011,10:44)
But, after an hour of sustaining that concept, Jason Schwartzman arrives on the scene and tells us the whole thing was basically meaningless. And as far as that climactic "replay the fight and Cera wins this time" -- I have no clue what that was about.
There's something incredibly crushing about getting into a fight with a girlfriend, taking a day or two off, and then you return to find she's gotten back together with the ex she's been complaining about for ages. I mean, yes, it's mind-control, but that's not what's really happening. This is the most coded film of the year that nobody is talking about.
As for the reply, isn't it better to fight for yourself rather than another? Instead of fighting for a woman he cheated on/with, he fights for himself because the man stole his girlfriend and his band. This is the moment in a traditional romantic comedy where the wounded lead shows up and declares his love for his ex and it goes wrong, as it always does. In how many movies have we seen a romantic lead use words like "I Love You!" for the first time in a room full of people? Scott Pilgrim vs. The World recognizes how inappropriate that is and demonstrates as much by squaring in on how Scott got Ramona to begin with, which is standard boilerplate for more teen romcoms. It's rather wise about it.
(it's also a joke, 'cause you usually get an Extra Life/One Up after beating a level.)
(Mister Tee @ Jan. 10 2011,10:44)
I also had a problem with something Sonic mentioned a while back: a lack of identification with the main characters. My problem with Cera was not that he gave a familiar performance, but that he seemed miscast. This guy's supposed to be a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort? Does not compute. And there's certainly no explanation as to how this little twerp manages to defeat every behemoth who comes his way.
This is a very big problem, and Michael Cera is miscast. I was a fan of his back in the Arrested Development days, but he does not work in this kind of a role. He never comes across as fly-by-the-seat-of-his-pants enough to be convincingly Street Fighter. This is what keeps it from being a great film, in my opinion. I think he is better than usual here but he fails as a romantic lead.
Well, I'll play my occasional role of finding the middle ground. (Thanks to BJ for kicking this off. I've been meaning to write about the film for a few weeks, but couldn't quite find the impetus)
It seems to me the filmmakers started with the premise that, whatever else, they didn't want people to find the film lackluster. Every moment seems highly charged, even overcharged with invention. Some of it (the incessant popups) can get a bit much, but for the most part I enjoyed the novelty -- the many innovative effects, and, particularly, those slash cuts that made the film feel like it was moving at twice normal speed.
I also found alot of the narrative funny -- most especially every time Kieran Culkin took center-screen. If this role doesn't boost his career substantially I'll be very surprised. The script as a whole seemed to have a lot more cleverness than one unacquainted with the source material might have expected.
My issues with the film? As FilmFan says, the ultimately numbing predictability of ticking off a list. (I'm sure I wasn't alone in being relieved when two lovers were taken care of via one fight) Way too many martial arts-y fight sequences (you might remember there are those of us who weren't raised on martial arts films -- they didn't start becoming popular till I was out of college -- so we have no built-in affection for the style) And a story-line that doesn't so much collapse in the end as throw itself away.
What do I mean by the latter? The film seems to begin with the premise that lovers are dealing, metaphorically, with their partners' pasts -- it brought to mind the line from the High AIDS era, that you didn't just sleep with someone, you slept with everyone they'd ever slept with. But, after an hour of sustaining that concept, Jason Schwartzman arrives on the scene and tells us the whole thing was basically meaningless. And as far as that climactic "replay the fight and Cera wins this time" -- I have no clue what that was about.
I also had a problem with something Sonic mentioned a while back: a lack of identification with the main characters. My problem with Cera was not that he gave a familiar performance, but that he seemed miscast. This guy's supposed to be a "love 'em and leave 'em" sort? Does not compute. And there's certainly no explanation as to how this little twerp manages to defeat every behemoth who comes his way.
And as for the main romantic relationship: why would I care about it? What makes it different from any of the other disposable relationships Cera has allegedly had? Confession: when, for a moment, the film seemed to be suggesting Cera should return to his Asian girlfriend instead, I thought maybe I was supposed to accept that as the proper end to the story. It seemed no less appropriate than what we ultimately got, because I had no feelings about the front-line romantic attachment. Things like this prevent me from taking the movie seriously in the end.
But, to go back: I did enjoy the style quite a bit, and, for most of the film's duration, I had a good time with it. Which I guess places me squarely in the middle of the Tastes great/Less filling debate that is suddenly raging here.
And, Magilla's right: Michael Cera plays the same character in every movie (and that character is, quite frankly, not all that interesting).
So you're saying you don't like Inception? (can't recall)
(Leeder @ Jan. 10 2011,10:24)
The weakest part of the film for me was Ramona. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a compelling presence but once we get to know Ramona, she is a disappointment... a lower rent version of Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Summer from (500) Days of Summer. She is too passive and Knives actually seems like a more appealing relationship prospect by the end of it all.
In the end of the film originally (and in the comic), he ends up with Knives (Ellen Wong, who gives a wonderful performance), but if you ask me he shouldn't end up with either one of them. He needs to work on himself. I think that Mary Elizabeth Winstead is pretty great, but the film truncates their relationship. Instead, it focuses on one aspect of a relationship that I don't see terribly often in film: a new romance that immediately suffers from the notion that there is already too much weight on each others' backs. This is something incredibly specific that we rarely see in romantic comedies like (500) Days of Summer and Eternal Sunshine... . Instead of "I'm walkin' on sunshine!", we have, "Yes, we are together; but no, this is clearly not easy because of a metaphor for my girlfriend's complicated sexual past." I don't think (500) Days of Summer or the admittedly wonderful Eternal Sunshine... touches this nearly as well.
(Leeder @ Jan. 10 2011,10:24)
(as a sidebar, considering that the entire emotional weight of the climax depends on Scott acknowledging that he cheated on Knives with Ramona, this felt weak to me, since he never so much as kissed Knives during the period of their purported relationship).
You're right, but it's evidence of cowardice on Scott's part to let one relationship go on while another begins. I know what you're talking about, but it's not that he is sexualizing a 17 year old girl but rather leading her on. I think this is just as bad for her first broken heart. What the film fails to really delve into is that Scott needs to grow up and take some responsibility.
I caught Scott Pilgrim on video last night and thought it was thoroughly delightful, although it may have helped that this 28-year-old just played his first video game in many years (loved that it keeps the weird video game conceit of defeated bad guys turning into coins). If it doesn't get nominated for best special effects, I don't know what those voters are thinking -- this is just the kind of film that reminds me what we're supposed to like about special effects, because they actually seem special.
The weakest part of the film for me was Ramona. Mary Elizabeth Winstead is a compelling presence but once we get to know Ramona, she is a disappointment... a lower rent version of Clementine from Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind or Summer from (500) Days of Summer. She is too passive and Knives actually seems like a more appealing relationship prospect by the end of it all.
(as a sidebar, considering that the entire emotional weight of the climax depends on Scott acknowledging that he cheated on Knives with Ramona, this felt weak to me, since he never so much as kissed Knives during the period of their purported relationship).