I happened to watch the latest installment of Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides this weekend, courtesy of the little silver disk. (Now out on Blu-ray, Blu-ray 3D and DVD versions. I saw the flat variety; outside of the principals thrusting swords at the camera, I don't think I was deprived of much.)
The picture's got everything: intrigue in the British court, treks through jungle swamps, swordfights galore, a beautiful and saucy female to entice Captain Sparrow, one action sequence close on the heels of another ...
It's a veritable treasure chest of visual splendors, which is the series' stock-in-trade. The whole 137 minutes is entertaining in its way, but not unlike watching a colorful, fast-moving parade: interesting (if frenetic) characters, plenty of flash, but minimal emotional involvement. One sequence passes before our eyes, then another. None of them seem to be heavily connected to the set-piece of ten minutes before. We're there to be dazzled, not emotionally invested. And story coherence is way down the list of PC's priorities.
Contrast all the pyrotechnics of Pirates 4 with any good animated film and you immediately see the difference: Dumbo's mother isn't a plot device, but an emotional fulcrum for the entire movie. Woody changes his attitude toward Buzz Lightyear; we're never sure what Sparrow's attitude toward Angelica even is. The Dwarf's actually fall in love with Snow White (and we know it)*, Captain Jack has nothing but insouciant one-liners for everyone he encounters. When the only love story that resonates, however faintly, is between two minor characters, you know there are some structural problems.
Tides exists to extend a lucrative franchise. Not deepen our understanding of Jack Sparrow and his shipmates.
* Even the 71-year-old, black-and-white pirate saga "The Sea Hawk" has more coherence and emotion than "On Stranger Tides," even as it shares the sword play and sailing ships, the British court double-crossings and hair-breadth escapes.
Posts
20 comments:
"Contrast all the pyrotechnics of Pirates 4 with any good animated film and you immediately see the difference . . ."
Unfortunately, if you compare it to today's animated features like TIN TIN or PUSS IN BOOTS or CARS 2, there's more similarity than contrast. No emotional charges evident in any of them.
I've never thought of the Pirates series as needing to be emotionally charged. Sure they are adventures of human and mythical hearts on sea and land. But, it seems to me that Elliot and Rossio are writing them as a morality play. The audience is invested not in the feelings but in the reasoning and decision making of the main characters. For example, compare and contrast the selfish love of Jones and Dalma with the selfless love of Turner and Swan. Listen to Sparrow and Swan banter about tasting the other side. In this realm Sparrow's 'Everyman at Sea' is brilliant. It's my opinion, again, that each installment improves on the last and the fourth is the best yet. They've even allowed religion into the fray, an historical reality of the pirate world that Hollywood usually throws out. Brilliant, says I.
^^^^ Disney publicist slumming on this board
I think Woodrow has a point.
We have come to judge films (and especially animated ones) based on sentimentality.
If the film pulls our heartstrings we think it's "genius". If it doesn't, we think it's crap.
There's far more to good storytelling than likeable characters and emotional scenes. But somehow it has become our only criterion.
The Pirates movies really ought to hire screenwriters.
I've never thought of the Pirates series as needing to be emotionally charged. Sure they are adventures of human and mythical hearts on sea and land. But, it seems to me that Elliot and Rossio are writing them as a morality play....
Woodrow:
E and R have certainly written myth before, and infused heart and emotion into it.
I give you Aladdin, my personal favorite of the Disney animated features from the '90s.
Having one doesn't foreclose on the other. And the Pirates franchise is certainly a huge money spinner regardless, so the fact character arcs are mostly lacking and we deal in archetypes isn't a slam, exactly. I just think the pictures could be deeper.
Who knows? If they were, maybe the movies wouldn't make as much loot as they have.
I have to agree with the first poster (though I haven't seen Puss) and with Hulett, and disagree with Woodrow. I've never been invested in a character's decisions and reasoning, and I'm not sure anyone else is, either. Otherwise, watching a chess match would be as compelling as watching The Godfather.
There are lots of good films that don't pull at the heartstrings, and that feature mostly unlikable characters that we don't empathize with. Most of them never break out of the tiny art house slice of the marketplace. In animation, it's a recipe for disaster(see, for example, Sinbad).
I don't think a good film needs to be a sentimental film. Examples: Pulp Fiction, 2001, Apocalypse Now, etc.
Some of what critics think to be good animated films are just simply melodramatic. Examples: Toy Story 3, UP.
Tin Tin and Cars 2 was both awful for many other reasons, but not because lack of a heart-string moments.
I've always considered the "Pirates films" from the mouse house cartoons anyway. It's just fun to watch Johnny Depp ham it up and get paid royally. Way to go, Johnny! At least somebody at Disney is making money.
Sadly, I find the animation today even less entertaining. It's not because the talent can't deliver... it's because the risk adverse corporations won't allow it. so expect more highly polished, lackluster entertainment to come.
Up and Toy Story are not melodramas. Look up the definition. They are character driven stories top to bottom--something Pixar mostly excells at-(cars 2 anyone?)-and has a better track record than most of late at doing so.
DreamWorks cartoons are by definition melodrama. Plot driven external forces, and location based . Little character.
Disney was in that rut until Tangled, but slipped right back into it with Winnie the Pooh and that awful Nessie thing.
I don't think a good film needs to be a sentimental film. Examples: Pulp Fiction, 2001, Apocalypse Now, etc.
Straw man argument. The point Steve made was not that successful animated films are 'sentimental' but that they have characters you care about, characters who have real emotions, and who trigger real emotions in their audience.
Name the successful animated film that didn't do that (and I would argue that certainly Pulp Fiction and Apocalypse Now also did that).
DreamWorks cartoons are by definition melodrama. Plot driven external forces, and location based . Little character.
An unfortunate fanboy response. The most successful DreamWorks films are as character driven as anything from Pixar or Disney. The early DW films failed on the character level, and the films failed at the box office. When DW figured that out, and started creating characters that engaged the audience, their films started to soar.
T&T write for one thing, only: the biggest commercial payday possible-that's the Alpha and Omega of their approach. The Coens they aren't.
Every screenplay they do is going to have 1) a magic amulet/thingy, and 2)a lot of "rube goldberg" contraption-stuff. Lots of ideas, little to no character substance. Works for them.
I agree. Sounds like the typical dreamworks "story.". Their films have some good character anatomy, but are rarely character driven.
T&T write for one thing, only: the biggest commercial payday possible
And this differs from 99% of writers/producers/directors how? This is untrue of 99% of animated films how?
Their films have some good character anatomy, but are rarely character driven.
The incomprehensibility of some fanboy experts never fail to amuse. Thank you for the chuckle.
And this differs from 99% of writers/producers/directors how? This is untrue of 99% of animated films how?
I didn't suggest that it differs in any way at all-it doesn't, really(& obviously, duh). Maximum commercial appeal is what every studio wants. No shit.
On the other hand, I also cited the Coens. their movies aren't geared towards humongous box office, but towards stories they want to tell(that includes such things as their True Grit). I'd argue that there are animated movies where the approach stems from a personal or idiosyncratic one. What percentage isn't the point as far as I'm concerned.
Speaking of fanboys, why are you so defensive about Ted & Terry? They're wildly successful, sure, but I still think their plotting and dialogue are pretty terrible.
Depp deserved every penny he's paid, in other words.
I wasn't defensive at all (nice try, though), just responding to the way an excellent point made by Hulett (that successful animated features are all about engaging characters and character relationships) was being misinterpreted or derailed by silly comments. I agree that the PotC movies (esp. after the first) are awful, and I'm a fan of the Cohen's, too.
I find it funny that the success of this franchise lies solely on Johnny Depp's impersonation of Keith Richards.
Somewhere on the better side of "modern" character driven movies (and equally important, relationship driven characters), I'd place Iron Giant and The Incredibles. And surprisingly, the much underrated Ice Age. It's hard to find a more stirring and courageous (for its genre) animated scene than the mammoth's cave painting flashback of his family's death. Some people might say Jack Sparrow is an innately interesting and complex character, but he cannot have rich relationships & interplay, only situational banter, with cutout props like Keira Knightley and Orlando Bloom.
I agree. Sounds like the typical dreamworks "story.". Their films have some good character anatomy, but are rarely character driven.
Except when they are. (Kung Fu Panda, How to Train Your Dragon, etc.)
Why are people comparing POTC with Dumbo? or "The Godfather"!?! Its apples and oranges. The comparison would be fair if it was being compared with other 50's swashbuckling films like "Robin Hood" or "The Mask of Zorro". The genre is not known for deep character arcs, but for action and adventure,that's the genre's reason d'etre. Theres a time and place for everything. When I feel like watching an action flick, I'll watch "POTC" or "Die Hard", when I feel like watching something with more meat on it, I'll insert "There Will be Blood" on the player.
To insist that there should be more character developmnt on this type of film is an exercise in futility. There are other films with deeper human themes. Those don't seem to get the audiences attention. Instead,people go to see crap like "Twilight"....
its just stupid!
Post a Comment