I admit, it's a bit of a sickness. When I absolutely adore a movie or book, I'm occasionally compelled to read its one-star reviews. I tell myself it's curiosity. Why would someone else strongly dislike something I found so moving? It may actually be some twisted form of masochism, as I should know better than to expect to find meaning in most one-star reviews.
When browsing one-star reviews of some of my favorite movies, one theme jumps out at me. I call it the "Emperor Argument". Here's how the argument goes: Take any non-linear, surreal, sexually deviant, or generally non-mainstream movie; completely ignore the movie itself; rant that it was only popular for being "different" or "trendy"; and work in the phrase "the Emperor has no clothes".
Now, there certainly are some movies that use unconventional storytelling techniques in lieu of an actual plot or strong characters. Just as there are many movies that use graphics, explosions, chase scenes, lush sets, historic costuming, etc. to cover up a weak plot or thin characters.
What bothers me is that the Emperor Argument often trashes the storytelling technique without addressing the movie itself. In fact, a good portion of the reviewers say they didn't watch the whole movie. This seems especially true for non-linear or surreal movies: Memento, Being John Malkovich, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Adaptation, etc.
The argument quickly dissolves into: "I didn't get it. This movie cannot make sense to anyone else. Anyone who says they like it are only saying that because they didn't understand it and that makes them think it must be good. The Emperor has no clothes!"
Of course, for the handful of people claiming that "this movie cannot makes sense to anyone", there are hundreds of glowing reviews saying the exact opposite. But all of those people - with their detailed reviews about the depth of the characters and the multiple layers of meaning found within the plot - must be only saying they like the movie because they didn't understand it.
A similar problem shows up when unconventional sex is featured in a movie. Many reviewers seem distracted by the sexual practice and miss the actual story or exploration of the characters. Secretary is a good example of a movie whose sexual themes spin reviewers in many directions.
Reviews complain that Secretary didn't meet their expectations of being either: soft-core porn; a BDSM how-to movie; or an after-school-special about cutters. Therefore the movie had no point (or a misguided point), and the Emperor has no clothes.
In both cases, the reviewer is looking at the means not the meaning. In many of these movies, the how doesn't matter as much as the why. In Stranger than Fiction, the chicken-or-egg debate surrounding Harold's life and Karen's narration is unimportant. It just is. Same with the door in Being John Malkovich.
Not every movie needs to be about getting from point A to point C, after overcoming point B.
Everyone is entitled to their own opinion (this blog post is mine). But if you take anything from this post-- please rethink the Emperor Argument. Is the Emperor truly naked, or do you just not get his fashion sense?
0 comments:
Post a Comment