Yep, today marks a momentous occasion for me, I watched the Alfred Hitchcock film "Vertigo." And it was... eh? [Warning: The following contains slight thematic spoilers for the 1958 classic 'Vertigo', you have been warned. (But really, you should have already watched it, it's worth the two hours it asks)]
Don't get me wrong, it was a good movie, I very much enjoyed it, but it didn't seem Greatest-Movie-of-All-Time material to me. In fact it turns out that I had really missed the point of the movie. It wasn't until I read a review (http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/great-movie-vertigo-1958) that I realized what a major theme of the movie was, falling in love with the image of a woman. That Scottie didn't fall in love with Madeline, but rather her image. I was shocked when I had read this, looking back I saw all the signs, it was obvious, yet I was oblivious during the duration of the film.
Why did I miss this? What does that mean? Did I only experience a fraction of what the film had to offer? Whose fault was it that I missed it? The movie's or mine own? What are the impacts of that answer on the business of storytelling (something I am vested in)? These questions rattled through my head for the next couple hours.
Well, those couple hours are over, and I'd like to dump my thought smoothie into this blog post, and see where it goes. I have a feeling this'll be long, so buckle up (Yay for cliches!).
First I'm going to cover the job of themes in a story. Then how stories can convey their themes. Finally answering the question, "Whose fault is it when the theme is missed?" Which is definitely going to swerve into a rant about my favorite storytelling medium. But we're not there yet so let's focus on the first point to cover.
Why do we have themes in a story? What function do they serve? In order to answer these questions, we need to ask ourselves the purpose of a story. "Clearly stories are entertainment!" You may cry out, and you are indeed correct, dear faceless reader. Though partially. Stories these days are, for the most part, just for entertainment. That's why comedies are so prevalent today... sadly (I'll get into my disdain of comedies in a later post). But this was not always the case, no, it used to be the opposite. Think about Aesop's fables, or the parables of Jesus, even some Greek Myths. What do the all have in common? A lesson.
Stories were used as a means of conveying a lesson. Aesop teaches us the consequences of lying (Boy who cried wolf) or to always try your best (Tortoise and the Hare). Jesus would talk about the importance of action compared to intent (Matthew 21:28-32), and while his other stories are more Christianity specific (every other parable ever), the purpose of his stories were to teach. While the Greek myths taught you to... fear the gods (and their stupidity)?
Since then stories have very much evolved, up or down I don't know, but it has changed for sure. Themes, and morals are the fossils of that era, the tailbones of storytelling. All stories have them, even children movies! (Though the most common, arguably only, one is the importance of family.)
So how do movies convey these morals? Well, it all depends, mostly on how subtle the story wants to be. Some blatantly tell you (NOT advised) while others give you enough hints and clues to put it together yourself.
So, when there are too little clues, and the audience doesn't get it, whose fault is it? Well, it can't always be the story's fault, otherwise every story would have to spell it out. You have to let the audience think at least a little bit. But you can't go over your audiences head either.
(Warning: The following line of logic assumes some people are smarter than others. Sorry Declaration of Independence, I guess not all people are equal, at least in that regard)
The harder it is for your audience to piece it together, the smaller the amount of them will appreciate it. The easier it is for your audience to piece it together, the less rewarding it is for those who do. The goal of every story is to find that perfect medium. And the greatest movie of all time should have found that medium. It should have given the greatest possible number of people the greatest possible thematic reward.
But Vertigo, the supposed greatest film of all time, the one that should be able to have it's cake and eat it to, the film that apparently has the best of both worlds, failed to reach me on a thematic level. It wasn't until I was point blank told the themes in this movie that I realized it's thematic weight.
So who's fault is it? Mine? Or Vertigo's? Not the movie, according to many people (mostly critics). So am I stupid? I'm certainly not stupid, I'm actually quite smart, at least that's what my mother tells me (but if I trusted everything she said I'd think I was the smartest, most handsome, most humble being to walk this earth. Hey, I can't blame her for loving her handiwork). But I have watched movies with more complex themes, yet I didn't have any trouble with them. I should be able to handle movies harder than Vertigo... so why couldn't I?
I think it's due to the medium the story was told in. This next whole section is going to be entirely subjective but hear me out. But in order for you to understand it I need to admit something. So people trying to figure out my identity (like I'd ever be that popular) get your pencils ready. I am an Anime-Snob.
Not just a weaboo who like Chinese cartoons, I judge people who watch the stupid ones. "You like Naruto? I'm afraid we cannot be friends any longer." "Attack on Titan is your favorite anime? And to think I trusted your opinion on things..." I'm kind of an elitist prick. But that's because I've seen what animation has to offer in storytelling, and I can't handle anything less than that now.
The reason I bring it up is because I think Vertigo would have been a better movie if animated. No, scratch that. The themes found in Vertigo would be better conveyed through animation. My reasoning behind this is still underdeveloped, but it goes something like this.
In animation specifically, everything is done in thought. When using an actors performance to achieve an emotion in animation, the artist makes sure that the expression can elicit that emotion. While an actor tries to do this as well, it's hard to see your own face, and then objectively tell whether that's sad looking or not.
Like I said, my thoughts are under-cooked, perhaps I'll come back to this topic when I'm more confident, but for now that's all I have.
Next on my watch list... Citizen Kane, or Ant-Man, I haven't decided yet.
-The Madman
No comments:
Post a Comment