squeequeg | On objectivity and being a raving fangirl

Current Mood: contemplative
Current Music: "Angel," Massive Attack

Entry tags:

interpretation

On objectivity and being a raving fangirl

Saw two movies that I'd been looking forward to for quite a while this weekend. Mirromask Friday, Serenity Sunday. Both were beautiful, and I'll happily see them again (and again, and buy the DVDs, and make Mom and Dad watch Serenity at Christmas...) but I'm wondering if my reactions have been colored a bit by my being such a fangirl.

Mirrormask was lovely and fascinating, as I'd expected. But there were a few weaknesses in plot (someone referred to it as basic young-adult plot, and there's some elements of that), and I thought that it was a little rushed in places. Granted, that may be because I have the illustrated script and so know a few of the scenes that were cut. (I thought a fraction more time on the whole future fruit bit would have made it seem less like an interruption, but then again, maybe they were trying to keep the pace unbroken.)

The thing is, because it was beautiful, and because I have a soft spot for Gaiman/McKean/anything out of the Henson studio, I'm more forgiving of its flaws. I tend to be like this when it comes to certain movies; I was more forgiving of Howl's Moving Castle because I love Miyazaki (and am only recently a fan of Diana Wynne Jones). I had some difficulties with certain scenes in Return of the King, but because I was already worshiping at the feet of Peter Jackson, was willing to put them aside and get swept along.

I'm having the opposite trouble with Serenity.

Not that I wasn't swept along. I went in with somewhat muted expectations, because I had originally had such high hopes and those always sting worse when they're dashed. It would be easier for me to have lower expectations if this movie turned out not to be so good.

It met those expectations, met the higher ones, and dragged me along for the ride. It was fantastic. And yet I feel ambiguous about it, mournful even. Because that sonofabitch Whedon killed off my two favorite characters. What's even worse is that after the death of the first one, I thought it would be okay, since I'd had bad feelings about the second one, had the feeling that he wasn't safe. Then wham! and he's dead.

I know they're just fictional characters. But it hurt a hell of a lot to see the two characters that either fascinated me or made the show that much better killed. And because this is Whedon, we're not likely to see either again aside from flashback.

I could go into some of the ideas I had after the movie (I am now certain I know what Book was before he became a shepherd, and I foresee a similar fate for the Operative) but thinking about it just makes me sad. My fangirl instincts are, in this case, keeping me from enjoying the helluva ride that Serenity was.

Weird. But I'm not about to stop geeking out about everything.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

(deleted comment)

I'm more puzzled by it than anything else. The analogy, not Mirrormask.

(deleted comment)

I dunno... to me, it only proves that you're not a Gaiman fanboy. Are there other genres/authors/etc. whose flaws you would forgive just because you like the genre/author/etc?

Moving to my reposted comment

Split these into two comments since I want to keep threads that they spawn separate:

I loved Serenity. This weekend was the second time that I saw it (went to one of the prescreenings) and while there are things that I didn't like, on the whole I thought it was amazing.

One thing is clear: this movie is serious, this movie takes no prisoners, this movie doesn't fuck around. You can substitute 'Whedon' for 'this movie' in that statement if you like. Book's death didn't shock me, as once he was removed from the crew (Book on the ship full time makes him harder to lose, book running some little podunk mission somewhere makes him eminently expendable) but Wash surprised me. Obviously both deaths are going to hit home with Firefly fans, but Book seemed to have been demoted to side character anyway....

Some people are going to yell about it I guess, we're unaccustomed to seeing major characters sacrificed on the altar of storytelling, but I think it made the movie better.

traglar and I discussed this after the first time we saw the movie. Both of us believed that many more major characters would die. I honestly could have seen it going the route of "the message got out, but the whole crew had to die to achieve the mission." Whedon wanted to make this movie intense and a little stressful to watch, it think, and killing off characters that we felt were safe and were relatively attached to was an effective way (for me) to accomplish that.

This movie had an intensity that is uncommon, for me. It wasn't just sit back, relax, watch the pretty explosions and see the characters pat themselves on the back at the end of it.

I had a couple of plot problems (Mr Universe just felt a little silly to me, and too much of a plot bitch, and it seemed to me unlikely that the entire crew would leave the ship while on the surface of Miranda. Yes, you want them all to make that discovery together....but prudence should certainly have dictated leaving at least Wash behind in the event that they needed a quick rescue, a la the job that opened the movie) but overall, an excellent film. Yes, I would have preferred that this story arc be completed over the course of a few seasons rather than two hours, but I'm glad to get the sense of closure. The worst part of Firefly dying after half a season was the unfulfilled potential and the incompleteness of the story.

Now, for some of the other stuff you said...interesting idea that Book may have been an operative himself. The thought hadn't occurred to me. Not that we'll ever know now. Recall the exchange:

"Someday you'll have to tell me about how you know all this shit (or whatever he said)"
"No I don't."

It's an exchange between Mal and Book, but you can also look at it as an exchange between the fans and Whedon. He doesn't have to flesh that out if he doesn't want to, and he's not going to. (And, after the screening, in the Q&A session, someone asked the dude if we were going to get more of Book's story, and the dude said, basically, no.)

Finally, I don't understand the comment that your fangirl instincts are keeping you from enjoying the ride....care to elaborate more?

Perhaps it's more that I'm not letting myself feel quite the rush I often get from really fun movies. Instead of being "yeah! woo! let's see it again and cheer them on and wheee!" I'm almost reluctant to see it again, just because it hurt to do so.

Yes, I know I'm getting hurt by the death of a fictional character. Yes, I know it's not my universe and I have no right to say what "should" or "shouldn't" happen. But it still hurt to see a character I cared about die like that. Because I took it so seriously, I can't treat it as just a fun ride; I got emotionally engaged. Perhaps too much.

I'm definitely emotionally engaged...I won't fault anyone for beign emotionally attached to characters...it's not a good story if you don't get attached. I think the a huge majority of the storytelling that we encounter in our lives leads us to assume that primary characters are mostly safe. I really like it when that gets challenged, which is one of the reasons I like a certain series of books that is out there (and has the next book coming soon, thank god).

As for the "woo, let's see it again." I agree, this isn't one of those movies that you're going to get right in line to see again. It's too intense, and too emotionally draining. I walk away from this movie really affected by it, and I find that refreshing.

Interestingly, I'm planning on going again later this week. I'm just thinking, since I picked up so much from rewatching the series, I'm expecting to get more out of the film the second time around. Part of this might be because I was in a group to watch the first time, and so part of me was keeping track of the other peoples' reactions to make sure they were having a good time, so I didn't fully catch everything I think I could have from the movie.

But, Art's heading out of town for a conference, so I think I'll either drag my mom to see it when she's in town this weekend, or go by myself on Thursday evening.

Group dynamics do change how I see a movie quite a lot. I had to see Return of the King a second time on my own to be sure whether I liked it (yes, I did, once I was away from the caffeinated and adrenalin-hyped state in which I first saw it). I actually forgot that

thomascantor had already seen it, and so there was a different interaction there as well.

While I share your sorrow at the fate of some of Serenity's characters, I think that the decision Joss made with regards to the characters made the movie much more powerful. When the Reavers were closing in on the crew, I found myself truly worried that more characters would die -- the movie acquired an 'anything goes' feeling.

That's true, but it remains cold comfort. It may be a sign of getting too involved that for me, dying for dramatic necessity suddenly means less.

I wonder whether this will affect how I kill off characters.

I totally agree that it hurt, but it made the movie that much more real. Wash wasn't a redshirt. His death drives home the idea that the crew knew what they were getting into, that they were willing to die to accomplish the mission. Bad things happend to good people, and Joss yanked the film out of Hollywood predictability by letting that ax fall. He reminded us that these characters wouldn't lead a charmed life. Hell, look at the timing of Wash's death: there's that look on his face that clearly says, "Oh my God, we made it!", then BAM! I think Joss was right to do it. If they'd all gotten out alive, it would have been too easy.

I have to admit that Mirrormask did almost nothing for me. I really wanted to like it, because I like Gaiman so much, but I couldn't see his hands in it anywhere. It was beautiful, but flat. The characters were very flat, the story was trite, or it felt trite even if I haven't seen that story before. The plot was too full of "oh hey, we're right where we need to be" which perhaps you can excuse because she's in a dream, and dreams are like that, but I can't then excuse the decision to go the dream route and just give the story a pass on those things.

Another problem: the movie is clearly going for that ambiguity about whether or not the dream was "real" but then how are we to interpret the scenes we saw of the "dark" Helena in the real world....was she really there? It seems she can't have been, or that if she was there would be real evidence left behind, and that means that, in the world of the movie, it's possible to "check" and see if it really happened. Thus, the ambiguity about whether or not the dream was real is itself illusory, and without that ambiguity the fantastic dream genre doesn't do much for me.

I'm sure I have more complaints, but I can't think of them now. I guess, if nothing else, I can hold Mirrormask up as my personal proof that I'm not a fanboy :)

Quoting

stealthmuffin above: "I dunno... to me, it only proves that you're not a Gaiman fanboy. Are there other genres/authors/etc. whose flaws you would forgive just because you like the genre/author/etc?"

Maybe, I don't know. I've had a number of experiences lately of "I wanted to like X, but it had problems." It's helping me get over my constant worry that I'm not literarilly sophisticated enough to tell good from bad, which as worried me a lot.

Anyway, I don't know what I'm saying here anymore.

Great. Now I'm wondering if I'm sophisticated enough. :)

No, kidding. I wonder whether there is a borderline between discernment and fannishness. Certainly in SF fandom there's plenty of trashing X even though it's loved. Hmm...

Hmm, not trying to call your sophistication into question. I always trust your opinion on books. I know I'm not very literary, so I tend to worry about whether I'm equipped to say whether a book is "good" or not. Or a story. It's sort of unrelated to this whole discussion, but is an area in which I have a lot of self doubt.

I understand the arguments for killing off Wash, but it doesn't change the fact that once that scene happened, it felt like someone had thrown a bucket of cold water on me. My enthusiasm for the rest of the movie, and indeed, the future of the franchise, died with him. Feh.

It's interesting how people responded so differently to the event.

laura_md reacted the exact same way, while my reaction was similar to

ltlbird's. For me Wash's death, while tragic, made the movie and characters that much MORE real. The movie had been a way wilder ride than the show from the start, but Wash's death turned the dial all the way to 11. Won't make me miss him any less though.

I don't think I've lost my liking for the story, but yes, bucket of cold water is what it was. Interesting that the reactions differ so much.

And now I'm really starting to get paranoid about how I kill off characters...

It's different in a standalone than in a series. I'd had 13 episodes of Wash-love before this movie. In a book...not so much.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

On objectivity and being a raving fangirl

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject

no subject