A Lack Of Ideas
It’s been an interesting few weeks at the movies. There has been a series of films where there seems to be a big problem at the foundational level… what was the idea?
Tron Legacy is the latest example. There is good work in the film and a ton of it from Digital Domain, but riddle me this… what the hell was the core idea behind bringing back this film. Not “it’s a cult classic and a lot of people love it and we want to give it another chance,” but more, “What is the idea of this film?”
For me, the answer was that there was no new idea to be found, all these years later. Guy gets sucked into the machine world. Cool visual stuff happens as the rules of being are different.
It’s 2010, guys. Being caught in a videogame is not all that exciting. There is this thing called The Internet that touches virtually everything in the world. What are the stakes in this film? If they kill Bridges and his son, what happens? The “F” key stops working? Or the joystick doesn’t let you make lefts with your light cycle?
I’m not really kidding. Beautiful looking movie. Good actors. Would have liked to have seen the movie about Michael Sheen’s character. But even there… didn’t we see this in The Matrix? Isn’t the father/son thing and the idea of the doppelganger Jedi becoming the greatest threat from Star Wars?
I kept wondering why The Big Idea wasn’t in the ads… it was because there was no Big Idea.
Then there was James L. Brooks setting a lightweight (read: weak) version of Broadcast News in Washington, D.C. without the TV news biz OR anything particularly political. The genius of Brooks was that he was forever willing to let his characters’ worst sides be fully integrated into the story… and then, allowed them some grace.
I watched the whole movie and still don’t really get (or care) what Paul Rudd is being threatened with indictment over. It was a red herring for “he’s in trouble.” Reese Witherspoon is on the only adult softball team in the world that’s not dominated by out lesbians, but besides that, her life changing event is losing a spot on a softball team at 31 years of age. Really? And the Tom of the trio, Owen Wilson, is only in the competition for the girl because Rudd’s character is so very boring and self-obsessed. It’s funny that he has set up a mini-Victoria’s Secret in his home because he has so many women wander through his bed that he has developed a generous policy of offering clean clothes for their Walk of Shame. But as a central character in a rom-com? And need I remind that the sex in Broadcast News, while still hard-PG-13 or soft R, was more frank and honest and real with the characters than anything here.
But back to the basics… What Was The Idea? “How do you know when you are in love?” I don’t know. It doesn’t really happen in this movie. Even though it has The Moment, it isn’t grounded enough to be anything remotely solid.
And you pulled NIcholson out for the first time in years for THIS???
Oy.
What was the idea in Morning Glory? Pretty much buried until the third act.
The idea in Conviction? Sister selflessly gives her life over to her brother’s defense, becomes a lawyer, and frees him. The only problem? In the film, she never uses her legal status or acumen except to request documents.
Wall Street: Money Never Sleeps… the first film had a Big Idea… Wall Street was killing real businesses by making them about their financials and not about building something. What was the big idea here? Making a sequel.
Yeah, it touched on a lot of current hot topics. But for all the chatter, there was no Big Idea. It wasn’t about men who just kept going on, recovering from every downturn to rape and pillage some more. You’d have to see Inside Job for that. It wasn’t about Gekko’s damage, even to his daughter. It wasn’t about a kid trying to balance his ambition and a righteous young heart.
It wasn’t about anything.
There are also movies – better than this last group – that are, perhaps, about too many things… at least two. Love & Other Drugs is two, two, two movies in one. So is The Fighter.
I’m not saying that complexity and juggling multiple ideas can’t work or shouldn’t be attempted. I’m just saying, be clear. The best lighting, acting, and effects can’t overcome the lack of a central idea.
Ironically, even something like Burlesque knows exactly what it means to be, succeeding or not. So does The Tourist.
[looks at Matt Costa and Jack Johnson] IT’S CLOBBERING TIME BOYS! Seriously, what are the stakes? Huh, Flynn is FUCKING GOD! What part of that do you people not understand? He’s god, Sam is Jesus, and I imagine CRUCIFYING JESUS ON THE GAME GRID WOULD BE PRETTY GOD DAMN SUCKY!
Now you want the point of this film: it’s life. It’s that life, amazing and human like life, is found where folks do not believe life could exist. The Grid is like Jupiter. Imagine if we finally see the surface of Jupiter and under all of that chaotic weather hell there are people there, and they are just not any sort of people. They are people that by their mere existence changes everything that we know about ourselves and the universe. That’s the point but asking some of the most myopic people in the history of watching cinema to get this wonderful and beautiful bit of business, is like asking you to button your top button.
Seriously, life being found where no one believes there to be life and how that effects the program/man created in GOD’S OWN IMAGE, is powerful fucking stuff. That’s one major point of this film and when we go back to this world in 3 years or so, I am sure the ISOs and TRON will make it a rather interesting experience.
Now go listen to the Best Coast or something. Oh yeah, in honor of Proman, when ever you insult a movie that I like. You will get this… “This, is fucking hate speech!”
i see your point, and don’t totally disagree with you, but i think you missed a few things.
SPOILER ALERT
The older Flynn didn’t even know about Wifi, much less the internet. The world he created is self contained. That was one of the reasons Clu felt betrayed. That Flynn had access to other worlds and he did not.
True, there was no real threat to Clu leaving that i can think of. Unless he was planning to march that army through the portal. I’m not quite sure how a few thousand VR Warriors are going to fare against the US military. I would guess ‘not very well’
What saved a huge chunk of the story for me was Flynn admitting he was wrong. That in his quest to create ‘a perfect world’, he doomed it.
There are things that made me scratch my head. What are they eating at Flynn’s place? If you are ‘rezzed’ into the digital world, how can you still bleed? But i still enjoyed the film a lot.
Tron 2 is simple, stupid fun. It’s not meant to be dissected and examined. You’re not meant to be sitting there, thinking “This makes no sense. How has Flynn stayed alive so long on the grid? How does his human body digest the 1s and 0s that the suckled pig and water represent? How does he poop? What does he breathe?” It’s meant to entertain, with barely a hint of profoundness to keep the high-minded engaged. Tron 2 is supposed to make you feel like you’re twelve again, when cool was cool and that’s all you needed. It’s a big, shiny, cyberpunk Happy Meal, sustaining and satiating you until something more substantial comes along.
ed, i had no problem with it. but there were moments that made you go ‘huh?’
it didn’t take away anything from the film for me, but i could see people getting a little lost in some of the overlooked explanations.
Anghus and Ed and IO… I am fine with someone just sitting back and enjoying the ride.
But why didn’t I give a damn about anyone or anything, aside from being dazzled? Because there was no big idea. It didn’t have to be The Internet. But even if the trip is the universe in the atom in your fingernail, there are ideas in that which simply aren’t advanced.
Nothing wrong with enjoying being a 12 year old again… but some of us see a lot of very, very smart people coming together and spending a lot of money to get to that… yet the movie keeps seeming to suggest that it’s smarter than that.
Interesting conversation.
It’s a 12 year old’s idea of an “idea.”
im still trying to figure out who is referring to this as a ‘smart’ movie.
it’s popcorn. the basic story is a guy who created a world inside a computer, it turns against him, and he’s trapped there. his son goes in and tries to save him by throwing discs and riding cool motorcycles.
who is making the ‘smart’ claim. i need more. i need citation and examples. because i hear a lot of people say ‘cool’ after seeing it. no one is claiming this is high concept.
Was ‘Love & Other Drugs’ really that hard to follow, Dave? I thought it was pretty focused on presenting its few simple solid ideas from start to finish; ie, maintaining a proper relationship takes work; while in one, you take the good with the bad; its okay to need someone. It all seemed very straightforward to me.
And that lesbian softball joke… Seriously?
Uh… not joke, paperless. Do you know a team of straight adult female “pro” softball players?
And no, I could follow L&OD… like the movie quite a bit and think they managed to walk that tightrope shockingly well. But it’s not about what I like.
*spoilers*
There are two big ideas in Tron Legacy. First, that intelligent life spontaneously springs into existence without a creator. Two, that information may want to be free, but that doesn’t mean it always should be.
In the movie, original Flynn tells his son of his huge discovery, the ISOs (isometric lifeforms). He has proof that life does not need a creator to exist, it can simply spring into existence. Flynn is the god to this universe, and something is alive he didn’t create. If in reality someone created artificial intelligence in our image which did as it was told, but in that same environment another kind of AI evolved out of nothingness, the discovery would be monumental. As Flynn in the movie says, it would change everything. Coincidentally, from descriptions I’ve read, physicist Stephen Hawking’s recent book The Grand Design argues essentially the same thing for our universe, it simply sprung into being, no creator needed.
The other big idea is that information wants to be free. Sam Flynn demonstrates this idea by hacking into Encom’s systems to upload the latest version of their flagship operating system to the Internet. He does this to carry out the ideals of his father as best he knows them. In The Grid, Programs are information, thus Programs want to be free. But old Flynn has acquired some wisdom through his solitude in The Grid, and now believes that not all programs, not all information, can be free without cost. The Grid is not just a computer simulation, it’s another universe. Old Flynn mentions at some point his work in quantum teleportation, which is how he gets into The Grid via the laser scanner. Clu has figured this out, that the portal isn’t just an exit point for a user representation, but the actual gateway that transforms an existence for representation between our world and The Grid. If people can “beam in”, why can’t programs beam out? Clu wants Flynn’s identity disc because it has all the information on how this process works, and perhaps the bits necessary to get a program into the real world. Which is I think one of the reasons why old Flynn gives Quorra his ID disc, he hopes she can make it out. So old Flynn knows now that not all information should be free, sometimes the costs can be too high.
Maybe it’s just me, but the movie didn’t seem to suffer from a lack of ideas when I saw it yesterday.
Dave, I am a loyal reader but after your “joke” about only lesbians playing softball, I have to step away from your reviews. It showed complete ignorance on your part. If you cared to show a little interest, you would first know that her character is a part of the USA Softball Women’s National Team, which is something that athletes generally do not make until they are 25-26, a season or two out of college(and their prime is around 31, like Reese’s character). Second, not all softball players are lesbians. If you cared to look at the roster of the women currently representing Team USA, you’d see that only one of the 17 is a lesbian (Lauren Lappin), and quite a few are either married or engaged to men (Jennie Finch, Jessica Mendoza, Eileen Canney, Caitlin Lowe, etc.). Several others have boyfriends. You’re simply too uneducated for me to continue reading your movie reviews. If you continue to buy into stereotypes, you’ll just continue to perpetuate the stereotype that you’re an uneducated asshole. Calling all softball players lesbians is probably just your way of dealing with the emotional pain that no woman who is the best at what she does, whether it be softball or her profession – a lawyer, a doctor, a writer – would ever want to lay her hands on a scum like you. Grow up.
Well that got out of hand in a hurry.
Anghus: what Murdock posted. It’s a very smart movie and David not really getting it or these other supposed CLEVER and SMART critics not getting, is why I have problems with the supposed CLEVER AND SMART CRITICS. Seriously, Poland not getting and then insulting people who do, demonstrates why criticism is dead.
That aside, Ed, he’s GOD! If you are GOD of something. You can SUSTAIN YOURSELF. There’s your answer.
Tina –
Again… It wasn’t meant or offered as a joke in any way. I don’t know why anyone would think it was intended as one.
And your response is a bit hysterical, regardless of your gender.
You either haven’t seen the film or are too upset to remember it, but Reese at 31 is being thrown off the team for being too old. Maybe you should be sending an angry letter to Jim Brooks.
You also don’t seem to have read what I actually wrote, as I didn’t call “all softball players lesbians,” though I did write that this was “the only adult softball team in the world that’s not dominated by out lesbians.”
There is a difference… and an angry person may say it’s splitting hairs, but there is a difference.
And really, if you want to tell me that I am wrong about what I wrote, the way of approaching it is to call me “scum,” an “uneducated asshole,” and to go off on some diatribe about how women feel about me? That’s a smart, thoughtful response?.
My guess is that you’ve never read me before and someone is sending around a link claiming that I am attacking softball with claims of lesbianism. And frankly, I consider that pretty homophobic.
Would a 100% lesbian team be bad? Not to me.
Do I care if a sports team is 100% black? No.
Do I care if there isn’t a jew in the NFL? No.
But if you made a movie and it was set in a New York law firm and no one who worked there was jewish, I would notice it as a critic. And indeed, when non-jews (actually Goyish Gods) Susan Sarandon and Frank Langella were the clearly-jewish performances (aside form Eli Wallach) in Wall Street 2, I mentioned it in the review.
Perhaps this is personal and you are associated with the team and feel that this notion that adult women softball players tend to be lesbians is a burden on you. Okay. Maybe you should have just written that.
Has Women’s Softball changed? Maybe. I could be dead wrong about that. You’re right. I have not studied in any way the sex lives of the USA Softball Women’s National Team. Because really, I don’t care.
I like women as group, straight or gay. Not all of them. But unless someone is carrying a chip around on their shoulder about their sexuality – and this is true of straight women as well – it’s a non-issue to me. I don’t give a damn what anyone does in their bed or whom the choose to love.
I responded to your comment this thoroughly because the idea of being painted as some kind of bigot because I made this observation is scary and a bit offensive. If you disagree with something I wrote, factually or otherwise, this is an open forum that can be used, in part, to educate its sometimes incorrect author. You are welcome.
But I am not going to play PC games when someone gets enraged… because Political Correctness is, in my opinion, a creator of separation, not a unifier. I didn’t cast aspersions on anyone but the author of the film with my passing comment about lesbians in softball. It was no dig at the sport or lesbians or, for that matter, heterosexual women. If your sensitivities make it feel that way, my apologies.
But what stays with me is that you have built up all this hatred of me so very easily. And I bear none of the things you seem to be so passionate about any ill will at all. Nor do I feel anger towards you, because you seem to be acting out of pain and it would be idiotic for me to take it personally.
Be well.
And if you want to have a real discussion about the stare of women’s softball, happy to be the forum in which you do it. But be aware… we have some real male chauvinist pigs who frequent the space and it doesn’t take much to set them off. (We also have some very smart women who often beat them to a rhetorical pulp.)
This, David, IS FUCKING HATE SPEECH!
Sometimes you’re funny, IO… have to admit.
that took six years… WOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!
Jim Brooks based Reese Witherspoon’s character off Lisa Fernandez, the three-time Olympian who did not get named to the Beijing Olympic Team in favor of younger athletes. Actually, he gave the character the looks of Jennie Finch but the story of Lisa Fernandez.
Actually, there were some adventurous moments in the exploitation field this year. MACHETE had some intriguing ideas about politics, racism and media manipulation that you generally don’t find in films of that sort. And SURVIVAL OF THE DEAD coded intolerance, medical experimentarion and the death penalty into its zombie freak-outs. Not saying these were “deep,” but at least they gave us something to chew on between the action scenes, which is more than we got from bigger, costlier pictures.
MACHETE is one of the most political films of the year, in the tradition of AIP and its subversions.
Survival of the Dead or “How the zombies eating steak will be better for all of us.”
The core idea for the first Walll St is Faust by way of Acton. What you seem to be referring to is the subtext. Marty Sheen’s lumpen dialogue may have been cose to Stone’s heart but it wasn’t the center of the “big idea”. That’s why we’re introduced to Holbrook and Stamp’s characters, to show that Bud doesn’t have to live a zero sum game where he either sells his soul or stays at the airline. Otherwise, you’re implying Stone felt his father wasn’t a true working man, which is the opposite of what he’s said over the years.
Comment from a non-frequent reader of the column: I am actually intrigued by this discussion. I am puzzled why there are so few original ideas or plots coming out of Hollywood especially in major movies. I am not sure that there has to be a big idea clearly spelled out. That seems to me like an American approach. European movies tend to be more subtle. This is not to say that one is better than the other. But the bottomline is that there has to be original ideas or interpretations clear or subtle. I think the main reason we don’t see many is that execs or whoever controls the money does not see much return in new ideas. Most movies want to be hotdogs or fastfood or popcorn or soda, maybe with a twist like cherry coke or coke zero. Because these sell. Inception would have made a lot more money if it was simpler, more dynamic with more visual effects. Or maybe not.
Inception is apparently still not good enough for these freaking critics, and it’s as original as they come. This is my problem with the year end list. These critics are trying to convince us that a movie that misses the point of Zuckerberg, a pointless remake, and a typical Brit historical drama are on the same level of Inception? Really? Black Swan at least is trying something new, so good on that flick, but the way the critics are excluding the most original film of the year because of their typical end of the year bullshit, is annoying.
Chel, I’m not sure if the American/European dichotomy actually exists – quite frankly, you can read practically any “idea” in to any movie you want. Is Jackass a lowest-common-denominator crapfest or is it an insight into the psyche of those so numbed by the constant assault of modern media that they have to self-harm to remind themselves that they are still alive?
European movies might not be so much “subtle” as they might be “hey, lets see what tedium we can throw on the screen and see what audiences can read into it?” If that’s the case, the only difference between an “empty” Hollywood film and an “empty” European arthouse flick is the amount of money spent.
You don’t need to put ideas into a movie. You just need audiences to take them away.