I’ve seen three movies recently that got me thinking about
this topic and how there's kind of a sliding scale in terms of how much a writer decides to reveal and when.
Great storytelling
constantly strikes a balance between revealing and obscuring plot, posing and
answering questions, and this keeps pages turning, (or people from checking their cell phones and annoying me in the movie theatre.)
And these three films differed strikingly in this regard: what they showed the audience, what they held back.
Black Swan – As I watched this film, I was constantly
figuring things out (I thought) and thinking of alternate explanations, but as many times as I changed my mind or went "aha!" I didn’t really know
what was going on until the end. And reaching the end just made me want to see it all over again from the start. Every time you think you have it figured out, the filmmaker takes you in another direction.
127 Hours – The polar opposite of Black Swan in some ways, because you know how it’s going to end before it starts. At least I did, because it’s based
on a widely known true story. But I liked this film too. A lot.
Certified Copy – With this film, as many things as I
guessed, by the time I got to the end, all of those possibilities (and likely more) were still possible, and I never got a hint as to what the frak was really going on. Not even when I was part of a discussion of the movie with the audience and two prominent Toronto film critics.
A bit more about each:
I loved this movie. I saw it back during the tiff and can’t
wait to see it again. And other than what I’ve already said, I don’t want to
say more, because I fear it would be spoilerish. The trailer is very good. If
you’ve seen that, you know as much as you should before going in. This is a film where the filmmaker figured
out just how much to show and how much to hide and which ways to misdirect, to
end up with near perfect storytelling. Of course this shouldn’t have been such
a great surprise to me since I’ve admired all Darren Aronofsky’s previous
films, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, The Wrestler, (even The Fountain, although I’m not sure I’ve figured that one out,
yet).
Even though I knew the basic true story and therefore the ending before the film started, it was one of the most tense and emotionally draining
movies I’ve seen in a long time. And James Franco... That really should be enough.
Even if you haven’t heard of this movie, you might remember
this guy’s story. It’s about the hiker who, back in 2003, got his arm suck under
a boulder at the bottom of a narrow canyon in the Arizona desert, and the way he finally survived –
by cutting off his lower arm after five days.
The moral of this story (other than being a major testament
to one man’s enormous will to survive) is never go hiking alone without telling
people where you’re going, and never leave home without a Swiss Army knife.
(And filmmaker, Danny Boyle, manages to foreshadow both of those so
cleverly...)
How this man finally manages to sever his lower arm without even, um, his Swiss army knife...
well, let’s just say it was miles past horrific, and made you wish he'd remembered that knife, and if it hadn't been a true story,
I’d never have believed it. Let’s just say he certainly didn’t have it as easy
as Merle in The Walking Dead -- no handy saw lying on the roof :). If any of the news stories back in 2003 had the graphic details
of what this guy did to get free, I forgot them.
But what impressed me about the film, and
increased my awe of the fabulous Danny Boyle (Shallow Grave, Trainspotting,
28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire among others...) is how tense the story was.
Even though, right from the beginning, you know that at some point he’s
going to fall and trap his arm, you don’t know when this will happen, and so the part of the
movie that passes before the event is gripping. I tensed up every time he
jumped over anything, or did something dangerous—both of which he does, a lot.
Then after he’s trapped, you know from the film’s title (and doing some math in your head) that he’s not going to get himself out for
five and a half days... and yet even though he tries some new method at, say, 14
hours in, you’re rooting for him and thinking his plan might actually work.
(Or, I guess, trying to figure out why it won’t work...)
I can’t remember when I’ve felt so physically wrecked after
a movie. I cried during a lot of films at the tiff this year, and felt
emotionally spent after several, but 127 Hours left me physically drained too, as if, for at
least 90 minutes, I’d been part of his 127 hour ordeal.
Now this is a film that purposefully misdirects you, confuses you...
and then not only doesn’t give you an answer, it gives so many contradictory
clues, it’s pretty much impossible to puzzle through what happened. The whole
time, I kept guessing and second guessing what was going on, and trying to relate it to the title and philisophical discussion about the value of copies vs originals in the art world... And I do admit that kept me (mostly) interested. But I felt somewhat frustrated when it ended without answering any of my questions, instead left me asking more.
Certified Copy is definitely an art film, (although, for
some bizarre reason, CBC film critic, Jesse Wente, referred to it as a romantic comedy when he
introduced it... wha-at?). It won Juliette
Binoche the best actress prize at Cannes, and opens in North America in a few
months. At least that’s what Jesse told at the sneak peek screening I saw. I
can’t decide whether or not Binoche deserved that award. I found it nearly
impossible to get a clear read on her character, but based on the fact that by
the end I also could not come out with a clear read on the entire
film, maybe her somewhat flighty performance was the point?
Now, I do worry that if any of you want to see this movie
I’m ruining the experience by telling you that you'll never figure it out. At least not in the
same way the person sitting next to you will... but the two critics at the sneak peek screening claimed it was richer and more
interesting on a second viewing. (They both first saw it in Cannes last
spring.) But I’m not interested enough to find out if they’re right. And they also said they watched it the second time looking for clues to support their favored theories... but ended up seeing so many contradictions that picking one through-line that explained it all was possible.
While I know I'm making this movie sound aggravating, I also think I'm making it sound more interesting than it was, and maybe that's why Wente went (pun, ha!) with Romantic Comedy as a genre. It's reminiscent of Before Sunrise... Most of it is one couple talking. And the main questions you have are how, or if, these two know each other and whether or not they have a history and whether or not at certain parts they're role playing to make points, or whether it's the truth, or whether the screenwriter is really just screwing with us. Which was my conclusion. Someone at the end said they thought the pair were meant to be like a copy of every couple... not one specific couple. But yeah... while I didn't hate this movie, I'm not recommending it either.
So, how do you take your stories? With cream and sugar? Revealed or obscured? A little of both?
Can you think of other cool movies or books that used misdirection
well? Hmm... I’m already thinking of a few, but will stop talking now. ;)
