veronica_rich (![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
veronica_rich) wrote2006-05-12 04:56 pm
veronica_rich) wrote2006-05-12 04:56 pm
Movie mythology and its importance
Found an interesting article, while surfing around, on the mythology behind specific popular entertainment venues ("Lost" "X-Files" "Mission: Impossible") and thought it might be relevant to a "Pirates of the Caribbean" discussion.
By Gregg Kilday
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Was it the couch-jumping? The marketing? Some flaw in the movie itself? Ever since Paramount Pictures' "Mission: Impossible III" opened Friday to what most observers judged a disappointing three-day domestic gross of $47.7 million, the hunt has been on to explain the shortfall.
One theory holds that as the third film in a series, "M:I-3" is simply experiencing franchise burnout. But the reality, as far as that notion goes, might be more complicated. Thanks to television and the Internet, the way core fans engage with their favorite entertainment is changing in a way that might have simply left "M:I-3" behind the curve.
Blame it on "The X-Files." That ground-breaking TV series -- with its ever-more convoluted story lines about alien invaders and government cover-ups -- popularized the notion of creating a "mythology," a growing catalog of hints, clues and underlying relationships, that enriches a tale. It also feeds the enthusiasm of its core fan base, flattered to be asked to tease out the mysteries, often on Internet chat boards, even if the mysteries are rarely ever satisfactorily explained.
While the phenomenon has thrived on TV -- ABC's "Lost" is the reigning example -- it also has shown up in the movies. George Lucas' "Star Wars" is, in many ways, the grand-daddy of the ever-expanding mythology. In between films, Lucas kept his franchise alive by developing it in books, games and cartoon series, so that when the series' second trilogy was released, fans were panting with anticipation. This month, 20th Century Fox's "X-Men: The Last Stand" will attempt to build on the success of the first two "X-Men" movies by adding new characters and further exploring the relationships between the returning mutants.
From the start though, the "Mission" series rejected mythology. The first movie killed off the character of Jim Phelps, the one link to the 1960s TV series. On the big screen, the franchise chose to bet primarily on its star Tom Cruise, surrounded by spectacular explosions.
Part of the appeal of the old TV series was that it established a team of covert operatives -- Martin Landau's master of disguise, Barbara Bain's femme fatale, Greg Morris' tech expert and Peter Lupus' strong man. Then each week, it combined their expertise in different combinations in jigsaw puzzle plots. On the big screen, though, each of the films essentially has erased all memory of its predecessor -- only Ving Rhames has teamed with Cruise in all three movies. In effect, each of the movies has been a stand-alone entertainment.
Certainly, stand-alone movies without an evolving mythology can still turn into blockbusters. The James Bond series is the prime example, even if in recent years, it has coasted on moviegoers' nostalgia as Bond re-enacts familiar rituals. But stand-alones, lacking a dedicated fan base eager for new details, can face bigger hurdles.
"M:I-3" director J.J. Abrams compensates for the series' lack of its own mythology by borrowing elements of his TV series, most especially "Alias," where emotional bonds are constantly tested in the midst of flashy spy capers and table-turning third-act betrayals are to be expected. There are in-references to delight his fans: A cameo appearance by actor Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in all of Abrams' series; a star turn by Keri Russell, star of Abrams' "Felicity;" passing references to Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation, which figure in "Lost."
Some critics have knocked Abrams' dependence on the "Alias" tropes. But -- though there is no way to prove it -- because "M:I-3" lacks a mythology of its own, without its shout-outs to "Alias" fans, "M:I-3" might have encountered even more resistance than it did.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter (May 12, 2006)
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
By Gregg Kilday
LOS ANGELES (Hollywood Reporter) - Was it the couch-jumping? The marketing? Some flaw in the movie itself? Ever since Paramount Pictures' "Mission: Impossible III" opened Friday to what most observers judged a disappointing three-day domestic gross of $47.7 million, the hunt has been on to explain the shortfall.
One theory holds that as the third film in a series, "M:I-3" is simply experiencing franchise burnout. But the reality, as far as that notion goes, might be more complicated. Thanks to television and the Internet, the way core fans engage with their favorite entertainment is changing in a way that might have simply left "M:I-3" behind the curve.
Blame it on "The X-Files." That ground-breaking TV series -- with its ever-more convoluted story lines about alien invaders and government cover-ups -- popularized the notion of creating a "mythology," a growing catalog of hints, clues and underlying relationships, that enriches a tale. It also feeds the enthusiasm of its core fan base, flattered to be asked to tease out the mysteries, often on Internet chat boards, even if the mysteries are rarely ever satisfactorily explained.
While the phenomenon has thrived on TV -- ABC's "Lost" is the reigning example -- it also has shown up in the movies. George Lucas' "Star Wars" is, in many ways, the grand-daddy of the ever-expanding mythology. In between films, Lucas kept his franchise alive by developing it in books, games and cartoon series, so that when the series' second trilogy was released, fans were panting with anticipation. This month, 20th Century Fox's "X-Men: The Last Stand" will attempt to build on the success of the first two "X-Men" movies by adding new characters and further exploring the relationships between the returning mutants.
From the start though, the "Mission" series rejected mythology. The first movie killed off the character of Jim Phelps, the one link to the 1960s TV series. On the big screen, the franchise chose to bet primarily on its star Tom Cruise, surrounded by spectacular explosions.
Part of the appeal of the old TV series was that it established a team of covert operatives -- Martin Landau's master of disguise, Barbara Bain's femme fatale, Greg Morris' tech expert and Peter Lupus' strong man. Then each week, it combined their expertise in different combinations in jigsaw puzzle plots. On the big screen, though, each of the films essentially has erased all memory of its predecessor -- only Ving Rhames has teamed with Cruise in all three movies. In effect, each of the movies has been a stand-alone entertainment.
Certainly, stand-alone movies without an evolving mythology can still turn into blockbusters. The James Bond series is the prime example, even if in recent years, it has coasted on moviegoers' nostalgia as Bond re-enacts familiar rituals. But stand-alones, lacking a dedicated fan base eager for new details, can face bigger hurdles.
"M:I-3" director J.J. Abrams compensates for the series' lack of its own mythology by borrowing elements of his TV series, most especially "Alias," where emotional bonds are constantly tested in the midst of flashy spy capers and table-turning third-act betrayals are to be expected. There are in-references to delight his fans: A cameo appearance by actor Greg Grunberg, who has appeared in all of Abrams' series; a star turn by Keri Russell, star of Abrams' "Felicity;" passing references to Oceanic Airlines and the Hanso Foundation, which figure in "Lost."
Some critics have knocked Abrams' dependence on the "Alias" tropes. But -- though there is no way to prove it -- because "M:I-3" lacks a mythology of its own, without its shout-outs to "Alias" fans, "M:I-3" might have encountered even more resistance than it did.
Reuters/Hollywood Reporter (May 12, 2006)
It was interesting to read this while keeping POTC in mind. The only specific backing "mythology" for the first movie is the ride, which pre-dates the movie by about 30 years. I've been on the ride; it's not that great shakes, as storytelling goes. It's a loose collection of pirate cliches thrown together in animatronic scenery for a slow boat ride. Yay.
Now of course, piracy on the high seas has a long and rich history and mythology to draw from. But what I found interesting in the movie was the *lack* of cliches. I saw only one peg-leg, and that was in very brief passing; I don't remember eyepatches or hooks for hands (though maybe I just missed them?) or "Yarrr!" except from Barbossa a couple of times. Hell, I don't even remember gold hoop earrings (the only ones I do recall were Elizabeth's at the beginning fort scene).
So the question becomes: Does POTC have a bigger fan base than M:I because it has a longer backing mythology? I don't think so - after all, spies and their myths have been around forever, too. Does it have a bigger base because of better acting or more compelling stories? I don't know - I haven't seen the M:I movies, though I used to watch the TV series, and while Tom Cruise would probably be on my celeb shit-list if I had one, the fact is that he is an entertaining actor when he wants to be.
What do you all think? (Feel free to pimp this in your own journal if you like, since I don't think my shake alone is enough to bring all the commenters to the yard.)
no subject
Mythology? Well, there's the whole trickster mythology that the writers cited in their commentary (linking Jack to Bugs Bunny, Loki, and Kokopelli) which far predates modern spy thrillers. Then you also have the mythology as in that which Joseph Campbell discussed in connection with Star Wars, the whole idea of the Hero's Journey--which, in my view of PotC, is Will's journey. So now you have the Trickster/Fool leading the Hero on a journey--isn't that what the best myths all revolve around? To go to something completely unrelated, look at Conan the Barbarian or Lord of the Rings where we have similar dynamics. It's one of the first lessons a storyteller needs to learn. A story isn't a story unless something happens to the characters we care about.
Good golly, I miss lit. crit.:)
no subject
Otherwise, I think (time honored cliches aside) The Pirate is very romantically perceived as the ultimate rebel, someone who is more truly free than your average person can, or would want to, be. Add to that Johnny Depp's "ultimate rebel" attitude, Keira and Orlando's ridiculous beauty and the exceptional number of entertaining characters that surround them, and the PotC movie was guaranteed cult status at least. The fabulous effects, writing and acting made it a smash hit besides.
If I'm correct, the Tom Cruise character does have people to answer to (?), and therefore isn't in the same class with Jack Sparrow. I can't say if the writing of MI can compare, but I expect the effects and the acting are "quality." However, I'm guessing the focus in pretty exclusively on Cruise and his nemesis (?) - maybe MI is missing diversity?
So - in answer to your question - yes, I think the more extensive mythology has something to do with PotC's greater popularity (but there have been a lot of "pirate movie" flops too). The greater part of PotC's success is it's perfect blend of many elements. I don't think MI has nearly so many elements contributing (and it shows in the numbers). I guess we'll know for sure in a month or two. :-p
no subject
I think part of what makes PotC such a hit is the fact that the entire family can watch it and be entertained. It may cost a pretty penny, but you know the kids and parents will like it. Not only that, but the first one was a fantasic story that could be added to. There is always a question of if the sequel will be as good as the first and most of the time the answer is a resounding "no," but every once in a while it works. I guess we'll just have to wait and see but with the following that PotC has and the anticipation I at least hold out hope for a huge box office the opening weekend.
no subject
I think the film works because it establishes it's own mythology, using fundamental tropes as some other reader pointed out. It establishes a believable fantastical universe, in which the laws, though improbable, are true to the rules of this particular fiction, therefore conveying an authenticity to the viewer.
It's the cohesiveness that differentiates it from a typical action film. Reviewers always gripe about the overabundence of plot in POTC, but that's exactly what makes it compelling. A textured world is realized, offering you its own legends and ghost stories as a foundation for the action: the history of the Black Pearl, Barbossa, Bootstrap, and Cortez's gold medallions.
Even Jack himself is a pseudo-mythological figure, especially when the film mocks his own aggrandisement of his achievements (summed up by the line: "Sea turtles, aye."). The very nature of the pirate in the film is someone who likes to embrace the tall tales of the oral tradition and someone who is mythologized about even in his own time, which is why you as a viewer are excited to go along for the ride;
as is Elizabeth, who has been reading pirate stories her whole life and somehow survives because of it. In this way, all the pirate stories we've read or heard about in our own youths get woven into the fabric of the film: the legends of Bluebeard, Captain Morgan, or the Flying Dutchman. Indeed, to not be a pirate, i.e. someone willing to believe in the impossible, the fantastical, and the fictitious, is eventually characterized as something to be frowned upon in the denoument, and certainly Will's remonstrations at the beginning frame him in an unflattering light.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that POTC didn't have to be based on anything as concrete as LOTR or Superman, because it creates its own mythological discourse in the very subtext of the film, playing with ideas of how myth and legend are conceived of, then always juxtaposing this against the narrative reality of the situation, which in itself is incredible in terms of the supernatural elements.
Basically, the message is that the fun is in believing, which is the essence of any good yarn.
no subject
Present mythologies in film, literature or any artistic endeavor is created simply by the fans who follow it. In fact, the definition of a fan could be someone who understands the mythologies, whereas the casual viewer/reader may take away only a shallow understanding of the work.
no subject
My primary reason for enjoying the film is simply because it's fun to watch. It's a great roller coaster ride, and one doesn't necessailry have the expectations of it being a serious work. However, that's exactly what it is, while being a romp, as well. The viwer can come away from it being a little wiser, and it does have a moral in its "what comes around goes around" message. And while it does build on archetypal pirate images such as Blackbeard and Davy Jones's locker, it also makes fun of them. Didn't Geoffrey Rush just have a *tad* too much fun screaming "ARRRRR", LOL?
- Silver Rose