Recently I heard a film critic talk about how in his opinion the best movie of 2008 is "The Wrestler". Several other film critics agree with this particular assessment and on their recommendation, my firm decided to go see it. (For those of you who have a problem with my seeing films rated anything other than G or PG, please know that I was unaware of the film's rating at the time, as I usually don't even check such things. Maybe this is an area in which I could do better, but that is a topic for another day.)
In short, the film was AWFUL! We sat through nearly two hours of mundane, mono-emotional, unimaginative, depressing drivel, hoping that this film had an ending where someone somewhere finds some kind of redemption or at least that the moral is not just "don't let your kids grow up to be professional wrestlers". Nope. The main character and everyone around him are losers. They have problems that they do not solve or even have ideas of how to solve. And in the end, nobody is helped or saved or redeemed or even learns any kind of lesson, regardless of the value. No, this was two hours of "slice of life" about a loser who can't figure out why he's a loser and knows nothing better than to be a loser. Those whose lives he crosses are no better or worse for his being there. There were moments where connections with a lover or his estranged daughter could have gone somewhere, but the film makers decided to not pursue the idea (let alone the build up) of a plot line.
Now, my point is this: WHY THE HECK IS THIS SUPPOSED TO BE SUCH A GREAT MOVIE???
I think that we as a society have gone beyond being able to feel emotions. We are afraid to feel sad or mad or happy or energized. We cannot bear to be seen with tears in our eyes or be heard to laugh. We can't acknowledge that we want to cheer for anyone or anything. We are constantly afraid of having emotions. And that is too bad.
The Ancient Greeks created the drama as a catharsis for emotions. They depicted scenes of outrageous arrogance or hubris in order to have the audience feel the emotions of fear and/or sorrow. By so letting these emotions out, they believed that in "real life" they would not be subjected to the consequences that these emotions can produce. By letting these more "negative" emotions out, they had room to be thoughtful, happy and attain joy and unity in their democracy. To say that they were always successful would be overstating the ability of the drama, but the benefit of vicariously living a moment in someone else's shoes cannot be denied.
Plays, movies, and, to a lesser degree, TV shows should give us this same opportunity. We need to be driven to tears and laughter by our entertainment, otherwise it is a waste of our precious time. This film did nothing for me. I didn't care about the characters. I didn't care whether they won or lost. I only wanted the experience to be done. And when it was done, I was not changed in any way. That I had experienced nothing made me upset for having lost my time. And it made me question every film critic that thought this was such a great thing to see. The lead actor is supposed to be up for awards for his portrayal of a loser. Great, he knows how to play a loser that no one could care about, including the audience. Supposedly, the actor's portrayal is based on his own journey into the abyss of mediocrity. So this is what make an actor great -- mediocrity? His great portrayal is one that lacks feeling and doesn't move the audience??
To say that I am disappointed is an understatement. But I am more concerned about why we are so caught up with elevating the mundane, lionizing the mediocre, and praising those who achieve nothing. No, not all movies have to have cool special effects, actors (male or female) in tights, an obvious villain and an obvious hero. There are some great movies about the struggles of real people. But they have plots and they show how one has overcome, or could have overcome, the odds placed against him. The hero doesn't always have to win. But we need to care about the struggle, be invested in the journey.
I ask only that my entertainment entertains! That I can FEEL something. That I can experience something. I don't want to be subjected to films where there are no winners and no one to care about and be told that this is entertainment. It isn't. It is just a waste of resources. Yes, we can have cinema verity, but let it have some meaning. I recently saw "Frost/Nixon". I knew the story -- I remember the history (I lived through it). It was presented as a pseudo-documentary. And it was entertaining. There was some conflict. There was some hubris. There were moments of laughter and moments of frustration. I felt better for having seen the film.
Maybe that is the gauge we should use -- are you better for having spent this time in the theater? There are those that would argue that films are just a waste of time and you are never better for having wasted your life in such things. And maybe they have a point in that there is probably always something better that we could or should be doing with our time. But if you do see a film, do you feel better? Have you been enriched in some way?
Or are you like these film critics who are so past feeling that they don't even recognize what quality really is?
