I watched Noam Baumbach's second film, "Margot At The Wedding" last night, the critically panned follow up to his critically loved debut "The Squid and the Whale".
The main bone of contention in all of the reviews in the British press was that none of the characters - specifically the adult ones - are in any way likable. In actual fact, they are all distastefully selfish and egocentric characterisations of middle class bourgeois.
Despite that and unlike many others who have seen it, I still believe that it is a good film. It's just not particularly pleasant to watch.
With regards to Noam Baumbach's two films; they are telling similar stories but the key difference is the perspective. "The Squid and the Whale" is the story of two kids going through the divorce of their neurotic, unpleasant parents from their point of view. "Margot at the Wedding" is telling a similar story - albeit with a sideline of sibling squabbling - but is told from the perspective of the neurotic, unpleasant parents.
To me, this raises two interesting points. Firstly, why as human beings do we need to feel empathy with film characters to enjoy a movie? We need someone to root for; to be able to decide who's side we're on. We also need to feel that there has been some change in the characters by the end; that they have learnt from the mistakes made and have grown.
A great example of this, albeit in a different medium, is the third album by The Streets, "The Hardest Way To Make An Easy Living". The main character of the record was a self-obsessed celebrity who was out of touch with reality and, consequently his fans. The success of the two earlier Streets records had been the way that everyman listeners could relate to the lyrics, describing stories of life in working, binge-drinking Britain. These same fans couldn't relate to the third album, once Mike Skinner had disappeared into a world of celebrity culture - but does it make it any less of a work of art?
It has been said that cinema is the truest of all art forms; but if that was the case then we would be able to objectively look at it without the gratification of having to like the characters. When you go to an art gallery and look at a work by another modern narcissist painter, you do so because you can take something away from it, even if you don't like the ideas behind it.
This links into my second point which relates to the way that we consume films. There is a much bigger focus on entertainment than there is in books or music or art. We go to the cinema expecting to be entertained, even when watching an art-house picture or bleak documentary. Faced with unpleasant characters telling unpleasant stories and we tend to come away thinking that we have seen a bad film.
There are occasional exceptions - the films of Michael Haneke for example are afforded a certain critical and cult success despite being bleak and immeasurably unpleasant, but invariably this is because the audience goes into the cinema knowing roughly what to expect and also because the craft of the film is so good. In any case, Haneke remains a love/hate figure for many cinema-goers.
So to take this back to "Margot at the Wedding"; I came away with a particular dislike for all of the main characters (and quite especially Nicole Kidmans) but equally, that the general critical response to the film was undoubtedly harsh. It is unfortunately quite true to life that a lot of people are unpleasant and sometimes their stories still need to be told.
The balance isn't always in offsetting the bad guy with the good but in remaining true to the characters themselves. Too often we are left with the clear conclusion that Character A was an unpleasant dickhead but - Praise Allah! - he/she has become a better person by the end of the film. All they needed was to fall in love, etc etc.
In reality, people don't change overnight. More often than not, when bad, life-changing things happen, we respond in the same screwed up way that we have always done. Perhaps this is why our natural reaction is to respond badly when art mirrors life in this way; we need change, growth, fulfillment and people we can root for.
Ultimately, the cinema is our escape; whether the film we're watching is a work of art or not.
The main bone of contention in all of the reviews in the British press was that none of the characters - specifically the adult ones - are in any way likable. In actual fact, they are all distastefully selfish and egocentric characterisations of middle class bourgeois.
Despite that and unlike many others who have seen it, I still believe that it is a good film. It's just not particularly pleasant to watch.
With regards to Noam Baumbach's two films; they are telling similar stories but the key difference is the perspective. "The Squid and the Whale" is the story of two kids going through the divorce of their neurotic, unpleasant parents from their point of view. "Margot at the Wedding" is telling a similar story - albeit with a sideline of sibling squabbling - but is told from the perspective of the neurotic, unpleasant parents.
To me, this raises two interesting points. Firstly, why as human beings do we need to feel empathy with film characters to enjoy a movie? We need someone to root for; to be able to decide who's side we're on. We also need to feel that there has been some change in the characters by the end; that they have learnt from the mistakes made and have grown.
A great example of this, albeit in a different medium, is the third album by The Streets, "The Hardest Way To Make An Easy Living". The main character of the record was a self-obsessed celebrity who was out of touch with reality and, consequently his fans. The success of the two earlier Streets records had been the way that everyman listeners could relate to the lyrics, describing stories of life in working, binge-drinking Britain. These same fans couldn't relate to the third album, once Mike Skinner had disappeared into a world of celebrity culture - but does it make it any less of a work of art?
It has been said that cinema is the truest of all art forms; but if that was the case then we would be able to objectively look at it without the gratification of having to like the characters. When you go to an art gallery and look at a work by another modern narcissist painter, you do so because you can take something away from it, even if you don't like the ideas behind it.
This links into my second point which relates to the way that we consume films. There is a much bigger focus on entertainment than there is in books or music or art. We go to the cinema expecting to be entertained, even when watching an art-house picture or bleak documentary. Faced with unpleasant characters telling unpleasant stories and we tend to come away thinking that we have seen a bad film.
There are occasional exceptions - the films of Michael Haneke for example are afforded a certain critical and cult success despite being bleak and immeasurably unpleasant, but invariably this is because the audience goes into the cinema knowing roughly what to expect and also because the craft of the film is so good. In any case, Haneke remains a love/hate figure for many cinema-goers.
So to take this back to "Margot at the Wedding"; I came away with a particular dislike for all of the main characters (and quite especially Nicole Kidmans) but equally, that the general critical response to the film was undoubtedly harsh. It is unfortunately quite true to life that a lot of people are unpleasant and sometimes their stories still need to be told.
The balance isn't always in offsetting the bad guy with the good but in remaining true to the characters themselves. Too often we are left with the clear conclusion that Character A was an unpleasant dickhead but - Praise Allah! - he/she has become a better person by the end of the film. All they needed was to fall in love, etc etc.
In reality, people don't change overnight. More often than not, when bad, life-changing things happen, we respond in the same screwed up way that we have always done. Perhaps this is why our natural reaction is to respond badly when art mirrors life in this way; we need change, growth, fulfillment and people we can root for.
Ultimately, the cinema is our escape; whether the film we're watching is a work of art or not.
Posts
0 comments:
Post a Comment