Every time I watch a Zack Snyder film I feel conflicted.
It's not that I disliked the movie, it's more that I'm unsettled by something and
I can't quite describe precisely what it is.
So I decided to take an exhaustive look at his interviews and rewatch all of his works
to try and figure it out.
And the more interviews I see, the more I like him.
He speaks about his work enthusiastically and he has a clear idea about his "thesis"
for each film.
So it's easy to see how he inspires other people to join his projects.
As I re-watched his films more closely, I was quickly impressed by his framing choices.
Like this shot from Dawn of the Dead that moves away from Ana to give
us the scope of her world and her place in it in the pending apocalypse.
Or the sequence where Ana's group runs into CJ and the other security guards at the mall.
The framing conveys not only who is in charge but who will also be the most trustworthy.
Notice the distance of the three guards in this shot.
As we cut to different characters we're not only focusing on their words and their perspective
in this mini conflict, we're also establishing trust and power.
Just before CJ (the moustached leader of the three guards) agrees to help them.
Notice how close the camera gets to Anna and CJs face.
This indicates that, not only are these two people in the position of power in this particular scene,
but it also indicates they may be the most trustworthy.
But gradually, the more films I saw I began to feel like while I was engaged with what
was happening visually, I wasn't engaged emotionally; it was all passing in front of
me and I didn't really feel a part of it.
And it finally became clear what was wrong.
It's not any ONE thing, it's a variety of things that compound to deliver a movie
experience that isn't as satisfying as it should be.
Snyder frequently refereces a magazine he read as a kid called Heavy Metal.
Heavy Metal magazine started in the late 70's.
Each issue features a series of somewhat-pulp-fiction-inspired Science Fiction and Fantasy stories that frequently
include violence, nudity, and sexual content.
As a kid, Snyder said he was able to get these because his mother just didn't know what was inside them,
and Snyder reading Heavy Metal Magazine turned him off other comics because they didn't feature any violence
or death.
The thing to note about Heavy Metal here is that it's not a solid example of storytelling, character, or dialogue.
When Snyder references Heavy Metal as an influence I assume he means aesthetically
and I'm sure his skills as a writer and storyteller have far surpassed his ten year-old self
but since Snyder keeps mentioning Heavy Metal I think it's fair to say that some of his
preferences or maybe his sensibilities lie there.
This is the kind of stuff he likes.
Stuff he's OK with.
Stuff he might be drawn to.
And this preference is something that's fair to consider as we look at his work.
People frequently criticize Snyder for overusing
slow motion in his films so I don't really want to talk focus on this too much, let's just look at one example.
In 300, the moment when King Leonidas kicks the Persian messenger into a pit is iconic.
The reason it works so well is because it's a defining moment for the character, for Sparta,
for the film, and it's preceded by a great line.
THIS. IS. SPARTA!!!
When we see Leonidas kick the messenger, we understand with actions how ruthless he is,
and how ruthless Spartans are and we see their power.
But is this moment as memorable?
Or this one?
Or this one?
The "kick into the pit" scene is earlier on in the movie so it's more character defining
— it just means more.
Many of the other sequences look cool and allow you to experience the action better and maybe provide
a heightened experience, but they're less impactful, because they aren't always tied
to something defining that action.
It's difficult to relate to characters in Snyder's films.
An audience needs a human moment with a character so that we feel something for them.
Very often these types of scenes involve some kind of dialogue, but they don't have to.
A character can talk about their past or their parents or their siblings (because we all generally
have those and have strong feelings towards them), which reveals something about who they
are and how they fit in the world.
Here's a great example from Game of Thrones Season Four:
In this sequence we're hearing about the first time that Oberyn met Tyrion.
Now Tyrion doesn't remember them meeting because he was just a baby
But Oberyn describes exactly what he heard about Tyrion on the way overfrom Dorne.
The whole way from Dorne all anyone talked about was the monster that had been born to Tywin Lannister.
A head twice the size of his body, a tail between his legs, claws, one red eye, the privates of both a girl and a boy.
That would have made things so much easier.
When we met your sister, she promised she would show you to us. Every day we would ask. Every day she would say, "Soon."
Then she and your brother took us to your nursery and... she unveiled the freak.
Your head was a bit large. Your arms and legs were a bit small, but no claw. No red eye. No tail between your legs. Just a tiny pink cock.
We didn't try to hide our disappointment. "That's not a monster," I told Cersei, "that's just a baby."
And she said, "He killed my mother." And she pinched your little cock so hard, I thought she might pull it off. Until your brother made her stop.
"It doesn't matter," she told us. "Everyone says he will die soon, I hope they are right; he should not have lived this long."
The reason this scene works so well is because we're looking at Tyrion's face while he hears a story that he never knew about.
And we're getting to hear with him first hand how horrific his childhood was.
And how much the people that were supposed to care about him most, hated him.
The camera holds on his face so we can see how he feels about it.
Now looking at Snyder's work (at least where he's listed as one of the writers), there aren't any solid examples of relatable characterization like this.
I think it's a bit unfair to look at 300 because Snyder is really just trying to make a faithful
reproduction of the graphic novel , but briefly, King Leonidas isn't really a guy we relate to.
He's extreme: For tonight, we dine in hell!"
Now let's look at Sucker Punch.
In Sucker Punch there are a couple of moments where we're given to identify with the girls like
when Rocket is talking to Baby Doll about her family.
You got family?
Uh .... No.
I ran away from mine. I thought I was pretty smart at the time but ...
Sweet Pea followed ... which is crazy because she never even had a real problem with Mom and Dad.
She just cares about you a lot.
Now let's look at a scene that 'should' extend that characterization:
In this "Mirror Scene," Rocket is trying to get her sister, Sweat Pea, to listen to Baby Doll's plan.
Sweet Pea doesn't want to take any risks. She tells Rocket she's the one that kept them safe in the past.
So Rocket uses this information about keeping her safe and tries to flip it on Sweet Pea by telling her about the time when Baby Doll saved her from the cook.
Ideally we should have a human moment here so we can identify with Sweet Pea, and with Rocket and with Baby Doll.
All we get though is this kinda look like, "Damn, you did save my sister. Maybe you cool."
It isn't quite as powerful as the Game of Thrones scene, is it?
There's simply less there.
Less from the script, less for the actors to work with.
The panning shot allows us to get the other character's reactions in the frame,
which heightens the emotion a bit, but I feel like the scene is more constructed
to serve the idea that the entire film is Sweet Pea's fantasy
because when the camera spins to what should be the back of the mirror, we begin to circle
around the girls and are facing the front of the mirror again.
While this is a really cool sequence, its focus isn't to service the emotion of the scene
In order to tether us to a story about multi-layered and false realities (like Sucker Punch)
we need strong, clear emotion.
If we're going to follow these characters and care about what happens to them, it helps to have these human moments are there.
While Man of Steel doesn't list Snyder as a writer, I still think it's fair to point
out that there aren't a lot of emotions attached to Superman's actions.
Mostly his actions have a logical connection.
When Superman heads back to Earth to attack Zod and his crew, there's a sequence where
Jor-El tells his son that he can save Lois.
and he can save the rest of humanity.
And that's it.
The reason Superman is attacking Zod is to save Lois and save Earth.
And that makes sense. I get it.
But what's the emotional resonance to that action, so I'm invested in what he's doing
so that I feel it myself?
There isn't really one.
Similarly (and although Snyder didn't direct it, he's credited as a writer for the screenplay),
look at 300: Rise of an Empire.
What is our emotional connection to Themistokles?
Xerxes and his massive army are coming destroy and conquer Greece, and Xerxes is a bad guy,
sure, but where is the sequence that invests me in Themistokles emotionally?
It's the same as Man of Steel, bad guys are bringing this conflict and the heroes
must protect their homes.
Or consider the end of the conflict in Batman v Superman.
Batman decides not to kill Superman because Superman says, "Martha."
Then we get this flashback sequence to the death of Bruce's parents reminding us that his
Mother's name is Martha too.
But looking at a gravestone of Martha Wayne doesn't have the same emotional impact as
a scene that shows us why Bruce loves his Mother.
Meanwhile, what is the scene that shows us the emotional connection between Superman
and his Mother?
All we get is this scene where she tells him that he can choose to be a hero or not choose to be a hero.
And this scene lacks emotional weight.
Here's what Snyder had to say about the emotional weight of the Martha reveal:
"You know we spend so much time with the Martha-Clark relationship that I think it
kind of pays off there … Because we've lived on with Clark's relationship with
his mother, so that moment is like, 'Wow, that's ringing for me and I feel it.'"
The strongest emotional sequence between Clark and his Mother is in Man of Steel when she's
helping him control his powers.
And that was too long ago to carry over the emotional weight we need.
Here's a look at a sequence that expertly works emotion into a character's action,
from Django Unchained:
Notice how in one sequence we go from investigation, to memory, to bad guys doing bad things, to
showing how our character feels about those bad things, to revenge.
Pay attention to how the sequence is filmed.
Watch the way the camera follows Django.
As he gets closer to his mark, we get to see his footsteps racing along with the music.
Then when we get a hero shot that slowly moves into a slightly
low angle making Django look powerful.
The trees swaying in the background add additional movement making the scene feel bigger.
This setup really builds a foundation for why Django kills the one Brittle Brother,
and whips Little Roj, and makes us feel so much empathy for Django that we are wholeheartedly
invested in his revenge.
Logically you could just have Django kill the Brittle Brothers because they are bad
men that did bad things, but the fact that we were given reason to emotionally invest
in Djago's actions is what makes the scene that much more engaging.
I get the feeling that Snyder gets these ideas in his head that he wants to carry out to
a logical conclusion, regardless of whether or not that idea resonates emotionally with
the rest of the story.
Consider the following quote regarding Man of Steel.
Snyder: "In the original version of the script Zod just got zapped into the Phantom Zone.
David [Goyer] and I had long talks about it, and Chris [Nolan] and I talked a lot about it.
I was saying, 'I really feel we should kill Zod and I feel that Superman should kill him.'
For me, the why of it was: if it's truly an origin story, his aversion to killing is
unexplained.
It's just in his DNA.
I thought if we put him in an impossible situation, forced him into it, it would work.
After Superman kills Zod he screams.
I understand why, conceptually.
It's made clear Superman likes saving people's lives and that his race is important to him,
but how do WE feel when Zod is killed?
Personally I feel OK that Zod is dead because it was made clear he was going to keep killing
people.
But ideally we should feel as torn as Superman does and we don't.
And I think part of the reason why is that Superman's motive is based in logic, not emotion.
But even though the film kind of designs Zod is this morally questionable character, why don't we feel as much for him
as we do say, Boromir in Lord of the Rings?
Because Boromir's death in Lord of the Rings is a moment of character redemption.
Boromir tried to take the ring from Frodo, and now he's trying to make up for it by saving Merry and Pippin.
And he fights so hard that even mortal wounds don't seem to stop him.
In fact it's Boromir's efforts which is why we cheer when Aragorn kills the Urak-hai.
Boromir redeems himself by his actions.
Because by continuing to fight to protect Merry and Pippin after receiving mortal wounds, he becomes a hero in our eyes.
Perhaps the most glaring example of Snyder getting too focused on ideas is in Sucker Punch.
Adam Quigley of Slashfilm has this theory that Sucker Punch is an entirely fabricated,
multi-layered fantasy that eventually (and indirectly) tells women that their sexuality
and sexual empowerment is their own choice.
You should go check out his video on that, I'll put a link to it in the description below.
Based on what I've seen Snyder discuss in interviews, I think Quigley's interpretation
is probably right.
And if it is, while I admire the ambition of Sucker Punch, if the film is so misunderstood,
we're left with a complicated idea that we're struggling to comprehend while feeling very little for
the world or the characters in it.
Which is how I feel when I walk out of a Zack Snyder film.
I'm watching him execute his vision and admiring the stunning visuals, while trying
to feel something for what I'm seeing; struggling to reconcile the ideas being presented with
relatable emotions that just aren't there.
I admire the action and the framing of the images I'm being shown, but I can't get
passed this lingering emptiness.
Because I'm watching the work of a man who, in his childhood thought the idea of showing
nudity, sex, and violence were so cool it didn't matter if any of those ideas or images
came at a cost.
And cost is everything.
It's why cover our mouths in recognition of Tyrion's horrific childhood, why we're so
invested in Djago's revenge that our hearts swell as when takes it with his own two hands,
and why Boromir's sacrifice not only reminds us of humanity's greatest weakness but its strength
at the same time.
Because all these cool ideas start and end with heart, and Snyder's dont.
Thanks for watching, guys. What are your thoughts on Zack Snyder? Let us know in the comments below.
And please, let's try and keep things civil down there.
If this is your first time on the channel and you enjoyed what you saw, please subscribe. There's a new video every month.
And if you really liked it, hit that like button, because it makes us feel better about ourselves.
Next month we talk about my favourite movie music.
See you guys in the next one.
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét