|Originally posted by WittyHandle |
GoSpeed I respect the fact that you can articulate your views, I just get the feeling that you're out to defend a lot of movies that don't deserve it.
I'm not sure why you think so - Melancholia would've probably won Palm D'or if it weren't for Trier's politically incorrect joke about Nazis, and many film critics name the film as one of the best of the year. It's the complete opposite of, say, Sucker Punch.
|That Bruce Willis plot comparison was just stupid and really weakens my impression of your perspective.|
Well, let me elaborate.
I was trying to say that if you see Melancholia as a catastrophic film then it is really the perfect antithesis of something like Armageddon. The difference is, as I said, the whole point of the movie. An apocalypse in a conventional Hollywood movie is something that needs to be averted so the whole narrative is centered around that. There is usually a deadline - a very common element of classical narration - that needs to be met or everyone is going to die etc. We all watch the hero overcome the impossible obstacles and this creates tension.
Now this obviously sets a whole lot of expectations for the viewers when it comes to movies like this so imagine someone who has never heard of Lars von Trier and only read the synopsis of Melancholia (cool! another disaster movie!) going to watch the film. Of course they may be easily baffled by the fact that it's mostly about people arguing and some depressed girl who can apparently predict future and noone knows why. Also, they literally show how the planets collide within the first few minutes of the movie! WTF?! Where's the tension that I'm used to?
This is, again, just a surface comparison but hopefully it is more clear now.
So to sum it up briefly, Armageddon asks "How can we avert this situation?" while Melancholia asks "How can we personally deal with the inevitable catastrophe and why do we deserve it?", which is a completely different question.
I'm not saying that arthouse films that subvert genre conventions are necesarilly better than Hollywood movies, they just require a different approach from the viewer, which - when not applied - may easily lead to boredom.
e: For what it's worth, I don't even think Melancholia is all that brilliant - it has its flaws and it's probably the worst Trier film I've watched (still, that's a lot better than a majority of what gets released). This is not some kind of a fanboyish defense by me, I'm just offering another perspective when it's clear that people are dismissing a film mostly out of ignorance.
Last edited by GoSpeedGo! on Jan-14-2012 at 00:53