By Josh Crooks
After seeing Trance with the family this weekend; an experience made slightly uncomfortable given the full frontal nudity, the conversation quickly led to what was referred to as: Weird Cinema, but before I get to that I need to give you some background.
After seeing Trance with the family this weekend; an experience made slightly uncomfortable given the full frontal nudity, the conversation quickly led to what was referred to as: Weird Cinema, but before I get to that I need to give you some background.
My father, sister and I have always been the best litmus test as to whether a film is liked or not within the general public: with my sisters predilection towards things like Twilight, and my fathers towards Taken, I get a fairly broad spectrum between the two. For them, going to the cinema is about enjoying the experience: i.e. Being able to say to yourself and others that the film you saw was worth the price of admission. They aren't necessarily there to think too hard or learn too much about the human condition, which isn't a bad thing at all; especially when it leads to us watching the admittedly brilliant The A-Team (2010). Not so much when it leads to us watching Fast and Furious (2009), but I digress.
After a short discussion began about the film's quality, I quickly realized that the issues they had were down to narrative, editing and chronology, or Weird Cinema for short. Films that also make this list include: Looper, Inception, Vanilla Sky, and of course, Trance. It would seem that these four have made the list in their minds however, hearing them talk about all of this led me to question why these 'weird films' are regarded as such, and what that means for the general public and Hollywood itself.
Firstly, I massively enjoyed Trance as like all Danny Boyle films, whilst the story might break under too much questioning, the film is so well put together that it’s rarely an issue. The reason it makes the list above is the way the story is told, as in terms of narrative the film slowly delves into the lead characters mind, and more and more information (or faux information) is revealed about past events as the story progresses. Whilst it remains to be seen, it would seem that the powers that be haven't the utmost faith in the film reaching a mainstream audience; releasing it quietly here last week and buried under a busy schedule this week across the pond. My question is simply: why? A movie that many would cite as similarly muddled managed impressive box office results only six months ago. That film of course was Looper.
After a short discussion began about the film's quality, I quickly realized that the issues they had were down to narrative, editing and chronology, or Weird Cinema for short. Films that also make this list include: Looper, Inception, Vanilla Sky, and of course, Trance. It would seem that these four have made the list in their minds however, hearing them talk about all of this led me to question why these 'weird films' are regarded as such, and what that means for the general public and Hollywood itself.
Firstly, I massively enjoyed Trance as like all Danny Boyle films, whilst the story might break under too much questioning, the film is so well put together that it’s rarely an issue. The reason it makes the list above is the way the story is told, as in terms of narrative the film slowly delves into the lead characters mind, and more and more information (or faux information) is revealed about past events as the story progresses. Whilst it remains to be seen, it would seem that the powers that be haven't the utmost faith in the film reaching a mainstream audience; releasing it quietly here last week and buried under a busy schedule this week across the pond. My question is simply: why? A movie that many would cite as similarly muddled managed impressive box office results only six months ago. That film of course was Looper.
Lemme drop some facts on you: made for a cool $30 million (comparatively small compared to the other films on the list bar Trance), Looper reached a worldwide total of $176 million with a narrative just as disjointed, so could the answer be down to something much closer to face value than first thought. Looper stars studio favorites Joesph Gordon Levitt and Bruce Willis, the latter proving his box office worth in the Die Hard franchise, and the former in The Dark Knight Rises and Inception. Hang on a minute... could it be that box office success of weird cinema is down to star wattage? Inception starred Leonardo DiCaprio, Tom Hardy, Ellen Page and again, Joesph Gordon Levitt, making almost a billion dollars worldwide, so yes? The star vehicle Vanilla Sky also managed to rake in an admirable $200 million based on Tom Cruise's face alone and cinematic turd The Butterfly Effect managed to make almost $100 million thanks to punk'd darling, Ashton Kutcher. Whether James McAvoy proves to be as profitable is still to be seen, but it just seems oddly fitting of Hollywood to rank one of the only people mentioned here today with any discernible talent, the lowest.
To anyone out there wondering as to what the message here today is, or what the point of the article stands as, the answer is simple. This article stands as an open letter to Hollywood, from one filmmaker to (presumably) others, asking for change. I don't know how, but it would make a nice change of pace populist cinema and indie ideals to meet without the need from an Empire magazine cover star.
To anyone out there wondering as to what the message here today is, or what the point of the article stands as, the answer is simple. This article stands as an open letter to Hollywood, from one filmmaker to (presumably) others, asking for change. I don't know how, but it would make a nice change of pace populist cinema and indie ideals to meet without the need from an Empire magazine cover star.
RSS Feed
