I am a cinephile. I understand that there is so much more to a well-made movie than just the story presented. To truly appreciate a film, one has to look deep within the context of a movie, searching for subtle clues that tell what the story is truly about.
This crucial element is missing from many of today’s films.
With the Oscars coming up this weekend, this is a good time to look at the current state of cinema. I am not a renowned expert on the matter; I’m just a guy that loves film and wants the craft to remain meaningful and poignant.
While I liked “Avatar,” I didn’t think it was the “ground-breaking game-changer” many people seem to believe it is. The effects are definitely second-to-none, but effects are not the only gauge of a movie’s worthiness.
Every other facet of the film is run-of-the-mill, from the story to the characters to the overall motif. Yet, for some reason, it has been nominated for nine Academy Awards, including the coveted Best Picture and Best Director.
An Oscar-nominated film has a certain je ne sais quoi that sets it apart from the pool of crap that is released throughout the year. Sometimes it is an extremely telling study of human nature; other times it is a totally different take on a tried and true theme.
While it isn’t a contender for this year’s Academy Awards, take Martin Scorsese’s “Shutter Island.” While the story itself has been done before, the deeper meanings of the film are where Scorsese’s masterpiece truly shines. Without too many spoilers, I will say that this film is a study in dichotomy.
There are comparisons between black and white, right and wrong, light and dark. The characters are so developed, yet so simple, making them truly striking. While the pulpy story looks like a B-movie of yesteryear, only an industry master like Scorsese could have done it right.
“Avatar” is an in-your-face science fiction, adventure epic, easily digested by even the most casual moviegoer. An offering like “Shutter Island” has so much more to offer. Sadly, its deeper meanings will go largely missed by many viewers who aren’t keen enough to read between the lines. I’m sure, based on the preview, many expected a pseudo-horror film with cheap scares aplenty but what viewers got was a study in human pyschology.
Another example of this phenomenon is “Inglourious Basterds,” which is nominated for eight Academy Awards. Set in an alternate universe — where World War II ends in a completely different way, and with classic Quentin Tarantino style and dialogue, this film drips originality. But where many people probably saw a simple revenge film, only the astute saw the true meaning of the film — “throwback” presented within the subtext of the film.
And that’s just it: Subtlety is key. There is a reason “the book is always better than the movie.” An author can present inner feelings of characters, background information and deeper motifs clearly and simply. A director only has visuals to show everything he needs to — the viewer has to read between the lines.
I really hope that on Sunday “Inglourious Basterds,” or another worthy nominee takes home the top prize of Best Picture, receiving the awards that imaginative and original films like it deserve.
Or, the Academy could appeal to the lowest common denominator and give “Avatar” more undeserving praises.
Gerry Wachovsky is a graduate student and columnist for the Daily 49er.
