My recent viewing of the film “Princess” and its subsequent viewer reviews has brought this debate to mind. The number one criticism of the film is that “the ending is too sad.” I’ve seen this same criticism occur in the reviews of several other high quality films, and it leads to me to question whether modern movie goers, especially Americans, have lost sight of the concept of a dramatic Tragedy.
In the days before film, Tragedies were quite popular. In fact, Shakespeare’s most popular works were tragedies, including Macbeth, Hamlet, and Romeo and Juliet. Yet today it seems the very act of being a tragedy constitutes poor film-making. Over and over I see the phrase, “This would have been a good movie if it had just had a happier ending…” I find this frustrating. Since when is a good movie ruined just because the ending isn’t happy? It’s one thing if the ending is stupid or illogical…that would be a valid reason to change your opinion of the film. But just because it’s unhappy??? I’m astounded by that line of thinking.
Have we become so warped and brainwashed by the big slick Hollywood machine that we can no longer enjoy a sadder, and dare I say more realistic, type of ending? Hamlet would have been a flop if it had been written in 2010. “Wow, this would have been a great movie if only everyone hadn’t keeled over at the end, but seeing as how they did, I now declare this movie rubbish.” Seriously, that’s the type of reviews I read these days.
I’ve had it suggested to me that most people don’t go to movies to think or be moved or have their curiosity peaked about some philosophical question, but rather merely to be entertained and forget real life for a short while. Well, is it really so hard to be entertained by a tragedy? Is a tragedy any less engrossing than yet another of the umpteen vacuous romantic comedies that are released every year and just as quickly forgotten?
So then, the response is usually, “But real life is so depressing…I want a movie to be uplifting, to give me hope, to let me walk out of the theater feeling more cheerful than I did when I walked in!” Again, is a tragedy not able to accomplish this? I personally feel euphoria upon the viewing of a cinematic masterpiece, no matter the ending. If nothing else, the viewing of a tragedy should serve to put our own problems into perspective. When you’re depressed because you’ve taken a demotion and little Susie won’t get to play soccer this summer, just remember how much worse it could be…Your father could be murdered, your mother sharing a bed with his killer, and you trying to solve the whole ordeal while slowly descending into an ever deepening pit of insanity that ends with your death. Kind of makes you think, now doesn’t it?
Now let me not be mistaken…A good film can have a happy ending, most certainly (“Ink” comes immediately to mind) but the ending itself does not define a film in its entirety, unless of course such resolution completely changes the entire storyline and its meaning, in which case the previously conceived quality of the film could certainly be nullified (“Really, he dreamed it all? How original.”) Likewise a less than cheerful ending certainly doesn’t make a movie any better than it would otherwise be. The recent adaption of “Bad Lieutenant” had a rather depressing ending, which just fit in with the rather depressing experience of sitting through the movie, which was filled with unlikeable characters thrust into unlikely situations with unrealistic outcomes and which was doubtlessly written by an individual who’s entire body of knowledge on law enforcement was attained from watching cheesy 1980’s action flicks.
So the next time you watch a movie, try to view it holistically and with an appreciation for its quality and not just as an entertainment venue. There’s no reason why the two must be mutually exclusive, and just as in real life, not every ending need be a happily ever after.
No comments:
Post a Comment