Filmmaking Clichés: Good and Bad

A small-town sheriff walks up to his new deputy with the intention of asking a favor from her.  He hands her a box of donuts, saying: "Sometimes, the clichés are true." (From the television show Once Upon a Time).  I think he makes a good point.  After all, clichés are clichés for a reason.  They are good techniques, observations, statements, etc. that have become over-used over time.  For example, Darth Vader says to Luke Skywalker: "No, Luke; I am your FATHER!" (to which Luke responds with the most melodramatic wail/howl in cinematic history; but that's beside the point).  Because of that famous scene, every film since which contains such a revelation must keep it in mind to avoid repeating it.

I want to focus here on those clichés which can be traced to a previous work of art.  There are three ways that one can approach the making of a film (or any story) that contains such a cliché.  First, you can essentially repeat the cliché, either because you don't think anyone will notice or because you think the audience wants to see the cliché again because they liked it so much in another film; "Hey, they really liked when Neo bended over backwards in The Matrix.  Let's do the same thing in our movie so that our movie will be as famous as The Matrix!"  That generally doesn't work very well, or, if it does, the audience they are appealing to doesn't have much taste when it comes to storytelling.

The second approach is to play too defensively when making a film.  This occurs when someone is trying very hard to get the message across that this movie is not the same thing as another movie.  Whenever the story seems to be headed towards something that another movie did, they yank the steering wheel hard to one side and make it totally different.  This generally results in poor storytelling with mismatched plot elements.  This kind of film is usually not successful (I am unable to recall any examples of this type of film at the moment, probably because they are rarely good films and I try to purge my mind of such things; if any of you readers come up with an example, please mention it in the comments).

The third and final approach is to recognize the fact that someone else has used the same storytelling technique before and, even if with a great deal of subtlety, pay tribute.  This is perhaps most commonly done in comedies but can happen in more serious films as well.  This is the very best approach to storytelling with clichés.  If you recognize your film's place in the tradition of filmmaking, your piece achieves a certain level of integrity and dignity.  Examples of this are hard to come by because it is so rarely done.  However, Christopher Nolan, one of the greatest filmmakers of our day, manages to employ clichés well in his films.  For example, in his latest film, Interstellar, the AI robot who drives the spaceship makes a subtle reference to HAL 9000 from the film 2001 Space Odyssey.  Nolan, recognizing that he owes a debt to this previous film for setting a precedent, acknowledges this fact within his film in a way that is subtle, humorous (even though the film is anything but a comedy), and fits in well with the dialogue.

So, the next time that you find yourself in Hollywood making a blockbuster film, follow the example set by Christopher Nolan and other great filmmakers instead of those people whose films will be forgotten by history.  The ability to employ clichés and other film elements successfully is what separates geniuses from the not-so-geniusy.

Be Not Afraid - Enjoy Yourself!

By Elizabeth 

As I watched my friend's dad head out to hunt a turkey this morning, briskly humming to himself, I thought, "There is a man who does what he enjoys, and enjoys doing it." And then it struck me that those were not mutually inclusive statements. That someone could do what he enjoys, but not enjoy doing it.

We could be could do this for any number of reasons: we could think that the thing we enjoy is silly, and therefore shameful; we could think it was wrong to enjoy things of this world too much, and so feel guilty. Whether we are beating ourselves up about it, or else slinking like a thief, the things we like to do are not always what we like doing.

The question arises, “Is this wrong?” To which I give a resounding “YES!” Things in this world should never be done half-heartedly, and if pleasure is something we compromise on, then we are certainly not living life to the full.

We need to properly enjoy life, so that trials, sorrows, and other tribulations can offer not only a pleasant, reassuring contrast, but can actually be experienced fully. If one area of our life is in disorder, then more disorder follows.

So when doing the things you enjoy, ask yourself: am I ashamed? am I guilt-ridden? am I stifling my happiness?

If the answer is yes, then ask yourself the next question: why do I feel this way? is what I am doing actually wrong? The answers may surprise you. Because if we take the time to stop and listen, our conscience usually knows the answer; and if you are still unsure, ask a priest, or someone you know will give an honest reply.

If the thing is wrong, then the reason you do not fully enjoy it would be that your conscience never fully allowed you. But if there is nothing actually wrong, then do not be afraid of happiness. Drink it in, revel in it, and hum briskly! After all, Christ is as much there as at any other moment – and he loves a fun time!

THE GOD OF THE AVENGERS

By Elizabeth

            The Marvel film Universe mentions both God and Science within exalted contexts.

            The Universe has its own Science around which everything seems to revolve. This can seem to make Science the ‘god’ of the Universe. But that raises an interesting question: how does God fit into the picture? (no pun intended). How do the characters view God? Is Science the ‘god’ of the Universe?

            Unlike the Star Trek Universe, man has not done away with God. Many of the characters reference him in a positive light, some negatively, and some ambivalently. Is he seen as merely a social construct, inevitably to be mentioned but one day destined to fade into antiquity? Or is he seen as the loving, guiding God of the devout Christian?

            These questions are never answered, nor are they meant to be. Marvel is not attempting to solve the God-problem. Our society, while generally proclaiming itself a Christian nation, is generally undecided about the existence and nature of God, and many people are professed atheists. The Marvel films are meant to entertain this society, and they do so quit well. Those who go to see these films, even the Christians, are not looking for Theological exegesis amongst all the Hulk smashing, laser blasting, and tower crumbling. So it is, in fact, refreshingly surprising that the films mention God as often as they do, and as positively as they do. Captain America, in the first Avengers film, says in response to Thor’s status as a ‘god’, “There is only one God, ma’am, and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t dress like that.” We laugh and we applaud Cap’s traditional values, but that does not mean we should start labeling The Avengers as a ‘Christian film’, or even promote the movie because it has a ‘good message’. We should promote the movie because it is a good movie, and adequately accomplishes its published goal: fun entertainment.

            Ok, so God is mentioned positively: thumbs up to Joss Wheedon! But that is just one character in the context of an entire universe. So, is it still possible that Science is the god of the Marvel Universe?

Many characters within the movies, and to a great extent Howard Stark, speak of Science as the means to accomplish world peace. They believe that through enough scientific advancements, mankind will no longer experience war, poverty, or divide of any sort. The earth will become a veritable paradise.

    This is not a new belief either, invented by Stan Lee or any of the creators of the Avengers. It is an old philosophy, stemming from a hope that man may one day cease to live in turmoil, and find a perfect state within which to rest. BUT....every time Tony Stark, Bruce Banner, Eric Selvig, or any other Marvel Mad Scientist invents a new piece of technology, war breaks out with ever greater ferocity, and peace seems ever further away. I can not speak to the philosophy of the Marvel creators, but it seems to me that the events within the Universe are ever proving this philosophical-paradise-based-on-Science wrong. That while the characters may uphold Science as the holy end all, it is ultimately a tool: a tool for good or evil, and this must lower its status beneath that of a god. So some characters may view it as a sort of god, but it is not ‘the god’ of the Marvel Universe. It seems, in fact, that there is none.

            Is this a bad thing? Surely a movie that wants to mention God should give some defense or explanation about him? But ought it? God is an undeniable aspect of life, whether he is known personally or through social situations, and it is to this undeniability in men’s lives that The Avengers gives a salute. It is not an attempt to evangelize, but a simple acknowledgement of a fact that most movie franchises often choose to ignore: God, or at least the idea of God, is real and present in our society. So don’t analyze a fun action adventure film like the Avengers from a positive or negative Theological view. Analyze it for what it is: an action adventure movie that does not attempt to answer Theological questions.