SCREEN-L Archives

July 1995, Week 3

SCREEN-L@LISTSERV.UA.EDU

Options: Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Tue, 18 Jul 1995 08:27:05 -0600
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (45 lines)
Rich Washabaugh asks:
"Going by the disparity in the number of these movies produced compared to other
genres (thats not a scientific accounting, just observation from several video
stores) and the general response from friends when I tell them I rented "2001"
or "Stargate", the sci-fi/fantasy/horror genres are not overly popular.  (I'm
going to abbreviate these three into just sci-fi to save typing and space)
Aside from the idea that the realities constructed by sci-fi are not readily
understood by audiences, "Dune" for example, my guess is that the special efx,
though nice to look at, actually keep people from enjoying the story.  The
movies turn out to have long, boring flight sequences, shots that contain so
much visual info that most people can't assimilate it all, etc..."
 
 
This is an interesting question, but I think the real test might be to get your
friends' reactions to films of proven popularity such as the first two ALIENS
films, the TERMINATOR films, and of course ET, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS and the Star
Wars trilogy.  All of these films certainly revel in spectacle and have lots
of interesting stuff to look at--but all of them fit rather comfortably into
other established film genres: Action Film, Horror, etc. (though CLOSE
ENCOUNTERS might be an exception).
 
DUNE and 2001 are also very interesting visually, but are going to be extremely
frustrating for people trying to watch them with standard narrative expecta-
tions.  While I like DUNE rather better than many people do (mainly *because*
of its visuals), it suffers from a nearly-incoherent narrative that's a result
of trying to cram an epic work into a couple of hours of film.  2001, on the
other hand, is so spare and lean in its narrative, its human characters so
devoid of affective affinity (i.e., likability), and so filled with narrative
gaps (few explanations of why or how something happened) that you have to go
for the spectacle (as many did when the film was released) or understand that
Kubrick wants you to look somewhere else than standard narrative patterns for
a model to rely on.
 
So, in short, my answer would be that the FX in and of themselves aren't
necessarily as distracting as you propose.  What is more important is the
narrative structure of the film itself--and what the film viewer thinks that
he or she expects on going to see such a film.
 
 
Don Larsson, Mankato State U (MN)
 
----
To signoff SCREEN-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF SCREEN-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

ATOM RSS1 RSS2