Author: Fallton Havenstonne

I enjoy superhero films, but one thing I’ve noticed over the years is the plethora of origin stories with regards to superheroes: Batman, Superman, X-Men (i.e. after X-Men 3), and Spiderman. It seems that with every reboot, an origin story must be in the works.

Each iteration is almost the same but with differences in the cast, direction, villains, etc. It makes me wonder if in each one, are the filmmakers trying to enlighten or educate us on something new about the superheroes? What knowledge was missing from the last iteration? Did they acquire new powers or abilities? Is another origin story necessary to inform us of who the superheroes are or why they exist?

Batman went through 4 different iterations already beginning with Tim Burton, Joel Schumacher, Christopher Nolan, Zach Snyder, and now Matt Reeves (the 5th iteration in The Batman). Each director brings a certain style, and each actor brings a distinct look and attitude to Bruce Wayne/Batman. Spiderman went through 3 iterations already starting with Sam Raimi, Marc Webb, and Jon Watts. Like the Batman films, each director brought their own style, and each actor brought a distinctive personality to Peter Parker.

In addition to all the comics and animated shows on these characters, it seems redundant to retell their origin story again and again. Irregardless of the redundancies, perhaps the bottom line is to reboot the franchise for future sequels. It’s as if the storyline cannot move forward until a new cast and team of filmmakers have started at square 1. If a new cast and team of filmmakers came on board–another reboot (square 1 again).

I find them unnecessary, to be honest, since each origin story has already been told. It might look newer and fancier with the newest special effects and CGI, but it’s essentially the same story all over again.

I used to watch movies straight away without regard to reading or watching movie reviews. I made the effort to watch them based on the simple fact of whether the trailer or storyline piqued my interest or if it was made by a filmmaker whose work I liked.

Nowadays with so many series and movies on the market (i.e. on Netflix, Amazon Prime, Apple TV, etc.), I tend to read a lot more reviews to see if I should invest my time watching them given the plethora of options at my disposable.

In the past, I used to read movie reviews by Roger Ebert, who wrote concise and descriptive reviews that were engaging and well written. Whether or not I agreed with his reviews, I found them to be insightful regarding the storyline and the film’s technical merits. But nowadays, I mostly read customer reviewers that are listed on Amazon, iTunes, etc., given how many films and shows are out there.

After reading so many, good and bad, I can get a general sense of what would amount to be an average assessment of a film. There’ll be many fans of the movie who will write nothing but good things, and there are those that loathe it, who write nothing but bad things. Then there are those who are in the middle that list the pros and cons of that film–a more balanced perspective.

But the final assessment is when we actually watch the movie. I find that more often than not, my assessment doesn’t exactly align with what most of the reviewers say, and if it does, it’s for reasons different from what they stated.

In the end, movies are subjective experiences. I don’t think words can 100% capture/summarize what that experience is since movies are visceral experiences (an experience that is the sum total of the film’s editing, acting, lighting, camera angles, etc.).

A review is moreover a reflection of what that experience was for the viewer, not so much an assessment of whether that movie is objectively good or bad. Of course, a survey can be taken with an audience to determine the film’s overall quality (i.e. an 8 out of 10 or something of that sort), but does this necessarily match an individual’s experience of the film? If one were to give a film a 7 out of 10, what’s to say that assessment is incorrect from the average?

The viewers that liked a film saw something in it that others didn’t. Perhaps they appreciated the cinematography more, or the acting more, etc. Those that disliked it might’ve been focusing on the lack of plot, character development, or dialogue instead. Each person emphasizes different aspects in terms of what is good or bad to them. They are in essence assessing the qualities that resonate with them, which in turn, amounts to a positive or negative experience for them.

Aside from plot, acting, cinematography, each person has a preference for genre, whether it be science fiction or drama, etc. They might prefer movies by certain directors, actors, or studios. For example, one person might find a period piece boring but a mystery film intriguing (and vice versa). It’s one of those things where the value is already predetermined by the viewer/audience.

So this brings up the question of why one would ever read a review if the experience is subjective to begin with?

For me, I read movie reviews because I want to see if a film will resonate with me based on what was written about it. This is more like a gauge as to whether I’ll have a similar experience. Of course, I might have the opposite experience after I watch the film.

In the end, we’re all looking for and emphasizing different qualities as to what is good or bad to us. Maybe our goal is to be entertained regardless of how well-written the plot or characters are, or we want to be moved by values that are portrayed in the story. In the end, aren’t we the arbiter for what we seek in entertainment and art? Perhaps it’s just better to watch a film and judge it for ourselves.

Computer animation has clearly dominated the film industry over hand-drawn animation. Even though hand-drawn animations continue to be made in anime and TV shows (i.e. The Simpsons), computer animations have been overwhelming success in comparison. Movies such as How To Train Your Dragon and The Incredibles show how successful they can be.

Ironically, hand-drawn animation was how animated movies began. It could be argued which is better (hand-drawn or computer animation), but there’s no doubt that hand-drawn animations bears more of a human mark. The drawings are imperfect in themselves, such as pencil strokes, and uneven lines across the frame.

In computer animation, even though we know that there is an artist working behind it, we are more or less watching a rendering of their work. The images don’t bear any imperfect lines or pencil strokes. The images are detailed and realistic.

It seems that viewers want to see more realism in movies and animation overall. Just as computer games have improved in terms of graphics, the same could be said of movies. Hand-drawn animations are obviously meant to stylize reality, just like comics and anime. But perhaps there has been a shift away from a stylization of reality and a move toward a realistic representation it.

Why is that? Perhaps our way of seeing, as an audience, has changed overtime. People in the past watched black and white films because that was what was available to them. Then came sound, technicolor, and decades later, digital film.

An evolution could be said of animation. Films were predominately hand-drawn until they CGI came along. After that computer animation burst onto the scene with Toy Story being the first big animated film.

But in each phase, the previous one influenced the that came after it. It’s obvious that the computer animators of today were influenced by the hand-drawn animators of the past. The methodology has changed, but the style and storytelling remains.

And with each new phase of technology, the imperfections are erased, and the films appear closer to reality. It’s as if the world of film (or animation) should be seamless compared to our own. But as this trend continues, do the artists behind the film become mere technicians? Are their voices lost in the pursuit of realism? Will the story get lost as well?

Besides, isn’t realism just one way to tell a story? By this, I don’t mean to say that the film must be grounded in reality, but that the depiction of that world is no longer expressing the distinct eye of the filmmaker. Perhaps we’ve veered away from what was considered the auteur idea of filmmaking, and seek a rather generalized type of film.

And with regard to animation, we’ve veered away from imperfection of the hand-drawn to the perfection of computer renderings.

There are many black and white films that are considered classics such as Citizen Kane and Seven Samurai. Even though they were made at a time when black and white films were the standard, these films still entertain and influence us today.

Nowadays, filmmakers have more tools at their disposal. Many color films, especially digital films, employ CGI and post-production tools to improve the quality of the movie. But the one aspect that many of movies suffer from is flashy/rapid editing, which has unfortunately, become common place.

When the shots are edited (strung together) rapidly, the images blur, and the shots become ubiquitous. Although the purpose of the fast edit is to grab our attention, it comes at the cost of letting great shots slip away. The images become subliminal and secondary to the editing. And the impact of the quick/flashy editing is an emphasis on spectacle, action, quips, rather than on story and characters.

The black and white films of the past did not suffer from this, fortunately, due to a general slower pace of the films. When watching a great film a black and white film, it’s easy to appreciate the shots, the composition, lighting, framing, etc., because of the slower pace. Like black and white photography, the images are reduced to its bare essentials: positive and negative space–appearing like abstract images.

Color films can be just as powerful as black and white films, even more so. But they require a careful consideration of how the colors are used.

In any film, the costume, lighting, set design, and scenery all play a role in how the story is told. With color films, filmmakers have a whole palette at their disposal, just as a painter does to mix colors and apply them on a canvas. When color is used effectively, it not only draws our eyes to the image, but communicates the story in a way that elevates it.

Both black and white and color films can be powerful and captivating. Their visual impact depends on the imagination and artistry of the filmmakers. The tools they have at their disposal are employed at the service of the story, which must be good on its own.

But rapid editing is the trapping of today’s films, and so long as this is the trend, films will continue to suffer from it. For one, the visuals will blur by. Two, the stories will feel rushed, and we can’t invest in them to the same degree if they had been edited slower. And three, we won’t get to know the characters fully, since the pace leaves them in the dust.

What is it that makes a film a classic after decades has past? What makes a film speak to future generations to come?

Classic films are such because they still resonate with us today. They continue to impact us through us its universal storytelling and values. Despite the decades that have elapsed, they speak to us as if they had been made today.

One of the most famous classic films is A Wonderful Life by Frank Capra. In short, it’s about a man who is about to leap off a bridge after his partner loses his bank’s money. Before he leaps into the icy winter waters, a guardian angel jumps in the first, and the man dives in to save him instead.

Despite its black and white photography, slow-moving pace, lack of CGI and action scenes, it’s a film that speaks to our heart. The story is essentially about how each person has an enormous effect on other people’s lives (i.e. saving their lives or steering them in the right direction), and in spite of the hard times we experience, we will get through them–especially through generosity and kindness.

If a movie studio decided to remake it now, I have no doubt that it would be a great movie, though people would irresistibly compare it to the original. But it wouldn’t be great because it had been updated, but because the story was great to begin with.

Time well tell which films of today will be a classic in ten, twenty, or thirty years. Will it be The Matrix? The Sixth Sense? The recent Star Wars or Marvel films? Or does a film stand a greater chance at being a classic if it wins awards (i.e. the Academy Awards)?

Special effects and great CGI are all things that will be improved upon as time goes by, but a great story that captivates the imagination and the spirit are what I think will set a film apart and make it a classic.