Originality in Films? i say nay!

Looking at IMDA’s top 100 highest grossing films last night, I discovered something frustrating.

You see I have been researching for a media essay for a few weeks now, and I was looking to see if there were any examples of originality in popular film culture.

Well my findings were irritating. Every single film listed was based on something that had came before, they were all generic genre heavy films that had received almost all inspiration from previous work or events, and that saddened me.

You see, the way films are put together can be original, the character development, the general plot itself can be subversive. But I direct you to a man called Vladimir Propp. He developed 7 core characters that are present in every piece of fiction we see

1. The villain—struggles against the hero
2. The donor—prepares the hero or gives the hero some magical object
3. The (magical) helper—helps the hero in the quest
4. The princess and her father—gives the task to the hero, identifies the false hero, and marries the hero, often sought for during the narrative. Propp noted that functionally, the princess and the father cannot be clearly distinguished
5. The dispatcher—character who makes the lack known and sends the hero off.
6. The hero or victim/seeker hero—reacts to the donor, weds the princess
7. False hero—takes credit for the hero’s actions or tries to marry the princess.

Of course, for each of these, you could include the subversive reading, for example even if the hero is Tony Montana, and the villain is Mystery Inc. , Scooby and friends are trying to do the right thing, but the view we see the film from, they are still the bad guys. This can be used in every major film ever made.

Well then good old Mr Propp wrote the 31 narratemes, or events that happen in every story. Now this is slightly less foolproof, but is another key part of narrative. Unfortunately I do not have the book to hand with these in, but this fellow blogger has kindly put them all down for me

http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/vladimir-propp-narratemes-and-morphology-of-the-folktale.html

NOT ONLY THAT but a man named Christopher Booker created 7 basic plots, overcoming the monster; rags to riches; the quest; voyage and return; comedy; tragedy; rebirth. All of these have been seen time and time again in movies and film.

So of course, with all this already been worked out, how can we possibly expect any film to be original? Well these theory’s all leave out the tone and construction of a film. Simply in the way a narrative is put together, a simple revenge driven plat can be made into film genius (see ‘Memento’, a highly recommended film) so of course, leniency must be allowed in some cases.

For this blog, I will comment on the top 5 ‘blockbuster’ films. In reverse order.

5- Toy Story 3

Well this is a rather new film, as are many of the highest grossing, which I am decided to put on the increased production costs and cost to watch them. But of course, it is just a sequel to the previous two films. However, it is a film based on every kids wish that their toys were real, a prospect that has been with us for donkeys years. For the last twenty years or more there have been television shows and books based on toys coming to life, think of muffin the mule, bagpuss, the Indian in the cupboard, and many many more. So the premise for the film is already an old idea. As for the plot, well it’s a simple ideology of ‘friendship is good’ and ‘voyage and return’ storyline, with a dashing of ‘overcoming the monster’ just to tell kids that evil is bad. No doubt an enjoyable film, and very nostalgic as I had all the toys (and the little bastards didn’t come to life) but by no means original.

4- Pirates of the Caribbean; Dead man’s chest.

Well of course, another sequel, a story of ‘overcoming the monster’ and ‘the quest’, and a lot of slapstick and witty humour. But the actual story itself is centuries old. Back in the 17^th century, with pirates and the like, the legend of Davey Jones went about every town and tavern in the land. After all, we know that pirates were superstitious, and who likes anything more than a good old bogeyman story? As for the idea of pirates being glamorised like this, it can go all the way back to Robert Louis Stevenson’s ‘Treasure island’ and probably further back still.

3-Lord of the rings; Return of the king

Of course, based on Tolkien’s ‘masterpiece’ (I never liked the book...) it is a tale of ‘overcoming to monster’ ‘the quest’ and hairy midgets. Although agreed, it is a fantastic film, the storyline itself is captivating and it is done phenomenally well, we have seen it all before, a typical fantasy film, done on a massive level.

2-Titanic

Of course, a love story and tragedy. A tale of a snobbish redhead, a lucky American, and hogging floating doors. It’s an obvious storyline based on a tragic real event, and it is, honestly, an amazing film, the acting and character developments is brilliant. Way too long though... and still, we cannot call it original.

1-Avatar.

Woe is me for having to talk about this film. It’s beautiful, immersive, and breathtaking in the way he went into every possible detail from the trees on the planet, to the naavi language itself. James Cameron not only has the two biggest selling movies of all time here, but one of the most gorgeous cinematic experiences yet.

He spent 10 years on this film. And I have one question. Does he think we’re idiots? He’s wrapped this layer of beauty, of entirely enticing scenery and brilliant casting, over a plot so thin and rubbish, he might as well have taken Pocahontas and got a smurf to jizz on it. This is the biggest disappointment I have seen. Yes, he created new technology just for the film, that’s original, creating an actual language for its characters, the klingon’s did it first, but hey, well done, but for storytelling, this film isn’t worth the hype.

So there you are. But now I’ve mindfucked you with all this you’re thinking ‘what is original then?’

To which I point you to cult films. Vanishing point, Pulp fiction, Memento (not THAT cult but still) the original Tron, the Rocky horror show, all amazing films that played with the way we expect cinema to be, in fact that’s the problem, this blanket of genre has made filmmakers get lazy and think we are dumb, we need more films to make us think. More of the ingenious plot twists, changes in narrative, messing with the soundtrack. Big films like Inception have started doing this and even though that is a film I was still slightly disappointed at, it is a good start. We need more originality in cinema today, and people like Quentin Tarantino and Christopher Nolan are two men to keep track of.

Update on videos and a note on WWE

So, Videos will be started on my DamaskVlogs channel on Youtube tonight, and should be edited and uploaded by tomorrow. I'm still trying to find better editing software, and still need a camcorder so it will be webcam only for now (but i have a rather high res webcam... i think. so it should be fine for now, i mean heck, you guys wont mind right?)

There will be an introductory video explaining other channels i aim to set up for seperate causes, DamaskAdventures and DamaskReviews being two i have already decided on. Also a Formspring account may be set up as DamaskAnswers, for anybody wanting to check that out. Generally because i have too much free time and no job, and every guy needs to keep busy.

And now for the note on WWE. I am always an episode behind as i have to download them, and tbh, i don't know why i bother. The wrestling isn't as entertaining anymore, the acting grates on me, and i know i only watch it because of it being a part of my childhood. But a storyline has interested me recently.

John Cena, free or fired. well this past Monday, he was re-hired by Wade Barret (who i wholeheartedly affiliate with FFVII's Barratt) to prevent a Nexus mutiny. Well here's what i wanted to see, and think still may come. Barret or Otunga will be sick of the leadership battle, and join Cena, and destroy nexus, who will then be split into the two franchises and be given heel roles against other superstars until wrestlemania next year. At least if i was in charge they would.

A little of my love.

Bam Margera. One of the many things i love, but i have recently rewatched all of the cky, jackass, viva la Bam and Bams unholy union. and a few things sprung to my attention, so i looked them up. You see, a while ago, i saw this picture http://www.bamargera.com/51/3/photos/St-Johns/#view , and i was thinking, damn, she's hot. then further down the page you'll see another picture... with this girl in under 'random pictures' and shes not so hot, but it means he was with her for some time. Well from cky through to Viva la Bam, I'm sure he was with jenny, which i may be wrong about.. but that's around 7 years if not more (I've not looked this relationship up much) well after this, she smashed his nice house up, he tried to file lawsuits etc, it was dismissed. Well then in 05 ish, he had Missy, and shes hot too. She appeared a bit in season 5 of Viva la Bam, and she was lovely, then a few years later, badabing bada boom, they're married, and a lovely marriage. well now they are still married, but separated, which saddened me.

Then i looked into more of Bams life, such as Don Vito not appearing in Bams unholy union, because he was convicted for 'molesta la breastas' you may say... on 12 year old girls. Now he tried to pass this off, but any fan of Bams shows must have seen this coming? He was always after those 'nice girls' and didn't know 'bad touch from good touch'. Hell, on the first episode of radio Bam, he talks about how he does breast signings at colleges etc and the girls are drunk. I love the character, but lets be honest, he had no defence.

This is sad, as Bams uncle was also in jail for eleven months, although i didn't find out why, and Novak got 6 months for theft... so poor guy!

Now some people may say its his own fault and that he hangs around with the wrong crowds, whatever, if it wasn't for those guys, he wouldn't be a millionaire, and I'm glad he sticks to his roots. He makes sure his friends have a roof over their heads and even though they do all that stupid stuff together, they have fun, and they look out for each other. Every action MTV showed Bam doing had a moral behind it, and although i hate corporate subversive messaging, i have to say, I'd be proud to be Bam, and all these problems he has, proves further that every idol we have is in many ways, no different to you or me.

On a seperate note, as i haven't been able to sort fact from fiction. Between 05 and 08 Bam and Raab fell out. this had so far had three causes that i have heard.
1) Raab went back to university and pursued a career in real estate , this is true, but i dont see them falling out over it.... or Raab himself selling houses if I'm honest.
2) Bam knocked Raabs tooth out... again.... on purpose. now this may be true, maybe they argued over Raab leaving.. i don't know.
3)Raab sedated Bams mum April, then filmed him having sex with her as a prank. i saw this on yahoo answers or something, and i laughed. If that was true, I'm pretty sure more than one randomer on yahoo answers would know about it?

Oh, and Chris Raab is Matt Damons brother? apparantly so.

Looks, or personality?

Ok, so today, somebody posted this on facebook...

‘Me and [insert fictional name here] are havin an argument about wots better, personality or looks? You decide’

I would copy, paste, cut the edges off for a fancy ‘straight from facebook’ look, but Photoshop is being extremely useless, and I wanted to talk about this quick.

Now obviously being the argumentative little bugger I am, I posted the reply as this

‘Attraction is a common product of two inputs, value and looks. someone must first have some kind of value for somebody to bother with them (it's like who would you go up and talk to, a tramp who'll ask for money, or some rich dude who’ll give you money) and looks. As you can first judge value by looks, e.g., they look like a tramp, you don’t bother, and this is why secret millionaire worked. I’m not saying it’s nice or right, but that’s basic psychology ;)’

As you may have guessed, my friend isn’t the brightest crayon in the box, she didn’t really get it. But it did get me thinking about the laws of attraction.

Now there are a few laws of attraction. Opposites attract, this is true with magnets but not much else.  People are attracted to those useful to them. Well this is also true, but not with everyone. And dust will always get stuck all over your favourite shirt and lint rollers will be futile in attempts at its removal. I think I just defined love right there.

Now everybody claims opposites attract, it’s a girls reason for liking the ‘bad guys’, its why a blonde likes dark haired guys, why men like women, why white chocolate chips on a milk chocolate muffin is a good idea to some people. But the truth is, this is wrong.

Now next time someone tells you ‘opposites attract’ strip the two things down to the bare bones. You see, good girls go for bad guys, not because they’re the opposite, it’s for the excitement, the adrenaline, because that is what their life lacks. White chocolate has the fattier, sweeter flavour that the milk chocolate lacks. Opposites attract is just a misnomer of the real attraction theory.

You see, we all want what we think we need. This comes to relationships too. A 2009 study by the journal ‘Nature Neuroscience’ concluded;

“two areas of the brain that show significant activity during the coding of impression-relevant information: the amygdala, which previous research has linked to emotional learning about inanimate objects and social evaluations of trust; and the posterior cingulate cortex, which has been linked to economic decision-making and valuation of rewards.  The implication is that we’re all hardcore value processors even before “Hello” comes out of our mouths. The subjective evaluation we make when meeting someone new includes–to put it bluntly–what’s in it for us.”

Now if we are doing this before even speaking, imagine what our brain is doing in every single conversation we have! Think back, have you ever had a conversation with someone and they’ve mentioned something about a guy with a guitar or something for sale? And did your brain say to you ‘do I need a new guitar?’ because it is constantly taking out pieces of information useful to you! Even if it’s just a normal chat in the pub, you’re with the people your with because they interest you, or make you laugh. These are both rewards too. If someone doesn’t interest you, or make you laugh, then would you want to talk to them? No!

But of course, now you’re thinking ‘Marshall, your proving yourself wrong here, you said people choose looks’ 

Well this is after you’ve got to know someone, but imagine somebody in the street. You have to ask the time, now are you going to ask that nice old lady coming out of the charity shop, the tramp on the floor with the brown bag containing an unidentifiable beverage, or the attractive formal looking person coming down the street? 

It’s going to be the lady or the formal person, depending on your confidence levels. And if you said the tramp, you are being flippant, and stupid, how can a tramp buy a watch?

You see, we assess everyone from their first impression. Even after talking to someone who doesn’t give a great impression, say you were forced to, a man asks YOU for the time, and he’s all dirty and smells, you’re going to have judged him and probably won’t give a detailed conversation if he started one. 

Now of course, some of you are thinking ‘but Marshall, what if someone gave a great first impression, but was boring as hell? Then it’d be about personality!’

Alas, no. Are you saying that you’ve never had a conversation with a really hot member of the opposite sex, and thought ‘god they’re boring’ but you keep talking, because they’re hot, and you want in their pants.

And the reason for this is ‘Sexy son’s hypothesis’ which has been credited to a multitude of psychologists under many names like the ‘sexy sons/ sexy daughter’s hypothesis’ for the politically correct, or the ‘good genes theory’ for the completely anal. But for now I shall credit P. J. Weatherhead and R. J. Robertson in 1979, because Wikipedia is more likely to agree. In fact it does agree, so let’s carry on.

This theory suggests that men and women look for good looking partners, so that their offspring are good looking, and will get partners easier, and create attractive offspring, which can do the same. It’s an Evolutionary theory key to our survival. Think of the peacock. They have the big beautiful plumage to attract the opposite sex, this creates babies, with big tails, and as these genes are handed down, that tail gets bigger, and better, until at one point, this tail got too big, and was becoming dangerous as the peacock couldn’t get it up, and it held them back when they ran away. And so the females stopped looking for the biggest peacocks, and so their existence was preserved. 

All well endowed men take note, you’re going to get the ladies, until it’s so big that you can’t get it up and you’re eaten by a fox. Now who’s laughing?

So as you can see, it is instinct across all animals to go for looks first. From how red a baboons bottom be, to how big Barbara’s boobies bloomed. 

And the simple fact is, if this changes, if we start giving everyone a chance, then sure, we’ll become nicer, more loving people, and there would be more doctors and scientists because the ugly geeks like me got laid. But our survival instincts will have been further wiped out, and come the imminent zombie apocalypse, we won’t stand a chance.