The Fifth Wall (Rant)
2008-01-29
As quotable as it may be, the person who compared the found footage technique to the technology of B&W film was way off about Cloverfield being entirely different than Blair Witch... but they did have a point about presentation within the film medium. There have been many films that present scenes or the entire movie as black and white, not out of necessity or cost, but instead to convey a particular experience, just as there are many films that use scenes of found footage for similar reasons.
I think the effect that found footage has on film as a story telling medium is interesting, especially when it is used as the sole method for delivering the story. In every instance I can think of where the found footage technique is employed in presenting the entire story to the audience, it detracts from the "complete" telling of the story, but aids in conveying a particular experience. The audience spoon-fed less, and uses their imaginations more. This is generally a good thing.
Whether or not that experience is accepted by the audience is what determines the success of the story. If the experience is rejected, either though unwillingness to suspend disbelief, shoddy emulation, poor technique, acting, lighting, etc... then the viewer is less likely to allow their imaginations to fill in the blanks that would normally be filled in with exposition, scene changes, and editing in a film presented in the standard method.
Cloverfield is a movie conveying the experience of a presumably unnamed anonymous person, with whom the audience is supposed to identify with/assume the identity of, in the first person, who is watching a supposedly genuine, unedited account of a giant monster attack. I don't think I've read a single review that comments on this aspect, and it's one which I believe that although subtle, is pretty important... because that's the top level experience that the movie is attempts to convey. You are not with Hud, Rob, Marlena & Crew; you are alone, watching this classified video. The exact same concept applies to Blair Witch.
Maybe I'm over analyzing this, or explaining it poorly, but what I'm trying to say is that the movie has multiple levels upon which to appreciate it. A similar concept I can think of is that of Grindhouse. Grindhouse is a movie that attempts to convey the experience of watching a double feature in a shitty movie theatre. Within that experience, is contained two separate stories, which you can appreciate independently if you like.
So with Both Cloverfield and Blair witch, and in a different manner, Grindhouse, you've got your story experience(plural in the case of grindhouse), and above that level, you've got the container/method of presentation; the meta-experience of the film.
When I say that I think Grindhouse experience was a detriment to my enjoyment of the Planet Terror Story, it is similar to me saying that the Lovers in a Dangerous Time Story took away from the Cloverfield Experience.
If you're still not grasping what I'm saying here, it's that the presentation method is essentially building a 5th wall; a ceiling of glass if you will. A wall that allows a "character" like Hud or Rob to break down the fourth wall and directly address the audience in a way that a character like James Bond or Ferris Bueller can not and could not do without alienating a large portion of the audience. This is a good thing... but it conflicts with the ability to seamlessly dictate a convincing narrative.
I would continue this rant by going into detail about other instances of "movies within movies", and explain why although "boring", David Lynch's Inland Empire is absolutely fucking genius... but it's late, and I think I ran out of steam a paragraph or two ago. I will simply conclude that we are living in an age in which everything is meta.
Labels: misappropriating common metaphors, rant
posted by pureevilmatt @ 05:32,
