ArmandFancypants wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 7:49 pmanarchy wrote: ↑February 4th, 2019, 7:35 pmNot sure if sarcasm(?) or not, would like to hear more about this. One criticism I don't hear enough about Green Book is howArmandFancypants wrote: ↑February 3rd, 2019, 7:41 amThe fact that it's not well made! The fact!
More comical (and an actual thing) is the aversion to the technical proficiency of Green Book's script which should be used to teach screenwriting.it's basically character goes from Point A to B, shit happens, from B to C, shit happens, from C to D... so formulaic, so lacking in drive, and so arbitrary. It's almost like the screenwriter decided something needs to happen here, so let's raise the stakes by throwing in a conflict with no foreshadowing or cause-and-effect!It's not plot driven because there is no "plot" to speak of just a rather straightforward premise and then from that the characters are going to be changed by their experience. The characters do literally go from point A to B because it's a road trip/tour. This is unimportant beyond the fact that A) the region is hostile and B) Tony would like to be back for Christmas.
What is important is that character is revealed through action, and action is sourced from character. Everything is motivated by character and informed by where the characters are at emotionally, and we have an organic progression from the protagonists interaction being forced by proximity and isolation to being about active choices and genuine friendship. The conflicts are not the literal ones of the environment but the more meaningful, for the purpose of the film, conflicts of expectation, culture and stereotype. That the (quite believable and largely organic) incidents inform, accelerate and support the change is necessary because we are watching a 2 hour film, not watching this play out in real time. But it's not as simple as them learning some sort of facile lesson from each incident, it is often about character reveal and self-examination more than anything. And that's why the film has connected with an audience - it offers spiritual enrichment and reward for embracing your fellow man. It's carrot over stick storytelling, and if it was that easy more people would do it and have similar success.
1. "Tony wants to go home" feels so tacked on to me, something the writers pulled out from time to time whenever the movie needed more stakes. And of course there was no doubt he would make it back at all. So the suspense serves no true purpose.
2. I agree character is revealed through action, but the characters in this movie are so trite or unexplored. Tony is such an overblown stereotype and Viggo's performance doesn't help (line readings from Farrelly explain something). Shirley is obviously an extremely interesting character at the intersection of multiple identities but the film leaves him mostly unexplored. I don't think it does a good job at 'character reveal' at all when his queerness is so lightly revealed and quickly swept aside.
3. I don't think either character does any meaningful or deep self-examination. Sure, they change and those changes are expressed through action, but the self-examination feels superficial and sudden. Does Tony ever confront the origin of his racism? Not that I recall, he just gradually becomes non-racist after spending time with Shirley. I'm not saying everything has to written out aloud, but the movie didn't do a good job making me believe that the characters did the self-examination necessary to truly solve their problems.
4. Sure the incidents might be believable, but I didn't find them organic. Again the timing of their appearances just feels forced. They feel like they were placed there by screenwriters whenever the movie needed conflict. And of course they get increasingly severe as the movie goes along, because screenwriting calls for rising tension. The incidents feel disjointed; it doesn't feel like one incident leads to another, which is crucial for this snowballing to work.
2. I agree character is revealed through action, but the characters in this movie are so trite or unexplored. Tony is such an overblown stereotype and Viggo's performance doesn't help (line readings from Farrelly explain something). Shirley is obviously an extremely interesting character at the intersection of multiple identities but the film leaves him mostly unexplored. I don't think it does a good job at 'character reveal' at all when his queerness is so lightly revealed and quickly swept aside.
3. I don't think either character does any meaningful or deep self-examination. Sure, they change and those changes are expressed through action, but the self-examination feels superficial and sudden. Does Tony ever confront the origin of his racism? Not that I recall, he just gradually becomes non-racist after spending time with Shirley. I'm not saying everything has to written out aloud, but the movie didn't do a good job making me believe that the characters did the self-examination necessary to truly solve their problems.
4. Sure the incidents might be believable, but I didn't find them organic. Again the timing of their appearances just feels forced. They feel like they were placed there by screenwriters whenever the movie needed conflict. And of course they get increasingly severe as the movie goes along, because screenwriting calls for rising tension. The incidents feel disjointed; it doesn't feel like one incident leads to another, which is crucial for this snowballing to work.
