Pages

Monday, September 6, 2010

Why I Didn't Like Scott Pilgrim.



I am 33 years old. I grew up on the NES, and yes, I remember Clash and Demonhead and Crash and the Boys Street Challenge. Those were my games; that was my generation, and I walked out of Scott Pilgrim unimpressed. I feel it's important to explain why, since the gamer community seems to be going hysterical about the film, even as it's failing at the box office, putting it on the fast-track to cult status before it even hits DVD.

There doesn't seem to be much room to be down with gaming but not down with the film. It's almost as if you have some cultural duty as a gamer to like the film, since it is one of the first films by a director who "gets" gaming culture. The problem for me is that Edgar Wright's SPACED, which he made with his Shaun of the Dead co-writer Simon Pegg and actress Jessica Hynes, and which he made over a decade ago, was a thousand times better than Scott Pilgrim as a look at gamer culture. A kind of dream-like mediation on what it meant to be a 20-something Londoner in the late 90s (during the height of the Playstation 1), it was more real, more clever, more complex, and far more intelligent. By comparison Scott Pilgrim is a pantomime cartoon that confuses caricature with character in ways that seem below Wright's directorial talents.



Sometimes I wonder if Sin City "ruined" comic book movies, since nowadays people seem to have this idea that the proper way to adapt a comic is to simply mimick it on-screen in a grotesque combination of special effects and slavish, puppet-like acting. Although certain actors in Scott Pilgrim handle this better than others (notably Mary Elizabeth Winstead and Jason Schwartzman, who aren't "real" but seem to find the right note for their stylized performances) it largely results in a kind of wacky, sustained phoniness, as if you're watching a sketch comedy stretched out to the tedious length of a feature film. I am not against stylized craziness, but content of this sort needs a strong undercurrent of emotional and psychological reality to ground it, to make all its flights of fancy feel like poetic expressions of something real, and not just empty exercises in pop-cultural chic. One way to achieve this is for the actors to behave naturalistically, to provide a counter-balance to the unreal style. Suspension of disbelief works when we believe actors believe what's happening to them, and by and large the performances in Scott Pilgrim are way too telegraphed, way too controlled, to achieve that.


If you compare Scott Pilgrim to Wright's previous work, you'll see this is a big difference. SPACED, Shaun of the Dead, and Hot Fuzz all are about the mundane reality of real people colliding with fantastic genre worlds, and in each case the acting and dialog provides a clear counterpoint to the highly stylized world of the genre. The thing that makes Hot Fuzz not a Michael Bay movie is its deliberately down-to-Earth (though still comedic) acting and dialog, and the reason Shaun of the Dead is, in a lot of ways, superior to the George Romero films that inspired it is because the level of dialog and acting is far above Romero's ever was, making the characters frankly a lot more believable. SPACED, which is more about the imagined worlds of genres (including those of movies, science fiction, and videogames) colliding with the everyday life of Londoners, has a similarly dialectic approach to fantasy vs. reality. The fantasy largely comes from Wright's direction, in his stylistic references to Quentin Tarantino, Sam Raimi, and various Playstation games. The reality comes from Pegg and Hynes, who wrote the dialog and play the two leads. Though Hynes wasn't a writer on Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz, Pegg was still a co-writer. Scott Pilgrim marks the first time Wright has worked without Pegg as a grounding influence, and one has to wonder if the monotonous fantasy overload of Pilgrim isn't the direct result.



I don't mind if other people like Scott Pilgrim. I'll admit the film is clever in certain ways, and I am not above feeling a small thrill at some of the references. Still, I must stress the thrill is rather small, and I would never confuse this kind of thrill for nuanced writing, acting, or storytelling. Gamers are still, in certain ways, a marginalized culture, largely misunderstood by the mainstream, which is why we often embrace whatever meager representation comes down the Hollywood pipeline. But a movie isn't good just because it validates your culture, and I personally find my aesthetic sense of film is too strong to accept a movie like Scott Pilgrim based purely on such criteria.

You know what would be better than seeing a Clash and Demonhead reference in a movie? Seeing one in a good movie, the sort which I know Wright is capable of, and which I hope he'll do again if given the opportunity. Until then I'll still be recommending SPACED to anyone who wants to know what being a gamer is like.

4 comments:

  1. My impression of the movie's (and the graphic novel's) gaming references was that they were questionable claims to gaming culture made semi-ironically by hipsters. Bear in mind I've neither seen the movie nor read the graphic novel, but I've discussed both extensively with fans of both, one or neither and been heavily exposed to the imagery of both, which is what I'm commenting on. I am nevertheless open to having my impressions proven false. That said...

    There's a difference between something that says "I am a gamer" and "I once played a video game when I was a kid in the 90s". Basically, I would contend that if your strongest reference point for gaming is over a decade and a half old, you have little business calling yourself a gamer, and little legitimate claim to gaming imagery. Games have developed since then.

    SPACED's depiction of gaming was contemporary, and more importantly, about contemporary gamers. It was, as you rightly identify, a period piece. Pilgrim seems to be about contemporary hipsters throwing around references to obscure 15 year old games in an attempt at 'gamer cred', in much the same way that hipsters throw around references to obscure 30-40 year old music in an attempt at 'rocker cred'. Or heck, the way hipsters throw around references to French New Wave films. It's a pose by poseurs. Gamers seem to be reacting to Pilgrim's game references as though any acknowledgment of video games in another medium is manna from heaven.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Maybe you should see the film. The references are not exclusively to NES-era games. A lot of them are to gaming franchises that were birthed in the 80s and 90s but are still around now, like Mario, Zelda, and (most importantly) Street Fighter. Clash at Demonhead and Crash and the Boys jumped out at me because they were the two most obscure references in the film, but in general it's made of references most contemporary gamers would get.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think you're heaping too much responsibility on Wright when his job was to successfully translatethe graphic novels to screen. If you take issue with the shallow "look, games!" references then I think your issue is with Brian O'Malley and the source material.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well, the source material doesn't have acting now does it? It still relies somewhat on the reader to "complete" it. Performers deciding for you what characters act and sound like makes a big difference. Also, the comic is a lot more fleshed out than the movie in terms of backstory. There is nuance there that doesn't make it into the film.

    A movie is not "successful" just because it looks and sounds like the comic. What works on the page doesn't necessarily work on the screen when it's copied verbatim. Wright's "job" was to make a movie adaptation of Scott Pilgrim, and there are a lot of ways he could have done it, not just one "right" way. I don't happen to like the way he did it, or at least I dislike some of his choices.

    ReplyDelete