I keep seeing a lot of previews for The Town, which is directed by Ben Affleck. The voice talking over the preview says something like, "from the director of Gone Baby Gone." I mean, is he trying to fool us? It's so lame. Why doesn't he just say, "from director Ben Affleck"? We all know, after all, that Ben directed Gone Baby Gone. I don't know if that's a turn-off or what. It's weird, too, because Ben stars in The Town. Why are we pretending he didn't have his hands all over Gone Baby Gone (with his brother in the lead role and Ben writing it for the screen and directing it) and The Town? It's bizarre mainly because I really liked Gone Baby Gone, and I think it got pretty good reviews over all. The Town is getting excellent reviews. I just don't know why the voice-over man is trying to pull the wool over our eyes when it's totally unnecessary.
The voice-over man's odd reference to the nameless director of Gone Baby Gone is making me think more and more about that movie. It's making me ponder why I actually like the movie if the director/writer is such a douche that he's not even mentioned by name. This got me thinking that, maybe, I only like Gone Baby Gone because it follows a really appealing formula. That formula, my friend(s), is the Arch. The Arch works like this: 1) A story starts out with a certain goal in mind. 2) The climax of the movie is when the goal should be reached but is not reached. 3) The main character struggles to find a way to live her/his life and move on from the unfulfilled goal. 4) During this time, the main character's emotional self is laboring and struggling to get through. 5) The aforementioned goal is finally reached, albeit with a different mindset or after math.
To demonstrate, I will examine two pretty different movies: Sex and the City AND Gone Baby Gone. They have different themes and cater to different audiences. Yet, they follow the exact same formulaic arch. **SPOILER ALERT FOR BOTH MOVIES** In Sex and the City, Carrie has the goal of marrying Big. The movie builds and builds until the wedding when he, invariably, gets cold feet. The movie takes a sharp turn in tone and emotion. The drums start to beat and we, the audience, understand that we are taking a nosedive. Carrie spends a great deal of the movie in a depressed state (even darkening her hair to reenforce the metaphor) before the principle goal of the movie is finally reached; she marries Big. The wedding is not how she planned it, and the goal of the movie takes on a different point of view.
The same is true for GBG. Patrick, as a private detective, spends the first part of the movie fulfilling the film's goal: to find and bring back a missing girl. When the goal is about to be reached, the little girl supposedly dies. The detective, then, is destitute and spends a great deal of the next part of the movie a bit lost and in a contemplative state over how he botched the job of retrieving the little girl. Ultimately, the little girl is found (fulfilling the movie's goal). However, the emotions of the main character have changed because, though the goal is fulfilled, the circumstances surrounding the goal have drastically changed.
Is the Arch a formula to follow in order to ensure entertainment? Maybe, the audience responds to it because it's a rhythmically-paced ride that is both familiar and comfortable. I think it's a great sort of tool. But, like any tool, it's only as good as the person using it. I'm ready to face it: Ben Affleck has skills. You can include his name in the preview for The Town. I'll still go see it.
No comments:
Post a Comment