Chaos

[Ben Varkentine]

Roger Ebert has posted a thought-provoking commentary on the film "Chaos" on his website, in response to an open letter the producer and the director of the movie sent him after his review.

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... /508190304

I'm linking to it here partly because I see a connection between Ebert's reaction to this film (which I haven't seen) and some of our responses to a certain season of a certain series.

But even if you don't see that paralel, Ebert's commentary is good, and I thought Kittens might like reading it. Here are some excerpts:

In a time of dismay and dread, is it admirable for filmmakers to depict pure evil? Have 9/11, suicide bombers, serial killers and kidnappings created a world in which the response of the artist must be nihilistic and hopeless?

your film creates a closed system in which any alternative outcome is excluded; it is like a movie of a man falling to his death, which can have no developments except that he continues to fall, and no ending except that he dies. Pre-destination may be useful in theology, but as a narrative strategy, it is self-defeating.

You use the material without pity, to look unblinkingly at a monster and his victims. The monster is given no responsibility, no motive, no context, no depth. Like a shark, he exists to kill.

What I miss in your film is any sense of hope. Sometimes it is all that keeps us going. The message of futility and despair in "Chaos" is unrelieved, and while I do not require a "happy ending," I do appreciate some kind of catharsis. As the Greeks understood tragedy, it exists not to bury us in death and dismay, but to help us to deal with it, to accept it as a part of life, to learn about our own humanity from it. That is why the Greek tragedies were poems: The language ennobled the material.

What I object to most of all in "Chaos" is not the sadism, the brutality, the torture, the nihilism, but the absence of any alternative to them. If the world has indeed become as evil as you think, then we need the redemptive power of artists, poets, philosophers and theologians more than ever.

Your answer, that the world is evil and therefore it is your responsibility to reflect it, is no answer at all, but a surrender.

[urnofosiris]

I must say he makes some very powerful points that I most definitely find myself agreeing with. This is does not happen often as first of all I rarely read what critics say and secondly I rarely agree when I do read what they say, heh. I find the last sentence of these quotes especially well put.

[Ben Varkentine]

Ebert didn't win the Pulitzer prize for nothing. He's a teriffic writer, something people tend to forget because of his "thumbs up/down" TV show.

[Ben Varkentine]

For any and all interested:

Ebert's review of the film and the "open letters" he exchanged with the filmmakers has resulted in what the editor of his web site calls "an unusual number of impassioned and thoughtful responses from readers."

They've reprinted some of them here:

http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbc ... Y/50825001

I especially like the letter by someone named Karlheinz Noise (great name!), who writes in part:

You neglected to mention one thing: The only victims who did anything "wrong" were women. Were we to take the message seriously, it is this: that women (especially young and pretty ones) should stay home and do what they're told, and if they don't, they DESERVE to get tortured, raped, and killed. This is a classic example of what feminists call the "protection racket," and there's probably enough in this one movie to fuel a dozen Susan Sontag books.

you let them off much too lightly when you simply called it a "surrender." The filmmakers claim that they "tried to give you and the public something real." This claim has a simple rebuttal: Their film is not a documentary. It is fabricated out of whole cloth -- more accurately, out of the celluloid scraps of better films, as you and others pointed out.

I must say this may be the most thought-provoking film I have no expectation of seeing I've ever heard of...

[Willowlicious]

I was reading this letter on Roger Ebert's site today, and I thought the very same thing you did, Ben. The correlation is definitely there. And you're right, Ebert is an incredibly thoughtful, articulate writer, which is surprising to some people. I actually enjoy reading his essays quite a bit.

Related but unrelated, was my reaction to commentary by Alan Ball this week on the Six Feet Under: Memorium special aired to coincide with the show's ending. He said that every season his staff writers suggested breaking up David and Keith (the show's long-running gay couple) and he always resisted. He said showing them single and dating had been done a million times and was boring. What interested him was keeping them together and having them work through the most difficult times. God, how many times did we at the Kitten suggest that this was the more creative way to go with Willow and Tara?

But Joss Whedon chose to go the way of Chaos. I scorn that decision as much now as I did then.

Amy

[Ben Varkentine]

This is even more unrelated but related. But I've long thought about the contrast between the way Aaron Sorkin and The West Wing handled the death of Mrs. Landingham and the way Joss Whedon and Buffy handled the death of Tara.

Take out "the gay thing" for a moment and you find many similarities. In both cases, you have a recurring character who was never billed as a regular but had a rare if not unique relationship with a central figure of the series. In both cases, the character's death was used as a way of "tightening the screws" on that central figure, giving them "fire" to walk through.

But Sorkin made the President's relationship with and goodbye to Mrs. Landingham a huge part of a season finale. The character was referenced in the future, including the first episode of the next season, and even returned in one or two of the not-infrequent flashback episodes.

It took an entire season for Bartlet to fill Mrs. Landingham's position on The West Wing--and that was his secretary! (Also his oldest friend, but still arguably less than Tara was to Willow.)

In short, they proceeded with the understanding that Something Had Happened. Joss Whedon and the Buffy writers, on the other hand, seemed to have forgotten about Tara the moment the body hit the floor.

How many episodes did we go before she was mentioned in the most perfunctory way? I won't even get into she-who-must-not-be-named or the hateful Killer In Me episode.

What's the difference? Quite simply, respect. Respect for what the character meant to the audience and the characters. And for the actress, too--as I said above Mrs. Landingham returned to the series when opportunity arose. And the actress-Katherine Joosten--is on the commentary track of the DVD for her last episode.

Just another one of the many, many reasons (don't get me started on a list) why The West Wing is one of the most awarded series in television history.

And Buffy, um, isn't.

[urnofosiris]

It´s only natural that comparisons get made when it comes to this movie and Buffy et al. In the context of the thread they are relevant, but still off topic for this board in general. I´d like to request people to post any further specific references (no matter how minor they may seem) to Buffy, it´s creator and Tara in the the lesbian cliche thread instead and keep the discussion here about this movie in particular or movie/tv making in general.

[WebWarlock]

Ben,

The comparison is appropriate.
In fact reading the Director's response to Ebert you can almost hear the same words being said by another "artist" three years ago.

Thanks for the link. My respect for Ebert grows.

Warlock

[sam7777]

Les Moonves had something similar to say about "Joan Of Arcadia":
link

Giving Them What They Want
...
On this particular Thursday, at 11 a.m., Moonves was considering which of the network's current shows to cancel in order to make room for new programs. He had decided to take a once-promising show called ''Joan of Arcadia'' off the air. The show was about a teenager who receives directives and advice straight from God. ''In the beginning, it was a fresh idea and uplifting, and the plot lines were engaging,'' Moonves said, sounding a little sad and frustrated. ''But the show got too dark. I understand why creative people like dark, but American audiences don't like dark. They like story. They do not respond to nervous breakdowns and unhappy episodes that lead nowhere. They like their characters to be a part of the action. They like strength, not weakness, a chance to work out any dilemma. This is a country built on optimism.''

I think he made a mistake with Joan but I can certainly agree with the sentiment. Making "art" doesn't really work as an excuse if what you are really making is "crap". As Ebert said, almost of the the reviews were negative on Chaos so one positive review does not 'critically acclaimed' make. In the end it's about giving you audience what they want and not what you think they need.

It also looks like they did a bait and switrch on the actors according to IMDB:

The major players in the cast were contractually obliged to participate in the film after signing on for a remake of _Last House on the Left (1972)_ , which switched producers late in pre-production and subsequently altered the final script to what it is now.

That also sounds like another "auteur" that I could name. If true the actors were forced to do this crap.

[Ben Varkentine]

(Let me make something explicit: I'm talking to myself in what follows at least as much as I'm talking about any other writers that may come to mind)

Les Moonves had something similar to say about "Joan Of Arcadia":
link
Quote:
Giving Them What They Want
...
On this particular Thursday, at 11 a.m., Moonves was considering which of the network's current shows to cancel in order to make room for new programs. He had decided to take a once-promising show called ''Joan of Arcadia'' off the air. The show was about a teenager who receives directives and advice straight from God. ''In the beginning, it was a fresh idea and uplifting, and the plot lines were engaging,'' Moonves said, sounding a little sad and frustrated. ''But the show got too dark. I understand why creative people like dark, but American audiences don't like dark. They like story. They do not respond to nervous breakdowns and unhappy episodes that lead nowhere. They like their characters to be a part of the action. They like strength, not weakness, a chance to work out any dilemma. This is a country built on optimism.''

I never watched Joan so I can't speak to that, but the part of his statement I think I most agree with is:

They do not respond to nervous breakdowns and unhappy episodes that lead nowhere

Exploring the darkness in the world can make for some very strong dramatic entertainment, I'm sure we can all think of some examples. But it takes expert handling and I think you have to be going somewhere.

I think what Americans want, at least from their popular entertainment, is not a denial of the darkness, but to know that we can look at it, face it full on...and come out the other side.

Look at a list of the top 20 TV shows: http://tv.yahoo.com/nielsen/ Unless I'm wrong, what almost all of the dramas have in common is that they look in some pretty dark places...but suggest a positive outcome.

William Goldman says the difference between "art" films and Hollywood movies is that "art" films tell us truths we either don't know or don't want to believe and Hollywood movies tell us truths we already know or lies we want to believe. There's a place for both, especially when either is well-made (which both can be; I have absolutely no problem with a well-made "popcorn flick").

But a badly-made piece of entertainment that only wants to divert you and fails has only failed at that. They've wasted your time, nothing more. A storyteller who believes him or herself an artist who wants to take you through some dark lands before redemption, but who fucks up the tale in the telling leaves you stranded alone in the dark. Where sometimes the only light is an oncoming train.

They've failed at something more. They can, in a very real sense, be said to have gnawed away a little of your soul for cheap thrills and affect.

[Sheridan]

There does seem to be an underlying belief among some writers and film/TV makers that dark=truthful light=escapist, that evil characters are fundamentally more interesting than good ones and that negative endings are more 'real' than uplifting ones. There can be a visceral thrill in creating a purely dark story, so long as you don't pretend its somehow inately superior to creating a light one.