Month: March 2019

Image Credit: https://www.seekpng.com/ks/movie-camera/

Not all moviegoers are created equal.

I recently watched a CNN interview of La La Land director Damien Chazelle on YouTube. In the clip, Chazelle addresses a screenwriter’s – or, in his case, writer-director’s – need to insert personal experience into his or her films to increase the emotional resonance. While thematic resonance  and personal implications are a fantastic source of audience engagement, not all moviegoers seek to engage in profound thought when going to the theater. Entertainment, quite often, is for its own sake.

As a young filmmaker, I have produced several films in the past, and I am currently as writer, director, and editor on a new film. Titled Vis-à-Vis, the film addresses the difficulties of adapting to American life as a French person. Given that I am French, I inserted a great deal of personal emotion and perception to my writing and my story. My characters serve as embodiments of my own struggles. However, I often look inward and wonder: “Shoot, what if my life and my experiences are utterly irrelevant to the general public?

Since not all moviegoers are created equal, with children and adults each preferring their own kinds of movies, I wanted to ask a question today:

What cinematic elements in a film can maximize audience engagement?

Take a film such as The Meg, released in August 2018. This film, starring the always-captivating Jason Statham, is an example of a classic “B-movie,” as the above Rotten Tomatoes link states. This half-derogatory name is self-explanatory, for it implies that the film primarily targets the box office, rather than viewers as a whole. An “A” movie has historically been one that receives a blend of critical acclaim and viewer success.

Certain movies are meant to be three-act pieces of explosive, non-sequitur storytelling. Others, such as La La Land, receive Academy Awards because they are nuanced and complex films, and they often vary from the traditional three-act structure with various twists and turns.

But let’s get to the social issue that I’m addressing here: the maximization of viewer engagement. By engagement, I mean genuine immersion and captivation of an audience, not simply for laughs or thrills. Take a film such as The Imitation Game, for example, one of my recent favorites. Its combination of great acting, excellent writing, and circular storytelling – beginning at a certain point in time, transitioning to past events, and returning to the starting point at the ending. I believe films in the Marvel Cinematic Universe are always successful – I, for one, am always thoroughly in awe of them – because they combine crisp, thematic storytelling with the necessary laughs and thrills. This, as they say, keeps film audiences “at the edge of their seat” because one does not know what will happen next or how the characters, from the small-scale Ant-Man to the cinematic juggernauts of Iron Man and Captain America, will evolve.

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has become so successful because it has perfected the formula of maximizing viewer engagement through characters and seamless writing, blended with enthralling action.

Image Credit: https://medium.com/@rajan.nanavati/the-conclusive-ranking-of-all-movies-in-the-marvel-cinematic-universe-6bf3dd1bbb1f

One thing that has long frightened me in films is violence. I used to be scared of attending films – period. I remember watching the G-rated The Tale of Despereaux (2008), a cartoon, and feeling emotional near the film’s ending. As a 10-year-old and while younger, I used to outright fear attending a movie with my family due to the need to partake in shared emotion – or more specifically, sadness – and sensitivity.

Today, that fear has almost entirely disappeared, but it occasionally resurfaces due to fear of embarrassment while I am among my friends and family. Now, my new fear is violence and blood, as contrary to emotional story elements, they cannot be justified with the old “It’s just a movie” adage. Growing up and going through high school in the 2010s was not exactly a walk in the park. With school shootings, political division, and social issues aplenty, my loss of innocence was drastically accelerated, to my frequent dismay.

Today, I am still uncertain of how others deal with the world’s problems, as I myself find it difficult to do so. In regards to movies, I truly have no idea how others process something as brutal as a bullet to the head (a headshot) – sincere apologies, dear reader for the explicit writing – and when one thinks that millions of people see such movies and are, in effect, desensitized to such horrific acts.

Ultimately, in terms of maximizing one’s audience, it is oftentimes the most audacious, atypical, and downright gruesome that takes priority. From a social standpoint, however, I do not believe that such blood and violence should be incentivized. I mean, R-rated movies are fine, but there are not excessively many movies out there, are they? In other words, while it remains the consumer’s choice, the cinema only possesses a limited repertoire of films at a given time.

Thus, if we are to maximize our audiences, we must prioritize life over death and understand that optimism, as opposed to fatalistic attitudes, must always win out – and among all ages.

Image Credit: https://www.irishmirror.ie/showbiz/celebrity-news/six-james-bonds-one-room-6643038

In all debates – political, ideological, personal, you name it – many ideas are presented. There are those that stick and prompt the general public to action, and there are those that are flatly dismissed, for they cannot be universalized.

Such was the case recently when Barbara Broccoli – the head of Eon Productions and the ex officio executive producer of the James Bond franchise – firmly stated in October 2018 that the renowned Agent 007 would remain male. As Daniel Craig approaches his final Bond film, the currently-untitled 25^th installment in the saga, fans are wondering who, exactly, will become the next 007. British actor Idris Elba is poised to become the first man of color to play the world’s most famous secret agent, but he has admitted he possesses no real intention of committing to the role long-term.

I am writing about James Bond tonight because I feel that this dilemma represents a broader social debate – or, more appropriately as it pertains this blog, a civic issue – between tradition and change. These two values are essentially the cornerstones of all politics. The question of whether to repeat the past or to stray from it have always dominated popular conversation and rhetoric emanating from political leaders.

From a personal standpoint, after being born and spending the first five years of my life in France, I moved to Maryland, a largely-liberal state in which, I found, political generalizations and wide, encompassing statements are aplenty. While I do not criticize the existence, the legitimacy, or the cause for social concern related to these viewpoints, I believe that politics must be evaluated on the basis of the individual – that is, on a case-by-case basis, and that outright change through sweeping generalizations simply lacks pragmatism. In other words, such attempts at social reform cannot be omni-applicable if, in their very nature, they are general and thus fail to cater to individual (citizen) interests.

Now, let’s narrow in on the specific. Indeed, an individual with a license to kill.

Image Credit: http://www.awardscircuit.com/2018/06/29/top-10-best-movie-replacements-and-spinoffs/all-james-bond-actors1/

In the case of James Bond, I am keen to echo a statement that Bond’s MI6 ally, Eve Moneypenny (played by Naomie Harris) – the second iteration of the Miss Moneypenny character in the Bond franchise since the original Sean Connery era – utters in Bond’s last outing, Spectre, released in November 2015. “Sometimes the old ways are the best,” she says.

James Bond has remained an iconic figure since 1962 primarily thanks to his suave style, grit, and unphased spy personality (across six different actors, no less!) The term “Bond girl,” as well, has been so colloquialized that today, 007 is among the most famous and recognizable characters and franchises worldwide. Whereas some may claim that the charming, womanizing cinematic character of James Bond represents several social stigmas and inequalities, I think quite to the contrary. A strong female companion or match for 007 is as powerful as a female Bond herself! As former Bond girl Eva Green indicated, there is no reason for such a consistent, renowned saga to enact such a drastic alteration to itself.

In terms of the possibility for change, I also don’t know that it is necessary for Bond. Rendering Bond female would break with tradition and would eliminate various clichés that have become ingrained in the popular lingo. For example, as aforementioned, the iconic and timeless status of both Bond and Bond girls, from Ursula Address (Dr. No) to Jane Seymour (Live and Let Die), Barbara Bach (The Spy Who Loved Me), and Halle Berry (Die Another Day) would lose its luster as a thing of the past.

Dismissal of one’s roots and past for the sake of change and/or increased political acceptance – or, dare I venture, correctness – is not a worthwhile endeavor. Ultimately, I believe that the Bond franchise is correct in its choice to maintain its titular character’s male gender as author Ian Fleming created the character, and a radical change would be in complete opposition to the past works of many.

I recently came upon a speech by Captain Marvel star Brie Larson in which the Oscar-winning actress condemned the white-male majority of film critics for top-grossing films, citing a USC study. As a white male, I recognize the abundance of people who resemble me in popular media. However, I do not believe that, in the case of 007, underscoring one’s talent with racial/racist overtones and/or the need for social change is useful. The past – that is, tradition – possesses innate value from which we must learn and which we must not seek to wipe out (especially in the realm of fictional storytelling, in which no real lives are harmed).

With various movements such as #MeToo emerging, James Bond is supposed to quote “adapt to modern times.” That being said, therein lies the beauty of 007: his ability to adapt to his own times, his own stories, and his own conflicts. This is why the Bond movies work so well: because they are legitimately intriguing. In uniting past and present, they remind us of the value of entertainment for its own sake as an escape from the real world and a reminder of all that is good.