Sicario

Batutta said:
I actually felt the complete opposite from Old Corpse. I thought the directing and cinematography elevated a script that wasn't all that great. This subject matter is inherently compelling, but this story was not, at least the way they chose to tell it. This director has a very sparse, stripped down style. Some people might call it boring. Compared to how overly busy most movies are these days, I find it refreshing. But for some reason they chose to tell the story from the point of view of the least interesting character. I don't think the problem is Emily Blunt. She was fine. Her character just never once was in command of the story. I kept waiting for her to get on top of it, but she was a useless pawn, which was the whole point, but then why make her the lead? Her character had no real impact on anything that happened. A protagonist should move the story forward. I've made this point often, in other reviews, but it's such a basic storytelling lesson I see too many films ignore.
Click to expand...
I felt they needed someone altruistic that would be shocked by everything to contrast and queue the meaning to everything else. And it lent a sense of helplessness to change it all, due to the vast amount of driving forces from every angle.
 
James0b57 said:
I felt they needed someone altruistic that would be shocked by everything to contrast and queue the meaning to everything else. And it lent a sense of helplessness to change it all, due to the vast amount of driving forces from every angle.
Click to expand...

Yes, but why make the most powerless character your protagonist then? This could have been a supporting character. Or better yet, keep that character the lead, but make it seem like they are actually accomplishing something to drive the story forward, even if it was all a lie. Other than firing her gun a couple times, she is mostly ineffectual. A movie with a similar type of character is Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. She is manipulated at times by her superiors, and Hannibal Lecter, but she always feels like she's out in front of the investigation, putting things together. In the end, the solution to the main dilemma, saving the girl from the clutches of Buffalo Bill, comes down to her. Here, SPOILER, Blunt's character is sidelined at the climax, so the hitman can go about his business. It's weak writing. You could have communicated the same feeling of helplessness with a character who has more impact on the course of the story. In fact, it would have enhanced it, as all her efforts would have been for naught. But she really doesn't do much other than complain about what everyone is doing.
 
Batutta said:
Yes, but why make the most powerless character your protagonist then? This could have been a supporting character. Or better yet, keep that character the lead, but make it seem like they are actually accomplishing something to drive the story forward, even if it was all a lie. Other than firing her gun a couple times, she is mostly ineffectual. A movie with a similar type of character is Clarice Starling in Silence of the Lambs. She is manipulated at times by her superiors, and Hannibal Lecter, but she always feels like she's out in front of the investigation, putting things together. In the end, the solution to the main dilemma, saving the girl from the clutches of Buffalo Bill, comes down to her. Here, SPOILER, Blunt's character is sidelined at the climax, so the hitman can go about his business. It's weak writing. You could have communicated the same feeling of helplessness with a character who has more impact on the course of the story. In fact, it would have enhanced it, as all her efforts would have been for naught. But she really doesn't do much other than complain about what everyone is doing.
Click to expand...

that aspect didn't bother me so much, but i have a looser idea about narratives than most US film buffs. But it is obvious from everyone here, that we all had issue with some aspect of the thing revolving around the character or Blunt. Take any one of those elements and isolate them and they are fine, but as a whole, there was something that didn't work wih that character in this film. This is a very interesting aspect, and i will potentially study it further.
 
James0b57 said:
that aspect didn't bother me so much, but i have a looser idea about narratives than most US film buffs. But it is obvious from everyone here, that we all had issue with some aspect of the thing revolving around the character or Blunt. Take any one of those elements and isolate them and they are fine, but as a whole, there was something that didn't work wih that character in this film. This is a very interesting aspect, and i will potentially study it further.
Click to expand...
I just explained what didn't work. It's a classic example of a weak, passive protagonist and why they should be avoided. Emily Blunt's casting didn't help, because as written that character is somewhat naive and she projects too much intelligence.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
I just explained what didn't work. It's a classic example of a weak, passive protagonist and why they should be avoided. Emily Blunt's casting didn't help, because as written that character is somewhat naive and she projects too much intelligence.
Click to expand...
Like Luke Skywalker? ;)
 
James0b57 said:
Like Luke Skywalker? ;)
Click to expand...

WHAT!? Luke only, like, rescues the princess and BLOWS UP THE DEATH STAR. I think you're misunderstanding me. When I say weak and passive, I don't mean their status in the world of the story, I mean the effect their actions and decisions have on the course of the story. Luke is somewhat passive in the first third, but as soon as he decides to help Obi-Wan get the Death Star plans to the rebels he's an active participant. It's his idea to rescue the princess, and of course, him that finally delivers the fatal blow to the Death Star. Blunt's character is a passenger the entire story. None of her actions or decisions impact the narrative or get her towards her stated goal, to get the people responsible for the house of horrors she finds in the opening. It's fine if a character starts from a weak and passive place, but they have to develop into an active protagonist or you get a flat story like this one. What obscures this flaw is that she seems to be doing stuff in the movie, shooting her gun, asking questions, but when you really examine it none of what she does amounts to anything, even at the climax.
 
Last edited:
Batutta said:
WHAT!? Luke only, like, rescues the princess and BLOWS UP THE DEATH STAR. I think you're misunderstanding me. When I say weak and passive, I don't mean their status in the world of the story, I mean the effect their actions and decisions have on the course of the story. Luke is somewhat passive in the first third, but as soon as he decides to help Obi-Wan get the Death Star plans to the rebels he's an active participant. It's his idea to rescue the princess, and of course, him that finally delivers the fatal blow to the Death Star. Blunt's character is a passenger the entire story. None of her actions or decisions impact the narrative or get her towards her stated goal, to get the people responsible for the house of horrors she finds in the opening. It's fine if a character starts from a weak and passive place, but they have to develop into an active protagonist or you get a flat story like this one. What obscures this flaw is that she seems to be doing stuff in the movie, shooting her gun, asking questions, but when you really examine it none of what she does amounts to anything, even at the climax.
Click to expand...
How would you rate 'Russian Ark'?

Why does the protagonist have to do something that changes the course of the story? I am sure it makes a better film, but it doesn't make a film bad by itself.
 
James0b57 said:
How would you rate 'Russian Ark'?

Why does the protagonist have to do something that changes the course of the story? I am sure it makes a better film, but it doesn't make a film bad by itself.
Click to expand...

I've never seen it. One take movie, right?...If they don't move the story forward in opposition to the antagonist then they are are boring to watch, and the audiences attention should be elsewhere. Almost any other major character in Sicario would be more interesting to follow in this film. Especially the way the film is set up, as a hunt for the big bad drug dealer. We're saddled with the lead who does the least to achieve that goal. And the movie is distinctly told from her point of view. Sure there are movies that are more episodic, and really loose in narrative form where traditional storytelling might not apply, but this wasn't one of them. Is the movie bad? It's too expertly shot and acted for me to call it bad, but I don't think it works really as a story, which is why many people were underwhelmed by it.
 
This was one of those movies with an opening which promised greatness and then quickly fizzled into mostly boring nothingness. Nothing was accomplished, and none of the characters were worth following. Except possibly Alejandro, but if you made a film of his arc, it would be a short.

It spent an inexplicable amount of time on Silvio, who served almost no purpose in the story.

Batutta said:
WHAT!? Luke only, like, rescues the princess and BLOWS UP THE DEATH STAR. I think you're misunderstanding me. When I say weak and passive, I don't mean their status in the world of the story, I mean the effect their actions and decisions have on the course of the story. Luke is somewhat passive in the first third, but as soon as he decides to help Obi-Wan get the Death Star plans to the rebels he's an active participant. It's his idea to rescue the princess, and of course, him that finally delivers the fatal blow to the Death Star. Blunt's character is a passenger the entire story. None of her actions or decisions impact the narrative or get her towards her stated goal, to get the people responsible for the house of horrors she finds in the opening. It's fine if a character starts from a weak and passive place, but they have to develop into an active protagonist or you get a flat story like this one. What obscures this flaw is that she seems to be doing stuff in the movie, shooting her gun, asking questions, but when you really examine it none of what she does amounts to anything, even at the climax.
Click to expand...

Plus, her character was built up as kind of a badass throughout the first act. And then, she wasn't one.
 
combatentropy said:
On a related note, Denis Villeneuve will start shooting Blade Runner 2 this summer.
Click to expand...
With Roger Deakins as cinematographer.

I've only seen the trailer and some making of stuff from Sicario and far from impressed by how it looks. I actually haven't seen anything shot by Deakins that have excited me. The original Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time, all categories. So a bit worried about this choice.
 
dmitrizigany said:
With Roger Deakins as cinematographer.

I've only seen the trailer and some making of stuff from Sicario and far from impressed by how it looks. I actually haven't seen anything shot by Deakins that have excited me. The original Blade Runner is my favourite film of all time, all categories. So a bit worried about this choice.
Click to expand...

The real worry is not Deakins, it's that hack, Denis Villenueve. I absolutely hated what he did with Sicario, and Prisoners (haven't seen anything else of his). Clearly however, I seem alone in my opinion, so to each his/her own. But I predict BR2 will be a dreadful thing - though again, most likely successful commercially given how desperate people are for a sequel to BR... there's an inbuilt fan audience that will take just about any quality (sort of like Star Wars fans), so I think with that kind of box office, Mr. Villenueve has a long career ahead of him, regardless (see: Night Shyamalan).
 
Deakins shooting scifi should be interesting. Looking forward to that.
 
@oldcorpse movies are a pretty subjective thing, so it doesn't matter if you dislike something, and everyone else does. Remember when that was the definition of cool?
 
Well, it's not encouraging when your taste differs too much from the majority, especially if your ambition is to produce work for the general audience. Spielberg's success is often partially credited to his genuinely sharing the tastes of the average audience goer - you can't fake that. So when my response to a movie is too far off from the majority audience, I find that worrisome. I don't aspire to "cool", as that is a self-isolating or self-selecting "us vs them" thing, whereas I want to understand and empathize. It's OK to be niche, but it can't be too small, otherwise you have no business in an artform that relies on largish numbers of audience (compared to f.ex. painting).
 
OldCorpse said:
Well, it's not encouraging when your taste differs too much from the majority, especially if your ambition is to produce work for the general audience. Spielberg's success is often partially credited to his genuinely sharing the tastes of the average audience goer - you can't fake that. So when my response to a movie is too far off from the majority audience, I find that worrisome. I don't aspire to "cool", as that is a self-isolating or self-selecting "us vs them" thing, whereas I want to understand and empathize. It's OK to be niche, but it can't be too small, otherwise you have no business in an artform that relies on largish numbers of audience (compared to f.ex. painting).
Click to expand...
Sicario is niche mainstream. Not mainstream mainstream. I think you are fine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top