Since watching Guardians of the Galaxy last week I HAD to make this list...
How I Judge Films:
I judge movies by the enjoyment I get out of a film. Therefore, the re-watch factor must be high, because the continued interest of the film's premise must have enduring value to me. So, the things that interest me, in particular are going to be very prominent here. But, admittedly, a lot of differed factors go into that- things which may not interest others.
So, what interests me and keeps me coming back to the water hole to drink?...
1. A deep moral premise that is powerful or that may continue to elude me.
2. A plot that either, very effectively, drives me forward (engaging me emotionally) or a plot or story structure that completely puzzles me (engaging me intellectually).
3. Stunning visuals.
4. Fun and stimulation. This may include jokes, gags, kinetic action or quippy dialogue.
5. Detailed world building- mostly as a result of artistic production design. Spatial awareness is important to me & as a result, I absolutely love effective world building (which can also be affected by everything from quality set building, to decoration, makeup, lighting, atmosphere, the framing of the camera, camera movements, artistic design of props and sets... to things like the acting, writing and directing). It is the visual and aural patchwork that succeed in ushering you further INTO the world of the film, as opposed to taking you OUT of the world of the film.
6. Great soundtrack and music selections.
7. Characters I can relate to (which can be a VERY subjective thing).
8. Complicated set pieces or kinetic camera shots.
9. Great writing.
Why is acting or character development not mentioned here? I will tell you in a second...
But first, my CURRENT top 14 of 2014 as of August 2014.
Here they are...
1. The Guardians of the Galaxy
2. The Raid 2
3. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel
5. Under the Skin
6. Cheap Thrills
7. Edge of Tomorrow
8. Noah
9. How to Train Your Dragon 2
10. The Amazing Spider Man 2
11. Maleficent
12. Godzilla
13. X-Men: Days of Future Past
14. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes
Good but not Great Films...
The Lego Movie
Enemy
Robocop
A Fantastic Fear of Everything
Acting and Character Development:
One thing you may notice is that I don't seem to include character development here or great acting. This is probably because, to me, these factors are such fundamental principles (like getting acceptable audio quality) that a film won't even place in the standing if it doesn't do this with competence.
Acting Quality:
As it comes to acting quality- it becomes glaringly obvious that the casting and directing is bad very quickly for me. I may even be able to tell this in the trailer- right away. There is a distinct disconnect that happens when pairing image with the characters in the room. The tone is off (a product more of bad editing) or the acting fails to impress me (as it comes to it's appropriateness as taken from within story context or genre). Much of this is simply the result of bad casting or bad direction (or as stated, bad editing), so it is not the actor that I blame whatsoever- but the director. Still, it doesn't allow me to be impressed by an actor's acting. It distracts terribly from the story and the world that the film is trying to create.
The Fault of the Actor:
To get a little off subject- there are those RARE cases that I believe the acting is sub-par. But this is strictly based upon a continuing experience of an actor doing one scene with appropriateness and then flubbing the next scene (as it comes to character interpretation or emotional shift). Since, during casting a director or casting director may cast an actor based on his or her performance in a few scenes- it is only the actor's fault when tonal or emotional shifts occur between scenes. This can only be because the actor has failed to capture the character and fully integrate the truth of that character into their body, or because they have failed to interpret the character's development (based on comprehension of the story and its premise or purpose).
But, of course, this may actually, still be the fault of the director or casting director, except when the actor continues to do this in multiple roles. The only conclusion is that they are a chameleon when it comes to execution- that is, they fail to consistently use their instrument in a contextually predictable way. They become, simply, a bad actor because they continue to be validated for bad work (so, they never change) or they are losing their grip on their instrument (that is, they forgot how to use their own body to serve the needs of the director or the story).
Ego or health problems may be the cause. But I find this, actually, extremely rare. Possibly because I don't watch a lot of B-films or student films. I try to watch professional work, exclusively. That said, there are these rare actors who keep being given a pass, because there is something likable about them that makes the industry continue to return to them- validating their bad acting. Sometimes this is the fault of a money-hungry or fame-crazed industry that doesn't care to understand the craft or purpose of film- to enlighten and beautify mankind. Instead, it becomes a monster of self-interest that threatens to consume itself.
A bit off-subject. But there you have it.
As It Comes To Character Development:
I disagree with many story theorists out there that claim that characters MUST have arcs because I disagree with some literary theorists about flat vs round characters. In my view even protagonists can be 'flat characters' because the primary thing about flat characters is that they do not change very much- as opposed to how much we know about them. This has become increasingly rare, as a consequence, but it is still very possible to get away with and still have an engaging, powerful story. Sometimes, the actual "point of the story" is that a person "not changing" can have a powerful effect on the world around us. Usually that is a bad effect- but, sometimes, rarely, there is a net positive effect, when that character represents unchanging moral values.
For example, superheroes don't typically change much, so they are mostly flat characters since they traditionally 'stand' for these moral values or 'represent' a moral concept or idea. Ideals that do not change for a reason. If they change they will no longer be "that" superhero. Other times, the villains may be very 'round' as is increasingly becoming the case- that is they may change throughout the story. This humanizes them and makes them more interesting to an audience with greater demands due to more sophisticated tastes.
So, it is more popular for our heroes to change. These days we want our heroes to grow as a person throughout the story. And it is the antagonists that have generally remained the same- because they have been cemented into a role that simply seeks to conquer and manipulate others in the story. And defeating these villains becomes necessary in order to return continual change to the world they exist within. This is because being open to change is generally seen as a positive thing for everyone.
But the essential thing to know about round characters is that they change throughout the story and flat characters don't change much throughout the story. But this doesn't mean a flat character can't be the hero or that villains cant be round characters. But why have these things changed recently?
Like a Rolling Stone:
"A rolling stone gathers no moss." This phrase can be interpreted as a positive or negative thing- but increasingly it has become more positive. A hero is not hard-headed, but learns from the world around him/her. But, mossy stones (that have not moved) are the ones that get thrown at others to "stone" and condemn them. This is generally the purpose of the villain- to judge and condemn others... to bring conflict into the story instead of peaceful acceptance of ourselves and others.
Evil is notoriously uncreative and unintellectual- striving only to subdue everything under it's own control- that is, to reduce everything to terms and values that the villain can understand and limit. They get to pretend they are God and are given more and more power to bring pain to the hero, until the villain is seen for what he is- no better than a limited, powerless wretch. And their greatest weakness is their refusal to change.
A Slave to Story:
So, in my view, character development is a product of the greater, more important, plot or purpose of the story. Some may argue that character IS the purpose of the story. They are not wrong- but only in the sense that character IS PLOT...
In this case, everything that the story is about revolves around who the character is and has become. Again, an effective plot is essential. Character may serve plot. Plot may serve character, but this plot must be engaging. If this plot is watered down, ineffective and stagnant- it will simply die on the vine. The story will not achieve its intended purpose.
So, character may remain stagnant- because if the story engages and has meaning and value- it doesn't matter. It becomes PART of the essential meaning of the film that characters do not change. This becomes the story you are trying to tell.
This is why I mention a driving plot or a puzzling story structure. These character arcs and acting nuances don't matter as much because these other things are subject to my greater priorities in my list. This means, I try not to notice character arcs or acting. Because it should be something you DON'T notice in my view. It is supposed to serve the story and your world building and usher you farther into the suspension of disbelief.
Conclusion (Don't Forget to Enjoy Yourself):
So, remember. If the acting and characters are thin... maybe it is for a reason. It may be the purpose of the story. Like a big, dumb action flick. You can accept that the acting is less than competent because it doesn't need to be. If the kinetic pacing and tone to the film overpowers the subtle nuance of deep thoughts and personal character growth, you may actually have a great film. You shouldn't even notice these factors if you are properly engaged. You are supposed to learn to enjoy it.
All these things serve the greater purpose of the story and film. And sometimes it is an integral part of the film's structure to have bad acting and non-existent character arcs.
Again, this is just my own opinion as a filmmaker and story-teller. There may be things I have neglected and there may be things here that are simply a product of my own style and preferences. I do not wish to be a "mossy stone" after all.
Do you have any opinions or feelings about story, character arcs and acting? Let me know how you feel about it!
Joe Davison - Producer - IMDb
