CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Then We Came to the End": Mortality rate in cinematic "teams", and the Protagonist's role in defining Survivors
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

"Then We Came to the End": Mortality rate in cinematic "teams", and the Protagonist's role in...

post #1 of 11
Thread Starter 

It's a commonality in more action oriented genre pieces for there to be an ensemble cast, and for an unspecified number of said cast members to be expendable.

 

Although this formula has its roots in earlier "siege" pieces such as Agatha Christie's And Then There Were None (1939) and Zulu (1964), the formula was perfected with the advent of the Slasher sub-genre.

 

That is, The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1972) and Halloween (1978) established a structure of violence in which there is a lead protagonist, a "survivor girl", that is "safe" (most of the time), creating a guessing game around how many survivors there will be among the secondary characters. While some, if not most, Slashers only have a lone survivor (usually a female), at times they are accompanied by one or more survivors. 

 

Since Slasher films are action oriented by nature, this formula has easily been transferred to other genres, sometimes back to the genres it appropriated them from in the first place. For example: Science Fiction, the Western, and War film. 

 

Aliens (1986), Young Guns (1988), and Saving Private Ryan (1998) are effective examples from each genre. The first has three survivors (and half an android), the second has three survivors, and the third has three survivors. Bear in mind that each film has a literal "team" that comprises my narrowed argument, and any auxiliary characters (such as, say, Van Leuwen in Aliens) are independent of the thematic resonance of being considered a survivor of the main conflict.

 

In Aliens, the core team is comprised of the Marines, their advisor, refugee girl, and corporate liaison. Ripley is the Survivor Girl, so her fate is never in question (a tradition Alien 3 cleverly subverts, but that's for the Movie of the Day: Alien 3 thread). Newt, Hicks, and Bishop being survivors defines their relationship with, and importance to, the Survivor Girl. Newt is a kid and off limits, but she also confirms Ripley's role as mother. Hicks was the most in doubt, but serves as a relatively non-threatening love interest for Ripley, completing the nuclear family dynamic. Bishop, meanwhile, redeems himself, but only in the sense that Ripley didn't trust him even though his intentions were always sound. 

 

Young Guns, by comparison, is more nebulous. The core team is the Regulators, starting off with seven and ending with three. Billy the Kid is the Survivor Girl in this case, accompanied by Doc and Chavez (Yen Sun is a non-entity, in that she is defined by her relationship with Doc and is not a Regulator). Billy is an obvious choice, as historically he survived the Lincoln County War and his living is a heightening of the rebellious spirit of the Old West that he personified, but the rest of the cast dies seemingly with a role of the dice. Doc is possibly the most well-rounded character in the cast, but his death could've been viewed as a tragic commentary on Billy's hubris. The same with Chavez, whose need to have children and continue his people cannot overcome the inevitability of the fate of the Native American in the United States. Perhaps the irony is their being the least loyal to Billy's cause, they are won over by his reckless leadership.

 

Saving Private Ryan is a clever reversal on Aliens, in that the latter intertwines multiple genres (Science Fiction and Horror) with War, but the former reverses the significance of the Survivor Girl. The team, here, is eight men that are sent to retrieve the macguffin that is Priate Ryan. It's obvious from the start that Tom Hanks, as Captain John Miller, is the Protagonist and Audience Identification Character. This is due to a number of reasons, ranging from the popularity of the actor to his leadership role and the questionable significance of the opening close-up and fade-in of a pair of eyeballs. Miller, however, does not survive the film. Edward Burns's Private Reiben, Jeremy Davies's Corporal Upham, and of course Matt Damon's Private Ryan learn a lesson from the death of the former schoolteacher. Reiben is left to question the value of following orders, Upham has learned the necessity of killing in war, and Ryan has been challenging to "earn this". Basically, carpe diem. The spirit of Miller, therefore, lives on in all three characters.

 

With that in mind, what are the best (and worst) examples of ensemble casts that are weeded out over the cast of a film? What does it say about the lead that this selection of secondary characters survived, and what does that say about the secondary characters?

 

post #2 of 11

Obviously, Ridley Scott's Alien is the first ensemble kill-off movie that comes to mind. Weaver was an unknown actress at the time &, conforming to the red-shirt rule of cast familiarity, audiences believed that Ripley would be the first to go while the more famous actor (Skerritt possibly) would survive to kill the monster. The up-ending of this convention & Ripley's subsequent emergence as Alien's sole survivor & eventual protagonist is an elegant feat that impresses with each viewing.

post #3 of 11

Warning: The following post is a giant step down in quality from the first. 

 

I will submit "I Know What You Did Last Summer" as an example of worst, even though I hold it in high esteem for what it is. We have a core team of four, Barry, Julie, Ray, and Helen. There are a number of tertiary characters added throughout to give us a higher body count, such as Redneck Quasi-Douche Police Officer, Unrealistically Catty Older Sister, and Jealous/ Suspicious / Resentful Loner Type Who May or May Not Know What They Did Last Summer. 

 

Let's start with J/S/RLTWMOMNKWTDLS. This character is played by the wonderful character actor Johnny Galecki, so his scant ten minutes (if that) of screentime is already a negative. He dies too early to remain a suspect for long and it's baffling why, after the reveal, the murderer would bother with him at all. Perhaps if he were aiming to frame Barry, but he keeps the body hidden, so this is a non-starter. He exists only to briefly add tension to the plot, and then to give us our first body. Sloppy. 

 

Next the RQ-DPO. I have no qualms with his death, in fact the murder of an aloof and useless authority figure is a time honored tradition of the genre. I could say the same for the UCOS but her death is the high point of the film, even if she has absolutely no character and is a waste of Bridgette Wilson. They both serve as victims during the penultimate not-survivor girl chase scene, so I give both a cheerful pass. The one-two punch of their deaths are really the only moment when the film seems to be functioning as we would expect it too. 

 

Now the main team. Barry and Helen are easily the more compelling of the four. Barry is an aggressive and domineering asshole and Helen is a superficial failed model. The subtext here is that they have substance abuse issues and are most likely highly promiscuous but of course Williamson never comes out and states it. Barry is murdered in one of those cliche "we see the hook swinging, hear gasps, maybe some blood drops" but we are denied a full on death scene. This makes the removal of his character all the more egregious. Barry is the driving force of the cover-up and such a dick that we fully anticipate his death, but the movie misses a golden opportunity to redeem him, or even better, offer him no redemption but keep him alive. This sort of subversion would benefit the film through time but the filmmakers, short-sighted as they are, choose to off him. 

 

Helen dies immediately after. She goes on what seems to be a twenty minute fight for her life in which two other tertiary characters are killed in the progress. I applaud the filmmakers for this choice because after awhile we begin to think that she has to survive, considering all the screentime we are giving her character. But she dies, and again, we get a "swinging hook, gasps, flashes of blood" and not a full on death sequence. It's cheap. And the cheapness is compounded by not only the length of her fight for survival but the reality that she is the last remaining interesting character in the film. We are now left with the two "survivor girls", Ray and Julie. 

 

Ray and Julie suck. They are wonderbread. They are cardboard. Ray is barely in the film. He has some daddy issues we get hints of but there is absolutely nothing compelling or interesting about his character. Freddie Prinze Jr. is a black hole of charisma. His eyes are so blank you'd think  he was a corpse strung up like a marionette for most of the running time. He exists as a loser who can't get into Julie's pants and gets domineered repeatedly by Barry, who we can assume gets laid all the time. He is goaded into covering up the murder and only meekly protests. Ray is a weak man and we don't like him. This is compounded by the baffling decision to keep him completely isolated from every major event. The other three team members barely remember to include him or keep him updated. As Barry astutely points out in meta-Williamson fashion, "I get run over, Helen gets her hair chopped off, Julie gets a body in the trunk, and you get a letter? That's balanced!" Ray's weakness is not only internal but external. Even the murderous fisherman seems to regard him a limp rag. An afterthought. Barry is right to assault him throughout the film. The purpose of marginalizing Ray seems to be because Williamson wants Julie and the audience to suspect him near the end, but Prinze gives such a flaccid performance we know he's not capable of fucking Eve with Adam's cock, much less orchestrating a complicated series of murders. So, of course he is revealed not be a killer, to actually be the bland loser everyone thought he was, and he engages in boring fisticuffs while our other survivor girl, Julie, hides and shrieks helplessly. 

 

Even worse, Ray lives! If he were to at least pay with his life, we could forgive his lack of character. It may even take on some tragic undertones in retrospect. But he not only gets to live unscathed, the implication is he gets to have lots of guilt-free sex with Jennifer Love Hewitt. In this moment we sympathize with the Fisherman. We feel his pain. "I've killed the wrong pair." he laments as he is flung, one-handed, into the dark waters. 

 

Julie gradually comes out of her shell over the course of the movie (epitomized by her "What are you waiting for?!" centerpiece) but we never know anything about her. Plus the finale renders her impotent as she hides in ice amongst the bodies of her far more interesting teammates rather than fighting back. There is a moment near the climax when Ray is fighting the Fisherman (perhaps his father, the absent fisherman? This unexplored subtext is another strike against the character and the film) and Julie screams "Ray!". Ray turns to look at her - while fighting - and of course Fisherman is able to land an effective (sadly non-fatal) blow. Sigh. It is painful to end a film with such weak protagonists, especially when they somehow succeed. There is an implication that Julie dies at the very end one year later - this is a jump scare that actually endears me to the film for once. But it is too little too late. 

 

EPILOGUE: 

 

There is an alternate movie out there I desperately wants to see. Rather than flashing ahead one year immediately after the night of the cover up, we stay with the teens and see the effects of their decision. Does Julie engage in self-destructive sex with frat boys and professors? Does Helen develop a cocaine addiction? Does Barry begin assaulting homeless people and stealing cars? Is Ray capable of achieving an erection anymore? I want to see a film where there is no person who knows what they did last summer aside from the core team. Where there is no literal Fisherman killing people. There is just guilt, unseen but manifested everywhere. We should have seen the year aftermath, not the second year murder mayhem. But I suppose that's asking too much. We get what we get. 

post #4 of 11

Deep Blue Sea immediately comes to mind when I think of a topic like this.   Pretty damned unpredictable and some great unexpected deaths.

post #5 of 11
Thread Starter 

I would also argue that said movies with ensemble casts that are killed off one by one tend to feature the best last stands.

 

By their very nature last stands are a commentary on a character. They're either courageous or cocky, depending on the context. Motivation says a lot, as well: why are they making a last stand? Is it simply because they were trapped against their will? Stalling for time waiting for the cavalry? Or giving the protagonist a chance to escape? 

post #6 of 11

nevermind

post #7 of 11

So, what's your deal Bartleby? Are you a professor mining us for ideas, or a hyper-intelligent autodidact, or are you writing a book? I mean, the only other people I know who continually ask these sorts of questions in this sort of tone are aspiring to tenure. Just curious. 

post #8 of 11
Thread Starter 

I am an English professor at the University of South Carolina, but honestly this is the kind of shit I think about all day.

 

If I'm coming on too strong let me know.

post #9 of 11

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

I am an English professor at the University of South Carolina, but honestly this is the kind of shit I think about all day.

 

If I'm coming on too strong let me know.


Well, that explains it. Comin' on too strong? Not even. I joined CHUD because the boards are virtual pop culture Algonquin table & it's threads like yours that continue to prove that thinking correct. All said, I think your essays really need to be featured on the front page. You're a colonel, not a grunt.

 

post #10 of 11
Thread Starter 

Thanks. I only get a chance to post two or three times a day, so I try to make them count. I also rarely post about anything other than movies or comic books, I never venture into the gossip, news, or politics areas.

 

No offense to anyone that does frequent those sections, but that's just not what attracts me to CHUD.

post #11 of 11
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bartleby_Scriven View Post

I am an English professor at the University of South Carolina, but honestly this is the kind of shit I think about all day.

 

If I'm coming on too strong let me know.



That does explain quite a bit. And no, you're not coming on too strong. I appreciate the discussion quite a bit. And I'm saying quite a bit quite a bit. Have you ever considered trying to teach some specialized courses more aligned with your interests? Or do you like to keep those worlds separate? 

New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › "Then We Came to the End": Mortality rate in cinematic "teams", and the Protagonist's role in defining Survivors