Scott Pilgrim will fail. †‬God,†‬I hope I’m wrong.†‬It’s
not that the world isn’t ready for a smart movie. I just don’t think
people
are going to expect THIS film to be a smart one.†‬And god,†‬is it.â€
‬Movie goersâ€
(‬mostâ€) ‬will come into the cool theatre to escape the summer heat for a
while, and settle into their seats wanting to be simply entertainedâ€
‬for
their†‬8-15†‬bucks… ‬and†‬they will be served†‬Scott Pilgrim—a film
which
doesn’t do†‬what you can usually expect a film with adolescent subject
matter to do. In general, when people don’t get what
they expect they are paying for they feel betrayed. My
fear is that the audience will feel that way. Again, I hope I’m wrong.
All I hope for Scott Pilgrim is that the majority of the audience will
(in addition to being wonderfully entertained!) feel
challenged with something completely new flying at their faces.
To
enjoy, or to understand the movie, you don’t need to know the comic
book series it is pulled from.†‬You don’t need to play video games
either, and the movie is full of video game metaphors and references in
both the sound effects and visuals in the fight scenes.††‬You don’t
have to like musicals either. (While not a musical, this is a sound
track-heavy movie.) Scott Pilgrim takes all of these things and crams
them together in a postmodern cultural ball of cookie dough, bakes it up
real nice, and calls it a movie. What a treat. But a clean, linear
movie it is not. I actually felt uncomfortable watching it. Although it
is probably the
funniest movie I have seen in a couple of years, Scott Pilgrim is not
easy to
watch. But that’s because it’s like trying a new food and finding out
that
you really like it. I fear though that most that try it won’t like it at
first
taste although it truly is such a novelty. Uncomfortability in an
artistic or cultural situation is one of my favorite things in the
world. It means you’re being forced to accept something new. That’s
exactly why I found this film inspiring.
The passage of time is irrelevant in this movie.†‬Almost a joke.â€
‬Cera’s character
alludes to one year passing†and they show Ellen Wong’s character one
year later†‬for no reason other
than to point out that it is arbitrary.†‬That’s the kind of fun this
movie has. The edits between scenes are fantastic, moving you through
time and space, the structure sometimes superceding the content, and the
movie becomes self-aware. Like when Cera’s character actually
sheepishly slides out of the frame, right off the screen. A whole lot of
video game references are woven through the sound and
image and choreography of the battles.†‬There are comic book references
for those fans of the series—now the people on screen
are magically dressed up like the people you know in that book under
your bed.â€
‬Or if you don’t get the references (I didn’t) it doesn’t hurt you. But
I’m sure it’s added value for those that are fans. When the school bell
rings,†‬we see the wordâ€
“‬Brrrrriiiiiiiinggggâ€!!!!” ‬shoot out of the top of the school building
in the
distance letter by letter in just one of the examples where the genre of
film mimics the genre of a comic book. Expect text on the images.â€
‬Expect two and three dimensional graphics to live
in a three dimensional world.â€
But this is not to be confused with a movie that is aboutâ€
‬movie making†‬or themes so deep that the audience will feel insulted.â€
‬You’re
safe there.†It’s about storytelling.†‬And more specifically,†‬how a
young†‬20-somethingâ€
– ‬any of the characters in the movie,†‬would tell their own romantic
(or
coming of age) story.†The form the story
takes–the metaphors it uses (boss battles or battle-of-the-bands
references to depict a fight over a dame) and the visual and verbal
epithets it pulls out of other genres, are meant to be obvious, heavy
handed, and part of
the humor. ‬There’s the
real candy,†‬folks,†‬from the time the lights dim. â€Every generation
has their own way of story-telling–their
own language that can border on esoteric, with their own cultural
metaphors, and their
own references to their music, films, entertainment, books, and icons.
What Edgar Wright does is insist that we celebrate those metaphors and
share laughs over them. This film acts as an index of the way this
generation†uses these references to understand their world and
communicate their experiences. For instance, a video game-esque battle
becomes the literal emotional environment for a duel over a girl. How
will you know if you belong to the generation in question? Do you think
Wright tried to define that generation when he made this film? Don’t
sweat. I don’t think that’s very important. All I gather is that the
generation is very broad (pretty much anyone that grew up with video
games of any kind, and email of any kind) and that I don’t think he was
interested in being exclusionary.
This film is a
gift… treat… something new. Without Michael Cera’s raw and honest
vulnerability as our main character, and his performance of simple comic
expression, we would
be lost and insulted by the environment. Basically, I believe that this
is happening to him, because I believe that this is how his mind must
work, and even he is amused by it. Edgar Wright has
wrangled Cera and countless of cross-genre tools to create an immersive
space where bold visual metaphors and incongruent sound references are
not only allowable, but palatable and entertaining. What’s the
experience like? He’s made a space that is so fun that I want to live
inside itâ€.†‬And I came out of it overwhelmed with the idea that
perhaps he’s a sociologist or an
archaeologist more than a filmmaker (and dang, is he a film maker). I
see
this movie not getting dollars, but eventual respect. I hope for both.





18 comments
It's sad where we live in an age where no one seems to want to step out of their little boxes and open their mind up a little bit. Even Inception only did as well as it did thanks to the "Matrix" marketing and the whole "From the director of The Dark Knight" tag. This film will bomb and it's a shame but that's the kind of retarded world we live in. It will find life on home video just like Kick-Ass is starting to now. Seriously, I have to beg people to watch Kick-Ass because they think it looks stupid but as soon as they watch it they feel dumb for not giving it a chance. The same will happen with Scott Pilgrim and while that sucks for the people who made the film, it's just the way of the world these days. The stupid close-minded movie watchers outnumber us open-minded film lovers a million to one and unfortunately in the film business, numbers win.
It really, really doesn't seem like something new. It seems like, "Hey, we'll make it like the comic," which was "Hey, let's throw fanboy stuff into a love story." It seems like it will be cute for cuteness sake, and that knowing the set up, most of it will just seem obvious (the trailers have), and that the best it can possibly achieve is cleverness. I could be wrong, but don't count me as some betrayer of innovative film just because I don't pay to see this in theater. (Confession: I will probably end up paying to see it for the sake of a girl.)
#1 I respectfully disagree about the reasons for INCEPTION's success. Yeah, the amazing visuals play a huge part. But I think the film engaged viewers in an intellectual way that just doesn't often happen in the mainstream. Connected in the way that The Matrix sequels wanted but failed to do. I think INCEPTION made its audience feel smart, it didn't lose them, and I think that is part of the reward for viewers. I think this happens a lot when there is an indie film crossover to mainstream success. Little Miss Sunshine was pretty mainstream but it had the feel of an indie and I think that helped cultivate its audience.
Love this movie, but where were you people when Speed Racer came out.
As far as I'm concerned, Scott Pilgrim has the potential to be the next Annie Hall– a touchstone turning point both for the filmmaker behind it and for future films in general. Whether it is a hit or not, Wright is just getting better and better, and this will be an influential work both to his peers and to a new generation of moviemakers. I am completely serious.
How weird. An editorial/advertisement apologising for a films failure (ITS ALL THE AUDIENCES FAULT!) before it's even had a chance to flop.
If it does flop, the trailers will be to blame. They sold it as a cross between Speed Racer and a generic teen rom com. They didn't show a single funny/interesting/coherant moment in any of the trailers.
#3: Cordially, I think you'd have to be a bit slow *not* to understand INCEPTION, given that what seemed to me like half the movie was spent explaining "the rules" of it in what, ultimately, felt like mind-numbing detail.
Obviously mileage on this issue varies, but Ellen Page's expository role (right down to having someone explain about her name – thanks, Mr Nolan, but I didn't really need that lampshaded) really took me out of the film as an immersive experience.
Just my tuppence-worth.
Boy I cannot remember the last time you guys pimped a movie this hard. This movie will bomb. It will bomb no matter how hard you pimp it or wring your hands and scream into the sky at the injustices of the world. It will bomb because its hipster nonsense based on a comic book no one cares about or even read. No one would even give this flick a glancing interest if Edgar Wright was not attached. Even so its not enough. This weekend is about the Expendables. That is the movie film geeks are excited about this weekend. That is the movie that had midnite screenings yesterday all over the country. Chud needs to get a handle on who their fanbase really is.
Inception was as successful as it was because it was intelligent and word-of-mouth spread like wild fire. Pilgrim, well… I hope Eat Pray Love beats it; no offense, Edgar.
I don't think this movie is going to bomb at all. It's not going to be a $100 million opening weekend, but it should be a success.
This is the most neatly segregated movie opening weekend I've ever seen. There's three big openings, and no overlap in their target audience.
The Expendables is for people 35-40 years old and over who were fans of (and nostalgic for) over-the-top 80's action movies.
Scott Pilgrim is for anyone 25 (maybe 30) and under. These people grew up wired (video games, internet, cell phones, home video, etc etc)
Eat, Pray Love is for women (early-middle age and older).
It's not really a competition between them, because it would be hard to find a single person who would want to see more than one. (there's a small crossover zone for Scott Pilgrim and Expendables, but it's like people between 30 and 35 and that's it.) All three could do reasonably well.
Thank you #4, I was going to say the same thing. Where were you all when Speed Racer was in theatres?? Personally, (for me anyways) Speed Racer is self referential in the way that Scott Pilgrim only hopes to be, and Speed Racer in its own charming way, has become one of my favorite guilty pleasure movies. This movie, not so much. I think it looks like a movie that is trying too hard to win the crowd over (crowd of hipsters) and I love Edgar Wright. Watching the trailer the first time, I thought hey that's kinda cool looking, but the more I see them, the more I think, meh it just doesnt 'click ' for me. And sorry, but Kick Ass sucked. I saw it recently on Blu-Ray and while the visuals rocked, I just don't consider myself to be the market demographic for this type of material (i.e. a hipster). Sad to say, but this movie will tank. And there's a part of me that is kind of thankful if that happens.
Right. All of the arrogant, pretentious, snobby film geeks that populate this site were saying that "Inception" would fail because the general public is just way too stupid to like such a smart movie unlike you, who will love the movie because it's so smart because you are oh so smart. It's been the number one movie for weeks. Of course, "Inception" wasn't nearly as smart is it presented it self to be, but neither are arrogant, pretentious, snobby film geeks, either.
It will fail. You mess with the Stallone you get the horns.
@ #8 Expendables Meh; Pilgrim Good; Chud appears to recommend the film they feel is a better film; go figure; why don't YOU get a handle on CHUD. Or go start your own website since you seem to know what the people want so much.
Remember FAST TIMES AT RIDGEMONT HIGH, and CLUELESS? I thought they were smart, funny, and emotionally honest. They each pushed the genre forward. I get that SCOTT PILGRIM is smart and funny, but none of the trailers have sold me the 'emotionally truthful' bit. Anyone who's seen it care to comment?
# 10: As a 38 year old woman with no desire to see Eat, Pray, Love but who is trying to figure out how to get a sitter to go see Scott Pilgrim, I have to say that your comment is just a tad narrow-minded. My generation is just as "wired" as the 20 something's… possibly moreso since we can now look back on all of the things that we didn't have when we were growing up. Hell, my mom talks about Skype, cell phones and internet crap on a regular basis. Just saying.
#15: SCOTT PILGRIM is emotionally honest, but I think it's in a different category than both CLUELESS and FAST TIMES. Scott Pilgrim isn't really a teenager. The problems he faces are, I think, specific to young adults in college and/or in that post-college funk.
The movie is just fun as hell. Nuff said. it was a joy to watch. Fuck all the people who hate it and have strong opinions about it even though they haven't seen it yet.
Comments are shown as archived from the original site; new comments are closed.