In Monty Python's "the Holy
Grail," there's a part where a transvestite young squire shoots a message
out his window, encouraging any would-be courageous knight to rescue her.
Lancelot discovers the note, goes through -- that is, kills -- countless guards
and castle-guests on way to her tower, and meets the "princess" who
was being held captive, forced to marry against desires. Clearly he was not
expecting her but rather the more traditional sort of princess, and immediately
starts backpedaling, cooperating with the lord of the manor's what-not
conversations, to pretend whole immersion in them, so that surely THAT has been
the only thing that has been on his mind since he entered the castle and so not
possibly could he have been expected to notice that the lord in
mid-conversation with him is also cutting a rope that his son is using to
escape the tower, so to plummet to her death, and so to save them both any
subsequent discomfort by his "malformed" nature and Lancelot's
once-"expressed" devotion to her.
"Ready Player One" was primed
to present something of the same scenario. For each player meets one-another
only in guise of their chosen avatar, meaning that in order not to be somewhat
shocked when you meet the people behind the avatars, you'd have to assume that
most people choose those that bear strong physical likenesses to their own
selves. They couldn't be, that is, any of the people on facebook who are
constantly signing up to be shown which famous movie actor they resemble, for
one'd assume that such people actually don't much look all that much like the
stars they're being told they resemble but are open to considering that they
might be. The movie doesn't want to show any of these kids confronting their
friends with disappointment, of being confronted themselves with the fact that
they bear any kind of prejudice, based on looks, that can't actually be abated
through long-acquaintance with someone as friend, so the guy with the cute guy
avatar is actually a cute guy, the girl with the cute girl avatar is a cute
girl, the boy with the enormous but teddy-bear-loyal visage is actually a large
tom-boy. It pretends it DIDN'T just offer up what you wanted -- for don't you
see that the best friend you hoped was a guy... though maybe you didn't, only
that he could he could serve as a loyal "guyish" friend, which up to
a certain age, tom-boy girls do just as readily, IS ACTUALLY A GIRL!!!
The creator of the game is the one who
created the "Shining" portion of it, where characters are basically
encouraged to experience a first-person reliving of all the scariest parts of
the film, only it it isn't him who withholds the fact from the audience that
the reason Stephen King didn't like Kubrick's version is that he thought
Kubrick was trying to hurt people with it, permanently scar them. Spielberg is
the one who withholds that fact from the audience, so that if they haven't seen
"the Shining" they in the midst of a film where every expectation
gets met find themselves stung by the feeling of sudden betrayal... dispensed via
Kubrick. HERE the beautiful woman who looks beautiful at first,
metamorphosisizes into an aged ghoul when you're kissing her; she doesn't just
grow an-actually-rather-pleasing-and-so-more-of-an-accent-than-a-deformity
birthmark: that was Spielberg, everywhere else in this movie. Great. And
considering it is after this that the kids meet in person, Spielberg didn't
even make use of this other-director-given latitude to acquaint the kids with
some appreciation that the people they hoped would look a certain way in
person, maybe won't actually look that way at all -- they might even be ugly,
or old, or "disgraced" by illness -- and that could be actually okay.
Unless he was thinking that in turning
the movie into a ghoul-hunt game he was helping transition one's experience of
the horror into a format you'd have previous experience knowing mastery,
Spielberg helps make sure that much more of the world that wasn't hurt by
"The Shining," simply now are, but hopes you consider it your good
fortune, for now you savour watching other "newbies" innocently
becoming acquainted with the same horrors: the film considers funny a whole
horde of the enemy players in convulsions over being kissed and mauled by the
old-woman corpse, as well as being later hacked at in her guise as a ginormous
axe-wielder. This is a replay of situation where some people who were familiar
with the "Game of Throne" books made sure to be in the company of
their innocent friends as they experienced what they experienced in the Red
Wedding Sequence, where countless characters you'd come to care about are
suddenly, shockingly, murdered before your eyes. Do we really believe any good
comes out of this? How does one become a high-horse corporate asshole in the
first place, if not through learning to enjoy seeing others squirm in shock and
powerlessness? THIS would have been the notable moment in the film of someone
stepping in to save another, not the earlier moment when our main hero deterred
his would-be girlfriend from defeat by a grasping King Kong, for rather than
finding oneself dispensed into cash coins others would collect to their profit
it'd have been from something really, really not so pleasant. And, since
apparently Spielberg's mind was never truly sympathetic to the notion of
sparing people, it of course didn't happen.
We're not supposed to like any of the
players of the opposing team, the people-drones who work for the corporation
that more or less seems to own the world and that is trying to solve the game's
puzzle so to claim legal ownership over the big piece missing -- the game -- as
well... until it comes time that we do. Somewhere near the end of the film we
suddenly find that some of the youth that are directly assisting the corporate
head in solving the most difficult problems, are granted some personality... or
rather, suddenly, without any apparent prompt, activate, claim ownership of
their own choices, and begin to act in ways that here-to only our heroes have
been permitted to: they start thinking independently; they resist group-think;
and aren't okay-smart but (dramatized at least as) original-minded (Spielberg
isn't actually interested in the originality gamers routinely display, for if
so he'd of shown respect for actions that more often distinguish innovative
players... like for example what equipment to select of the multitudinous
available, and why they chose this item over that, what moves to make in combat
or in navigating a course, and why they end up being tellingly different from
what others do, etc.) The result of this is that by the end of the film we
don't rejoice that all the countless kids working for the corporation have been
humiliated, but instead experience a we're-all-in-this-together kind of
feeling. This is true outside only a few jerks -- jerks, we note, we've taken
every opportunity to show up and humiliate, show how careless and stupid they
actually are, how wholly lacking in imagination they are, even in their own
playgrounds: the movie does not ascent that we imagine that in finances at
least, our villain is something of a creative.
Spielberg's understanding of the
Holocaust must have been that it was Hitler only -- the Germans were just
waiting to be rescued of him, but since help never arrived were requited to
being "good Germans" -- and is in a rush to make sure we don't go off
this narrative, maybe so that a sense can be further maintained that if we
throw off our currently emerged tyrants all might be comfortable in the way
Spielberg had long-acclimatized himself to, our now-passing "paradise on
earth," that was paradise for him as he acclimatized himself as a
comfortable partisan of '80s ethics, patriarch over an empire -- Earth itself?
-- he chooses to view as equally bequeathed and happy. He doesn't want to
imagine some kind of permanent fracture in the populace that can't be mended by
overthrowing a manipulative and bullying monarch, because it would mean that
the Spielberg magic was something of a cruel cloak thrown over people that
stopped them from make a plausible case that we weren't united in our innocence
and goodness, through the 1980s and on, but had become two packs of people who
were failing to see anything truly admirable in the other.
Might be time to at least suggest that
the matter might have been more complex, might have been other, unless we're
caught with all our eggs in one basket and Trump himself does end up being
taken away by the police owing to Russia, or prostitutes... actually killing
people, but still -- Trumpism. Spielberg may want to insist on a certain way of
seeing things for it's the base onto which he set his own fortified castle
without his feeling guilty. But if in fact the world's becoming transparently a
swamp, a swamp which might even eventually willy-nilly sink his own castle...
but even if not, make films that show something awry in our expectations of
people, something that undoes the Spielberg-spell
...like for example "hero-kids"
who don't so much show through their preferences that they'd be naturally
averse to dictatorships, but who'd maybe find them compelling, especially if
for example they promised them a new glorified life that dissipated their
previous memories of debilitation and lack of empowerment, a New Order, an
"oasis," of hope and restitution. So as the dangerous offer, not an
evidently evil villain offering our hero an evidently corrupt paradise so long
as he sells his friends out, but an escape out of poverty into the Oasis
itself, in its ostensible original and purified form, headed by an ostensibly
benign miracle-worker.
When this vision comes, it's never about
distinguishing and saluting people as individuals, originals, creatives, but in
banding them together as a worthy pack. People who once thought
"selfishly" become "common cause." The book behind this
film was made for a counter-current interpretation, Ã la Kubrick, not someone
due to borrow upon its huge popularity to leverage the possibility that nothing
has changed since he helped fashion the narrative in the 1980s that nothing
averse was going on as behind the scenes one group went on to success and
another become unrooted, as we were all quintessentially the same Americans,
bound, mutually, for our limitless futures.
Comments
Post a Comment