Film Crit Hulk Smash: THE REVENANT, MAD MAX, And The Nexus Of Cinematic Language

And now for some quotes, because quotes are fun:

3. THE DANGER OF SINGULAR TONES

WHEN JUSTIFYING THE DIFFICULT CHOICES HE MADE DURING THE PRODUCTION OF THE REVENANT, INCLUDING THE STARK COMMITMENT TO FILMING IN NATURAL LOCATIONS, INARRITU MADE A CURIOUS COMMENT IN AN INTERVIEW WITH INDIEWIRE ABOUT WHY THIS DECISION WAS SO NECESSARY: "...he compares making a movie to rock climbing. “Once you start to establish the language of the film, there’s no way back,” he says. “You either go up or you die.” THAT'S DEFINITELY AN EXTREME WAY TO PUT IT, AND AS SUCH IT SEEMS TO HIGHLIGHT INARRITU'S EQUALLY EXTREME, ABSOLUTIST WAY OF THINKING IN GENERAL. WORSE, IT IMPLIES THAT CINEMATIC LANGUAGE MUST BE SINGULAR AND UNIFORM IN ORDER TO BE FUNCTIONAL. TO THE POINT THAT FAILING TO UPHOLD AN INTRODUCED CINEMATIC LANGUAGE IS EQUIVALENT TO KILLING YOUR FILM.

TO PUT IT BLUNTLY, THIS IS WAY FUCKING WRONG.

How about one more quote?

WHY DOES ALMOST EVERY SINGLE SHOT IN THE REVENANT SEEM CENTERED AT A LOW-ANGLE?

SERIOUSLY, YOU'LL NOTICE THAT VERY RARELY ARE WE ON EYE LEVEL WITH THE ACTORS, WE MORE SEEM CENTERED AT THE CHEST, WHICH CONSTANTLY GIVES US THE EFFECT THAT WE HAVE TO LOOK UP AT THE ACTORS AND SUBJECTS... SO WHETHER SUBCONSCIOUS OR NOT, THE TONE OR FEELING THAT HULK KEPT GETTING THROUGHOUT THE FILM WAS CLEAR...

"LOOK UP AT ME."

WHICH A WEIRD FEELING TO HAVE WATCHING A FILM, AND A RATHER ACCUSATORY THING TO THINK ABOUT WHEN IT COMES TO A DIRECTOR'S INTENTION. BUT IF YOU LOOK AT INARRITU AND WHAT HE SAYS OF HIS WORK... WELL...

Ok, last quote.

TO WIT, FROM THE SAME INDIEWIRE ARTICLE: "And while Iñárritu welcomes all comments about his film, just don't call "The Revenant" a western. “I don’t consider [my] film a Western,” he explained. “Western is in a way a genre, and the problem with genres is that it comes from the word ‘generic’, and I feel that this film is very far from generic.”

FIRST OFF, THAT'S LITERALLY INCORRECT. [*PUTS ON ETYMOLOGY HAT*] BOTH WORDS GO BACK TO THE ROOT LATIN WORD "GENUS" AS IN "OF A KIND," BUT GENRE ACTUALLY SPLIT FROM THE OFF SHOOTS OF WORDS LIKE GENDER, WHILE GENERIC EMERGED FROM THE MIDDLE FRENCH WORD GENERIQUE AND OBVIOUSLY HAD A BASIS IN THE ENGLISH WORD "GENERAL." THE POINT OF THIS IS NOT TO BE A NITPICKY JERK (ETYMOLOGY IS FUZZY ANYWAY), IT'S TO POINT OUT THAT THIS BLATANT STATEMENT HIGHLIGHTS BOTH THE GROSSEST MISUNDERSTANDING AND MANIPULATION OF LANGUAGE POSSIBLE - THAT EVEN THOUGH THEY BOTH HAVE TO DO WITH "TYPE" AND "CATEGORIZATION" THE HONEST TO GOD INTENT OF BOTH WORDS IS RADICALLY DIFFERENT - SO NO, GENRE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH BEING GENERIC, EVEN IF THEY COME FROM A SIMILAR ROOT WORD. AND THE GROSS, INCORRECT STATEMENT BEING MADE ONLY SERVES TO HIGHLIGHT BOTH THE PRETENSION AND FEAR OF INARRITU:

THAT HE'S SO DESPERATE TO BE GREAT, SMART, AND ANYTHING BUT GENERIC.

YOU CAN JUST START COASTING THROUGH THE QUOTES FROM INARRITU AND FIND STUFF THAT MAKES YOUR HEAD COCK TO THE SIDE. LIKE ' Everybody is looking for validation, no matter who you are, and I think that's a need of the human condition - to look for affection or recognition or validation." OR EVEN "I think films are bigger than structure." AND ON AND ON AND... WELL... YOU CAN GET COMFORTABLE WITH STARTING TO CALL A DUCK A DUCK: INARRITU SEEMS LIKE A PRETENTIOUS EGOMANIAC ASPIRING FOR GREATNESS WHO IS ALWAYS TRYING TO JUSTIFY WHY HE IS DIRECTING HIS FILMS TO THOSE AIMS INSTEAD OF TRYING TO MAKE FUNCTIONAL CINEMA. THIS IS A GUY WHO THINKS "FUNCTIONAL CINEMA" IS A DIRTY AND BASE CONCEPT. HE DOESN'T JUST WANT TO MAKE POETRY.

HE WANTS TO MAKE IT POETICALLY.

SO WHILE HE MAY HAVE THE EGO OF TARANTINO, HE'S ACTUALLY THE ANTI-TARANTINO. BECAUSE TARANTINO TURNS INTO THE GENRE ARTIFICE SO HEAVILY THAT IT PRACTICALLY BECOMES COMMUNICATION SHORTHAND, AND NOT ONLY ELEVATES BUT USES HIS STORY / CHARACTER SKILLS TO CONSTANTLY HOP, SKIP, AND JUMP AROUND THROUGH LANGUAGE AND TONES. MEANWHILE, INARRITU IS SO DESPERATE TO REMOVE HIMSELF FROM THE TRAPPINGS OF GENRE THAT HE WILL EVISCERATE EVERYTHING THAT MAKES GENRE FUNCTION IN THE FIRST PLACE. HE SO DOESN'T WANT TO BE NORMAL OR BASE THAT HE RUNS AWAY FROM WHAT HIS FILMS ACTUALLY ARE AND NEED. MAKE NO MISTAKE, THE REVENANT IS A WESTERN. IT CAN BE A REVISIONIST WESTERN, AND IT CAN BE A SPARSE. IT CAN BE MEDITATIVE; IT CAN ELEVATE IT INTO DRAMA OR PHILOSOPHY. BUT IT'S STILL A WESTERN. AND PRETENDING IT NOT IS SO PART OF THE CORE PROBLEM.

BECAUSE THE TRUTH IS THAT DIVING INTO GENRE SHOWS YOU HAVE TO ACTUALLY FUCKING KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING. HULK'S SORRY BUT IF INARRITU TRIED TO MAKE A HORROR MOVIE HE WOULD HAVE HIS FUCKING ASS HANDED TO HIM BY A PLETHORA OF YOUNG FILMMAKERS WHO ACTUALLY UNDERSTAND THE LANGUAGE OF THE GENRE THEY LOVE. PUT SIMPLY: MAKING A LOOSE DRAMA IS EASY. MAKING A GENRE FILM IS FUCKING HARD AND YOU HAVE TO KNOW WHAT YOU'RE DOING FOR IT TO BE EFFECTIVE. AND IT'S ESPECIALLY NOT ABOUT REACHING PAST THE TRAPPINGS OF THE GENRE TO SAY SOMETHING MEANINGFUL. HECK, HULK WOULD ARGUE BLUE RUIN MAKES THE SAME EXACT POINT AS THE REVENANT WITH TEN TIMES THE CLARITY AND DRAMATIC FUNCTION.

... IS IT AS PRETTY?

NO.

BUT IS IT AS POWERFUL?

INFINITELY MORE SO.

AND IT ALL COMES DOWN TO UNDERSTANDING CINEMATIC LANGUAGE. YOU LOOK AT WHY INARRITU CHOOSES THE LONG TAKE LANGUAGE HE SO OFTEN IMPLORES, AND HE JUSTIFIES IT BY SAYING THINGS LIKE, "From the time we open our eyes, we live in steadycam form. The only editing is when we talk about things or remember them." THAT'S SUCH AN INTERESTING OBSERVATION ABOUT HOW HUMAN BEINGS OBSERVE AND PROCESS THE WORLD. BUT THAT'S THE WHOLE THING: IT'S STILL NOT HOW ACTUAL COMMUNICATION WORKS. BECAUSE CINEMA COMMUNICATES THROUGH EVERY SINGLE CHOICE THAT IS MADE. IT'S NOT LIFE. IT'S CINEMA. BUT INARRITU GENUINELY THINKS CINEMA SHOULD BE OBSERVED MUCH LIKE WE OBSERVE LIFE. AND THAT'S THE WHOLE THING - WE MAKE CHOICES ALL THE TIME WITH WHAT TO LOOK AT AND HOW TO LOOK. AND IN A WEIRD WAY, IT IS GETTING DIRECTLY INTO THE CATCH 22 OF EDITING'S VERY PURPOSE. HIS EXECUTION IS ULTIMATELY IGNORANT OF ALL THE CHOICES HE'S ACTUALLY MAKING, AND HIS DESIRE FOR A "HANDS OFF" APPROACH WITH THE AUDIENCE IS IGNORANT OF HIS OWN DIDACTIC STORY INTENTIONS. SO NO WONDER THE END RESULT IS CONFUSED.

AND HULK UNDERSTANDS THAT IT'S WEIRD TO SAY THIS IS ALL THE "RESULT" OF EGO, BUT IT IS AN INTRINSIC PART OF THE COMPLICATION HERE. TO WIT... TARANTINO WOULD NEVER SAY THAT A FILM DESERVES TO BE WATCHED IN A TEMPLE.

BECAUSE HE ALREADY THINKS MOVIE THEATERS ARE TEMPLES.

Well, it's nice to see I'm not the only one that feels this way about The Revenant...and the stupid things Iñárritu said while selling the movie.