Just because it's good...

There's a saying I tell the kids when they get into a disagreement about a film or piece of literature(I teach English):

"Just because it's good, doesn't mean you have to like it... and just because you like it, doesn't mean it's good."

I'll use a literature example to illustrate my point. Take A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens... critics generally call this novel as a classic and hold it in high regard. Thus it is considered by those who look at the technical and structural aspects... the workmanship(in this case things like plot, character, diction and syntax, etc.) and determined that it is a "great" novel. This is not accomplished by a single critic in a single time period, but by hundreds over many many years. However, I don't like it. It fails to appeal to me. The language is awkward, the list of characters is maddeningly lengthy, and its episodic style(driven by the serialization of his works in newspapers) drives me to distraction. My judgment on Dickens' work does not lessen its greatness(duh!), but points out one of the sticky issues for artists of all stripes.

Now look at one of the top grossing movies in the past few years: Transformers. Michael Bay's eight films have grossed a total of over $1.4 Billion dollars. It's difficult to argue with that kind of success. However, Bay has been lambasted and parodied quite widely for his thin plots, cardboard characters, and his penchant for pyrotechnics and special effects. Transformers is not a good film(as in deep, moving, and well made), but I like it. It's fun. Let's look at something on the flip side of this equation.

Orson Wells landmark film, Citizen Kane, is widely regarded as one of the top ten films ever made. The camera work is remarkable. The acting is stellar. The plot feels almost literary in its depth and mystery. Yet, I find it a boring film. It fails to move me. It is like a classic piece of literature that is part of the canon--a classic which no one reads. I've seen it several times and will likely see it again, but mostly because I want to steal all of Wells' ideas on camera placement.

So the next time you see an Oscar match up like in 2010--Avatar vs. Hurt Locker-- for Best Picture think back to this post. Avatar is a fun and visually stunning film. However, it's quite shallow plot-wise, the acting is mixed, and many have pointed out the obvious parallels between Avatar and both Pocahontas and Dances With Wolves. Hurt Locker while it does have issues with realism(real EOD troops rarely walk right up to a bomb, yet in Hurt Locker the EOD soldiers rarely use the robot), the plot, acting, and overall depth are far greater. I like both, but Hurt Locker is a better film.