In a modern age of mobiles and computers which can control our lives remotely, how does a filmmaker create tension? As was proved only too clearly by the film I saw last night (Surrogates) it's very difficult to make an audience member's palms sweat by typing a number into a box.
In Surrogates, a billion people are about to die! How could it get more threatening than that, right? Trouble is, we don't really feel engaged with that threat because we don't see anyone dangling over the edge of a cliff or a train thundering towards where they're tied to the tracks; all we see is a little computer scree not unlike the one we look at every day at work. Sure, it makes sense it the context of the film for that outcome, but it doesn't work on the emotions.
Partially, that could just be the fault of a overall weak narrative - a billion people under threat is such a large number it begins to lose meaning - but I do still feel that this is a problem in any film which tries to incorporate technology into its suspense.
Many action-adventure films solve the problem with a historical or fantasy setting. Pirates of Caribbean, has the best of both worlds with no technology, only mystical artefacts and pure physical threat. When we can see the pain, and most importantly the anxiety on the character/s' face/s*, we can begin to sympathise and engage with the threat.
To create the same effect in a modern-day or future-set story, what would have to happen? I can't see any way to make it work with the action involving any variation on pressing a button - there needs to be authentic action by characters engaging with each other and a physical threat. The removal of all technology would be a very interesting approach - how long could you cope without your mobile? And on top of that, you're being chased by evil robots! Blockbuster right there. In the context of Surrogates, where technology is the crux of the story, it would have been more effective if our plucky hero had had to run down to the server and start ripping up cables, rather than just standing and delivering.
*there is a theory based on study of the way people's brains work that we naturally imitate the expressions and emotions we see on others, including films. This makes sense, since that is the process by which humans first learn expressions, and this carries on to learn empathy and sympathy, and is a trick which has been exploited by performers and storytellers since performance and storytelling began.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Thats very interesting and well wrote. However I do think that some films work even if there is not a physical contact. For example Death Train with Pierce Brosnan and Patrick Stewart I thought was great. They had to defuse a bomb and that was was a technology threat.
Also the matrix is kind of the same idea as Surrogates. If they die in the matrix (computer system) they die in real life. And if they where unplugged to the machine in real life they died.
And what about 2001 where the computer was trying to kill them. They had to try and turn it off.
There was also Tron which is a brilliant Sci-Fi move where they are transported inside of a computer.
I haven't seen Death Train or Tron, so I can't comment, but I'd class The Matrix as a different sort of effect.
The idea is very similar to Surrogates (or rather, the other way round) but most of the action involves the characters, in whatever form, directly engaging in the action. But I do take your point, perhaps I was too general in what I was saying.
I'm not really a fan of 2001, sorry to say. I just didn't get it. *feels like a bad film geek*
For some serious tension check out the bomb-disposal scene in Richard Lester's film Juggernaut. Brilliant stuff but very under rated.
Post a Comment