Since I signed up for Netflix, I’ve been watching movies constantly. Previously, my movie-viewing habits were relatively simple: I went to the movie theater with my friends when there was a palatable movie to watch and sometimes watched a rented movie with someone. I seldom rented movies on my own, with a few exceptions, so the choices had to be somewhat moderated to the taste of the group rather than the individual. Well, with the addition of Netflix’s thousands of discs, that’s changed a bit.
One of my friends posted a comment on my post about Stalker, and I feel it necessary to respond. Since I’ve been making it a point to watch a few movies the last couple of weeks—I’ve just subscribed to Netflix—I decided to make it a post of its own. It may help to explain my “odd” taste in movies.
It may be cliché that I prefer a movie closely resembling the two that you mention (I, Robot and I Am Legend), but I don’t care. I like a movie that keeps me on the edge of my seat, a suspense. Save the world movies, Good verses evil, casting of spells, the use of heavy artillery, you catch my drift.
I do catch your drift. I don’t particularly like your drift, but I catch it. The thing is, that’s pretty much the normal mode of watching film. It’s based on the standard Hollywood “focus group commercialism” model of film-making: make it exciting, suspenseful, and easy to digest. Don’t make it too interesting—if it’s too interesting, people will complain when you shoehorn in an unnecessary, cookie cutter sequel. I enjoy films like that as much as anyone, I guess, but I don’t consider them good or significant.
The thing is, film and other art forms can be much more than just a three-hour entertainment in the middle of July. Summer blockbusters are popular, yes, which is why they make money, but they’re not necessarily the only or the best type of film. Stalker, for example, is an extremely slow and meditative film. It’s also vastly superior to any film I’ve seen in the theater since at least No Country for Old Men, and of the two I’m not sure which is the better. The film exhibits a feeling of strong authorial control on the part of the director. Tarkovsky has a voice, whereas a director like Francis Lawrence (I am Legend) seems more like a cypher, a manager presiding over a product already drafted and detailed in limitless committee meetings. Stalker lingers in the mind. I Am Legend and I, Robot do not. It’s like comparing candy and steak: both are enjoyable to eat, but one is more satisfying, despite the investment required.
Anyone who’s allowed me to pick out a movie to watch (or who has talked about movies in general, really) will be aware that my tastes tend toward the “odd.”’ David Lynch? He’s a genius. The Coen brothers? Amazing. Terry Gilliam? Pretty dang good. None of the films from these directors are weird in quite the way that Andrei Tarkovsky’s Stalker is weird, though, and I think I may be adding a director to my list.
I’ve done a lot of movie-watching recently, including the movie that seemingly everyone else has seen: The Dark Knight. It’s a good film with something extra: an unforgettable performance. Ledger’s Joker is going to remain in the cultural lexicon for a long time, longer certainly than his predecessors in the role. He managed to bring something uncanny to the screen, a sort of Loki-esque chaos which appeals to the id and is deeply unsettling because of that.