Showing posts with label plot development. Show all posts
Showing posts with label plot development. Show all posts

Friday, December 23, 2016

Jane Eyre, Beauty & the Beast and Passengers: How 2 worked while 1 did not

***First warning for anyone who has yet to watch Passengers and do not want to be spoilered. Second warning for anyone who is unfamiliar with the story of Jane Eyre, and do not want to be spoilered. Read this later!!!

I have watched Passengers during a preview and have proceeded onto read some scathing reviews blasting it. I do not need to repeat it again, and will share two articles which I feel have put the argument across very well, the first article being very negatively impassioned, the second being more analytical.

I recall during the viewing of Passengers, a weird sort of familiarity, and upon reading those numerous negative reviews, some notion brewed about. I hit the eureka moment last night, realizing that I saw some shadows in two other of my favourite stories/films, Jane Eyre and Beauty & the Beast. However, those two have been lauded since time immemorial. Then what made them the paragons they are, while Passengers fell flat. After a bit of musing, I may have some inkling.

1. Perspective
Positive relatability really does work through osmosis. I recall once telling a friend that one of my favourite romances of all time is that between Jane Eyre and Rochester, and my friend asking “Why? He is a temperamental egoistical selfish man.” Rochester is indeed all that, but the dynamic or support for him does not lie with him, but with Jane. When reading the book, we are in awe of Jane’s coming of age since childhood, through her romance with Rochester, the heartache of having to leave him, till the happy resolution. We have befriended Jane along the way, we want her to be happy, and are cheering for her happy ending to as to speak. So it does not actually matter if the guy in question is not exactly a beacon of perfection. What matters is Jane loves him, and we love Jane, and do not wish her upset.

Similarly, the Disney classic Beauty and the Beast is told in a similar plot narrative perspective. We are introduced to Belle, her spunkiness, her curiosity, her courage and receptivity to look beyond appearances, as shown in her hobby of reading. It is actually through her point of view, that we begin to give the Beast a chance too, eventually shipping for their happy ending.

Imagine if these two stories had been retold from the perspectives of Rochester or the Beast instead. The element of support would have dwindled exponentially. And this is the critical mistake that the movie Passengers made.

I did still enjoy the first act of the movie which portrays Jim’s struggles. There was the basic amount of relatability and humour. However, because of the moral conflict made by his selfish act of waking Aurora up, his likability has been great diminished. The remnants of sympathy and relatability we have for him is insufficient for us to condone his actions, lest of all even grant him that happy ending. Usually for viewers to be willing to grant him forgiveness, his character would have to redeem himself somehow with an immensely selfless act and or bear some consequences for his immoral actions. This then leads me to my next point.

2. Consequences
The redemption curve of Jane Eyre and Beauty & the Beast are very steep ones. Rochester got his estate ruined in the fire set off by Bertha Mason. In the process of still trying to rescue Bertha Mason, he lost sight in both eyes. While trying to protect Belle, the Beast was captured and fatally injured by Gaston, dying as the rose wilted away, till in the nick of time, Belle acknowledged her love for him and reversed things.

Let us examine closely the dynamics of selflessness between all three stories. Rochester could jolly well have not bothered with saving Bertha Mason. In fact, it would be good riddance to have her finally dead. Nevertheless, the goodness in him made him do what he did. The selflessness of the Beast is so evident I need not explain it at all.

Meanwhile what about Jim in Passengers? Sure he does have that heroic deed in the final act, with the opening of the combustion engine valve door. If he decided not to take action, he and Aurora would definitely have still died due to eventual engine implosion, together with all 5000 other passengers onboard. The heroism element is severely reduced, and the act is not as selfless as Rochester or the Beast’s actions. This paltry atonement by Jim definitely does not win him as many fans. What is worse is the consequences count.

Before Belle came along, the Beast was trapped in an animal body for goodness knows how long, with his servants all transformed into cutesy cutlery and furniture, while being shunned by the outside world. And even his rescue by Belle was hairline tight and had the audience on the edge of our seats.

Rochester basically had a huge proportion of his estate value wiped out, such that when Jane returns later, her inheritance from her uncle actually surpasses that of his. There is also the issue of his blindness, though the author did eventually cut him some slack, by letting him regain sight in one eye in time to see the birth of his child with Jane.

For Passengers, Aurora managed to get Jim back to the cabin. Though clinically pronounced dead for a while, Jim is revived by Aurora and is largely unscathed. And finally, he basically departs into a “happily ever after” with her for the next 89 years on board the spaceship. Yes, I can already hear the “what the heck” coming out from myself. No wonder so many harsh critics have derided the film for being a fairy tale for males.

Conclusion

Well, there is a bit of bias. I still like Passengers quite a bit and think the casting choices of Chris Pratt versus Jennifer Lawrence is great. It is a pity that they got the structure of the film skewered in the wrong angle. If they had started the narrative structure from Aurora’s point of view, things could have been very different. I read so many reviews that bemoan the lack of character development for Aurora. I agree, and despite the minimal character development for Aurora, I already find myself liking her a lot (Jennifer Lawrence’s pleasant depiction adds value a lot). With more backstory on her (there were already hints of Aurora’s spunkiness in the scenes of Jim reading up on Aurora’s profile while she was still in hibernation), we would have a better understanding of why she made her eventual choice to forgive Jim in the way she did. Maybe then, we would not insist that she made her choice out of a defeated resignation to fate. Afterall, Jim did make it very clear in the ending that he had finally figured out a way to put her back in hibernation, and was letting her decide. Aurora willing relinquished her choice and choose to be with him. It is a pity we do not have a better idea of her feelings towards Jim, such that we’re able to fully forgive him too.

Sunday, February 24, 2013

“失控”的惊吓:论《紫禁惊雷》


很少对一部电视剧失望到气愤的地步,但港剧《紫禁惊雷》却是一部看毕后令如此感受的剧集,而讽刺的是,主角之一马国明竟是我非常喜爱的演员!请别误会,其实客观的评估,剧集演员表现都至少中上,只可惜不论他们多努力都无法弥补剧本上过于显眼的鄙陋。那到底这部剧集问题出现在哪里?它正好是一个“编剧失控”的最佳反面教材。(对那些还想观看此剧集的朋友,勤请停止阅读这篇文章,因为我即将透露许多剧情发展。)

我在观看此剧集到中段的时候,还蛮精彩紧凑的,但可能就因为希望越大,结尾时失望也跟着变大了。先讲解“能接受的剧情漏洞”与“不能接受的剧情漏洞”的分别。一个“能接受的剧情漏洞”通常不会影响到我们对剧集整体的流畅性。比方,虽然在“Dark Knight Rises” 里蝙蝠侠竟然能在逃脱后那么短时间从被囚禁的洞穴赶往Gotham City救亡,但我们观众在观赏剧集的当下不会这部份的“不合理性”打扰整体观赏剧情的心情,而往往是在观赏完毕后才发现这“不合理性”的存在,接而觉得好笑。另一个我能想到的例子便是《义海豪情》里,整个广州那么大,为何某几段刘醒寻找九妹的戏,他总好像不费吹灰之力,就能那么快找到她。但毕竟这些小漏洞是无关痛痒的,因为它们未能影响整部剧集的轴心流畅度。用英文说的话,they are not pivotal to the plot.
可惜《紫禁惊雷》里的漏洞却确确实实的pivotal to the plot 所以是个“不能接受的剧情漏洞”。依照结局男主角聂多宝若真是顺治的四皇子,由御前侍卫与自己的孙儿掉包;那剧集中段里,男主角与御前侍卫儿子的父亲(哑巴施主)相认的部分怎么说得过去?!到底哑巴施主是不是清楚聂多宝是否是自己的儿子?根据结局时的倒叙 flashback 时交待,他好像是非常清楚这点的啊。那为何在剧集中段时,剧集铺排得却是如亲生父子相认?不论我再怎么想替编剧“合理化”这个漏洞,我都做不到,而最糟的是这部分却直接影响了剧情轴心!
我在看完剧集,再回去对比剧集原本的概念,才发现编剧在 flesh out 原本概念时,出了乱子。若想对我所说的更了解的话,请在观赏《紫禁惊雷》也同时去参考它的专署网页。在这里介绍,其实近期每部港剧,都有它自己的网页,简介人物设计与剧情大纲,甚至提供一些制作花絮,而这些网页里所提供的故事大纲,都可以说是剧集的初步概念。当然初步概念是可以经过修饰改进。比如另一些港剧如《铁马寻桥》和《东西攻略》,原本剧情概念或人物设计,都有经过后期修饰,但毕竟整体作品都没有离原本概念太远。相比之下,《紫禁惊雷》的 final product 明显的与之前的概念南辕北撤。想来编剧应该是在写着写着渐渐“失控”,无法自圆其说,最后只好草率了事。单看结局聂多宝突然与相恋的紫凝关系赫然变成兄妹后,编剧安排紫凝的死法,就足以证明这点。看来《紫禁惊雷》的确够“惊”的,只可惜是惊吓,而非惊喜

Sunday, September 23, 2012

剧情或情节发展对比人物发展 对演员表现的影响



既然从小就已经迷上追电视剧,索性干脆开始一个blog 关于自己身为观众对戏剧的一些所得。

最近开始追看一些港剧。虽然据说港剧也跟本地电视剧一样出现没落的现象,可能是我“崇外”心态,至少觉得多数港剧还是比本土剧加倍精彩,但关于本土剧对比港剧的各别没落法,我将留到另一个blog entry 再讨论。这一期想研究的反而是plot development 剧情或情节发展对比character development 人物发展。

通过近一年所观看的港剧,我才发现一出剧要做到两者兼顾是多么困难的事。有时因为剧种问题先天局限了这方面的平衡。就拿黎耀祥的三部剧作《巾帼枭雄1》、《巾帼枭雄2之义海豪情》与《法证先锋3》来说。许多网民都觉得黎先生在《法证先锋3》的表现不比巾帼系列的过往表现,所以才在2011年无法蝉联视帝。很庆幸自己是先观看《法证先锋3》,后观看巾帼系列,所以先入为主的可能性减少了。我倒觉得拿《法证3》对比巾帼系列根本欠缺公正,因为它们剧种南辕北撤。

《法证3》注重剧情发展,由许多不同的各别个案组成,人物发展是用来铺排整体剧情,展示法证界人士如何屡破奇案。甚至严格上来讲,这出剧的剧情与背景就是主角,而并非某位各别人物,所以男主角布国栋与女主角的互动进展显得相当薄弱。巾帼系列则正好相反,注重人物发展,显示人物的各别与对于彼此之间的变化、互动与进展。柴九对四奶奶之间慢慢建立的既感佩又爱慕的心态;刘醒与九妹由相互敬畏演变至惺惺相惜甚至彼此爱慕,这些本身便是剧本的大纲,所以主角之间的互动显得格外激情澎湃。个人认为在剧种局限内,要求无论多好的同一个演员达到相同的表演水平是相当不公平,因为根本做不到。这就好比要求一个顶级赛车手驾驶一架平常的轿车,来达到赛车的车速,不出车祸都是奇迹呢!