Several months ago the internet told me that Fast Five, the fifth installment to the Fast and Furious franchise. Since then, time has stewed. The A.V. Club at the time of its release gave it an "B+", which was the overall dissent of the movie community. The rationale behind this was simply that it was more self-indulgent than previous Fast and Furious creations. This was positively true. The film was by all means bombastic. At one point Vin Diesel uses a bank safe as a mace to knock police cruisers off of the road.
Now I'm going to be a dick and compare it to Bullitt, perhaps the best domestic action film of the last century. There's little difference on the surface of either of these films; both films contain the use of American manufactured cars chasing each other incessantly through crowded streets. The patriarchal roles are fulfilled, and protagonists take place. How is it then that both are minimalists and yet the simpler succeeds (Bullitt).
For one, Steve McQueen.
For two, the sincerity. While Fast Five utilizes little dialogue, it's framing attempts to hold up a plot with little going.
The same reason Westerns and Samurai films integrates a emcompassing a huge storyline. Since moving to Austin, I've spent a lot of time analyzing the structure of most of these films. Whether it's Ocean's 11, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, or Star Wars, they consist of lost of things to happen to build up. Yet, the elements are indulgent. It allows for much to create substance, thus making a full picture to be painted, interweaving everyone so that the finish creates an even better conclusion.
Fast Five appears to throw out most of the other story lines from past installments (to be honest I've only seen all the first one once and the second one half way through), makes it easygoing from the start, and strips it down to the formulaic basics.
I remember a news story about a month ago about a woman who sued (I'm not exactly sure who the defendant would be in this case) because the advertising to the movie Drive made it appear to be too much like Fast Five. This is confusing because both maintain the same integrity in story-structure (albeit, watered-down for easier consumption).
And perhaps this might just be me, but honestly over-the-top action sequences rarely hook me anymore. The literal suspense is more exciting on an emotional level than what Fast Five threw at me.
The point I'm making here is that indulgence does not mix with emotion. In fact, perhaps the opposite. Public dissent gave a lot of slack to this movie, but I still don't accept that when it remains indulgent.
This is a polarity that I wish was more prevalent. Between pop music and music, between reality television and Mad Men. I feel if we took the time to really separate the two, both could be held to different standards. It seems instead that this facilitates the idea of pretentious.
My suggestion would be to separate the cream from the milk in a better fashion. What that method would be, I'm not quite sure. But it's the fact that we haven't created a category for indulgence properly, and thus it becomes a dick move to compare Fast Five and Bullitt in the same conversation (although admittedly one-sided).
Rock N Roll gave us the birth of a popular, modern, American music, but it also gave us Nickelback.
No comments:
Post a Comment