My brain can't cope with that many things at once

[andrewducker]

About six months ago I went to see Dan In Real Life, an altogether unsatisfying film that should have been much better than it was. It had Steve Carell and Juliette Binoche as two people that meet, get on really well, and then discover that they can't be together because she's seeing his brother.

The problem with it was the tone was entirely uneven. Two thirds of the film was exceptionally well written and acted, touching, simple and very human, with shades of grey everywhere. The other third was funny, cute and rom-com, where everything was tied up neatly. The problem being that these two things clashed _terribly_.

When I see an action movie I either want a tense thriller that grips me with its realism, or a daft over-the-top explosion-filled nonsensity - straddling both areas at once is incredibly hard, because I can't believe in a character as real _and_ as a cartoon.

Which isn't to say that cartoons can't be emotionally effective - I cried at the end of WALL-E - but I need a world that's tonally consistent, selling me a world that's gritty and real, and then throwing in a cartoon moment will tend to destroy my emotional attachment unless it's done very well.

All of which is largely to agree with the article here on The Aliens of London, which goes to great lengths to explain _why_ it doesn't just fail to work, but it acts to destroy everything around it.

Comments

[surliminal.livejournal.com]

But but.. lots of good stuff - perhaps the most brilliant stuff - isn't tonally consistent. because life isn't. Egs in art: um, American Werewolf in London? Buffy? Skins?

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

I think this issue speaks more to the transition from one tone to another in the course of a single program. There weren't any Buffy episodes that switched back and forth between comedy and tragedy.

In Galaxy Quest, it starts out funny, takes a darker turn, preparing you for the tragic elements in the middle of the film. Then, as it ends, it takes a turn back to the comedic, again prepared by the triumphant feeling you're left with at the climax of the main storyline.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

"There weren't any Buffy episodes that switched back and forth between comedy and tragedy".

Unless you think that the only tragic episode of Buffy is the "Body" that's simply not true. Random example? "Becoming Part 2" at the end of Season 2. It has both Angel's death and some hilarious business with Spike and Buffy's Mum.

[kurosau.livejournal.com]

Notes of comedy do not make a comedy tone. That episode was almost purely tragedy.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Yes, it is almost entirely tragic. Almost. It *does* flip back and forth. If you don't like the example, try "Conversations With Dead People", where you have some really scary business (the bits with Dawn) and some much funnier and lighter stuff (Jonathan and Andrew).

[andrewducker]

I find Buffy perfectly tonally consistent - I'm not talking about whether it's funny or serious - something can be a definite mixture. But, for instance, I expect a season of Buffy to end up with the heroes victorious, the core group to all be friends (again), etc., etc. I don't expect that to be the case in, say, a zombie movie.

With Dan in Real Life it wasn't the comedy that put me off (although some of it didn't fit in), it was that half of the movie felt _real_ and half of it felt like a sit-com, and the rules that those worlds work by are very different.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

Interesting article. There's plenty of things that I adore that have a deliberately inconsistant tone but I think that's a different issue.

Genre pieces make a pact with you as a viewer in terms of your expectations. Breaking this pact results in issues like the ones you mention above. I believe Hancock's a good example too from what I've read although I haven't seen it.

However, it's entirely possible for the pact to be based around subverting your expectations. I wasn't very keen on "The Host" but it did some interesting things in this regard. As does any Takashi Miike film you'd care to mention.

[andrewducker]

I believe that Hancock had that problem because the latest writer/director assigned to it decided to lighten the tone by adding slapstick to it. And the trailer just showed the slapstick, leaving people very confused when they saw the finished product.

Also, see comment miles above to surliminal.

[johnbobshaun.livejournal.com]

It's probably just a shit film. The WALL-E trailers played up the slapstick too and there's a lot more to that film than the trailers suggested

In a way, I'm not sure there isn't a clash between the first and second half of WALL-E: the first half is incredibly elegiac, the second is much more knockabout. It *does* work though. I also wailed at the end.

[andrewducker]

I'd actually heard reasonably good things about Hancock.

WALL-E does have a clash - and people have complained about said clash. Lots of critics prefer the first half to the second half. I think it pulls it off largely because the second half if what we expect from an animation. If we expected things more like the first half then the transition into high-speed slapstick/action would frustrate us a lot more.