Normally, I agree wholeheartedly with Don Miller, but on this particular idea, I'm afraid I differ pretty thoroughly. Don notes that bad habits (like smoking pot) make you live an inferior story (to really understand this, you should read his book, A Million Miles in a Thousand Years).
In my experience, this is far from true. Under Don's paradigm of living a "story," we have to consider the kinds of lives we respect in others and mirror those habits in our own (very simplified version of his thoughts). Even a brief survey of great films shows our heroes to possess both profound and trivial defects. This is something I've written about elsewhere but I think it bears repeating.
If one wants to be a good hero, a good character, one's goal ought not be perfection. I don't just mean that we can't achieve perfection; I mean we shouldn't try. Obviously, there are independent reasons not to smoke pot or bite your nails (...okay, maybe not), but if you want to be a good character you can do everything wrong and still find redemption. Think of Charlton Heston's character in Planet of the Apes: rude, selfish, cynical and unapologetic. In the end, he rides off into the distance, complete with the his dignity, a horse and the damsel in distress. Incidentally, his character, though darkly complex, develops very little throughout the story. He never really overcomes the character flaws presented in the opening scenes, but his spark of humanity carries him to a heroic ending (until the very final moments, of course).
This spark should be the true aim of our actions. Even in our times of greatest failure, we should seek humanity, civility and rationality. To forget this is to lose any distinction between human and ape (if you haven't seen the movie, I promise I'm not just saying that to be cheesy--in the future we are enslaved by apes! for realz!)
I'm actually not a fan of his movies, but when I think of flawed characters, I think of M. Night Shyamalan, whose movies almost all contain flawed characters. For example, in "The Sixth Sense," Bruce Willis is obsessive. In "Signs," Mel Gibson plays a former priest who has lost his faith. And "Lady in the Water" (AKA "the worst piece of crap ever filmed") features a character with a severe speech impediment. So, I'd argue that good movies contain flawed characters, but flawed characters don't necessarily make good movies. Your thoughts on Shyamalan?
ReplyDeleteGood point, Thomas. I don't especially care for Shyamalan's movies either. I thought Signs was alright, and Sixth Sense was good, but his others are not great. But the flaw is not characters, as much as overly contrived directing on his part (evidenced by the frequent mis-categorization of his movies as horror).
ReplyDeleteSo if I had to summarize my opinion on him, I'd say he's a great screenwriter, but a poor director (Tom Ford is also like this). I'm curious what you dislike about him, though?
(I may dedicate an entire post to him in the future, as a note, because he is so highly regarded by many outside of the film business).
I dislike him for the exact opposite reason that you do. I think he's an average director and a horrible screenwriter. "The Sixth Sense" was too predictable and becomes boring after watching it the first time. "Signs" and "The Village" I both thought were dumb. "Lady in the Water" is, in my opinion, the worst movie ever made. (I almost got up and walked out of the theater when the little boy started reading prophecies on the backs of the cereal boxes.) I haven't seen "The Happening" though I already know the "twist". And I've heard good things about "Unbreakable" but haven't seen it--maybe I'll get around to that later this week. It's just my opinion--I think his stuff is just a bit too over-the-top for my taste. I don't really have any deep reason for not liking his movies.
ReplyDelete