The Demise of the Second Act
4/5 - 3/5 - 2/5
Spoilers
For regular readers, you may have justifiably read my two week absence from your digital lives as a sign that my weekly cinema visits had faltered. Not so - a busy fortnight has prevented me from 'blogging' but very little stands between me and the cinema. So far, the only blockade that has proven effective was an international pandemic. In fact, since my visit to The Last Duel (which is somehow already on Disney+), I have made it to three films, with a further two lined up this week. If you'll allow me to cheat, I thought I would look at the three of these quite different films together this week.
When coming up with an idea for a movie, I would hesitate to suggest that many writers begin with the set up as their starting point. Especially in films of an animated or sci-fi nature, the concept is the vital starting ingredient. The first act of the film, the exposition, is key. For an audience, the opposite is often true. Many cinema-goers walk out with the end sticking in their minds: Hans Gruber falling to his death, the explosion of the Death Star (greater or lesser), or "Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn!" The climactic third act delivers the key message to an audience that will let them decide whether a film has found success or not.
Although the first and third acts of a (standardly structured) film are obviously important, the middle is often overlooked. The development. The bit after you're hooked but before you're sold. Yet, for any film to work well, the development is important, nay, crucial. A set up isn't a story. A climax is only climactic if you've earnt it. Recent trends in major releases seem to show a general disregard for this aspect of the plotting, a lack of interest in putting the leg work in. And whilst each film mentioned above succeeds, to a greater or much lesser extent, none felt fully formed due to the neglecting of this important piece of the plotting puzzle.
Encanto is the latest Disney Animated Classic; number sixty if you, like me, are an animated aficionado. The formula employed by Disney is similar to much of their recent work - a interesting set up that got the writer excited, a few songs peppered lightly through the story, and an emotional resolution focusing on family reconciliation. It's touchstones have worked for Wreck it Ralph, Raya and the Last Dragon, Frozen, and the ilk, so obviously works here.
As many of you know, Disney is pumping out content to try to keep Disney+ stocked with exciting goodies. Marvel, Pixar, Star Wars, and traditional Disney films and series are flying out left, right, and centre. A glut of content is thrilling and sure to keep and add subscribers. But it does come at a cost. With Encanto, in-keeping with much of the last decade's Disney Animated Studio output (Frozen and Moana being notable exceptions), it feels like there is less care applied to the final product through rushing the process.
I liked the characters, I found the set up fun, and Lin-Manuel Miranda's songs, although not necessarily his absolute best, were toe-tapping enough. But someone dropped the ball with the plotting. So long was spent revelling in the set up, that of a family of magically gifted refugees in early 20th Century Central America, that they had to rush to the emotional reconciliation. Time was not given for the protagonist Mirabel to explore the family mystery in any great depth. She was told there was a prophecy of doom, she fixed one sister's problems (out of a family of ten), then caused the prophecy to come true. More time developing the characters with less time establishing them would have gone a long way to earning that final emotional reward.
The Disney Classics canon have spent a decade now in a 'good' period for quality but not a 'great' one. Films like Big Hero 6 and Zootopia cannot reach the heights of the Golden Age (Pinocchio, Bambi, etc...), the Silver Age (The Jungle Book, Sleeping Beauty, etc...), or Disney's absolute peak in its Renaissance (Beauty and the Beast, The Little Mermaid, Aladdin, etc...). Those films were crafted slowly, frequently having sections and songs cut, alongside ensuring the score was sewn closely into the plot. Until more time is taken to critically check the plotting of their movies, the Disney Classics will struggle to truly live up to their moniker.
Ghostbusters: Afterlife finds itself in similar plotting waters, although the source of the problem is somewhat different. The movie is designed as a homage to the much loved original Ghostbusters, building a story upon the first film, following the grandchildren of Harold Ramis' Dr. Spengler. Much time is spent establishing these characters, whilst also showing the 'end problem' from the start. You meet the characters, slowly see them interacting with their new town, and then we're suddenly in the end game. Its structure was incredibly reminiscent of the 2016's Suicide Squad, itself a form The Dirty Dozen without the development or, frankly, plot.
With this film, it seems like the issue comes directly from its co-writer, Jason Reitman. For, alongside co-writing this sequel to his father's work, he also directed it. In this rather potent mix you have writer, director, and familial passion. The outcome - an un-edited script. Or, more likely, no one wanted to say "no" to him. It is a shame as the raw ingredients of the film are fairly good. The lead actress, Mckenna Grace, is a brilliant child actor, delivering her lines with a Lilith Crane-esque deadpan wit. Her sidekick, Logan Kim's Podcast, is equally amusing. The cameo by the original team, sans the sadly deceased Ramis, is predictable but enjoyable, and the CGI ghost of Dr. Spengler was strangely moving.
But, again, there is no plot development. There is barely any plot build up. There are surprisingly few ghosts for a film called Ghostbusters in which the ghost led apocalypse is on its way. And the 'teenagers story', led by the fairly wooden Finn Wolfhard of Stranger Things fame, feels like a misguided nod at American Graffiti. All it needed was a tidy up and edit - mores the pity that no one stepped in.
As I mentioned at the top of the review, the last film I discussed here was Ridley Scott's latest historical drama The Last Duel. It was a great film, told with craft and finesse, that showed there was life in the old goat yet. Unfortunately, House of Gucci brought Scott crashing back down to his more recent form. We were presented with a long, boring, meandering yawn of a film.
The first fault must be found with the script. Although it would be hard to argue in a two and a half hour film that there was no second act, the developments in the narrative were rather stilted. It felt as if scriptwriters Johnson and Betivegna had sat with a series of post-it notes describing how the characters would change. They would then write a scene displaying that change before moving to the next. No blending, no graduality; just sudden changes. Adam Driver's Maurizio Gucci moves from doting husband to heartless, power crazed, man of stone in the blink of an eye.
The script is not the only weakness. Scott seems to have approached this film, a story of family and power that ends with a murder, as if he were directing a bawdy old British comedy set in Italy. Put in your mind the likes of 'Allo 'Allo or the Are You Being Served? film set in 'Costa Plonka' (I kid you not). There has been much in the press about the ridiculousness of Jared Leto's performance - a soft, high pitched rendition of a silly Italian in a silly suit - and rightly so. He is embarrassingly awful. But Scott makes it worse, leaning into the perceived humour and encouraging his scenes to go further down the rabbit hole of bad taste. But it's not just Leto; Al Pacino can't seem to recall if he's Italian or Italian-American, and is distractingly over the top throughout. And then there is Jeremy Irons, a great actor who also strangely struggles with an Italian accent and looks like he can't quite remember why he agreed to be in the film.
Although not receiving universal praise on our trip the cinema, Adam Driver is fairly solid with what he is given and Lady Gaga, although clearly directed to engage with this ham-fest, does try to show her serious acting chops. It is not quite enough to make up for the rest of the terrible acting or save it from being offensively dull. Perhaps, with a tighter hand on the script, pushing for better characterisations and developments, it would have been more tolerable. But then again, they would still have all been talking in Italian accents and, really, why on earth were they all using Italian accents when half of them couldn't?
Encanto, 2021 / Ghostbusters: Afterlife, 2021 / House of Gucci, 2021
Director: Jared Bush & Byron Howard / Jason Reitman / Ridley Scott
Writer: Charise Castro Smith & Jared Bush / Gil Kenan & Jason Reitman / Becky Johnston & Roberto Bentivegna
Composer: Germaine Franco (score) & Lin-Manuel Miranda (songs) / Rob Simonsen / Harry Gregson Williams
Starring: Stephanie Beatriz, María Cecilia Botero, John Leguizamo, Mauro Castillo, Jessica Darrow, Angie Cepeda, Carolina Gaitán, Diane Guerrero, & Wilmer Valderrama /
Carrie Coon, Finn Wolfhard, Mckenna Grace, Paul Rudd, Logan Kim, Celeste O'Connor, Bill Murray, Dan Aykroyd, Ernie Hudson, Annie Potts, & Sigourney Weaver / Lady Gaga, Adam Driver, Jared Leto, Jeremy Irons, Salma Hayek, & Al Pacino
All are currently showing in major cinemas across the U.K.
Comments