Why was he making a movie in a movie
Bit odd isn't it??
shareI'm not sure I caught the point of that either.
share
MovieChat Forums > I'm Reed Fish (2006) Discussion > Why was he making a movie in a movie
He's making a movie basicallt as an apology to the girl he wants to be with. That's why he invites her there to see it. It ends up working, too.
"My name is Paikea Apirana, and I come from a long line of chiefs stretching all the way back to the Whale Rider."
The entire thing is art imitating life imitating art imitating life.
On one hand there's the film we see at the beginning. That film is actually a film within in the film, which is what we, the audience, are actually watching. The point is sort of a public apology from Reed Fish to the girl he loves, but I also think it's sort of a tribute to those he grew up with. There's a line that says, "I wish you could have changed our names at least." He addresses those issues in the script, sort of showing respect for the actual people who are portrayed in the film.
I thought it was interesting. It works out in the end, somewhat, but it really irked me when the first little intermission occurred. Mainly because I was really enjoying the picture up until that point, most of the events afterward were okay, but the first half of the film was pretty grand.
"BEES?!"
I didn't get the point either, but the last two posters offered good explanations.
I'm just not sure how many people got the apology. I myself was very confused after the first viewing, especially because the girls playing the movie-Kate and the real Jill looked somewhat alike. I only figured it out when I saw the movie again.
It also bothered me that movie-Jill wasn't the real Jill because I liked her so much - she and Reed were so cute. And it seems strange that the two girl-protagonists were played by other people, but that all the others, including Reed and Frank, played themselves.
Maybe the film would have been better off without the whole movie-in-the-movie twist.
Thinking about it now, the structure ruined the film. You're correct, I think that the film would have been much better without that element. Yes, it's an interesting experiment for a screenwriter, but I don't think that it works with such a quaint story. It becomes pretentious the moment the reel shifts, and everything you've been invested in is stripped away. It's cheapened. After that you don't care about the characters, because what you're watching is no longer real.
If it happened at the end it wouldn't have been as jarring, and at least we can say, "What all of that wasn't real?" instead of, "Ugh... when's the rest of this film going to end?"
I think it's a pretty important film to show how structure can really ruin a story. It's important to know how to experiment, but it's even more important to know how to experiment within context of the story. This was just a tale of human relationships in the country. It's simple and there's no need for anything else.
I am so on a roll! No crying in my bath tonight.
Not odd at all and there is a technical term for this
Medium within another medium
Goofy Elfman,
I realize it's two years after your post, but I wanted to address a point you made. You said something to the effect of moving the revelation that what you're seeing is actually a film within a film to the END of the movie would have been better/less frustrating for the audience. Strictly speaking from a writer's perspective, we're taught that thit is actually the worst possible thing to do. I promise I'm not trying to say I'm the end-all-be-all word on story structure, but what I am is a playwriting student who has had structure lessons drilled into my brain. Let me reference a professor of mine...
-Hold on, I'm digging around in my messy room for my trusty notebook from all my playwriting courses. AHA, found it!-
My favorite, and most trusted professor always says that you have to reward the audience for paying attention. The reason your post jumped out at me is because the example he most commonly uses to illustrate how to NOT do that is by pulling the rug at the end of a work, when the audience has been on board your ride for this long, building relationships with its characters and living in its world. He is also fond of saying that it's crucial to make the audience feel smart.
On another, but perhaps complimentary hand, it is important to enrich your story with TURNS, or any new info, surprise, reversal, or escalation within the story. Placing the revelation that what you are watching is a film-within-a-film at the place in the movie where it's first introduced sets up the rest of the story for more satisfying turns. The structural device used - the film projector faltering - and the scene that plays out in between that and the "movie" resuming sets the rest of the film up to accomplish that goal of making the audience feel smart: we know now that we are watching a fwaf (god bless abbrevs!), and as we continue on the ride, and see what plays out amongst the characters in Reed's movie, we can eventually figure out structure and story. Voila! We feel smart and satisfied, and look down, the rug's still there!
Yes, yes, I realize that playwriting and screenwriting are two considerably different art forms. However, as far as story structure goes, I believe them to be in the same family. I think the real life Reed Fish honors the audience's attention, and his structure makes for a satisfying film. I think it could even be studied. Then again, I'm a big ol' structure nerd, haha!
[deleted]
So, the film was an apology to Jill? I don't think he owes her any apology.
share