Apocalypse Now ...better with...Shawshank Redemption...better with...Blade Runner...better without.
It would be nice to see if it works without dialogue. I am not sure that it will. To be honest I was getting tired about hearing about his emotional state every 5 minutes.
I think this this film needs the internal dialogue as well. Without it the film would be a sad bloke on a terminal mission and much speculation from us about why.
But your list is interesting. I would have said Shawshank Redemption would be OK without - but that's after I've seen it several times and know the story. Perhaps you'd have to see a film without internal dialogue first, and then again later with, to make a proper judgement?
You are right, without it would need something else. To much time would be just Pitt staring at people.
But speculation can be a good thing for the viewer.
I think they could have cut 80% of the monologuing and it would have been stronger, but the film as a whole would still struggle to overcome its sillier plot burps.
shareI have a lot of film snob friends who take me to task for this, but for the vast majority of introspective films like this, I absolutely prefer the voiceovers, and think it's a crucial part of the experience. I like the original Blade Runner WITH VO for several reasons. For starters, as another poster said, it adds more of a film noir effect. And frankly, I like the extra insight of occasionally knowing what Deckard is thinking. That insight gives us a lot more context and perspective, along with historical insight.
With Shawshank....the more we can get Red's perspective the better. Everything Morgan Freeman says in those voiceovers is pure gold. A VO should add something to a scene. Consider how much is added in the scene where Andy scores a round of cold beers for the crew on the rooftop. I'll say no more on Shawshank, as I can,t think of ANYONE who doesn't appreciate how much richer that movie is with Morgan Freeman's VO.
Regarding Ad Astra, again, I really liked the insight that came with getting Roy's thoughts. His regrets, in perticular. Those aren't things we can gather simply by watching the action play out. That introspection was paramount to the story, and to what drives the character.
By the way, ironically.....one scene where we DO get some insight without needing the VO is when Roy is doing his routine psych eval....but this time, as he's speaking to the AI technician evaluating him, he treats it as more of a (much needed) therapy session, and just let's his feelings spill out. It was a powerful (and under-appreciated) scene, which helped show Roy's loneliness and regret, and just how badly he needed the kind of human love and interaction he had avoided his whole adult life. AT the end of his soul-bearing "session", the computer simply replies that he passed the psych eval, and dropped off. As cold as space itself. Brilliant scene in what (to me) was a great movie.
It would not work without the internal dialogue. The episodes with the crew and the episode on the failed rescue mission would not tie in at all without the internal dialogue narrating emotional state.
I did was not at all distracted by the internal dialogue. The camera focuses on Roy so much and with so many closeups that it might as well be a first person narrative from his POV. It IS a first person narrative. As far as I recall there isn't a single scene in the movie in which Roy is not present.
Yes it would need added scenes w/o the monologue.
I guess my main problem is that internal monologue or as you point out narration, esp if there is a good deal of it,has to be good!
Captain Willard's in 'Apocalypse Now' is excellent. After seeing a bizarre Playboy USO show in the middle of the jungle, Willard reflects..'Charlie did not get much R and R, he was dug in too deep or moving too fast, his idea of great r and r is a bowl of cold rice and maybe some rat meat. He had only two ways home..death...or victory.'
This is superb writting and adds a good deal to the film. The internal monologue on this film is kind of hokey, talking about his detachment, emotional state and personal problems is well ..kind of a bummer. 'They seem at ease with being themselves, what must that be like?'....bummer!
I didn't see it has hokey. Especially considering that, in my view, the movie is largely an internal struggle of acceptance. Acceptance that there is no God and we are alone, there is no greater purpose or meaning and the acceptance that Roy's creator, his father, has been chasing a non-existent creator for his entire life instead of paying attention to his creation. At the prospect of these realizations some become depraved and resort to their animal natures in defiant desperation. The monologue following, the potential rescue mission is crucial to understanding this.
The monologue upon first reaching the civilian base at the moon is also important. He mentions only that if his Dad could see it now, he would tear it all down. He seems to be empathetic towards his father's position this early in the film, but there is a hint of doubt in his voice. Without any purpose or meaning, without any God to seek after, shallow materialism is all there is.
Roy is a dynamic character in the film. At first is he is unable to accept that maybe his father is not the hero he was touted to be. At first he rejected the idea that his father may still be living and he thought he was being lied to. He thought that the team was lying to ruin his father's reputation. Slowly throughout the film he began to take his father off that pedestal. An allegory for the slow realization that God does not exist. Infact, throughout the film his father is an allegory for God. God left him after he created him and God was silent no matter how much he called out.
After the failed rescue episode, He mentions that that the rage in his father is inside him too. What is he angry about, he is angry about being left. Roy's father is also angry about being left, by God, and he has devoted his entire life to finding God. Roy also mentions that "I don't want to be that guy". He does not want to angrily hold on to a dream. Slowly he is changing throughout the film. None of this would be apparent to the viewers without the long monologues.
I understand that the dialgoue serves a purpose. However in my opinion too much internal reflection is just not a good thing for the soul, it is kind of effeminate and can result in a lack of confidence. While I still enjoyed this movie overall, it might be better for the viewer to NOT know! or for the viewer to put his/her own relationship with their father into play.
I guess I am just of the opinion that internal reflection and internal dialgoue are not a good mix.
I read a great book from Steven Pinker called 'The Blank Slate'. The Harvard professor talks about one true stereotype between men and women. Men are interested in how things work, were as women are interested in how people work.
'Thinking is like, for the gloomy ones'- Clockwork Orange
I am glad however for you that you could extract so much from it.
Your position is enlightening about how minds other than mine work. I personally would never resist internal reflection for fear of society's manufactured perceptions towards the act of internal reflection. This is largely because as a free man, what others think of me is not a variable in my considerations. If it's true what you say, that society will label you as "effeminate" for the act of thinking (I have doubts as to the accuracy of this statement), I would not care either way because I do not allow the preconceptions of others to influence my freedom to think about the things that I want to think about.
The question then I pose to you: are you a free being with personal agency, or are you an NPC to be programmed by society?
"Men are interested in how things work, were as women are interested in how people work."
I largely agree with this statement. I ask you the question, what is a "thing" and what is a "person". People are things too, or they too are "objects", but the word "person" takes on some additional made up meanings. Men are able to conceptualize people as objects whereas women are unable to this, women have to interweave society's views on what is a"person" into each individual. The woman thinks that "people" have "human rights" and they are capable of "love" etc. The man recognizes that "human rights" and "love" are ideas that are artificially invented by a collective mass of people, they are not objective truths. The woman is more limited in her capacity to think because she has created barriers to thought because of the prevailing trends of society. In this regard, the true "effeminate" is the one who is not free to think and who is a slave to society.
As a linguist, I'm sure Pinker is aware about the word "thing" and its differences with the word "person". "person" is simply a "thing" with additional meanings tagged on by tradition and society.
You are out there man! How about coming on board with the team for the big win!
Interesting question about a free being and personal agency. We are all effected someway by culture, upbringing, what we read, our contact with others, tv , video games (your use of the word npc which no one in my age group would use in a sentence). I don't think even the most ardent fan of Nietzsche would believe a person could be completely free from it's influence,no matter how hard we try. What we CAN do is use reason on ideas of other great minds.
A little introspection is a healthy thing, but too much is not. The reason I say it is somewhat effiminate is from observation. A good deal of the self help books, life guides etc in book stores are geared toward the introspective woman. I bet the sales breakdown is 90/10, is culture creating this need or is self reflection more common in women? I found that women tend to think over actions, words and about relationships a good deal more than men.
Evolution also has a role. Men and have for the most part throughout history have been the 'protectors' of the family, tribe, nation. The overly introspective type could have doubt, might hesitate when action is needed and fail to protect his family,tribe,nation.
The scene in Patton where he shoots the mule on the bridge comes clearly to mind.
If you ARE the overly introspective type, many people have made a good living helping people as a shrink. If helping people is not your thing, most of the greatest artist in the world were overly introspective.
"The overly introspective type will have doubt, hesitate when action is needed and fail to protect his family,tribe,nation."
You have manufactured a moral axiom that protecting your family, your tribe and your nation is "good". And you assume that I harbor the same moral axiom without even wondering whether you need to justify your moral axiom. This is fair, as all moral axioms are ultimately unjustifiable, but I'm not sure that you understand this, and I'm not sure than you understand that I can have different moral axioms that can contradict yours.
'Why' should I care about the family the tribe and the collective. You might make the argument that it is good in order to propagate my DNA. But, my DNA isn't me and I'm not my DNA. My DNA is only me when it is in my body. My son may have a part of my DNA, but he isn't me. A clone of mine might have all of my DNA, but he too isn't me. Why do I owe these things my loyalty? I am going to die and no amount of DNA propagation will lead to my immortality. I might have dozens of children like Genghis Khan, but still I'm mortal.
At some point a reflective person asks the question: Do I have agency or am I slave to my DNA. If my DNA tells me to collide my genitals with members of the opposite sex in order to propagate my DNA must I acquiesce? And why? Why do I owe this action to me DNA, how does it serve me as I am not my DNA? What stake do I have not only in my DNA at the most fundamental level, but also what stake do I have in my family, tribe, nation or the human race. If the human race became extinct a moment after my death, would I be upset? Ofcourse not, because there wouldn't even be a me there to be upset or not upset.
If I make an army of clones with my DNA and I die, am i continuing to live? No, because my death is the end of my subjective experience. All your loyalty towards the collective is ultimately caused by a desire to be immortal.
Furthermore, why do you think that continuation of existence is 'good'? It's a result of natural selection, your DNA predisposes you to think this. Similarly why do I want to be free the tyranny of DNA, this too is a result of DNA predisposing me to value freedom because freedom too can have evolutionary benefits. It's a paradox. As long as one is alive it is impossible to escape the tyranny of DNA.
shareSo sure you are about death. You have to consider the possiblity that there are things in this universe that are beond human comprehension. It is human arrogance to think that we are all knowing.
Where I live the moon shines down on my aquarium I think,could this fish ever grasp truly what the moon is? Of course not, it does not have the intellectual capacity. Now I think about man and how much he comprehends,to think that man has enough brain power to understand the universe in its entirety is hubris.
'You might try believing in something bigger than yourself, it might cheer you up'- Toby Radloff in American Splendor
I would have liked if they focused much of the monologue on the times when he was alone. And that we got to spend more time when he was alone.
Now they got Brad Pitt to tell us that the loneliness is really starting to take a toll on him, but in the film it's about two minutes so we don't feel it. They should have cut something else, and made the time spent on the trip longer and let us join Brad Pitt alone with his thoughts then.
It's the same in the end.
"I am looking forward to the day my solitude ends" he says, but we haven't even gotten to feel or understand that solitude.
And that day his solitude ends? It's about a minute later. There's where the film should have slowed things down if they wanted some heft.
Another good Sci fi flick which deals with isolation is 'Moon', which I highly recommend.
shareI think they could have trimmed some of the internal monologue that only served as exposition but, overall, I didn't have a huge problem with it.
--------------------------------------------
You can read all of my latest film reviews here: https://www.maketheswitch.com.au/about/Jake