The description above is from an episode of Lost that I watched last night. There are a few things about this incredibly idealistic scene that bother me.
- Sawyer should have killed the boar. Until this point we have unemotionally seen several boars killed for meat on the show. What is so different here?
- Sawyer should have killed the boar. There are over thirty people on the island who need to eat.
- Sawyer should have killed the boar. The animal obviously was out to get him and posed a serious security risk.
The movie ID4 (otherwise known as Independence Day) contains perhaps the most frustrating example of what I am talking about. As explosions are ripping through Washington D.C. we see what must be the death of thousands of people in the background. At the very same moment we are transported to an emotionally moving scene where a pet dog barely escapes the explosions to safety with its owners. When I saw that I was insulted that the movie makers thought I was stupid enough to miss the scope of the situation. I refuse to have my emotions heightened for a pet rescued while they are deadened to human life being destroyed in the background.
The two movies that I can think of that got it right were Jurassic Park II and Signs. The dogs died in those movies. It's not that I can't feel for the loss of a pet. I just don't want to be manipulated into thinking that the animals are more valuable than the humans.
7 comments:
I know what you are saying from a LITERAL point of view......
BUT.... with LOST, what does the BOAR symbolize in Sawyer life? Sawyer is changing on this island, dealing with his past demons. All his life, he felt like something was out to get him, and his whole goal in life has been retaliation. Maybe, this is a moment of grace, where he can just let it go.
I try not to take movies LITERALLY, because then it is ruined by the huge error stain of realizing that it doesn't work that way in real life.
Yeah, I figured that was the point of Locke's conversation with Sawyer earlier in the episode.
I am not sure what you mean by not taking movies literally. In order for any story to make sense there has to be some set of rules for the world that must be followed. If a movie doesn't really have a story, it can get away without rules.
The storytellers in Lost have already established that the survivors are still struggling for survival. This is a rule for the story. This has to remain in the minds of the more intelligent characters for the story to remain believable.
I think I am most bothered when I see inconsistency or no understanding of scope in a story. That may not bother many other people, though, so I'll have to continue understanding that.
I am saying all of this through my gut, because I haven't committed a lot of time to studying film or literature from a research point of view, but a lot of what I learned about design has universal principles....and I did take an intro to theater class in college.
What I mean about not taking a movie too literally is that a film is the vision of the director/artist, a film is make believe which involves our suspension of disbelief, and understanding what the real story being told is despite its circumstances.
The story is what governs, it is all ruling. There are primary and secondary story lines. The primaries are important and the secondaries are for effect.
Back to LOST, yes, there is a rule about survival, but it is not important to us how they survive. That is not the story being told. It would be different show to watch how they feed 40 people everyday. We could just assume that the extra 25 characters that we haven't met are catching buttloads of fish.
The main story being told is one about past relationships and how being on this island has made them have to deal with those relationships. Everything else that happens is just for effect and belief that they are living in their context.
Thing is, I didn't think it believable that the character would pass up what is essentially a free meal given the survival situation, even if the show itself isn't concerned with the details of how everyone is making due.
Anyway, the point is that I am frustrated in the disconcern for human life compared to animal life. :)
.... I didn't think it believable that the character would pass up what is essentially a free meal given the survival situation....
This is why I said that I can enjoy movies better when I don't take them so literal - you don't have to worry if it is believable or not. You just focus on what is important to the story.
Why didn't he shoot the boar for a free meal? Maybe he knew, other food was provided for the day's meal and it would not keep for tomorrow. Maybe, he was thinking that bullets are scarce and it would be wiser to save them for bigger problems and that there are other means to hunting a boar. Or maybe he is trying to win Kate's love and passing up on a huge feast is worth it to score those brownie points.
BTK must have been an ID4 fan.
Verna, that is about the funniest thing that has every been said on this site.
Post a Comment