It has recently come to my awareness that I like movies that have an "edge" to them, as opposed to movies that don't have an edge to them. And I'm wondering out there, if they're honest with themselves out there are willing to admit that they really like "safe" movies as opposed to movies that unpredictable, put their protagonists in real jeopardy, and have and "edge"?
Will start by attempting to define what is meant when one says a movie has an "edge". So here's an attempt by me, E.C. Henry to define edge as pertains to movies and what implied when I say a movie's got an edge or not:
Edge: a plot that puts the protagonist in a conflict that puts the audience in a heightened state of anticipation where the outcome is not known and may even be feared
I think a movie's edge or lack thereof IS a direct reflection of the filmmakers' sensibilities, and speaks directly to the plot. Will the filmmaker put their protagonists (lead actor or actress) in genuine harm, OR is the story's conflict "safe" where the audience goes on a ride with the protagonists, but they are of the genuine belief that the protagonists are "safe" and genuinely won't be in life-threatening situation where the outcome is really worried about by the audience.
Perhaps in delving into the issue: does a movie have an edge or not; it's best to start by talking about some movies that I think don't have an edge. Let's start with a VERY popular series: "Pirates of the Caribbean" (2003: Johnny Depp, Orlando Bloom, directed by Gore Verbinski) EVERYONE likes that movie series. Hard now to. BUT I will contend that this movie is quite lame in the plot tension department. Honestly, in watching any of the "Pirates of the Carribean" movies do you ever think Jack Sparrow (Johnny Depp) or Keira Knightly's character is EVER in any real danger of death? Come-on now, hell no! Sure they'll be chases. Inventive chases where the British or some other adversary chances Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightly, but don't you always get the sense that that Jack Sparrow and Keira Knightly's character are safe, that they're NOT going to die or suffer any real harm. Thus in thinking like that, you are, by my way of thinking, admitting that "Pirates of the Caribbean" LACKS a edge to it's plot: the audience never believes that the main protagonists are in any real danger.
Another movies that I would say lacks an edge is the "Transformers" (2007: Shia LaBeouf, Megan Fox, directed by Micheal Bay). Here you are you have these gigantic, shape-changing monster machines, and they're doing dizzying, special affect laden, fight scenes. But these a fight scenes with no real drama to them, no real threat to protagonists. Rather its all whizzbang special affects, done at dizzying rate that makes you feel roller coaster ride sick watching. The special affects trump plot and rather superficial and lack drama. Honestly, in ANY of the "Transformers" movies do you believe that Shia LaBeouf or Megan Fox's character are in any real danger. Fuck no! And its that back of your mind belief, that this is the case that gives the audience and out, and sets them up just to be along for the safe ride of a special affects festival. Your know going up front, you're going on a roller coaster ride where eveybody by the end of the ride will becoming home safe to the terminal with you. Shia LaBeuf and Megan Fox's character will live through this adventure. They must -- because the studio wants to do sequel with them in it!
And while I'm at it lemme go on to say ALL the "Resident Evil" movies are garbage too. And I say that after watching 10 minutes of one on cable the other night. It was so bad that's all I could stomach. Video game movies are RIDICULOUS. Can't stand 'em. Would rather watch back-to-back-to-back episodes of "Transformers" that sit through 5 minutes of "Resident Evil" which I think is COMPLETE GARBAGE. I can make a case for watching "Pirates fo the Caribbean" and "Transformers", but "Resident Evil", come on now, that's like watching a video game. Total horror set-up; a post-apocalyptic world over-run by zombies and monsters, but without ANY stakes. Rather it's just about watching Milla Vovocich run around in black dominatric's attire with a gun doing stunts as she shoots zombies; ridiculous, an utter abomination of film.
O-kay, so now I've bashed three HIGHLY SUCCESSFUL franchises. Let's look at the other end of the spectrum; movies that have an edge. First movie that pops in my mind, Ridley Scott's "Alien" (1979). I think what made "Alien" so memorable and scary was how its leads kept kept getting killed by the alien. Kane, played by John Hurt looks a main character, YET he's the first to meet his end. Later, what looks to be the hero on the ship, Captain Dallas played by Tom Skerritt, actually goes into the air duct to put an end to the alien, only to get killed himself. Okay, two main characters die. What happens next? Who's safe? Nobody. "Alien" has an edge to it, their doubt and fear in the audience's mind. They're on the edge of their seat because events have happened that have turned the plot off what looked to be key characters and now the audience isn't sure what's going to happen next.
"Planet of the Apes" (1968: Charleton Heston, Roddy McDowall, directed by Franklin F. Schaffner, screenplay by Michael Wilson and Rod Sterling) has edge. "Planet of the Apes" (2001: Mark Wahlberg, Tim Roth, directed by Tim Burton) does not. Why? Look at the world and what happens to the main protagonist. In "Planet of the Apes" (1969) Taylor crash lands on a foreign planet with two other surviving astronauts. Then as the plot unfolds the Taylor's buddies get offed, and he learns the Dr. Zauis has done experimental brain surgery on one of them and is threatening to do the same to Taylor -- unless he divulges where the rest of his civilization of talking humans are hiding. Taylor is in real trouble; he faces death at the hand of an antagonist bent on maintain his culture's identity at the cost of taking Talyor's from him. "Planet of the Apes" (2001)? Where was the edge in it's story? Thade the villain tired... this story did have some different trapping but it lacked the edgy set-pieces that "Apes" (1968) had:
- The hunt in the cornfields where the apes race gets revealed -- brilliant!
- The scarecrow scene when the three astronauts reach the new world's civilization.
- The hunt through the ape museum and the the ape funeral where Taylor sees one of his fellow astronauts is now enshrined as a stuffed attraction.
- The final scene where Taylor sees the downed Statue of Liberty and comes the horrific realization that this planet was once his own.
"Apes" 2001 had some attempts at shockers and being different. But view as a whole I felt that Tim Burton's movie lacked an edge and felt like rip-off.
I like movies that have the feel like they could go in any different way, and the protagonists are in real jeopardy. I think that's why I like filmmakers like the Coen Brothers, Ridley Scott and Quentin Tarantino. I've seen enough of these guy's movies and risks in the past they've been willing to take, and immediately, before I even see the movie, I'm thinking, "O this might be good, don't know what twists and turns I'm in for."
HUGE fan of Quentin Tarrantino's "Reservoir Dogs" (1992: Harvey Keitel, Tim Roth, Steve Buscimi, Michael Marsden, directed by Quintin Tarantino) Why? Because this movie has some serious edge. A botched robbery where all the participants gets scattered, and someone in their ring is suspected of treachery. Then you have the police officer torture scene. You have a Michael Mann's wild card character. You just don't know how this movie is going to unfold. It has a edge to it. And it is Quentin Tarrantino's masterpiece which to date he has never topped, in my opinion. La-ove the edge to this movie. Will always love Quentin for having the guts to make a movie like this.
The Coen Brothers scored similar points with me with "Fargo" (1996: William H. Macy, Frances McDormand, directed by Joel and Ethan Coen) then re-enforced my love for them when they made "No Country for Old Men". You don't need whizzbang special affect to put an edge to your plot. Just watch the Coen Brothers work their magic. The wood chipper scene in "Fargo"; a bad guy who does something truly gruesome to cover-up his crime. Weren't you on the edge of your seat when Josh Brolin's character was shooting it out with
Javier Bardem's character in "No Country for Old Men". I was. This movie had "edge". What gave it it's edge? Anton Chigurh. First he kills a police officer -- in police station, then he kills someone with cattle gun. Later Anton even turns on the people who employed him, goes to their office and guns them down.
The unpredictabitly of the villian sets the edge.
And the Coen Brothers handled this BRILLIANTLY! Hence, at Oscar time they were walking home with their of the gold and deservedly so.
But the "edge" isn't a place for everyone. I recognize that. I talked with my mom and dad about movie with an edge versus those without, and what I found was they actually preferred "plot safe" movies where they knew up front that the good guys were probably going to be alive and ready for the next installment of the franchise. Probing further, I found that they just wanted the good guy to win, and along the way have some fun set pieces to talk about after the movie. Didn't matter if the gun or fist fight never had the edge which put the hero in real jeopardy. They just want some action with a roller coaster feel to it.
Does "edge" speak to a greater mainstream versus art house discussion? Yeah, probably. Perhaps a greater truth must be realized when thinking about a movie's edge. And that's the fact that mainstream audience doens't want a plot with real genuine thrills. Rather, they want a hero that they can root for, who will be the victor at the end of the movie. They want whizzbang special effects, something they haven't seen before. They don't want something too dark.
Does edge necessary mean a movie has gone dark? Hmmm... Now that's an interesting question. Could it be that "edgy" movies are really dark ones. I dunno. Guess its possible. Don't wanna be dark, myself. But I must admit that I favor movies with a edge and risk element to it. I don't wan't to go into a movie where I know up front that the hero is really never going to be in any jeopardy. That lack of edge takes a lot out of the movie going experience for me. That's why I la-ove filmmakers like Ridley Scott, the Coen Brothers and Quentin Tarantino so much -- they're willing to take risks! You DON'T know how far these far these men will push the envelope. True trills, not faux thrills. Sure, Ridley Scott, the Coen Brothers, and Quentin Tarnatino make mistakes in their movies, but they error in the right way; trying to elicit a trill, trying to entertain with a plot that you can't figure out.
A key place to look is your own anticipation when you go to the movies. Do you think you know how a movie is going to unfold even before you watch it? THAT'S one of the key reasons I can never get into any James Bond movie anymore. I thin the last one I genuinely liked was the one that had Christopher Walken as a bad guy, I think it was Roger Moore's last go-round as Bond. It's like you know upfront what the whole plots about before the movie ever begins: a sexually charge credit's scene with women guns, James Bond is going to face some e-vil mastermind, James Bond is going to sleep with some sex pot, James Bond is going to get into some elaborate chase scenes with guns, James Bond WILL be available for his next mission at the end of the movie. True, in recent years the filmmakers have attempted to put some edge to the Bond movies with more elaborate villains, but honestly this is just window dressing for a highly predictable, and edge-less franchise.
But my dad loves James Bond movies. Can't argue with him either. He doesn't care. Doesn't matter to him he's essentially seeing that same thing that been done over ten times before. Just re-package it a little differently. Different scenery at the curves of this roller coaster ride. Good enough for him. Not nearly good enough for me.
I like movies where I don't know what's going to happen next. Movies where I actually fear for my protagonist's life. Movies that take some chances. Filmmaker who take chances. Buy the numbers seen-it-all-a-million-times-before doesn't cut it for me. I'm an artist. I want to see stories that have a compelling conflict. I don't want safe. I want unsafe.
I want the edge.