NO TECHNOLOGY FOR OLD MEN
Jan. 26th, 2008 07:37 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
defrogITEM: The Guardian’s Joe Queenan wonders why Hollywood seems to be making more movies set in the past – like No Country For Old Men and American Gangster, for example – and concludes that it’s so they can make movies without having to rely on mobile phones and Google to make everything easy for the characters.
His basic thesis is that modren technology is ruining movies, ostensibly because it makes suspense impossible. Evidence: you couldn’t set a movie like Psycho in 2008, because – between the GPS monitor in her car and Travelocity’s user comments section – Janet Leigh would never have ended up in the Bates Motel in the first place.
Ergo, Queenan concludes, we’re all sick of seeing human ingenuity replaced by clever PDAs or sonic screwdrivers or something, and Hollywood clearly knows this.
To wit:
Which is ludicrous, of course. I have five American dollars that says that by “the public” and “people”, he means “I”.
To be fair, he does have a point in that many movies (and for the sake of argument I’m excluding the sci-fi/James Bond genres from this) use technology as a reliable crutch to get the hero or the villain out of a jam or move the story forward. The alternative Psycho scenario is also cute.
On the other hand, how many people would bother with Travelocity when they’re embezzling $40,000 at a moment’s notice? And just how would you be able to locate a wanted criminal by using Google or reading a bunch of blogs (unless he’s stupid or arrogant enough to post his exploits on LiveJournal)?
Even when people use technology, that doesn’t make things easier. Technology can be thwarted like anything else. It can also go spectacularly wrong on its own. (See: The Matrix, Terminator, Dark Star, Robocop, The Empire Strikes Back, anything with Michael Crichton’s name on it and, oh, hell, maybe a few hundred others).
In other words, technology and gadgets don’t sap suspense from a film – unimaginative writing does.
But then I’ve always wanted one of these, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
In love with the modern world,
This is dF
His basic thesis is that modren technology is ruining movies, ostensibly because it makes suspense impossible. Evidence: you couldn’t set a movie like Psycho in 2008, because – between the GPS monitor in her car and Travelocity’s user comments section – Janet Leigh would never have ended up in the Bates Motel in the first place.
Ergo, Queenan concludes, we’re all sick of seeing human ingenuity replaced by clever PDAs or sonic screwdrivers or something, and Hollywood clearly knows this.
To wit:
At some subconscious level, the public is sick of techno-thrillers, sick of post-Matrix slop, sick of inanimate movies like Ocean's 13, where the talents of people like Eddie Izzard are completely wasted as they plant him in front of a computer. Whatever the original appeal of films where computer hackers assume the role once occupied by gunslingers and hit men, the hi-tech dog will no longer hunt. People are tired of seeing movies where the action is dominated by typists, archivists, hobbyists, librarians...
Which is ludicrous, of course. I have five American dollars that says that by “the public” and “people”, he means “I”.
To be fair, he does have a point in that many movies (and for the sake of argument I’m excluding the sci-fi/James Bond genres from this) use technology as a reliable crutch to get the hero or the villain out of a jam or move the story forward. The alternative Psycho scenario is also cute.
On the other hand, how many people would bother with Travelocity when they’re embezzling $40,000 at a moment’s notice? And just how would you be able to locate a wanted criminal by using Google or reading a bunch of blogs (unless he’s stupid or arrogant enough to post his exploits on LiveJournal)?
Even when people use technology, that doesn’t make things easier. Technology can be thwarted like anything else. It can also go spectacularly wrong on its own. (See: The Matrix, Terminator, Dark Star, Robocop, The Empire Strikes Back, anything with Michael Crichton’s name on it and, oh, hell, maybe a few hundred others).
In other words, technology and gadgets don’t sap suspense from a film – unimaginative writing does.
But then I’ve always wanted one of these, so I would say that, wouldn’t I?
In love with the modern world,
This is dF
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
on 2008-01-26 04:02 pm (UTC)In any story, there has to be genuine and legitimate conflicts to make it worthwide for audience to get into the story, be it external or internal conflicts coming from the characters. And solutions for these conflicts shouldn't be "some wise old man says a few words of wisdom" (non-techno version) or someone put a few clicks on the computer and save the world (techno version). Both are just cheating.
btw, just saw No Country for Old Men last night, what a good movie.
no subject
on 2008-01-27 12:35 pm (UTC)no subject
on 2008-01-26 04:06 pm (UTC)http://www.mojohd.com/mojoseries/technologyjones/
no subject
on 2008-01-27 12:31 pm (UTC)There's a mobile phone version of that called "Cellibacy" (http://www.textually.org/textually/archives/2007/12/018519.htm), though it's a blog, not TV.