![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
running scripts
Jun. 2nd, 2005 10:15 pmA friend who liked Revenge of the Sith enough to see it twice writes:
So I can't accept the general principle that visuals (besides the acting) have to be the prime feature of a motion picture, or that the script can be ignored. Even within the subcategory of Big Spectacle films, the point may be the spectacle, but it isn't good if it doesn't also have a reasonably good script. The reason I enjoyed The Count of Monte Cristo (the 2002 one starring James "Jesus Christ!" Caviezel), despite the fact that I find most swashbucklers boring, is attributable to two things it had that most don't: good acting, good script. Pirates of the Caribbean, which did not have a good script, was tedious and was relieved only by watching Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush chew the scenery - not good acting, exactly, but at least entertaining. My all-time favorite swashbuckler? The Princess Bride. One of the poorest as far as spectacle alone is concerned: lousy matte work, unimaginative cinematography. Even the acting was not all that great. But it was the swashbuckler with the best script of all time.
Of course I don't disagree that Lucas's scripting is weak. But they're called 'Motion Pictures' because the pictures count for something. If the script was all, it would be done on a stage without sets. Yes, yes, jeer at the script. But who goes for the script?I expect a good script in EVERY movie I'm willing to see. I also expect more than a script, but I have seen good movies that consisted of virtually nothing but a good script and good acting. My Dinner with Andre is probably the extreme in that department, but I haven't actually seen it myself. Equally extreme, and one of the most powerful and intense films I've ever seen, was Death and the Maiden, which in fact was based on a play performed on a stage pretty much bare except for a few pieces of furniture, which are actually important to the plot. (If you don't know this film: Sigourney Weaver, Ben Kingsley. The cast, and the Schubert reference *sigh*, are what sent me to see it.) Also a highly praised film in that direction: Sleuth, also based on a play, also worth seeing for the cast and script.
So I can't accept the general principle that visuals (besides the acting) have to be the prime feature of a motion picture, or that the script can be ignored. Even within the subcategory of Big Spectacle films, the point may be the spectacle, but it isn't good if it doesn't also have a reasonably good script. The reason I enjoyed The Count of Monte Cristo (the 2002 one starring James "Jesus Christ!" Caviezel), despite the fact that I find most swashbucklers boring, is attributable to two things it had that most don't: good acting, good script. Pirates of the Caribbean, which did not have a good script, was tedious and was relieved only by watching Johnny Depp and Geoffrey Rush chew the scenery - not good acting, exactly, but at least entertaining. My all-time favorite swashbuckler? The Princess Bride. One of the poorest as far as spectacle alone is concerned: lousy matte work, unimaginative cinematography. Even the acting was not all that great. But it was the swashbuckler with the best script of all time.
