This week I watched Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Pocahontas (1995).
I had trouble understanding Saturday Night Fever. Much of it seemed aimless to me. Am I just disconnected from the orientations of that culture? Or was the aimlessness intentional in some existential or juvenile angst way? The dialogue was extremely dated, so I couldn't tell naturalism from artfulness, intuition from intention. The final quarter didn't make any sense to me. The ending was unsatisfying. I think I'm mature enough at the movies to find some satisfaction in artfully oblique endings; but that of course is different from negligence. I couldn't tell whether the ending was negligent or alternative. Isn't this a movie for the people? Not for the professors? Then why was the ending so discordant? Similar to wondering whether this is a movie for the people, I wondered which came first, Saturday Night Fever or the 70s? Was this consciously 70s porn for a 70s audience? Intentionally quintessential? Or was it one of those incidental blockbusters born of an obscure seed that only retrospectively symbolizes an era? Sometimes underground ideas become smash hits. Sometimes pop is accidentally profound. I'll say for certain: Saturday Night Fever does not shake out like others of its kind (I'm thinking Grease, Titanic and the like). Those movies are satisfying. They engineer audience raving. Saturday Night Fever is stranger, more inscrutable, at least to me in my first viewing. Maybe it sits between Grease and The Outsiders. Grease is brilliantly obvious like the sun. The Outsiders has the brooding of a novel adaptation. Maybe Saturday Night Fever is as dumb as its characters behave. Or maybe it's not.
I wonder whether Pocahontas is the best Disney film of its era. I wonder whether it deserves the upper echelon of all Disney. I'll note right away I was surprised by occasional terrible animation. Of course much of the staging and colors were pretty (idealized Native American life) but some of the objects were (I'll say) putrid. Toy Story was released the same year. I mean are you kidding me???? I of course don't object to the animation style in general, or drawing vs CGI in general. Anyway, this movie seemed powerful and profound. I don't remember being so emotional with any other Disney film. Emotion is stirred here by gorgeous melodies (largely pentatonic, like Mulan -- interesting cultural conflation?), a beautiful heroine (the best I can recall), and most importantly, serious moral drama, and real mature conflict. Disney was confronting issues with admirable determination. And they're complex: how deplorable is John's ignorance in trying to help Pocahontas via civilization?; how deplorable are the Natives for coming to call the Europeans "savages" and reacting aggressively?; should Pocahontas really repeatedly choose the bending path of her own breezy spirit, trying her loved ones and roots?; should Pocahontas go with John at the end, or John stay? These are only a few of the not just deep but immediate issues. One doesn't need a liberal arts degree to see the massive and tenuous balance towering over the humble characters. They think they're fighting with paper swords and can't imagine what they truly wield. I consider one of my flaws at the movies to be insensitivity to thematic material. The thematic material in this movie stunned me, and not just my intellect: it added considerable emotional weight. I could see myself in the characters, track past mistakes of my own in theirs, experience their consequences through my own memories. This far exceeds what I expect from any children's movie, especially simple 20th century Disney. Obviously the movie is loaded with outrageous archetype. But I can't remember a Disney film that complements this with such gorgeous and complex features. I guess this is the awe we're supposed to experience through Disney. I am generally insensitive to it (see Lion King 2019 review) but Pocahontas floored me. I love a lot of the music, I love the immediacy of the issues, and I love Pocahontas. This is my favorite Disney heroine. This may be my favorite Disney movie.
This week I watched Saturday Night Fever (1977) and Pocahontas (1995). One employed complex beings for basic purposes. One used basic beings for complex purposes. One was realistic and shallow. The other was beautiful, profound paper.
Great films often have complex characters AND complex purposes, at least. I suppose the ideal film is rich on all levels like a fractal. Sometimes I think Tolkien is fractalline. The more you magnify the more you see, though maybe without the infinite self-similarity.
The more you magnify the more you see
Without or with self-similarity
When Chaos Chaos meets in lusty mood
And meets again in that chaotic brood.
No comments:
Post a Comment