[GTA IV's New York]So although Slate does a "gaming club" each year now, featuring a fine cadre of Our Own (Croal and Totilo included -- hey, where's my invite, dudes?), I actually found myself reading Slate's movie club critical roundtable more closely.
The Me-Too Moment
I got sucked in when Slate critic Dana Stevens pointed out how the Times' David Carr likened the year-end film slate to "drinking from a firehose". -- Hey! We went through that too -- we're just like you, Mr. Carr!
Continues Stevens, "It's such a treat to kick back and think about whatever moved us, provoked us, or annoyed us enough to persist in memory, regardless of prestige level, release date, or marketing budget." Hey, hey! That's how I feel right now, too, now that the firehose-drink is over.
"When the club convened early last year, there seemed to be a consensus that 2007 had been a bumper-crop year for movies," Stevens goes on. "Everyone's top-10 list looked like a bouncer's clipboard at a velvet-rope club, with extra contenders elbowing their way forward.... there were so many movies that caused near-universal swoons...."
Whoa, now she sounds almost exactly like the prefaces that I and many of my colleagues placed ahead of our year-end favorites! "Compiling the list for 2008 was tougher," she adds. "I'll confess that, while I admired every movie I chose, in a stronger year some of them might have felt like filler. Did any of you find it similarly hard to sift the gems from 2008's dross? I'm not trying to get all end-is-nigh on you here, but didn't this year's field feel a little fallow? Not one of the posh holiday Oscar-seekers made me sit up and say 'Wow'..."
Just swap a few terms out here and there, and doesn't it seem like you could be believably reading a commentary on this year's holiday video game slate? I recently pondered the same "was it really a bleh year?" question with almost the same exact tone.
[The Dark Knight's Chicago-ish Gotham City]Stevens also says: "Then there were those movies that seemed important at the time but have diminished in retrospect. For me, one of these was The Dark Knight." Swap "Dark Knight" for "Grand Theft Auto IV" and I think I know how she feels.
I think you get the idea. We learned a long time ago that it's not always constructive to compare films to games, as the analogies tend to fall apart at almost every key point. That makes it all the more fascinating that, somehow, film critics and game critics appear to be feeling the same way about their medium at year end. Like "us over here" in video games, film critics felt overwhelmed, struggled to pick out a "best", and had wildly divergent, often conflicting favorites lists.
But, Like -- Why, Though?
So I read some more of Slate's movie club, wondering to what the critics attributed their mixed opinion this year. Critic Lisa Schwarzbaum added a thought: "You know, the way I've been explaining away the eh (or is it meh?) year at the movies that Dana identifies is: In 2008, real life trumped anything we might have seen on screen."
Oh-hh. That just might be it.
One key difference between films and games is that although both are, in general "entertainment" and "escapism," it's always seemed to me that film much more accurately mirrors ongoing, present trends and interests in broader culture. Take a glance back at any period in time and look at its films, and you'll see that they always bear some relationship to that era's zeitgeist, more often a reaction (a fiction that directly opposes or complements the reality) than a reflection (an accurate mirror thereof).
Games, I think, are too new to start showing those same tie-ins to either American or global culture -- the idea of a "global audience" alone is still fresh, and if we're seeing trends in the industry, they seem related more to maturing technology or evolving design rather than the idea of games playing a significant cultural role as escapism.
The most interesting trend to me alongside the climate now is the fact that games seem to be strengthening (did you see GameStop's record sales while just about every other retailer's tanking?) while film audiences are waning [*], but as far as subtle microtrends around the art and emotion in different genres that directly correlate to culture rather than insular, game-specific evolution, I doubt those connections exist yet.
I think that'll change, of course, since the biggest stumbling block most publishers hit this year was the failure to understand nontraditional audiences -- you know, "everyone else". But could it have been difficult, in the environment of 2008, to relate to films and games that attempted to march on as "business as usual," to ignore a recession, a war and an historic election as much as possible and produce reasonable facsimilies of the sort of entertainment they'd have had success with in happier times?
Especially with games, the titles that launched this Fall and holiday were generally planned years before, well into development long before this sudden sociological hard turn emerged. Slate's film club also seemed to suggest that the movies they were evaluating admirably aped all the traits of "important films," but alongside a sudden shift in their context, failed to capture what is truly important to audiences right now.
Escapism And The Real World
Says Schwarzman: "The logic doesn't track if you follow it through, I know—we're looking at projects that have been in the works for months, years, or, in the curious case of The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, decades. But I do think that the global and domestic convulsions of the past year have been so gripping that something handsome and polished... feels even less satisfying. They're all movies that keep viewers at a distance... they're all received notions of what we think of as 'the good stuff.'"
There might be a more literal logic behind the sense of deliberate engineering to "the good stuff" -- I've heard film critics say that a lot of the year's film projects seemed expressly designed to engineer Oscar nominations for certain stars, just as a lot of the year's game projects aimed to follow a Metacritic-driven checklist of what makes a "good" game.Still, the idea of cultural relationship is interesting. I always felt that I related to music critics much, much better than film critics, but if it's true that games as culturally-important escapism seem to be even in some small way in step with movies, it might be a silver lining as we begin 2009.
What about you guys -- if you're into movies at all, did you observe any relationship between how you felt about them and how you felt about 2008's games? Does it come to bear on your social environment or real life at all?
[*I'm told this is not in fact so. That's what I get for watching the news!
**Thanks to Jackson for demonstrating that I might not have been crazy after all and possibly was even CORRECT]
27 comments:
I'm not really a film person at all, and only saw (I think) four this year: Speed Racer, Hulk, Iron Man, and the Dark Knight, all of which I thought were excellent. Especially the oft-maligned Speed Racer, which actually took quite a lot from games. My film-major and minor-gamer girlfriend actually noticed before me that the very first scene has Speed racing against a ghost! If you're in the mood for nothing but spectacle, I can't recommend it highly enough.
It should also be noted that Dark Knight's Gotham is not Chicago-esque, it is Chicago. I was visiting friends there a few months back and they took me down "Lower Fifth" to see the Wayne Building :)
*claps hands*
Sorry if I'm stating the obvious, but this would be the time for overwhelming amounts of "quality" titles for both mediums, wouldn't it? Oscar-baiting season pretty much coincides with the time for big holiday sales. On this point, the music industry doesn't have a single unified event to time for, I feel. I mean, pbbt the Grammys?
Actually, I think I'm the only one around that still thinks The Dark Knight is still worthy of all it's hype. Sure, I'm getting sick of hearing about it, but it remains one of those movies that only increases in value everytime I sit down to watch it.
I do think comparing games to film (or any medium for that matter) is far more constructive than some other alternatives I've seen people doing (of course that IS coming from ME).
Games and film are always lumped together because they're so closely related. Film can be cynically broken down to a "bastardized form of dramatic literature/theatre", while games can be pressed as "the manifestation of the nerd subculture's boredom".
They're both reflections of the digital age in a sense. Games being much younger just haven't garned the praise that they will eventually have someday.
A lot of these questions will be answered over the course of the next twenty years as certain generations begin to supplant others, and developers will have more room to expand the variety of games. Of course, that is assuming the economy doesn't bury itself alive.
~sLs~
Not sure where you get the idea film audiences are waning, 2008 was a great year at the box office.
I think the biggest problem with films is that TV has gotten so much better. Now that TV has been allowed to move away from stand alone episodes you now have 10-20 hours to address a theme while movies are stick stuck up against the 150 minute barrier.
"The Dark Knight" and "Grand Theft Auto IV" are marvels that will stand the test of time and I'd defend them to the death. Both can be nitpicked to death but they were bold and beautiful and captured the messy, morally cluttered zeitgeist.
I played and watched every movie and significant console/handheld game in '08 and I think it was a lackluster year in film but a tremendous year for games. It was a struggle to find 10 movies to fill out my top 10 but there were 20 games jockeying for spots.
Well I think that this touches on an important part of what the net impact of most entertainment, but especially visual forms of it, actually means to people who don't do criticism professionally. The fact is that I had a good time playing Grand Theft Auto IV and watching The Dark Knight, but nothing from them really stuck with me that much. Contrastingly, the image of Josh Brolin hunting on the empty plain in teh beginning off No Country for Old Men really stuck with me.
Similarly, some of the "aha!" moments I had playing Braid, or some of the barely survived (or didn't) games of left 4 dead that I played with friends will I'm sure stay with me far more strongly than all the driving around and killing guys missions from GTA4. That said, GTA IV's driving and dunning around killing guys missions were good and fun to play as well.
I'd say that in both media I had experiences that were fun and very well executed examples of what you expected them to be, as well as more unconventional new types of play that may have had flaws, but were more memorable despite (or perhaps because of) them. Both are healthy and necessary parts of any entertainment medium. If you buy into that whole "Art holds a mirror to life" idea then we need games and movies both for introspective reflection and hanging out with friends over a beer.
I'd have to disagree on the sentiment that The Dark Knight has diminished since it's theatrical release--in real-world relevance or in quality. I just watched the film at home for the first time last week and, if anything, I found it more powerful, intimate, brutal and evocative than in the cinema.
But more than this, the themes of the film - brutality, terror, deceit, abuse of power - chimed all the more loudly for me. Especially given the general collapse of of what society has built up over the past few years and viewed as normal, safe and dependable.
I think it's a pretty poor form of criticism to contextualize any kinid of creative expression in the context of current events or politics at large. It's a diminutive act that marginalizes the work, while agrandizing the viewer. The only context a game or film needs is the one it sets up for itself, and the frame of reference the person experiencing it experiences it through. Audiences have socio-political context, but art never does. Otherwise it wouldn't be art but just a bunch of really pretty phamplets with "messages" to convey.
@Phil
I agree with you 100% about both "The Dark Knight" and "GTAIV." While I can understand, and agree with, many of the negative points that have been brought up about both, I still feel that they are the two most impressive pieces of entertainment that 2008 had to offer. I have seen TDK multiple times, and enjoyed it more with each viewing. And I still play GTAIV, often instead of newer games that I have not yet completed, and I still find myself marveling at it's quality.
That being said, and in keeping with Leigh's theme of paralleling the film and videogame industries, neither "The Dark Knight" nor "Grand Theft Auto IV" are my film or game of the year. That honor goes to two smaller, less hyped, and less technically advanced examples of their respective mediums.
My game of the year, and one which I was late in discovering, was No More Heroes. Of all the games I played in 2008, none put as big a smile on my face, or provided me with as much joy in playing as NMH. And while it didn't even come close to having the prettiest graphics, it was beautiful to look at, in its own weird way. I could say more about it, but I would only be reiterating what Leigh and others who have championed this game have said.
My movie of the year was also one that I nearly missed. Like No More Heroes, it wasn't nearly as technically impressive as any of the bigger contenders, and also like No More Heroes, it defied simple categorization. It's a small film from Sweden, called "Let the Right One In," and I highly recommend it to anyone who is a fan of cinema. On its most surface level it is a vampire horror film, but that doesn't even come close to defining this brilliant little film. It is disturbing yet touching, horrifying yet uplifting, and often all at the same time.
What my GOTY and my MOTY (heh!) have most in common, is that I find myself thinking about them more than any other games or movies that came out this past year. Ultimately, that's my number one criterion.
Leigh,
First time commenter, but I was reading through a lot of the older entries over the slow holiday weeks at work, and I really like your writing!
This post made me think of my own entertainment intake habits. When I see a trailer that looks good, my response is always "Ooh, I want to see that." Same with games: "Ooh, I want to play that!" However, due to budget constraints, though, I always end up only seeing the "must-see" movies in theaters - this year being Dark Knight and Iron Man. The rest end up as Redbox rentals for $1.
My habits with games are similar. Spore and Fallout 3 boggled my mind for 9 months of trailers and leaked info, but when they were finally released, and I don't have $50 to spend on them, well, they go on the backburner for a while. Thus, Mass Effect became a steal at $27... 9 months after its release. CoD4 looks better every time the price drops $5.
My point is, things often look fantastic before you can see/play them. Once they're out, the urgency quickly fades away. L4D looked great, but once I played the demo, I thought "Well, that's enough of that, thank heavens for the demo."
Last January, 2008 looked to be a great and promising year in games (and film), but by Demember a lot of the gloss had rubbed off and not much looked too great any more... at least not for $50.
Anyway, keep up the great work, and I'm looking forward to reading and commenting in 2009!
~Jim
I honestly couldn't have asked for a better year for movies and games than 2008. In all honesty, I think it's going to be hard for 2009 to compete!
I think that just in how the games were in development for a longer period of time than movies, the hype has also been around longer. People see more of games than movies (because there is ususally more to see), and they also see them earlier. Gamers, most of the time, know what they're going to buy long before the purchase (that's why you pre-order games, right?), and thus a lot of games purchased this year were actually "bought" years ago. The Recession hasn't hit games, but now that it has, we may see an even bigger slump this year.
Hey, I'm also a first time commenter, and I must say this was a good read. Although, I have to say that Dark Knight hasn't diminished at all. It still stands as a great work, while GTA IV has definitely gone down many notches for me. That game had some problems.
As far as comparing film and games, I think it's totally valid if done in the right way. There are things that the games industry can learn from movies, but there are also things that should be avoided like the plague. Too much exposition, for one.
But yea, I don't know if Dark Knight is the best movie of the year, but its merits far outweigh GTA IV's.
When I'm not doing stuff with friends I split my free time fairly equally between films and games. (I've been trying to keep a blog where I write about every new film I've seen, but in six months I've built up a backlog of at least fifty. Bah.)
I've been underwhelmed by not just games and films this year: great albums have been thin on the ground for me too. Normally when I look through end-of-year lists I catch a few things I'd like to look up, but very little has grabbed my attention. I'm glad that other people have felt the same, as I'd hate to start getting jaded about three media at the same time.
I loved Dark Knight when I first saw it, but I don't think back on it with any fondness now. It's such a cold film, and none of the characters felt like a real person. I'm going to have to watch it again to find out what I really think of it, but it's so overlong that I'm not sure I'll bother.
Meanwhile, Persepolis has taken root in my mind and become perhaps my favourite film of last year. Gomorra was probably the best film I saw, but will never make a favourites list of mine because it's so thoroughly unlikeable.
2008 was a unique year for me - its the first time I've had to share my free time with an infant. What free time?
Films and games (not to mention television) have become so sophisticated, so well done, its not difficult to get at least a satisfying experience from all three.
Going to the movies was out for me in 08, and I only had blocks of 30mins to an hour to do anything. Gaming tended to fit my needs a bit better than films. I used to be way into movies too. These days, I'm far more into games. And I'd argue that fallout 3 provided an experience that rivals any film. I did love The Dark Knight, and I disliked GTA4, but that's not much of a sample size.
Both movies and games have to work much harder to impress, because they've gotten so good, plus there is so much out there and so little time that people tend to stick to what they know they'll enjoy as opposed to trying new stuff. I believe studios and developers know this as well.
I am proud to say I enjoyed many comic book film adaptations last year. But as Dave mentioned, Persepolis stood out. It was the comic book that understood non-traditional audiences. In other film, I was transported by Vicky Christina Barcelona far more than the most 'immersive' computer game I've played.
As an indie game developer, I might add that our indie scene is just as insular as the core industry. It's hard for an indie mainstream game to be recognized for it's larger potential. (Although you were the first to recognize it :-)
Imagine how hard it is for the mainstream game indie (M.G.I.? bleh) to be recognized by mainstream press? The only way to get attention might be to compete at the same level as mainstream media, like movies, and TV, and radio.
The mainstream game indie might be better off ignoring the IGF and work on establishing the Interactive Arts Oscar. Spike TV ain't cutting it.
Also meant to add that I read the Slate Mag Video game round up, and my first question was "where the girls at." Everything I read after that thought was tainted a bit, I think. I loved that the Film roundup was an all women panel. Heres hoping for an all female Slate Roundup for games in 09.
I'm curious though. I follow quite a few gaming blogs, pubs, and I wonder if that's even possible. The female contingent still seems pretty thin. Any thoughts? Certainly the discussion would be fascinating.
I think last year was the first year that I've ever placed games on a higher pedestal than films. Not because of the quality of the games released (though last year certainly matched 2007 for that) but the fact that I've been expanding my knowledge of gaming history and culture over these past twelve months. I've not been able to afford Fallout 3, or Left 4 Dead, or Gears 2; I've bought both Prince of Persia and Fable II (both were on offer), and completed them, but they were not revelatory experiences. And I don't have a PS3, so no LittleBigPlanet.
On the other hand, last year was the first year in which I played Grim Fandango and Monkey Island, completed Okami, replayed Majora's Mask (still my favourite game of all time), bought and loved Super Mario Galaxy, and decided to take a risk on Braid, which turned out to be both my game of the year and one of the finest I've ever played. 2008 was good, but not because of what it provided game-wise - it was what I did with the time.
And exactly the same thing happened with films. I'm a massive film buff, and I love films, but with the possible exception of Wall-E nothing from last year will go down in my top 20. On the other hand, 2008 was the first year that I watched Amelie, The Apartment, the Spaghetti Western Trilogy, Sleuth, The Long Good Friday, and a whole host of other unbelievably good films from all through history. Those are what I will remember. The Dark Knight, as good as it was, did not reach the heart in the way, say, The Apartment did.
Thank you, Leigh, for all your brilliant writing.
To be honest The Dark Knight was the one film this year that really did give me that 'wow' moment (although living in the UK we're only just starting to get most of the 'Oscar Fodder' films). Much more so than most of the 'great' films from last year's crop, most of which were very ambitious but contained clear failings in terms of structure, so much so that I wrote a whole article on it last year:
http://manvshorse.wordpress.com/2008/04/19/how-hollywood-lost-the-plot/
You can tell I'm something of a film buff, can't you?
Grand Theft Auto, by contrast, underwhelmed me from the beginning, I never saw it as more than the same old game with a fresh coat of paint, but then I've always been fairly hype resistant. I blame my British reserve.
I think it's been a fairly solid year for gaming, which appears to be the consensus. But oddly enough I'm doing so on the mainstream games alone, without ever really 'getting' World of Goo or Braid, which seem to be everyone else's big winners.
One final point. I think Left for Dead will be appreciated more next year than this year. Like TF2, it'll grow with time.
Hi Leigh,
You had it right the first time: 2008 was a waning year for the box office: http://boxofficemojo.com/yearly/
While the dollar amount is only a slight dip, you have to go back 13 years to find a time when fewer tickets were sold. If it wasn't for the Dark Knight, it would have been even worse.
Also, games are beginning to mirror the culture in some ways. For a crass, but interesting, example think of Super Obama World. Not the example you're looking for, but it definitely expresses something about this year...
It's also funny that people are comparing tDK to GTA4. Hate to say it, but Guitar Hero might be the better comparison in light of today's announcement....
The thing about The Dark Knight is that it's not an action movie. It's a horror movie.
What comes to mind when most people hear the term "horror movie" is a "slasher movie" - teenagers with no personality getting chased by a silent creep in a mask with a knife, who then picks them off one by one until the final girl takes him down.
Slasher movies, and many other so-called horror films, try to be scary by showing helpless people who are scared. They often mistake "startling" or "suspenseful" for "scary". There's a reason movie critics usually treat the entire genre with scorn.
On the other hand, The Dark Knight's Joker is terrifying.
@Mike
I don't think Leigh is implying that current events are or should be used to contextualize criticism. It seems more like she's trying to understand why, in reflection of the year's past critical writings and cultural artifacts, 2008's offerings don't stand out as boldly as they have in past years. No one lives in a vacuum, and I'd say this kind of reflection is very important. If games or films want to be relevant to people they need to find the proper context within current events with which to operate.
Take yearly updated sports titles for example. The latest edition of a franchise could be in every way superior to its predecessor, but if in real life all of the players went on strike, the way one would feel about playing that game, for better or worse, would be different than if that weren't the case. Isn't it the obligation of someone doing critical analytic writing to know that these things are going on? Isn't it inevitable that it will affect how they feel even if they are good at hiding it in their writing? I don't think current events should dominate a piece of critical work about, say, a game, but if the game in question is totally out of touch with reality and the cultural standards that exist within the gaming community, it seems at least worthy of mention, even if that means it's only part of a reflective essay.
Another interesting read, Leigh.
Dan -- in fact, that was exactly what I was saying, thank you. Not that I am disinterested in whether people did or did not like The Dark Knight :)
Jackson -- thank you SO much! I knew I wasn't going crazy.
Leigh, glad I didn't misinterpret (I (Dan) think I'm posting with another name somehow) and we seem to be on the same page. Also, I'll pass this along since it was posted today and the music and writing references music and, toward the end, games and the current event of a game rerelease. Say what you want about Pitchfork's writing, but I'm just saying, it's something that's out there. Also, that Zomby album is pretty great.
Dan/Leigh: Still seems like a specious argument to me, and one rife with subjectivity. Liz Schwarzbaum's argument that the socio-political climate informed her own muted reaction to many of 2008's movies seems evasive, dare I say, lazy. To pull the same argument into gaming, in a year that was even better than the year past, with excellent stuff like Mirror's Edge, Wii Fit, World of Goo, Spore, GTA4, Haze (no one defended it, but it was an audacious title for me, at least as interesting as BioShock's cloying moraal traps), Jason Rohrer's amazing use of network play with Between. How can a critic encounter games as divergent and straight from the gut as those with apathy? Did anything prefigure Wii Fit? Did Saints Row make GTA IV seem little a less impressive update than it should have been?
Dan, you wrote, "If games or films want to be relevant to people they need to find the proper context within current events with which to operate." Games can't "want" anything. It's the job of the critic to contextualize things, personally or socially. Games offer an experience, it's our job as the attentive audience to contextualize those divergent experiences with our own multivarious points of view. It's not about the games as much as it is the way we, the audience, think about them.
Mike, I appreciate the response. A quick grammatical correction on my part, from where you quoted me, I said "games or films want" but really meant "the creators of games and films want." Sorry for the confusion.
I think there's a much larger debate here about the role and processes of criticism, but it seems important to note what kind of criticism we're discussing, and whether or not the content (I'm primarily talking about game criticism) has a consumer report slant, or a more theoretical critique angle. You brought up subjectivity, and I'd say that different levels of influence are appropriate at different points on the continuum between the two, but it's never totally objective anyway.
As far as the Schwarzbaum remark, it still sounds like a statement of reflection to me, something that didn't have a significantly recognizable impact on her writing. It's not like she was reviewing movies by saying "This is nothing compared to the election!" Which is an argument best suited to a "year that was" feature as was the topic of discussion in the article here.
I don't fully understand how you're saying it's the job of critics to contextualize games/movies/whatever personally and socially if on the other hand you don't want them to be influenced by the socio-political and other contemporary climates. How can one add context without this information? Perhaps a clearer distinction between "influence" and "bias" is necessary.
goldskultulla: I don't lump product reviews in with game criticism. The line is generally blurred in game writing, which is a drag, but I generally mean criticism as it pertains to a writer discussing the meaning of an experience s/he's had with something creative.
I'm not sure there's a point in distinguishing between influence and bias. Both are fine and valid ways to frame a piece of experience, but both should be acknowledged in some way in the writing (e.g. The Economist). In other words I'd wish critics wouldn't write things like "In 2008, movies paled in comparrison to the real life drama of (insert geo-political event here)" but instead would write "I found it hard to think of any movies from 2008 that were as exciting to me as (insert geo-political event here)."
It's probably nit-picking, but I think it's important to re-emphasize the role of the individual in criticism as a way of underscoring the idea that truths about any game/movie are legion and not singular and objective. I don't want a critic to take the liberty of speaking for my experience, I want to hear about their personal experiences and see where and how it differes form mine. It's an act of sharing, not an act of conclusory evaluation. Criticism should be a starting point for a conversation, not a final thought, which it currently is in most major gaming outlets.
Post a Comment