I should preface this post by saying that chick flicks are not my thing in any way, shape, or form, and that I frequently can't sit all the way through them. Sorry if I sound unfairly harsh towards Sleepless in Seattle.
We've been discussing Bordwell's definition of classical Hollywood cinema and how it relates to the movies we've seen for a while now, and I feel it's safe to say that with every film there has been some (at least slight) differentiation from the formula presented by Bordwell. However, this is not the case with Sleepless in Seattle, a movie that follows Bordwell's criteria to a fault.
In his article, Bordwell presents the idea of a story that follows the "calm, disturbance, resolution, impact" formula. It is no stretch to apply this formula to Sleepless in Seattle. The story begins with an obvious disturbance: the death of Sam Baldwin's (Tom Hanks) wife. Immediately following this, we see the beginnings of a resolution forming as Sam's story is broadcast over the radio and Annie (Meg Ryan) hears the broadcast and begins to fall for Sam. The movie ends with a clear resolution to the problems of the characters, as Sam (presumably) finds love again while Annie finds someone who she is not just settling for. Bordwell also states that in classical Hollywood cinema the plot should be essentially goal-oriented. There is no question that a definite series of goals is presented in Sleepless in Seattle. Annie wants to meet Sam, Sam wants to get over the loss of his wife, and Jonah wants his father to date Annie. All of these goals are clearly presented, and all of these goals are eventually met. This strict adherence to the basic classical Hollywood plot makes the movie incredibly predictable, which, for me, made it entirely uninteresting.
Sleepless in Seattle also conforms to the idea that a classical Hollywood film should present dual plotlines, both of which eventually converge and are resolved together. Nora Ephron presents Sam and Annie's stories simultaneously, while having them converge in a joint resolution at the end of the movie. Unlike the movie's strict adherence to the classical Hollywood plot structure however, this didn't detract from the movie's entertainment value. Rather, it seemed to enhance it, as it allowed the viewer a certain amount of dramatic irony as they were able to make connections between Annie and Sam that neither of those characters was able to.
While it was an interesting experience to watch a movie that could so easily be related to Bordwell's article, I don't think that such strict adherence makes for a particularly good movie. At least not in today's market which is saturated with this kind of movie. By following the formula so exactly, Sleepless in Seattle became predictable to the point where I knew what was going to happen within 10 minutes. For me, much of the excitement of movie-watching comes from not knowing what's going to happen next, and Sleepless in Seattle completely took that away. I think that there are certain things to be said for the classical formula laid out by Bordwell, but that following it exactly makes for a bland and uninteresting film, as Sleepless in Seattle showed.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I respect your preface to the blog post, but also the blog itself. You did a really good job explaining just how well Sleepless in Seattle matches with Bordwell's criteria for a classic Hollywood film. It would be very difficult for anyone to argue against this. The only thing that I think may not follow Bordwell's desciption completely is trying to decide what the dual plot line is. There are definitely multiple plot lines in the movie experienced by different characters, but I think Bordwell may have meant that the main protagonist experiences a dual plot line. This could still be applied to Sam if we think of one plot line being him trying to get over his wife, and the romance aspect of it being him getting to meet Annie.
ReplyDeleteI do also agree with you that I could go without seeing a lot of other predictable movies like this for a while.
We have a film critic on our hands. Nice job on this post!
ReplyDeleteI definitely agree with the point you made at the end of your post. Movies that follow the formula exactly are definitely less interesting and I do think that Sleepless in Seattle suffers from this at least a little bit; however, I also think that there is a slight variance from Bordwell's formula in this film. As you mentioned in your post, Bordwell describes what can be expressed as a "calm, disturbance, resolution, impact" structure. Looking at this structure I believe that Sleepless in Seattle has three of the four components but is missing the "impact." We never find out what happens once Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan meet. I won't say that this makes the film better necessarily but it does make it different.
ReplyDeleteA great post! :) Although I am a girl& love romantic comedies, I do agree that a lot of them conform to the same rules. It definitely can be uninteresting, although I watch more for the humor more than the romance (like "The Proposal"! That was a hilarious movie, haha!).
ReplyDeleteThe point about two lives converging was very nicely explained as well. I was kind of confused as to how it could be dual plot lines (since this movie is 100% romance), but it makes sense now.
Great post!!
I find it interesting that you mention predictability. It's definitely true that movies following this structure are easy to predict, if not in every specific moment, but in general themes (i.e., maybe I can't predict how Annie's letter will be sent, but I know that Sam will get it somehow, and that Annie and Sam are going to end up together.) The more I watch movies, the better I am at predicting even strange twists based on musical cues, cuts, or just familiarity-- it takes a non-Hollywood film to truly surprise me these days.
ReplyDeleteHowever, I don't find it hinders my enjoyment. I'm still curious about how things are going to get to their obvious endings, and I can suspend my analytical brain if I really want to. So even though I knew where Sleepless in Seattle was going from the very first scene, I was able to keep watching, out of an interest in the movie-making behind the formula.
But it's true, there has to be at least something unexpected for the whole movie to feel worthwhile, and for someone not excited by romantic comedies in general, Sleepless in Seattle is going to provide very few sufficiently interesting surprises.
What is potentially interesting with this kind of movie (and I'm with you on this not being my favorite kind of movie) is to think about how it creates is predictability. Yes, you already know what's going to happen in the first 10 minutes... watching it for "action" or "story" then becomes less enjoyable. This sort of goes back to the discussion about narrative. What else makes the movie worth watching?
ReplyDeleteNice critique. Would you see Sleepless in Seattle as a form of a parody, especially with all those references to similar soap-operatic TV series that quite a number of female-characters in the film, all of whom have no relations to one another, seems to be so enraptured by?
ReplyDelete