Mr. Literal

I have a friend I call "Mr. Literal."

When I saw "Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon" with Mr. Literal, he complained that no one could run up walls like that. When I made the mistake of watching "The Return of the King" with him, he scoffed throughout with comments like "there's no way Legolas could bring down one of those battle elephants single handedly."

Mr. Literal doesn't just have a beef with fantasy. He delights in pointing out inaccuracies in historical films. He stoutly defends books against the rapacious Hollywood screenwriters who adapt and destroy them. "That's not in the book" or "They dropped the best scene!" are common complaints. I feel sorry for the poor souls who saw "Troy" with him -- they surely got treated to a double-barreled dissertation on the many ways the film dissed Homer's history of the Trojan War and the real history of the war.

His devils are in the details too. For instance, we can't watch a movie or TV show set in Manhattan without learning that every apartment inhabited by every character is way too big and expensive for them -- "a two bedroom city view apartment in the Village goes for way more than that architect could afford." He's also never seen a plausible car chase: "there's no way that car could've stayed airborne that long over the draw bridge and, c'mon, I mean a real car would've just broken to pieces when it hit the other side instead of speeding away without even a crack on its windshield."

Needless to say, he's also a connoisseur of continuity errors.

Watching Mr. Literal wring the enjoyment out of movies over the years, I try to remember that movies are meant for enjoyment, not analysis. Escape, not reality. Who'd want to watch a 100% accurate account of anything?

Sometimes Mr. Literal and I agree. Some movies go so far out of line, take so many liberties, stray so far from their source material that they cannot sustain their storytelling magic, breaking the spell that would have suspended my disbelief for a couple of hours.

I try to keep Mr. Literal in mind when reading reviews of Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11. Are the critical reviewers Mr. Literals, or did Mr. Moore take so many liberties with his subject matter that his movie fails as entertainment?

In any event, it's just showbiz.

Comments

[The Misspent Life]

The important question is, is it entertainment or is it a documentary? There would not be an issue if Mr. Moore's film were not being called a documentary and being hailed as a brave example of speaking Truth to Power. The reason so many people are Mr. Literal on this matter is that one must critique something literally when it is pretending to be truth.

There is nothing wrong with people saying that it is a fun movie that plays with the facts, it is not fine when they then say that it is a documentary and expound on the serious issues it raises. It cannot be both at the same time.

[Outer Life]

Calling a movie a "documentary" means as much to me as introducing a movie with the words "based on a true story."