criterionforum.org

As it's still 2009, it's too early to have a broad, retrospective look on the past decade's more popular and successful films' trends, styles, and "gimmicks." Just like the Mexican standoff of spaghetti Westerns, some elements have almost become motifs in the past decade with the result of my nearly tearing my hair out.

I use the word "gimmick" because I found the some films' depth and message revolved around these gimmicks rather than on the films' overall strength. Some of these films are good ones, of course, but some common elements nonetheless exist.

Please forgive my very infantile list... I'm simply not a film scholar like so many of you!

Many of these trends started slightly earlier, as in the late 90s.

The Motifs:

Memory Issues
1) Memento
2) OldBoy

Double Identity/Personality Disorders
1) Memento (sort of)
2) The Departed
3) OldBoy

Compulsive Disorders/Self-Medication
1) Memento
2) The Aviator
3) Garden State

Documentary/Mockumentary-style/No Tripods allowed
Too many .... too many... After getting a splitting headache from watching Rachel Getting Married, I finally had enough.

Blur of Reality and Imagination
1) Stranger than Fiction
2) Memento
3) Requiem for a Dream

Play with Sense of Time
1) Memento
2) OldBoy
3) The Case of Benjamin Button

Anti-chronological Narrative
1) Memento
2) The Case of Benjamin Button

TIA for your input.

Before this thread becomes locked, moved and/or ridiculed, you may want to read around the forums for awhile before posting, and certainly before starting an "infantile list" especially since the board very actively discourages such practices.

What a gimmicky post...(not at you, Antoine).

Hard to make a case for any kind of trend with only 8 titles cited.
Hell, based on the sheer volume of films I could make a better case for the two-thousand-aughts being the decade of the zombie film ...

He's actually got a point--however naive-noob-hamhandedly introduced--as these trends reflect a sort of competition among screenwriters over the past 15 yrs or so (Memento had a lot to do with it) to see who could come up with the most unique plot gimicks that could mindfuck the viewer where he no longer says "Wow! I can't believe that's what wound up happening at the end!", and instead cries "FUCK! I can't believe that's what was REALLY happening all along!"

I trace it back also to a seminal film-- the best one our National Douche Bag ever made-- an early entry in this stream of scripts: The Sixth Sense.. another which followed on it's heels was The Others (a better film imho), where the surprise ending was based on a Clarification of Reality, rather than a typical crisis resolution, a standard conclusive, resolving event, in plot.

After a couple of good films, the whole thing just got showoffy, ridiculous, and sped out into completely redundant and contrived regions.

Not really a "list posting" at all. But an attempt at analysis. So, not out of place at all. I'm not in a position to judge the merits of the analysis (as it falls well outside my area of expertise, such as it is). ;~}

Still uncertain what this is all about but...


Memory Issues, Double Identity/Personality Disorders, Compulsive Disorders / Self-Medication, Documentary / Mockumentary, Blur of Reality and Imagination, Play with Sense of Time, Anti-chronological Narrative all have been done to death in cinema before 2000s and 1990s.

Reducing films like Au hasard Balthazar, Cleo From 5 to 7 and Chungking Express to their "gimmicks" is missing so much. Why don't we just let them breathe?

The thing is you can apply this trend of "gimmickry" to any decade of film. One film with a unique idea gets good reviews, awards consideration and positive feedback from the public and in turn it spawns a dozen lesser copycats. It's nothing that's particularly exclusive this decade moreso than any other.

HerrSchreck wrote:He's actually got a point--however naive-noob-hamhandedly introduced--as these trends reflect a sort of competition among screenwriters over the past 15 yrs or so (Memento had a lot to do with it) to see who could come up with the most unique plot gimicks that could mindfuck the viewer where he no longer says "Wow! I can't believe that's what wound up happening at the end!", and instead cries "FUCK! I can't believe that's what was REALLY happening all along!"

In his review of Fight Club, Ebert coined this phenomenon as the "Keyser Soze Syndrome," the need to add final scenes that redefine the reality of everything that has gone before.

While someone else may disagree with me about this, I don't think this thread is a "list" by the definition of what we consider a list on the site, even though he does list films. The guy actually wants to start a conversation about "gimmicky" films, which you guys have actually managed to get into.

Give him some time and he'll know how to post here (though, transcendent1, I'd read around a bit more, specifically the forum rules, just to get an idea of how to post here.)

Michael wrote:Still uncertain what this is all about but...
Reducing films like Au hasard Balthazar, Cleo From 5 to 7 and Chungking Express to their "gimmicks" is missing so much. Why don't we just let them breathe?

I never mentioned those films you quoted, and I don't see them as gimmicky. I'm specifically intrigued by the trend Memento and such films has started or at least inspired a string of copycats and the like over the past decade. I should also state that it isn't that any particular film is gimmicky, but there have been common elements that have been overused for their own sake and novelty. While of course such trends are visible in any time in cinematic history, I think the past decade is laden with the same trends.

Besides, I'm unable to do lists as that would entail seeing just about all the films available, but still I don't think it's impossible to sense a trend, founded or not. I did read the Forum rules that lists are frowned upon, and I didn't post this topic with the intention of doing a list. Just wanted to see if anyone shared similar views and thanks for all the views expressed.

In any case, if the mods think this should be moved/locked, then I don't mind at all. Every forum has its rules and tone, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone's sensibilities.

Hahaha, I like how Memento is under every single gimmick you list. Although I hardly see how compulsive disorders/self-medication qualifies as a gimmick. A trend, maybe, and one that has a strong consistency in movies dating back to at least the eighties, but not a gimmick.

Anti-chronological Narrative

This is an interesting way to put it. Typically I'd call it a non-linear narrative, but calling it anti-chronological (or anti-linear) implies a deliberate resistence to linear narrative, a very conscious rejection. I'm not sure I have much more to say about it, I just thought it was odd that you chose to put it that way.

transcendent1 wrote:

Michael wrote:Still uncertain what this is all about but...
Reducing films like Au hasard Balthazar, Cleo From 5 to 7 and Chungking Express to their "gimmicks" is missing so much. Why don't we just let them breathe?

I never mentioned those films you quoted, and I don't see them as gimmicky. I'm specifically intrigued by the trend Memento and such films has started or at least inspired a string of copycats and the like over the past decade. I should also state that it isn't that any particular film is gimmicky, but there have been common elements that have been overused for their own sake and novelty. While of course such trends are visible in any time in cinematic history, I think the past decade is laden with the same trends.

I still don't get it. What exactly makes one gimmicky? Limiting to 1990s and 2000s films, Memento certainly started a trend, so did Pulp Fiction, Chungking Express, Ringu and The Sixth Sense to name a few examples. Busby Berkeley's musicals, the Universal Horror classics, the film noirs and melodramas of 1940s and 1950s, Breathless, the 1970s slashers, The Exorcist, etc all started trends in their own times for various reasons, some styles and trends come and go just like fashion like for example the tremendous French New Wave influence in 1990s cinema.

Michael wrote:I still don't get it. What exactly makes one gimmicky? Limiting to 1990s and 2000s films, Memento certainly started a trend, so did Pulp Fiction, Chungking Express, Ringu and The Sixth Sense to name a few examples. Busby Berkeley's musicals, the Universal Horror classics, the film noirs and melodramas of 1940s and 1950s, Breathless, the 1970s slashers, The Exorcist, etc all started trends in their own times for various reasons, some styles and trends come and go just like fashion like for example the tremendous French New Wave influence in 1990s cinema.

You are completely right that often one well-received film inspires a whole new generation of trends. This is almost what I'm getting at. I use the word "gimmick," because some films have re-hashed similar conventions that draw attention to themselves rather than the overall film itself.

Here I thought he was going to refer to 3-D or smellovision or CGI animation or motion capture or rotoscoping. To me, the "value-added" techniques/styles/modes used to tell the stories have become more and more gimmicky as opposed to the narratives themselves.

Maybe it would be better to call this thread Recurring Motifs of the Past Decade, or Cinematic Memes of the 00's, if you want to use buzzwords to describe trends, or how about Memento and its Mimics.

I agree that Memento had a strong effect -- on at least screenwriters and producers -- and sparked a fair number of imitators. I quite like The Machinist, which uses both the conceits of memory impairment and the doubling/personality disorder (which really traces back at least to Fight Club).

To the original poster: there's nothing wrong with a post describing the effect Memento has had on other films and noting other trends of the last decade. There must be an existing Memento thread for that.
Or more analysis of the trends of the past decade would be substantive and will get discussion rolling. Maybe you could also delve into why you don't like these trends and view them as gimmicky.

I tend to like non-linear films and those dealing with doubles and mental illness. Though as good ideas get re-used and recycled, a fair amount of poor imitations will come out. I'm not a fan of the paradigm-shift ending. For instance, I thought Identity was silly and the sunrise twist a letdown of an ending.
Charlie Kaufman does some interesting things with doubling in Adaptation (which I didn't especially care for) and Synecdoche, NY which impressed me.

What's the difference between a gimmick and an appropriate manner of style?

If we're going to have this discussion a good working definition of "gimmick" is in order. I would tentatively provide: a bit or mannerism with a self-contained effect, and which is appropriate in its own context rather than in the context of the rest of the film (this for example includes certain twist endings whose twist does not encourage you to qualify the film you've just watched, but to forget the film you've just watched and replace it with the ending itself, ie. Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, where it's revealed you've been watching a movie that is not in fact the movie, according to the filmmaker/screenwriter). This tentative definition would exclude poor picked-on Memento, whose "twist" ending anyway is simply the last of a series of recontextualizations, and which does not alter the movie so much as give a fuller understanding of the character's psychology (for which its backwards structure is necessary and appropriate).

Lemmy Caution wrote:Maybe it would be better to call this thread Recurring Motifs of the Past Decade, or Cinematic Memes of the 00's, if you want to use buzzwords to describe trends, or how about Memento and its Mimics.
Or more analysis the trends of the past decade will get discussion rolling. Maybe you could also delve into why you don't like these trends and view them as gimmicky.

I think that's a fine title: "Recurring Motifs of the Past Decade," closer to my point actually.

Ultimately, I find the way these trends have been the focal point that plots rely upon to have become tiresome. They were once refreshing and original, and it was great when I first saw Fight Club or Memento.... 10 years ago. I don't dislike these trends in themselves, just how they have been used to death is bordering on exploitative. For example, The Prestige's double identity thing was so forced that the plot or credibility suffered, and at the end,

Spoiler

the story came to be about Christian Bale having a twin. There's no deeper meditation on having to live with a twin or the class struggles between Bale and Jackman, and it was just about how having the twin became the ultimate twist for the sake of a twist.

Mr_sausage wrote:What's the difference between a gimmick and an appropriate manner of style?

If we're going to have this discussion a good working definition of "gimmick" is in order. I would tentatively provide: a bit or mannerism with a self-contained effect, and which is appropriate in its own context rather than in the context of the rest of the film (this for example includes certain twist endings whose twist does not encourage you to qualify the film you've just watched, but to forget the film you've just watched and replace it with the ending itself, ie. Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, where it's revealed you've been watching a movie that is not in fact the movie, according to the filmmaker/screenwriter). This tentative definition would exclude poor picked-on Memento, whose "twist" ending anyway is simply the last of a series of recontextualizations, and which does not alter the movie so much as give a fuller understanding of the character's psychology (for which its backwards structure is necessary and appropriate).

I agree with your definition. I don't think Memento is gimmicky; I was merely saying that the trend it started led some films to rely on twists (as you said) "forget the film you've just watched and replace it with the ending itself, .... where it's revealed you've been watching a movie that is not in fact the movie." That's exactly what I'm trying to say, thanks.

Major spoilers:

transcendent1 wrote:the story came to be about Christian Bale having a twin. There's no deeper meditation on having to live with a twin or the class struggles between Bale and Jackman, and it was just about how having the twin became the ultimate twist for the sake of a twist.

It wasn't about Christian Bale having a twin, it was about making the necessary sacrifice for the prestige (ie. the crushed dove in the box vs the hidden live one at the end) and for magic in general. This is why Bale knew that the old Asian magician they watch at the beginning (when Michael Cain asks them to figure out his trick) was not really old and feeble, but very strong, and that the man's whole life was an act that served his magic shows. Hence the significance of why every night Hugh Jackman drowns himself and lets his newly-created double live: he was finally willing to make a total sacrifice for his magic show, just as Bale was willing to make the total sacrifice of identity for his.

Simply put: nothing about The Prestige is a gimmick, which is interesting considering the movie is in many ways about gimmicks (and the lengths people will go for them).

Adding on to that the whole narrative of the film imitates a magic trick, as well. The twist at the end is bleedingly obvious when one thinks about, but like a magic trick the film does everything to misdirect you so you don't see the obvious (I remember one scene where Bale shows his wife how the bullet catch trick works and she points out how simple and disappointing it is once you know how it works.) Throughout the film many people keep pointing out to Jackman how the trick is done but he refuses to accept it.

The movie actually has a lot more going on in it and if you think the twist at the end was merely a twist for the sake of having one you should give it another go.

Antoine Doinel wrote:The thing is you can apply this trend of "gimmickry" to any decade of film. One film with a unique idea gets good reviews, awards consideration and positive feedback from the public and in turn it spawns a dozen lesser copycats. It's nothing that's particularly exclusive this decade moreso than any other.

I may have missed something but I don't recall the guy saying that the past decade was The First To Exhibit Trends & Gimmicks-- the guy has simply identified those of a specific type which are current, and wants to have a conversation about them.

Mr_sausage wrote:What's the difference between a gimmick and an appropriate manner of style?

If we're going to have this discussion a good working definition of "gimmick" is in order. I would tentatively provide: a bit or mannerism with a self-contained effect, and which is appropriate in its own context rather than in the context of the rest of the film (this for example includes certain twist endings whose twist does not encourage you to qualify the film you've just watched, but to forget the film you've just watched and replace it with the ending itself, ie. Sixth Sense or The Usual Suspects, where it's revealed you've been watching a movie that is not in fact the movie, according to the filmmaker/screenwriter). This tentative definition would exclude poor picked-on Memento, whose "twist" ending anyway is simply the last of a series of recontextualizations, and which does not alter the movie so much as give a fuller understanding of the character's psychology (for which its backwards structure is necessary and appropriate).

In another thread, I made some half-assed, dismissive remark about people who consider Memento to be gimmicky. What Mr. Sausage wrote sums up what I feel about a thousand times better.

Adding on to that the whole narrative of the film imitates a magic trick, as well. The twist at the end is bleedingly obvious when one thinks about

Indeed. The ending is not so much a twist as a revelation that gives a context to what has preceded & which is often in plain sight (all those top hats strewn across the forest - the wound from the bullet-catching trick that has trouble healing, etc.) PRESTIGE plays fair throughout.

Lemmy Caution wrote:Maybe it would be better to call this thread Recurring Motifs of the Past Decade, or Cinematic Memes of the 00's, if you want to use buzzwords to describe trends, or how about Memento and its Mimics.

I agree that Memento had a strong effect -- on at least screenwriters and producers -- and sparked a fair number of imitators. I quite like The Machinist, which uses both the conceits of memory impairment and the doubling/personality disorder (which really traces back at least to Fight Club).

To the original poster: there's nothing wrong with a post describing the effect Memento has had on other films and noting other trends of the last decade. There must be an existing Memento thread for that.
Or more analysis of the trends of the past decade would be substantive and will get discussion rolling. Maybe you could also delve into why you don't like these trends and view them as gimmicky.

I tend to like non-linear films and those dealing with doubles and mental illness. Though as good ideas get re-used and recycled, a fair amount of poor imitations will come out. I'm not a fan of the paradigm-shift ending. For instance, I thought Identity was silly and the sunrise twist a letdown of an ending.
Charlie Kaufman does some interesting things with doubling in Adaptation (which I didn't especially care for) and Synecdoche, NY which impressed me.

I agree that this thread should be re-titled Reoccurring Motifs of the '00 Decade - to expand on your example of Charlie Kaufman, pretty much every film he's written in the past 10 years could all fall under the categories initially listed in this thread - ***especially*** Eternal Sunshine Of The Spotless Mind, which I don't consider to be "gimmicky" at all... perhaps it could be suggested Kaufman was offering more of a personal, emotionally truthful insight into the trends following the over-the-top Fight Club / Memento type films that used those motifs as a vehicle for violence.... but it's equally influenced by numerous films (Woody - especially Annie Hall -, Resnais and other french cinema selections) and literature (Philip K Dick for one). To suggest that Kaufman's films are "gimmicky" just because they match all criteria listed here trivializes them, as if it were impossible to make anything about memory or time this decade without being reduced to a cultural fad / trend.

On another note, Is it safe to say that Fight Club has spawned a whole new genre of Hollywood B-movies about fighting though this decade? I can't help but notice a slew of terrible movies that play on the whole Fight Club idea (secret underground clubs based on man-to-man bare fisted brutal fighting) that strip away all the philosophy Fight Club (tried) to convey, along with the conceptual notion and more complex cinematic ideas that Fight Club at least aspired to.
Like this trailer example I had the unfortunate opportunity of seeing in theatres recently (which culminated in me and several others laughing out loud once the extremely stupid and obvious title of "Fighting" came on screen).