(Spoilers for No Country For Old Men and A Cabin in the Woods)
Obviously, no one believes that literally all movies that call out or subvert tropes are good, but I feel that people often attribute positive points to movies solely for subverting expectations, even when the execution of those subversions are subpar.
One of the reasons I didn't like No Country For Old Men as much as many other people did was precisely because of this, although I would still consider it a good movie. The first half of the film is fantastic—it masterfully builds tension, has some incredible and intense battle scenes, and I like that, for the most part, the characters all make the smartest decisions they can; I could scarcely improve on any of them without the knowledge of hindsight, which is something uncommon in action movies (many movies often have an otherwise smart character acting unusually stupid to give another character a chance to take advantage).
I understand that the latter half of the movie is supposed to be a subversion of expectations and what would realistically happen to someone even as tough as Llewelyn in his situation—the protagonist dies off-screen to a group of unnamed cartel members without even facing the antagonist—but I believe that it is a lazy and unsatisfying ending to the protagonist we have built a connection to over the course of the movie, especially since his death was not even shown in the screen.
How good would the first few seasons of Game of Thrones have been if Tywin Lannister abruptly died of a disease in the beginning of Season 3, or if Jon Snow were killed by unnamed wildlings after he travels with the Night's Watch beyond the wall, as realistically someone in his position would be? How good would Breaking Bad have been if Walter White were killed by some random unnamed drug dealers in Season 2 of the show, as someone like Walt would realistically be in his position? Had there been a final showdown between Llewelyn and Anton where Llewelyn dies, with the rest of the movie playing out the exact same way it did, it would have had a satisfying conclusion while also being a subversion of the trope that the protagonist must always win; instead, I felt that it was just a cheap subversion for the sake of being a subversion.
Another highly rated movie that calls out common tropes in its genre would be A Cabin in the Woods, although it does so in a different manner to No Country For Old Men. The primary problem I have with this movie is that it is completely generic; I understand that it was intentionally made to be that way, but it is just not very interesting to watch what is essentially the most generic horror movie ever made for two-thirds of the film. I've heard people say it's creative in calling out the tropes in the genre, but I would say its method of criticizing tropes is perhaps the most uncreative way it could criticize the genre. The first two-thirds also have "comedic" scenes in a lab watching the main characters struggle which I felt utterly failed at making me laugh. The last one-third of the film didn't really have much a plot, and in all honestly wasn't very good either; at the end a character was literally just listing common tropes and saying that they must happen, which I thought was an even more uncreative way of calling out tropes. Despite being a pretty terrible movie in my opinion, it is rated 92% by critics on Rotten Tomatoes mostly for "subverting tropes of the horror genre."
Jump in the discussion.
No email address required.
Notes -
I don't think No Country For Old Men subverts expectations. Maybe if your prior is "A movie has a hero's journey and then rising action and a conclusion etc etc" But the movie from the title to the ending narration "No country for old men" is about the fundamental chaos of the world and how people try to impose order on that chaos (Bell, Moss, Chigurh [moral codes, laws, randomness]) while ultimately futile. Moss dying unheroically and Chigurh being seriously wounded in a car accident fit that very closely.
Broadly speaking people evaluate things whether they enjoy them, not whether they are strictly good (I do think most people would agree with this distinction). Humans are very good at recognizing patterns and also novelty gives us enjoyment (Drugs, the McRib, twist endings). Historically a majority of the development of art/media practices are in response (anything there's a post- or 'critique' in the title is a good hint) to popular ways of doing things.
The medium is the message - the same goes for trope subversion. A bad (acting/writing/pacing) movie can be more enjoyable than a good (same 3 criteria) one for those reasons, but they are being evaluated for different things.
I'm unconvinced by your hypotheticals because they are non-falsifiable. Maybe Breaking Bad would in fact be better if Walter died in season 2. The reason you don't expect changes to these shows to be net-positive is because they're already evaluated very highly, so a change is more likely to revert it to the mean. Ask yourself the same question about the 50 bad tv shows or movies that come out every year. Would the Aladdin remake be better if the Genie's magic failed and Aladdin and Jasmine had to live in obscurity under Jafar's rule? Maybe, who knows.
More options
Context Copy link