The original “Assassin’s Creed” was a beautiful, captivating premise for a game…but that’s about it. It was one of those games that needs a sequel, and a sequel is what it received. The beauty of the gaming world is that the second installments are nearly always stronger than the first, sometimes to the point of wiping out the original’s memory. Oh, if only the same were true at the multiplex. I’ve grabbed a rental copy of AC2, and so far my impression is very positive. The story is very engaging, the central protagonist is well fleshed out and sympathetic, which helps to avoid the cold feeling of the older edition. I’m also impressed by the loving care with which the developers present Renaissance Italy to us. I’m no expert, but it certainly seems like they’ve gone to great lengths to produce a credible historical experience. Little nuggets of information about the science, religion and culture of the times is always appearing, backed up by walking, talking examples which stand right in front of you. It’s a really cool experience.
More importantly, “Left 4 Dead 2″ is out, and of course I own it. To say this thing is a step forward for Valve just scratches the surface. Scavenge Mode is a revelation, a completely new strategic battleground. The new campaigns are not simply new landmarks, they embrace a more robust and dynamic design philosophy. “Hard Rain” sees you traversing a long, winding path to retrieve gasoline, then returning through a sudden monsoon that obscures your vision. “Dead Center” drops you in the middle of a burning hotel with only pistols and melee weapons. “Dark Carnival” requires you to navigate a twisting wooden roller coaster on foot, swarms of zombies clamoring at you from below. This and other examples highlights how far Valve has come from the first game, where the campaigns were excellent but minimal.
What’s especially incredible is that all of this happened in a year. The graphics are sharper, the gameplay is tighter, everything feels like a real evolution, and yet they got this thing out of the gate in a matter of months. I realize now what Valve has never been able to admit about the original: they weren’t happy with it. It’s the only explanation that makes sense. It was a landmark game, but the developers clearly wanted so much more for it, and couldn’t rest until they had delivered. This is all the more likely since Valve employees are often allowed to choose which projects they work on. It was mysterious to us, because we all loved “Left 4 Dead” so much, and there’s not a PR specialist in the world who would allow the company to tell us they were unhappy. I know there was an epic meeting where the employees petitioned Gabe Newell to produce another one, and I think this is what they said:
“We didn’t get it done.” Newell must have protested, insisting the company does not release sequels this soon. “Then let’s make it an expansion, or something, but there’s too much we didn’t do.” Perhaps he asked what the big problem was. Aside from the obvious (versus only playable in two campaigns, small number of campaigns and game modes), I’ll bet they thought the level design was too simple, the number of weapons too small, the opportunities for camping too great. I think they envisioned a more fear-oriented experience, whereas “Left 4 Dead” became about endurance and exhaustion. He probably agreed, and then as production evolved they found themselves getting inspired and making more. Too much more. Before they knew it, they had an army of content. Now this is pure speculation, but I’ll bet they tried to get Microsoft to release it on the cheap, but no dice. That’s not how Microsoft rolls. So they put out a sequel, and they took the boycott on the chin. That’s my guess. Take it or leave it.
Anyway,
We are, yet again, on the brink of a “Twilight” movie. Now some of you know I saw the first one, and had a somewhat unique opinion of it. I disliked it, don’t get me wrong, but I diagnosed the problem differently than most people: I felt it had a director-shaped hole in it. I’m not saying anything about Catherine Hardwicke, I can’t imagine who could retain control of a film under those circumstances, but that’s still my opinion. The tone was wrong, the special effects were wrong, the pacing was wrong, the acting was wrong, basically anything a director is supposed to oversee was wrong. That no one else seemed to grasp this tells me the job of a director is not fully understood. People are inclined to blame the source material, but I cannot speak to that, having never read it. I don’t think there is anything fundamentally broken in the broad strokes of “Twilight:” young girl encounters a dark and seductive stranger, falls in love, is ushered into a world of danger and excitement. All of that is fine, you could make a good movie from that, so the devil is invariably in the details. Many smart people, including Stephen King, have contested that Stephanie Meyer’s writing is deficient both in style and content, and that any movie which pledges loyalty to her work must be doomed from the beginning. That is a possibility.
“Twilight” represents the entertainment industry’s awakening to the female demographic. But how awake are they? Hollywood is slow, stupid, and aimed at white males—they are legendary for refusing to change, even when there’s good money in it. Tyler Perry has made more money than Croesus, but the industry just keeps plugging its ears and singing “lalalala” every time one of his movies comes out. Are women going to get the same treatment? Certainly, movies geared at women have been coming out for years, but it’s half-hearted, crass capitalization. There is no substantive, thriving female-only cinematic arena that I am aware of. They get a few chick flicks per year, and everyone knows that the action movie they’ll actually come with their boyfriends to see is going to make bank, but besides that they’re left with very little.
(The following is very anecdotal and unscientific. I’m okay with that.)
Is this going to change? I’m not really certain. Very few women (and I do mean women, as opposed to girls) who see “Twilight” will tell you it’s a really good movie, but that doesn’t alter their devotion to it, and it is at this point that I become fascinated. Behavior like that would never fly in the geek circles I move in. The companies that make my video games are up all night neglecting their families trying to stay ahead of my every whim. In ten years they’ve taken us from huddling on a couch together with four controllers to playing a 100 person battle simultaneously with people in Japan. The action movies I see, even when they’re total crap, are sunk with millions of dollars in special effects to try and keep my attention, each one one-upping the next. Everything in the 18-35 male demographic is frantic, the competition for my affections is brutal, and the payoffs are huge.
That is not the way of things in “Twilight” land. It doesn’t matter how the movie is, the excitement is the event itself. Oh sure, some people made a fuss when Rob Pattinson was cast as Edward, but besides that these fangirls are completely different animals from fanboys. I hate to be mean about this, but I’m noticing that nothing marketed explicitly for girls is ever…particularly good. Again, look at the arms race going on just so I’ll plop down 10 bucks at the movie theater. Now look at Summit Entertainment, happily cranking out “Twilight” movies. Anyone who reads the trades knows that “New Moon” is famous for how little it cost to make, arguably even less than the original one when all is considered. They’re not just relaxed, they’re actually spending less money each time around (relatively speaking). They’re pumping these things out on the cheap. Does that sound frantic to you?
The one exception I can think of, although I’m sure there are others, is “Sex and the City,” which built a very demanding fan-base that reminded me of my own community. I loathe that show, but I admit that I respect devotion to it in a way I never will for “Twilight.” My point is still the same, though: why is this the exception, and not the rule? Why is the female demographic still being fed a formula that hasn’t been adjusted or developed in decades? Are women happy with this situation? What’s going on? I have a theory:
Identity. One thing that occurred to me is that women are hard to market to right now, because women are changing. Recent, highly publicized studies have suggested the female sex is less happy now than they were 50 years ago—an embarrassing blow to us all, given what has happened in that time. The counter argument to these findings is simple: women have earned their way into the workplace, and yet have not shed the culturally assigned duties they had beforehand. There’s too much on their plates, they are expected to do everything. Eventually, a more advanced way of thinking about their gender will have to emerge.
Female social identity is an evolving thing, and marketing doesn’t like to hit moving targets. If you’re making a movie for women…who are you talking about? Who is a woman in today’s society? What are her priorities? Some want to be wives and stay-at-home mothers, and that’s one group you can appeal to. Some want to have careers, and there’s another. But most, it seems to me, are very much in the middle, caught between impulses in either direction. Eventually they choose one or both, but that doesn’t change the fact that their arrival at those choices is coming from a very new way of looking at themselves and their world. This new psychology is not entirely without inner conflict, and that makes pandering to them…tricky. We are only at the beginning of finding out who women really are, and who they are going to be in the future.
For this reason, everything in female-marketed cinema plays it safe. Mostly they use old formulas that work: romance and interpersonal drama, appealing to a woman’s naturally higher level of social sensitivity. The reason the ladies of the world are okay with this for now is that they are still in a process of discovery, too. I think they would find it premature to aim something at a place they haven’t arrived yet, especially since no one can be positive what that place will look like. Cinema may play an important role in this process, though: as female film makers become more prominent (God willing), perhaps they will use this art form to explore themselves and try to define their future. We could be on the tipping point of a female cinematic renaissance, a period of unbridled creativity and ground-breaking auteurs.
Until then…we have “New Moon.” No offense, fans of the series, I mean in no way to try and take it away from you. I just think it’s going to be outdated.
0 Responses to “Second Time Around”