2017’s Life and why the same movies keep getting made again
Even though the whole concept of movies based on book adaptations, old TV shows and franchises might seem like a recent phenomena due to its ubiquity, it isn’t. The film industry, and not just Hollywood, has always adapted established characters and stories in various ways since its inception. And it’s not a lazy thing to do, it is usually done with the intention of breathing new life into something that exists solely in our collective imagination.
I was an exuberant teen when Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring came out in 2001. The sheer joy it gave me to watch the characters on screen, was only paralleled by the first Harry Potter film which released the same year. I was always excited to watch these adaptations. And in a similar vein, sequels. I remember never being completely satisfied by a sequel, with the ginormous exception that was Terminator 2: Judgement Day. But even at its worst, sequels always felt safe. Cause as humans we love familiarity. And our brains are programmed to treat new things with doubt.
In the book ‘The Power of Habit’, author Charles Duhigg talks about the journey of Outkast’s song “Hey ya!” to its Billboard Hot 100 success. On its initial release, the song was automatically touted to be the next big thing by popular DJ’s to computer based predictive algorithms. But it had an inherent problem compared to the other hits from the early 2000’s.
It didn’t sound like any other chart topper. It was way too different. And so the moment it came up on the radio, regular listeners were not inclined to stay tuned due to the lack of familiarity it brought along. The only way radio stations managed to make sure people didn’t switch away was to sandwich it between two really popular songs at that time. Sometimes it would be slot between two of the same songs. And hence people’s tastes were moulded as a means to escape the trap of familiarity.
“People listen to Top 40 because they want to hear their favourite songs or songs that sound like their favourite songs. When something different comes on, they’re offended. They don’t want anything unfamiliar.”
Charles Duhigg, The Power of Habit
This example was to establish the importance of familiarity in media and to sound smart cause I’m a guy who reads such books. And hence familiarity, or acquaintance, to a plot of characters is one thing movie producers love. For one and only one reason: A proven audience.
This is the reason that Marvel Cinematic Universe is the highest grossing movie franchise so far. And I’m not complaining. But as much as I do find the MCU movies entertaining, I’d still not be as excited about them as much as a new Nolan or Villeneuve film. And yet, Nolan reinvented an established franchise (The Dark Knight Trilogy), while Villeneuve is working on a Blade Runner sequel.
And hence at this point when a new action/sci-fi film, not based on an established franchise comes up, I’m genuinely excited. And so I was with Life, starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Rebecca Ferguson. Choosing not to indulge in any trailers or reviews to have a completely fresh experience. Sadly the decision made the disappointments even more intense.
A space floating survival Sci-fi flick is not a unique boat ride. Especially when every aspect of it reeks of Alien(1979). And that too not in a homage sorta way. More of a lets-repackage-old-stuff-in-a-new-box sorta way. The prime issue is that Ridley Scott’s Alien is one of the few movies from the 70-80s era that even today does not seem dated. Most of the credit would go to Stan Winston and H.R. Giger to give Xenomorphs the ability to soil your pants in fear.
So what do we get? Jake Gyllenhaal trying hard to look like he cares for the movie. Ryan Reynolds being, well, Ryan Reynolds. And the rest of the cast deflated to being just props in order not be accused of being whitewashed.
The only decent part of the movie was the choice to go with a dark ending. Which, sadly I had trouble fully appreciating, since the panic inducing background score highlighting the scene seems like a rip off of Jóhann Jóhannsson’s score in Sicario.
As I walked out of the movie hall, It felt awkward. Life could’ve been an above average sci-fi movie experience. It wasn’t bad. It had great CGI and moments of palpable tension. But nothing we’ve not seen before. There was no novelty. The only thing that managed to instil some life into Life were the theories claiming it could be a Venom or Cloverfield prequel.
But then why make it in the first place? Are we so content with safe and passable movies that we don’t mind it once in a while.
Even amidst the clutter of remakes and rehashes, there are disguised originals that manage to mash tropes and make a fresh product. Stranger Things from Netflix being the best recent example. But that is still a tightrope walk considering creating an original feature with an absolutely fresh plot is a hard sell for studios.
If you’re sitting in the producers chair with a priority of financial returns over creative value for a movie, why would you risk putting money into something that is highly uncertain. This might mean that the movie industry warrants a new financial model to encourage originality and bolder decisions. That is where independent cinema becomes an inevitable movement against the blockbuster behemoths.
And having worked several years in what is considered to be the marriage of Art & Commerce: Advertising, I’m genuinely terrified that the global perception would shift to accommodate the concept of ‘Make what sells’.
Talking on more broader terms…art can be safe and colour within the lines. But that’d be just another canvas. When the courage to mould something as a means of expression instead of pandering to an audience comes out, is when art gets true meaning.
