Movie : The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in Hollywood
Link : The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in Hollywood
The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in Hollywood
The Cabin in the Woods (2011)
Directed by Drew Goddard
***SPOILERS***
Don’t let the title fool you—I’m a Joss Whedon fan. Firefly is a fantastic television show. I’ve enjoyed what I’ve seen of Buffy. My brother has nothing but good things to say about Dollhouse. Dude straight up co-wrote the Toy Story screenplay. Fuck yeah, I like the guy. He clearly loves film and television, and his projects often cater to individuals who share in such geekery. And, much like Toy Story pointed towards, his projects are full of leaps, bounds, and fun, but also interspersed with social commentary and intelligent observations. He takes the most mundane aspects of any given genre and makes them full-blown cinematic spectacles you can enjoy guilt-free, mostly due to the colorful and vibrant characters. And that’s basically what The Cabin in the Woods is…except to, like, the nth level. Because, this time around, Whedon and co-screenwriter (and director) Drew Goddard aren’t just basking in the modern horror genre’s worst elements and filtering social commentary through—they are one in the same. But in an attempt to break down shitty horror films with this dual approach, The Cabin in the Woods just sort of…becomes one.
And once again, don’t let me fool you—that’s cool. The Cabin in the Woods is wholesome, bloody fun, and could quite possibly be the most entertaining experience you’ll have at theaters this year. But The Cabin in the Woods really should have been so much better. Whereas projects like Fireflyand Buffy serve well as genre-embellishers and social commentary, The Cabin in the Woods is burdened with stretching beyond tongue-in-cheek throwbacks because the embellishments and social commentary are congruent. I mean, I understand whyWhedon and Goddard chose such a style: they know their audience. We want to see Marty (Fran Kranz) whip out his bong/coffee mug Kill Bill-style and whack a zombie upside the head. The comic reveal of a bird smashing into a hologram wall builds tension for Curt’s (Chris Hemsworth) unfortunate motorcycle mishap. And when Hadley (Bradley Whitford) comes face to face with his beloved Merman, it is fitting and hilarious anticlimactic irony.
So Whedon has always been good at breaking down genres, fueled by a nonchalant “hey, everybody is cool!” attitude. Even the crusty, hard-nosed Sitterson (Richard Jenkins) seems like a guy you’d like to have a beer with. It allows the film to steep in a genre’s most unoriginal aspects and simply enjoy itself. And it’s welcoming for the viewer, who can be geeky without guilt since Whedon is so adamant that "hey, it’s all good, man." So The Cabin in the Woods always entertaining, but never profound—which is great. We need more movies and television shows like that. But Cabin in the Woods is a direct, blatant commentary on modern horror flicks, and it doesn’t hold the same aura as Fireflyor Buffy. Instead of basking in a genre, Whedon is basically saying, “This is why modern horror sucks.” And he’s right: most horror movies SUCK. But other than the fact that Whedon is acknowledging that horror movies suck…what is he improving on? Where is taking this idea? Where is the texture? He presents typical horror situations, but they’re so incredibly layered with geekdom that they only expand on horror clichés by making those clichés more ridiculous. It's just a more sophisticated and less pathetic version of Epic Movie's desire to spoof pop culture. It all seems so one-note that Whedon requires some profoundness to make his project more substantial.
Not to iterate that The Cabin in the Woods is free of substance. At its very core, there is a dual purpose to Whedon and Goddard’s approach. The college characters of The Cabin in the Woods are brainwashed by the simulators—cleverly and subtly mentioned in regards to Jules’ (Anna Hutchinson) blonde highlights—and come to represent archetypal stereotypes dating back to the good ole days of Nightmare on Elm Street. They act the way they’re supposed to, but they’re also self-aware of the ludicrousness—a (very) direct commentary on the insipidness of modern horror films’ dedication to expendable characters. And the social commentary, which is still fixated on genre conventions, accordingly utilizes the simulators and displeased gods as pieces of symbolism. The simulators are the producers/filmmakers of shitty horror films, blandly shaping their characters to fulfill genre “guidelines,” and it’s all an attempt to please the unrelenting gods…or, you know, THE AUDIENCE. We require these characters’ blood, and thus we are the reason these movies continue to be made. And what’s great: Whedon and Co. aren’t condemning such a licentiously pleasurable mindset, but simply pointing out why shitty horror films exist. We hate them…but goddamn do we love them.
But without the proper characterization, the substance becomes less…well, substantial. Albeit being a rather lame, frivolous, and facetious way of conveying the asinine character stereotypes of modern horror films, there’s not much to assess in Dana’s (Kristen Connolly) candid observation that, “hey, I’m not a virgin!” It's like when the director in Black Swan shouts, "You must BECOME the black swan!" Yeah, uh huh OK Aronofsky, we got it.
Let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t The Innkeepers. In the film, Claire’s (Sara Paxton) ghost-ridden situation becomes a direct parallel for her deepest fears and regrets. The ghost bride of The Innkeepers reflects Claire’s hesitance to settle down or aspire for something greater. Thus, the scarier aspects of The Innkeepers gain a double meaning: while astutely filmed and gratingly suspenseful, these scenes carry emotional weight and humanize Claire. But when Dana questionably assesses her popped cherry, there’s no profound or detailed parallel being drawn. It’s simply: Dana appears stupid for the sake of perpetuating the giant metaphor, but look, she’s really not!
Let’s not kid ourselves: this isn’t The Innkeepers. In the film, Claire’s (Sara Paxton) ghost-ridden situation becomes a direct parallel for her deepest fears and regrets. The ghost bride of The Innkeepers reflects Claire’s hesitance to settle down or aspire for something greater. Thus, the scarier aspects of The Innkeepers gain a double meaning: while astutely filmed and gratingly suspenseful, these scenes carry emotional weight and humanize Claire. But when Dana questionably assesses her popped cherry, there’s no profound or detailed parallel being drawn. It’s simply: Dana appears stupid for the sake of perpetuating the giant metaphor, but look, she’s really not!
Because of this lame character assessment, it cripples the more clever aspects of Whedon and Goddard’s writing. While Dana is being tossed about by the macho, indestructible zombie leader, we see the simulators gathering in laughter, toasting to each other and celebrating another successful apocalypse-free year. And as the comically tension-relieving music plays alongside Dana’s torturous fling, we see that the simulators (or the filmmakers) don’t really care about this girl. Sure, they’re sad she’s a pawn in their game, but she’s just another empty kill to please the gods. But because Whedon and Goddard are so self-aware of such a throwback, the parallel becomes entertaining in its own right, but altogether uninteresting. Instead of utilizing horror films' greatest assets and creating substance, the filmmakers simply mimic horror films very tongue-in-cheekily. There is no double meaning giving the scene substance, as seen in The Innkeepers with Claire, but instead one very obvious meaning: most horror movies are dumb, so let’s laugh at them.
And yes, we enjoy laughing at them, but we also enjoy them. We all own the sickly innate desire to see somebody’s head chopped off in a film because…well, it’s not real. So, in the end, what is Whedon really saying about modern horror flicks? Not much at all, really. He’s incredibly astute in recognizing and honoring scary movies by diluting their ridiculousness with clever, witty observations and colorful characters, but The Cabin in the Woods is really too clever for its own good. It’s altogether savvy in its approach, but it just sort of sits there, asking you to be impressed, despite being void of any real connectivity on a humane level. The most aggravating part of it all? Joss Whedon fucking knows this. He knows that releasing every monster known to man in a murderous onslaught will be the most entertaining thing you’re likely to witness in film. He knows that he can sidestep legitimate and “traditional” characterization conventions and produce a bloody good ole time at the movies. It’s why I love Joss Whedon, and it’s why I hate Joss Whedon. I know he’s smart enough to step up to the next level, but he’s admirable for remaining adamant in his crowd-pleasing approach—so much so that when the monsters are released by way of a confoundingly convenient “monster release” button, we don’t really much care about the profound aspects of The Cabin in the Woods. But upon contemplation, there’s not much to say about the film. It is what it is, just like Joss Whedon always will be.
And yes, we enjoy laughing at them, but we also enjoy them. We all own the sickly innate desire to see somebody’s head chopped off in a film because…well, it’s not real. So, in the end, what is Whedon really saying about modern horror flicks? Not much at all, really. He’s incredibly astute in recognizing and honoring scary movies by diluting their ridiculousness with clever, witty observations and colorful characters, but The Cabin in the Woods is really too clever for its own good. It’s altogether savvy in its approach, but it just sort of sits there, asking you to be impressed, despite being void of any real connectivity on a humane level. The most aggravating part of it all? Joss Whedon fucking knows this. He knows that releasing every monster known to man in a murderous onslaught will be the most entertaining thing you’re likely to witness in film. He knows that he can sidestep legitimate and “traditional” characterization conventions and produce a bloody good ole time at the movies. It’s why I love Joss Whedon, and it’s why I hate Joss Whedon. I know he’s smart enough to step up to the next level, but he’s admirable for remaining adamant in his crowd-pleasing approach—so much so that when the monsters are released by way of a confoundingly convenient “monster release” button, we don’t really much care about the profound aspects of The Cabin in the Woods. But upon contemplation, there’s not much to say about the film. It is what it is, just like Joss Whedon always will be.
Watch Free Movies and Tv shows online in HD quality
Watch Free Films and Network programs online The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in Hollywood HD Quality
Free Movie download and streaming The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in HollywoodWatch free motion pictures and Television programs online in HD on any gadget. Free Movies offers gushing motion pictures in types like Activity, Repulsiveness, Science fiction, Wrongdoing and Parody. Watch now.
0 Response to "The Cabin in the Woods, or: Why Joss Whedon is the most aggravating man in Hollywood"
Posting Komentar