So. I strongly dislike the ending of Serenity. It is a good movie! It was well made! It does, however, feature the death of what is my favorite character on the show. I was in shock the first time I saw this movie as a result of the unexpected death of Wash. Why did Whedon do this? I scoured the internets and found this interesting quote:
"Regarding Wash’s death in Serenity, “The fact of the matter is that it’s a great point of contention with many people. Without it, the movie would have been two hours of blather. I made a whole big thing about heroes getting people killed and the dangerousness of Mal actually becoming somebody who believes in something and how much laying they were laying on the line. And, I didn’t want to kill anybody. In my first draft, I didn’t kill anybody, it was 200 pages long and it was cute, but it was the second season, it wasn’t an actual film. It cam along and I realized, you do this one thing, that nobody’s sees coming, the rest of the movie has enormous resonance and then you can just cheat the rest of the time. ‘Oh look, Simon’s dead ! Oh, not really. Oh look, River’s dead ! No, not really. Oh look, clearly Mal’s... not so much.’ And it works because you know, I might, cause I just did. You take anyway someone you love, and then every card is on the table. It’s not pretty, but it’s the way to make something creative. I hate movies that lie. I hate movies, like Jarassic Park where just the bad people die, because I don’t believe a just and all-knowing dinosaur. I believe it should be more random than that. The only way to really sell the sacrifices they are making is to make one.”
Yeah, it's a big block of text. I apologize for that. It does provide, though, an interesting view into the creative thought process of Whedon. Do you guys agree with his logic? Personally, I think he makes a solid point. That does not mean, however, that I have to like that point.
What if I wanted a happy ending? Not every story has to have death and destruction to create a meaningful piece of art. Are happy endings perceived as somehow worse than tragic ones?
7 comments:
Wow, Josh. This is a really excellent post. I agree that while it may be unpleasant, the death of a character does create a more realistic scenario. Just because you don't want to die, or don't want anyone else to die, doesn't mean you won't or that they won't. Life isn't pretty, and I can appreciate that Whedon is willing to make that creative decision, even though it may be unpopular.
And I feel that happy endings are a double-edged sword. They may make you feel good, but are essentially empty of significance.
I like sad endings, or having a positive outcome with sad elements embedded within it. I'm weird like that. I have to agree with Whedon: "I hate movies that lie."
Happy endings = eating peeps.
Bam.
They taste good but they're fake. Not to mention not being nutritional.
Peeps are lies. LIES.
This post takes on a great question: in a movie/show like Firefly (or Buffy, or Angel), the idea that major characters can die is *realistic*, but we often don't want them to die. But Joss has always been about bringing that touch of reality to his shows, even if it isn't to a great extent.
Let me make this point, too: if no one had died at the end of the movie, people (especially haters--ha!) would have called major BS, right? Like Anna said, damned if you do, damned if you don't.
As it is, it's hard to believe that every single one of the remaining characters emerged from that final battle alive--especially given their significant wounds.
Yeah, I totes thought Simon was toast, if Sean Maher didn't have such a great body they would have killed him off.
(thank GOD.)
Post a Comment