The other night auntie and uncle were watching a show about the celebrities who departed in 2018.
Long story short, we decided to watch Deliverance. (RIP Burt.)
I guess I should say there will be spoilers if you've never seen the movie.
At first I was sorta confused because I'd never actually heard anyone say they wanted to watch Deliverance.
I surmised that they didn't know what it was famous/infamous for. It had been years since I watched it and I was curious to watch it with others.
On the surface, it's an outdated movie about a guy trip gone wrong. It's a step away from being classic horror. Many would probably put it in that category but I'm not sure I'm sold on that. It will remain in drama/suspense, for me.
Upon further reflection, like the Grinch at Christmas, it's really about a lot more.
There are 4 men; the macho man, the everyman, the thoughtful man, and the softie city guy.
There is a trip; off to the woods for some male bonding and adventure. There is danger and action involved in their activities, but is still all in good fun. (For a little while.)
There are layered relationships; it's hard to tell why they're friends; they question it, even. Some get along better than others. The relationships are balancing and relatively realistic.
There is an unknown element in the hillbillies in the beginning.
The banjo boy tells you so much about his character without speaking a word. It's not a wordy film in general but you don't miss out on any details.
It sounds ridiculous even as the one writing it but the film has an ideal premise, arc, and pace. These are all the ingredients that you need to put together correctly for it to come out nice. If you muddle them up too much you get a mess.
I looked up a good representation of the ideal film, and came across this.
From here: http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/the-five-key-turning-points-of-all-successful-movie-scripts.html
As much as part of me would like to take this apart in a scientific manner and fill in this structure from the movie, I'm not going to because I don't have that kind of mental capacity right now.
But, if you're familiar with the movie, you can see how it would fit in there.
This movie came out in 1972 and a main plot point is one of the men being raped.
Like, that's not something they were doing. (Nor are they now, for that matter.) This was kind of a big deal.
There was a moral crisis when they killed the attacker, there was a physical crisis when they almost died on the river, there was a survival crisis when they were fighting to stay alive in multiple ways.
They kind of gloss over the fact that their buddy was violated because they have to work so hard to simply stay alive.
They don't have to figure out how to emotionally support their friend like you would see in a film with females. I feel like the real world is reflected in this, in that a group of males would likely take a life or death situation following the rape of one of their friends over navigating the mental and emotional repercussions of the event. (I'm generalizing. I can't pick apart the entirety of the male psyche in one blog.)
I mean, they all need therapy, but they did what they needed to do to get out of the disaster they were in. They dusted him off, slapped him on the back, and got out of there.
There are still very few films that even have any mention of male rape. The water coolers must have been humming after it came out. OR they were silent. I don't know. I didn't exist yet. I've never seen anything about how the movie was received by the general public at the time.
It won awards, but those aren't representative of what people actually thought about it.
Aside from that, there are all but no special effects. Because there were none, by current standards.
They made a movie about rafting down a river and had to just film the whole damn thing.
Do you know how hard that is?? I don't, but I bet it's hard as hell!
They always say don't make a movie with water or children.
I have a hard time taking a stable selfie sometimes. Let alone anything in a canoe.
Some IMDB knowledge:
So, I guess my point here is: we know Deliverance for the emergence of Burt Reynolds, "Dueling Banjos," and the plethora of jokes and common references, but I don't think it's taken very seriously as a movie. Next time you sit down and watch Deliverance, cause who doesn't do that every once in a while, think about how risky it must have been at the time; think about how almost nobody has made anything similar since then; think about how much they did without all the tools and tricks they have now.
A lot of thought and effort when into making that piece of work and it deserves some appreciation.
(As, I'm sure, does the book. I've never read it and can say nothing about the adaptation from that perspective.)
Long story short, we decided to watch Deliverance. (RIP Burt.)
I guess I should say there will be spoilers if you've never seen the movie.
At first I was sorta confused because I'd never actually heard anyone say they wanted to watch Deliverance.
I surmised that they didn't know what it was famous/infamous for. It had been years since I watched it and I was curious to watch it with others.
On the surface, it's an outdated movie about a guy trip gone wrong. It's a step away from being classic horror. Many would probably put it in that category but I'm not sure I'm sold on that. It will remain in drama/suspense, for me.
Upon further reflection, like the Grinch at Christmas, it's really about a lot more.
There are 4 men; the macho man, the everyman, the thoughtful man, and the softie city guy.
There is a trip; off to the woods for some male bonding and adventure. There is danger and action involved in their activities, but is still all in good fun. (For a little while.)
There are layered relationships; it's hard to tell why they're friends; they question it, even. Some get along better than others. The relationships are balancing and relatively realistic.
There is an unknown element in the hillbillies in the beginning.
The banjo boy tells you so much about his character without speaking a word. It's not a wordy film in general but you don't miss out on any details.
It sounds ridiculous even as the one writing it but the film has an ideal premise, arc, and pace. These are all the ingredients that you need to put together correctly for it to come out nice. If you muddle them up too much you get a mess.
I looked up a good representation of the ideal film, and came across this.
From here: http://www.movieoutline.com/articles/the-five-key-turning-points-of-all-successful-movie-scripts.html
As much as part of me would like to take this apart in a scientific manner and fill in this structure from the movie, I'm not going to because I don't have that kind of mental capacity right now.
But, if you're familiar with the movie, you can see how it would fit in there.
This movie came out in 1972 and a main plot point is one of the men being raped.
Like, that's not something they were doing. (Nor are they now, for that matter.) This was kind of a big deal.
There was a moral crisis when they killed the attacker, there was a physical crisis when they almost died on the river, there was a survival crisis when they were fighting to stay alive in multiple ways.
They kind of gloss over the fact that their buddy was violated because they have to work so hard to simply stay alive.
They don't have to figure out how to emotionally support their friend like you would see in a film with females. I feel like the real world is reflected in this, in that a group of males would likely take a life or death situation following the rape of one of their friends over navigating the mental and emotional repercussions of the event. (I'm generalizing. I can't pick apart the entirety of the male psyche in one blog.)
I mean, they all need therapy, but they did what they needed to do to get out of the disaster they were in. They dusted him off, slapped him on the back, and got out of there.
There are still very few films that even have any mention of male rape. The water coolers must have been humming after it came out. OR they were silent. I don't know. I didn't exist yet. I've never seen anything about how the movie was received by the general public at the time.
It won awards, but those aren't representative of what people actually thought about it.
Aside from that, there are all but no special effects. Because there were none, by current standards.
They made a movie about rafting down a river and had to just film the whole damn thing.
Do you know how hard that is?? I don't, but I bet it's hard as hell!
They always say don't make a movie with water or children.
I have a hard time taking a stable selfie sometimes. Let alone anything in a canoe.
Some IMDB knowledge:
- Burt broke his tailbone when filming the scene where the canoe capsized.
- To save money, the production wasn't insured. John Voight actually climbed the cliff so they didn't have to pay stunt doubles.
- Ned Beatty got thrown out of the boat and almost drowned. An assistant jumped in to save him.
- The toothless hillbilly, is exactly that. He's illiterate and has a stutter. Burt had worked with him in a wild west show. They also used locals as the hill people to save money.
So, I guess my point here is: we know Deliverance for the emergence of Burt Reynolds, "Dueling Banjos," and the plethora of jokes and common references, but I don't think it's taken very seriously as a movie. Next time you sit down and watch Deliverance, cause who doesn't do that every once in a while, think about how risky it must have been at the time; think about how almost nobody has made anything similar since then; think about how much they did without all the tools and tricks they have now.
A lot of thought and effort when into making that piece of work and it deserves some appreciation.
(As, I'm sure, does the book. I've never read it and can say nothing about the adaptation from that perspective.)
No comments:
Post a Comment