My main problem is that it's a bit rich for a conservative writer to be joining in on the typical progressive critic dissing of Spielberg for sentimentality, but I reckon that's what this guy is doing.
His comments on ET go particularly astray:
In E.T., the cuddly, barely articulate alien with the glowing heart is a kind of apotheosis of romanticized childhood; it functions as a Spielbergian critique of rationalistic adults who have forgotten how to love and feel.
Er, ET is from an advanced civilisation that has perfected interstellar travel: that doesn't strike me as a very child-like thing. He also appears to communicates telepathically with his kin: isn't that the obvious reason he's "inarticulate" with Earthlings?
E.T. doesn’t speak much because he is Spielberg’s Rousseauan icon of pre-linguistic innocence; Eleven doesn’t speak much because she has been traumatized.Or - as I said - his species is telepathic. He's more likely post-linguistic, not "pre-linguistic".
E.T.’s lack of speech reflects this innocence; Eleven’s lack of speech indicates a violation of her innocence.
Oh for goodness sake, see above.
Look, I'll grant you that the film lets Gertie, in particular, perceive ET as child-like and in that sense "innocent". But the older kids soon learn they are dealing with something very smart and advanced.
Unlike the scientists in E.T., the adults in Stranger Things don’t characteristically lack feeling or love; they either lack the knowledge of how to act on their love appropriately or the will to do so.OK, the comment about the scientists in ET is just completely wrong!
One of the great things about the film is the way the screenplay gradually opens up the audience's perspective of what is going on with the adults stalking ET, from an initially mysterious and somewhat malevolent appearance, to an understanding that they are actually well intentioned. It's made clear that Elliott has trouble seeing this due to his child's level limited perception. No one in the film ends up evil* - there are misunderstandings on both sides, but the film is a lesson in being generous when interpreting the motives and actions of others. That's what makes it such a positive story.
That the scientists don't lack feeling is clear from the specific, gentle scene between "Keys" (the Peter Coyote character, who leads the alien search team) and Elliott, in which the adult explains that finding ET is the fulfilment of a life long dream for him, too. That scene, together with all the effort put in to saving the alien's life, shows us the scientists are good, loving, and sad when they can't revive their patient.
At the same time, we don't begrudge Elliott never really "getting" that the adults are only trying to help - he's the one with the telepathic connection to the alien and the knowledge that the spaceship is returning; his lack of trust that the adults would believe his explanation of what needs to be done is understandable from his perspective.
The film is great, and emotionally realistic, because the child hero remains psychologically a child throughout. Sure, it feels at the end like it will be a key maturing event for him, especially when he looks back on it as he grows up, but he doesn't ever stop "acting his age" in the film. Now that I think about it, it shares this feature with To Kill a Mockingbird - a smart kid getting her perceptions of adult life and motives opened up by events.
As for Stranger Things: one of the least satisfactory things was the lack of any explanation of emotional coldness of the research scientists as to what they were doing to Eleven. It needed more emotional realism in that respect, and in that way, I would say that the lack of "sentimentality" in that part of the story was a fault, not a strength.
In any event, I look forward to the next season.
* Some reader might point out the police/security team pulling guns on the escaping kids; but hey, that's just realism for gun happy America. It's not clear they would ever have shot...
No comments:
Post a Comment