What You Thought You Saw

In yesterday's Washington Post, film critic Stephen Hunter wrote a lengthy article in response to the outpouring of criticism of his negative review of the movie "300," the comic book-based, largely computer-generated recreation of the Battle of Thermopylae in 480 B.C. I didn't read his original review, but yesterday's article, which considered how "300" might have been better made by famous director Fred Zinnemann ("High Noon," "A Man for All Seasons," "From Here to Eternity") was a brilliant examination of what makes a great film...and what today's audiences seem to want.

The gift of computer generation has been the ability to get the impossible on film. If you saw the spectacle of a quarter-million screaming orcs and trolls besieging the city of Minas Tirith in "The Return of the King," you know what I mean. Even a director as great as Fred Zinnemann (or as over-the-top as Dino de Laurentis) would have had a hard time recruiting, paying, and directing a quarter-million extras. Computer generation can help make great epic drama and mind-blowing science fiction, but if the heart of the film - great acting guided by sure-handed directing - isn't there, the film falls flat. It's all spectacle, no heart. One of the greatest movies of all time, "High Noon," had no computer generated imagery - just the relentless tick of the clock counting down the minutes until sheriff Gary Cooper, abandoned by the people of the town he had sworn to protect, had to face vicious killer Frank Miller alone in a hot, dusty street. For my money, there's never been as suspenseful and gut-wrenching film...and there's not a drop of blood in it.

That's why I like watching recent films, but don't really enjoy them. In many ways, I prefer reading and listening to old-time radio dramas to watching movies, because they let your imagination work. What you think you see is often much more entertaining than what's shoved into your eyes in all its computer-generated glory. Alfred Hitchcock understood this. Fred Zinnemann understood this. And even as unabashedly gory a horror story writer as Stephen King understands it (read the cogent analysis in his books Danse Macabre and On Writing).

One of the most horrifying moments I ever experienced in print, radio, or film came from Stephen King's novel "The Shining." In a minimally-written scene, caretaker Jack Torrance checks out the hotel room in which his son claims to have seen a dead woman floating in the bathtub. He enters the room and walks to the bathroom, where the tub is hidden behind a drawn shower curtain. He pauses a moment, then draws the curtain back to see - nothing. He pulls the curtain closed, turns, and walks out of the bathroom. As he reaches for the doorknob to leave the room, from the bathroom behind him, he hears the shiiinnnggg of the shower curtain being drawn back...and he refuses to turn to look. He leaves the room, closes and locks the door behind him, then stands in the hallway and watches the knob of the locked door slowly turn, left and right, left and right...

Why is this scene so frightening? Because of what's not shown. King lets your imagination fill in the blank. What's behind the door? What does your mind tell you? Chances are, what you can imagine is much worse than what King could write, or a director could put on film.

You may well disagree with me, particularly if you're of an age when you've always had special effects and computer-generated imagery. But for me, What You Thought You Saw will always be more interesting than what's handed to you on a visual platter.

Have a good day. Enjoy the movies, but try reading or listening to radio drama, too. I think you may find you agree with me.

More thoughts tomorrow.

Bilbo