Theoretically, in a movie, anyone can die.
There are, of course, cases where the provisional “can” is
not a consideration. They have to die. Why? Because
they died in actual life. I mean, a
Nathan Hale movie, the guy proclaims,
“I regret I have but one life to give for my country.”
His captors go, “Nah, we’ll let you go.”
You can’t do that.
The man has to die. As does
everyone at the Alamo.
ALAMO DEFENDER: “You mind if I just slip out?”
MEXICAN OFFICER: “Okay.”
That’s not going to happen.
A woman dying of
cancer finds redemption in the waning moments of her life.
“There was a spot on the x-ray. You’re fine.”
No.
Those are all guaranteed goners. That’s why I assiduously avoid such
movies. I prefer films where the
protagonists – and I – have at least a chance
of escaping their harrowing experience “death-free.” The thing about movies is, there is always
the possibility
… they won’t make it.
That doesn’t happen in television. With the startling exception of M*A*S*H, in which a departing Henry
Blake’s helicopter is shot down, eliciting the only astonished gasp in my
numerous decades of television viewership, a gasp I never experienced watching
television, before or since.
And that was a comedy!
In TV, you do not “dispatch”
series “regulars.” Including “regulars”,
leaving the series. They did not kill
off the first “Darren” in Bewitched;
they simply replaced him the following season.
(Unless he actually died during the summer hiatus and “Samantha” married
another guy named Darren and they
proceeded with the series as if nothing otherwise was different. I do not believe that was what happened.)
(Writer’s Note:
As I am not sure which way to go here, being lazy and indecisive, I have
decided to go both ways. Trust a professional. The blogatorial “hodge-podge” is egregiously
underrated.)
I am talking, as a canopying “umbrella”, about
predictability. In the context of
“character death expectations”, I prefer predictability the same way I prefer –
and appreciate – boundaries. (See: Yesterday’s post.) Anything that makes me feel safe, I’m for it, living in a world I believe to
be demonstrably the opposite. The world
is, in fact, in my view, so unsafe we
need to continually lie to ourselves so we won’t feel too frightened. “The constitution will protect us from tyrants.” Time will tell about that one, won’t it.
Up till the mid-sixties – with the exception of the
characters who perished on real life, including passengers on the Titanic – “We
got them all back.” – No, you didn’t – movies, from the perspective of the
survival of the lead character, were as reliably predictable as television.
How reliably predictable is that?
In the long-running series Gunsmoke, Matt Dillon was shot numerous times, but when
he lay on the operating table, and an anxiety-filled Chester inquired, “Will he
pull through, Doc?” and the chin-rubbing Doc replied, “I don’t know, Chester” –
I knew. Of course
he would pull through; there was no chance they’d rename the series Chester Goode and continue from there. As the show’s pivotal character, Matt Dillon
would recover so swiftly and totally you’d be hard-pressed to believe he’d been
shot four times in the episode before.
More recently, in Blue
Bloods, in which the backstory includes the murder of a Reagan-family
police detective in the line of duty, there is no chance of any other Reagan family member getting
bumped off. It was like the first dead Reagan was an inoculation,
immunizing the others from a similar terminal outcome. They can get wounded – like Matt Dillon – but
one “dead Reagan” is the fully allotted Blue
Bloods quota. Leaving everyone else conspicuously
in the clear.
What this means is that anyone can watch series like Blue Bloods with the comforting certainty
of, yes, harrowing jeopardy, but no chance whatsoever of a heartbreaking funeral. A Reagan youngster’s in a coma – forget the
“Prayer Circle” – he’s fine.
Ping-ponging back now to movies, up till the sixties, the
hero, although threatened with extinction, never ever got killed. In a
reliable template, not once was the “Good Guy” dead at the end of the
picture. Which, since the hero was also
an unwavering “Champion of Justice”, taught the bolstering lesson that if I assiduously
did the right thing I was never going to die.
Didn’t it?
Forget it. I felt that connection, and that’s all
that matters.
What is today’s quasi-nonsense ultimately about?
It’s about this.
We have all heard, in the arena of entertainment, about “the
willing suspension of disbelief.” Jason
Bourne leaps from a building, experiencing less physical damage than I receive,
climbing down from a stepladder (and painfully turning my ankle.)
The magician sawing his lovely “assistant” in half? That too is “suspension of disbelief.” (Otherwise, “That’s murder, isn’t it?”) In this recognized process, we realistically
don’t buy it, but we deliberately switch off our “No way!”
There is also, however, the unjustly less publicized (and
less mellifluous) “Suspension of Belief.”
Which functions successfully thusly.
We are aware the lead characters in (network) TV shows and old movies
are safely protected from “termination.”
But, while we are watching, we pretend complicitly that they aren’t.
In that way, we enjoy the “thrill ride” of danger with the secret
certainty that there actually isn’t
any.
Perhaps that’s why I enjoy television more than I like
movies. Nobody you’re rooting for dies on
a TV series. (Not counting the
“streaming” series I don’t watch.) But
there is an ingrained ambiguity as to whether they will in the movies. A
predicament sure to elevate my already borderline-high blood pressure.
In films, the character walks down a dark alley and, at
least figuratively, the frightened ticket buyer stands perilously by their
side.
What if they kill me
by mistake?
Some people enjoy the bracing relief of Disneyland’s “Big Thunder Mountain Railroad” ride after its
over.
Others judiciously pass on the “Big Thunder Mountain
Railroad” experience, preferring the “Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs” ride
instead.
In the end, it’s about what you can handle.
Which, frankly for some
of us, includes…
Earl,
ReplyDeleteTwo things. Aren't they killing off the wife of that guy in that sitcom and replacing the actress with Leah Remini, the male actor's old spouse in a former series, to boost ratings and interest? (You can tell that I'm not that interested, personally, since I can't be bothered to look up the details which would make this a more accurate question....but, as one 'oldie' to another...you know what I mean, right?)
Another thing. Do you remember back when, in that terrific series, "Homicide:Life on (in?) the Streets", they decided to try to boost their ratings by wiping out half the stellar cast in one fell swoop in a formerly unheard of event of violence, in an otherwise, basically chatty show?
I forget what you were talking about exactly, but I think this pertains, somehow.......
Oh..Earl...that was me. I forgot to put in my name, I was so fascinated by picking which boxes had apartment buildings in the Captcha!
ReplyDeleteYour musings on actor-switching reminded me of this most audacious example.
ReplyDeleteOn the Burns and Allen show, Fred C. Clark, the actor playing Harry Morton, Burns’ neighbour, was released from his contract with the TV show to do a Broadway play in New York.
In the middle of the show, in a scene featuring Gracie and “Harry”, George interrupted the proceedings to explain to the audience that Clark would be leaving the show, and that from now on, Larry Keating will be playing the part of Harry Morton.
Clark left the Stage, Keating entered, George left and the scene continued.
Perhaps I should explain, that one of the conventions of the Burns and Allen show was that George often addressed the audience to comment on what was going on in the story, but this was really out of the box.
Like I said.
Audacious.
Then there's the "Superhero Comics" practice of routinely bringing key characters back from the dead, transferred to Superhero Movies when the first Avengers movie killed off non-super Agent Coulson but reincarnated him for the TV spin-off "Agents of SHIELD".
ReplyDeleteBut Ken Levine (not the video game guy but who wrote sitcoms, did sportscasting and everything else) has addressed this issue since he was there when MASH killed off Henry Blake and scrupulously avoided any other casualties among departing cast. And he was working on Cheers when they killed off Jay Thomas' character, an ex-hockey player, in a freak Zamboni accident. Which raises the other Most Famous Death on a Sitcom, the Mary Tyler Moore killing of Chuckles the Clown which ended up focusing on "inappropriate laughter". If a sitcom is going to kill off a regular character, they'd better do it in a funny way.