One would think that a theme park ride would only offer so
many storylines but the folks at Walt Disney Studios evidently disagree and as
we look down on what will be the fifth instalment of ‘The Pirates of the
Caribbean’ franchise it seems only fitting to take a look back on the franchise
so far. Wish me luck, I may not make it all the way through.
It must have come as a shock to everyone involved when that
first film became the hit it did in 2003. Swashbuckling and pirate stories were
not exactly a hot commodity at the time, but when ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’
opened it held a special kind of feeling that was radically different from any
other major studio picture at the time. It was also significant in that it was
the first film from Walt Disney to be rated PG-13 by the MPAA. Re-watching it
today, with the mistakes of the sequels being so present in my mind, it was
frankly astonishing how excellent that first film was. Critics will often
praise a genre film for “knowing what it is” which is essentially a code phrase
for being tonally consistent which is exactly what ‘Curse of the Black Pearl’
is. There is an array of action, fantasy, adventure, humour and dare I say some
horror-esque elements but they all blend together brilliantly. Under the
direction of Gore Verbinski the film has a finely crafted feel to it but also a
sense of pulsating energy that permeates every frame.
What is more impressive still is the character work. In an
odd way it reminds me of James Gunn’s recent films (and not just because Zoe
Saldana is in it) in that every character has some sort of arc, development or
running theme. Even minor characters get some sort of cathartic moment to an
aspect of their personality that was earlier established and even though there
is still a lot going on in regards to backstories and exposition it all feels
intrinsically linked to the main focus of the film, as well as being delivered
in a way that feels natural to the plot’s progression. Even the CGI holds up
remarkably well, particularly in a climactic action sequence where the actors
are repeatedly and seamlessly switched out with CGI doubles.
The real strong point though is the cast who are all
terrific in their roles. Orlando Bloom and Keira Knightly share good on screen
chemistry that can carry the emotional crux of the movie. It’s great to see
Geoffrey Rush being so fully committed to the role as the villainous Barbossa,
bringing great charisma and menace to the part. But if we’re talking charisma
you know where this is going. Johnny Depp received an Oscar nomination for his
role as Captain Jack Sparrow and honestly, taking this movie alone it’s not at
all surprising. Depp so many distinct nuances and great physical traits to the
character that he is instantly burned into your memory. Yes it’s a caricature
but it’s a caricature done with such commitment and flawlessness that you have
to applaud.
Sadly, like any caricature though, when it’s overused it can
go from charming to annoying in a matter of minutes. That is one of the many
problems with the higher budget sequel ‘Dead Man’s Chest’. That being said
there is a lot to like in this mess of a film. It loses that tonal consistency
that made the first one so enjoyable and the pacing and structure of the film
is so convoluted that it feels exhausting to sit through it. Whereas you could
argue Depp was just part of an ensemble in the first he seems to be thrust
forward and centre here (I’ll elaborate later on why that is such a problem as
it only gets worse as the films progress). The problem is that each plot thread
and sequence feels enjoyable enough, but hardly any of them feel relevant to
the main story of the movie, which is….I’m honestly not that sure. Take the
reunion of Jack and Will, which is established via a lengthy sub-plot about
cannibal tribes and false gods that feels fun at first but is treated with such
seriousness and goes on for so long that it detracts from the main movie. But
as I said, there’s still a lot to enjoy especially as Verbinski’s direction is
still superb and the cinematography in particular feels like a significant
improvement upon the first. Some of the set pieces are especially inspired,
such as the three way duel. Not only is it brilliantly staged and orchestrated
but every character involved has an established and relatable motivation, and
the sequence itself escalates with such brilliant ridiculousness that just when
you think it’s reached its height it goes on even more and is great for it. But
then you reach the end of it, exhilarated and exhausted, and you realise
there’s still half an hour of the movie left and you don’t have the energy to
care.
Mind you, all of this is nothing compared to what is next.
When people ask about the most confusing movies ever made they recall the work
of David Lynch or Ingmar Bergman. I however, point to ‘Pirates of the
Caribbean: At World’s End’. It seems that in the process of making these films
someone forgot to tell the creative team that their movie isn’t ‘Lord of the
Rings’. It’s not based on one of the most acclaimed works of fiction of the
20th century, it is based on a theme park ride. As I said before, the first
movie still had a lot going on but it was all with the intent of going towards
a single goal. You could sum up the plot in a few sentences and the rest was
just there to enrich the characters and world. To this day I still have no idea
what the plot of ‘At World’s End’. It’s just minute after minute of contrived
plot points, overly complicated mythology and an infuriating amount of rules
and regulation governing this supposed pirate fantasy. And it all goes NOWHERE,
I mean literally nothing has any bearing or relevance to the ultimate plot. The
pirate brethren, pieces of eight, detour to Shanghai, weird multiple
personalities of Johnny Depp, something to do with an East India Trading
Company and another ship of undead monsters, it all amounts to jack-shit. There
are entire subplots of this movie that I had completely erased from my memory,
subplots that take up a good half hour of the films gargantuan runtime. One
scene isn’t just tonally inconsistent from another, it’s on an entirely different
astral plane. Character development and motivations are almost as nonsensical
as the actual character actions, with everyone betraying everyone else despite
the fact that the previous movies led me to believe that they actually had some
mild affection for one another, or at least enough not to sell them down the
river when it’s convenient. What was even up with that whole Calypso thing? Was
all that just so you could get a cool set piece at the end of your movie? You
know there is such a thing as editing right?
So, I decided to bail on that before I drifted into
insanity. So four years later Jack Sparrow returned yet again with ‘On Stranger
Tides’ which at the very least manages to go back to basics. No more
complicated squid monsters and sea Goddess’, just Jack and some fine adventure.
Except it kind of sucks. By no means is there anything inherently wrong with ‘On
Stranger Tides’ but it feels so completely devoid of that innovation and
distinct charm that made the first film so enjoyable. The plot, action and
general tone of the movie just all feel flat and uninspired. I think a lot of
that is due to the character dynamic. As I stated earlier Jack Sparrow simply
does not work when he isn’t part of an ensemble. For these films to succeed
they rely on his antics and charisma being ever present throughout the story,
which doesn’t exactly lend itself to character depth or dramatic range. He
needs to stay the same throughout because any development would risk changing
his character. In the first film we had Bloom and Knightly to provide the
emotional arc of the movie whilst Jack reacted to them whilst setting the plot
in motion. Sparrow is the maverick to the straight man that is the rest of the
world. When you try to make a caricature the focus of your movie it doesn’t matter
how well Depp plays him, he’s still a caricature. Which brings us up to date
and up to the next one. Learn from your mistakes guys.
No comments:
Post a Comment