[As if I need to say it:  Warning: long post]

Ok, I'm back.  I watched The Princess Bride for the first time possibly since it came out, and listened to the [Redacted]/WAYDM commentary to get a sense of what people really like about it.  I suppose I should begin by apologizing to anyone who sunk their life savings into popcorn futures, as I didn't hate it as violently as I did originally.  (Seeing it in the comfort of my own solitude rather than with a bunch of people who all thought it was the greatest thing ever probably helped.)  However, it didn't really work for me, and there are certainly chunks of it I do find really annoying.  A lot of it I think is just I like oysters and you like snails (and then there's Olivier, who likes both).  However, I do have this sense that, in the abstract, there is a problem with what it's trying to do, so in the interests of trying to provide value for money, I'll try to articulate it at the end.
 
So particularly Brian in the commentary refers to the line that that the film is walking between being serious and being a parody.  And he, and presumably others who really like it, feels that it's successful in doing that.  For me, though, the main reason why it doesn't work is that I didn't feel like either the serious part or the parody part worked. 

So, looking at it first as an attempt to tell a sincere adventure story, for me it's generally too knowing and too (deliberately) cliched/sabotaged storywise to be successful.  For example, I don't really buy the argument that just because it's a fairy tale we're off the hook and get to just go "yeah, true love.  Ok."; that's part of the "boring bit" that we're going to leave out, and therefore the film doesn't need to make any effort whatsoever.  So as a result most of the scenes between Wesley and Buttercup for me play out as a notch above Attack of the Clones (and maybe not even that).  I don't find their relationship remotely plausible and so I don't have anything invested in it and couldn't care less about them as characters.  A surely related aspect of this is that I also think that Robin Wright Penn is terrible and has no chemistry whatsoever with Cary Elwes.  (You may say "well that's kind of the point because it's a parody", and I'll come to that in a second, but I think these are fair things to expect from the point of view of taking the story seriously.) 

To kind of illustrate what I think the film should have been doing, and what for me does work, I'd point to Mandy Patinkin's character.  His is a 100% cliched revenge narrative, but the film makes an effort by giving him that little speech to Wesley. It's nicely written, it's well-executed, it takes two seconds, and that's all we need to get on board with his role in the narrative.  But there's nothing equivalent for, say, Buttercup.

On the villain side of things, nothing really works for me.  Chris Sarandon is awful -- very (post-)modern and knowing in his performance, in addition to seeming bored and half-assed.  He's certainly not remotely menacing.  Wallace Shawn takes me out of the story simply by being Wallace Shawn.  The best one by far is Christopher Guest, and I think that's because he's the one who's really allowed by the script and/or director to play it straight.

So the 'straight' part didn't work for me, but then the 'parody' part didn't either.  Part of my problem I think is that, as a parody, I'm not sure I get what the point is supposed to be.  If it's just that we're gonna stand around and point at fairy tales and laugh at them for being cliched, that seems pretty feeble. I think I realized that when I was about 10. 

And then a lot of the other comedy bits kind of just fell flat for me, though this is obviously very much a personal taste thing.  The film clearly thinks that it's being clever, and often takes up a lot of time doing it, and that just annoyed me.  So the running gags grate from moment one.  Things like the whole convoluted bit about which glass is poisoned wears out its welcome very quickly, the Billy Crystal cameo is tedious, etc. 

Actually, having said that, it could be that the Billy Crystal cameo is a kind of clever double-bluff.  We're heading to the part of the cliche where we go to the old crone with magical powers, except, surprise!, the magical crone is an old Jewish guy. How droll.  So we're laughing at fairy tales for being a hoary old load of bollocks, but nothing could really be more of a cliche than Billy Crystal's character.  Mel Brooks was doing that schtick with Rob Reiner's dad in the 50's (see the 2000 Year Old Man), and I'm sure it goes back earlier than that.  If it was some kind of meta-double-bluff though, deliberately psuedo-subverting a cliche with something that was, in its way, just as much of a cliche, then that might actually be kind of witty. But I'm not sure that that's what's going on, or that that's why most people think that Billy Crystal's character is hilarious.
   
I do think the film really does want to have it both ways.  It wants to be both a genuine fairy tale adventure and also a parody of the genre.  The question though is whether that's actually a coherent thing to try to do, and I'm not sure that it is.  So something like The Adventures of Robin Hood is a genuine adventure story. It may rely on cliched elements or not be well-executed in some respect or other, but it is sincere with respect to those elements and to its core narrative. 

Something like Airplane! on the other hand is a parody.  We're precisely not supposed to be invested in the suspense/distress of the stricken airliner, for example.  The film relates to those aspects of the narrative in a way that's not sincere or genuine.  And it's precisely the way in which this lack of sincerity is manifested that makes the film funny (for those people who find the film funny).  In other words, you can be watching Airplane! and thinking "that's not funny", but if you're watching Airplane! and thinking "gosh, I hope that little girl's heart transplant goes OK", then you've misunderstood what's going on.

So anyway, if I were trying to take it beyond "yeah, just nothing about it really worked for me", in which case there's nothing really further to say, and into "there is actually something 'objectively' wrong with the film", that's what I'd go with.  To the extent that the film is supposed to be a parody, the purpose of the film doesn't derive from the audience's engagement with the narrative (so there's no issue about, for example, whether Wesley and Buttercup's relationship makes sense or is believable).  But that's then incompatible with the film being 'serious' or 'sincere', because the point of the film then is the audience's connection with those things (even if that doesn't happen in a particular film because of incompetence or poor execution or what have you). So it can't be then that the film is really walking a line between these two things, since they're mutually exclusive, and to the extent that it's trying, it's incoherent/at cross purposes with itself.

I'd disagree about a parody having an inherent lack of concern for the characters. Look at the Hitchhiker's novel—yes, they're parodies of SF novels, but you genuinely care about Arthur and Ford and all the rest of them by the end. The same with Galaxy Quest and its crew members.

Sorry, Teague, not quite sure I'm following you.  Of the two, I think The Princess Bride is a parody, rather than a satire, though it's true that the purpose of a parody is usually to satirize its object.  I guess that would then go back to the "can't have it both ways" problem.  Either you're holding up your subject to ridicule and scorn or you're not.    (Did that in any way address anything that you had in mind?)

Yeah, that's an interesting point.  I hadn't really been thinking about the character issue.  I was thinking of the girl with the heart transplant insofar as it's part of the "airline in jeopardy" narrative.  And you're certainly right in the sense that we're supposed to care in Airplane! about Robert Hays and Julie Haggerty, and their relationship, otherwise the film doesn't work. 

I guess then the problem with The Princess Bride is more specifically that it's trying to be such a broad parody of the fairy tale/adventure genre as such, and therefore the stuff that it chooses to hold up to ridicule is stuff which is absolutely fundamental to the story and the characters. ("True love", for example, is theoretically what's driving the whole narrative.)  So it couldn't possibly be trying to walk a line between being a parody and being sincere, because there's basically nothing meaningful left for the film to be sincere about.

You raise interesting points and while I don't agree with them, I see your point. It raises a question for me though, regarding the characters. And please bear in mind this is a thought experiment not an attack on you or your point

Goldman created "Princess Bride" as a "fairy tale with the boring parts cut out." So, the narrative through line of "true love" is not explained beyond "greatest thing in the world." So, if the boring stuff is cut out, and we don't see the relationship develop but are just told what is because the relationship stuff is "boring" should we not just accept Wesley's and Buttercup's relationship being in love?

Does this reflect on the movie, or more broadly, on fairy tale love stories in general (i.e. every Disney movie ever)? In other words, the fact that the romance in "The Princess Bride" doesn't work for some people indicate a flaw in the movie or in relationships like that across the genre?

It's called 'paying homage'. Galaxy Quest is certainly a loving parody of Star Trek and its kin. A lot of fan films fall into this category too.

Sorry, poor choice of syntax there.  What I meant was that, as a Star Trek fan for going on 40 years, and as a science-fiction fan in general, how is it possible that I haven't seen Galaxy Quest?  Not "how is it possible that Galaxy Quest could be a parody?".  I'm sure it's great.  How long is the [Redacted]/WAYDM commentary?  If it's around 2h20, that'll cover the drive to Edinburgh I gotta do on Sunday night, so I could watch the film this weekend. 

However, on the subject of loving parodies, that's I'm sure part of what bugs me about The Princess Bride too.  I don't get the sense that it's a loving parody, more of a "looking down your nose" kind of parody.  I'm not really sure why that is.  Maybe it's tied up with that my feeling that the film isn't in general very sincere.  I'll have a thought.

Well, that was more to my point. Isn't this just a stripped down, almost boy's version, of a typical Disney movie?

If you don't accept the love stories of those movies, then Princess Bride may be more difficult to accept. However, an understanding of love stories both from the Middle Ages as well as concepts of love throughout human history can aid in love stories like this, Attack of the Clones and some others.

Well put. I certainly agree that "true love" stories go with the idea of destiny, which is a trope that I have no problem with, personally. Regardless of your view, Princess Bride goes for the destiny idea very strongly in the romance department. So, I take that, as you say, as the macguffin, and move on from there.

Princess Bride is an oddity, simply because it doesn't fit in to one set box. Is it a parody? Yes, in its way, because it gives some silly nods towards fairy tale tropes. Is it a good story? To me, yes. It sets up the world, the rules of the world, and goes along for the ride. The characters are truly characters, with motivations, desires and goals. The bad guys are particularly good at this, subverting the trope of bad guys being evil for evil sake.

However, it is possible to not be invested in any of these characters because the movie assumes you accept all of these unspoken rules about them. If there isn't that investment, then movie can be shallow, trite and a bit predictable.

While I enjoy this film, I certainly understand the point of not liking it.

Trey might be better at explaining it than I, but I will do my best.

Warning: longish post ahead:

The characters in Princess Bride are indeed characters, but are built upon many archetypes or archetypical stories common to fairy stories. Tales of revenge for a past wrong, true love (already touched on that one), evil ruler and lackey. These are all common in fairy stories. Because of that fact, there are unspoken rules about them, just by virtue of the archetype.

What makes Princess Bride more successful is the fact that it takes those archetypes and builds upon them, creating characters, which stories and movies should do. But, that doesn't change the fact that Prince Humperdinck is still a still an archetypical bad guy with bad guy motivations to do evil things. The fact that the movie shows his motivations, eventually, does not change the fact that he is the archetypical bad guy, doing bad things.

Same thing with Count Rugen. He is a sadist to the extreme as well as Humperdinck's lackey. Do we need to know more than this? Do we need to know more than he killed Indigo's father? Not really, because of the archetype of the revenge story.

Honestly, Wesley and Buttercup are probably the most archetypical characters in the story. He is the "prince in disguise." No, he isn't a prince but he does disguise himself to test her love for him. Buttercup, while more proactive than many damsels in distress, still falls in to this archetype, especially towards the end of the movie. She is only partially proactive in her escape, with Wesley appearing in the nick of time to save her (from herself).

Like I said, there isn't anything wrong with the tropes and archetypes. These factors have shaped human story telling for a long time. But, this film takes those archetypes as building materials, but assumes the audience knows the rules of them while continuing on. Indigo is going to get revenge-we know that story. Wesley will save his love-we know that story, etc, etc.

Does the movie take those ideas and subvert them at times? Yes, it does and successfully. That doesn't change the fact that it uses those rules.

Last edited by fireproof78 (2013-11-02 03:36:00)

Not so much a question... but a "Wait a darn minute, did I just see the MGM production card on the new Robocop??" Seriously!

Just to try and summarize a response to the last couple of posts from fireproof and BDA, to try to further express what didn't work for me in the context of their very clear articulation of some of the issues:  of course The Princess Bride is consciously appealing to all manner of tropes/archetypes relating to fairy stories.  And where the film builds on them and creates characters, in fireproof's words, I don't have a problem.  (As I've said earlier, I think it does successfully do this in the case of Inigo Montoya's perfectly archetypical revenge motivation, for example.)

For me, though, it just doesn't do that in the case of Wesley and Buttercup and I feel like it needs to.  Why?  Because we spend a lot of time with them.  Something important to remember about fairy tales is that typically the "true love" spends most of the time offscreen.  The hero hardly, if ever, interacts with her, perhaps seeing her at a distance and falling in love, and then, having overcome obstacles, they come together at the end.  That's certainly the trope from medieval literature.  The beloved is really an unreal thing, and is often characterized in unreal terms ('an angel', etc.).  So it's fine that "true love" or "destiny" in that context is also diffuse and unreal.  The story as such isn't really about them, it's about the hero.

But Robin Wright Penn is in a lot of this movie, and they're together for a lot of this movie.  So I feel like I'm entitled to see some kind of development or progression.  And what kind of hacks me off is that I feel like the movie is explicitly saying to me "I don't have to, because archetype."  I don't buy that, so I feel like my time is being wasted. 

Seriously, the love story in Attack of the Clones is scorned and reviled as a monumentally incompetent piece of writing, but more or less nobody's got a problem with The Princess Bride.  And I don't see that they're conceptually that different, precisely because The Princess Bride, while trying to justify its ungroundedness through the "true love" trope, is actually not adhering to what makes it reasonable to do that (the unreality of the beloved in general).  We just spend too much time with Robin Wright Penn in my opinion for the film not to move beyond just the archetype.  And I call bullshit when the film says it doesn't have to. 

________________________________________

On a sort of related note, right before I went to sleep I saw BDA's post about The Princess Bride as a high concept film and the idea that, because we're filtering the story through Fred Willard's character, that countered various potential narrative and dramatic objections.

I'm not sure that we actually do let films off the hook that way (on the basis of it being high concept) and as I was drifting off I had this vision of an alternate version of Transformers 2, where a scene starts with the characters actually planning to do something reasonable, and then we abruptly cut to Peter Falk, reading a story to Plinkett, who's in bed, and he says "Fuck that shit about people doing stuff that makes sense.  I wanna hear about Megan Fox's ass." And we cut back to yet another motorcycle repair job.  It's not clear to me that that objectively makes the film better.

Honestly I wouldn't even say it's a comedy. It's absurdist, and bizarre. But a lot of the time it can be pretty freaking dark. There is a lot of humour in it, but I think calling it a "Comedy" is pinning it in a hole it doesn't deserve.

/currentlyrelisteningtoRestaurantAtTheEndOfTheUniverseforthehundredthtime