Appetite for Deconstruction

Mike invites old friend and comic enthusiast Tony Wolf in to debate the merits of the movie Scott Pilgrim vs. the World – hokey and two-dimensional or a breath of fresh filmmaking air?

Let the battle begin!!

Point: Tony

Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is beloved by fans of Bryan Lee O’Malley’s innovative, Nintendo-fueled, genre-creating graphic novel series. That much is certain. And I count myself among those fans; having been converted around Vol. 2 of the 6-volume series. At first, after seeing ads for Vol. 1 in the pages of Oni Comics (a terrific indie comics label), I dismissed it as ‘another hipster/slacker soap opera.’ A friend at my local comic store convinced me to give it a try. I was instantly converted.

And like many geeky fans, I was delighted to hear that Edgar Wright (Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz) was directing the film version. Michael Cera’s casting had me hesitant at first, but I figured it would work out. And I believe it did.

Wright’s frenetic ‘video game-hipster-romantic comedy’ is definitely wildly fun, innovative filmmaking. And it’s a blast if you’re a geek… you get all the references and love the anarchic comedic sense that Wright brings to the table. I saw it at a midnight showing, opening night (of course), and was delighted to hear that two young women behind me (who clearly had never read the graphic novels and were giving audible play-by-play commentary about their emotional reactions throughout the film, in a fun way) were dazzled by it. They kept saying things like ‘This is dope! I wanna see what happens to him! This movie is *crazy*!!’ And yes, Virginia, this movie is crazy. Wonderfully crazy.

Sobering news, then, to see the box office returns. Scott Pilgrim seemed to get his butt roundly defeated by the evil ex-boyfriends known as The Expendables. I feared this might happen, as it did with Kick-Ass – another indie-sensibility, anarchy-filled crazy comic book movie which was also just as innovative and terrific as Scott Pilgrim. But it’s a niche, and only fans seemed to love Kick-Ass. It’s recouping in DVD sales what it didn’t make at the box office, and a Kick-Ass sequel (both in the comics & at the movies) is inevitable.

However, although I loved Scott Pilgrim, I’m aware that it may not be for everyone, and even that it might not stand up to repeated viewings for anyone other than the die-hard fans. Mike Sergott invited me to a roundtable discussion of two to discuss the finer points. Mike, what do you think, as someone who has never read the Scott Pilgrim comics series?

Counterpoint: Mike

Scott Pilgrim is a really tough one to critique – which is precisely why I wanted to provide more than one take (especially a comic aficionado such as you, Tony). On the one hand, it’s unique and imaginative – hardly the same old, flat drivel my multiplex tends to spew at me on any given Friday. It’s fast paced and frenetic – and while I compare a lot of movies like a roller coaster, this one was more like a carnival Tilt-A-Whirl: dizzyingly fast paced, with all sorts of lights and buzzers and loud music coming at you with reckless abandon.

In other words, certainly not boring.

That said, Scott Pilgrim ended up being hard to like (you can read my official review here)… and for me, provided yet another example of why comic books/ graphic novels are so difficult to make into engaging movies.

First of all, the characters aren’t all that likeable. Ramona follows in a long line of cold, unattainable bitches with no apparent redeeming value whatsoever – and yet the entire universe is smitten with them. Pilgrim isn’t much better. He’s a pathetic schlub who borders on creepy in dating the under-aged and inexplicably awestruck Knives Chau (though I do concede that is the coolest name ever).

But that’s fine. I’m all about bitches and schlubs, if they make me either care about them or want to get further at the core of why they’re the way they are. Take Enid – the glum and anti-everything main character at the center of Daniel Clowes’ Ghost World… or the uber-curmudgeon Harvey Pekar in American Splendor. I loved both of those characters.

[*By the way, on your show, I heard you refer to Pilgrim as a sort of “Ghost World 2010.” Blasphemy, sir… blasphemy!!]

Here, the two characters don’t bring anything out of each other – there’s no chemistry. No reason for them to be together. So it’s no surprise that during the finale (and I’ll do my best not to give anything away here), you don’t feel any emotional impact. Personally, I didn’t know how I wanted it to end… and I get the feeling the movie didn’t either. But I won’t comment on it any further else spoil things…

I feel like Edgar Wright considered the characters secondary. Maybe he assumed we (the audience) were all fan-boys and -girls, already having digested the six volumes of source material and filling in character motivation and backgrounds on our own to supplement what was lacking on screen. Or maybe he was just more preoccupied in digitally adding the words “DING DONG” every time someone pressed the doorbell. Or making zippy cuts back and forth, trying to throw my attention span like a mechanical bull.

Which gets me to my second point: the movie is jammed together pretty hard. Six volumes is a LOT to condense into a two-hour movie. Couple that with the repetitive storyline – fight evil ex, find Ramona, feel insecure, repeat – and you feel you’re getting hit over the head more times than Matthew Patel in the first battle.

I kept feeling this would’ve made a cool TV miniseries – where you have time to breathe in between, watch Scott develop as a person, see how his relationship feels, get to know him a little more, wait for the next baddie to jump out from the next panel, etc.

Okay, one more point before I turn it back over to you, Tony. I know you also said on your show that a good portion of the movie was taken verbatim from the comic. This, to me, is the ultimate pitfall of the graphic novel-to-screen adaptation. It’s what sunk films like Sin City, The Watchmen and V for Vendetta. You’re not adding depth to a two dimensional story with two-dimensional characters by simply lifting images and words off the page. You can’t be afraid to trim or alter things and add depth to the heart of the story. For example, Knives seems like a nice enough girl and has a cool name. And while I’m sure she was an integral part of the comic, you could lift her right out of this movie and (save for about two minutes) it would have no impact whatsoever. The same with Scott’s sister (an utter waste of Anna Kendrick’s talent) and that weird girl with glasses who kept cursing at Scott.

Add it all up and unlike the girls sitting in the theater with you, I found Scott Pilgrim neither drop nor all that careaboutable.  

Over to you.

Point: Tony

I feel it’s valid to say (as many have) that 7 evil ex-boyfriends (plus some ancillary fights) could be too much to fit into one feature film. And many have commented on the film’s treatment of the chemistry between Scott & Ramona (why are they a good match? why do they like each other so much? Ramona is often inscrutable, etc.), and that’s valid as well…. the thing is, in the comics, that’s pretty much how Ramona is. If anything, she’s more of a fickle, neurotic and messed-up hot girl/sexy hipster girl in the graphic novels than in the movie!

Let’s be honest, though – how many of us haven’t known girls just like Ramona? Mary Elizabeth Winstead, who played Ramona in the film, did say that she knew Ramona sometimes comes off as unlikable and doesn’t say much about herself or her motivations. She basically said she had to channel the plight of many girls that guys make a fuss over and the girl doesn’t particularly invite the fuss or have a dynamic style that attracts the fuss, but the girl nevertheless has to *deal* with the fuss.

And who among us hasn’t known a Scott? Who among us hasn’t seen a clueless guy who, despite his own dorkiness, somehow stumbles into being a kind of player with the ladies and has to learn to see past his own immediate needs and selfish inclinations?

As for Scott not being that likeable – his flaws and selfishness make him more real than most movie heroes. Thus, his character arc is about getting a clue and learning to think beyond himself. He is only 23-24, after all (I forget which age he is; forgive me, SP fans).

Anna Kendrick is a great actress and, yes, her role is tiny (even in the graphic novels, her role is small, though not as small as in the film). One of the things that makes SP work so well in the comics is the ensemble cast of supporting and featured characters. The only one that even gets any kind of character arc in the movie is Young Neil, who grows up a bit and gets accepted (not really a spoiler, don’t worry). That actor also fleshed out his role really well and made his 9 or so lines really count (I mean that as a genuine compliment.). I don’t think Wright considers the supporting characters secondary; he was just doing his best to honor the books and cram it all into one 2-hour film. In that, I think he succeeded. Remember, a movie like this is supposed to be FUN above all else. I did feel like Scott’s arc worked when he earned [STUFF THAT WOULD BE SPOILERS] and that was the moment where I felt the heart of the movie kick in. Also, Scott’s painful past with N.V. / “Envy” was clearly in evidence and had some gravity for the actors and the characters, I thought.

As for whether a film that is mostly verbatim from a comic book source can truly be a successful film, I’m not sure it’s the death sentence Mike feels it is… but I’m well aware, even as a hardcore lifelong fan, that what sounds like it really ’sings’ to us comic book fans (after all, what are so many comics but cinematic by their very nature, a la storyboards?) may often sound and feel less than melodic, less than awesome, to the non-indoctrinated.

I also loved how music itself was a character in the movie, and the ways Wright found to represent the battles where musical force was used as opposed to chop-socky fighting, swords, energy blasts , etc. The soundtrack to this movie is something special, almost independent of the film itself.

On our radio show, “Producer Mike” (not to be confused with you, Mike) said the Scott Pilgrim movie was a bold experiment that could (and should) probably never be replicated. I agree, even though I was giddy with glee as a fan as I watched the movie itself.

And in closing, by saying Scott Pilgrim is the “Ghost World of 2010,” I just meant it’s the indie/weird movie based on an indie/weird comic book – not that the characterization, tone or style is at all shared by those two films. But just as comic book movies need their Iron Man, Batman, and Green Lantern, comic book movies also need their Ghost Worlds, Kick-Asses, The Road To Perditions, and their The Losers…es.

Counterpoint: Mike

Good point on the Ramonas of our collective lives, Tony. I think you and I may even have known one or two in college.

However, while her character isn’t all that far-fetched, I don’t feel Scott grows from having known/interacted with her. He doesn’t become stronger for the trials he endures or earn [STUFF THAT WOULD BE SPOILERS]for any other reason than he’s pretty much told to. When I want to watch the unattainable rebel bitch with the ever-changing hair canoodle with the pathetic loser, I’ll watch Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind – a movie so wonderfully surreal, you’d think it came from a comic.

Now, having said all that, let me change gears… because I feel like I’ve painted an all-too-unflattering picture of Scott Pilgrim. While I wasn’t a fan, per se, I also think the movie has a quirky charm in some places, and Cera’s dry humor is always welcome in my world. I just wish there were more of it.

Also, as I stated at the outset, this movie is exactly the sort of thing that you need alternate perspectives for. I will tell you that I tend to be particularly harsh on comics book brought to life (y’know, in case you missed that from this article). In fact, Tony, I’d love to do another point-counterpoint with you one day on the best and worst comic books-turned-movie. I have a feeling we’d have some interesting similarities and a few debate-worthy challenges (by the way, before I move to the next topic, did you ever read A History of Violence as a graphic novel? Am wondering if it projected off the page as something deeper… if you knew it could be such a good movie. But I digress.)

Tony’s love of comic books is similar to my love of zombie movies. I watch those with a much softer lens… because blood and guts and edible gray matter = cinematic genius in my world. In fact, I know some who critique (Edgar Wright’s own) Shaun of the Dead for some of the very same things I gave Scott Pilgrim for (main character who’s hard to empathize with, lack of chemistry between main character and his girlfriend, beating some of the plot points/jokes into the ground far too much)… and yet, I really like the movie. And it’s not because I say I appreciate Shaun of the Dead because I feel the movie is really Wright’s horrific extension of provincial middle-class English complacency, or stupid pseudo-intellectual bullshit like that. I just like dead people who eat brains. And when it’s funny and the main character plays Queen’s “Don’t Stop Me Now” on the jukebox while beating a zombie with a pool stick in time to the beat… well, consider me hooked.

What I’m trying to say is that the truly bad movies out there are the ones that just get made with no consideration for the audience or love of the material or any semblance of passion whatsoever. They’re easy to spot – they’re paychecks for overindulged actors, trend capitalizers, bad sequels meant to wring out whatever cash is left from a once-interesting idea, “vehicles” for some whiny young star looking for attention, and/or contractual obligations being fulfilled. And they’re easy to spot (I’m talking to you, Just Wright, Get Him to the Greek, Nightmare on Elm Street 2010, and Jennifer’s Body). And more than anything, I hope you know the difference when I write a bad review that scolds a movie for being terrible vs. one that criticizes a movie for not living up to my expectations. The former aren’t worth your time… ever. The latter are up to you to try on for size…

Scott Pilgrim is hardly the former. I think Tony summed it up really well on his show when he said he liked that Scott Pilgrim got made to push the genre forward. Simply put and well said. Because at least movies like this take a shot at something interesting… and whether they succeed or not, that’s still better than 90% of anything being made today.

Scott Pilgrim has vision, creative aspiration and is made to entertain. For that, I think it deserves your own judgment. I think it fell short. Tony thought it was “wonderfully crazy.” I leave it up to you to decide for yourself.

Thanks to our good friend Tony Wolf for contributing. Tony does it all – actor, voiceover specialist, artist and host of The Action Room, self-professed online “Geek Radio,” where he and his colleagues espouse on all things entertainment. He previously wrote for the site back in February, when he covered Superhero Movies: How Many Characters is Too Much?

.