Just watched Spielberg's Ready Player One! After anticipating it for a few years now, I was excited to finally get to see it! Although I didn't get a chance to read the book before it premiered, much to my dismay. So this will be just the film review. Also, to talk in-depth about it, BE WARNED! THERE BE SPOILERS AHEAD!
Note: The review assumes you've seen the film, as I hope you go watch it first! Therefore, there won't really be a lot of film synopsis of explanations/context of characters/scene/etc referred to in my response.
Perhaps the main reason I docked the film from an A to a B score, the main problem I had with the film was trying to figure out if the story actually had consequences attached to it. By this, I am referring to the trend in films these days where the actions of characters don't have long-lasting consequences and thus invalidates the weight of the action/sacrifices made. For instance, in Doctor Who the 50th-anniversary episode was extremely controversial because it was revealed that the Doctor was not the last of his Time Lord race. This, according to the fans, invalidated all of the character development and actions the three Doctors undertook for the entirety of the "New Who" from 2005 until the episode, which aired in 2013. Similarly, a lot of other stories these days seem to use time travel, convenient loopholes, and so on and so forth in their stories to allow the characters a "happy ending". But this does cause serious ramifications in terms of feeling the weight of the decisions made and costs paid. Is it really a sacrifice if there is no actual loss?
This, fundamentally, was my biggest question and problem with the film. The main plot of the film is fundamentally that if you win the Easter Egg in the game, your real life will be significantly changed as your material wealth will be increased and your power over the most influential media in the world will be absolute. So all over the world individual players are seeking for the Egg side by side with corporations like IOI who want control of the game to increase their advertisement revenue. Therefore, the parallel narratives of the film take place in the virtual world of Oasis and the real world of Columbus, Ohio where all of the main characters live and IOI headquarters are conveniently located.
But there's only so much weight to the stakes raised in sacrificing your avatar to the greater cause of battling the evil corporation of IOI, when you realise that dying in the game doesn't mean dying in real life. Spielberg tries to solve this by emphasizing the economic ramifications of the sacrifice. When your avatar dies, you loose everything your character has collected (as one of the baddies notes, dying means loosing ten years worth of stuff).
This sort of makes sense, as the game is where everyone lives their life outside of, essentially, eating and sleeping. And there is an economic system of buying and selling in the game that is somehow tied to real world "credits"/currency (like a weird hybrid of bitcoin and World of Warcraft money) - this is represented by Wade's aunt's loser boyfriend loosing all of her savings for a house when his character died in the game. But still, to me the loss being material (whether in the game or real world) seems superficial, and not as much of a sacrifice as the traditional trope of a physical sacrifice (ie dying).
I think the main intrigue came into play when the consequences of the in-game play started to leak over into the real world. I think Spielberg tries to raise them by cleverly introducing the fact that IOI's CEO Nolan (the main baddie) finds out Wade's real world identity and as a result tries to kill him in the real world so that he doesn't win control over Oasis. And in the cross-fire, Samantha (Wade's love interest) is also captured by IOI and put into a labour union nightmare of inhumane debtor podes, where it is also revealed that she lost her father to IOI's horrible working pods that debtors are sequestered in. It is only when there is the threat of actual death in the real world that I personally began to feel that the stakes were properly being raised.
The editing probably didn't help with this theme, as the pacing was only so-so. Probably 60% of the film was devoted to the virtual world, while the other 40% is dedicated to real-world action. I thought the interwoven storylines were an interesting and great idea, but the manifestation felt a bit disjointed and awkwardly fast/slow in certain parts of the film.
Either way, though, I did love the big question of how to deal with consequences, and the two answers to the question with the classic dichotomy of "fantasy" versus "reality". The initial concept of the dystopia already tells the audience that the world had collectively agreed not to solve the world's problems anymore, and to just escape into a virtual reality. So on some level, the basis of the plot already accepts that fantasy is "better". But I like that by the end of the film the story tried to be nuanced and show the interweaving components of fantasy and reality, and that both are needed in order to grow as a person/better the world. So even if it wasn't perfectly done/conveyed, I still maintain that the grey areas in the thematic examination were the most compelling parts of the narrative by far.
Other compelling elements of the themework I thought were present in the film included questions related to creator/creation relationship and lost dreams/hopes. I think that perhaps intriguingly for a film that was a huge love letter to the 80s, there was a distinct lack of Spielberg himself. This was apparently consciously done, but it still felt weird to have commentary about content creators, their relationship to their creation(s), and if they have any responsibility of how the project grows and the audience's reception of it, without seeing any major homages to the giant of pop culture himself that created the film.
However, I also loved the idea that the game itself was an inside look into Halliday's mind. I think that the idea of the Easter egg hunt was also a way of trying to atone and fix his past mistakes was awesome (and very apropos to the fact that Easter is tomorrow). Although, it did have some flaws, which leads me nicely into my next discussion about characters.
Character wise, the biggest disappointment to me was not seeing more of Morrow, Halliday's business partner. It's revealed that Halliday had a falling out with his business partner Morrow, and by the end of the film it's proclaimed that it was Morrow who was the "Rosebud" to the entire hunt, instead of Kiera like Wade thought, Halliday's lost love who eventually became Morrow's wife. This broken relationship and betrayal just seemed absolutely essential to so much of Halliday's character and the narrative of the hunt, but it was glossed over in favour of referencing a lot of 1970s/80s pop culture that Halliday enjoyed and lost love interests. Perhaps I'm just a sucker for angsty broken platonic relationships filled with betrayal and regret and atonement (looking at you, Stan Bros from Gravity Falls), but I would've loved to see more about this. And I think one way it could've been done was by revealing more about Morrow. Although, that's not to say the film says nothing. Morrow's repeated attempts to get Halliday to own up to his responsibility as a creator of Oasis and incorporate more rules into the game is fascinating, and the ultimate (presumed) cause of their split in which Halliday took over sole control of the company.
Otherwise, I think I had the fairly standard character development complaints that come with having an ensemble cast with a main protagonist. The rest of the "High Five" gang seem to be sidelined (particularly the two Asian friends with the main three of Wade, Samantha, and Helen) in favour for trying to develop other more prominent roles. As a result, everyone felt slightly under-developed all around rather than having at least one or two solidly built characters. However, I think this was made up for in the dizzyingly intricate plot lines that were in and of themselves fairly compelling.
And another minor critique here also includes the film's so-so dialogue (particularly the ending lines of the film, which re-hash the socially inept Halliday's attempt at conveying the theme of reality being important almost awkward word for word). Along with a fairly two-dimensional baddie for the gang to fight, as IOI's generic "big business; greedy businessmen" trope is certainly adhered to fairly strictly. Although, unrelated, the decision to cast Win Morisaki, a huge J-Popstar, was absolutely great (mainly for the diversity and eye candy he brought to the table).
While Plot wise, I was hooked within a few minutes of the film. The voice over was a great unifying element in the narrative, and there were a few solid revelations that I particularly enjoyed (like the reveal of who the Curator was at the end of the film - a role I was suspicious of for a while). However, the film tried to balance three major plot lines which felt difficult every now and then with the sheer scope it demaned. One being the main plot of Wade and his friends finding the Easter egg, one being IOI's quest to find the egg and stop Wade, and the final one being Halliway and his life story which fueled the egg hunt in the first place.
And finally, the technical craft of the film was extremely well done, which is to be expected from a genius like Spielberg. With the exception of some editing choices (as previously discussed) and one of two weird musical moments (in which the sound swelled during moments I thought it didn't need to be), everything else was excellent (like the cinematography and effect work). I particularly loved the visual effects of the film - it totally used the "it doesn't look real" complaints of moviegoers in response to any large effects scene and turned it on it's head. Since it was supposed to be a video game, the textures and development of the virtual world had amazing graphics and impossible action sequences that emphasized the fantastical element of Oasis as exactly that. I thought this was used to advance the story particularly well.
In essence, I think Ready Player One is a classic case of Spielberg doing the best he can (which is pretty damn good) with slightly-above-average material. And for all the major flaws it could have had under the direction of "Not-A-Spielberg", I think he does a really solid job of at least minimizing the effects to make the film into an enjoyable ride that does make you feel some things with some great 80s nostalgia along for the ride.
Rating: B
No comments:
Post a Comment