CURRENT MOVIE CLICHES

Tools    





I very much feel this. I don’t mind sex scenes at all, but I do always wonder why these people are even interested in each other, how they got to that point. Then it gets all philosophical and people suggest ‘no one knows what makes anyone attractive’, but I’d have liked to see the minutiae spelled out in films, E.g. ‘Jack finds Jill sexy because of her sense of humour.’

Anyway, I guess I wouldn’t know as I have a terrible relationship with most ‘romantic’ films. Some I can acknowledge are good and technically impressive, but I don’t get the genre appeal and am never interested in what happens, because as you said, we know everyone will kiss, ****, break up, potentially make up (depending on the genre), and I do think it’s about that - I’d argue the most interesting thing is how they got to that point, the seduction, or even just the decision, Given variables XYZ, I want to pursue this with this person. But then, it’s such an esoteric question that I don’t blame filmmakers for ignoring it.

The ‘truncation’ and so-called need to be ‘efficient’ in plotting isn’t something I particularly get, either. In terms of ‘unpacking plot and developing character’, well, until we could call it that, did we even know that that’s what sex scenes/any other scenes were doing, it was all much more intuitive, wasn’t it? I just always find it very funny that people argue in all seriousness that a shot of the ‘weeping letter’ in Casablanca (where plot is literally written down) is narratively significant but a sex scene apparently doesn’t ‘advance the plot’ (though it’d likely be something like ‘Man becomes infatuated with woman, manipulated by baddies and compromised and betrayed from his association with her…’) blah, blah, blah. No Kubrick, but it’s a plot.

I think it’s a bit like different standards for different things.

I very often wonder why all sorts of things are needed in a film, and it seems to be that sex scenes are always isolated as the ‘unnecessary’ bit, yet the random childhood flashbacks, meaningless dialogues with strangers on the tube or are always helpful in advancing the plot and building up characters. I never feel like I get the logic there.

Different strokes.



As for the need for truncation and efficiency, we should remind ourselves that cinema is brutally expedient. Large novels are compressed into a few dozen pages of script. It is easy for a long film to overstay its welcome with an audience. Editing for time is simply a must and it is quite common for filmmakers to have to play the game of figuring out what can be cut out.



As you note, sometimes scenes get us acquainted with the character and do not just advance the plot. If a betrayal is coming, then a "needless" depiction of intimacy may heighten the sense of betrayal that comes later. Whether this needs to be a moment of sexual intimacy is a question that the filmmakers must answer. Sex scenes can serve a purpose (I am just of the opinion that they most often do not). Moreover, how far we need to climb into the sack with our characters to be immersed in the character function is also an open question.



Telling a filmic story is not just a process of unpacking a plot to get to the point. If this were the case, we could stick to online plot summaries and get everything we wanted out movies, right? The film is also an experience of the plot as it happens and of our sense of (somehow) being there in the "reality" of it, immersing ourselves in an experience.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
There was a time when films would show a character leaving their home, driving to another location in their car, walking up to the building, opening the door, etc. Today, we just cut to the next scene. The grammar of filmic storytelling is evermore enthymematic. We've been there, done that, and seen it. Part of efficient storytelling is knowing how much can be left out without the story becoming confusing.



As for sex, we all know where our characters are heading, so I guess they're just expediting the narrative. My question is "Why am I being shown this at all?" How does this formation of the beast with two backs advance the plot, develop the characters, unpack the themes, etc.? It is exceedingly rare that seeing simulated sex between two characters on film does little more than offer meat. I tend to feel embarrassed for the actors and wonder how their parents feel about it.



I suspect that this process of truncation "(a little less conversation and a little more action please") may have been accelerated by the consumption of other media (sounds like "Corn-Hub") which has accelerated considerably with the advent of "gonzo" which stripped the narrative out the genre. It's kind of pathetic to think of major studios and streaming attempting to compete with the ocean of hard core content. Why ape base content with which you cannot really compete?



I'd rather see just about everything but the barnyard act. Want to be subversive and sexy? Show the stuff you're talking about. Get us to invest in how these people fall for each other.
Oh well I just feel that actually showing the seduction process can say things about the characters themselves though, in how they do it. Where as showing someone get out of a car and walk into a building, doesn't really say a lot about a character a character unless something unique happens.

For example, if they skipped the seduction process in a lot of James Bond movies, it wouldn't be as good in my opinion. Bond doesn't show the sex much, but they still show the seduction process.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
Another cliche is in older movies, whenever people read a telegram, they feel they have to say 'stop' after every sentence when reading aloud.



One annoying trope I can think of is when a character (and of course it's usually not the main character but someone of medium importance) is killed by a bus or a truck (sometimes a car) that suddenly smashes into him while he's blithely smiling or talking to other characters.

This trope was cool the first 500 times I saw it.

And that's part of the annoying factor here -- when filmmakers repeat a trope they've seen in other films. Of course some things have to be repeated, but some tropes are so distinctive like the one I just described, that they should only be repeated a few times, and after that it's just silly plagiarism.

Another trope that's similar and annoying is when the main character, usually in a thriller genre, is out in a busy street and he suddenly sees a suspicious person across the street who's been following him or whatever -- then a bus passes by and suddenly that person has vanished! And usually vanished in a way that's unrealistic, like nobody could literally vacate the sidewalk that quickly in the flash of a passing bus.

If I think of other annoying tropes I'll put them in here



One annoying trope I can think of is when a character (and of course it's usually not the main character but someone of medium importance) is killed by a bus or a truck (sometimes a car) that suddenly smashes into him while he's blithely smiling or talking to other characters.

This trope was cool the first 500 times I saw it.

Yes, once Regina George is hit by a bus in Mean Girls, it should have been shelved. No need to run over anybody else. No one getting plowed over by a bus will be a satisfying or startling as that. They are all expected after that.



Thursday Next's Avatar
I never could get the hang of Thursdays.
There is almost certainly a thread for this already but I just want to mention women submerging themselves in baths to signify emotional turmoil. So many times. Empire of Light is the latest cliche offender on this point.



Yes, once Regina George is hit by a bus in Mean Girls, it should have been shelved. No need to run over anybody else. No one getting plowed over by a bus will be a satisfying or startling as that. They are all expected after that.
I never saw Mean Girls. I see it began in 2004, so I doubt they were the first to do it. To qualify, the running over has to be sudden and unexpected (usually the victim is smiling and talking in mid-sentence).



I never saw Mean Girls. I see it began in 2004, so I doubt they were the first to do it. To qualify, the running over has to be sudden and unexpected (usually the victim is smiling and talking in mid-sentence).

I'm not saying it was the first time it was ever done. But it definitely put paid to the whole trope especially as it is in such a satirical film.



There is almost certainly a thread for this already but I just want to mention women submerging themselves in baths to signify emotional turmoil. So many times. Empire of Light is the latest cliche offender on this point.
Do you mean this one?
https://www.movieforums.com/communit...ad.php?t=58912
Pretty similar, but it tends to slide down the page...



mattiasflgrtll6's Avatar
The truth is in here
Not a bad thing per sé, but I've noticed movies are now often divided in specific chapters. A text will come up that says "Part 1" or something else that indicates that we are moving on to a new part of the film.



Telling a filmic story is not just a process of unpacking a plot to get to the point. If this were the case, we could stick to online plot summaries and get everything we wanted out movies, right? The film is also an experience of the plot as it happens and of our sense of (somehow) being there in the "reality" of it, immersing ourselves in an experience.

This is one of the few unique qualities of films vs. other forms of art. That's why it annoys me when film-makers use sets and don't film in actual locations. Part of the visual thrill of one long chase scene in the 1995 movie Seven was when Brad Pitt is running through a large apartment complex chasing the perp (whom he fails to catch in the end), running from one apartment to the next, through connecting doors etc. -- all looking like real actual apartments dwelled in (often the dwellers shocked at the intrusion). Clearly the director commandeered an actual giant apartment building in NYC, an old one for extra flavor, and filmed what seemed one long unbroken chase scene. If you're not going to do that but just create sets and cut it up in editing, then make a damn stage play instead.



This is one of the few unique qualities of films vs. other forms of art. That's why it annoys me when film-makers use sets and don't film in actual locations. Part of the visual thrill of one long chase scene in the 1995 movie Seven was when Brad Pitt is running through a large apartment complex chasing the perp (whom he fails to catch in the end), running from one apartment to the next, through connecting doors etc. -- all looking like real actual apartments dwelled in (often the dwellers shocked at the intrusion). Clearly the director commandeered an actual giant apartment building in NYC, an old one for extra flavor, and filmed what seemed one long unbroken chase scene. If you're not going to do that but just create sets and cut it up in editing, then make a damn stage play instead.

I tend to sometimes dislike fancy impossible camera shots for this reason. If your camera zooms through a closed window and walls, etc., then I know that it's not a real camera showing me a real scene. My brain says, "Ah, chicanery! Where are the seams here?" and I am taken out of the scene by the obviousness of the artifice. These trick shots are "show off," emphasizing the impossibility and thus the unreality of what I am watching. I know none of it is real, but it is best if in watching a scene that somehow we feel that all of this is happening "in camera." It's a paradox, because we are drawn by spectacle--we want to see the impossible, but we want it to seem real when we watch it.



Another is subtler, perhaps. It's when in a thriller the protaganist is ransacking a house looking for something, or rifling through a desk or boxes in a room, etc. What annoys me is when the director pays no heed to the likely process of false leads and how long it can take to find something which someone else has hidden. Sometimes it's the third object they look behind -- and Voilà! -- there it is! So convenient for the movie's fast pace! What are the odds!!!

So when I experience the relatively rare movie where they take plausible time for this (as near the end of Woody Allen's Manhattan Murder Mystery), I thank the gods.



Another is subtler, perhaps. It's when in a thriller the protaganist is ransacking a house looking for something, or rifling through a desk or boxes in a room, etc. What annoys me is when the director pays no heed to the likely process of false leads and how long it can take to find something which someone else has hidden. Sometimes it's the third object they look behind -- and Voilà! -- there it is! So convenient for the movie's fast pace! What are the odds!!!

So when I experience the relatively rare movie where they take plausible time for this (as near the end of Woody Allen's Manhattan Murder Mystery), I thank the gods.

True, but can you imagine if we spent 20 minutes watching our investigators opening drawers and pulling books off of shelves? I suppose we could save time but also communicate the passage of time using the grammar of editing to imply a long search (although a montage is its own cliche, no?). Maybe a cut to another scene with other characters and then a cut back?



Also, consider that anytime we visit a classroom, the teacher is lecturing on the theme of the movie 15 seconds before the bell rings. If our police investigator needs help from a prof, they will arrive right at the end of class. If we cut to a student in class, we'll be there 15 seconds before the bell. Movie temporality is a bit silly, but so is the idea of watching half a class lecture to "really" establish the reality of the classroom.



True, but can you imagine if we spent 20 minutes watching our investigators opening drawers and pulling books off of shelves?
I think you're exaggerating on the 20 minutes. It's a common phenomenon that something that seems tedious can make us feel like there's a lot of time spent; so if an investigator spends just 3 minutes -- which is 180 seconds -- rummaging through an office to find something, that can seem like a lot longer than it really is. Just set a timer for 3 minutes and then go through the motions of pretending to look for something in your study or office. You'll see you can get a lot done -- many drawers opened and closed, books taken off shelves & rifled through, cabinets opened etc.

And that reminds me, closely related to this pet peeve of mine, is when the investigator is presented with an office that has like a whole wall of books with maybe 100 books there and all he does is take down like four random books and leaf through the pages when the thing he's looking for could easily be in one of the other books. Of course one doesn't want the movie to show them looking at every piece and article in an office, that can be indicated otherwise indirectly, and I don't mind that. But what I do mind is them FINDING something when they've only done a cursory search of 15 seconds. So again, 3 minutes goes a long way and can at least give a plausible credible appearance of someone really looking for something. Similarly when the protagonist is trying to find a secret passageway or hidden door -- same thing and same annoyance.



So sick (ha) of people barfing into toilets for whatever reason & then getting up without washing their hands or brushing their teeth. Gag.
__________________
I’m here only on Mondays, Wednesdays & Fridays. That’s why I’m here now.



Another movie cliche that annoys me is how they choreograph fisticuffs = two people having a fistfight (doesn't matter what kind, whether it's improvised, street fighting, mixed martial arts, whatever). The annoying factor is when they have one guy delivering unbelievably powerful blows to his opponent in various ways -- smashing his head against a counter, slamming him on the ground whatever -- and instead of these powerful blows slowing the person down he just gets back up and then delivers similarly powerful blows to the other guy. It's like the director has no conception of how to include in the choreographing the impact that some of the violence is having -- because all he cares about is continuing to have them fight, not factoring in plausibility. Surely there's a way to do both!!! I refuse to believe that you can't do both, it might take a little longer it might require a little imagination and creativity in choreographing but for **** sake it's not plausible what they do most of the time.



PS: One of my favorite fight scenes was two naked guys in a sauna in the David Cronenberg movie Eastern Promises.



PS: One of my favorite fight scenes was two naked guys in a sauna in the David Cronenberg movie Eastern Promises.

A great moment of being "literally figurative." Viggo felt naked and vulnerable because he was naked and vulnerable. This is was an instance of appropriate nudity in a film. It had a point and heightened the moment. Great scene.



A great moment of being "literally figurative." Viggo felt naked and vulnerable because he was naked and vulnerable. This is was an instance of appropriate nudity in a film. It had a point and heightened the moment. Great scene.

It was also amazing choreography. I wonder how much of that is due to Cronenberg himself, and how much is due to the talent of the two actors? What makes the choreography amazing is how could two actors grapple and throw each other around so violently when they're both naked and everything in the room is hard tile and ceramic? And ostensibly no stuntman involved, though I suppose it's possible that they cleverly snuk that in which can get by an ordinary movie viewer like me.



Movie Forums Squirrel Jumper
One cliche in 80s action movies, involving druglords, the filmmakers feel they always had to have a character explain what a Columbian neckie was.