Scott Pilgrim vs. The World vs. the in-crowd
One of the more humourous complaints I’ve seen hurdled at Scott Pilgrim vs. The World is that it’s too exclusive; a lot of critics are older and feel like they are outsiders looking in, and for some reason, it’s the film that should be blamed for their generational divide. This has got me thinking, and since I’m a nobody writer with no particular audience, this review seems like a fine soapbox for me to broadcast my findings.
How responsible is a film to gauge it’s entry level? Should a film try to broaden it’s appeal to as many people or possible, or is limiting it’s appeal better? In the case of Scott Pilgrim, the film is littered with video game references, Canadian in-jokes, and indie-rock subculture nods so it’s easy to see where anybody could get lost, and despite Edgar Wright’s efforts to minimize these elements from being crucial to the film’s enjoyment, there is simply no way you can properly appreciate the film without knowing them. To many, such as my parents, Scott Pilgrim would look like the most nonsensical disaster in cinematic history, while to me it’s a refreshingly fun, genuine film. Reviewing objectively requires you to remove yourself with your own preferences (to a degree) and view the film for it’s merits, craftsmanship, and intended purpose. A niche film like this one makes the critics easy job suddenly difficult. This is when you see frantic critics who don’t know what to write about because 99% of the jokes whizzed right by them start to spit on the movie, and in some cases the fellow audience who gets the jokes that the critic does not. This is precisely when you can differentiate a quality critic from a superficial one: recognition of quality despite one’s own familiarity with the subject.
I have been on the other end of this stick too. I was familiar, but still on the outside with this years <em>Kick-Ass</em> to which Scott Pilgrim has been compared due to their (fairly) obscure comic roots, obvious cult following, and misguided mainstream marketing campaigns. However, unlike Scott Pilgrim, I wasn’t interested in Kick-Ass in the slightest and was probably the most critical of it among my friends. However, my complaints weren’t focused on being unable to “get the joke” so much as finding the film inconsistent and fairly lazy.
The same goes for the low-budget, widely adored sci-fi darling <em>Primer</em> which used hard science fiction fused with realistic scientific mumbo-jumbo making a tightly woven plot that almost no one understood. Those who didn’t tended to generally appreciate the film for it’s brain-throbbing intensity, while the people who did get it loved it for rejecting the Hollywood norm for science in layman’s terms.
Another example for me is <em>Syriana</em>. A rather dense political thriller which I found pretty hard to follow (note, I did see it years ago, maybe I’m smarter now?) however political buffs were probably able to sift along with the film easily, and likely appreciating it for it’s high level of entry. However, when asked about it, I cite the complicated plot as a demerit for the film, but have to question myself whether or not that is fair. It’s tough for me to say if it’s truly a good film considering it almost completely passed me by and that’s likely what outsiders to Scott Pilgrim feel. It’s hard to say it’s good if you don’t get it, therefore it must be bad.
Despite my difficulty with <em>Syriana</em>, I still distinctly recognize it several years after seeing it and am aware enough to realize that another audience will probably find something of great value in it. It seems that the Hollywood expectation for audience and radio critics is that films must appeal to everyone, all the time. Yet, the most adored films are the ones that appeal to specific groups meanwhile the Oscar winners get general appreciation, you won’t find anyone as attached to <em>The Hurt Locker</em> or <em>Slumdog Millionaire</em> as you will <em>Twilight</em> or <em>Star Trek</em>. These types of films bring together people who can agree that so-and-so film is the best movie ever and the sequel is going to kick ass and they will be there opening night. If it weren’t for movies like Scott Pilgrim that speak directly to one group and ignores all the rest, all we’d have is dry Oscar season all year round.
Jumping back to Scott Pilgrim (this is a review, right?), whether or not you agree on a film being flawed for not offering a helping hand or blaming the viewer for not doing their research, the reason why Scott Pilgrim is in fact a great film is simply because it’s genuine. There are tons of films that try to speak to a niche and make a connection but as such obvious studio machines they have nothing to really say that hasn’t already been said. Absolutely no one was fooled by <em>Snakes on a Plane</em> when it tried to integrate itself into pop culture. Pop culture has a strict intruder detection system and can spot it a mile away (next on the list, <em>I’m Still Here</em>). Scott Pilgrim however is a film that plays with nostalgia, irony, angst, rock, and dating on so many levels simultaneously that it is able to balance the zany, off-the-wall craziness with a romance and background nods to video games and comic books. Any self-respecting gamer will realize the film is the real deal when Scott goes to the washroom and music from <em>Legend of Zelda</em> begins to swell into the scene (I think it’s the Great Fairy Fountain music from Ocarina of Time?). The movie continues on throwing little game nods at those paying attention like Scott’s <em>Rock Band</em> shirt, constant arcade fighting game references, and Sonic the Hedgehog and Mario sound cues. On occasion, these random, interchangeable in-jokes grind the scene the wrong way, such as the <em>Seinfeld</em> inspired scene which is amusing in it’s absurdity but begins to push the limits of the pop culture humor. It’s a joke to illustrate that the film is so sharply within Scott Pilgrim’s perspective, but is also bizarrely out-of-nowhere and never re-emerges in any way. Gags can be throw away, but when you toss in recognizable parodies of seemingly unconnected elements of American pop-culture, it can become pointless. Fortunately, Scott Pilgrim only threatens to jump, but never does.
Something must be said for the YouTube generation and where this fits in. Scott is a slacker bassist whose only motivation is to fight evil-ex-boyfriends. So who is your audience? It would be foolish to say slacker musicians, but there is certainly a connection between who Scott is and who likes to read/watch Scott. The film is almost exhaustingly fast-paced with quick cuts tossing the audience forward several days at a time in a blink. There is little down time and as a result we get both hilariously random yet oddly inappropriate gags like the Seinfeld bit, but also little proper character development. We know enough about Scott, but we know little about Ramona, her past, her boyfriends, her attitudes. In fact, Ramona, who even in the comic was a bit of a self-centered bitch, comes across as even more of one in the film. Ramona is really the audience’s MacGuffin, she’s not what anyone is hoping for, just the last boss battle. Ramona merely drives the plot, and because the film flies from one battle to the next, Ramona’s bits of exposition stop the film in it’s tracks. Her weepy eyed stories do the mandatory ball-rolling but are essentially the film equivalent to video game loading screens between levels. It’s a pace-breaker and you just want it to end already!
Scott Pilgrim has a distinct sense of style with imaginative visual flair and CGI that embraces it’s otherworldly nature rather than trying to emulate reality with 16-bit inspired weaponry and giant energy, spirit… things. The lack of rules the film defines for itself is more than refreshing after a year of films so formulaic you might as well sit at home and image two of your favourite movies mashed up, as well as a post-<em>Inception</em> summer which is under the looming shadow of a tightly-constructed action behemoth. Scott Pilgrim occupies the empty space of the free-roaming fun film. What Scott Pilgrim lacks in elegance and subtly, it more than makes up for in pure movie going fun. It certainly isn’t for everyone, but this film is definitive proof that a film can be brilliant despite locking the door to a huge number of people. Like all movies, perceptions are completely subjective, but Scott Pilgrim is solidly made, and to the people who get it, it is a huge blast and very pleasing to know there are people talking to the multi-billion dollar studios who want to make stories with Super Nintendo sound effects rather than exploit them. If you don’t get it, that sucks, but the movie still kicks ass.