Movies are ridiculous in the absolute best way—most of the time.
However, sometimes they’re ridiculous in a not great way. This is called, in technical terms, being a “crap film.” The characters don’t make sense or the plot is cliched, or the film runs on convenience and the audience’s forgiveness.
And then there are some films people accuse of being the second kind of movie, when they’re actually the first or at least like a third, neutral type of movie. I know this is a lot of misdirection. I’m sorry.
But, getting to the point, lately it seems it’s become popular on the Internet and in everyday film conversation, to dig up and discuss what some people consider logical “plot holes” or unrealistic plot points.
What people are usually referring to are things that would be simpler, make more sense, be more practical or more logistically sound.
To use a recent example, a number of people felt the need to point out the plot of the film “Looper” would’ve been a lot simpler if the people getting sent back in time had been sent to the ocean and just allowed to drown, rather than having the complicated system of past assassins (pastassins?).
And for some people, this was a serious problem with the movie, to the point it affected their ability to enjoy it. Allow me to reiterate (with some spoilers).
They were willing to accept crime syndicates in the future had taken to sending fellas they wanted “taken care of,” wink wink, nudge nudge, into the past to be killed by “pastassins” who eventually had to kill their future selves.
These people are not willing to accept the future crime lords wouldn’t just time-transportalize their enemies into the ocean. This violates their sense of reality and logic, and they cannot forgive it.
I’ve got a few problems with this mindset. First of all, it’s a movie. It’s a subjective reality created by the manipulation of space, time and events; don’t hold it to the same standards you hold, you know, actual reality (I know this sounds like dangerous reasoning but hold on, I’ll come back to this).
And, going off this, if they did things that way, there wouldn’t be a movie. Things would probably go smoothly, no problems would arise and if a movie was made about it, it would be boring as hell. So, whether or not it’s the most logical choice, it’s a choice made by the filmmaker to make the movie, you know… the movie.
It’s not a plot hole; it’s the plot.
Moving onto a slightly larger scale, one of the greatest movies of all time, “Vertigo” has been subjected to similar discussion at points.
For a lot of people, much of the film’s plot seems too unbelievable or unrealistic for them to really buy into and enjoy. And they’re not totally wrong.
But, and here I’m going to go back to that thing from earlier—it doesn’t matter.
It really doesn’t matter. Let me explain/defend myself.
Throughout “Vertigo,” Jimmy Stewart’s mental state grows increasingly fragile, events spin out of control, he completely loses touch with reality and things just generally go pretty much off the deep end. Hitchcock very carefully worked every aspect of the film to reflect that.
He deliberately wanted a dreamlike, unbelievable, unreal feeling to the film. It’s the basis of the artistic statement he was making, and the more far-fetched elements of the plot are presented as they are in order to help develop this.
Hitchcock could’ve very easily reworked the events or added explanation to make them more logical and realistic, but this would’ve worked to undermine the entire film. The insanity on the screen is a fundamental part of the subjective reality I mentioned earlier. The reality is it’s the filmmaker’s job to create.
I know some people will still be bothered by things like this, and a common deflection used to placate their cinematic OCD is “It’s movie logic, brah,” or “dude,” or “holmes” or whatever the kids are saying these days.
However, movie logic needs to stop being an excuse and start becoming a mindset. Filmmakers will often go for a very specific feel, tone, or atmosphere in their films and doing this often involves violating or ignoring certain features of the “real world” in order to create their own reality.
This is part of the logic of cinema—stitching together bits of time and space to create a cohesive work of art out of an artificial reality. Wow, this got preachy and pretentious fast.
One more thing though: Just like actual logic, movie logic can be violated. So let me make this clear. When Alfred Hitchcock eschews logic in “Vertigo,” it’s a deliberate, artistic choice made to cultivate a certain effect in the audience.
When Michael Bay chose to train miners to be astronauts in “Armageddon,” rather than the other way around, it wasn’t adding to the atmosphere or enhancing the movie. It was just lazy storytelling.
For some filmmakers, a realistic, logical feel is the best way for the film to get its message across. For some, logic or reality can be suspended for a certain effect (“Vertigo,” “Blade Runner”). So long as the filmmaker knows what they’re doing and they do it well, this shouldn’t be a problem.
That’s movie logic, bro-tato. Now, can we all please shut up and enjoy the films?
Also, in case the Wisconsin Film Festival didn’t satiate your thirst for awesome Madison movie madness, check out WUD Film’s Mini Indie Fest, running all this week at the Union South Marquee.
Are you one of those people who can’t stand plot holes? Tell Austin at wellens@wisc.edu.
