Accepting Dissapointment

(Yes, this is footage from Nightwatch. It will make sense in a moment)

Last evening, the PTFC hastily decided to attend a showing of Day Watch after the Detroit Art Festival. In entirety, the viewing experience was accentuated by noteable expressions of dissapointment. Keeping in line with Night Watch, the film’s subtitles are quite an effective feature. The subtitles are especially gratifying during those scenes in which they move in accordance with thrown objects. Unfortunately, particular plot interventions are absurd. At several junctions, the film becomes entirely remniscent of the Blade vampire series: Frilly new-wave apparel in conjunction with wigged out leaders that summon dark minions to battle. Many of the more interesting concepts introduced in the film are immediately subverted. Without delving too far into plot summation, the film simply does not provide an adequate/appropriate follow through. What is interesting about the general level of dissapointment registered amongst audience members, is the uniform attempt to justify this dissapointment. This form of justification spawns from the framework of thought/expectation established by the previous film. Most attempted to judge the film in accordance with Nightwatch.

The sequel is a distortion of the typical means by which one evaluates a film. This is most assuredly the case with the second film in a trilogy. One judges the second film in accordance with the first, and is often dissatisfied by this comparison. More interestingly, one also evaluates the film in accordance with expectation; with that which does not, yet, even exist; with the film that will end the trilogy. Possibly, what are currently perceived as flaws in the second film, will become more interesting involvements when the third film is released.

One is reluctant to criticize the second because of the pleasureable associations which the first connotes. One expects that the trilogy will be salvaged, and that it will all make “sense” after the third film is released. Yet, is this the means by which one should consider the validity/worth of a film. Considering that most films of a trilogy are released some distance a part, and experienced as separate detachments, should not the merit of the second film be evaluated by the same means as the first? This is the conflict of the trilogy. This is the reason that trilogies are so entirely successful. If a series begins with a good film, then the second film can be excused. The third film will be seen in order to justify the second films failures. But then, is the audience even participating at this point? Standards of evaluation and criticism have been reduced, tossed out in favor of involvement. Involvement in an infrastructure that insists that issues will be resolved. Why do we have to finish the trilogy if the producers/writers/actors/storyline, etc. fails midway? The sequel is a form of gateway drug. One that sedates the viewers sense of criticism. One simply waits for the conclusion of narrative progression. As fragment the film is dissapointing. Unfortunately, this declaration is still provoked in association with the thought processes the framework of trilogy induces.