Red Riding 1980
2/8/10
There was a point in college when I realized that some of the academics we’d been required to read, and had struggled so much to comprehend, might actually be bad writers. Sure, they could be brilliant in their own right, but brilliance does not always translate so clearly onto the page. I had the same thought coming out of 1980— Many people respect this movie, so there must be something to it that I’m just missing. But on closer inspection, I think it is the writing that is more flawed than my viewing.
It’s one thing to have a fast-paced thriller with dozens of uniquely defined characters, but so many cop procedural movies rely on a big name and familiar faces to distinguish themselves rather than any actual character development. 1980 (and the trilogy thus far) is no different—while the leads are recognizable (in all of their two-dimensional glory), the supporting cast blends together in rather frustrating ways. It is especially difficult because this particular group of actors runs through (and plays a pivotal role) in the entire trilogy. But they are rarely developed, and end up mashed together as one ugly, crooked, and mustachioed copper in my mind.
Of course, I’m only two-thirds of the way through the trilogy. Hopefully the last piece will bring some coherence to the stories of the first two films—not just in filling the numerous plot holes but clarifying motivations, and casting those scenes in a new light that (at this point) seem blatantly irrelevant to furthering the story. While the films have been interesting to look at, I still don’t feel as drawn in as I should. More on the misrepresentation of the films next time. For now, I’m off to brush up on my UK accents, because I can’t figure out half of what they are saying.
