‘Fate of the Furious’: Bigger isn’t always better
If you're one of the few moviegoers who has yet to see the newest release in the "Fast and the Furious" franchise, you might want to read the review of the film that I wrote for Spokane Public Radio. Then again, if you're a fan of big, empty-headed movies, well …
The notion of film as art, something once considered laughable, came into being through the efforts of mid-20th-century critics such as James Agee, Pauline Kael, Manny Farber and a bunch of French guys named Truffaut, Rohmer and Godard. And they succeeded. Mostly
But art alone has never paid the bills. And so with every “Citizen Kane” we’ve also had “Adventures of Captain Marvel,” for every “Godfather” we’ve had “The Poseidon Adventure.” Art may be good for the soul, but popular entertainment is what keeps most moviegoers returning, week after week, for yet another screening of giddy fun.
Not that popular entertainment can’t be done artfully. This past year, “Moonlight” was a critical darling. Yet “La La Land,” a film that is essentially a musical confection, was almost equally as lauded. And it made way more money: to date nearly $151 million to “Moonlight’s” not quite $28 million.
And I can point to a number of recent blockbusters that have proven both thrilling and worthy of critical praise: “Guardians of the Galaxy,” for example. “Mad Max: Fury Road.” Or “The LEGO Movie.”
That, then, is the trick: Can you make a movie that might win awards but could also make money? Or should you just toss out all notions of art and make movies that aim to earn the most money possible? Though producers have always hoped to make a profit, today’s versions seem to be, more and more, aiming for the biggest score possible – any notion of art be damned.
Producer Joel Silver may have said it best: “The core of the movie business remains intact and it's not descending in scope. Studios want movies that are bigger than ever.”
Case in point: “The Fate of the Furious.” No movie I have seen in recent years has strived to be bigger, faster and louder.
I’ve seen all eight of the “Fast and Furious” films and would never have suspected, back in 2001, that an action flick about an undercover cop infiltrating a street-racing gang headed by a charismatic family man would inaugurate one of the most successful film franchises in movie history.
One that, over the past 16 years, has grossed more than $4.4 billion in worldwide box-office earnings, some $3 billion of which has come from outside the U.S.
“The Fate of the Furious,” the first full film in the series since the 2013 death of Paul Walker, marks a change in the franchise’s style: For one, it treads on one of its basic homilies – family first – by having charismatic leader Dominic Toretto (Vin Diesel) seemingly betray those he professes to love.
More important, along with the obligatory car chases, crashes, wanton bloodletting and supercharged action, Toretto and his crew have evolved into Avenger-type superheroes who fulfill impossible missions while following plots that have become ever more outrageously implausible.
“The Fate of the Furious,” then, is both the title of a movie making millions and a description of those of us who resist buying what it’s trying to sell: the idea that bigger, faster and louder automatically equates to better.