|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Oct 5, 2016 3:26:51 GMT -5
I'm happy with them showing Snicket's face -- largely because they are acknowledging that this is a television adaptation, so he's not meant to be the real Snicket.
It doesn't feel as if Lemony Snicket has revealed himself, because the REAL Snicket is still out of site, only with an actor/impostor pretending to be him. Very Snicket-esque, really.
But even if they actually do claim that he's the real Snicket and it's just the rest of the production which is an adaptation, I basically just view it as a symptom of the medium of television that this seems to be the best way to cope with Snicket's presence in the stories, so I don't mind, really.
|
|
|
|
Post by A comet crashing into Earth on Oct 5, 2016 3:52:55 GMT -5
The whole fourth-wall breaking and stuff is actually surprisingly complex here when you think about it. Warburton is clearly claiming to be Snicket, but also acknowledging the production of the TV series and the involvement of actors. His claim, then, is that this nobody on screen in the series is actually the character they portray, except himself. This could all work out just fine - after all, that's pretty much what Handler does in the books by reminding us that this is not the unfiltered reality, but a character's account of it.
But then we hear NPH laughing, which can be explained in one of two ways: Either NPH is actually Olaf in the same way that Warburton is Snicket, messing up the reality they've just been setting up - or implying that Count Olaf has pulled some strings to get to play himself in the series (which I hope isn't the case, as that would leave us in for some serious overacting; also, presumably the show is being filmed after the end of the actual events it portrays, so Olaf is supposed to be dead) - or they're saying that NPH is either so insensitive as to not be affected by the Baudelaires' tale, or so immersed in his role as to practically have become evil for the sake of the role.
Also, I may have my terms mixed here, but does Lemony actually break the fourth wall in the books? I believe it's always been clear that the books were written from the perspective of someone who's a part of their reality, and so the people he adresses aren't actually the readers outside the fiction, but an audience belonging to the same reality as the events they chronicle.
On a completely different note, I wonder whether Handler is going to subvert the appearances he usually makes by at some point presenting himself at an event as Snicket's press representative, then have Warburton come on stage in character - or, to take it up another level, out of character.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Oct 5, 2016 4:15:32 GMT -5
Although it's a convenient shorthand and sort of depends upon how you define it, it's not really accurate to say that the books break the fourth wall, in that they don't actually acknowledge their own fictionality. Snicket acknowledges their nature as books, but sincerely insists that the events in the books really took place. (ASoUE's success was partly that, for all its absurdities, the characters and narrator took it all dead seriously.) I don't think it's really possible to have a live-action adaptation work on quite the same principles, of it being a direct recording of events which actually took place, without doing some kind of weird found-footage thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Hermes on Oct 5, 2016 6:25:49 GMT -5
It is, of course, very tricky how this can be applied to film. A book can easily draw attention to its status as a book, while still claiming not to be fictional, by presenting itself as a history. In a film, on the other hand, we are generally invited to imagine ourselves seeing the actual events, so it's much harder for a film to draw attention to its status as a film while still claiming that its content is real. (I suppose The Blair Witch Project does, but that's rather a special case.)
This confusion of levels did also affect the movie - there was an edition of the script with notes made on it by Olaf, as if he was around during the production and trying to subvert it; Olaf also had a websire for a while as a movie tie-in, as if he was still around when it was made. But as far as I remember this didn't enter into the movie itself; within the film Lemony was someone writing about the events, and didn't address the audience.
I think our reaction to this teaser (I agree that's what it is) should be 'don't think too hard about it'. Hopefully the actual series will either avoid fourth-wall-breaking moments or think up a credible story to explain them.
|
|
|
|
Post by Strangely on Oct 5, 2016 8:53:10 GMT -5
Honestly, I think it's for the best that they're showing Lemony Snicket. Looking back now, I'll say how Snicket was used in the movie is just distracting. Constantly cutting away from the main story to show a man with no face writing on a type writer became a bit tedious, it was okay at the beginning and end, to be used as a framing device, but all the inbetween became annoying. Taking a Hitchcock/Twilight Zone approach and dropping the narrator, unseen, into the action definitely makes the narration more visually interesting and less jarring. As a trade off though, you can't really use the hidden face thing anymore.
Frankly, I feel like the hidden face thing mostly only works in literature. Lemony Snicket's intent is to hide his appearance so that his enemies cannot catch up to him, hence no pictures of him outside of grainy silhouettes (and even with those we don't really know if that's him). When translating this to a visual medium though, this doesn't work the same. Just look at the movie, first off, we're the fourth wall, so he's hiding from people who aren't actually there from his perspective, so that's sort of confusing (When he's at home does he just sit in the dark just because?). Second, if we are to assume that's the real Snicket and that he's physically taking part in a movie recreation of his books than he's not really hiding himself and thus breaking that logic of being in hiding. Because, even though he remained in shadow, he revealed his voice, his hideout and where he's hidden his manuscript. Just in doing those three things it's breaking the original intent of being in hiding from his enemies. Sure, it creates some great atmosphere and visuals, but it makes that whole hiding subplot pretty pointless.
Really, the otherworldly narrator sitting in view but outside reality approach they're going with is probably the better route to take. Rather than getting hung up on real world logic it can just be as absurd as it wants to be for the sake of creating good and interesting narration.
|
|
|
|
Post by ryantrimble457 on Oct 5, 2016 10:25:17 GMT -5
Gonna agree with Hermes here-- after all, this is the trailer, and not the actual show. At that, it's really not even a trailer. More a promotional video. So I wouldn't take anything that we're seeing in it as anything more than just a little joke to get people interested. As per the actual show itself, it would seem that they really are doing it Twilight Zone style, where the narrator comments on the action from the place that it takes place, but does not interact with the characters at all. Should that be the case, perhaps he won't even mention the TV production aspect at all. "The story you're about to hear..." kinda thing, or even "We are now in..." and then just go from there. |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Oct 5, 2016 10:43:42 GMT -5
I agree that the trailer shouldn't be taken particularly seriously. It is, after all, basically just marketing for the series itself.
Even if the series gets into a confusing state regarding which characters are meant to be real vs. which are meant to be actors simply playing a part, I wouldn't be too concerned. A somewhat confusing, conflicting and mysterious tone is, I would say, very appropriate to the series.
|
|
|
|
Post by bogtrotter on Oct 5, 2016 10:45:28 GMT -5
As per the actual show itself, it would seem that they really are doing it Twilight Zone style, where the narrator comments on the action from the place that it takes place, but does not interact with the characters at all. Should that be the case, perhaps he won't even mention the TV production aspect at all. "The story you're about to hear..." kinda thing, or even "We are now in..." and then just go from there. I think that's absolutely the best way to do it, and it's a pretty interesting approach. I think it would be lovely for Snicket to be "present" for many of the events of the show. Not so much that he's there in the reality of the scene, but that he's there on screen to make a quick remark or to elaborate on something that we wouldn't catch. I'm imagining, for example, Mr. Poe driving a car with the Baudelaires in the back, and then in one shot suddenly having Snicket in the passenger's seat to comment on horseradish, or something of the like. We'd see him, the characters obviously wouldn't acknowledge him and a bit later, he'd be gone again. On the other hand, it would be fun to have him looking on from the shadows - like he's actually present in the cinema, watching Zombies in the Snow along with them, or like he's actually in the Anxious Clown restaurant. There's just a lot of fun to be had with it, and I'm sure they've got some clever things planned. |
|
|
|
Post by Tryina Denouement on Oct 5, 2016 13:46:04 GMT -5
This trailer has set some pretty high hopes for me lmao. More on that tomorrow perhaps.
|
|
|
|
Post by gliquey on Oct 5, 2016 16:34:38 GMT -5
Handler shared this article on his Facebook, which I think is very good, and not just because they link to 667 (and more specifically, a post written by me!). |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Oct 5, 2016 16:47:24 GMT -5
Handler shared this article on his Facebook, which I think is very good, and not just because they link to 667 (and more specifically, a post written by me!). I was just about to share this! I thought this line: 'Apart from being the series’ narrator, Warburton’s Snicket will play a pivotal role in the lives of the children.' was very interesting -- I mean, yes, you can argue that Snicket plays a number of pivotal roles in the Baudelaires' lives within the books, but the way this is phrased it sounds like they're talking about something extra, some new role in their lives he might be playing which he didn't in the books -- perhaps a more direct one? But that said I have no idea how much the author of the article knows about the actual content of the series ... |
|
|
|
Post by lorelai on Oct 5, 2016 17:25:13 GMT -5
Adding to the group of people saying we shouldn't take the teaser trailer too seriously, I know that the Gilmore Girls: A Year in the Life teaser trailer was a scene that does not appear in the four episodes that were filmed. It was meant to give an idea of what we'll see/hear and create excitement, and was just as short as ASOUE's.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cafe SalMONAlla on Oct 5, 2016 20:33:55 GMT -5
As per the actual show itself, it would seem that they really are doing it Twilight Zone style, where the narrator comments on the action from the place that it takes place, but does not interact with the characters at all. Should that be the case, perhaps he won't even mention the TV production aspect at all. "The story you're about to hear..." kinda thing, or even "We are now in..." and then just go from there. On the one hand, having Mr S do that doesn't feel faithful to his role in the books (well, obviously). I'd prefer his scenes to just depict him researching and writing, and maybe interviewing witnesses or at least sending them fruitless letters, telegrams and greeting cards. On the other hand, I get that since this is a visual medium having him narrate in-scene kind of suggests itself. It could probably lead to some amusing moments where, say, something dramatic is happening on screen and Snicket strolls through, stony-faced, defining something as he goes. |
|
|
|
Post by Dante on Oct 6, 2016 2:33:16 GMT -5
Oh, I just remembered something I forgot to mention yesterday. The music sounded a little fairytale-y for my tastes, but I guess the show needs to have fairytale elements in order to subvert them. I also felt that much of the music felt a little too "magical," the sort of thing I'd expect from a show about discovering some wonderful fairytale world. It felt rather at odds with the spoken dialogue, and not in a particularly subversive way. |
|
|
|
Post by Violent BUN Fortuna on Oct 6, 2016 5:06:12 GMT -5
I would LOVE to see Snicket doing his research, although it looks doubtful that we will see that, given what we have glimpsed so far of the way they're depicting Snicket. Hopefully they'll at least mention it.
Also the idea of Snicket strolling across the screen resolutely defining words is hilarious -- particularly because I'm imagining him doing it at the most hair-raising moments; when the Baudelaires are struggling to keep their boat afloat on Lake Lachrymose, Snicket just floats by in his own boat (or swims by? Or perhaps inexplicably just wades through the water because it's a television production and the water's not really that deep and he doesn't mind ruining the dramatic tension) defining words with a deadpan seriousness.
*Baudelaires being attacked by leeches in the background*
Lemony Snicket, speaking loudly over them: Wunderkind is a German word which here means ...
|
|
