Contrarian Corner: Mad Max Fury Road
Tuesday, December 15, 2015 at 12:30PM Lynn Lee test-drives a new, potentially recurring feature wherein TFE members voice dissent on Oscar hopefuls and critical darlings.
If you’re on this site, it’s safe to assume you pay attention to movie critics. It’s also a fair bet you’re likely—or at least more likely than the average person—to agree with the critics when they coalesce around a particular movie. But if you’re like me, every once in a while a film comes along that generates a level of critical enthusiasm you just don’t get. You’d like to share or at least understand it, but instead find yourself feeling like the lone non-believer in a church full of the radiant converted.
That’s how it’s been for me and Mad Max: Fury Road, which met with rave reviews and solid box office when it hit theaters this summer. More recently, it’s picked up a raft of critics’ awards and nominations that have kept it in the Oscars conversation - not just in the technical categories but the majors, including picture and director. Any doubt about its chances stems from the fact that it’s a “genre” film, not its intrinsic merits, which most agree transcend its genre. [More...]
I’m still not sold.
The visual and technical craft that went into the movie is remarkable, no question. Max’s early, failed attempt to escape Joe’s fortress has got to be one of the most electrifying and disorienting sequences I’ve seen all year, and the pursuit and combat scenes that follow are equally virtuosic. And there’s a delightfully outré, almost goofy quality to George Miller’s post-apocalyptic universe, perfectly exemplified in the movie’s best character – the Doof Warrior, who rallies the troops with an electric guitar that also shoots flames because, you know, why the hell not.
But it also highlights my basic problem with the film: while reasonably entertained, I was never more than superficially invested in the story or any of the people in it. With the caveat that I’ve never seen any of the other Mad Max movies, we’re given next to no background on how this dystopian world came to be, how it’s sustained, or who any of our protagonists were before their paths crossed. Nor does the movie ever try to fill in those blanks to any significant degree. It’s basically one long chase, interspersed with impressive action set pieces (though to be honest, fighting-while-driving scenes, no matter how masterfully shot, tend to bore me after a while, and Fury Road was no exception) and quieter interludes too elliptical to generate any genuine insight into the characters or the society they inhabit.
We root for our protagonists by virtue of their desperate predicament, not their personalities or the fleeting glimpses we get of their traumatic pasts. Their grit and resourcefulness are admirable, but as characters they remain largely static. (The one exception is Nicholas Hoult’s Nux, and his turnaround feels more like a plot convenience than an organic evolution; which may be why I was only mildly touched, not deeply moved, by his ultimate sacrifice.) As Max and Furiosa, Tom Hardy and Charlize Theron work hard to suggest the emotions roiling beneath the hardened surfaces of these accidental allies, and they’re such pros they almost succeed. Yet despite their best efforts, both remain fundamentally elusive, more remarkable for their physical feats of survival than the unthinkable tragedy and loss they’ve suffered.
Perhaps that’s precisely the point. Some fans may argue that the leanness of the plot and characterization are features, not bugs, as with many a classic Western or action film. But it’s a fine line between leanness and shallowness. For me to care about a movie I have to feel that I really know its main characters, and/or that there’s something unusually compelling about their narrative arc. In both these departments, Fury Road fell short for me. Whether Oscar voters feel the same way remains to be seen, though the precursors suggest I remain in the extreme minority.
Next time: Why I found “Brooklyn” more irritating than endearing
Reader Comments (48)
I really enjoyed Fury Road, but understand your point of view. A friend of mine has almost precisely the same issues with it. Looking forward to more of this series.
I'm a fan of the film but I completely agree with what's said in this piece. Surprised more people don't have the same problems.
No, you are not alone. While I liked Mad Max, the overpraise has to be answered. For one thing, the film is lauded as a "feminist" movie, presumably because Charlize Theron kicks serious ass. OK, but what about a major character dying in childbirth, as well as the baby, and ABSOLUTELY NOTHING is made of it? We've got to shove them aside to get back to the demolition derby and general mayhem. Yes, the demolition derby and general mayhem are done superbly, but that's all too it. after about the two-thirds mark, I, and my companion, were both asking, "Is that all there is?" Turns out, yes, that's all there was. Don't audiences want more? Shouldn't they want more? And shouldn't critics want more, and not be inflating a B+ movie into an A+ movie? A work of art? Hardeharhar!
Fury Road was a disappointment for me too. Saw it theatrically when it opened and had to see it in 3-D because it was the earliest showing of the day. I hate 3-D--it limits the visual expansiveness of the movie--any movie. Everyone praised this movie for not being the contemporary junk we're spoon fed whenever we venture to the multiplex. But the same can be said for Jupiter Ascending which I made an effort to see before it was inevitably prematurely yanked from the theaters. Knowing it would be a mixture of Dune (1984) and Cloud Atlas (2012) and it was. Way more enjoyable than Fury Road because the expectations were abysmal.
I agree, to be honest. The film works best when it's engaging in pure, unadulterated visual expression and doing all the talking through image - its Soviet montage sequences, as I think of them. But Miller keeps halting the action to give us moments that strain to develop his characters and make us care for them, and the attempts feel perfunctory at best.
I also don't think the film is technically faultless. I was surprised upon the film's release to see very few people remarking on the weird sound mix, which becomes most distracting during the quiet scenes of dialogue. The post-dubbed dialogue is so loud and crisp in relation to the space the characters inhabit that it takes you out of the film. I imagine this was no mistake and that Miller had some other unorthodox intention with it, but every time someone spoke all I could picture was the actor standing in a recording booth reciting the lines. The disjunction between image and sound was often glaring.
Haven't seen MM:FR, but I love this idea for a series. Hope it continues.
Next time: Why I found “Brooklyn” more irritating than endearing
I don't know how engaging/endearing these Armond White columns are going to be
Rahul:
You would prefer that everyone hew to the party line?
Yeah, I'm not sure why everyone is calling this the masterpiece of the year and worthy of Oscar Attention regardless of its genre. That might be true, but are you acting like Inside Out isn't all those things?
Love this idea for a series! As much as I love Fury Road, it is great to see it though someone else's eyes in this manner. (I could write an epic tome on how much I hated Blue Jasmine and Cate Blanchett's performance...which is heresy, I know)
It will be interesting to see how oscar responds to this movie. 10 years ago I would've said it had no chance but in post-2008 (the year they passed on a genre movie everyone loved for oscar bait movies only some people liked) it's hard to say. They've embraced some (Avatar, District 9, Inception) but this one could go either way. As for whether fury road deserves a spot it depends on who gets in instead. I liked fury road maybe not as much as some, but if it gets left off to make room for fins like Inside Out or Sicario I'm fine with that but if it gets left off for some oscar bait bullshit like The Danish Girl that just furthers my suspicions that a lot of the voters don't even see these movies.
I agree with a lot of what you say. I am all for genre films getting invited to the big dance, but there are worthier genre films this year... like Inside Out and Ex Machina (or heck, even The Martian).
@ken s -
"But it’s a fine line between leanness and shallowness." is the only real criticism and it's not even explained. I'm not a fan of criticism just to criticize. There's nothing really compelling here so maybe when she eviscerates Brooklyn, I'm hoping it'll be better than "I just didn't like her name".
For such a "lean" blog post that others are so fascinated and amazed by, I guess I find it shallow and superficial and pedantic.
Sorry I'm not toeing the party line here.
A great idea for a series. It's a little discouraging that it's starting off with a movie with a strong female lead (Fury Road) and a female ensemble (Brooklyn) since those kind of movies have an uphill climb anyway.
@Rahul I kinda agree. Feels like this series could turn sour real fast. The site's usual reviews should be enough, rather than specifically highlighting CONTRARIAN OPINION.
Wow, Lynn Lee, you are a brave soul for writing the first one. And congrats to Nathaniel for putting forth this kind of feature. Great to hear all voices! Hope everyone will be respectful.
My thoughts re Mad Max: Fury Road - what the hell am I watching? Car chases-yes (but I agree, they got dull fast!) Theron looking and acting fierce-hell yes! Hoult with a terrific performance-yes! But the rest--I was totally bored by Hardy, by the girls, by the ridiculous chest-beating War Boys' violence. In fact, it reminded me of the very bad Indiana Jones and Temple of Doom--remember the Thugee cult? Ugh.
I totally agree, Lynn. I liked Fury Road just fine - in its most ecstatic moments, more than fine - but I couldn't help but feel like there was something missing. The critical hosannas make no sense to me at all. Yes, it's great that an action film has smarts and solid filmmaking craft to go along with its balls-to-the-wall action sequences, and that craft is indeed formidable. And the stunts were unbelievable. But the characters were flat. They seemed so compelling (mostly because of the charisma of the actors) that I wanted something, anything, from them, but got nothing. Maybe it would have been better as a silent film? Anyway, a big thanks for writing this!
I disagree. While I can understand where people are coming from, as someone who shares the sentiment that "fighting-while-driving scenes, no matter how masterfully shot, tend to bore me after a while", I can't help but feel those who criticize Mad Max as lean, shallow or uninteresting because nothing more happens beyond a big chase are not putting enough attention?
Something. The last thing I want to retort to is a whole "you just don't get it" thing, which is not what I'm trying to get at, but saying that when people say nothing happens beyond the action I do think they might just need to look a bit closer. There's a lot more in it beyond just a chase sequence or even "fights-while driving."
I love this idea for a series, especially since Fury Road is by no means an excellent movie and there are at least 10 films from 2015 more deserving of a Best Picture nomination. But I also understand some people's gripes with this series already. I think the best solution would be to also include contrarian opinions about movies that are critically reviled but that the specific author loves for reasons he/she then states.
(OT: I'm sure someone has long since asked this and received an answer, but are the Troutmans who both posted in these comments related? I've been meaning to ask for awhile.)
On the contrary, I thought MMFR didn't feel the need to fill in any blanks, leaving up to its audience's imagination and criteria, many aspects of the film. In the end, it's a film about society, where we're aiming to, how should we react to this. MMFR is somewhat of a mirror, in which we can look at ourselves. Are we Max? Are we Furiosa? Which characters, are us?
It's no coincidence, most Miller work, specially since Babe (which he produced), is ambitious in their themes and are complex onions with multiple layers to peel off. One can just stop in the surface, or actually ask oneself about why the things are happening... Miller made a film that is simple enough in its structure, to be able to produce a wide range of reactions.
Rahul
I agree that to be contrarian just to be contrarian a la Armond White is a double drag and just as tedious as passively going along with the herd mentality. But I think that one large reason underlying my dissatisfaction with Mad Max is a widely held idea that it represents "real" cinema, as if gonzo fights on trucks going vroom through the desert real loud is somehow more "cinematic" than exploring relationships or examining the way society functions (or functioned) and now it's winning award after award, when other films (I'll go with Tangerine, Inside Out, Room, Clouds of Sils Maria, etc.) are much, much more deserving.
P.S. I was also mildly disappointed with Brooklyn. Check out Richard Brody in the Nov 6 New Yorker to get an idea of where I'm coming from, even though I wouldn't put it quite as strongly.
In a blockbuster cinematic landscape dominated by too much exposition,, I appreciated Fury Road just... showing the world. No dramatic monologues about how it came to be, no hackneyed conversations explaining the mechanics of survival in this world, no going into Freudian-lite backstory for every character.
It created a little bit of magic and fantasy, and the idea that what we're seeing is just a tiny, tiny slice of something much larger and fascinating.
This article is shallow.
The argumentation is: "you know that movie that you really liked... so, i didn't"
While I happen to like this film, I LOVE the idea of this column. Too many dissenters are dismissed and insulted (not here of course) when they stand outside the collective cluster of nostalgic love for a film or performance. This is exactly the column I needed to read today.
Sean Troutman, when I pitched the idea for this series, I suggested exactly the same thing: it can be used to highlight films that the critics panned but the writer liked, not just the reverse. I believe I actually used the phrase "not to go all Armond White," also. ;)
The thing about Armond White is he seems to enjoy being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian - prides himself on it, even, and shows mainly contempt for the majority view; whereas it really bothers and perplexes me when I'm that out of sync with the critical majority because it happens so infrequently. This series is meant to spur amicable discussion and draw out what each side (majority/dissent) might be missing. Thanks for keeping it polite and respectful!
I love both Max and Brooklyn. This well-written article makes some very valid points, even while I think they can be countered with terrific arguments. However, I feel Brooklyn is nearly flawless, so any dissent, to me, will be an uphill climb.
@Paul Outlaw - This is my first sighting of Mike Troutman, but I'll admit that I was taken aback when I did see his name because I have a brother also named Mike Troutman. My brother Mike has never been to this website, so the Mike Troutman who posted here is not related to me (as far as I know). Coincidentally, I do have a brother named Patrick Troutman who frequents The Film Experience about as often as I do. However, my brother Patrick Troutman rarely (if ever) comments. Small world, I guess.
@lylee - I dislike that Armond White is famous just for being a dissenting opinion among major critics. It makes me wonder if he actually believes what he's saying or if he just wants to be famous. There are plenty of critically acclaimed movies, Best Picture nominees and a few classics I dislike, but I have my reasons for all of them. I'm happy to see a series like this because it creates a real discussion on a website that thrives on this kind of thing. I look forward to more essays from this series whether they be contrarian opinions on well-liked movies or on famous turkeys.
While I disagree with some things you said (I think the fact that they don't explain the hows and whys of this world is one of the film's biggest strengths), I also found myself not really loving MM: FR. It's a solid film overall and certainly a technical accomplishment but I didn't really feel anything for characters and the narrative felt surprisingly light.
Love the idea of the series, especially if it tackles underrated as well as overrated movies.
Having said that, please do one on "Inside Out". I can't be the only one who was underwhelmed by it.
I don't mind contrarian opinions if they're well written... But this is just tepid bear poking.
"Fury Road" was like "Speed" to me. Remember "Speed"? That was fun to see at the movies when it came out.
Well, if anyone ever went to the movies to watch a movie whose main focus is to be a joyride and expected to see depth at the same level as movies whose main focus is to explore human behaviour, then the issue has nothing to do with the movie. Most likely the characters will exhibit inner conflict superficially, their stakes will not be very high and their main goal will be to survive and beat their nemesis. I feel Fury Road" does those things well.
Again, anyone who complains that such movie is winning awards over more deserving movies is missing the point when it's coming to awards. Awards are not supposed to be given to what you think it's the best, but instead it is given out to movies/people whose perception has been imprinted in people's minds by a machine called marketing. Since human beings are so prone to being easily swayed into having a collective consciousness or collective opinions, there is not a lot of work that needs to be done. So, there is never a "best". There is 'your" best. And it's most likely the same best as the fellows one surrounds themselves with, in real life or virtually.
I think this is a good idea for a series.
Lynn... I am in total agreement with your blog...
I have to admit this post bothered me immensely. This is the one film on the Oscar race this year that wasn't supposed to be there from the "season's narrative" stand point. It was released too early, it doesn't have "big speeches", scenery-chewing, it's a bizzarre looking blockbuster masterpiece. It was supposed to get those technical nods and be happy for that. But it decided to break into the party, going against some films we knew were going to be in the conversation a year ago (Revenant, Spotlight, Bridge of Spies, Room, Brooklyn, Joy, The Martian etc). And it now stands a pretty good chance of actually winning Best Director (although pundits remain in the Ridley Scott train that hasn't yet - and I suspect will never - take off). No one this year deserves more that Oscar than the brilliant George Miller. No one. It would be one of the wins in the last few decades, not just for being deserving, but for going against what was expected to happen.
But you just need to have this "what's the big fuss about it?" debate. Notice that the movie was released months ago and from the get go its greatness became a consensus in the critical community. We could've had this "debate" offered by the author of this post months ago, and maybe a more meaningful one. I am not against people speaking out. I am just pissed off that it is happening now. It's not just here - the "it's just a car chase" BS and the "feminist lite" disgusting comments are popping up on Twitter and also on boards I am a frequent user of.
I clicked on the comments section here but I knew I shouldn't have. I knew it would be a lot of "you're right! I never understood what's the big deal about it". It's like Donald Trump - he speaks things you hear and can't believe what you just heard, but he's leading the polls. Forgive me, but some of the comments against Mad Max are just showing a narrow minded view of what people perceive cinema is.
Last year I had to deal with this mess with Boyhood, a masterpiece that I hold very dearly to my heart. It's a small film that once people began discussing it online I just knew it would get ugly. It began with the "it has no plot!" thing and ended on a vicious, unbelievable, outrageous claim that it somehow a racist film. Why do we need to do this to films? Awards shows should never be about bashing every film until the one that gets hit the least wins. Why is an ambitious and accomplished film like Fury Road the target and not a bland, uninspired film like Spotlight? Look, I am not speaking out against McCarthy's film, but why is his film the one getting away, and the one that takes chances actually takes the hardest hits? Great films have its detractors, all of them. The ones that don't inspire people to even discuss it deeply, loudly, are the ones that mediocrity zone where most films lie. Imagine what people would say about The Assassin if they came around to watch it and discuss it - imagine the things you would hear about another film that made 2015 an impressive year for cinema.
The conclusion I come to is that we love to hate the Academy, but the silent majority online, the one that poses itself as "contrarian" and waits for a "contrarian" to write a post that touches their view to come and say "thank you for speaking what I think", is the closest thing we get from the Academy. I bet you: write a "contratian" post on Spotlight, Brooklyn, Room and these other middle of the road films and you will not get the same amount of "I agree with you" responses from this site's readership.
Again, I have no problem with people speaking their mind! It's just that after years of watching the Oscars disgracefully make the worst picks I want them to celebrate, at least with a nomination, but also with a few wins, a True Great Movie. And this kind of thing antecipates what will probably happen down the road when the collective organizations speak out - disappointment. I need to care less about these things...
Nobody is tearing apart the film or expressing disapproval at unconventional films breaking into the Oscar race (not here, anyway). I'm sure Lynn and the other folks on this site wholly endorse when bold, adventurous movies that had no designs on awards find unexpected awards success later on. But why should that preclude criticism of those films? Speaking for myself, I have considerable reservations with "Mad Max" but am still thrilled that it's finding such a foothold in the race.
Mad Max will definitely be better than most, if not all, nominees this year. With that said, it is no masterpiece. Not even close. With THAT said, there are far better films out their to bitch about.
I agree with you on struggling to be invested in something more than the design elements and the construction of the film, which is why I also think the film is lucky to have such an emotionally accessible actor like Charlize Theron (though Nicolas Hoult brings a lot to the table in that regard, as well) to give some unsuperficial humanity.
Isn't this site typically opposed to this kind of targeted awards-season takedown? So this one is supposedly derived from a casual "I'm just saying" impulse, but it's no less silly and deviously ill-timed.
And when your argument basically boils down to "I didn't like it because it's not my kinda thing," you're not even contributing anything meaningful to the critical discourse surrounding the film. You're not reading the film, you're just reacting to it.
Nobody needs this, especially not from TFE. Shut it down right now.
In this mediocre year for film (just my opinion/experience) that is producing an unusually suspenseful awards season (so far), Mad Max: Fury Road is one of the few acclaimed (and adored) movies that I am (still) really excited about—Tangerine is another—so while it may not be the definition of cinematic perfection, I'm happy to see it in the conversation as one of the best of the year. In that sense, I agree with Gustavo's first three paragraphs above. (But I also thought Boyhood was an overrated slog, so in the final analysis: To each his/her own.)
After years of superhero movies with endless exposition, origin stories, and world building, it was very refreshing to watch a big budget action flick that respected the audience's intelligence and started in media res.
I'm all for a differing of opinion, but you'd need a better argument then that.
Are we gonna get one of these contrarian columns for Spotlight, Carol, Inside Out and Room? How 'bout a whole column dedicated to that awful Brie Larson?
My respect for George Miller and the Mad Max series is so deep, that I can honestly say that FURY ROAD is both the best pure action movie I saw this year AS WELL AS being my least favorite in the series!
I
Ruh roh.
I can only see this maybe-new series going down a weird sour path.
Also, genre movies are so easy to pick on. People either go along for the ride, or they don't.
I used to find it overpraised but a second viewing converted me.
That said, I still don't get why it sounds like all of the dialogue was dubbed in the 1970s.
Agree with the review as well, on a whole. I had a rollicking good time in the theater while watching it. Thinking about it in the months after, it continues to depreciate in my mind. It just feels hollow, incomplete. It's a great action film, but that's all there is to it. Action. I don't really care about the characters at all and am baffled why people think Charlize needs to be awarded for this. She did her job and did what was asked of her, but this isn't Sigourney Weaver in Aliens.
I wouldn't give this particular film anything outside the technical categories like makeup/hairstyling, visual effects, etc. I won't be mad that it is nominated for Best Picture, I'm not just on the train like everyone else.
Thank God my movie was poorly received! Silver lining!
I agree with you wholeheateredly. While the film is aesthetically gorgeous, it fails at every other level. I was hugely disappointed, but then I had perhaps an inflated view of George Miller's abilities as a filmmaker. This movie exposed his limitations.
I suppose I should be a little more specific regarding my poor assessment of this film. For the most part, it comes to to character:
1) Fangirls/boys rave about Theron as Furiosa, citing it as a strong point in the film. However, this character and Theron's performance are the major weakness in the film. First, consider this. The entire film is structured around Furiosa's quest for atonement. Captured a decade or so before the action of the film, she rises in the ranks of the warboys to a position of authority. However, at some point she has a crisis of conscience and she abducts the harem of the leader of the Warboys. All of this suggests that Furiosa should be an extrememly unpleasant character. How else could she have risen, as a woman, to a position of authority in this testosterone death cult? Why else would these fanatics follow her orders? Basically, for Furiosa to work, she would have to be one of the worst villians in the film -- with a streak of conscience that motivates her actions. The young women she abducts should view her as threatening . . . everyone should fear her cruelty. But this is not the character we are given. Theron and Miller seem to want us to sympathize with her to easily. With this mis-charaterization, nothing really makes alot of sense. To believe that Theron can actually go toe-to-toe with Hardy in a fight I have to believe that she is ruthless and violent.
2) Max is a non-entity in this film.
3) The wives are far too glamorous. The performances are terrible, with the actresses acting like millenials, complete with their sensibliites and attitudes, who have just walked in off the street . . . and not like the survivors of nuclear holocaust. Bizarre, false note. Also, they appeared to be the most privileged and healthiest survivors in this world. There needed to some indication of the head Warboys abuse of them to motivate the escape beyond platitudes about women not being property. In that world, who wouldn't want to live in those circumstances? What are the real alternatives?
4) The transformation of Doof Warrior because a girl was nice to him one time. There is a touch of DW Griffith melodramatics here.
5) Why did the collapse of the canyon in the escape present only a temporary barrier to the pursuers while the car pile up in the same canyon at the end of the film effectively sealed them off, away from the oasis?
These are just a few of the issues that I have with the film. With slight tweaks, this film could have worked much better. As it is, critical appraisal will eventually catch up with a largely forgettable film.