Quote from: Biomechanoid on May 17, 2019, 07:57:23 PM
Quote from: kwisatz on May 17, 2019, 07:16:45 PM
Godfather is just the celluloid King in this league of subtle characterisation. Heres a sympathetic guy who at first view out of nothing commits to these in the beginning almost heroic and later horrendous ways to protect his family but then you realise that in the film its 1945 and the guy is introduced in his very first scene wearing a (i think even highly decorated?) military uniform. Hes the only one doing so at the wedding. Hes different. And thats almost all you need to know up to a point.
Here's the thing with comparing the characters Michael and Dany stacked next to each other. In hopes he's not offended I break our embargo, I reference Voodoo's stare and compare between Michael and Dany, which I give him props for a well thought out bullet list of comparisons.
That said, I don't know if I can say the "snap factor" is applicable to the Michael character. He did not at any critical point snap and became the Don, he went through a series of events Voodoo describes that evolved Michael to the Don. For a character to snap, it requires a minimum amount of leaping from previous behavioral norm. Without some sort of behavioral leap, it's not snapping, it's evolving.
A better comparison if one wanted to give an example how a character who snaps was written better than Dany's descent, she should be compared to a fictional character who did snap, or took a leap from previous behavioral norm, but the author handled it with better writing. At the moment, I can't think of such a fictional character example, but I don't think Michael is the character example I would use to show how a character snapping can be handled better. Surely an example exists if anyone can think of one.
I had a lenghty answer concerning Michael but PC crushed and im too tired to think straight. I'll try again tomorrow. Off the top of my head though:
Gollum for example kinda has the same arc I'm ascribing Dany here, i think. He did good for a while but is too fukked up in the end, in that betrayal scene he snaps back. Vaders arc is mirror-inverted, he snaps back into light in ROTJ.
Willard in Apo Now kinda snapped for a short period; i mean killing Kurtz been his goal from the start and hes military but he basically butchered him behaving like he was carrying out some sort of pseudo religious killing ritual. It was temporal though and he withstand the violence in the end (i guess), but i think one could argue he wasnt himself for quite a while after being interrogated brainwashed by Kurtz.
Pitt is snapping in
Seven. Quite in character id say but not 100 percent necessary either. The film does quite good depicting the moment where internally hes on a knife edge. Hes emptying the full clip into spacey snapsnap not sure hes gonna recover luls--
Its the same with Dany though, I'm not arguing here shes a 100 percent determined to snap (that kinda goes against the whole concept anyway), but she did and thats fine for me at least.
From my point of view the thought of someone not being able to snap in a given moment is superficial any. The mind is a black box. If the writers found her path through life sufficient to justify a snap its hard to argue against, if philosophically you dont wanna take some kind of Hegelesque teleological position where A leads to D exclusively in case B and C happens. Her character wasnt destined determined to become anything, thats kinda the fun premise in a non mythical prosaic approach.
Its like in that Dark Knight Rises dialog between Batman and Robin, where the latter reveals he unmasked him from the first moment they met. As a child who lost his parents society thought Wayne had moved on, but he will always be the child looking down on his parents corpses, this isnt something you can discard, ever.
