Glass Onion (Knives Out 2)

[JasonPratt]

I don't want to get into examples, in order to avoid spoilers -- but I specifically said forced coincidences, meaning where the author keeps adding coincidences in order to keep the plot he wants to reach from collapsing. That includes coincidences necessary to resolve the mystery(s) in this case.

I suppose a case could be made that the overarching mega-coincidence of "this is dumb" behind practically all the plot, doesn't count as an appeal for pushing the plot forward by coincidences, because that's the main thesis of the film. That would be like complaining about dumb coincidences forced into the plot by the authors of a Naked Gun movie (or episode), or the Adjective Movie franchise: that's the category of silly comedies they are, and you either buy that going in because you want to enjoy that, or you skip it. (Why bother complaining about dumb plot coincidences in keeping a pr0n film moving along, especially if it's also supposed to be a comedy? You aren't there for a good plot!)

I don't get the impression people are supposed to be laughing with the film (much less at it), however, when (for example) someone is murdered because (the film's official explanation says) the person was too clever to be worried about the killer and so the killer, despite being dumb, was able to succeed. I mean, that could work as a dark comedy about arrogant hubris, but the film absolutely wants to cheer on the murdered person at all levels -- along with that person's successor's murderous tantrum at the end which doesn't work when everything says the person should have succeeded, simply because the plot doesn't want success. It's practically like the meme of Leslie Nielson (from a Naked Gun movie!) standing in front of the burning house declaring "EVERYTHING IS FINE, NOTHING TO SEE HERE!" But in this film I don't think the audience is supposed to be laughing at how ridiculously unreal the situation and its outcome is, and/or appreciating that the protagonist has become a world-class villain in a subversion of genre expectations -- a subversion which required Naked-Gun levels of ludicrous plot manipulation in the writing to set up and execute.

Only some minor angulation (as we say in fencing, to land the point on target) would have adjusted the film to being a goofy-ass spoofy farce of detective crime-dramas, although the timing of various scenes would need some adjustment, too, for better comedic effect. I can sympathize with comedy being hard. I don't sympathize with the joke being at the audience's expense.

A final scene with literally every survivor (except the property staff) going to jail, complete with surprised and offended mug-shots, would have helped save the end. Maybe with the property staff giving a collective set of 'good riddance' responses.

[ArizonaTank]

...

Its plot structure depends on constant forced coincidences to keep the plot happening, and at the same time completely depends on all the characters being overtly dumb (including Benoit) to the extent of deflecting most plot criticisms with the appeal that not only the characters but the script itself is (intentionally) dumb. The "Glass Onion" title itself is intended as a bird flipped at the audience for hoping to see a smart detective story: RJ is telling you straight out that you're a fool to expect that from this film, if you recognize his reference -- and if you don't, you'll find out too late after you've paid (presumably) to watch the film when he spells it out for you several different ways in the dialogue including meta references to his story-writing philosophy against the audience.

I won't go into spoilers, because it's possible you may still have a good time watching it: plenty of people have done so, and like I said I enjoyed the first KO despite its (many, many) problems, but I'm not going to pay money or even time to be insulted by an auteur for expecting something good from his work.

...

I agree that if you analyze the plot with a microscope you will find plenty to not like. But when I watched it, I just let the thing flow, and overall I enjoyed it.

[al_infierno]

...

Its plot structure depends on constant forced coincidences to keep the plot happening, and at the same time completely depends on all the characters being overtly dumb (including Benoit) to the extent of deflecting most plot criticisms with the appeal that not only the characters but the script itself is (intentionally) dumb. The "Glass Onion" title itself is intended as a bird flipped at the audience for hoping to see a smart detective story: RJ is telling you straight out that you're a fool to expect that from this film, if you recognize his reference -- and if you don't, you'll find out too late after you've paid (presumably) to watch the film when he spells it out for you several different ways in the dialogue including meta references to his story-writing philosophy against the audience.

I won't go into spoilers, because it's possible you may still have a good time watching it: plenty of people have done so, and like I said I enjoyed the first KO despite its (many, many) problems, but I'm not going to pay money or even time to be insulted by an auteur for expecting something good from his work.

...

I agree that if you analyze the plot with a microscope you will find plenty to not like. But when I watched it, I just let the thing flow, and overall I enjoyed it.

Rian Johnson actually spoke in an interview saying something to the effect of how murder mysteries are basically hangout movies and the characters are more important than the plot itself.  Agree or disagree with that notion, it really explains the approach to the Knives Out movies.

[JasonPratt]

I agree that if you analyze the plot with a microscope you will find plenty to not like. But when I watched it, I just let the thing flow, and overall I enjoyed it.

Rian Johnson actually spoke in an interview saying something to the effect of how murder mysteries are basically hangout movies and the characters are more important than the plot itself.  Agree or disagree with that notion, it really explains the approach to the Knives Out movies.

To be fair, as I noted earlier, I've enjoyed the first KO the same way -- even when I'm not hanging out with other people. ;) But I understand his point is that the murder mystery is purely an excuse to be hanging out with the characters. If it comes to that, all drama (and melodrama aside from spectacle pieces) might reduce down to that. (As Chesterton used to say, melodrama is more popular with the general population than the higher classes, because melodrama is more like real life than drama! On the other hand, no one goes to a Godzilla movie to hang out with the characters; that's just a bonus.)

I might disagree that the plot of a murder mystery, specifically as such a genre piece, doesn't really matter: the murder mystery itself is the antagonist that the protagonists are struggling against, so I would argue its structure and content matter. Although I can see his idea being expressed in the She-Hulk show, too, where the legal problems which should have been the antagonist were complete trash because they didn't have to be any better since the plot was only an excuse to hangout with the characters.

Even if I accepted his thesis about murder mysteries (and related plots) however, I don't like hanging out with such malignantly dumb characters, only one of whom is (probably?1?) written not to be also hostile (Benoit, arguably also the guest protagonist who is at least situationally sympathetic. Up to a point.)

And again to try to be fair to RJ, maybe that explains why I prefer the original and have seen it several times: I like to hang out with the primary protagonists more, as well as the auxiliary protags (the actual police investigating the crime, and the murder victim). And I like the acting from the antagonists better.


Edited to add: it just occurred to me that this might explain my lack of tolerance for his Star Wars film. I'd probably give a lot of the overt nonsense required to drive his plot more of a pass, if I enjoyed hanging out with those characters more. There's a lot for me to chew on there, even leaving aside objections over whether plot failures undermine character -- which I do think also happens. In KO I don't know that the plot failures undermine any characters per se. I wonder if this somehow explains why I vastly prefer The Dark Knight to the third film in that trilogy despite having a plot almost as broken upon examination... do I just like the characters and characterizations more in the prior film, so I'm willing to give plot problems more of a pass?

[GDS_Starfury]

a simple method of enjoying any entertainment is to not read a Pratt review.

[JasonPratt]

You glance at the abyss, and you takes your chances.   

I actually like Al's citation a lot; not because I agree with RJ on the topic (I probably don't) but because it opens up some avenues for my better understanding not only recent trends in film design but also my own enjoyment of films or lack thereof.

For example: I've been running my elderly Mom through Shakespeare's historical English plays (from King John, to Richard II and onward, currently near the end with Richard III. Edward III isn't available in a good production yet, but should be available by the end of 2023.) Due to compressing a lot of time and events into two or three hours, his plots are sometimes messy and yet also self-indulgent (though never outright self-contradictive so far). But of course, he's using the historical information, such as was available to him, as a springboard for character studies. Much of the two parts of Henry IV depend on whether you, as the audience, enjoy hanging out with Falstaff for example -- and if you don't (and I usually don't) then that duology feels easily like it's too bloated and should be trimmed down to one play.