Monday, August 06, 2007

Night at the Museum Is Better Than You Think



Night at the Museum
is a much funnier and more entertaining movie than I expected it to be, and probably more than it deserves. First it has a great premise (and the premise is probably what sold me to begin with): the exhibits in New York Natural History museum come to life at night. Awesome. The kid in me is already thrilled. Add in the fact that the screenplay is written by alums of The State and Reno 911, and I'm thinking this could be interesting (it also has the same Director of Photography from Hellboy and Pan's Labyrinth, so it looks really good).

But on the other hand you have Ben Stiller who is pretty hit and miss with his movies, an overly sentimental storyline involving a father and son, a Rotten Tomatoes ranking of 44%, and I become a little more concerned about my DVD choice.

Luckily my 8 year old daughter and I laughed through the whole thing so it really doesn't matter. But I had to ask myself, why did it work for me, and not for the critics? Why did I enjoy this more than a lot of other more highly rated films? For those who think I just have bad taste, you can stop reading now.

What was Good

Like Rexxy the dinosaur, the basic story has good bones (in Dramatica terms). In a lot of reviews I read, the critics complained about the lack of plot or the incoherent story. This is just a dead give away that they have no idea what plot or story means, but that's a complaint for another time. In the case of Museum, we have a very solid base to work from:
  • Overall story: Chaos in the Museum
  • Main Character story: Larry, the Ordinary Guy
  • Impact Character story: Teddy Roosevelt, the lovesick adventurer
  • Relationship story: Becoming a hero
So regardless of the slapstick comedy and the Ben Stiller improvs, the movie has a backbone. This what also allows for some of the more imaginative sequences like the puppy-dog dinosaur, the lilliputian cowboys and Romans, the Easter Island head (gum-gum, dum-dum), or Attila the Hun in need of a hug.

You can also tell that there was probably more to the story then they had room to tell: about the Egyptian tablet, the Security Guard's masterplan, financial troubles at the museum, and the stolen property subplot that would have gotten Larry in trouble. But again, because the four throughlines are so well defined, none of those details need to be explored. Each storyline finds its own satisfying resolution and the overall story ends on the right note when the future is secured for all concerned.

So What Bugs People?

So why the 44%? I have two reasons and they're both related to the Dramatica notion of story reception. The first issue is that the story limit is poorly defined (I'm sure StoryFanatic would be the first to point this out.) Is there an Option limit or a Time limit? On the one hand, the story takes place over three nights, so Larry has three chances to get things right. On the other hand, we're constantly being reminded of the time limit set by the fact that everything needs to go back to normal by dawn. Because, of the three nights, the story feel repetitive: the character's dilemma (chaos in the museum) should be solved regardless of time, or the clock should not be reset over and over.

The second issue is that Larry is a holistic thinker. He doesn't think in linear terms (like the other Security Guards) and he isn't able to follow the instruction manual's 1, 2, 3, 4. Even when he tries to learn about the museum exhibits, he treats each character individually in pursuit of overall balance. Like Stiller the actor, Larry is intuitive and improvisational. This makes for a funny character, but ultimately one who is more sympathetic than empathetic to a largely male audience. If we combine this with the timelock problem, we tend to see the characters as flat and one-dimensional. Not because they are, but because the nature of the situation and the problem solving style keeps the audience on the outside of the situation (this all comes from Dramatica).

I think this is probably true of most comedic characters. From Chaplin's Tramp to Mr. Bean, most characters are intuitive do-ers and the comedy arises from their lack of skill in or their unconventional approaches to everyday situations. More often than not we laugh at not with and that perhaps is the best way to distinguish between sympathy and empathy.

And Yet It Is Fun

Luckily kids don't seem to care about story reception. Funny is funny, and when it comes to plot, my kid was yelling at the TV the whole time about what she thought should or shouldn't happen. When it comes down to the happy ending (Success/Good in Dramatica terms), well how else should a movie end? It's a family movie after all, with some subversive comedy courtesy of Stiller and Owen Wilson that makes it fun for grown ups too.