I thought I was so over Michael Cera. My video game skills are only up to the early levels of Super Mario Bros, NES. And I have as much desire to watch hipsters fall in and out of “relationships” for a couple hours as I do to sit through Inception again and see if I’m missing anything. But Edgar Wright’s followup to his keenly observed genre riffs Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz is as dazzling as it is heartfelt. Scott Pilgrim vs. the World is one of the sharpest portraits of millennial culture yet put to film.
First and foremost and desperately in need of some Ritalin is the visual style. Pop-up graphics introduce us to characters (Name: Scott Pilgrim, Rating: Awesome), witty scene transitions unfold like comic book panels, and sounds get the full Adam West Batman: fap, plok, whump! The film is a mixed media culling such disparate elements as Seinfeld and The Sims, but nothing older than the ‘80s. Was there culture before MTV?
That’s to say nothing of the fight sequences. See, Scott falls in love at first sight, or so our Shakespeare’s convinced himself, with a fuchsia-haired girl named Ramona Flowers, but in order to date her, he has to physically defeat her seven evil exes in combat. Which is only absurd in our universe, but “in the mysterious land of Toronto,” where the film takes place, characters inventively bleep their curse words and it’s possible to punch the highlights out of someone’s hair. The seven-plus fights are crammed into the final hour, which dips into overkill but is saved by the twists that distinguish each fight and the video game style of one-ups, coin rewards, cool combos, and superpowers.
Repeat viewings may take a toll on my reaction to the constant inundation of graphic elements (amusing -10, obnoxious +200), but the passive-aggressive need for attention is actually a clever gambit: it’s one motif in the film’s tapestry of millennial culture, where enthusiasm is oh so lame. Notice the passwords to get into the super-hip club are “whatever” and “eh,” funny fly-bys but equally biting. Scott Pilgrim’s central argument is much more damning, though it’s told with a disappointed dad’s gentle hand. In short, the casual approach to everything from relationships to life makes us all monsters, and we can’t even see it. Casual (emotional, social, sexual) betrayals turn us into Street Fighters, and our loved ones mere pixels. You don’t think about Chun-Li’s feelings when you deliver the KO any more than you think about your girlfriend you’ve been meaning to dump for the new hottie or your friend you’ve been ignoring for your boyfriend. We’re the me generation, or rather, I’m the me generation.
Pilgrim celebrates the great strides of our generation, too—diversity, technological acuity—and mocks us when we need it—indie snobbery, vegan righteousness—but it’s ultimately hopeful, a coming-of-age tale. Scott grows, or thinks so anyway. We may be in extended adolescence, the film reckons, but we’re just getting started.
Plus, the movie has to have some quality points whenever Thomas Jane has a cameo appearance.
Thomas Jane involved in a very, very funny cameo i might add.
This movie looks awesome.
I enjoyed Scott Pilgrim, and I think Edgar Wright is one of the top young directors to watch; but in the end I couldn’t help but feel nothing of consequence really happened. Also, the movie seems to be targeted at 20 somethings, but the references are aimed at those in their 30s (The Pixies, Zelda, etc).
I think the confectionary quality of the film would have been more forgettable had the narrative not so thoroughly taken to task the abandon with which the characters approach their supposedly close relationships. Roommates mistreat each other and it’s supposed to be funny, significant others are on completely different pages (leading to that perfectly written line “I think we should break up or whatever” and the other ouch “Is there anyone in this bar you haven’t slept with?”), friends ditch Scott’s obviously validated concerns about signing with Evil Ex #7 for money, etc. And almost all of it is happening under the surface while the actually more forgettable video game narrative distracts us. Sounds a lot like real college-age/post-college life to me, and more to the point, I don’t think we’ve seen it on film before this acutely captured.
my main question about this film involves pilgrim’s relation to ramona flowers = she’s not a person in the film but merely a ‘love/devotion’ object – pilgrim sees her in a dream = ok, but she’s just skating by = we don’t know why he’s really interested in her – or who she is at all – what does she do with her life, what does she care about, what are her opinion’s about anything? is this a commentary on the narcissism/selfishness of youth = you’re not really involved with the other at this stage but merely your imagining of what the other is?
Jett, it sounds like an update of an old medieval romance story in which the damsel-in-distress was merely an object of veneration, possession, etc.
The hero has to defeat seven villains in order to win the hand of the princess? Straight out off the 15th century…
I haven’t seen the film (but perhaps will, out of curiosity), but is this less about a love story than some sort of timeless parable for the struggles of youth?
Jett, I think Ramona’s character is so withdrawn and mysterious because of her past relationships. And there’s something incredibly powerful and true about the way we find out more and more about her through each of the exes.
The reality of who Ramona is comes through the (literal) pain of dealing with Ramona’s exes. So that, regardless of what else he has imagined, it’s difficult to ignore how she’s both treated and been treated in the past.
For me, it’s kinda refreshing to see someone portrayed on screen who’s not willing to divulge their deepest, darkest secrets at the drop of a hat.
In answering the ‘possession’ aspect it’s important to point out the ‘task’ of fighting the seven evil exes is something Ramona has put in place, whether rightly or wrongly, to protect herself from more pain and see how committed Scott really is.
Daveed and Mark = daveed’s comment resonates more with me = with the idea being that there would be less psychological complexity in 15th romance story (have no idea if this is true ;)
i didn’t share mark’s feeling’s while watching the pic, (did you read the comic first?); perhaps i was hindered by the fact that there was nothing, (other than one image in a dream), that drew Scott to Ramona = had no idea why the attachment or attraction.
Hi Jett, I did read the comic first, although I’m surprised you have a problem with the idea that Scott’s character would not want to meet someone he had a clear and memorable dream about, then sees in real life the next day.
Scott describes her as “the girl of my dreams” representing that for Scott, to begin with she is an object of fantasy. However, as the reality of a relationship and the pain he’s enduring kicks in, he gets pretty worked up about the relationship being much harder than he had pictured.
I suppose the question should not be ‘why was Scott attracted to Ramona in the first place’ but rather ‘why does he keep fighting for her through out the movie?’
The latter question for me is much more interesting since I think the answer needs to contain the fact he doesn’t have anything else in his life worth fighting for, and says something about the vacuous nature of the generation he represents.
Jett, I think the answer is a combination of Mark’s and Daveed’s responses (not to mention the inexplicable nature of attraction), but you hit the nail on the head when you asked the question. Ramona is a complete cipher to Scott (despite being, literally, the girl of his dreams) when he falls in “love” with her, just like Shakespeare’s muse for the majority of the sonnets (which are comparable to this film only in their self-consciousness). In other words, his attraction to her is pure, selfish projection.
It seems to me Ramona doesn’t ever really develop a personality beyond “damaged romantic heroine,” but at the end, after he knows much of her story, Scott sticks with her, anyway. After all that, it can’t be entirely selfish, can it? What other surprises does Ramona have for potential suitors? Maybe he really did learn something.
This reminds me of Knives’ story actually. Why was she interested in Scott, who turned out to be whiny, duplicitous and physically unable to see outside of himself? Projection? Blindness to his weaknesses (seems to jibe with her love of Sex Bob-Omb)?
[...] minimalism, is incidental. The central epiphany is only slightly more profound, and GREENBERG and SCOTT PILGRIM have more fully illustrated the dangers of casual living this year. You wish Coppola had a new [...]