Why The DUNGEONS & DRAGONS Movie Works So Well (Patreon)

Essay #1: On Function (No Spoilers!)

Enthusiastic movie-goers spend a lot of time talking about tone. But there’s a good reason for this! It’s because movie going is an emotional experience and tone is an easily perceptible quality, especially because people are often just talking about the emotion of the movie itself. It’s easy to call something “fun” or “silly” or “scary” because you know how you felt while watching it. It is undeniable in that way. But it can also make discussion a tad tricky. I mean, I feel like I spent the entire early 2010s talking about this a lot. Because it felt like there was this sizable audience that NEEDED a movie to have a singular tone in order for it to be “good.” Funny had to be funny, serious things had to always be serious. And what it was almost always indicative of was that audience member’s need to be self-serious, specifically the belief that goofiness can “pop” the bubble of one projecting themselves into a power fantasy. And this discussion still fuels so much of the MCU vs DC, etc. But the thing about tone is that it’s just the end result of feeling that actually doesn’t necessarily have a lot to do with construction. Namely, if you’re good at construction, you can kind of lead the audience anywhere you want to go. And more importantly, there’s all different kinds of “fun” within the spectrum of construction, too.

I bring all this up because I just saw Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves and I absolutely loved it. But it’s fun rests in much less it has to do with fandom winks directed at me (the kind of nerd who has been playing D&D forever) and more the fact that it’s a damn good movie. And what makes it feel so refreshing is something invoked in a comment I got from Guybrush Tweetwood @GTweetwood on twitter: “I’ve seen some people describe (or accuse, depending on their stance) the tone as MCU-ish, but, that's not quite it. I'm not sure how to articulate it, but that's not quite what it is.” And he’s right to sense the small, but critical difference of approach.

Now, the following is totally generalization because there are some counterexamples in both directions, but generally speaking the plotting within the MCU tends to be straight-forward (no matter how surreal). The “fun” comes in the fact that the main characters are quipping to each other AND about what’s happening, often poking air out of the situation. Which is the reason the villains tend to be straight-laced, monomaniacal fuddy duddies that our heroes can effectively pants. But more importantly, this feels like a power fantasy to the viewer because it’s their way of taking control of the situation. As much as there is the general threat of danger in the air, the lack of real consequence and drama in the MCU is part of the point. Heck, the plot is almost incidental to the proceedings. The safe exercise of control is part of what makes it one big comfort watch (though again, there are exceptions, especially in Gunn’s work). But it’s all part of what’s made it the most popular thing for the last fifteen years. You’ll note that the MCU is certainly “fun,” but it’s a certain kind of fun. And there’s fun options that have a lot more dexterity.

Which is what Dungeons & Dragons: Honor Among Thieves gets to show off.

But it all starts with know-how and luckily, that mostly falls into the hands of writer / directors John Francis Daley and Jonathan Goldstein (along with writer Michael Gilio, who I believe did earlier drafts). The reason I’m so high on both of them is that I’m a MASSIVE fan of 2018’s Game Night. Where most action comedies tend to be a fun, but gangly mix of yucks and bloated set-pieces, this film mostly works like a swiss-clock of precision control. It’s about unwitting idiots placed in a genuine action plot, which is anything but incidental. In fact, it succeeds because it always knows where the mystery is, where the conflict is, where the tension is, and works so keenly on how to alleviate it with either a joke or an action beat that adds more tension. No matter how funny the characters could act, the film knew the action was the base structure. Heck, they even had the great Cliff Martinez do the score for Pete’s sake. Which not only created tonal juxtaposition, but purposeful juxtaposition of various characters out of the element. Which is why the movie can feel both loose and tight at the exact same time, but you always feel the control of when and where. And we get to see that same sense of control on display once again.

Granted, D&D:HAT (a great acronym) is not a taut thriller, but instead a different genre altogether. But no, it’s not aping a grand fantasy epic like Lord of the Rings either, which relies on a lot of endless lore, pomp, and grand circumstance. No, the great thing about this film is that it’s simply spinning a yarn, which I mean in the most loving sense. It’s a little tale that’s witty, fun, rambling, and yet aching with small and pointed purposes. And for all the world-building you can find in a Dungeon Guide, this is actually the grand tradition of Dungeons & Dragons. Because it's handing you a set of rules, tropes, archetypes, lands, and worlds and going, “Here! Tell a little tale of your own!” The whole thing is that it is a space to play in. Now you may ask, “but wait, doesn’t that mean the narrative can spin out of control?” Of course, but that’s why it’s also like any good story of just about setting goals, objectives, motivations, and nestling stories within the story, all while (trying) to keep pace and put everything on track. And that’s the reason the main character of this film is a bard, doing that for the audience in turn.

But the main engine of any good yarn is the dynamics between the characters in tow. At first glance, Pine’s Bard might seem like the most obvious MCU comparison, given that he is quick to employ his joking charm. And let’s make no mistake, Pine carries the entire damn weight of this film on his back and succeeds beyond measure (his lines KILLED in the theater). But he’s also a great actor who can play the whole range of things within his character, from want, to loss, to guilt, and the quiet grief that actually makes for the backbone of the film. But the most important thing is that he’s not really a superhero in any sense. In fact, there is a critical limitation to his abilities. Namely, he’s a shifty bard with high charisma, who can’t do much of anything practical at all. This is what makes him different from, say, your fast-talking Ironman types who are also basically kings of the universe. But Pine there’s no grand ego, no employment of riches, and no real capacity other than the gift of gab. So what does gab get you in and of itself? The answer is equal parts failure and inspiration. Which is why the film is about how much this quality fits within the spectrum of a party.

And that’s where you get all the good stuff.

Because at its core, D&D is about character types clashing and aligning. If you look at the guide, it will tell you it’s all about races and classes, with your typical Barbarians, Wizards, Elves, Humans, but also all sorts of beings, like your Aarakocras, Tortles, and Dragonborns that casual folks may not recognize. At its worst, these “types” feed the same old tired stories again and again, along with a whole bunch of inherent racism (that Wizards of the Coast finally seems to be expunging). But at its best, D&D has always been a tool for rebelling against inherent assumptions of such systems. Because so often we build characters who find themselves to be outsiders, who hate their lineage, or rebel against their purpose, like finding themselves to be the Orc who wants to go magic school and the like. The players have been making good on this appeal for decades now. And something the players here make good on, too. It’s not just the fact that Pine, Hugh Grant are deft comic actors, but Justice Smith, Michelle Rodriguez, and Sophia Lillis get to be funny too! And may I remind you that executing good comedy is damn hard. But finding deeper characterization within that comedy is even more so. But it’s something the movie pulls off with a guiding hand, precisely because of how often the characters are pulling the plot in their own individual directions. These dalliances aren’t mere flourishes, but part of how every character fights for their own protagonist-dom AKA motives.

This is the essential nature of the collective yarn and wouldn’t you know it? It’s also what makes for good stories in general. In that same spirit, I love how much of the plot involves failure and the characters having to think on their feet. Because often, heroes of certain mythic tales always seem to be marching on a set path and accomplishing task after task. Meanwhile these ragtag few have an overall objective and are faced with that human problem of “how the hell do we do this?” And often, the ideas are bad. Which is no surprise that they are constantly falling backwards, with tasks piling on tasks, all as plans A, B, C, and D need to get employed instead. Which happens all as the bard (who again, is our storyteller) is trying to keep things on track. Which all means the plotting itself is funny, too. This is one of the biggest differences with the MCU, which again, always tends to keep the humor limited to characters joking at each other / the fuddy duddies - but instead a larger universe / reality / filmmakers that seems to have a grand sense of humor about it, too. The characters can be the biggest butt of the joke. But crucially, it’s always pointed at deepening the character’s journeys instead of deflating them.

And in the end, it showcases the art of things that feel incidental and yet are deeply purposeful to the end narrative at hand (and critical lessons to be learned). Which is probably my favorite thing about writing. There’s one scene that captures this so squarely. I’m going to be as general as possible for those who haven’t seen it yet, but there’s a point where they visit a certain character who has been invoked earlier and when we meet them, we think, “oh my god this is a ridiculous and funny mismatch!” And it plays the comedy of all this straight. But then it becomes sweet. And then? It becomes real. And in a way that gets to the heart of a character and shows far more depth than you realized was ever coming. It’s a crucial scene. And one of the best examples of “marrying the joke” I’ve seen from a studio movie this year. Which in turn makes it one of the best examples of how to come at this kind of storytelling.

And what kind of storytelling is that?

Again, it’s the yarn. Which is the ability to create something that feels fun, loose, and organic, but when it comes to the sculpting it’s actually shaved within an inch of its life (I know I’m mixing metaphors, but Ocean’s 11 is a good standard-bearer example for this, too). It’s a movie that isn’t trying to compete with the tones within itself, but uses them all when appropriate. The jokes feel like jokes: funny, cutting, and universal. The action feels like action: clear of geography, objective-based, and clever. And best of all, the tender scenes feel earnest, proof positive of characters willing to be a whole range of emotions instead of the one that singular should “define” them. And yes, it results in a movie that doesn’t just feel like one tonal thing. But a movie that just feels.

And somehow, it also goes one further and even represents one of my favorite things in a movie-going age that’s obsessed with the feedback loops of regurgitating references back to us (I’m seeing Mario Bros soon and I’m worried). But here, the movie rarely STOPS to point out some reference, but instead moves at pace with the thing just happening on screen. You think to yourself, “Ooh, that’s mage hand!” without the movie bending over backwards to reinforce its congratulatory sentiment. Instead it invokes the old Billy Wilder rule of “let the audience add 2+2, they’ll love you forever.”And in our case, we did.

Which brings us to the next essay…

<3HULK

Essay #2: Spoiler Nerdery!

Okay so let’s dig into my favorite things.

Pine, Pine, Pine - So we talked a lot about the function of his role and it just makes so much damn sense. But to really restate: he absolutely carries this thing on his back and deserves endless praise for it. I try to imagine casting someone else in this role and I can’t think of anyone making the disparate parts of this work as well. He's really a treasure and can do so much.

The Paladin - So I never watched Bridgerton, but talk about one of the biggest surprises in the movie?!?! Regé-Jean Page is just so utterly outstanding as our Paladin and I love that the movie gets the balance of his archetype so clearly. Because yes, he’s stoic, benevolent, and above their petty human concerns, but somehow not quite smug. He’s just so straight-forward and righteous and we get how that FEELS smug to someone like Pine who has made all his bad choices. But it gets that wonderful aspect that the most annoying thing about our Paladin is that he’s right. And he’s right about pretty much everything. And the pay off with him walking over the rock is just top notch.

Behold, the Shimbo - Someone I know used this term for Michelle Rodriguez’s character and it really is the perfect way of putting it. Because it’s total himbo energy and I’m just delighted that she got to do this. Because Rodriguez she’s one of those classic actors who has “their thing.” The unflappable scowl, the tough grit, and little love for fun. She’s honestly been doing this since Girlfight and I’m always happy she gets the Fast and Furious money, but it’s so nice to see her in a role that shows that “her thing” has a little bit more dexterity than many assume. It kind of touches on that Drax-ian literalization, along with so much great fighting.  She even gets to rock the pits in this!

Tabaxi Catfood - The movie is actually full of little things like this, but this one is my favorite. Because, yes, a noble Paladin pulled a baby Tabaxi Kittin out of a big fish’s mouth and gave them back to their concerned parent. A billion stars. No notes.

Hugh Grant - His Paddington 2 performance is such a landmark piece of work that can never be topped, but it also seems to have given folks a new blueprint of what to do with him in his late career studio offerings. Because here he gets to do another riff on that smarmy brand of selfish villainy and boy howdy does it work well, if only because there are few better at joking asides (“this is much too high, this is not what we discussed” just slayed me).

Wild Shapes - Of all the characters, I do wish that Lillis got a little more to do internally, but her character DOES get to have the most fun action wise (even though it’s mostly CGI Owlbearing and the like). We love tieflings. We love druids. We love a tiefling druid.

Jarnathan - So this is the big one. And it’s not just because it’s become this immediate meme, but because it’s actually something that speaks to the nature of the game itself. For what is about Jarnathan that makes him so important to D&D style storytelling? It starts with the name. Because it’s precisely the kind of regular ass name that just gets fantasied-up a bit, often in a rush of a DM not being able to think fast. Plus, it just sounds funny. But what makes it is that it’s clearly such a ho-hum role and position, all to a self-effacing purpose, and yet it immediately becomes part of this important, endearing thing to the party, especially because you feel bad for him. Meaning this is precisely the kind of character that derails your D&D game. It’s the “fuck the objective, we just want to sit here and hang out with JARNATHAN” and everything spills out of that. Suddenly, Jarnathan is the only thing that matters. Heck, I almost wanted to call this essay “why the D&D movie works so Jarn well,” but figured that might be confusing to those who haven’t seen it. Either way, it’s so fun to have a character up on screen - who really is nothing more than a series of comedic book ends - that highlights the nature of our fascination with “the small detail within the yarn” so completely.

Long Live Jarnathan.

<3HULK