This is something which probably only puzzles just me, but, barring all actual historical figures which the tablet brings to life as a matter of course, it seems like the only characters whose back stories we learn anything about are the Brothers Egypt. Sure, we know that Larry's father's name is Milton, he has an ex-wife with whom he has a middle-school-aged son, and he had trouble keeping a job before becoming a night guard, but that's really about it. We know considerably more about Ahkmenrah and Kahmunrah. For instance: they were both alive approximately three thousand years ago, and something happened which resulted in a funky succession, which resulted in Kahmunrah's jealous rage. It can be reasonably surmised that he then killed his little brother and took the throne himself. Fast forwarding to about fifty years ago, Ahkmenrah and presumably Kahmunrah are unearthed; the former is taken to England and then to New York, and the latter, in a bit fuzzier fashion, ends up at the Smithsonian (or at least a wax model of him does).
But Larry's the main character, and the Brothers Egypt are respectively a plot device and a bad guy. And it's not even Ahkmenrah doing any actual work when it comes to moving the plot forward: it's his tablet, and he just happens to be the poor kid who owns the thing and who everyone seems to be scared of for some reason. This seems remarkably disproportionate.
However, the Night at the Museum movies follow Larry's story in the present and his character development as he moves forward. Whatever back story we learn for him serves only to inform his motivations and choices. The back story of the Brothers Egypt, on the other hand, must not only inform the motivations and choices of each individual brother, but also to clue the audience into various aspects of the tablet and the gate. Neither element exists in a vacuum, so to discuss the one necessarily involves discussion of the other. Therefore, with more bases to cover, more facts come to light, resulting in a fuller story, at least by comparison.
But if we need the backstory of the Brothers Egypt more than we need that of our everyman protagonist, why aren't they a bigger part of the story as a whole? Well, this question assumes that each installment is part of a cohesive whole, rather than each being a cohesive whole in their own right. No one ever seriously thought there would be a Night at the Museum 2 until the first Night at the Museum proved to be such a huge blockbuster success, and besides, the first Night at the Museum is narratively complete. The second could've been tweaked to form a perfect segue into the third, but instead they chose to make Battle of the Smithsonian narratively complete, as well, and chances are, Night at the Museum 3, 4, 5, 6, and however many others there will be will also all be narratively complete: these are kids' movies, despite the fact that they have fans who have, like myself, been following basically from the beginning. People sit their little kids in front of these movies and kick back for a couple of hours to dork out to the wacky hijinks on the screen, and as such, these movies can't be tremendously terrifying or intense. This does not mean they can't employ crafty little devices (I'm looking at you, "Page 47") to hook people into a later installment, especially if they know one is a possibility while making the current project piece of the franchise. But to play it safe, the captains of the ship are choosing not to have the bad guys win a movie or two, even though that's the way the real world works. Let kids be kids for a little while, and I will respect your decisions insofar as they serve that purpose. That doesn't mean I'm required to agree, but that's neither here nor there.
Next on "For the Love of Night at the Museum": I kick off a two-parter proposing the first of two sides of the debate: Did Dexter steal the tablet of his own free will?
Countdown: 328 Days to NATM 3
No comments:
Post a Comment