The Gamechangers

Critics, even Rockstar themselves, have been very negative of the recent release (15th September 2015) of The Gamechangers. It has been slated for being poorly acted or not accurate to the real-life events or even just plain bad; but what these opinionated reviews are missing is the entire pragmatic of the film.

The Gamechangers clearly states, without sounding like one of lawyers in the film, that the scenes shown have been altered for dramatic effect (or words to that effect) thus any point on how realistic the film really was is entirely out of the question, all that matters is that the events happened. Just happened. And what this film really did was present both sides of the argument in, for possibly the first time in the film industry, a balanced manner.

In my personal opinion the film does not romanticise any aspect of the lives of each side of the GTA debate, which can be generalised to the entire argument of violent video games, and even if, as a viewer, the viewer feels they liked or were made to associate more with a certain type of character, or one side of the argument, more then they must ask themselves if a character on the opposing side could not be empathised with by a different type of person. In film, everyone feels a connection with a certain type of character and those characters vary. Some prefer the villain to the hero, the Joker to Batman and so on. Yet as the film finishes, which ever character you empathise with the most you cannot but feel as thought you are stuck in two minds, debating with yourself, about who really is the most respectable, honourable or even moral character in this tale. The plain exclamation that --- remains on death row seems to provide a led weight on the conscious if you associate more with the GTA team or, conversely, the amount of money and respect Rockstar still gain, as is stated, provides a balancer for those who associate with the moral movement against violent video games for developing minds. Either way both sides have characters presented as mad, immoral and ugly whilst also portraying aspects of good, revolution and development.

In essence, this film has provided a non-biased ending, which the viewer can take away not a sense of excitement or pleasure from their film but rather leave in a contemplative and quizzical state. And that is rare for modern film. This picture has, as is the aim of many of the characters, broken down barriers and revolutionised real-life based film. But the question after you have balanced your moral scale and decided on a place to stand is why have films documenting real events not provided as bleak and factual interpretation as this one previously?

Real-life dramas should let us make up our own minds. And I believe this film has taken the first step in letting us do so.

Stories about ideas are fun. Watching the evolution of an idea to success and the aftermath captures something exciting about being human and having the power to create and act. I think of Cobb in Inception, saying "what's the most resilient parasite? An idea". And of course, one of the best movies about ideas is David Fincher's The Social Network.

Unfortunately, the writer here is no Aaron Sorkin. The central conflict of the story is Houser vs Thompson in a debate that's not particularly explored in any meaningful way, nor concluded with any sense of satisfaction. It all just feels slight and phony, like it was made for 13 year olds.

Radcliffe looks like a college kid on work experience, and strangely looks better suited to Chris Morris's Four Lions than a game development studio. He just never seems to have the depth or confidence to really sell a character. The Rockstar staff don't talk like people who have grown and worked together, knowing each other implicitly - instead they stick to turgid dialogue word for word because the director obviously didn't give any room for the characters to breathe or flesh out.

Worst of all is how much it tries to emulate The Social Network. Shots of people tapping away on keyboards are given an electronic score that desperately wants to channel Trent Reznor's excellent score for TSN. The attempts to create an exciting atmosphere fall flat on their face though, because the script just isn't that interesting.

Its probably the best they could do with a small TV budget and a nervous, possibly inexperienced crew, but it would have benefited from finding its own voice rather than copying better films and trying to be better than it really is.

The basic plot of THE GAMECHANGERS is straightforward, as crusading Florida lawyer Jack Thompson (Bill Paxton) takes on the video-game producers, notably Rockstar and its CEO Sam Houser (Daniel Radcliffe), in the belief that video-games have a destructive effect on child psychology. The inspiration for the case comes from the killing of three police officers in Alabama by teenager video-game player Devin Moore (Thabo Rametsi).

Owen Harris's production is built round a series of oppositions. Thompson believes that video-games are destructive; Houser advocates free choice. Rockstar's lawyers believe that Houser is exploiting the case for his own ends, and mount a series of counter- accusations. There is a nationalistic subtext running throughout the film contrasting the more liberal Brits (led by Houser) with the more overtly moral Americans, whose censorship laws are apparently far more stringent than those practiced within the United Kingdom. On the other hand Thompson resent Houser and his fellow-Brits for making money out of the American market with little concern for family values.

As the drama unfolds, however, we discover that its focus centers more and more on the consequences of extremism. Houser is so obsessed with novelty, with producing the ultimate video game, that he resists any possible criticism from his fellow-workers. Likewise Thompson's obsession with indicting Rockstar, in the belief that God is on his side (the side of 'right' in his view) that he does not realize the destructive effect his actions have on himself and his family. Although loyally supported by his wife (Fiona Ramsay), he might have been better advised to pause and consider the plight of son Johnny (Garion Dowds). Director Harris stresses the links between the two protagonists through repeated shots showing their faces in close-up superimposed on video-game action.

Much of the action takes place in darkness, or semi-darkness illuminated by computer screens. We are in a nether-world, one in which light seldom enters. Houser talks a lot about the "adaptability" of his new video-game; in truth both he and Thompson are profoundly un-adaptable insofar as they cannot see any other alternative to life than the contrasting causes they espouse. At one point Thompson asks the question "Who are you?" in close-up; we might interpret that statement as a metaphor for the entire film in which human beings are deprived of their identities.

In the end Harris refuses to take sides; on the contrary, he shows how both protagonists are ultimately destroyed. They might have enjoyed "success" in terms of achieving their various ambitions, but at what cost? Perhaps the only way out would have been to follow the example of Houser's colleague Jamie (Joe Dempsie) and leave the whole affair behind. Yet this is something that the obsessive protagonists cannot do.

I've had fun and love the Grand Theft Auto series, so I'm excited to see how the game has evolved. The only question that remains is what all was real and what wasn't. I enjoyed it that way, but who knows what is real and what is not. If you don't mind some false information, probably a cool movie, but if you want reality, I'd probably rather avoid it. The thing is, it's mentioned at the beginning of the movie that some scenes were edited to make it more interesting, but the question is which ones. I don't know. How true this film is in the final act I don't know. Either way, I had fun. I did. So the biggest hitch is that it probably wasn't quite like that, but it's good that it's mentioned at the beginning and I enjoyed the finale and had a good time.

Gives both sides of the argument about how the level of influence the games industry has.

I think it is thought provoking but gives both sides of the arguments and presents them in a unique style.

A lot of negative comments on here I think come from people who want to defend the games industry - but this really does give both sides of the argument and I learnt a lot at the same time as finding it entertaining.

They should do another one about COD!