Movie: Fargo

This time I watched Fargo. This one, I need to take in two chunks: the movie itself, and the false claims made for it.

The movie itself is pretty good. Proof that any situation, no matter how morbid, is funny if you're watching Minnesotans do it. Not surprisingly, a lot of Minnesotans don't much appreciate the movie and I can't blame them. If you don't find Minnesotans inherently funny, it would probably be pretty boring. But if you do, it is a good dark comedy.

And Margie is one of the best female protagonists ever.

Unfortunately, the Coen brothers engaged in what is my biggest movie pet peeve outside of offensive portrays of women or minority groups: they claimed the story was true, when it is not. Right when it opens, it splashes a screen saying the movie is a true story, only the names have been changed, and the events are exactly as it happened.
It isn't true. It isn't true at all. It isn't even based on anything. The Coen brothers completely made it up, and the reason they did so (according to the DVD documentary) was because they did not think the story was strong enough to stand on its own, but that people would buy it if they thought it was an actual event.

Ooooh. I HATE that. At best it's a sign of unconscionably lazy writing -- the authors don't want to make their story believable, or enjoyable enough that people won't care, so they just slap on this false "notice" so hide the inconsistencies. At worst, it's downright fraudulent. They're trying to get money from people who would pay for a nonfiction story, but not a fictional one.

Blair Witch Project did this to the point of turning their "making of" special into "documentary" on the "history" of the Blair Witch and selling the accompanying book as though it were a nonfiction case summary. Fans believing them did massive amounts of damage to the building and town where the movie was filmed and to the surrounding town.

The Hellraiser franchise has tried to add an element of historical basis to their merchandising, and as a result an acquaintance in the Poser community was nearly sued for copyright infringement when he used photos that were altered to look like and marked as old enough to be public domain but were actually modern merchandising material.

In Fargo's case, this fraud may have contributed to a fatality.

Now, there are those out there who basically argue that people should be cynical all the time, and find any form of "gullibility" to be an utterly unforgivable sin. I've actually seen people say that those gullible enough to buy some unimportant story should be killed for it -- ironically the "gullible suckers" story in that case was false, and it was the would-be executioners who were believing bullshit without evidence.

Anyway, as you can probably tell, I don't think very highly of that opinion. When someone has an extreme, irrationally intolerance for gullibility, especially when it gets to the point of believing that the "gullible" deserve to die, I always wonder why. Who have they cheated, what scam have they pulled that they need to justify it by believing the victim deserved it?

Suffice to say, I'm of the opinion that writers should make stories that stand on their own instead of making false claims. Unfortunately in Fargo's case, the opposite put a very bad taste in my mouth over a movie that would have been rather good otherwise. (If you don't share my pet peeve, though, it is worth a watch. Hell, you'll get so many more MST3K jokes. ^_~)

Movie: Sweeney Todd (Spoilers)

I was warned before borrowing this one that it was a musical. I must respectfully disagree. To me, a musical is a movie with a few song and dance numbers. Your typical Muppet movie is a musical. Oliver is a musical. This, this is an opera with a fear of commitment, down to the unbelievably tragic ending that tries to squash all hope and light in the world. Gee willikers. I am honestly surprised that one more character didn't die. I really really expected her to.

So, was it a good movie despite that? Um.... Not really. Having seen sincerely, eye-peeling horrible movies, I can't in good conscience call it a bad movie, but I can't really call it a good one, either.

So, is it worth seeing? Um... Not really. If you've read the back of the box, you've seen the movie. It's basically two hours of Johnny Depp cutting throats while singing... and he can't really sing so good. So, I guess if you really really like watching fake blood spray out of people's throats... get help, and while you're waiting for them to show, you can watch this.

OK, 'nother thing, and maybe some of you know if such a thing exists: I would really like for there to be a list or a database or something were you can look up a movie and see if there's a rape in it. Because I'm getting frickin' sick of this. Enough of rape as convenient plot widget already. I'm sick of watching them. It's like hack writers have a wheel they spin for "tragic backstory that drives hero to vengeance", and the slots read:

• Raped
• Orphaned at young age
• Wife raped
• Falsely imprisoned
• Sister raped
• Physically abused
• Mother raped
  

and so on. Rarely, if ever, have I seen a movie where a rape was actually necessary to the plot rather than just a cheap gimmick, and it sure as hell wasn't about a guy. Grr.

I would just like to know so I could take all those movies off my list.

Movie: Kagemusha

This week's Netflix offering was Akira Kurosawa's Kagemusha. I was planning to ship it back tomorrow and have another movie for this weekend, but I'm thinking about watching it again with commentary track.

So, what did I think of it? OMG, the guy who plays Nobunaga is devastatingly sexy. Every time he came on camera, I just about swooned. Even when he broke into song and dance. And on top of that, his helmet had a dragonfly on it. No one looks good in a helmet, but still... *fans self* I am going to have to borrow more movies with Daisuke Ryu, just so I can look at him. Wowzanoma. *more fanning*

Were there other people in this movie? I'm not sure I noticed. I was waiting for more Nobunaga scenes.

Oh yeah, I guess it starred Tatsuya Nakadai and also had Takeshi Shimura. So, was Shimura-san just born really old? Don't get me wrong, I LOVE the guy. He is one of my favorite actors. Everything from Seven Samurai to Ikiru to, um, Godzilla. (Actually, the original Japanese Gojira was a much better and more serious movie than that hack job they spliced Raymond Burr into.) But I swear Shimura-san doesn't look any older in this movie made in 1980, than he did in the 1952 Ikiru!

So, movie overall. Well, I have to admit. In my opinion, from the ones I've seen, Kurosawa made his best movies between 1950-ish and 1965. The color movies especially don't seem to work as well. In part I think it's because, as I understand, Kurosawa was a very controlling director and a lot of his setups were very artificial. Black and white filmstock hides that much better than color does. The color film shows more of the artists' hand, and I don't care so much for the results.

That said, this is one isn't bad. It doesn't have the really strident, eye-searing saturated colors of, say, Ran or Dreams. Although he did do some very bad things to poor Nakadai's make-up at the end there. Nakadai put up with so much.

It is rather slow, though. Kurosawa takes his time telling a story, and sometimes it works very well, and sometimes not so much. Seven Samurai is half an hour longer than this, and yet it seems shorter because Seven Samurai keeps moving, even if sometimes it saunters. Kagemusha sometimes stops just so you can see how that rifle was loaded.

So, I'd say it's worth seeing one if you're a Kurosawa fan, but I wouldn't suggest it to someone who isn't. Unless you're willing to wait for scenes with Daisuke Ryu. Did I mention OMG? *more fanning*