Yet another Netflix offering: Everything is Illuminated. Overall, very good movie, but let's start with the criticism.
First of all, I almost didn't make it through the first half hour. It's starts out... kind of offensive, honestly, what with the stupid violent half-insane Ukranians who are stuck in 1983. Thankfully, that changes about 1/2 hour into the movie, and by the time the last of the "comedic" elements is dropped an hour in, so are the worst of the stereotyping annoyances.
Second, for the movie as a whole, I found myself thinking that would work better if the character of Jonathan were a young woman. The movie involves the breaking down of emotional walls between the three main characters, and it really seems to struggle getting that to happen. I'm not quite sure how to describe it, but there seems to be a sort of awkwardness of "I want to open up, but I'm a man in front of other men, I'll lose face", and it doesn't seem an intentional part of the movie. It doesn't come across as part of the journey; rather it seems an obstacle to the storytelling. I think having a woman in Jonathan's role would have both been a catalyst to more of those emotional reveals, as well as made the ones we do get feel less forced.
However, I'm fully aware there's no way that could have happened, because the original novel about Jonathan Safran Foer was written by a guy named... Jonathan Safran Foer. Oh gosh. I'm glad I didn't know that before I started watching. (I will remark that it must say a lot about the quality of the novel that any publisher even touched it after seeing that.)
OK, major complaints out of the way. The movie starts as a comedy of the type I don't care for, but luckily that changes in what I found a very good scene. Jonathan, Alex, and Alex's grandfather are chatting in a restaurant, and it comes up in conversation that Jonathan's grandmother would not have approved of his trip and that she never wanted him to go to the Ukraine because before WWII, it was "as bad as Berlin. When the Nazis came, she thought it'd be an improvement." Alex, who starts his narration of the movie with a racial slur and speaks of his family's negative attitude towards their Jewish customers with ease and comfort, looks sincerely horrified, turns to his grandfather, and asks "He says that Ukranians were very anti-Semetic before the war. Is that true?" At the same time, his grandfather is absorbed in looking at the 1940s photo of Jonathan's grandfather with an air of great somberness. It's as though in this scene Alex and his grandfather stop being walking stereotypes and start being actual human beings.
The comedic elements start to drop out after that, and once it admits that it really wants to be a drama, it gets really good. I'm really hard pressed to chose my favorite parts. Walking into Lista's house and seeing all the things that she has saved from the remains of Trachimbrod. The reveal about Alex's grandfather, and how he reacts to again coming face to face with his past. Alex trying to open up to Jonathan, and yet struggling (when it works, at least).
Overall, it's worth a watch. Not everyone will like it, but it definitely has its moments.
Saturday, September 27, 2008
Saturday, September 20, 2008
Movie: The Fifth Element (Spoilers)
Another movie, this time courtesy Netflix instant viewing: The Fifth Element.
To be perfectly honest, this one has me pretty pissed off right now. It would have been a perfectly good, if somewhat cliche, movie except for one problem: the fucking racism! Those of you who have seen it are immediately thinking of one character, and he will certainly be addressed very shortly, but let's expand a little beyond that.
First, because it's brief: Where do we see Asians in this movie? It's 300-ish years in the future, there's 200 billion human beings spread across multiple star systems, surely we have some Asian people running around, right? Well, there's one. He's a Chinese cook with a bad accent, dispensing fortune cookie wisdom from a flying junk -- the boat kind. Yeah.
How about Hispanic people? Pfph. You wish.
OK, how about black people? Well, there's the president. This is good. Maybe a little tokenism, but a step. Then there's... a buttload of henchmen and lackeys. In fact, let's think about the human villains we see, and their racial make-up. Who is not black? Well, there's Zorg, the main villain himself. And.... um... I think there might have been two big thugly white guys with no speaking lines. Otherwise, there's at least 4 and maybe up to 6 black guys, and the shape-shifting alien things turn into one black guy and one white guy.
So, basically, greater than 50% of the villain squad are black guys, and yet they get no intelligence or initiative in the operation. Lovely.
And then there's Rudy Rhod, a role that Ru Paul turned down because it was just too over-the-top flaming. This character makes Snails in the Dungeons and Dragons movie look like a sensitive, intelligent, and enlightened portrayal. If you haven't seen the movie, take the brainless incompetent black sidekick character stereotype that should have been laid to rest in the 1970s with much embarrassment, add "drag queen" to the list of offenses, and then kick it up a notch. I really can not express how offensive this character was. What in the world would ever make 1997 Hollywood think this character was even remotely acceptable? I mean, I'm sitting there watching this and finding myself surprised that we don't have more riots, because if you ever wanted walking proof that racism is not not getting any fucking better, there he is.
Sprinkle with a bit of Nazi symbolism -- be sure to get it around the hero -- and there you are.
To be perfectly honest, this one has me pretty pissed off right now. It would have been a perfectly good, if somewhat cliche, movie except for one problem: the fucking racism! Those of you who have seen it are immediately thinking of one character, and he will certainly be addressed very shortly, but let's expand a little beyond that.
First, because it's brief: Where do we see Asians in this movie? It's 300-ish years in the future, there's 200 billion human beings spread across multiple star systems, surely we have some Asian people running around, right? Well, there's one. He's a Chinese cook with a bad accent, dispensing fortune cookie wisdom from a flying junk -- the boat kind. Yeah.
How about Hispanic people? Pfph. You wish.
OK, how about black people? Well, there's the president. This is good. Maybe a little tokenism, but a step. Then there's... a buttload of henchmen and lackeys. In fact, let's think about the human villains we see, and their racial make-up. Who is not black? Well, there's Zorg, the main villain himself. And.... um... I think there might have been two big thugly white guys with no speaking lines. Otherwise, there's at least 4 and maybe up to 6 black guys, and the shape-shifting alien things turn into one black guy and one white guy.
So, basically, greater than 50% of the villain squad are black guys, and yet they get no intelligence or initiative in the operation. Lovely.
And then there's Rudy Rhod, a role that Ru Paul turned down because it was just too over-the-top flaming. This character makes Snails in the Dungeons and Dragons movie look like a sensitive, intelligent, and enlightened portrayal. If you haven't seen the movie, take the brainless incompetent black sidekick character stereotype that should have been laid to rest in the 1970s with much embarrassment, add "drag queen" to the list of offenses, and then kick it up a notch. I really can not express how offensive this character was. What in the world would ever make 1997 Hollywood think this character was even remotely acceptable? I mean, I'm sitting there watching this and finding myself surprised that we don't have more riots, because if you ever wanted walking proof that racism is not not getting any fucking better, there he is.
Sprinkle with a bit of Nazi symbolism -- be sure to get it around the hero -- and there you are.
Movie: Mr. Skeffington
This one isn't a Netflix offering; it's one from my personal library that I rewatched to decide if I want to trade it off or not. I'll also warn you that I will be merciless on the spoilers for this one, because the biggest problem is the very end.
Of course, there are other problems too. For one, it's way too long. I don't mind long movies. In fact, movies that are less than 90 minutes minimum tweak my switch. (For instance, I love The Corpse Bride, but at 77 minutes I always feel a little gyped.) Mr Skeffington, however, is a full 2 hours and 25 minutes long, and it would have been dragging at 90 minutes. Most of that time is spent watching Bette Davis flirt with people. OK, she's a flirt, we get it. On top of that, either she was talking with a falsetto through the entire movie, or Bette Davis has the second most obnoxious voice in the world. And it's hard to top Butterfly McQueen in that category.
Oh, and I have to say that as much as I love Claude Rains, and as good of an actor as he is, he simply is NOT a poor Jewish boy from New York's south side made good. He's just not. Really, really not. And no matter how hard I try to politely pretend that he is... It's so not happening. (So, where does a poor New York Jewish boy pick up that amazingly sexy British accent, anyway?)
All that time spent, you'd think at least some of it could be used to develop the movie's theme, "A woman is beautiful when she's loved, and only then." But, nah. We'll just say it a couple of times and not actually do anything with it until the very end -- where we'll botch it horribly. More on that later.
Another problem is that the movie is dated to the second. In ways I guess it had to be, but at the same time, those make it more difficult for a modern audience to see the movie the same was a contemporary audience would have.
For example, there's one scene in there where Fanny says to her adult daughter (also named Fanny, confusingly enough) "isn't that dress a little old for you?" Well, when I really thought about it after the viewing, I realized that what Fanny Rachel was wearing was probably quite fashionable and perfect for a lady of around 20 years of age at the movie's release in 1944, while Fanny Beatrix was wearing something that was fashionable for a lady of 20 years back when she was 20 years old, around 1916. So the point of the scene is both that Fanny Beatrix is in denial about her age (via refusing to believe she has an adult daughter), and that she's living in the past, pretending not only that she's still 20, but that she's still 20 in the 1910s.
However, if you're not interested in historical fashion, you probably wouldn't realize that she was wearing a dress from her youth (as opposed to a 1940s dressing gown), or that the evening gown she wears afterward also has the same problem -- young woman's from when she was a young woman.
Another dated issue that messes with things is the sexual double-standard concerning the Skeffingtons' "affairs". In typical 1940s-mainstream movie fashion, it's a little ambiguous about who slept with whom. (I think it would be clear to an audience at the time, but the 'codes' have changed since then, if you know what I mean.) My interpretation is that Job did sleep with his secretaries. I'm not entirely sure whether Fanny slept with any of her suitors or not, although if pressed to chose I would say she didn't due to a line about 'keeping her wedding vows', said to her latest boyfriend -- it comes across as Fanny doesn't realize any contradiction, so I'd said her affairs were emotional, not physical.
However, it doesn't really matter whether Fanny actually slept around or not, because I think the movie is trying to either show the "affairs" as equal, or Job as the greater wronged. It definitely reflects the idea that men "need" sex, and that Job's affairs were Fanny's fault for not satisfying that need, while at the same time condemning her for seeking attention and idolization from men besides her husband and accusing her of hypocrisy for divorcing Job over his affairs.
I think in a modern retelling, either they would both be sleeping around, or Job would be taking his secretaries out just to avoid the stigma of turning up at certain locations alone, with nothing to it beyond that public appearance. Actually, in a modern retelling Job's affairs could be left out entirely, since we now have no-fault divorces.
By far, though, the biggest problem with the movie is the ending. Making Job blind completely guts the theme and resolution of the movie. "A woman is beautiful when she is loved, and only then," remember? It's sexist and old-fashioned, but it's what we've got. We've seen all the suitors of Fanny's past who didn't really love her and now turn away from her since she's lost her looks. She forces herself to go down to see Job despite her fear that he will also look at her in disgust. What needs to happen here is that she walks into the room, he looks up at her, his eyes light up at the sight of her and he tells her that she is beautiful and absolutely means it because he still loves her so much. They could still have him maimed by Nazis and unable to give her anything but love now, but paralyze him or something. Don't blind him. It's not a romantic ending that he can never see her as ugly. The romantic ending would be that he would never see her as ugly no matter what her physical appearance.
And in God's name, I really wish someone had told the writers that the Jamie What's-her-face running gag wasn't funny. Because maybe then they wouldn't have used it to stomp out whatever sweetness the ending had. :P
Of course, there are other problems too. For one, it's way too long. I don't mind long movies. In fact, movies that are less than 90 minutes minimum tweak my switch. (For instance, I love The Corpse Bride, but at 77 minutes I always feel a little gyped.) Mr Skeffington, however, is a full 2 hours and 25 minutes long, and it would have been dragging at 90 minutes. Most of that time is spent watching Bette Davis flirt with people. OK, she's a flirt, we get it. On top of that, either she was talking with a falsetto through the entire movie, or Bette Davis has the second most obnoxious voice in the world. And it's hard to top Butterfly McQueen in that category.
Oh, and I have to say that as much as I love Claude Rains, and as good of an actor as he is, he simply is NOT a poor Jewish boy from New York's south side made good. He's just not. Really, really not. And no matter how hard I try to politely pretend that he is... It's so not happening. (So, where does a poor New York Jewish boy pick up that amazingly sexy British accent, anyway?)
All that time spent, you'd think at least some of it could be used to develop the movie's theme, "A woman is beautiful when she's loved, and only then." But, nah. We'll just say it a couple of times and not actually do anything with it until the very end -- where we'll botch it horribly. More on that later.
Another problem is that the movie is dated to the second. In ways I guess it had to be, but at the same time, those make it more difficult for a modern audience to see the movie the same was a contemporary audience would have.
For example, there's one scene in there where Fanny says to her adult daughter (also named Fanny, confusingly enough) "isn't that dress a little old for you?" Well, when I really thought about it after the viewing, I realized that what Fanny Rachel was wearing was probably quite fashionable and perfect for a lady of around 20 years of age at the movie's release in 1944, while Fanny Beatrix was wearing something that was fashionable for a lady of 20 years back when she was 20 years old, around 1916. So the point of the scene is both that Fanny Beatrix is in denial about her age (via refusing to believe she has an adult daughter), and that she's living in the past, pretending not only that she's still 20, but that she's still 20 in the 1910s.
However, if you're not interested in historical fashion, you probably wouldn't realize that she was wearing a dress from her youth (as opposed to a 1940s dressing gown), or that the evening gown she wears afterward also has the same problem -- young woman's from when she was a young woman.
Another dated issue that messes with things is the sexual double-standard concerning the Skeffingtons' "affairs". In typical 1940s-mainstream movie fashion, it's a little ambiguous about who slept with whom. (I think it would be clear to an audience at the time, but the 'codes' have changed since then, if you know what I mean.) My interpretation is that Job did sleep with his secretaries. I'm not entirely sure whether Fanny slept with any of her suitors or not, although if pressed to chose I would say she didn't due to a line about 'keeping her wedding vows', said to her latest boyfriend -- it comes across as Fanny doesn't realize any contradiction, so I'd said her affairs were emotional, not physical.
However, it doesn't really matter whether Fanny actually slept around or not, because I think the movie is trying to either show the "affairs" as equal, or Job as the greater wronged. It definitely reflects the idea that men "need" sex, and that Job's affairs were Fanny's fault for not satisfying that need, while at the same time condemning her for seeking attention and idolization from men besides her husband and accusing her of hypocrisy for divorcing Job over his affairs.
I think in a modern retelling, either they would both be sleeping around, or Job would be taking his secretaries out just to avoid the stigma of turning up at certain locations alone, with nothing to it beyond that public appearance. Actually, in a modern retelling Job's affairs could be left out entirely, since we now have no-fault divorces.
By far, though, the biggest problem with the movie is the ending. Making Job blind completely guts the theme and resolution of the movie. "A woman is beautiful when she is loved, and only then," remember? It's sexist and old-fashioned, but it's what we've got. We've seen all the suitors of Fanny's past who didn't really love her and now turn away from her since she's lost her looks. She forces herself to go down to see Job despite her fear that he will also look at her in disgust. What needs to happen here is that she walks into the room, he looks up at her, his eyes light up at the sight of her and he tells her that she is beautiful and absolutely means it because he still loves her so much. They could still have him maimed by Nazis and unable to give her anything but love now, but paralyze him or something. Don't blind him. It's not a romantic ending that he can never see her as ugly. The romantic ending would be that he would never see her as ugly no matter what her physical appearance.
And in God's name, I really wish someone had told the writers that the Jamie What's-her-face running gag wasn't funny. Because maybe then they wouldn't have used it to stomp out whatever sweetness the ending had. :P
Friday, September 12, 2008
Movie: Crazy In Alabama (contains spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering was Crazy In Alabama, which was recommended by a guy at church. And I like about my church that, during service, someone can say "there's this woman who cuts off her abusive husband's head and carries it around, and it talks to her like he would -- but it's really good, you should see it." (Services are very informal, and half the "sermon" is the very small congregation discussing what they think the reading meant. Sometimes, it gets a little off track.)
Anyway, good movie. If you haven't seen it, I think it's definitely worth borrowing and watching at least once. I wouldn't mind watching this one again.
First, big good things. It's one of those dramas with a big dose of comedic segments, similar in tone to Fried Green Tomatoes. While watching it, I often found myself thinking of Mississippi Burning, because the movies are nothing alike. They're both dealing with racism and murder in the South in the 1960s, and both have white primary characters, and that's about all they have in common; beyond that, everywhere Mississippi Burning failed, this movie succeeded.
I like that the black characters, although supporting cast, are actually characters, not just sheep-like props. They have motivations and feelings, they take action, they stage protests -- they're people. I like that the "dramatic" portion of the movie has a realistic ending, not a neatly tied-up happy one. The scene where David gets into the pool in memory of his brother while there's a mini-riot going on around him, although unrealistic and a bit overdone, is still very beautiful. Overall, I'd say that Antonio Banderas did a good job at his first time directing.
I also like the sort of play in the title. The officially crazy person is not in Alabama for most of the movie, so you gotta think the "crazy in Alabama" is the supposedly sane people involved in the racist crap. And that's kind of driven home at the end, when they fill in the swimming pool to get around the segregation order, and Willie announces "That's stupid."
Minor bad things: It is so painfully obvious that Lucille's black hair is a wig that it's actually VERY distracting. Melanie Griffith does not have black hair coloring. It's not even a matter of, say, her eyebrows not matching (Storm in X-Men, I'm looking at you), because they do, but she simply doesn't have the skintone. It's just very obvious looking at her that this is not this woman's real hair.
Second, anachronisms. Especially the women on the jury in Lucille's trial. In the 1960s in Alabama, the ACLU was suing to end the exclusion of women from juries. I don't know exactly what year that went through, but even if it was before 1965, somehow I'm thinking that in Alabama they weren't going to put four or more women on a murder trial jury. Delicate flowers of white womanhood and all that southern crap, ya know?
Third, as much as I enjoyed the judge's sentence, this is why we now (unfortunately) have minimum sentencing. I enjoyed it anyway.
Finally, minor good things.
Fanny Flagg (writer of Fried Green Tomatoes) cameo as the roadside dinner waitress. Cool.
Meat Loaf as the evil sheriff, scarily good job on that. I forgot I was watching my favorite singer (which is a good thing, or then I'd RTOT to the MST3K "Meat Loaf: Texas Ranger" bit, and I'd be done.)
And remember, kids. If the lawnmower gets jammed, make sure it is completely off and not moving before you try to fix it.
I have to make on off-topic aside, though. Watching movies like this makes me really pisses off at the way the civil rights movement was taught to me in schools. This movie took place in 1965, during the peak of the movement and they repeatedly mention "what happened in Selma". One, I had to look up what happened in Selma (Bloody Sunday) because I had no freakin' idea.
Two, that's a mere 13 years before I was born. And I'm now old enough that that doesn't seem very long. Where the HELL did my teacher's get off teaching the problems of just 20ish years earlier, events they were old enough to clearly remember as recent, as though it was ancient history and all solved now?
I especially remember what I was taught, and not taught, about Rosa Parks. Her motivation for refusing to give her up seat was usually presented as she was too "tired" *coughlazycough* after a day working at a department store, and my teachers usually portrayed her arrest as though it were a surprise to her. Excuse me, but this was an intelligent black woman who had lived her whole life in the South. She knew exactly what was going to happen if she refused to give up her seat. In fact, she was warned that the police would be called if she didn't move. This was not a surprise, it was not an accident, she was not too physically tired/lazy/stupid/whatever. This was a conscious act of resistance. Furthermore, my classes NEVER mentioned that at the time, Rosa was the secretary of the Montgomery NAACP, and very active in women's and minority rights. No, instead she was portrayed as a weak, perhaps even doddering, old lady. (She was 42! Since when is 42 elderly?)
OK, that's my little ranty addendum for the day.
Anyway, good movie. If you haven't seen it, I think it's definitely worth borrowing and watching at least once. I wouldn't mind watching this one again.
First, big good things. It's one of those dramas with a big dose of comedic segments, similar in tone to Fried Green Tomatoes. While watching it, I often found myself thinking of Mississippi Burning, because the movies are nothing alike. They're both dealing with racism and murder in the South in the 1960s, and both have white primary characters, and that's about all they have in common; beyond that, everywhere Mississippi Burning failed, this movie succeeded.
I like that the black characters, although supporting cast, are actually characters, not just sheep-like props. They have motivations and feelings, they take action, they stage protests -- they're people. I like that the "dramatic" portion of the movie has a realistic ending, not a neatly tied-up happy one. The scene where David gets into the pool in memory of his brother while there's a mini-riot going on around him, although unrealistic and a bit overdone, is still very beautiful. Overall, I'd say that Antonio Banderas did a good job at his first time directing.
I also like the sort of play in the title. The officially crazy person is not in Alabama for most of the movie, so you gotta think the "crazy in Alabama" is the supposedly sane people involved in the racist crap. And that's kind of driven home at the end, when they fill in the swimming pool to get around the segregation order, and Willie announces "That's stupid."
Minor bad things: It is so painfully obvious that Lucille's black hair is a wig that it's actually VERY distracting. Melanie Griffith does not have black hair coloring. It's not even a matter of, say, her eyebrows not matching (Storm in X-Men, I'm looking at you), because they do, but she simply doesn't have the skintone. It's just very obvious looking at her that this is not this woman's real hair.
Second, anachronisms. Especially the women on the jury in Lucille's trial. In the 1960s in Alabama, the ACLU was suing to end the exclusion of women from juries. I don't know exactly what year that went through, but even if it was before 1965, somehow I'm thinking that in Alabama they weren't going to put four or more women on a murder trial jury. Delicate flowers of white womanhood and all that southern crap, ya know?
Third, as much as I enjoyed the judge's sentence, this is why we now (unfortunately) have minimum sentencing. I enjoyed it anyway.
Finally, minor good things.
Fanny Flagg (writer of Fried Green Tomatoes) cameo as the roadside dinner waitress. Cool.
Meat Loaf as the evil sheriff, scarily good job on that. I forgot I was watching my favorite singer (which is a good thing, or then I'd RTOT to the MST3K "Meat Loaf: Texas Ranger" bit, and I'd be done.)
And remember, kids. If the lawnmower gets jammed, make sure it is completely off and not moving before you try to fix it.
I have to make on off-topic aside, though. Watching movies like this makes me really pisses off at the way the civil rights movement was taught to me in schools. This movie took place in 1965, during the peak of the movement and they repeatedly mention "what happened in Selma". One, I had to look up what happened in Selma (Bloody Sunday) because I had no freakin' idea.
Two, that's a mere 13 years before I was born. And I'm now old enough that that doesn't seem very long. Where the HELL did my teacher's get off teaching the problems of just 20ish years earlier, events they were old enough to clearly remember as recent, as though it was ancient history and all solved now?
I especially remember what I was taught, and not taught, about Rosa Parks. Her motivation for refusing to give her up seat was usually presented as she was too "tired" *coughlazycough* after a day working at a department store, and my teachers usually portrayed her arrest as though it were a surprise to her. Excuse me, but this was an intelligent black woman who had lived her whole life in the South. She knew exactly what was going to happen if she refused to give up her seat. In fact, she was warned that the police would be called if she didn't move. This was not a surprise, it was not an accident, she was not too physically tired/lazy/stupid/whatever. This was a conscious act of resistance. Furthermore, my classes NEVER mentioned that at the time, Rosa was the secretary of the Montgomery NAACP, and very active in women's and minority rights. No, instead she was portrayed as a weak, perhaps even doddering, old lady. (She was 42! Since when is 42 elderly?)
OK, that's my little ranty addendum for the day.
Saturday, September 6, 2008
You know what?
I like Neil Gaiman's work after all. I just finished Anansi Boys, and that was really good. Although I think I scared the cats in a few places by giggling. I really like an author who can inject a little bit of humor into the dramatic moments; it heightens the effect.
So, Gaiman fans, what do you think I should read next? What's your favorite, and why (without spoilers)?
While I'm at it, what are your favorite Terry Pratchett's? I like his work in general, but some are better than others and there's a lot out there.
So, Gaiman fans, what do you think I should read next? What's your favorite, and why (without spoilers)?
While I'm at it, what are your favorite Terry Pratchett's? I like his work in general, but some are better than others and there's a lot out there.
Friday, September 5, 2008
Batman Begins (Contains Spoilers)
I love Netflix. I really do. I enjoyed The Dark Knight so much, I decided to borrow Batman Begins and see how it was. I knew it wouldn't be as good, but I wanted to see how it was.
It wasn't as good. But, I would say it is an above average movie. Granted, I don't think very highly of average. So, let me put it a different way. I thought it was a fun way to spend a few hours, and I could probably be talked into doing it again with a friend, but I don't feel a need to own the movie.
Before I go into some more details, let me lay a few things out on the table so you know where I'm coming from.
1) I actually didn't realize that The Dark Knight was a sequel when I saw it. I knew it didn't have anything to do with the 1990s Batman franchise, and I'd forgotten that Batman Begins existed. The Dark Knight actually works just fine as a stand alone in-media-res kinda thing. Might work better, as a matter of fact. I loved the Scarecrow cameo (especially the "I don't need help." "That's not my diagnosis" joke) when I thought it was just flavor, but it seems kind of lame when I know this was a major villain of the previous movie.
2) I'm not really a diehard fan of any particular Batman incarnation; more a casual fan of the mythos. I loved the early 1990s cartoon, thought the 1989 Batman and sequel Batman Returns were pretty good (then found Christian Slater in tights to be strangely disappointing and yet the only good thing about Batman Forever, and I'd rather just not talk about Batman and Robin). Oh, and I hate Frank Miller. But in general, I'm not terribly attached to any particular version.
3) I'm an engineer. So your movie either has to keep me interested enough to keep my disbelief suspended, or technically sound enough not to be going "yeah, right, here's the 97 ways that won't physically work" if that fails. (And yes, it is completely possible to keep me suspending my disbelief. 30 million sonar-emitting cell phones, sure I'll buy that in the theater even though in my normal life I'm pretty sure that a cell phone can't emit that high of a frequency, and I know the microphone simply isn't capable of picking it up.)
So, that's on the table now. Let's get the bad parts out of the way first.
1) Inconsistent ability levels. I find it really charming to see a hero's first awkward heroing moments, if it's done well. Mask of Zorro, when Antonio Banderas puts on the scarf and wrecks havok on the troop barracks with a constant look of "Oh crap, I'm gonna die!" on his face: pure gold. This movie, not so good. One moment Bruce is kicking the collective ass of several hundred ninjas, the next he's tumbling across the floor with no idea which way is up. Or, my favorite example of ability-level schizophrenia: amazing bad-ass League of the Shadows ninja is standing watch outside burning Wayne Mansion, and is knocked out by Alfred. Alfred. When Alfred Pennyworth hands your ass to you, it's time to turn in your ninja license. (Especially since you know he'd politely say in that wonderful accent: "Pardon me, sir, but I believe this ass belongs to you.")
2) Women as props. Did anyone else notice that Bruce's mom didn't even get a speaking line? (I did notice in The Dark Knight that Gordon's daughter got neither a name, a line, nor a face shot [but she did get a confirmation that her father loves her brother more], and that Barbara Gordon was demoted from Batgirl to stay-at-home Mom.) And the movie makers seem to spend Rachel's portion of Batman Begins trying to show they're not sexist and she's not Mary Jane Watson. "Look, no, I'm a DA and I carry a taser! I'll even use it on the secondary villain! I'm not a load! I'm not Mary Jane! Really!" And what was the deal with her being near unconscious immediately after being drugged by the Scarecrow, so she has to be carried by men, and then awake and alert and jittery as hell in the Batmobile? Prop. Rachel was really a wasted character between the two movies. She had a lot more potential than was ever used.
3) What a waste of a good villain. I like the Scarecrow, or more accurately the idea of the Scarecrow. He's got a lot of potential for really good cerebral stories. Now, I will admit there's a major problem with bringing the character to movies. That costume. In comics, usually (but not always) in the cartoon you could pull it off, but in live action, no. It's just a simple fact: if someone were to come up to you dressed in a scarecrow costume, would you think "terror", or would you think "doof"? Doofy, all the way. No exception here. On top of that, he's just not competent as a villain. He never quite decides howsane functional he is, doesn't actually do all that much, and ends up getting his butt handed to him by Rachel. With "fear" being such a major part of the first half of the movie, I really thought we were going to get into some issues and deep Scarecrow-y goodness, and no, not really.
4) I don't kill. Directly. You know, in line of sight. This is where my suspension of disbelief started to precipitate, I think. Our hero doesn't want to kill bad guys, but he will drives over the passanger compartment of an occupied vehicle with his personal tank and flip pursuing vehicles at speeds over 60 mph. People don't usually survive those things; it's certainly not a sure deal. The Dark Knight addressed some of this head on, the 'you won't kill me even to stop me, and in the meantime how many people have died because of me' thing with the Joker, but in Batman Begins we just don't talk about it.
5) The final great villainous plan, vs. physics. I'll admit, I wasn't on the edge of my seat during the edge-of-your-seat battle. Instead, I'm thinking OK, we've got a weapon that vaporizes contained water. What makes up 60% of the human body? Ew, squishy. No, no squishy. Instead we're blowing up pipes and sending a huge pressure spike into the "main water hub". And the whole time, I'm thinking "Dayum, don't you people have any pressure relief valves in that system?" I can't say for certain that this wouldn't work, but at the same time I'm also thinking that every single pipe segment that explodes is a huge pressure relief. It's really hard to build up large amounts of pressure in an open system. Oh, and someone needs to tell Batman that momentum exists. So, if you don't want a train to reach the main station under Wayne Tower, it's probably wise to NOT put it irrevocably at full throttle and then blow the bridge immediately in front of the building so that the train arrives in the basement instead of 10 stories above ground. But I will admit, that set-up and collision had some awesome effects.
6) The Batman Voice: ur doin it rong. Remember I said about The Dark Knight that The Voice made me want to giggle every time? I'd imagine Batman ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd just want to lose it? He didn't have the voice down yet in Batman Begins. This time I just wanted to offer him a Sucrets.
7) Economic warfare as a weapon to reform a society that is overwhelmed with crime. ... Do you guys really need me to unpack the problem with this one? I just don't see where making people more desperate is going to help things. And yet if the intent was to destroy the society as a whole, history shows that economic hardship is a fertilizer for crime. I don't see any way this would ever do anything except make things worse.
8) 'Secret Identity', Bruce. What, ya need a dictionary? You know, most heros agonize for two or three movies minimum before hesitantly telling their absolute dearest love their true identity. Bruce just kinda drops it to the girl he has a crush on. Oh, and Bruce? That bit from Rachel at the end, about how the man she loves never came back but maybe when Gotham no longer needs Batman he will? That's a blow off. That's a "you better shape up fast, or I'm finding someone else." Which is exactly what she did in The Dark Knight. Don't say she didn't warn ya. I never knew what she saw in you to begin with, except nostalgia.
9) And finally, did anyone else find Thomas Wayne's great contributions to society a little... creepy? I think it's the Wayne Tower as the central hub of everything. Train, water works, center of the city... "I did all these nice things for you, Gotham, and I don't want you to forget that now I own the city's heart and soul." Combined with the completely saintlike portrayal and near hero-worship, and waah. *shudders*
OK, that's kind of a long list, but most of it's fairly minor stuff. Oh, I should also mention that I really don't care for the new Batmobile. Oh, it's certainly practical (except for the constant drastic shifting of the driver's position. Is there a reason we can't aim the guns while sitting up?), but it has no style. I prefer the sleek lines of the older versions.
All rightie, the good stuff:
Lucius Fox. OMG, Lucius Fox! I want to be Lucius Fox when I grow up. Lucius Fox is the new Q. Older engineers tell me that when they were kids, you could tell who was going to grow up to be an engineer. Most boys wanted to be James Bond; engineer boys wanted to be Q. Same thing. Lucius is the one to be. He gets to design all the cool toys and play with them all he wants, but no one is trying to kill him. I love Lucius. (And Morgan Freeman is totally sexy. Got that foxy grandpa thing going. Which is good; I needed a new one after learning of Sean Connery's violent attitude against women. [BTW, the comment at the end of the interview about no complaints from his wife? Not true anymore now that she's his ex.])
Dude, I totally want some of that memory cloth. I don't know what I'd even do with it, but it is AWESOME.
And I loved watching Bruce putting together his Batman gear. I actually squealed when he was making his Bat-shuriken on the grinder. Because dude, he was making bat-shaped shuriken on a grinder!
Oh yes, and the explosions. The effects in general, really. This is the first action movie I've watched since getting a home theater system, even a little one. Oooh. Let me just melt into that for a while. I'm watching ninjas go flying and hearing stuff from behind me. Nice.
Finally, the guy who plays Dr. Crane is kinda sexy. Sort of a poor man's Johnny Depp.
So yeah, basically, I'm into the movie for the toys. :)
It wasn't as good. But, I would say it is an above average movie. Granted, I don't think very highly of average. So, let me put it a different way. I thought it was a fun way to spend a few hours, and I could probably be talked into doing it again with a friend, but I don't feel a need to own the movie.
Before I go into some more details, let me lay a few things out on the table so you know where I'm coming from.
1) I actually didn't realize that The Dark Knight was a sequel when I saw it. I knew it didn't have anything to do with the 1990s Batman franchise, and I'd forgotten that Batman Begins existed. The Dark Knight actually works just fine as a stand alone in-media-res kinda thing. Might work better, as a matter of fact. I loved the Scarecrow cameo (especially the "I don't need help." "That's not my diagnosis" joke) when I thought it was just flavor, but it seems kind of lame when I know this was a major villain of the previous movie.
2) I'm not really a diehard fan of any particular Batman incarnation; more a casual fan of the mythos. I loved the early 1990s cartoon, thought the 1989 Batman and sequel Batman Returns were pretty good (then found Christian Slater in tights to be strangely disappointing and yet the only good thing about Batman Forever, and I'd rather just not talk about Batman and Robin). Oh, and I hate Frank Miller. But in general, I'm not terribly attached to any particular version.
3) I'm an engineer. So your movie either has to keep me interested enough to keep my disbelief suspended, or technically sound enough not to be going "yeah, right, here's the 97 ways that won't physically work" if that fails. (And yes, it is completely possible to keep me suspending my disbelief. 30 million sonar-emitting cell phones, sure I'll buy that in the theater even though in my normal life I'm pretty sure that a cell phone can't emit that high of a frequency, and I know the microphone simply isn't capable of picking it up.)
So, that's on the table now. Let's get the bad parts out of the way first.
1) Inconsistent ability levels. I find it really charming to see a hero's first awkward heroing moments, if it's done well. Mask of Zorro, when Antonio Banderas puts on the scarf and wrecks havok on the troop barracks with a constant look of "Oh crap, I'm gonna die!" on his face: pure gold. This movie, not so good. One moment Bruce is kicking the collective ass of several hundred ninjas, the next he's tumbling across the floor with no idea which way is up. Or, my favorite example of ability-level schizophrenia: amazing bad-ass League of the Shadows ninja is standing watch outside burning Wayne Mansion, and is knocked out by Alfred. Alfred. When Alfred Pennyworth hands your ass to you, it's time to turn in your ninja license. (Especially since you know he'd politely say in that wonderful accent: "Pardon me, sir, but I believe this ass belongs to you.")
2) Women as props. Did anyone else notice that Bruce's mom didn't even get a speaking line? (I did notice in The Dark Knight that Gordon's daughter got neither a name, a line, nor a face shot [but she did get a confirmation that her father loves her brother more], and that Barbara Gordon was demoted from Batgirl to stay-at-home Mom.) And the movie makers seem to spend Rachel's portion of Batman Begins trying to show they're not sexist and she's not Mary Jane Watson. "Look, no, I'm a DA and I carry a taser! I'll even use it on the secondary villain! I'm not a load! I'm not Mary Jane! Really!" And what was the deal with her being near unconscious immediately after being drugged by the Scarecrow, so she has to be carried by men, and then awake and alert and jittery as hell in the Batmobile? Prop. Rachel was really a wasted character between the two movies. She had a lot more potential than was ever used.
3) What a waste of a good villain. I like the Scarecrow, or more accurately the idea of the Scarecrow. He's got a lot of potential for really good cerebral stories. Now, I will admit there's a major problem with bringing the character to movies. That costume. In comics, usually (but not always) in the cartoon you could pull it off, but in live action, no. It's just a simple fact: if someone were to come up to you dressed in a scarecrow costume, would you think "terror", or would you think "doof"? Doofy, all the way. No exception here. On top of that, he's just not competent as a villain. He never quite decides how
4) I don't kill. Directly. You know, in line of sight. This is where my suspension of disbelief started to precipitate, I think. Our hero doesn't want to kill bad guys, but he will drives over the passanger compartment of an occupied vehicle with his personal tank and flip pursuing vehicles at speeds over 60 mph. People don't usually survive those things; it's certainly not a sure deal. The Dark Knight addressed some of this head on, the 'you won't kill me even to stop me, and in the meantime how many people have died because of me' thing with the Joker, but in Batman Begins we just don't talk about it.
5) The final great villainous plan, vs. physics. I'll admit, I wasn't on the edge of my seat during the edge-of-your-seat battle. Instead, I'm thinking OK, we've got a weapon that vaporizes contained water. What makes up 60% of the human body? Ew, squishy. No, no squishy. Instead we're blowing up pipes and sending a huge pressure spike into the "main water hub". And the whole time, I'm thinking "Dayum, don't you people have any pressure relief valves in that system?" I can't say for certain that this wouldn't work, but at the same time I'm also thinking that every single pipe segment that explodes is a huge pressure relief. It's really hard to build up large amounts of pressure in an open system. Oh, and someone needs to tell Batman that momentum exists. So, if you don't want a train to reach the main station under Wayne Tower, it's probably wise to NOT put it irrevocably at full throttle and then blow the bridge immediately in front of the building so that the train arrives in the basement instead of 10 stories above ground. But I will admit, that set-up and collision had some awesome effects.
6) The Batman Voice: ur doin it rong. Remember I said about The Dark Knight that The Voice made me want to giggle every time? I'd imagine Batman ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd just want to lose it? He didn't have the voice down yet in Batman Begins. This time I just wanted to offer him a Sucrets.
7) Economic warfare as a weapon to reform a society that is overwhelmed with crime. ... Do you guys really need me to unpack the problem with this one? I just don't see where making people more desperate is going to help things. And yet if the intent was to destroy the society as a whole, history shows that economic hardship is a fertilizer for crime. I don't see any way this would ever do anything except make things worse.
8) 'Secret Identity', Bruce. What, ya need a dictionary? You know, most heros agonize for two or three movies minimum before hesitantly telling their absolute dearest love their true identity. Bruce just kinda drops it to the girl he has a crush on. Oh, and Bruce? That bit from Rachel at the end, about how the man she loves never came back but maybe when Gotham no longer needs Batman he will? That's a blow off. That's a "you better shape up fast, or I'm finding someone else." Which is exactly what she did in The Dark Knight. Don't say she didn't warn ya. I never knew what she saw in you to begin with, except nostalgia.
9) And finally, did anyone else find Thomas Wayne's great contributions to society a little... creepy? I think it's the Wayne Tower as the central hub of everything. Train, water works, center of the city... "I did all these nice things for you, Gotham, and I don't want you to forget that now I own the city's heart and soul." Combined with the completely saintlike portrayal and near hero-worship, and waah. *shudders*
OK, that's kind of a long list, but most of it's fairly minor stuff. Oh, I should also mention that I really don't care for the new Batmobile. Oh, it's certainly practical (except for the constant drastic shifting of the driver's position. Is there a reason we can't aim the guns while sitting up?), but it has no style. I prefer the sleek lines of the older versions.
All rightie, the good stuff:
Lucius Fox. OMG, Lucius Fox! I want to be Lucius Fox when I grow up. Lucius Fox is the new Q. Older engineers tell me that when they were kids, you could tell who was going to grow up to be an engineer. Most boys wanted to be James Bond; engineer boys wanted to be Q. Same thing. Lucius is the one to be. He gets to design all the cool toys and play with them all he wants, but no one is trying to kill him. I love Lucius. (And Morgan Freeman is totally sexy. Got that foxy grandpa thing going. Which is good; I needed a new one after learning of Sean Connery's violent attitude against women. [BTW, the comment at the end of the interview about no complaints from his wife? Not true anymore now that she's his ex.])
Dude, I totally want some of that memory cloth. I don't know what I'd even do with it, but it is AWESOME.
And I loved watching Bruce putting together his Batman gear. I actually squealed when he was making his Bat-shuriken on the grinder. Because dude, he was making bat-shaped shuriken on a grinder!
Oh yes, and the explosions. The effects in general, really. This is the first action movie I've watched since getting a home theater system, even a little one. Oooh. Let me just melt into that for a while. I'm watching ninjas go flying and hearing stuff from behind me. Nice.
Finally, the guy who plays Dr. Crane is kinda sexy. Sort of a poor man's Johnny Depp.
So yeah, basically, I'm into the movie for the toys. :)
Friday, August 22, 2008
The Dark Knight (Contains Spoilers)
I took the afternoon off to pamper myself, and one of the things I did was take in an early showing of The Dark Knight. Wow, that movie is incredible!
Seriously, I think that's one of the best and best made movies I've seen in a long, long time. Both the writing and the visuals are great, and that is really rare. The writing is tight. Great plot development (well, I did think turning every cell phone in Gotham into a sonar-emitting microphone was BS, but I can forgive one.) Characterizations were wonderfully human. (I have no idea how a comic fan would view them, but I thought they all came across as believable people, while still keeping Batman and the Joker Larger Than Life.) Pacing is excellent; no wasted time but it's not rushed either.
I have to take an aside for the Batman voice, though. Every time Batman, as Batman, talked, I had to squelch giggles. As I saw someone somewhere say, it's because nothing normal could ever be said in that voice. He would talk, and I'd imagine that voice ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd want to lose it. Come on, admit it. Imagine that voice saying "crazy bread", and tell me you don't want to laugh your ass off.
The effects were amazing. From the trailer, I was afraid that the computer effects would pop out badly. They only did in a few spots, and no more than is inevitable with this level of use. The Two-Face effect was absolutely incredible. Before I looked it up, I would have laid money that the effect was done with animatronics instead of CGI, which I have to admit means the eye in particular is far too inorganic and hard looking, and the teeth also have a bit of that. But the blend with the real half of his face is amazing.
I feel I should also address the idiot who thought that it was all pro-Bush and basically a propoganda film (except he thought that was a positive). Yeah, I can see where you might get that... if you only watch half of it. It's also helps if you completely disengage your brain for that whole last hour. Did we miss the "no killing" part, Batman's all important rule that leads to major plot points? 'Cause last I checked, Bush was directly responsible for the deaths of, oh, over 100,000 people. Or Batman declaring at the end that he's not a hero? 'Cause you'll never hear Bush do that. How about the convicts turning out to be decent people, or the real life hardship leading Ramirez (one of the bad cops) to become a 'terrorist'? (Ha! If we had Universal Single Payer Health Care, this movie would have been totally different. Well, not really, but it's fun to say.)
There's both liberal and conservative points in here. It might lean a little conservatively, but I wouldn't call it a propoganda film. (300, THAT was a propoganda film.)
That does remind me, though; I also did love the Joker calling his ferry scenario a "social experiment". I bet just about everyone's seen that recent New York Times article on trolling, but if you haven't (or if you're just wondering where I'm going with this), it's common for sociopaths to use that as an excuse when they screw with people just because they can. From trolling scenarios so extreme that they literally destroy families, to real life crimes, that excuse has been used.
And one last thing I really appreciated: the movie was PG-13. That could have been as much of a bloodbath as they wanted it to be, so I really appreciate that there wasn't gore. (Or gratuitous sex, for that matter, but it's the violence I'm concerned about today.) It also proves that you don't have to be gross to be dark, serious, even "gritty" for those who find that a positive descriptor.
I've totally got to buy this when it comes out on DVD.
That "The Day The Earth Stood Still" remake also looks like it might have something going ... although with that many differences, can you really call it a remake?
I've seen the original, and one thing that pisses me off is people saying "Oh, that's such a great passivist movie." That is not a passivist movie! It's blatantly in support of the Cold War arms race. The message of the film is that the only way to ensure peace is to make sure that everyone can be blown off the face of the universe. And remember that when it was made, people were iffy about that astronomical miltary spending thing that was starting up. (See, that's what a propoganda film looks like.)
I'm thinking "if the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives" is more to build a movie on.
One last thing that occurred to me, though. Movie theater corporate chains are always wondering why movie attendance is going down. They don't like to admit the obvious: high costs, crappy movies. But here's another thing. It is now completely possible to get better quality viewing in the home than in the theater. I personally can't do it (yet), but with a large screen HDTV and a good quality home theater system, a person could. I'm sitting there in the theater watching, and some of the scenes were we're walking across big white rooms make all the scratches and dust on the film strip really obvious.
I'm thinking its time for theaters to upgrade to some sort of digital projection system. I bet some have, but it'd be nice if the local ones joined in.
Seriously, I think that's one of the best and best made movies I've seen in a long, long time. Both the writing and the visuals are great, and that is really rare. The writing is tight. Great plot development (well, I did think turning every cell phone in Gotham into a sonar-emitting microphone was BS, but I can forgive one.) Characterizations were wonderfully human. (I have no idea how a comic fan would view them, but I thought they all came across as believable people, while still keeping Batman and the Joker Larger Than Life.) Pacing is excellent; no wasted time but it's not rushed either.
I have to take an aside for the Batman voice, though. Every time Batman, as Batman, talked, I had to squelch giggles. As I saw someone somewhere say, it's because nothing normal could ever be said in that voice. He would talk, and I'd imagine that voice ordering a pizza with pepperoni and extra cheese and a side of crazy bread, and I'd want to lose it. Come on, admit it. Imagine that voice saying "crazy bread", and tell me you don't want to laugh your ass off.
The effects were amazing. From the trailer, I was afraid that the computer effects would pop out badly. They only did in a few spots, and no more than is inevitable with this level of use. The Two-Face effect was absolutely incredible. Before I looked it up, I would have laid money that the effect was done with animatronics instead of CGI, which I have to admit means the eye in particular is far too inorganic and hard looking, and the teeth also have a bit of that. But the blend with the real half of his face is amazing.
I feel I should also address the idiot who thought that it was all pro-Bush and basically a propoganda film (except he thought that was a positive). Yeah, I can see where you might get that... if you only watch half of it. It's also helps if you completely disengage your brain for that whole last hour. Did we miss the "no killing" part, Batman's all important rule that leads to major plot points? 'Cause last I checked, Bush was directly responsible for the deaths of, oh, over 100,000 people. Or Batman declaring at the end that he's not a hero? 'Cause you'll never hear Bush do that. How about the convicts turning out to be decent people, or the real life hardship leading Ramirez (one of the bad cops) to become a 'terrorist'? (Ha! If we had Universal Single Payer Health Care, this movie would have been totally different. Well, not really, but it's fun to say.)
There's both liberal and conservative points in here. It might lean a little conservatively, but I wouldn't call it a propoganda film. (300, THAT was a propoganda film.)
That does remind me, though; I also did love the Joker calling his ferry scenario a "social experiment". I bet just about everyone's seen that recent New York Times article on trolling, but if you haven't (or if you're just wondering where I'm going with this), it's common for sociopaths to use that as an excuse when they screw with people just because they can. From trolling scenarios so extreme that they literally destroy families, to real life crimes, that excuse has been used.
And one last thing I really appreciated: the movie was PG-13. That could have been as much of a bloodbath as they wanted it to be, so I really appreciate that there wasn't gore. (Or gratuitous sex, for that matter, but it's the violence I'm concerned about today.) It also proves that you don't have to be gross to be dark, serious, even "gritty" for those who find that a positive descriptor.
I've totally got to buy this when it comes out on DVD.
That "The Day The Earth Stood Still" remake also looks like it might have something going ... although with that many differences, can you really call it a remake?
I've seen the original, and one thing that pisses me off is people saying "Oh, that's such a great passivist movie." That is not a passivist movie! It's blatantly in support of the Cold War arms race. The message of the film is that the only way to ensure peace is to make sure that everyone can be blown off the face of the universe. And remember that when it was made, people were iffy about that astronomical miltary spending thing that was starting up. (See, that's what a propoganda film looks like.)
I'm thinking "if the Earth dies, you die. If you die, the Earth survives" is more to build a movie on.
One last thing that occurred to me, though. Movie theater corporate chains are always wondering why movie attendance is going down. They don't like to admit the obvious: high costs, crappy movies. But here's another thing. It is now completely possible to get better quality viewing in the home than in the theater. I personally can't do it (yet), but with a large screen HDTV and a good quality home theater system, a person could. I'm sitting there in the theater watching, and some of the scenes were we're walking across big white rooms make all the scratches and dust on the film strip really obvious.
I'm thinking its time for theaters to upgrade to some sort of digital projection system. I bet some have, but it'd be nice if the local ones joined in.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Movie Review: 40-Year-Old Virgin
I am muchly enjoying the Netflix subscription, and it's giving me the chance to see movies I'm vaguely interested in seeing but have never gone out of my way for. Now, when The 40-Year-Old Virgin was in theaters, my reaction to trailers was basically summarized by a loud groan. But in the last year or so, some friends told me "No, it's not at all what you're thinking. It's actually a pretty good movie; I think you'd like it."
So, I gave it a try. Now, the geek in me is not offended. When you get right down to it, the movie's message is that you gotta be yourself, and when "normal" people try to change you, you'll just make an idiot of yourself if you follow their advice. Oh, and they're not so normal and emulation-worthy anyway. I probably would have liked it more if not for two things:
1) I'm a woman.
2) I'm a writer.
I understand that the premise of the movie, 3 "normal" guys trying to get their virgin kinda-friend laid by any means, basically dictates the objectification of women, in those segments. But, it's not very well balanced out in the "real relationship" segments. I think this movie could be done in a less offensive way, putting more effort into showing the 3 'normal' guys as REALLY messed up in their attitudes towards women. Maybe if we showed some positive women. Like, plural? (Bechdel's law is, as usual, totally in the toilet.)
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood was tripping over its own messed up ideas of sexuality that it tries to push down our throats. For one, I refuse to believe that sex on the first date is normative. Most of my female friends want to at least be reasonably sure their new beau is not Jack the Ripper, and you really can't be sure of that after two hours. I know that having your boyfriend of 3 1/2 weeks take your teenage daughter to the birth control clinic is not normal, nor is "I love you, let's get married" less than two months in! This movie really needed a more realistic and healthy attitude towards sex, and relationships, and especially towards women, and for whatever reason the makers couldn't bring themselves to do that.
That nicely leads into my second problem with the movie: People just don't act like that. I don't even know where to start. Just picking something at random, the store they work in apparently changed its name from Prohibited Harrassment R Us. One call to corporate HR would clear this place out. Andy is far too intelligent to let someone too drunk to stand, actually drive. I spent half the movie thinking "why didn't they just hire a prostitute", and then a good chunk of the second going "OK, now what if you hire a real prostitute instead of a movie prostitute?" What guy is going to say "I cheat because I'm insecure"? Honestly, who even has that kind of insight into themselves? I don't really see a woman freaking out upon finding out her boyfriend has a huge collection of porn; I personally half expect it in this day and age. And I'm just hitting some random points. I lost count of how many times I said "No one talks like that" or "No one acts like that." It's like watching a bunch of hand puppets try to act out a sex comedy.
Oh, and it is officially the winner for weirdest ending segment I have yet seen. And I saw the 2003 Zatoichi remake with the Japanese Riverdance bit out of nowhere, just to put that in perspective.
So, I gave it a try. Now, the geek in me is not offended. When you get right down to it, the movie's message is that you gotta be yourself, and when "normal" people try to change you, you'll just make an idiot of yourself if you follow their advice. Oh, and they're not so normal and emulation-worthy anyway. I probably would have liked it more if not for two things:
1) I'm a woman.
2) I'm a writer.
I understand that the premise of the movie, 3 "normal" guys trying to get their virgin kinda-friend laid by any means, basically dictates the objectification of women, in those segments. But, it's not very well balanced out in the "real relationship" segments. I think this movie could be done in a less offensive way, putting more effort into showing the 3 'normal' guys as REALLY messed up in their attitudes towards women. Maybe if we showed some positive women. Like, plural? (Bechdel's law is, as usual, totally in the toilet.)
I think part of the problem is that Hollywood was tripping over its own messed up ideas of sexuality that it tries to push down our throats. For one, I refuse to believe that sex on the first date is normative. Most of my female friends want to at least be reasonably sure their new beau is not Jack the Ripper, and you really can't be sure of that after two hours. I know that having your boyfriend of 3 1/2 weeks take your teenage daughter to the birth control clinic is not normal, nor is "I love you, let's get married" less than two months in! This movie really needed a more realistic and healthy attitude towards sex, and relationships, and especially towards women, and for whatever reason the makers couldn't bring themselves to do that.
That nicely leads into my second problem with the movie: People just don't act like that. I don't even know where to start. Just picking something at random, the store they work in apparently changed its name from Prohibited Harrassment R Us. One call to corporate HR would clear this place out. Andy is far too intelligent to let someone too drunk to stand, actually drive. I spent half the movie thinking "why didn't they just hire a prostitute", and then a good chunk of the second going "OK, now what if you hire a real prostitute instead of a movie prostitute?" What guy is going to say "I cheat because I'm insecure"? Honestly, who even has that kind of insight into themselves? I don't really see a woman freaking out upon finding out her boyfriend has a huge collection of porn; I personally half expect it in this day and age. And I'm just hitting some random points. I lost count of how many times I said "No one talks like that" or "No one acts like that." It's like watching a bunch of hand puppets try to act out a sex comedy.
Oh, and it is officially the winner for weirdest ending segment I have yet seen. And I saw the 2003 Zatoichi remake with the Japanese Riverdance bit out of nowhere, just to put that in perspective.
Saturday, August 9, 2008
Breakfast at Tiffany's
The magic of Netflix brought me "Breakfast at Tiffany's" this week. So, my opinion of this great classic?
It really sucks. A lot. So what exactly is the message here? Everyone's an asshole, so fall in love with the slightly abusive guy who thinks he owns you -- and likes to tell you so. So this is the quintessential Audrey Hepburn, huh? Can't say I'm impressed. But, that's nothing compared to my new hatred for Mickey Rooney. :P
It really sucks. A lot. So what exactly is the message here? Everyone's an asshole, so fall in love with the slightly abusive guy who thinks he owns you -- and likes to tell you so. So this is the quintessential Audrey Hepburn, huh? Can't say I'm impressed. But, that's nothing compared to my new hatred for Mickey Rooney. :P
Thursday, July 3, 2008
A Harry Potter Observation
First, let me lay out an assumption. Line up all the Harry Potter books in order. It is a fact that the final length of the first was dictated by editorial decree (i.e. Rowling was forced to cut it down to have it published.) There is a large increase length at book 4, without an equivalent increase in actual significant content. Therefore, I'm going to assume that, with book 4, the editor was no longer exercising significant creative control over the content.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Now, with that established, let's look at racism in Harry Potter. Not what the books are supposedly about or the message you're beaten around the head with, but what is actually found in the books themselves.
Book 1: Racists are jerks. So are snobs.
Book 2: Racism is The Huge Evil! Racism causes death and destruction and horrible horrible things! On top of that, slavery is absolutely wrong and slaves are miserable.
Book 3: You shouldn't judge people without hearing their side, or make assumptions just because of their bloodlines. Also, chronically ill people have to put up with a lot of crap and discrimination on top of their illness.
Book 4: French people are worthless and pathetic. Slavic people are walking bricks. Foreigners and non-English speakers in general can be a big pain in the butt. Slavery's actually a good thing in most cases, and people who are traditionally slaves like it better that way, even if they have the rare bad owner. Only nutters in that group want freedom, but we guess they can be OK as long as they know their place. [Anyone remember Dobby asking for less pay than Dumbledore offered? Because, you know, he knows his place.] In any event, they're happiest when they're doing menial labor.
Hmmm.... I don't think this says good things about Ms. Rowling.
Monday, June 30, 2008
How the heck did that happen?
Now that I've finished the first draft of Complications From Lycanthropy, I'm going back to do revisions on Pack Mentality. (It actually doesn't need nearly the rewrite I feared it would at the end of October, when I finished it.)
One of the things I've done is to read back through it and make note of the changes I want to make in each chapter. As part of that, I also made out a timeline of what events happen when, so I can get weather and stuff reasonable and as a general guide. That's not too hard when the characters' lives revolve around the full moon, so most of the events are nicely laid out in relation to one.
Now, one of my frustrations when first writing this is that it's supposed to be following Remus during the first half of Half-Blood Prince, between when Harry saw him in July and then again in December. Only when I'd laid out my brainstorming of how much time happened between events, it just wouldn't squish in there. So I decided screw it, I wasn't going to sacrifice the integrity of my story to squeeze into a canon I didn't particularly like anyway, and just wrote it as it needed to be written.
Now that I've gone back and written out the actual timeline, it drops in perfectly. It starts August 28 and ends a couple of weeks before Christmas. I have no idea how the hell that happened, but it works.
I also am again convinced that Rowling did not consult a lunar calendar in regards to her werewolf character's appearances.
One of the things I've done is to read back through it and make note of the changes I want to make in each chapter. As part of that, I also made out a timeline of what events happen when, so I can get weather and stuff reasonable and as a general guide. That's not too hard when the characters' lives revolve around the full moon, so most of the events are nicely laid out in relation to one.
Now, one of my frustrations when first writing this is that it's supposed to be following Remus during the first half of Half-Blood Prince, between when Harry saw him in July and then again in December. Only when I'd laid out my brainstorming of how much time happened between events, it just wouldn't squish in there. So I decided screw it, I wasn't going to sacrifice the integrity of my story to squeeze into a canon I didn't particularly like anyway, and just wrote it as it needed to be written.
Now that I've gone back and written out the actual timeline, it drops in perfectly. It starts August 28 and ends a couple of weeks before Christmas. I have no idea how the hell that happened, but it works.
I also am again convinced that Rowling did not consult a lunar calendar in regards to her werewolf character's appearances.
Sunday, June 1, 2008
Yay! It's finished!
Finally finished the first draft of Complications From Lycanthropy. Naturally, it's very much a first draft -- a terrible mess that will bear hardly any resemblance at all to draft 2. Now I'm very glad I didn't let many people read draft 1. But I've got all the critical flashbacks well laid out now, and even though the frame story will drastically change, I do have the most important incidents there as well. Go me!
Since the last chunk is all hand-written in notebooks, my plan from here is to spend my usual writing time typing it up, and then switching over to Pack Mentality and starting the first major revision on that story. Not only does that give Complications time to rest, but events in the two stories are shared and influence each other, so having the first draft of Complications done gives me a better idea of how some things should go in Pack Mentality.
Since the last chunk is all hand-written in notebooks, my plan from here is to spend my usual writing time typing it up, and then switching over to Pack Mentality and starting the first major revision on that story. Not only does that give Complications time to rest, but events in the two stories are shared and influence each other, so having the first draft of Complications done gives me a better idea of how some things should go in Pack Mentality.
Thursday, May 15, 2008
It's not only over, it's buried.
When I first heard of a fourth Indiana Jones movie, I was suspicious but open minded.
Then I rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark, and was convinced it would never work. Harrison Ford went and got really old. The man looks about half dead now. There is absolutely no way in hell he is going to be able to convincingly pull off that sort of stuff.
Then I watched the Rifftrack of Firewall, his 2006 "action thriller". There's a reason "action thriller" is in quotation marks. I'm now convinced there's no way in heaven, earth, and all seven hells that Harrison Ford could convincingly pull this off.
This morning, I just found out the title of number 4. "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
*blinkblink*
Ah, so I see we decided to go back to the crack smoking of Temple of Doom instead of going with the formula that actually worked, too. *headdesk*
I think the most polite we could do right now is just look away and pretend this never happened.
Then I rewatched Raiders of the Lost Ark, and was convinced it would never work. Harrison Ford went and got really old. The man looks about half dead now. There is absolutely no way in hell he is going to be able to convincingly pull off that sort of stuff.
Then I watched the Rifftrack of Firewall, his 2006 "action thriller". There's a reason "action thriller" is in quotation marks. I'm now convinced there's no way in heaven, earth, and all seven hells that Harrison Ford could convincingly pull this off.
This morning, I just found out the title of number 4. "Indiana Jones and The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull."
*blinkblink*
Ah, so I see we decided to go back to the crack smoking of Temple of Doom instead of going with the formula that actually worked, too. *headdesk*
I think the most polite we could do right now is just look away and pretend this never happened.
Thursday, May 1, 2008
Eternally 15 years away...
I've got a little quote for you, and I want you to guess when it was written:
"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."
Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?
... waiting...
1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!
*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!
You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P
Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?
And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!
I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"
"You may think that undue stress is being laid upon this driving force in her, upon this business ability. But remember that this was fifteen years or more ago, before women had invaded the world of business by the thousands, to take their place, side by side, salary for salary, with men."
Go ahead, guess when that was written. I'll wait. When was 15 years ago before women had invaded the workforce?
... waiting...
1917! Nineteen hundred and effin' seventeen!
*snarls* I'm sick of being lied to and jerked around about women's history.
Why wasn't I taught about Nellie Bly as a child? Why wasn't I told that women journalists were normal in the late 19th century?
Why wasn't I told about the roll of women war workers in bringing about American women's suffrage? Why wasn't I told there WERE woman workers during WWI. Rosie the Riveter was nothing new; she was part of a very long tradition.
In fact, why wasn't I told that since the 1920s if not before, most women have worked at some point in their life. Yes, even during the 1950s.
What else is being hidden back there? I want to know, dammit! I want every 11-year-old girl in this country to know!
You find some really scary/shocking/annoying stuff when you start reading primary sources. >:P
Somewhat different rant, I am really truly sick of the "romantic stalker" storyline. Stalking is not romantic. Ever. It's creepy and stalkers should be forced to have regular talks with Mr. Police Man about why it is not appropriate behavior. And a shrink would be good too.
And the storyline itself is un-freakin'-believably insulting. "Women don't really know what's best for them or what they want. Here, this terribly creepy man knows what you want better than you do. Give up your free will and self-determination and give in to him. He won't go away until you do." And this is supposed to be romantic? Who do I need to strangle?
And off of that, I'm really sick of certain men trying to tell me what women want and what women think. What the hell makes them think that they are more qualified than me on this topic? Last I checked, I'm the one with boobs!
I need to knit me one of these for moments like this, I think. I wonder what ever happened to the stuffed rat creature I used to keep around for when I needed to smack something around and shout "stupid STUPID rat creature!"
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Movie: Beowulf
Rifftrax has one up for Beowulf, so we watched that movie this weekend.
Before starting, I remarked that the last thing I'd heard about this movie was "So, Beowulf's coming out this weekend," and then no one ever spoke of it again. I should have taken this as a warning. I have a new concept of hell thanks to this movie. When you go to hell, before they decide which level to send you to, they put you in holding in a Wal-Mart, and every television in that Wal-mart -- everything in electronics, all the advertising TVs, all of it -- is playing this movie. And none of them are synched to each other.
I was expecting 300 only with Danes. 300 was the funniest thing I've seen in years; I laughed my ass off. I mean, the rhino... and the spear... And the guy who just stands there as his head gets chopped off. Nooo! *snickers* And the ninja monkeys. It's just... hilarious. And there's an excellent Rifftrack on top of that. We're trying to figure out how to get a legit copy without actually giving any money to the original creators. Used or something.
Beowulf was... not funny. And not dramatic. And not very good at all. The Rifftrack couldn't even save this one.
So, Hollywood takes the oldest known writing in the English language, a great heroic epic, and shits on it. Beowulf isn't a hero; he's a lying, sex-crazed bastard who sold his soul for power. Which ended up killing a few hundred to a few thousand people. Because God knows that Hollywood hasn't put out enough anti-heroes over the years. *eye roll*
If they were going for a "winners write the history books" theme, they failed. Terribly. Honestly, if they wanted to do that, they needed a story that everyone in their audience would recognize. Robin Hood or King Arthur or something. It doesn't have to be something that everyone knows by heart (although that would be preferable), but the audience needs to be able to go "wait, you're doing it wrong."
I was also not expecting it to be all CGI. I knew it had been heavily CGI'd, which I dislike to begin with, but all... That reduced by half the amount of seriousness I could even give it. I felt like I was watching a drama acted out by Shrek extras. The animation was bad -- and when I say that, please understand that I don't mean the modeling or the texturing, I mean that actual movement. Characters don't even have skeletons, much less a full muscular-skeletal system. And Grendel's mother walks like Futura (the robot) from Metropolis -- I mean the 1926 movie Metropolis. And she kept doing that comic-book real-women-fall-over-when-they-try-to-stand-this way hip cocked farther to the side than is anatomically possible thing. Made me want to strangle someone.
Actually, the overall sexism in the movie made me want to strangle someone. I was expecting this one to fail Bechdel's law, because the source material only had two women -- and that's if you count Grendel's mother as a woman.
But no, the makers added women for the express purpose of denigrating them. Because sexual harassment is funny, you see.
On top of that, we stripped Grendel's mother of almost all of her power. In the source, she's the final boss of the game as far as Hrothgar's people are concerned. You thought Grendel was a problem; pff, try this. In this movie, she's been reduced to a baby making machine. She kills a few guys off camera, but mostly she sleeps with kings and then throws her kids at them later. Thank you so much, movie.
Oh, and thank you too for throwing the nudity double-standard right in my face. I really didn't want to see Angelina Jolie's digitally-created crouch right in the middle of my screen, but it's exceptionally insulting after all the forced efforts to hide Beowulf's batch in the battle with Grendel. Look, either give him 300-style shorts, or just show it. None of this kitchsy crap. The movie's already R-rated anyway...
*shoulder tap*
This movie is PG-13? THIS movie is PG-13?! WTF is wrong with our ratings board?!?! I found a forum discussion afterwards talking about this movie, and there were adults who had to walk out/turn it off 10 minutes in because they couldn't take all the gore. Add on the denigration of women and full nudity, and this should've been a no-brainer R. But what's even more infuriating is that you know -- you know -- that if they'd shown Beowulf's schlong, it would have booted them right into an R, maybe an NC-17.
So, let's check this. Hyper violence bloodbaths, OK. Full female nudity, OK. Full male nudity, absolutely no way!
Because a penis is far more damaging to a kid than any amount of violence, but it doesn't cause any harm or long-term effect to reduce women to collections of body parts that exist solely for the purpose of sex.
If you haven't seen the documentary This Movie Has Not Been Rated, you should go do that. It nicely talks about the absurdity of the American movie ratings board. Although do be forewarned that it contains the sex scenes that were cut out of other movies to avoid an NC-17.
And Beowulf? Sucks. Not even the Rifftrax helps.
Before starting, I remarked that the last thing I'd heard about this movie was "So, Beowulf's coming out this weekend," and then no one ever spoke of it again. I should have taken this as a warning. I have a new concept of hell thanks to this movie. When you go to hell, before they decide which level to send you to, they put you in holding in a Wal-Mart, and every television in that Wal-mart -- everything in electronics, all the advertising TVs, all of it -- is playing this movie. And none of them are synched to each other.
I was expecting 300 only with Danes. 300 was the funniest thing I've seen in years; I laughed my ass off. I mean, the rhino... and the spear... And the guy who just stands there as his head gets chopped off. Nooo! *snickers* And the ninja monkeys. It's just... hilarious. And there's an excellent Rifftrack on top of that. We're trying to figure out how to get a legit copy without actually giving any money to the original creators. Used or something.
Beowulf was... not funny. And not dramatic. And not very good at all. The Rifftrack couldn't even save this one.
So, Hollywood takes the oldest known writing in the English language, a great heroic epic, and shits on it. Beowulf isn't a hero; he's a lying, sex-crazed bastard who sold his soul for power. Which ended up killing a few hundred to a few thousand people. Because God knows that Hollywood hasn't put out enough anti-heroes over the years. *eye roll*
If they were going for a "winners write the history books" theme, they failed. Terribly. Honestly, if they wanted to do that, they needed a story that everyone in their audience would recognize. Robin Hood or King Arthur or something. It doesn't have to be something that everyone knows by heart (although that would be preferable), but the audience needs to be able to go "wait, you're doing it wrong."
I was also not expecting it to be all CGI. I knew it had been heavily CGI'd, which I dislike to begin with, but all... That reduced by half the amount of seriousness I could even give it. I felt like I was watching a drama acted out by Shrek extras. The animation was bad -- and when I say that, please understand that I don't mean the modeling or the texturing, I mean that actual movement. Characters don't even have skeletons, much less a full muscular-skeletal system. And Grendel's mother walks like Futura (the robot) from Metropolis -- I mean the 1926 movie Metropolis. And she kept doing that comic-book real-women-fall-over-when-they-try-to-stand-this way hip cocked farther to the side than is anatomically possible thing. Made me want to strangle someone.
Actually, the overall sexism in the movie made me want to strangle someone. I was expecting this one to fail Bechdel's law, because the source material only had two women -- and that's if you count Grendel's mother as a woman.
But no, the makers added women for the express purpose of denigrating them. Because sexual harassment is funny, you see.
On top of that, we stripped Grendel's mother of almost all of her power. In the source, she's the final boss of the game as far as Hrothgar's people are concerned. You thought Grendel was a problem; pff, try this. In this movie, she's been reduced to a baby making machine. She kills a few guys off camera, but mostly she sleeps with kings and then throws her kids at them later. Thank you so much, movie.
Oh, and thank you too for throwing the nudity double-standard right in my face. I really didn't want to see Angelina Jolie's digitally-created crouch right in the middle of my screen, but it's exceptionally insulting after all the forced efforts to hide Beowulf's batch in the battle with Grendel. Look, either give him 300-style shorts, or just show it. None of this kitchsy crap. The movie's already R-rated anyway...
*shoulder tap*
This movie is PG-13? THIS movie is PG-13?! WTF is wrong with our ratings board?!?! I found a forum discussion afterwards talking about this movie, and there were adults who had to walk out/turn it off 10 minutes in because they couldn't take all the gore. Add on the denigration of women and full nudity, and this should've been a no-brainer R. But what's even more infuriating is that you know -- you know -- that if they'd shown Beowulf's schlong, it would have booted them right into an R, maybe an NC-17.
So, let's check this. Hyper violence bloodbaths, OK. Full female nudity, OK. Full male nudity, absolutely no way!
Because a penis is far more damaging to a kid than any amount of violence, but it doesn't cause any harm or long-term effect to reduce women to collections of body parts that exist solely for the purpose of sex.
If you haven't seen the documentary This Movie Has Not Been Rated, you should go do that. It nicely talks about the absurdity of the American movie ratings board. Although do be forewarned that it contains the sex scenes that were cut out of other movies to avoid an NC-17.
And Beowulf? Sucks. Not even the Rifftrax helps.
Sunday, April 20, 2008
Draco In Leather Pants
It's not what you think. ^_~
TV Tropes has an entry called "Draco in Leather Pants", which describes the phenomenon in which fans embrace a character that's supposed to be unlovable, perhaps downplaying their (often glaringly obvious by design) faults to do so. TV Tropes has various theories on this (which leads me to remark that the site has an overall attitude I don't care for, BTW), but they don't include one that I think contributes to at least some cases:
Poor original writing.
Draco's a good example of this, especially when Rowling complains about his following because "he's not a nice man."
I'd say most of the Draco fandom was established sometime during books 1 thru 5. Looking at those alone, what do we see of Draco? Yes, he's a mean kid. He's a thorn in our heroes' side, but not a real villain.
We've seen him with his father twice. The first time Lucius was nitpicking just about everything he did (Book 2); the second Lucius was basically ignoring him so that he could heckle Arthur Weasley, but had bought him the best tickets to the sporting event of the year (book 4).
We've seen him with his mother once (book 4), and she was basically looking down at everything and annoyed to be there.
A passive reader will just take Rowling's "he's mean" and leave it. But fandoms aren't made of passive readers. So instead, let's get into this kid's head for a minute and run around. What do we find in here?
Well, we find a kid from a cold, critical, and terribly racist family. He's spoiled materially, but he doesn't get a lot of affection. Like all kids, he wants his family's approval on at least some level. He's been completely sheltered from the race his father despises, and so has no basis for comparison other than what he's been taught. He doesn't have any real friends. Oh, he has plenty of hangers-on, but on some level you gotta figure even he knows it's because of his family's money and power.
What you've got here is a sad, pathetic, insecure, lonely little boy lashing out in a desperate attempt to get someone to actually give a damn about him. Gosh, I wanna go huggle him now. I'm not going to hate a kid like that. I'm going to hate his actions, and I'm going to think he's an annoying little prick, but as a human being he is a sympathetic character if you bother to look.
If Rowling didn't want that, she did a poor job of thinking out the character.
TV Tropes has an entry called "Draco in Leather Pants", which describes the phenomenon in which fans embrace a character that's supposed to be unlovable, perhaps downplaying their (often glaringly obvious by design) faults to do so. TV Tropes has various theories on this (which leads me to remark that the site has an overall attitude I don't care for, BTW), but they don't include one that I think contributes to at least some cases:
Poor original writing.
Draco's a good example of this, especially when Rowling complains about his following because "he's not a nice man."
I'd say most of the Draco fandom was established sometime during books 1 thru 5. Looking at those alone, what do we see of Draco? Yes, he's a mean kid. He's a thorn in our heroes' side, but not a real villain.
We've seen him with his father twice. The first time Lucius was nitpicking just about everything he did (Book 2); the second Lucius was basically ignoring him so that he could heckle Arthur Weasley, but had bought him the best tickets to the sporting event of the year (book 4).
We've seen him with his mother once (book 4), and she was basically looking down at everything and annoyed to be there.
A passive reader will just take Rowling's "he's mean" and leave it. But fandoms aren't made of passive readers. So instead, let's get into this kid's head for a minute and run around. What do we find in here?
Well, we find a kid from a cold, critical, and terribly racist family. He's spoiled materially, but he doesn't get a lot of affection. Like all kids, he wants his family's approval on at least some level. He's been completely sheltered from the race his father despises, and so has no basis for comparison other than what he's been taught. He doesn't have any real friends. Oh, he has plenty of hangers-on, but on some level you gotta figure even he knows it's because of his family's money and power.
What you've got here is a sad, pathetic, insecure, lonely little boy lashing out in a desperate attempt to get someone to actually give a damn about him. Gosh, I wanna go huggle him now. I'm not going to hate a kid like that. I'm going to hate his actions, and I'm going to think he's an annoying little prick, but as a human being he is a sympathetic character if you bother to look.
If Rowling didn't want that, she did a poor job of thinking out the character.
Saturday, March 22, 2008
Soylent Green is made from fail!
One of the current favorite "Global warming isn't happening" BSes right now is that "30 years ago, scientists thought believed the world was getting colder. They don't know either way."
Interestingly, I watched the 1973 "classic" Soylent Green today. You know what one of the major factors of the long-term world-wide food shortage was, alluded to several times throughout the movie? "Greenhouse effect." Global warming drastically changing the worldwide climate in a short time, decimating ecological systems already damaged by wide-scale pollution.
1973, guys.
So much for "everyone thought."
Actually, less than 10% of the scientific papers at that time supported global cooling. But then, as more recently, the media jumped on the one that isn't the fault of the people who pay for commercials. [This is why I do not pay attention to the American news media. For 20 years, every peer-reviewed scientific paper supported global warming, and in the same period 51% of mass media accounts questioned or denied its existence. Either the journalists involved are liars, or they couldn't ID a legit source to save their souls. Either way, they're worse than worthless.]
You know, some days the only reason I'm not a conspiracy theorist is because human beings just can't plan that well.
Anyway, Soylent Green being made from fail. Major problems in this "sci fi" movie:
1) Little if any effort into reasonable future prediction.
2) Minimal tension in the plot, and an "insanity inducing revelation" that's actually rather tame.
First and foremost, how does this movie really feel about women? 1973, the Equal Rights Amendment was a hot topic in America. Women's rights were a major topic of debate, and feminism had already been turned into a bad word, and probably declared passe. [I suspect that "post-feminism" rhetoric started in 1905. I have actually seen it in a work from 1963.] The movie is set in 2022, about 50 years after the movie was actually made. So how did the director predict the advancement of women in 50 years after this landmark and controversial moment?
He didn't. To the contrary, he reduced women to a level of chattel that hasn't been seen since... Ever. Maybe in ancient Athens, if you squint. Women are literally reduced to being furniture; they are called that in the movie. When they get speaking lines. The women we see without speaking lines mostly get shot as innocent bystanders. We are firmly in 100% male fantasy territory here.
I suppose this shouldn't be so surprising, though, since this movie set 50 years in the future looked like it was taking place 50 years in the past, in post-WWI Germany. Babushkas and canvas aprons are the latest fashion for anyone not rich or on the police force. Technology had made no advancements, at all. There were no computers, which by 1973 was obviously the way the future was going; we see one video game, which is pretty blatantly a 1973 arcade game with a niced-up case. Even making terribly generous allowances for the global screw-ups to have unrealistically halted technology in its tracks, it looks as though that happened in 1965 in this alternate word. I'd be more forgiving of "oh, it's our old future" type errors than just not doing anything at all. Pure laziness.
So if you're expecting a sci-fi movie, you're going to be really disappointed. It's actually a cop movie, with Scooby Snacks. As far as world building and special effects go, Soylent Green makes Logan's Run look like The Matrix. It's that bad.
OK, so what about the plot? Does that pull it out?
Um, no. We all know the twist, right? "Soylent green is people!" [Who in God's name ever decided to point a camera at Charleton Heston? *shakes head*] Well, knowing that, there's no point in watching. Honestly, I don't think there was a lot of point if you didn't know that going in. I mean, I go into this thinking "OK, so we're rounding up old and poor people and political prisoners and people who didn't vote for the winning party, and killing them, and making them into Soylent Green, right?"
Um... No, not really.
Well, we're at least "disappearing" and brutally murdering them to make this stuff, right?
Well, no.
Concentration camps?
Um... Well, actually we just take people who died on their own, and reduce the bodies to basic proteins in snack cracker form.
So, no murders to make this stuff? No vast bloody conspiracies? No inhumane treatment?
No, that stuff doesn't really have a good return on investment.
Yes, this is the revelation that drives two characters insane: We take already dead bodies, and we process the living hell out of them, and we sell them as Scooby snacks.
... Maybe I'm really morbid, or maybe I'm practical to an unhealthy degree, but this doesn't quite horrify me so much. I'm not saying I want my Cheez-Its to be made out of someone's dead grandma, mind. But we've got a world here were virtually all sources of food have been decimated. Farms are locked up like Fort Knox and yet produce at such a low rate that a misshapen stalk of celery, two small apples, and a head of lettuce will cost you $220. Even the ocean environment has been destroyed so that plankton harvesting and aquaculture are no longer viable. Why toss away a hundred pounds of protein that isn't being used any more, when it is the difference between life and death for another living human being? It's not like people are being killed to produce the stuff. No murder = no horror.
I almost think the writer realized at the last second that his story had no punch, but had no time to rewrite. So instead he has the post-revelation Heston shout "Next they'll be breeding us like cattle."
Um... Again, no, I'm not seeing it. Humans are a terribly inefficient protein source. On the other hand, chickens (the most efficient food animal) produce a pound of meat for every two pounds of feed. Even if only highly adaptive animals like humans have survived, we're still going to have our equally adaptive rats and cockroaches. So, instead of breeding humans for meet, and given the movie establishes a 50% unemployment rate, I foresee gathering up all the "surplus population", chopping them up, and using them to establish a supply of chickens (or rats, or roaches, or whatever) at a sustainable level to support the now significantly smaller human population. Unless maybe we do the "Modest Proposal" thing and keep it to chomping babies, who haven't consumed much more than has been put into them, and we could get some good work out of their pregnant mothers in the meantime.
Interestingly, I watched the 1973 "classic" Soylent Green today. You know what one of the major factors of the long-term world-wide food shortage was, alluded to several times throughout the movie? "Greenhouse effect." Global warming drastically changing the worldwide climate in a short time, decimating ecological systems already damaged by wide-scale pollution.
1973, guys.
So much for "everyone thought."
Actually, less than 10% of the scientific papers at that time supported global cooling. But then, as more recently, the media jumped on the one that isn't the fault of the people who pay for commercials. [This is why I do not pay attention to the American news media. For 20 years, every peer-reviewed scientific paper supported global warming, and in the same period 51% of mass media accounts questioned or denied its existence. Either the journalists involved are liars, or they couldn't ID a legit source to save their souls. Either way, they're worse than worthless.]
You know, some days the only reason I'm not a conspiracy theorist is because human beings just can't plan that well.
Anyway, Soylent Green being made from fail. Major problems in this "sci fi" movie:
1) Little if any effort into reasonable future prediction.
2) Minimal tension in the plot, and an "insanity inducing revelation" that's actually rather tame.
First and foremost, how does this movie really feel about women? 1973, the Equal Rights Amendment was a hot topic in America. Women's rights were a major topic of debate, and feminism had already been turned into a bad word, and probably declared passe. [I suspect that "post-feminism" rhetoric started in 1905. I have actually seen it in a work from 1963.] The movie is set in 2022, about 50 years after the movie was actually made. So how did the director predict the advancement of women in 50 years after this landmark and controversial moment?
He didn't. To the contrary, he reduced women to a level of chattel that hasn't been seen since... Ever. Maybe in ancient Athens, if you squint. Women are literally reduced to being furniture; they are called that in the movie. When they get speaking lines. The women we see without speaking lines mostly get shot as innocent bystanders. We are firmly in 100% male fantasy territory here.
I suppose this shouldn't be so surprising, though, since this movie set 50 years in the future looked like it was taking place 50 years in the past, in post-WWI Germany. Babushkas and canvas aprons are the latest fashion for anyone not rich or on the police force. Technology had made no advancements, at all. There were no computers, which by 1973 was obviously the way the future was going; we see one video game, which is pretty blatantly a 1973 arcade game with a niced-up case. Even making terribly generous allowances for the global screw-ups to have unrealistically halted technology in its tracks, it looks as though that happened in 1965 in this alternate word. I'd be more forgiving of "oh, it's our old future" type errors than just not doing anything at all. Pure laziness.
So if you're expecting a sci-fi movie, you're going to be really disappointed. It's actually a cop movie, with Scooby Snacks. As far as world building and special effects go, Soylent Green makes Logan's Run look like The Matrix. It's that bad.
OK, so what about the plot? Does that pull it out?
Um, no. We all know the twist, right? "Soylent green is people!" [Who in God's name ever decided to point a camera at Charleton Heston? *shakes head*] Well, knowing that, there's no point in watching. Honestly, I don't think there was a lot of point if you didn't know that going in. I mean, I go into this thinking "OK, so we're rounding up old and poor people and political prisoners and people who didn't vote for the winning party, and killing them, and making them into Soylent Green, right?"
Um... No, not really.
Well, we're at least "disappearing" and brutally murdering them to make this stuff, right?
Well, no.
Concentration camps?
Um... Well, actually we just take people who died on their own, and reduce the bodies to basic proteins in snack cracker form.
So, no murders to make this stuff? No vast bloody conspiracies? No inhumane treatment?
No, that stuff doesn't really have a good return on investment.
Yes, this is the revelation that drives two characters insane: We take already dead bodies, and we process the living hell out of them, and we sell them as Scooby snacks.
... Maybe I'm really morbid, or maybe I'm practical to an unhealthy degree, but this doesn't quite horrify me so much. I'm not saying I want my Cheez-Its to be made out of someone's dead grandma, mind. But we've got a world here were virtually all sources of food have been decimated. Farms are locked up like Fort Knox and yet produce at such a low rate that a misshapen stalk of celery, two small apples, and a head of lettuce will cost you $220. Even the ocean environment has been destroyed so that plankton harvesting and aquaculture are no longer viable. Why toss away a hundred pounds of protein that isn't being used any more, when it is the difference between life and death for another living human being? It's not like people are being killed to produce the stuff. No murder = no horror.
I almost think the writer realized at the last second that his story had no punch, but had no time to rewrite. So instead he has the post-revelation Heston shout "Next they'll be breeding us like cattle."
Um... Again, no, I'm not seeing it. Humans are a terribly inefficient protein source. On the other hand, chickens (the most efficient food animal) produce a pound of meat for every two pounds of feed. Even if only highly adaptive animals like humans have survived, we're still going to have our equally adaptive rats and cockroaches. So, instead of breeding humans for meet, and given the movie establishes a 50% unemployment rate, I foresee gathering up all the "surplus population", chopping them up, and using them to establish a supply of chickens (or rats, or roaches, or whatever) at a sustainable level to support the now significantly smaller human population. Unless maybe we do the "Modest Proposal" thing and keep it to chomping babies, who haven't consumed much more than has been put into them, and we could get some good work out of their pregnant mothers in the meantime.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
What WAS Bram Stoker's dysfunction?
During boring portions at work, I've been listening to the Librivox recording of Dracula, by Bram Stoker. I've already read it, so this time around I'm actually able to pay attention to the particulars rather than just the overall story.
And Bram Stoker is absolutely obsessed with the 'greatness' of the male gender. It's crazy. Listening to his female characters is bad enough, but now his male ones have gotten in on the act, and... Geez, you'd think British men were some oppressed underclass trying to prove their worth in 1897.
For example, Lucy in a letter to Mina: "My dear Mina, why are men so noble when we women are so little worthy of them?" I mean, that's... ludicrous! No woman has ever spoken to her closest female friend like that. (Well, obviously I can't say that literally, I'm sure one has sometime. But it's not very realistic.)
Mina has a nice little worthless aside deriding the "New Woman" of her time. (That would be those pesky women who wanted to do things like ride bicycles and vote. Gasp!) And what makes this ludicrous is that most characterization of Mina suggest that she would BE a New Woman. She types, which was often a man's skill. She knows shorthand, which was mainly a man's skill. She intends to help Jonathan in his office once they're married -- not exactly homekeeping, ne? She travels alone -- ABROAD, even. I can't say Mina would be marching as a suffragette, but there's nothing else in her character to make you think she would deride them, and much to make you think she would at least sympathize.
And it's not just the women who are all "Men rule, women drool." I got to this bit from Van Helsing, and had to keep from just laughing.
"A brave man's blood is the best thing on this earth when a woman is in trouble. You're a man and no mistake. Well, the devil may work against us for all he's worth, but God sends us men when we want them."
*snert* Come off of it already. What IS the deal?
And Bram Stoker is absolutely obsessed with the 'greatness' of the male gender. It's crazy. Listening to his female characters is bad enough, but now his male ones have gotten in on the act, and... Geez, you'd think British men were some oppressed underclass trying to prove their worth in 1897.
For example, Lucy in a letter to Mina: "My dear Mina, why are men so noble when we women are so little worthy of them?" I mean, that's... ludicrous! No woman has ever spoken to her closest female friend like that. (Well, obviously I can't say that literally, I'm sure one has sometime. But it's not very realistic.)
Mina has a nice little worthless aside deriding the "New Woman" of her time. (That would be those pesky women who wanted to do things like ride bicycles and vote. Gasp!) And what makes this ludicrous is that most characterization of Mina suggest that she would BE a New Woman. She types, which was often a man's skill. She knows shorthand, which was mainly a man's skill. She intends to help Jonathan in his office once they're married -- not exactly homekeeping, ne? She travels alone -- ABROAD, even. I can't say Mina would be marching as a suffragette, but there's nothing else in her character to make you think she would deride them, and much to make you think she would at least sympathize.
And it's not just the women who are all "Men rule, women drool." I got to this bit from Van Helsing, and had to keep from just laughing.
"A brave man's blood is the best thing on this earth when a woman is in trouble. You're a man and no mistake. Well, the devil may work against us for all he's worth, but God sends us men when we want them."
*snert* Come off of it already. What IS the deal?
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Bookbinding
Forgive the likely rambling nature of this post. I'm gathering up stuff for my latest fancy, which may end up on my webpage sometime in the future if it holds. Sprinkled through here will be various references for binding your own books and journals, mostly perfect (i.e. glue) bound. And one link on replacing spiral bound notebook covers with your own.
First, though, a rant on the price of books today. I went and figured out how much it would cost me to print copies of public domain books per page. Now, I only calculated the cost of paper and ink, so you can argue it's not a fair comparison, but here's why I think it's at least a rough indicator.
Naturally, it varies from book to book. The widely-available Frankenstein (around 350 pages) would cost me $8 to print. The cheapest of mass market paperbacks will cost around $5, but they use cheaper paper. On the other end, though, if you were to take Proserpine and Midas... Wait, you can't take Proserpine and Midas, because it's not in print! *snarls*
An aside: Sooner or later, I want to do a post talking about the book "How to Suppress Women's Writing", which I recently read. For now, though, it's nicely summarized at Cupidsbow's "How Fanfiction Makes Us Poor." Don't let the title turn you off, because the point is that it is not fan fiction that makes women poor, but rather a system than minimizes (and in fan fiction's case, even illegalizes) women's artistic contributions.
Anyway, back to the rant about book prices, it seems to me that this should be something it wasn't even worth calculating. If a company is publishing a paperback copy of something public domain, they ought to be able to do it cheaper than I could do myself, full stop.
However, this does lead to one of my potential webpage fancies. Project Gutenberg is a wonderful thing, but a long novel can be a pain to read on a computer screen. I'm tempted to take some of their texts, format them to be ready to print and bind at home, and put those up in PDF format on my webpage. I could be formatting them as I read them, and it wouldn't be that much more trouble at all. And I like the idea of thumbing my nose at overpriced printing companies. (Actually, in an interview with Michael Hart, Project Gutenberg's founder, talks about how between 1955 and 2005, gas had gone up 10 times over and people bitched and moaned left and right, but in the same time period books had gone up 40 times over, and no one talks about it.)
Of course, once the book is printed, it's got be bound together. So finally, some tutorial links.
First, there's this guy who uses a book press. In the comments there are dimensions and rough instructions on making one. I used one when I bound a copy of Laura's Hand-Me-Downs for Christmas, and liked it.
But, you don't need one if you don't want the trouble, or only want to do one or two things. Instead you can use clothes pens, like this woman uses making her journals (which I think she sells professionally, BTW). Or another site had basically the same thing, except he used rules and binder clips instead of a homemade bookbinding press.
One note here: despite what the first tutorial says, don't use Gorilla Glue. It sucks for book spines. I don't know if the formula has changed since the tutorial was written or what, but it dries hard and brittle. Instead, white glue for a start, or a book-binding PVA glue. I've also seen Poxy Stix-On contact Cement or DAP Weldwood suggested.
If you want to kick it up a notch, Wayne Schmidt is very serious when he binds his books, even matching the size and formatting of professionally printed paperbacks and hardbacks. Even if you don't want to go that far, his instructions are pretty good (and he has another alternative for a bookbinding press).
FYI, I printed Laura's on letter-sized paper cut in half, which Kinkos did for $1.50 a cut (and it only took one cut on a whole ream of paper). A5 paper (or A4 cut in half) would work fine, too. Either is more convenient and less wasteful than cutting commonly available printer paper to professional book size.
One thing to keep in mind is that lots of home printers (ours included) can't print edge to edge. So if you're printing a cover that fills a whole page, either make the background white, put in a white border that blends nicely into the book, or have a professional printing service do it. Some photo printers can print edge to edge, so someone who was going to do a lot of these might consider one of those. (Neh, Laura, remind me. Do we still have that one that came as a near-freebie with my computer, or did we give that to my mom?)
Whomp. I think that does it.
First, though, a rant on the price of books today. I went and figured out how much it would cost me to print copies of public domain books per page. Now, I only calculated the cost of paper and ink, so you can argue it's not a fair comparison, but here's why I think it's at least a rough indicator.
- I'm paying retail for 24lb paper and home printer ink. A professional company would be using cheaper materials, and buying in bulk. Thus I think those retail costs roughly balance out a overhead costs and profit.
- I didn't count the glue because such a tiny amount is used that a bottle will last ages and it only adds a few cents to the cost.
- I didn't count labor because a) this is pretty fun for me, and b) it's all automated at the publishers, particularly when you're talking about paperbacks.
Naturally, it varies from book to book. The widely-available Frankenstein (around 350 pages) would cost me $8 to print. The cheapest of mass market paperbacks will cost around $5, but they use cheaper paper. On the other end, though, if you were to take Proserpine and Midas... Wait, you can't take Proserpine and Midas, because it's not in print! *snarls*
An aside: Sooner or later, I want to do a post talking about the book "How to Suppress Women's Writing", which I recently read. For now, though, it's nicely summarized at Cupidsbow's "How Fanfiction Makes Us Poor." Don't let the title turn you off, because the point is that it is not fan fiction that makes women poor, but rather a system than minimizes (and in fan fiction's case, even illegalizes) women's artistic contributions.
Anyway, back to the rant about book prices, it seems to me that this should be something it wasn't even worth calculating. If a company is publishing a paperback copy of something public domain, they ought to be able to do it cheaper than I could do myself, full stop.
However, this does lead to one of my potential webpage fancies. Project Gutenberg is a wonderful thing, but a long novel can be a pain to read on a computer screen. I'm tempted to take some of their texts, format them to be ready to print and bind at home, and put those up in PDF format on my webpage. I could be formatting them as I read them, and it wouldn't be that much more trouble at all. And I like the idea of thumbing my nose at overpriced printing companies. (Actually, in an interview with Michael Hart, Project Gutenberg's founder, talks about how between 1955 and 2005, gas had gone up 10 times over and people bitched and moaned left and right, but in the same time period books had gone up 40 times over, and no one talks about it.)
Of course, once the book is printed, it's got be bound together. So finally, some tutorial links.
First, there's this guy who uses a book press. In the comments there are dimensions and rough instructions on making one. I used one when I bound a copy of Laura's Hand-Me-Downs for Christmas, and liked it.
But, you don't need one if you don't want the trouble, or only want to do one or two things. Instead you can use clothes pens, like this woman uses making her journals (which I think she sells professionally, BTW). Or another site had basically the same thing, except he used rules and binder clips instead of a homemade bookbinding press.
One note here: despite what the first tutorial says, don't use Gorilla Glue. It sucks for book spines. I don't know if the formula has changed since the tutorial was written or what, but it dries hard and brittle. Instead, white glue for a start, or a book-binding PVA glue. I've also seen Poxy Stix-On contact Cement or DAP Weldwood suggested.
If you want to kick it up a notch, Wayne Schmidt is very serious when he binds his books, even matching the size and formatting of professionally printed paperbacks and hardbacks. Even if you don't want to go that far, his instructions are pretty good (and he has another alternative for a bookbinding press).
FYI, I printed Laura's on letter-sized paper cut in half, which Kinkos did for $1.50 a cut (and it only took one cut on a whole ream of paper). A5 paper (or A4 cut in half) would work fine, too. Either is more convenient and less wasteful than cutting commonly available printer paper to professional book size.
One thing to keep in mind is that lots of home printers (ours included) can't print edge to edge. So if you're printing a cover that fills a whole page, either make the background white, put in a white border that blends nicely into the book, or have a professional printing service do it. Some photo printers can print edge to edge, so someone who was going to do a lot of these might consider one of those. (Neh, Laura, remind me. Do we still have that one that came as a near-freebie with my computer, or did we give that to my mom?)
Whomp. I think that does it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
