I've seen this one several times before. It was one of the movies on VHS that were destroyed in my first basement flood last year because they'd been stored down there without my knowledge or permission. Rather than immediately try to replace everything, I put some of them on my Netflix queue to watch later and see if I really wanted them again, and this was one of those.
Of the TNG movies I bothered to see, this is the best. There are really three storylines going on through it.
First, down on the ground in the past trying to get the first human warp ship up and running and talk its inventor, a boozy old rocker named Zephram Cockram, into going through with the flight. Because, you know, inventors always do their own major testing.
Actually, seriously, I like this part once Deanna shuts the hell up. (I'm swiftly becoming Not a Deanna Troi Fan.) Zephram is such a fun character in his own right, and a very nice contrast the usual noble, inherently altruist, and slightly stick-up-the-assed TNG character.
Second is the Borg take-over and counter-insurgency on the Enterprise E. This one is also good, despite the various incomprehensible ship interfaces that become plot points. For instance, there's the not-so-manual manual override into engineering, and my favorite, the deflector dish's magnetic lock releases that practically require the strength of a Klingon to unlock and that's after you play a game of dominos to put them into manual configuration. (Honestly, why is manual operation not the default? If you've walked all the way out here in a space suit and magnetic boots, of course it is to use the manual override.)
There's some things that don't stand up to scrutiny. But for the most part it's exciting to watch, and you've got the whole Captain Ahab thing going and its good.
Third is the Borg Queen. That sucking sound? That is the sound of the Borq Queen breaking the structural integrity of the entire movie AND the whole concept of Borq and resulting in the destruction of the whole flick. Why? Why? She doesn't fit in with established canon at all. Worse, IIRC the shows running at the time had a hard time integrating it afterwards. They didnt' want to give up on Borg, but now we've got a dead queen to deal with. I think for a while like, Voyager (?) had every cube have their own queen, which wasn't even necessary to fit in with the movie. I mean, the movie establishes that yeah, she was on a ship that was destroyed and that wasn't a problem. It seems like if we're gonna go with the queen bit in the series, the same character shows up again (it can be different actress) and to answer 'why aren't you dead' is all like "Um, I am Borg. That means my consciousness is everywhere in the Borg. What part of Borg don't you understanding? Oh, and you will be assimilated, resistance is futile, you know the drill."
Why was she added at all? It's like the makers didn't think they could have a movie unless they somehow "sexed it up", and everyone in the fighting off Borg assimilation plot was too busy fighting Borg for a love interest, and no one wanted to see Zeph get laid, so we'll just add a Borg queen and have this weird Picard-Data-Borg menage a trois. The whole Borg queen is stupid and annoying and ruins the entire film.
Well, there you go. Entire film is ruined. I won't be adding this back into my collection after all, as much fun as the other two plots are.
Sunday, June 14, 2009
Friday, June 12, 2009
Book: Baby Be-Bop
I finished reading the book Baby Be-Bop, by Francesca Lia Block. This book came to my attention thanks to the West Bend Citizens for Safe Libraries, and more specifically to the Christian Civil Liberties Union, who are suing for the right to burn or otherwise destroy the West Bend Community Memorial Library's copy of it. They describe it as “explicitly vulgar, racial, and anti-Christian".
Generally speaking, I find if something pisses off the Christ-i-ain'ts this much, it's worth a read.
To quote this article from the ALA, "“the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”"
So, as I was reading, I marked points I noticed that included the 'n' word and derogatory sexual and political epithets.
On page 16, Pup is admiring Dirk's portrait of Jimi Hendrix and says ' "My mom went out with this gross trucker guy once," Pup told him. "He saw the Jimi poster in my room and goes, 'That nigger looks like he's got a mouth full of cum.' I wanted to kill him. I told my mom I would if she didn't stop seeing him."
On page 42, a cameo character says "If you ask me all those fags are going to die out."
On page 45, Dirk calls a boy with a swastika tattooed on his neck a "fascist skinhead", and on the same page the skinhead called him a "faggot".
I think that's it. An insult in dialog may have slipped by me, but if so I feel quite certain in saying it's in the same vein as the others.
The "vulgar" complaint I can understand, knowing the very strict definition of vulgar these sorts of groups have. There is some cursing, and there are mentions of sex. Nothing very explicit, but you know, sex exists.
Racial I don't get at all. Honestly, 'racial'? What does that even mean? My dictionary says "of, relating to, or based on race; occurring between races." Is this supposed to be good? Bad? Indifferent? In any event, it doesn't apply, because everyone in the book is white. It's actually kind of funny how white the book is. Well, I guess technically Dirk's great-grandfather may have been Middle Eastern. (OMG! Miscegenation!) They mention Martin Luther King Jr's assassination as Uber Bad Thing a couple of times.
Racial. Hmm.
And of course anti-Christian only in the sense of "not blatantly fundamentalist Christian". Is it just me, or at this point does that almost go without saying? When was the last time you saw/read/experience something that was accused of being "anti-Christian" and that actually was by any reasonable definition? Or even if you squint? Somehow to these groups, if it doesn't say all Christians everywhere are perfect and wonderful and covered with rainbows and kittens, it is "anti-Christian". And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
Right now, the statement that "Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”" amuses me because it's so... lawyerly. Technically it's correct. In the wrong circumstances, being called a skinhead or a faggot can incite violence and/or put someone's life in danger. The book isn't inciting violence or danger, but the statement doesn't say that it is. I wonder if the actual legal document is phrased that way.
In the meantime, I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine the grand jury called together to determine if the book is obscene and if making it available should be a hate crime. I'm imagining those people reading the book, and then beating all four plaintiffs and especially their lawyer about the head and shoulders with it for wasting their time with such stupid, even ludicrous, complaints. But then thanking them for the reading recommendation.
Ahh....
Now, on to my opinions of the book itself. Now, given how I learned about it, naturally I have not read any other of the Dangerous Angels series nor was I actually aware that it was part of a series when I started. I'm coming at it completely cold, viewing it as a stand-alone.
Frankly, I think this book was wonderful. I'm tempted to buy myself a copy, and it is very rare for me to reread fiction, so I think this is saying something.
It is about a young man coming to terms with his homosexuality in the late 1970s/early 1980s, but it is also about people and their stories. How everyone has a story, and how freeing it is to share a story and how destructive it is to silence a story. If you'll allow me to quote a passage:
"Think about the word destroy. Do you know what it is? De-story. Destroy. Destory. You see. And restore. That's re-story. Do you know that only two things have been proven to help survivors of the Holocaust? Massage is one. Telling their story is another. Being touched and touching. Telling your story is touching. It sets you free."
Doesn't that make the request to destroy this book all the more sad, and all the more ironic?
I was warned going in that the author had a "twee writing style". I'll admit that my reaction was "what does that even mean?" Then I started and oh, that's a twee writing style.
The start of the book is written in the way you'd expect a book for beginning, elementary-age readers to be, even though the intended audience is older. Very simple, short sentences, very concrete. But it doesn't stay that way. The storytelling subtly changes with the events of the story. At first, it's reflecting Dirk's life. It's very black and white, there's no depth to it, "There's something wrong with me; I want to be normal, and if I can't have that, I want to die." Later during dream sequences it gets more flowery and symbolic; it changes depending on the character in the focus. Then at the end the style is more down to earth, but more grown up. It isn't the choppy simple elementary-school style any more.
I thought that was very stylish.
It's a character driven story, and the characters were great. It's a very short book (just over 100 pages), so it's very pared down, but I still found them very believable. I could really feel for Dirk, really experience what he was going through. I do wish Just Silver had gotten to share her story, but I guess you can't have everything.
So, in summary, my opinion: Go read it. Now. Close the browser and go to your local library or bookstore and get a copy. Reading it is an excellent use of two hours of your life.
But, however tempting it may be, don't actually use it to beat a bigot about the head and shoulders when you're done. It's too good of a book for that.
Generally speaking, I find if something pisses off the Christ-i-ain'ts this much, it's worth a read.
To quote this article from the ALA, "“the plaintiffs, all of whom are elderly, claim their mental and emotional well-being was damaged by this book at the library,” specifically because Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”"
So, as I was reading, I marked points I noticed that included the 'n' word and derogatory sexual and political epithets.
On page 16, Pup is admiring Dirk's portrait of Jimi Hendrix and says ' "My mom went out with this gross trucker guy once," Pup told him. "He saw the Jimi poster in my room and goes, 'That nigger looks like he's got a mouth full of cum.' I wanted to kill him. I told my mom I would if she didn't stop seeing him."
On page 42, a cameo character says "If you ask me all those fags are going to die out."
On page 45, Dirk calls a boy with a swastika tattooed on his neck a "fascist skinhead", and on the same page the skinhead called him a "faggot".
I think that's it. An insult in dialog may have slipped by me, but if so I feel quite certain in saying it's in the same vein as the others.
The "vulgar" complaint I can understand, knowing the very strict definition of vulgar these sorts of groups have. There is some cursing, and there are mentions of sex. Nothing very explicit, but you know, sex exists.
Racial I don't get at all. Honestly, 'racial'? What does that even mean? My dictionary says "of, relating to, or based on race; occurring between races." Is this supposed to be good? Bad? Indifferent? In any event, it doesn't apply, because everyone in the book is white. It's actually kind of funny how white the book is. Well, I guess technically Dirk's great-grandfather may have been Middle Eastern. (OMG! Miscegenation!) They mention Martin Luther King Jr's assassination as Uber Bad Thing a couple of times.
Racial. Hmm.
And of course anti-Christian only in the sense of "not blatantly fundamentalist Christian". Is it just me, or at this point does that almost go without saying? When was the last time you saw/read/experience something that was accused of being "anti-Christian" and that actually was by any reasonable definition? Or even if you squint? Somehow to these groups, if it doesn't say all Christians everywhere are perfect and wonderful and covered with rainbows and kittens, it is "anti-Christian". And they wonder why they aren't taken seriously.
Right now, the statement that "Baby Be-Bop contains the “n” word and derogatory sexual and political epithets that can incite violence and “put one’s life in possible jeopardy, adults and children alike.”" amuses me because it's so... lawyerly. Technically it's correct. In the wrong circumstances, being called a skinhead or a faggot can incite violence and/or put someone's life in danger. The book isn't inciting violence or danger, but the statement doesn't say that it is. I wonder if the actual legal document is phrased that way.
In the meantime, I'm just going to close my eyes and imagine the grand jury called together to determine if the book is obscene and if making it available should be a hate crime. I'm imagining those people reading the book, and then beating all four plaintiffs and especially their lawyer about the head and shoulders with it for wasting their time with such stupid, even ludicrous, complaints. But then thanking them for the reading recommendation.
Ahh....
Now, on to my opinions of the book itself. Now, given how I learned about it, naturally I have not read any other of the Dangerous Angels series nor was I actually aware that it was part of a series when I started. I'm coming at it completely cold, viewing it as a stand-alone.
Frankly, I think this book was wonderful. I'm tempted to buy myself a copy, and it is very rare for me to reread fiction, so I think this is saying something.
It is about a young man coming to terms with his homosexuality in the late 1970s/early 1980s, but it is also about people and their stories. How everyone has a story, and how freeing it is to share a story and how destructive it is to silence a story. If you'll allow me to quote a passage:
"Think about the word destroy. Do you know what it is? De-story. Destroy. Destory. You see. And restore. That's re-story. Do you know that only two things have been proven to help survivors of the Holocaust? Massage is one. Telling their story is another. Being touched and touching. Telling your story is touching. It sets you free."
Doesn't that make the request to destroy this book all the more sad, and all the more ironic?
I was warned going in that the author had a "twee writing style". I'll admit that my reaction was "what does that even mean?" Then I started and oh, that's a twee writing style.
The start of the book is written in the way you'd expect a book for beginning, elementary-age readers to be, even though the intended audience is older. Very simple, short sentences, very concrete. But it doesn't stay that way. The storytelling subtly changes with the events of the story. At first, it's reflecting Dirk's life. It's very black and white, there's no depth to it, "There's something wrong with me; I want to be normal, and if I can't have that, I want to die." Later during dream sequences it gets more flowery and symbolic; it changes depending on the character in the focus. Then at the end the style is more down to earth, but more grown up. It isn't the choppy simple elementary-school style any more.
I thought that was very stylish.
It's a character driven story, and the characters were great. It's a very short book (just over 100 pages), so it's very pared down, but I still found them very believable. I could really feel for Dirk, really experience what he was going through. I do wish Just Silver had gotten to share her story, but I guess you can't have everything.
So, in summary, my opinion: Go read it. Now. Close the browser and go to your local library or bookstore and get a copy. Reading it is an excellent use of two hours of your life.
But, however tempting it may be, don't actually use it to beat a bigot about the head and shoulders when you're done. It's too good of a book for that.
Sunday, June 7, 2009
Book: Notre Dame de Paris
More commonly known in English translation as The Hunchback of Notre Dame, by Victor Hugo. I finished reading this one a few months ago, and I keep meaning to put up a review, and I keep not getting around to it. So I'm doing it now, apparently. ;)
Anyway, when I first sat down to read it, I had already seen several movie versions of it: some animated version on Nickelodeon when I was a kid, the 1923 silent Lon Chaney vehicle, and I'm sure there's some other live action version somewhere in there. We won't even mention the Disney movie of the same name, because there's nothing in common with the source material there except for a few names.
So, when I started out, I thought I might compare it to some of the movie versions out there and talk about what's different and what's the same with those and the book.
Well, I'm not going to because there's not a damn one that's even remotely close to the book. Not even in the same zip code. Very few, if any, movies are even willing to make Frollo a priest, much less do the story as the absolutely scathing critique of strictly hierarchical religion that it is.
I love the character of Frollo, because he is so wonderfully messed up. He doesn't set out to be evil, but, well, I mentioned that scathing critique of religion thing, right? He's trapped in a very narrow world view with no coping mechanisms for a new emotional experience, and in a system that says "must be witchcraft; burn her at the stake to solve it" instead of "Well, Claude, you're kind of a late bloomer, but this is normal. Just go jerk off for a while and take a cold shower." He's been taught from a young age that natural is sinful, and he's pretty warped because of it.
Quasimodo is not at all like modern movie makers like to do him. Modern makers love the "hideous exterior holds a beautiful heart" trope, but this is not at all the case when it was published in 1831. In 1831, physiognomy was the scientific shiznits. It was practically a given. Ergo, of course Quasimodo's mind was as twisted as his body -- which is almost word-for-word how the description went. And honestly, he's not so much a character as part of the cathedral. A lot of reviews/critiques of the book talk about how the cathedral is almost a character; well, on the flip side of that, Quasimodo's almost part of the scenery. Sort of an ambulatory gargoyle. He does have development throughout the story and he's kind of interesting, but he is not the focus by any means at all.
Phoebus is a dick. And when I say that he is a dick, I mean that he thinks exclusively with Little Phoebus. Phoebus's day must be really easy, because no matter what's going on, he only has to make one decision. "Can I get laid this way?" If the answer's yes, go for it. If the answer's no, do something else.
I love Gringoire. Sadly, he gets cut out of most movie versions. He is a fun character. Comic relief -- you're doing it right. I love at the end when he takes off with the goat. Girl, goat... Girl can take care of herself.
Then there's Esmerelda. Esmerelda is a problem. Esmerelda is a BIG problem. Absolutely no 16-year-old girl would ever act like Esmerelda. I think of the stupidest, fluffy-minded-est, most charmed-life-ed-est girl from my high school, and not even she would act like Esmerelda.
She starts out, she knows her parents are out there somewhere and has a charm she believes will help her find them as long as she's still a virgin. And because of this she is still a virgin at 16, despite traveling with a large group of very criminal men and getting married.
So, she gets saved from a kidnapping by Phoebus. This fits in perfectly with his decision-making process. "Hmm, rescuing a cute girl. Can I get laid that way? Absolutely! Rescue it is!" And this looks like it's going to work for him, because hey, strapping handsome knight in shining armor, 16-year-old girl.
I'm fine with it up through here.
So, he takes her to a place that rents rooms by the hour, and gives her the most clumsy seduction ever. The man can't even keep her name straight, for God's sake. She tells him everything she's going to be giving up to boink him, "but you love me and you'll marry me after, right?"
Uh, no.
He tells her no. I will give him credit for that; he doesn't even pretend, even though pretending does support the usual "can I get laid this way?"
Well, she talks herself into a circle to go back to the sex thing -- which is where I'm starting to have a problem, but I can hang with that for now -- and there would have been boinking if not for an exceptionally evil Claude stabbing the guy. That really kills the mood.
So, Esmerelda gets tried for murder and witchcraft, and they torture a confession out of her. Let me say this again. They torture a confession out of her. And of course she gets convicted, because it's 1482, and there's imprisonment and almost an execution except she's rescued by Quasi, and all the while there's deep dark sorrow that the object of her love is dead. And then she discovers that Phoebus is alive! This is where her character really starts falling apart.
Real girl: "He's alive! Yay! ... Wait. He's been alive all this time? And he didn't rescue me? He didn't even come speak up for me? He let me be convicted of his murder even though he wasn't dead? He let me be tortured? That asshole! If I see him again, I really will stab him!"
Esmerelda: "He's alive! Yay! I will pine for him. And pine. And pine. And keep pining. And completely ignore that he's blowing off all of my attempts to contact him and besides, he's got to know I'm up here in Notre Dame because all of Paris does and yet I can't get him to give me the time of day. Did I mention I'll pine for him?"
So, story goes on, and there's a riot and she ends up out of the Cathedral. All of Paris is looking for her. Half wants to kill her. The other half started out wanting to rescue her, but they started out really drunk and a bunch of them got killed, which they've decided is somehow her fault and now they want to kill her too. So, all of Paris wants to kill her.
And in the midst of this, she finds her long-lost mother! And there is much joy between the two, and Mom has her perfectly hidden and no one is EVER going to think that Mom is hiding her because Mom very vocally despised her before realizing this was her daughter. And it's all looking good, no one's going to find Esmerelda here, she has the parent she's searched all her life for, they'll just hang out until night comes again and then sneak out of Paris and everything will be happy and roses and rainbows.
And then Phoebus rides by.
Real Girl: stays STFUing. If the cold raw fear of death doesn't do it, she remembers that Phoebus is a dick who can't even remember her name, and who let her be tortured and almost executed and besides, now she has her Mom and a perfect hiding place and soon there will be escape and sunshine and roses and joyfulness.
Esmerelda: shouts "Yay, Phoebus!"
So of course she gets busted and drug out of her hiding place, and Mom gets killed and Esmerelda gets killed and there's death everywhere, and Phoebus doesn't care because death doesn't get him laid. :P
Esmerelda is a complete character fail. Of all of the women I've ever met in any way, many of them would behave differently then my fictional "Real Girl", but I can't imagine a single one of them acting like Esmerelda. Everything about her says "you were written by a man who thought women were just short of a different species, weren't you?" Having read Les Miserables (but having to rush through a good portion for reasons I won't get in to), I'm really surprised by just how terrible of a characterization she is; but I guess 30 years gives a guy some experience.
Nonetheless, the book is most assuredly worth reading at least once. Victor Hugo writes beautiful prose and a good story. Even if Esmerelda is completely unbelievable, there are a myriad of other wonderful characters, and all in all, it's definitely worth the time.
Anyway, when I first sat down to read it, I had already seen several movie versions of it: some animated version on Nickelodeon when I was a kid, the 1923 silent Lon Chaney vehicle, and I'm sure there's some other live action version somewhere in there. We won't even mention the Disney movie of the same name, because there's nothing in common with the source material there except for a few names.
So, when I started out, I thought I might compare it to some of the movie versions out there and talk about what's different and what's the same with those and the book.
Well, I'm not going to because there's not a damn one that's even remotely close to the book. Not even in the same zip code. Very few, if any, movies are even willing to make Frollo a priest, much less do the story as the absolutely scathing critique of strictly hierarchical religion that it is.
I love the character of Frollo, because he is so wonderfully messed up. He doesn't set out to be evil, but, well, I mentioned that scathing critique of religion thing, right? He's trapped in a very narrow world view with no coping mechanisms for a new emotional experience, and in a system that says "must be witchcraft; burn her at the stake to solve it" instead of "Well, Claude, you're kind of a late bloomer, but this is normal. Just go jerk off for a while and take a cold shower." He's been taught from a young age that natural is sinful, and he's pretty warped because of it.
Quasimodo is not at all like modern movie makers like to do him. Modern makers love the "hideous exterior holds a beautiful heart" trope, but this is not at all the case when it was published in 1831. In 1831, physiognomy was the scientific shiznits. It was practically a given. Ergo, of course Quasimodo's mind was as twisted as his body -- which is almost word-for-word how the description went. And honestly, he's not so much a character as part of the cathedral. A lot of reviews/critiques of the book talk about how the cathedral is almost a character; well, on the flip side of that, Quasimodo's almost part of the scenery. Sort of an ambulatory gargoyle. He does have development throughout the story and he's kind of interesting, but he is not the focus by any means at all.
Phoebus is a dick. And when I say that he is a dick, I mean that he thinks exclusively with Little Phoebus. Phoebus's day must be really easy, because no matter what's going on, he only has to make one decision. "Can I get laid this way?" If the answer's yes, go for it. If the answer's no, do something else.
I love Gringoire. Sadly, he gets cut out of most movie versions. He is a fun character. Comic relief -- you're doing it right. I love at the end when he takes off with the goat. Girl, goat... Girl can take care of herself.
Then there's Esmerelda. Esmerelda is a problem. Esmerelda is a BIG problem. Absolutely no 16-year-old girl would ever act like Esmerelda. I think of the stupidest, fluffy-minded-est, most charmed-life-ed-est girl from my high school, and not even she would act like Esmerelda.
She starts out, she knows her parents are out there somewhere and has a charm she believes will help her find them as long as she's still a virgin. And because of this she is still a virgin at 16, despite traveling with a large group of very criminal men and getting married.
So, she gets saved from a kidnapping by Phoebus. This fits in perfectly with his decision-making process. "Hmm, rescuing a cute girl. Can I get laid that way? Absolutely! Rescue it is!" And this looks like it's going to work for him, because hey, strapping handsome knight in shining armor, 16-year-old girl.
I'm fine with it up through here.
So, he takes her to a place that rents rooms by the hour, and gives her the most clumsy seduction ever. The man can't even keep her name straight, for God's sake. She tells him everything she's going to be giving up to boink him, "but you love me and you'll marry me after, right?"
Uh, no.
He tells her no. I will give him credit for that; he doesn't even pretend, even though pretending does support the usual "can I get laid this way?"
Well, she talks herself into a circle to go back to the sex thing -- which is where I'm starting to have a problem, but I can hang with that for now -- and there would have been boinking if not for an exceptionally evil Claude stabbing the guy. That really kills the mood.
So, Esmerelda gets tried for murder and witchcraft, and they torture a confession out of her. Let me say this again. They torture a confession out of her. And of course she gets convicted, because it's 1482, and there's imprisonment and almost an execution except she's rescued by Quasi, and all the while there's deep dark sorrow that the object of her love is dead. And then she discovers that Phoebus is alive! This is where her character really starts falling apart.
Real girl: "He's alive! Yay! ... Wait. He's been alive all this time? And he didn't rescue me? He didn't even come speak up for me? He let me be convicted of his murder even though he wasn't dead? He let me be tortured? That asshole! If I see him again, I really will stab him!"
Esmerelda: "He's alive! Yay! I will pine for him. And pine. And pine. And keep pining. And completely ignore that he's blowing off all of my attempts to contact him and besides, he's got to know I'm up here in Notre Dame because all of Paris does and yet I can't get him to give me the time of day. Did I mention I'll pine for him?"
So, story goes on, and there's a riot and she ends up out of the Cathedral. All of Paris is looking for her. Half wants to kill her. The other half started out wanting to rescue her, but they started out really drunk and a bunch of them got killed, which they've decided is somehow her fault and now they want to kill her too. So, all of Paris wants to kill her.
And in the midst of this, she finds her long-lost mother! And there is much joy between the two, and Mom has her perfectly hidden and no one is EVER going to think that Mom is hiding her because Mom very vocally despised her before realizing this was her daughter. And it's all looking good, no one's going to find Esmerelda here, she has the parent she's searched all her life for, they'll just hang out until night comes again and then sneak out of Paris and everything will be happy and roses and rainbows.
And then Phoebus rides by.
Real Girl: stays STFUing. If the cold raw fear of death doesn't do it, she remembers that Phoebus is a dick who can't even remember her name, and who let her be tortured and almost executed and besides, now she has her Mom and a perfect hiding place and soon there will be escape and sunshine and roses and joyfulness.
Esmerelda: shouts "Yay, Phoebus!"
So of course she gets busted and drug out of her hiding place, and Mom gets killed and Esmerelda gets killed and there's death everywhere, and Phoebus doesn't care because death doesn't get him laid. :P
Esmerelda is a complete character fail. Of all of the women I've ever met in any way, many of them would behave differently then my fictional "Real Girl", but I can't imagine a single one of them acting like Esmerelda. Everything about her says "you were written by a man who thought women were just short of a different species, weren't you?" Having read Les Miserables (but having to rush through a good portion for reasons I won't get in to), I'm really surprised by just how terrible of a characterization she is; but I guess 30 years gives a guy some experience.
Nonetheless, the book is most assuredly worth reading at least once. Victor Hugo writes beautiful prose and a good story. Even if Esmerelda is completely unbelievable, there are a myriad of other wonderful characters, and all in all, it's definitely worth the time.
Saturday, May 30, 2009
Movies: "Tsotsi", "The Storekeeper", and "Rendition"
This week's Netflix offering was the 2005 "Tsosti" by movie maker Gavin Hood.
When I saw Gavin's name, I knew I'd recently seen another movie by him but couldn't remember which. So when I was done, I looked him up. Gavin was also the director for Rendition, which I saw a month or two ago but didn't review at the time, and... X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Huh. One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong.
So, Tsotsi. Pretty good. If you liked Slumdog Millionaire but wouldn't mind something darker, you'd probably like this one. Imagine what Slumdog would have been like if we'd followed Salim instead of Jamal, and I'd say it's a pretty good idea of the tone of Tsotsi. Completely different plot, but same sort of mood.
The storyarc is a little shallow, but it's pretty good. I could have done without the love subplot, because that is exactly the sort of love story I hate, but it goes in a way I can write off and doesn't ruin the movie for me.
It is also very well put together, in that there are visual elements you'd think are just environment flavor that later tie in, and themes that tie together throughout the movie. Gavin Hood: the man has some skills.
I'm not really sure what else to say about it that won't spoil it. I think darker, earlier Slumdog Millionaire set in South Africa sums it up pretty well.
Also on the disk is Gavin Hood's short movie "The Storekeeper" from 1998, which runs about 20 minutes. Oh my gosh, this is the darkest, saddest thing in the world. I am too sensitive for this movie. I don't think I've ever said that before, but I'm saying it now. I would not have watched it if I knew where it was going.
To explain why I wouldn't have watched it would spoil horribly, and I'd hate to give away the ending to those who can handle it, so let me put it this way. When you know where it is going -- not when you think you know, when you know. You will know. -- then if you don't want to follow it in heart-rending detail, turn it off right there.
Someone out there will now call me a big huge baby that I couldn't handle this. I will own that. I'm too sensitive to be watching this one.
Finally, Rendition. I'm doing it on this entry because if I didn't, I'd babble about it all over the place up in Tsotsi.
You know, when I first got my cell phone, I got constant voice mail messages for the previous person with that number, mostly from bill collectors. I've gotten a lot of those cleared out, but I still get one every now and then despite my voice mail message clearly stating that you have reached Jinnayah Realname's private cell phone, that no one else uses this number, and if you are not looking for Jinnayah, than you have the wrong number. (Note to self: Did I ever actually change it back to this after putting a nicer message on when I was using it for a work event? I should if I haven't.)
It could be worse, though. Imagine if your phone number had previously been held by a terrorist. Or if one of your friends' numbers had been held by a terrorist, and they've been calling you. And you're traveling outside the country when a major terrorist attack that kills a CIA agent happens. And you're not an American citizen. And your skintone is kinda brown.
You see where this could lead to some serious suckage.
The movie is dealing with the doctrine of Extreme Rendition. When it was enacted under Clinton, as best I can tell, it was basically an illegal extradition to take suspected terrorists from somewhere else and bring them to the States to be tried. IMO that's problematic enough. Most of America's major international problems spring from our complete disrespect or even disdain for other country's sovereignty. Under the Bush administration, however, extreme rendition became downright Evil. Capital E. This is what "let" the American government and/or its allies kidnap people and torture them.
As an aside, on the DVD with the movie is a short documentary that inspired it. It runs about 30 minutes. To my liberal friends, this is more than us being able to say "We told you so." This is a big slice of "Oh my God, it is way worse than we thought."
Anyway, back to the movie. There's actually two stories going on, so there is some good human dynamic stuff going on amongst locals to the terrorist attack that kicks us off, and you don't have to spend the entire movie watching someone get tortured while his pregnant wife wigs out trying to find him. It also includes an unusual storytelling technique that you will either love, or think is an incredibly cheap trick. Unfortunately, telling you what it is would spoil the whole thing. Myself, I made a sarcastic snark during the reveal, realized I was correct, and then found myself thinking "you know, that actually worked pretty cool."
One thing I particularly like in it: the kidnapped guy's wife has a friend in a Senator's office who is helping her, and ends up dropping it because he is advised that if this is not an absolutely clear case, if Kidnapped Guy is not absolutely beyond a doubt completely clean, if there turns out to be any reason whatsoever for him to be suspected, the friend's career is over. He's told that before they challenge the Extreme Rendition doctrine, they need a completely clear and clean case.
Let's think about this for a moment. How royally would our government have to screw up for there to be a completely clean case, absolutely no reason for suspicion whatsoever, not even a "remember that weird kid in your high school biology class? Yeah, your classmate was a terrorist" kind of super-sketchy connection? The Kidnapped Guy, he had some phone calls to his cell, that may even have been quick hang-ups, and since he's from the Middle East there might be a distant cousin or an old classmate or a friend of a friend's sister thing somewhere in there.
And that's the point. If we as a society, not just government reps or media figures, are going to wait for a completely clear case to say "no, this is wrong", we might as well just push the self-destruction button when we get there, because if it has gotten to that point, the country is a lost freaking cause anyway.
So, in general. The movie is disturbing (and the included documentary even more so), but if you can handle that it is worth seeing. I really liked the unusual storytelling once I got past the initial "you did what?" and overall it's a good story.
When I saw Gavin's name, I knew I'd recently seen another movie by him but couldn't remember which. So when I was done, I looked him up. Gavin was also the director for Rendition, which I saw a month or two ago but didn't review at the time, and... X-Men Origins: Wolverine.
Huh. One of these things is not like the others; one of these things just doesn't belong.
So, Tsotsi. Pretty good. If you liked Slumdog Millionaire but wouldn't mind something darker, you'd probably like this one. Imagine what Slumdog would have been like if we'd followed Salim instead of Jamal, and I'd say it's a pretty good idea of the tone of Tsotsi. Completely different plot, but same sort of mood.
The storyarc is a little shallow, but it's pretty good. I could have done without the love subplot, because that is exactly the sort of love story I hate, but it goes in a way I can write off and doesn't ruin the movie for me.
It is also very well put together, in that there are visual elements you'd think are just environment flavor that later tie in, and themes that tie together throughout the movie. Gavin Hood: the man has some skills.
I'm not really sure what else to say about it that won't spoil it. I think darker, earlier Slumdog Millionaire set in South Africa sums it up pretty well.
Also on the disk is Gavin Hood's short movie "The Storekeeper" from 1998, which runs about 20 minutes. Oh my gosh, this is the darkest, saddest thing in the world. I am too sensitive for this movie. I don't think I've ever said that before, but I'm saying it now. I would not have watched it if I knew where it was going.
To explain why I wouldn't have watched it would spoil horribly, and I'd hate to give away the ending to those who can handle it, so let me put it this way. When you know where it is going -- not when you think you know, when you know. You will know. -- then if you don't want to follow it in heart-rending detail, turn it off right there.
Someone out there will now call me a big huge baby that I couldn't handle this. I will own that. I'm too sensitive to be watching this one.
Finally, Rendition. I'm doing it on this entry because if I didn't, I'd babble about it all over the place up in Tsotsi.
You know, when I first got my cell phone, I got constant voice mail messages for the previous person with that number, mostly from bill collectors. I've gotten a lot of those cleared out, but I still get one every now and then despite my voice mail message clearly stating that you have reached Jinnayah Realname's private cell phone, that no one else uses this number, and if you are not looking for Jinnayah, than you have the wrong number. (Note to self: Did I ever actually change it back to this after putting a nicer message on when I was using it for a work event? I should if I haven't.)
It could be worse, though. Imagine if your phone number had previously been held by a terrorist. Or if one of your friends' numbers had been held by a terrorist, and they've been calling you. And you're traveling outside the country when a major terrorist attack that kills a CIA agent happens. And you're not an American citizen. And your skintone is kinda brown.
You see where this could lead to some serious suckage.
The movie is dealing with the doctrine of Extreme Rendition. When it was enacted under Clinton, as best I can tell, it was basically an illegal extradition to take suspected terrorists from somewhere else and bring them to the States to be tried. IMO that's problematic enough. Most of America's major international problems spring from our complete disrespect or even disdain for other country's sovereignty. Under the Bush administration, however, extreme rendition became downright Evil. Capital E. This is what "let" the American government and/or its allies kidnap people and torture them.
As an aside, on the DVD with the movie is a short documentary that inspired it. It runs about 30 minutes. To my liberal friends, this is more than us being able to say "We told you so." This is a big slice of "Oh my God, it is way worse than we thought."
Anyway, back to the movie. There's actually two stories going on, so there is some good human dynamic stuff going on amongst locals to the terrorist attack that kicks us off, and you don't have to spend the entire movie watching someone get tortured while his pregnant wife wigs out trying to find him. It also includes an unusual storytelling technique that you will either love, or think is an incredibly cheap trick. Unfortunately, telling you what it is would spoil the whole thing. Myself, I made a sarcastic snark during the reveal, realized I was correct, and then found myself thinking "you know, that actually worked pretty cool."
One thing I particularly like in it: the kidnapped guy's wife has a friend in a Senator's office who is helping her, and ends up dropping it because he is advised that if this is not an absolutely clear case, if Kidnapped Guy is not absolutely beyond a doubt completely clean, if there turns out to be any reason whatsoever for him to be suspected, the friend's career is over. He's told that before they challenge the Extreme Rendition doctrine, they need a completely clear and clean case.
Let's think about this for a moment. How royally would our government have to screw up for there to be a completely clean case, absolutely no reason for suspicion whatsoever, not even a "remember that weird kid in your high school biology class? Yeah, your classmate was a terrorist" kind of super-sketchy connection? The Kidnapped Guy, he had some phone calls to his cell, that may even have been quick hang-ups, and since he's from the Middle East there might be a distant cousin or an old classmate or a friend of a friend's sister thing somewhere in there.
And that's the point. If we as a society, not just government reps or media figures, are going to wait for a completely clear case to say "no, this is wrong", we might as well just push the self-destruction button when we get there, because if it has gotten to that point, the country is a lost freaking cause anyway.
So, in general. The movie is disturbing (and the included documentary even more so), but if you can handle that it is worth seeing. I really liked the unusual storytelling once I got past the initial "you did what?" and overall it's a good story.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Movie: Terminator Salvation (no spoilers)
First, though, from the "what is wrong with some people" category. Who takes little little kids to see a movie like this?! When I saw all these families with young kids in the line, I figured most of them were for Night at the Museum, the only little-kid-friend movie showing in that theater. So when I heard a family with 3 kids from 18 months to 6 years order tickets for Terminator, I just about swallowed my own tongue. Return of the Jedi scared the living crap out of me when I was their oldest's age, so I can only imagine what this movie would have done.
Don't get me wrong, they managed the kids OK. There was a freak-out during the promos, but that's all I heard, and when I came out the mom was already sitting outside with the littlest at the least. But still, whatever happened to babysitters? Did they just go extinct? All of my coworkers have kids, and yet I honestly do not remember the last time I heard someone talk about hiring a sitter.
Do a playdate swap with another family, something. Do not take little little kids to a movie like this. Even if you don't mind if they see the violence, a theater's sound system with an action movie's soundtrack is very hard on sensitive little eardrums. Use some flippin' sense, people.
OK, rant over.
Terminator Salvation, spoiler-free version. If you're surprised that I went to see a Terminator movie, that's fair. I have nothing serious against the Terminator series, but it doesn't particularly float my boat, either. I saw the first one years ago on TV, and... meh. Seen bits and pieces of the second one. Meh. Didn't see the third; from everything I heard and saw, it seemed pretty interchangeable with the first and second, except that we blow up the world at the end.
The promos for this one looked different. There's no time travel, Arnie was nowhere in sight, and it looked like there might actually be some grappling with issues. I like issues in my movies. And worst case scenario, a Terminator movie can at least be counted on for some good explosions, so what the heck.
Generally speaking, I liked it. It has a few flaws, but not too many and not too fatal, and generally it's a good movie. Good issues, generally good characterizations. There were a few flaws there, but my biggest ones went away when I checked the Terminator timeline and realized this one is set way before the future portion of the others. I'd say the characters are unusually human for an action movie, and I like that.
My biggest complaint is that the trailer spoils the major plot twist. That kind of thing always cheeses me off. All those people worked really hard to make a mind-blowing OMG perception shift, and some idiot down in marketing screws it all to hell by featuring it in the promo. Dumbass.
And, would someone please tell Christian Bale to stop doing that thing with his voice. Dude, did you take acting lessons under Jack Palance? Stop that! Right now! You don't sound bad-ass; you sound congested. Stop, talk normal. You can carry it without trying to drop your voice an octave. Trust me.
Finally, this is just the nature of the franchise (or really, any action movie at all), but I also find it funny just what inefficient killers the Terminators are. Humans are fragile creatures. You can stab us, you can shoot us, you can break things -- there are any number of ways to kill a human. And yet the Terminators can't seem to figure it out. They're grabbing people, throwing them against walls and into electronics equipment and over railings to 20 foot falls, and their victims just aren't dying. They can't figure out this killing thing. It's like having a Terminator after you actually makes you less likely to die a painful violent death.
Nonetheless, if those are my biggest complaints, I think that says a lot. You know I'm a big complainer. ;)
Now, let me be a bit nerdy for just a few moments about some technical aspects. I don't usually notice this sort of stuff unless it's very good or very bad, but this time I did, and thought they were quite good.
First, I really like the use of the desaturated filmstock. There are different filmstocks out there. There are a few that are known for eye-blinding bright colors. Kurosawa loved this for his later work; Dreams is especially eye-searing. This uses the opposite, which is a very muted color palette except for splotches of red everywhere. Although not always realistic, I thought it had a very nifty effect.
Second, I don't generally like modern action movie directing/camerawork styles, especially the tendency towards quick cuts and sudden moves. This movie, however, I found generally well executed, and it used some very interesting POVs and camera angles. For instance, the helicopter crash right near the beginning and the way it was shot: very creative, very effective -- much more than the usual quick cuts around the outside would have been.
So, in summary: Definitely worth 2 hours and 4 bucks. You take Arnie out of the franchise, and good things happen.
Don't get me wrong, they managed the kids OK. There was a freak-out during the promos, but that's all I heard, and when I came out the mom was already sitting outside with the littlest at the least. But still, whatever happened to babysitters? Did they just go extinct? All of my coworkers have kids, and yet I honestly do not remember the last time I heard someone talk about hiring a sitter.
Do a playdate swap with another family, something. Do not take little little kids to a movie like this. Even if you don't mind if they see the violence, a theater's sound system with an action movie's soundtrack is very hard on sensitive little eardrums. Use some flippin' sense, people.
OK, rant over.
Terminator Salvation, spoiler-free version. If you're surprised that I went to see a Terminator movie, that's fair. I have nothing serious against the Terminator series, but it doesn't particularly float my boat, either. I saw the first one years ago on TV, and... meh. Seen bits and pieces of the second one. Meh. Didn't see the third; from everything I heard and saw, it seemed pretty interchangeable with the first and second, except that we blow up the world at the end.
The promos for this one looked different. There's no time travel, Arnie was nowhere in sight, and it looked like there might actually be some grappling with issues. I like issues in my movies. And worst case scenario, a Terminator movie can at least be counted on for some good explosions, so what the heck.
Generally speaking, I liked it. It has a few flaws, but not too many and not too fatal, and generally it's a good movie. Good issues, generally good characterizations. There were a few flaws there, but my biggest ones went away when I checked the Terminator timeline and realized this one is set way before the future portion of the others. I'd say the characters are unusually human for an action movie, and I like that.
My biggest complaint is that the trailer spoils the major plot twist. That kind of thing always cheeses me off. All those people worked really hard to make a mind-blowing OMG perception shift, and some idiot down in marketing screws it all to hell by featuring it in the promo. Dumbass.
And, would someone please tell Christian Bale to stop doing that thing with his voice. Dude, did you take acting lessons under Jack Palance? Stop that! Right now! You don't sound bad-ass; you sound congested. Stop, talk normal. You can carry it without trying to drop your voice an octave. Trust me.
Finally, this is just the nature of the franchise (or really, any action movie at all), but I also find it funny just what inefficient killers the Terminators are. Humans are fragile creatures. You can stab us, you can shoot us, you can break things -- there are any number of ways to kill a human. And yet the Terminators can't seem to figure it out. They're grabbing people, throwing them against walls and into electronics equipment and over railings to 20 foot falls, and their victims just aren't dying. They can't figure out this killing thing. It's like having a Terminator after you actually makes you less likely to die a painful violent death.
Nonetheless, if those are my biggest complaints, I think that says a lot. You know I'm a big complainer. ;)
Now, let me be a bit nerdy for just a few moments about some technical aspects. I don't usually notice this sort of stuff unless it's very good or very bad, but this time I did, and thought they were quite good.
First, I really like the use of the desaturated filmstock. There are different filmstocks out there. There are a few that are known for eye-blinding bright colors. Kurosawa loved this for his later work; Dreams is especially eye-searing. This uses the opposite, which is a very muted color palette except for splotches of red everywhere. Although not always realistic, I thought it had a very nifty effect.
Second, I don't generally like modern action movie directing/camerawork styles, especially the tendency towards quick cuts and sudden moves. This movie, however, I found generally well executed, and it used some very interesting POVs and camera angles. For instance, the helicopter crash right near the beginning and the way it was shot: very creative, very effective -- much more than the usual quick cuts around the outside would have been.
So, in summary: Definitely worth 2 hours and 4 bucks. You take Arnie out of the franchise, and good things happen.
Friday, May 22, 2009
Movie: The Man Who Laughs (spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering is The Man Who Laughs, an American silent movie from 1928.
So how did I find this one? Well, let me put it this way. Batman fans, does this face look at all familiar to you?
Yup. Waaay back in 1940, the Joker's visual design wascompletely ripped off of inspired by Conrad Veidt as Gwynplaine. Which is rather ironic, because Gwynplaine's story could easily drive a person to go on a massive killing spree, and yet he largely abstains.
Now, I'm going to do this review a bit differently than I usually do, because silent films are a different animal than modern films, or even classic talkies. It's a completely different art form, with different criteria. You either like it, or you don't.
Would I recommend this to a complete silent movie virgin? Um... It's not on my short list, but I wouldn't talk someone out of it, either. (The short list: Kino's version of Metropolis -- if you haven't seen Kino's, you haven't seen it; any decent cut of Nosferatu; or the Chaplin Collection's Modern Times. Really, any decent edition, but the Chaplin Collection's is probably the easiest to get right now.) It's a good silent film, fairly typical of the genre if you throw both American and German films into the pot together. The last 20 minutes is more Hollywood-y than the rest, and the chase scene is practically right out of Phantom of the Opera, but for the most part, it's good.
Would I recommend this to someone who already likes silent movies? Yes. Absolutely. If you like silent movies, you must see this. It is a fascinating transitional piece.
Originally it was concepted as a Lon Chaney movie. Small problem: Chaney kind of worked for a rival studio. So, the producer thought, why don't I try that Conrad Veidt guy? And while he was at it he got a couple of other big name German movie makers, and ended up with this really cool hybrid between German expressionism and American realism. It's more realistic than a typical German movie of the period, but much deeper and more thoughtful than most of the American movies. (Well, except for that last 20 minutes. But you can't have everything.)
On top of that it was made when theaters were transitioning to talkies. They decided not to do it as a talkie because, well, in the make-up Conrad kinda... couldn't talk. But it is one of those interesting transitional pieces that has a coordinated soundtrack despite being a "silent". (Although it is inadvertently amusing, because they seem to have had a cast of 5 guys trying to voice crowd scenes of several hundred.)
Also, Conrad Veidt is an amazing actor to pull off this role, especially in a silent. In a silent, there are no lines and voice intonations to express your meanings. It's all gesture and facial expression. Well, this movie removes half his face from that equation, and he's never been one for the hugely exaggerated gestures of many silent actors. And yet he pulls it off amazingly well.
So, in summary: if you like silents, or you like Conrad Veidt, you should see this one.
So how did I find this one? Well, let me put it this way. Batman fans, does this face look at all familiar to you?
Yup. Waaay back in 1940, the Joker's visual design was
Now, I'm going to do this review a bit differently than I usually do, because silent films are a different animal than modern films, or even classic talkies. It's a completely different art form, with different criteria. You either like it, or you don't.
Would I recommend this to a complete silent movie virgin? Um... It's not on my short list, but I wouldn't talk someone out of it, either. (The short list: Kino's version of Metropolis -- if you haven't seen Kino's, you haven't seen it; any decent cut of Nosferatu; or the Chaplin Collection's Modern Times. Really, any decent edition, but the Chaplin Collection's is probably the easiest to get right now.) It's a good silent film, fairly typical of the genre if you throw both American and German films into the pot together. The last 20 minutes is more Hollywood-y than the rest, and the chase scene is practically right out of Phantom of the Opera, but for the most part, it's good.
Would I recommend this to someone who already likes silent movies? Yes. Absolutely. If you like silent movies, you must see this. It is a fascinating transitional piece.
Originally it was concepted as a Lon Chaney movie. Small problem: Chaney kind of worked for a rival studio. So, the producer thought, why don't I try that Conrad Veidt guy? And while he was at it he got a couple of other big name German movie makers, and ended up with this really cool hybrid between German expressionism and American realism. It's more realistic than a typical German movie of the period, but much deeper and more thoughtful than most of the American movies. (Well, except for that last 20 minutes. But you can't have everything.)
On top of that it was made when theaters were transitioning to talkies. They decided not to do it as a talkie because, well, in the make-up Conrad kinda... couldn't talk. But it is one of those interesting transitional pieces that has a coordinated soundtrack despite being a "silent". (Although it is inadvertently amusing, because they seem to have had a cast of 5 guys trying to voice crowd scenes of several hundred.)
Also, Conrad Veidt is an amazing actor to pull off this role, especially in a silent. In a silent, there are no lines and voice intonations to express your meanings. It's all gesture and facial expression. Well, this movie removes half his face from that equation, and he's never been one for the hugely exaggerated gestures of many silent actors. And yet he pulls it off amazingly well.
So, in summary: if you like silents, or you like Conrad Veidt, you should see this one.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Movie: Psycho (spoilers)
I don't really have to worry about spoiling "Psycho", do I? I mean, even if you've never seen it, you know the deal with Norman Bates and his mother, right? 'Cause I'm going to assume you do, or you don't really care anyway.
I've tried to give Alfred Hitchcock the benefit of the doubt. I've watched his early stuff, I've watched his later stuff, I've watched stuff with actors I know I love, I've watched his spy movies, I've watched his horror movies. I really think I have been more than fair with giving him a chance to live up to his reputation. And at this point, I really think he's overblown. I just am not at all impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's work.
So, Psycho. Supposedly one of his greats. Some people would even call it his magnum opus. (We usually refer to those as "mean" people.) So widely parodied that even if you've never seen it, the words "Bates Motel" trigger an "Oh crap" and odds are you know the deal with Norman and his mother.
So, never seen it, decided to watch it.
One of the supposedly innovative aspects of this movie is the sudden change halfway through. We're watching Janet Leigh for an hour, and then her character up and gets killed and we have to go find another protagonist somewhere else. OMG, no one's done this before and it's so unexpected and innovative and creative.
Uh huh. May I politely suggest that there's a reason no one else before or since has tried to pull a stunt like this?
To me, it doesn't come across as innovative; it comes across as bad pacing. Let's review what takes up the first half of the movie. Janet Leigh parades around in her underwear, steals a buttload of money, goes to hook up with her boyfriend, has a change of heart and decides to go back, and takes a shower. This should take 20 minutes, half hour tops.
Worse yet, this is not the worst of the pacing problems by far, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, the shower scene. The famous shower scene, regarded as one of the most terrifying moments in cinematic history.
For a moment, forget Psycho, and just imagine a really good horror movie murder-in-the-shower scene. And just to up the ante, I'm taking away the last 50 years of special effects technology, so imagine a really good horror movie shower scene murder in an era that doesn't have the ability to show realistic wounds at all, much less in the process of being made. Think about what that would look like.
Odds are, it includes a quick cut, doesn't it? Maybe shows one horrific injury, maybe not even that. Maybe just cuts away on the downstroke. Right?
Not this. The shower scene is 3 full minutes from water on to life gone, and features an attack with a knife that is obviously fake and woman that is obviously not dying. There's even a very nice, relatively long shot of this rubber knife sliding across her tummy, obviously fake.
Quite frankly, this scene is far more disturbing for its rather masturbatory nature and what it says about the people making it and the people they intended to watch it, than it is as a horror movie moment. Norman and his rubber knife are not scary; some man thinking this would be thrilling to watch for 3 whole minutes, that is scary.
So, she's dead. Back to pacing problems. Am I correct in thinking that if we show Norman putting the body in the back of a car, we will all assume he is cleaning up and hiding the mess? No, not Alfred. He shows us every second of Norman cleaning the bathroom, in real time. We spend at least 5 and maybe even 10 minutes watching a man clean a bathroom. I realize this just didn't happen in 1960, so maybe he just was afraid people wouldn't believe a man cleaning a bathroom if he didn't show the whole damn thing. "How can Norman's mother be dead? Who cleaned the bathroom?"
Come on! I'm sorry, but mopping is not exciting cinema, I don't care how much chocolate syrup you've splashed or where you've splashed it.
Then there's the ending. It's painfully obvious that The Three Faces of Eve was recently published (1957). This multiple personality thing is new and exciting enough to play with, but Alfred can't assume the audience is going to know about it. So, we get a nice long boring talky clinical BS-ing scene for the majority of our denouement. This is good, because after all that mopping I could really use a breather. :P
Summary: not impressed. In fact, I need to go to my Netflix queue and clean off any more Hitchcock movies. They just never get any better.
I've tried to give Alfred Hitchcock the benefit of the doubt. I've watched his early stuff, I've watched his later stuff, I've watched stuff with actors I know I love, I've watched his spy movies, I've watched his horror movies. I really think I have been more than fair with giving him a chance to live up to his reputation. And at this point, I really think he's overblown. I just am not at all impressed with Alfred Hitchcock's work.
So, Psycho. Supposedly one of his greats. Some people would even call it his magnum opus. (We usually refer to those as "mean" people.) So widely parodied that even if you've never seen it, the words "Bates Motel" trigger an "Oh crap" and odds are you know the deal with Norman and his mother.
So, never seen it, decided to watch it.
One of the supposedly innovative aspects of this movie is the sudden change halfway through. We're watching Janet Leigh for an hour, and then her character up and gets killed and we have to go find another protagonist somewhere else. OMG, no one's done this before and it's so unexpected and innovative and creative.
Uh huh. May I politely suggest that there's a reason no one else before or since has tried to pull a stunt like this?
To me, it doesn't come across as innovative; it comes across as bad pacing. Let's review what takes up the first half of the movie. Janet Leigh parades around in her underwear, steals a buttload of money, goes to hook up with her boyfriend, has a change of heart and decides to go back, and takes a shower. This should take 20 minutes, half hour tops.
Worse yet, this is not the worst of the pacing problems by far, but I'll get to that in a moment. First, the shower scene. The famous shower scene, regarded as one of the most terrifying moments in cinematic history.
For a moment, forget Psycho, and just imagine a really good horror movie murder-in-the-shower scene. And just to up the ante, I'm taking away the last 50 years of special effects technology, so imagine a really good horror movie shower scene murder in an era that doesn't have the ability to show realistic wounds at all, much less in the process of being made. Think about what that would look like.
Odds are, it includes a quick cut, doesn't it? Maybe shows one horrific injury, maybe not even that. Maybe just cuts away on the downstroke. Right?
Not this. The shower scene is 3 full minutes from water on to life gone, and features an attack with a knife that is obviously fake and woman that is obviously not dying. There's even a very nice, relatively long shot of this rubber knife sliding across her tummy, obviously fake.
Quite frankly, this scene is far more disturbing for its rather masturbatory nature and what it says about the people making it and the people they intended to watch it, than it is as a horror movie moment. Norman and his rubber knife are not scary; some man thinking this would be thrilling to watch for 3 whole minutes, that is scary.
So, she's dead. Back to pacing problems. Am I correct in thinking that if we show Norman putting the body in the back of a car, we will all assume he is cleaning up and hiding the mess? No, not Alfred. He shows us every second of Norman cleaning the bathroom, in real time. We spend at least 5 and maybe even 10 minutes watching a man clean a bathroom. I realize this just didn't happen in 1960, so maybe he just was afraid people wouldn't believe a man cleaning a bathroom if he didn't show the whole damn thing. "How can Norman's mother be dead? Who cleaned the bathroom?"
Come on! I'm sorry, but mopping is not exciting cinema, I don't care how much chocolate syrup you've splashed or where you've splashed it.
Then there's the ending. It's painfully obvious that The Three Faces of Eve was recently published (1957). This multiple personality thing is new and exciting enough to play with, but Alfred can't assume the audience is going to know about it. So, we get a nice long boring talky clinical BS-ing scene for the majority of our denouement. This is good, because after all that mopping I could really use a breather. :P
Summary: not impressed. In fact, I need to go to my Netflix queue and clean off any more Hitchcock movies. They just never get any better.
Movie: Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? (spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering was "What Ever Happened to Baby Jane?"
Hmm. What to say about this one. Oh, I know:
Robert Aldrich: undisputed master of the Idiot Movie.
He was also responsible for Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (made two years after Baby Jane), and there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Bette Davis is already shrieking out lines and wearing clothes much too young for her, and once again the audience is not supposed to suspend their disbelief so much as they are supposed to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Before the opening credits, I'm supposed to believe that the most sought-after actress in Hollywood (little self-insertion fantasy fulfillment there, Ms. Crawford?) has neither a chauffeur, nor an electric gate to her estate, nor a security guard.
Afterward, I'm supposed to believe that an insanely wealthy woman who is now crippled has not had a lift installed in her house after 27 years of being in a wheelchair, nor is her bedroom on the ground floor. Also, she has decided to live as a hermit, despite really having no apparent inclination to do so and actually rather liking company.
When Blanche finally accepts that her sister is dangerously off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, it never occurs to her to sit her butt down on the steps and scoot down in order to reach the phone, maybe at night when Jane is sleeping. Nah. Eventually she reaches a point desperate enough to do some elaborate gymnastics to climb down the railing. Now at this point she is 98% certain that Jane is going to kill her. She hasn't eaten in several days except for some chocolates she found in Jane's drawer -- along with Jane's "signature forgery 101" practice book. So, does she call the police? No, she calls a doctor she's been consulting with.
This doctor knows Jane is off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, because that's why he was called in to begin with. He has been trying to talk Blanche into having Jane committed -- which implies that he realizes Jane is a danger to herself or others. He also knows that Blanche is wheelchair bond. So when he gets a panic-stricken call from Blanche begging for help with Jane, is he at all concerned?
Not a bit. Not a skosh. Sure Jane's dangerously insane and completely out of touch of reality, but that's nothing to worry about, right? "Has she turned dangerous? Oh, she has? Darn. Well, I guess I can maybe mosey out there-- Are you sure you need a housecall for this?"
The cincher, though, the absolutely over-the-top Oh My God The Stupid It Burns has got to be the ending. It takes place on a crowded beach. There are at least 50 extras in this scene -- including two cops. Jane kidnapping her sister after getting caught at having Blanche thisclose to death is all over the plot-point channels on the radio and TV. And yet NO ONE notices the 50 year old woman dressed like a 10-year-old from 1917, or the other 50-year-old woman dressed completely from head-to-toe in black lying on the beach dying. On top of that, the cops completely failed to notice the 20-year-old car that exactly matches the description in the APB and is blocking the main road to this beach.
Head, meet desk.
So in summary, same opinion as Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte: Don't do it, man!
In fact, never watch anything directed by Robert Aldrich, ever.
Hmm. What to say about this one. Oh, I know:
Robert Aldrich: undisputed master of the Idiot Movie.
He was also responsible for Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (made two years after Baby Jane), and there are a lot of similarities between the two movies. Bette Davis is already shrieking out lines and wearing clothes much too young for her, and once again the audience is not supposed to suspend their disbelief so much as they are supposed to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Before the opening credits, I'm supposed to believe that the most sought-after actress in Hollywood (little self-insertion fantasy fulfillment there, Ms. Crawford?) has neither a chauffeur, nor an electric gate to her estate, nor a security guard.
Afterward, I'm supposed to believe that an insanely wealthy woman who is now crippled has not had a lift installed in her house after 27 years of being in a wheelchair, nor is her bedroom on the ground floor. Also, she has decided to live as a hermit, despite really having no apparent inclination to do so and actually rather liking company.
When Blanche finally accepts that her sister is dangerously off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, it never occurs to her to sit her butt down on the steps and scoot down in order to reach the phone, maybe at night when Jane is sleeping. Nah. Eventually she reaches a point desperate enough to do some elaborate gymnastics to climb down the railing. Now at this point she is 98% certain that Jane is going to kill her. She hasn't eaten in several days except for some chocolates she found in Jane's drawer -- along with Jane's "signature forgery 101" practice book. So, does she call the police? No, she calls a doctor she's been consulting with.
This doctor knows Jane is off in Skoodly-Woodly Land, because that's why he was called in to begin with. He has been trying to talk Blanche into having Jane committed -- which implies that he realizes Jane is a danger to herself or others. He also knows that Blanche is wheelchair bond. So when he gets a panic-stricken call from Blanche begging for help with Jane, is he at all concerned?
Not a bit. Not a skosh. Sure Jane's dangerously insane and completely out of touch of reality, but that's nothing to worry about, right? "Has she turned dangerous? Oh, she has? Darn. Well, I guess I can maybe mosey out there-- Are you sure you need a housecall for this?"
The cincher, though, the absolutely over-the-top Oh My God The Stupid It Burns has got to be the ending. It takes place on a crowded beach. There are at least 50 extras in this scene -- including two cops. Jane kidnapping her sister after getting caught at having Blanche thisclose to death is all over the plot-point channels on the radio and TV. And yet NO ONE notices the 50 year old woman dressed like a 10-year-old from 1917, or the other 50-year-old woman dressed completely from head-to-toe in black lying on the beach dying. On top of that, the cops completely failed to notice the 20-year-old car that exactly matches the description in the APB and is blocking the main road to this beach.
Head, meet desk.
So in summary, same opinion as Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte: Don't do it, man!
In fact, never watch anything directed by Robert Aldrich, ever.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Movie: Gentleman's Agreement
I gave my new Roku box a go during the Saturday night busy period, and I'm glad to say it played very well. No delays, good picture quality. The movie I watched was, as insinuated by the post title, the 1947 "Gentleman's Agreement."
This movie was made with the main aim of being what I call "Hollywood Edgy". That's when a movie would have been very radical and edgy -- if it had been made 20 to 30 years earlier. By the time it is made, though, it's no longer really edgy; it just serves to show how many bigots are left (which, unfortunately, is usually a big number). For example, Brokeback Mountain. Gay cowboys exist! And it can be sweet and loving! 1975, or maybe even 1985, that would have been really edgy and radical. In 1995, it could maybe be at least progressive, riding the crest of the breaking wave. By 2005, this is not really edgy.
Older example: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" about interracial marriages and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1947, this would have been really edgy. In 1957, cutting edge progressive. In 1967... the Supreme Court overturned the laws it was complaining about while it was still in the theaters. (And to make it even less edgy, they give viewers several big HUGE outs so they can disapprove of the marriage without feeling racist. The couple has only known each other 11 days and has a large age difference.)
Gentleman's Agreement was about the evils of antisemitism and how wrong it is to discriminate against Jews -- in 1947. Immediately after WWII and that pesky Holocaust thing, I'm not thinking this was an unpopular opinion.
However, I give it credit for a few moments -- a couple that were progressive for the time, and a couple we still don't do.
First, 1947, they do sneak in a few zingers towards oppression of African Americans. One point where they're listing off inappropriate racial slurs and include the word "nigger" in the list that is mostly pointed towards Jews. A second is when the movie exposes a "some of my best friends are" kind of racist, and another character says of him that he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips. "You should hear him rail against the poll tax." In 1947, I'd venture these were pretty progressive statements.
Second, the BFD of the movie is that racism is not the exclusive provenance of morons, rednecks, and other "those people". That there are tons of decent people, who disagree with the obvious but aren't real concerned about overturning it. It's really trying to show the insidiousness of it.
Frankly, the media doesn't go with that message very often. Seriously, I'm trying to think of a modern movie about racism were racists weren't "those people", and I'm failing. Take, for instance, Gran Torino, out just in the last year. Good movie, but the racist is a irascible old asshole that no one likes, and on top of that he also gets a little bit of an out as a veteran of the Korean war. And all of us in the audience can sit here and be assured that we're not like him.
All in all, it wasn't bad. It was what is was, nothing and nothing less, but it wasn't bad.
This movie was made with the main aim of being what I call "Hollywood Edgy". That's when a movie would have been very radical and edgy -- if it had been made 20 to 30 years earlier. By the time it is made, though, it's no longer really edgy; it just serves to show how many bigots are left (which, unfortunately, is usually a big number). For example, Brokeback Mountain. Gay cowboys exist! And it can be sweet and loving! 1975, or maybe even 1985, that would have been really edgy and radical. In 1995, it could maybe be at least progressive, riding the crest of the breaking wave. By 2005, this is not really edgy.
Older example: "Guess Who's Coming To Dinner?" about interracial marriages and anti-miscegenation laws. In 1947, this would have been really edgy. In 1957, cutting edge progressive. In 1967... the Supreme Court overturned the laws it was complaining about while it was still in the theaters. (And to make it even less edgy, they give viewers several big HUGE outs so they can disapprove of the marriage without feeling racist. The couple has only known each other 11 days and has a large age difference.)
Gentleman's Agreement was about the evils of antisemitism and how wrong it is to discriminate against Jews -- in 1947. Immediately after WWII and that pesky Holocaust thing, I'm not thinking this was an unpopular opinion.
However, I give it credit for a few moments -- a couple that were progressive for the time, and a couple we still don't do.
First, 1947, they do sneak in a few zingers towards oppression of African Americans. One point where they're listing off inappropriate racial slurs and include the word "nigger" in the list that is mostly pointed towards Jews. A second is when the movie exposes a "some of my best friends are" kind of racist, and another character says of him that he really does think he's all that and a bag of chips. "You should hear him rail against the poll tax." In 1947, I'd venture these were pretty progressive statements.
Second, the BFD of the movie is that racism is not the exclusive provenance of morons, rednecks, and other "those people". That there are tons of decent people, who disagree with the obvious but aren't real concerned about overturning it. It's really trying to show the insidiousness of it.
Frankly, the media doesn't go with that message very often. Seriously, I'm trying to think of a modern movie about racism were racists weren't "those people", and I'm failing. Take, for instance, Gran Torino, out just in the last year. Good movie, but the racist is a irascible old asshole that no one likes, and on top of that he also gets a little bit of an out as a veteran of the Korean war. And all of us in the audience can sit here and be assured that we're not like him.
All in all, it wasn't bad. It was what is was, nothing and nothing less, but it wasn't bad.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Movies: "The Leopard" and "Ocean's Eleven"
I'm putting both of this week's movies together, because I don't have a lot to say about either of them.
The first was "The Leopard", a 1963 movie about a prince of Sicily during the Italian revolution of the 1860s. It struck me as "meh". It wasn't bad, but I don't know enough about Italian history to really follow it as well as I'd like, and it doesn't handhold you. Honestly, I thought what the movie was trying to express was done better in one scene with Londo in Babylon 5. (The one where he recalls finding his father crying and lamenting that 'my shoes are too tight, but it does not matter, because I have forgotten how to dance' and now understands the metaphor because he too has reached a point where he feels stifled by his life, but has forgotten the joie de vie that he would want his freedom back for.)
Beautifully shot, and exquisite costuming, though. Because I'm nerdy like this, I was particularly struck the costumes, or at least the women's, are all actually correct period. But that's just my thing.
The second was Ocean's Eleven, the one made in 2001, not the original from the 1960s. Something about the Rat Pack just makes my skin crawl, and I don't know what, but it's a mark against any movie. So, watched the new one instead.
I love a good heist pic. (Although, "The Italian Job"? Not a good heist pic.) Ocean's Eleven is a pretty good heist pic. Yen could stand to be less of a stereotype, and I notice the black guy gets the really gross stuff to do, but at the same time he has an awesome British accent so at least it isn't the usual stereotype. What really keeps me from calling it a great heist flick, though, is the ex-wife love subplot thing. Look, Danny. She's not into you, she was never into the real lying thieving you, and if she was written at all realistically, she never would be into you.
Forget Tess. Instead we make the bomb expert a woman, get your practically mandated dose of sexual tension there, and in the end she goes off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago.
So, spoiler-free conclusion: good movie, ignore Tess.
Spoiler version: I know I have no romance in my soul, but if I saw via security camera my ex-husband say to my current boyfriend who has just had his vault cleared out of $160 million (that's 9 digits, people) "I can get your money back if you'll give up on Tess" and my boyfriend says "OK", I would actually hold a bigger grudge against the ex. Don't get me wrong, I'd leave the boyfriend. After all, he's got insurance, and he did just basically agree to dump me. But I can't feel that bad when it took $160 million to make him do it. On the other hand, my ex is basically trying to buy me. It's a situation that one person has set up and the other has acquiesced to, and they both suck, but IMHO, the one who set it up sucks more.
But they both suck.
Personally, I'd go off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago. :)
The first was "The Leopard", a 1963 movie about a prince of Sicily during the Italian revolution of the 1860s. It struck me as "meh". It wasn't bad, but I don't know enough about Italian history to really follow it as well as I'd like, and it doesn't handhold you. Honestly, I thought what the movie was trying to express was done better in one scene with Londo in Babylon 5. (The one where he recalls finding his father crying and lamenting that 'my shoes are too tight, but it does not matter, because I have forgotten how to dance' and now understands the metaphor because he too has reached a point where he feels stifled by his life, but has forgotten the joie de vie that he would want his freedom back for.)
Beautifully shot, and exquisite costuming, though. Because I'm nerdy like this, I was particularly struck the costumes, or at least the women's, are all actually correct period. But that's just my thing.
The second was Ocean's Eleven, the one made in 2001, not the original from the 1960s. Something about the Rat Pack just makes my skin crawl, and I don't know what, but it's a mark against any movie. So, watched the new one instead.
I love a good heist pic. (Although, "The Italian Job"? Not a good heist pic.) Ocean's Eleven is a pretty good heist pic. Yen could stand to be less of a stereotype, and I notice the black guy gets the really gross stuff to do, but at the same time he has an awesome British accent so at least it isn't the usual stereotype. What really keeps me from calling it a great heist flick, though, is the ex-wife love subplot thing. Look, Danny. She's not into you, she was never into the real lying thieving you, and if she was written at all realistically, she never would be into you.
Forget Tess. Instead we make the bomb expert a woman, get your practically mandated dose of sexual tension there, and in the end she goes off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago.
So, spoiler-free conclusion: good movie, ignore Tess.
Spoiler version: I know I have no romance in my soul, but if I saw via security camera my ex-husband say to my current boyfriend who has just had his vault cleared out of $160 million (that's 9 digits, people) "I can get your money back if you'll give up on Tess" and my boyfriend says "OK", I would actually hold a bigger grudge against the ex. Don't get me wrong, I'd leave the boyfriend. After all, he's got insurance, and he did just basically agree to dump me. But I can't feel that bad when it took $160 million to make him do it. On the other hand, my ex is basically trying to buy me. It's a situation that one person has set up and the other has acquiesced to, and they both suck, but IMHO, the one who set it up sucks more.
But they both suck.
Personally, I'd go off with the cute completely green pickpocket from Chicago. :)
Sunday, April 26, 2009
Movie: Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte (spoilers)
I oopsied and was late returning last week's Netflix, so I plugged the laptop into the computer and watched something off Instant Viewing. (Unfortunately, Friday evening is not the best time to try to watch Instant Viewing movies due to the high server load, but with some long pauses to build up a buffer, I got it done.)
Now, there were two not-terribly-deep reasons I wanted to see Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte.
First, as a young girl, I was a big Darkwing Duck fan, and there was an episode titled "Hush Hush Sweet Charlatan." Now, those episodes never have anything to do with whatever the title was parodying, but I was curious anyway.
Second, it was recommended as one of Bette Davis' better movies, and I thought I'd give her another chance after the slow boring train wreck that was Mr. Skeffington.
So, what did I think of it?
...
My God, the stupid. Lots of movies expect the audience to suspend their disbelief, but this one expects the audience to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Unless I am missing something in the unintelligible mumbling that starts the movie, it opens with a young man going to see Charlotte Hollis's father to ask for her hand in marriage
And to make it worse, Bette Davis is playing Charlotte in this scene set 37 years before the rest of the movie. This means that a 56 year old Bette was playing a 19 year old girl. As you can well imagine, this required that there be no good shots of her face. Unfortunately, because her idiot lover's breakup with her and subsequent brutal murder are such a significant part of the opening, this requires some really heavy handed stunts to hide her.
We then flash forward 37 years, and find that the Hollis mansion has been seized by eminent domain and is going to be torn down to build a bridge.
Uhn huh. Charlotte is so rich that the town is named after her family. (Literally; the town's name is Hollisport.) Eminent domain storylines only work with middle class or poorer families, because we all know the rich get to play by different rules. Realistically, whoever did the planning for that bridge would look at the route and go "Ah crap. The lawsuit alone is going to drag this project out 10 or 15 years, and if she realizes that place dates back before the Civil War and has it declared a historical landmark, we're screwed. Let's just see if we can get an easement about a hundred yards from the house, and if that doesn't work we'll just do a bypass on the other side of the property line."
Then we bring in Miriam. The box text spoils most of Miriam's schtick. Before I get to that, though, what's funny is that according to the trivia at IMDB, they had the damnedest time getting anyone to take this role. Joan Crawford had it, but she got sick and they had to replace her. Katherine Hepburn didn't even return their call, Loretta Young said " I wouldn't play a part like that if I were starving," and Vivien Leigh answered "No, thank you. I can just about stand looking at Joan Crawford's face at six o'clock in the morning, but not Bette Davis." It took the director a flight to Switzerland and four days to convince Olivia de Havilland to take it.
So, most of the movie is Miriam trying to drive Charlotte insane, or at least to a point where she appears so. For some reason, she thinks she's going to have trouble involuntarily committing
"Oh, you finally noticed that, did you? Give me those papers to sign. I've been waiting decades for this."
No, we spend a long, slowly paced movie going about this instead.
And then, Miriam kills the maid. Whoops. Now we've got this pesky body laying around. What do we do about it?
Well, I'm thinking we want to get Charlotte involuntarily committed, and that requires danger to self or others, so "Oh my gosh, look what Charlotte did." I mean, you've got a dead maid, you might as well use her.
No, that would cut a good 20 minutes out of this turd. Instead they fake that she died in a completely different building while trying to repair her own home's roof. Which means they then have to go and fake Charlotte killing someone else! *head desk*
Finally, if you're going to go give your "how I became an evil villain and just how evil I am" speech, maybe you should make sure your would-be victim is actually sedated. Because it's really a bummer when they wake up and wander into listening distance of your speech -- and an appropriate weapon.
And on top of it all, you get to listen to Bette Davis shriek out half her lines. Yeah. I'm not a Bette Davis fan. In fact, I am probably going to go to great effort to avoid her movies from now on.
So, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte gets a nice big "Don't do it, man!"
Now, there were two not-terribly-deep reasons I wanted to see Hush, Hush Sweet Charlotte.
First, as a young girl, I was a big Darkwing Duck fan, and there was an episode titled "Hush Hush Sweet Charlatan." Now, those episodes never have anything to do with whatever the title was parodying, but I was curious anyway.
Second, it was recommended as one of Bette Davis' better movies, and I thought I'd give her another chance after the slow boring train wreck that was Mr. Skeffington.
So, what did I think of it?
...
My God, the stupid. Lots of movies expect the audience to suspend their disbelief, but this one expects the audience to suspend all cognitive functioning whatsoever.
Unless I am missing something in the unintelligible mumbling that starts the movie, it opens with a young man going to see Charlotte Hollis's father to ask for her hand in marriage
- Before they elope
- Despite the fact that he is already married to someone else
- And that he is NOT in the midst of, or even planning, a divorce.
And to make it worse, Bette Davis is playing Charlotte in this scene set 37 years before the rest of the movie. This means that a 56 year old Bette was playing a 19 year old girl. As you can well imagine, this required that there be no good shots of her face. Unfortunately, because her idiot lover's breakup with her and subsequent brutal murder are such a significant part of the opening, this requires some really heavy handed stunts to hide her.
We then flash forward 37 years, and find that the Hollis mansion has been seized by eminent domain and is going to be torn down to build a bridge.
Uhn huh. Charlotte is so rich that the town is named after her family. (Literally; the town's name is Hollisport.) Eminent domain storylines only work with middle class or poorer families, because we all know the rich get to play by different rules. Realistically, whoever did the planning for that bridge would look at the route and go "Ah crap. The lawsuit alone is going to drag this project out 10 or 15 years, and if she realizes that place dates back before the Civil War and has it declared a historical landmark, we're screwed. Let's just see if we can get an easement about a hundred yards from the house, and if that doesn't work we'll just do a bypass on the other side of the property line."
Then we bring in Miriam. The box text spoils most of Miriam's schtick. Before I get to that, though, what's funny is that according to the trivia at IMDB, they had the damnedest time getting anyone to take this role. Joan Crawford had it, but she got sick and they had to replace her. Katherine Hepburn didn't even return their call, Loretta Young said " I wouldn't play a part like that if I were starving," and Vivien Leigh answered "No, thank you. I can just about stand looking at Joan Crawford's face at six o'clock in the morning, but not Bette Davis." It took the director a flight to Switzerland and four days to convince Olivia de Havilland to take it.
So, most of the movie is Miriam trying to drive Charlotte insane, or at least to a point where she appears so. For some reason, she thinks she's going to have trouble involuntarily committing
- the town loony
- who everyone "knows" brutally murdered her lover with a meat cleaver 37 years ago
- and who tried to kill two people within five minutes after the opening credits
- and who spends most of her free time searching and calling for said lover who was brutally murdered 37 years ago.
"Oh, you finally noticed that, did you? Give me those papers to sign. I've been waiting decades for this."
No, we spend a long, slowly paced movie going about this instead.
And then, Miriam kills the maid. Whoops. Now we've got this pesky body laying around. What do we do about it?
Well, I'm thinking we want to get Charlotte involuntarily committed, and that requires danger to self or others, so "Oh my gosh, look what Charlotte did." I mean, you've got a dead maid, you might as well use her.
No, that would cut a good 20 minutes out of this turd. Instead they fake that she died in a completely different building while trying to repair her own home's roof. Which means they then have to go and fake Charlotte killing someone else! *head desk*
Finally, if you're going to go give your "how I became an evil villain and just how evil I am" speech, maybe you should make sure your would-be victim is actually sedated. Because it's really a bummer when they wake up and wander into listening distance of your speech -- and an appropriate weapon.
And on top of it all, you get to listen to Bette Davis shriek out half her lines. Yeah. I'm not a Bette Davis fan. In fact, I am probably going to go to great effort to avoid her movies from now on.
So, Hush Hush Sweet Charlotte gets a nice big "Don't do it, man!"
Saturday, April 18, 2009
Movie: The Spiral Staircase (heavy spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering was the 1945 movie The Spiral Staircase.
First, the spoiler-free review:
Excellent, excellent movie. Now this, this is what Hitchcock is known for.
Unfortunately, it's not one of Hitchcock's. Frankly, I think Hitchcock wished he had made something this awesome.
But I kid Alfred. Seriously, beautiful beautiful cinematography. Wonderful, amazing camera and light work. When Helen is running to the house in the rain at the beginning and we see the hiding murderer in a flash of lightning, ooh. Shivers, I'm telling you. (It's 5 minutes in; I can't call that a spoiler.)
I can't really comment on the story, because I've got this thing with mysteries. Nine times out of 10, I immediately laserbeam on to the villain. For example, first time I watched a 13-part silent serial named Judex, which is possibly the first filmed superhero story, I had the hero's secret identity pegged halfway through the prologue -- and that ain't normal at all. So with Spiral Staircase here, I was pretty sure who done it and how it was going to end for them early on, but I don't think that would be normal. I think most people who enjoy mysteries would enjoy this one.
Now, if only I could figure out where that spiral staircase is in relation to the rest of the house.
Anyway, if you like mysteries, go see this. It's good.
Super spoilerific version:
I swear, if I am ever in a situation involving spies, Nazis, or serial killers, and someone says to me "Don't trust anyone", I am going to turn around and shoot them right there on the spot. Has there ever been a time in cinematic history where someone has said that, and NOT turned out to be the villain? I had my suspicions about this guy as soon as he appeared on screen, but as soon as he said this, I spent the next hour and 15 minutes going "It's Hisname. It's Hisname. Dude, it is so Hisname."
And man, do NOT mess with a Barrymore. They will kick your ass. It doesn't matter if they have to magically regain the ability to walk in order to do it, because they will. Lionel in Key Largo and Ethel here... Just don't mess with them.
Actually, bumping off that to Key Largo, that reminds me of an observation. Every once in a while in one of the old movies, someone will get out of a wheel chair. This tends to really mess with modern minds, because in this day and age wheel chair usually means spinal cord injury. However, before World War II, a spinal cord injury was fatal. It didn't matter how low it was; you died. The medical community just didn't have the technology and understanding to care for it. So when an audience in the 1930s and 1940s saw a character in a wheelchair, what they thought was "polio", and thus would expect it to be difficult but possible for that character to walk short distances.
For those who are curious, Lionel was in the wheel chair because of a hip injury and arthritis.
Oh, I am really disappointed that I didn't get to see Carlton take the villain down. Dude, you've got a bulldog right there. What's the point of having a bulldog if you aren't going to use him?
First, the spoiler-free review:
Excellent, excellent movie. Now this, this is what Hitchcock is known for.
Unfortunately, it's not one of Hitchcock's. Frankly, I think Hitchcock wished he had made something this awesome.
But I kid Alfred. Seriously, beautiful beautiful cinematography. Wonderful, amazing camera and light work. When Helen is running to the house in the rain at the beginning and we see the hiding murderer in a flash of lightning, ooh. Shivers, I'm telling you. (It's 5 minutes in; I can't call that a spoiler.)
I can't really comment on the story, because I've got this thing with mysteries. Nine times out of 10, I immediately laserbeam on to the villain. For example, first time I watched a 13-part silent serial named Judex, which is possibly the first filmed superhero story, I had the hero's secret identity pegged halfway through the prologue -- and that ain't normal at all. So with Spiral Staircase here, I was pretty sure who done it and how it was going to end for them early on, but I don't think that would be normal. I think most people who enjoy mysteries would enjoy this one.
Now, if only I could figure out where that spiral staircase is in relation to the rest of the house.
Anyway, if you like mysteries, go see this. It's good.
Super spoilerific version:
I swear, if I am ever in a situation involving spies, Nazis, or serial killers, and someone says to me "Don't trust anyone", I am going to turn around and shoot them right there on the spot. Has there ever been a time in cinematic history where someone has said that, and NOT turned out to be the villain? I had my suspicions about this guy as soon as he appeared on screen, but as soon as he said this, I spent the next hour and 15 minutes going "It's Hisname. It's Hisname. Dude, it is so Hisname."
And man, do NOT mess with a Barrymore. They will kick your ass. It doesn't matter if they have to magically regain the ability to walk in order to do it, because they will. Lionel in Key Largo and Ethel here... Just don't mess with them.
Actually, bumping off that to Key Largo, that reminds me of an observation. Every once in a while in one of the old movies, someone will get out of a wheel chair. This tends to really mess with modern minds, because in this day and age wheel chair usually means spinal cord injury. However, before World War II, a spinal cord injury was fatal. It didn't matter how low it was; you died. The medical community just didn't have the technology and understanding to care for it. So when an audience in the 1930s and 1940s saw a character in a wheelchair, what they thought was "polio", and thus would expect it to be difficult but possible for that character to walk short distances.
For those who are curious, Lionel was in the wheel chair because of a hip injury and arthritis.
Oh, I am really disappointed that I didn't get to see Carlton take the villain down. Dude, you've got a bulldog right there. What's the point of having a bulldog if you aren't going to use him?
Tuesday, April 7, 2009
Hey, I needed those!
I wanted to read the novel "Night of the Hunter", that the movie I reviewed a few weeks ago was based on. Local library system didn't have it. I know I could have requested it through interlibrary loan, but I just couldn't be buggered to figure out how to do that, and I didn't want to rush through it on a deadline. It's pretty cheap new, so I bought a copy.
I bet you never notice typography on a book unless it's really terrible. I don't either. Except this is really terrible. I'm almost wondering if this book fell into the public domain, because this printing looks like it was done by Lulu.com -- except that Lulu produces better quality. Most significantly, though...
There are no quotation marks! None! Not a one! There are apostrophes, thank the Lord, but no quotation marks. Dialog is just completely mixed in with prose with no differentiation whatsoever. It's actually kind of difficult to read.
See, your English teacher was right. They're important.
I bet you never notice typography on a book unless it's really terrible. I don't either. Except this is really terrible. I'm almost wondering if this book fell into the public domain, because this printing looks like it was done by Lulu.com -- except that Lulu produces better quality. Most significantly, though...
There are no quotation marks! None! Not a one! There are apostrophes, thank the Lord, but no quotation marks. Dialog is just completely mixed in with prose with no differentiation whatsoever. It's actually kind of difficult to read.
See, your English teacher was right. They're important.
Saturday, April 4, 2009
Movie: Blazing Saddles (spoilers)
I am probably going to spill a whole can of whoop ass all over myself with this one. But I've got Brawny, so that's OK.
I want to like Mel Brooks' parodies, I do. But starting with Blazing Saddles and just about everything afterwards, I just can't. There's plenty of reasons why, but let me jump into the really big ones.
First, you know what's really funny? Rape. Mel Brooks finds rape to be an unending source of amusement. If you were playing a Blazing Saddles drinking game and took a shot every time there was a rape joke, you'd die of alcohol poisoning. The movie can't go 15 minutes without a rape joke. Because rape is just so funny.
That's to say nothing of the sexism. Look at the female characters in this movie, look me in the eye, and try to tell me you don't see a problem.
This is especially ironic in a movie about the evils of racism, but perhaps even more ironic is the rampant anti-gay jokes. Not nearly as common as the rape jokes (because nothing could be), but still, day-um. Don't be trying to tell me that homosexual rights weren't even on the radar in 1974, because the sheer number of gay-bashing jokes in this movie gives lie to that. Now, you could argue that viewpoints were radically different 35 years ago and maybe that's fair, BUT it does IMO show a lack of critical thought at the time. Did Mel ever stop to think "you know, I'm making commentary on how wrong discrimination is and at the same time I brutally bashing this other group any chance I get. Is this problematic at all?"
So, you take out the rape jokes, the gay-bashing jokes, and sexism jokes, and... You don't have a whole lot of movie left. What you do have... Frankly, it's not funny. For example, one line that's supposed to be hilariously funny is the schoolmarm reading a telegram she has composed to the governor, in which she tells him that this "just goes to show that you are the biggest asshole in the state."
....
This is one of your best jokes, Mel? Because, see, I live in Illinois. To me, "the governor is the biggest asshole in the state" is just a statement of fact. (The whole Blagojevich thing? "OMG, a corrupt Illinois governor! Who woulda thunk it?")
There was a study done in the 1990s when shock jocks were popular that found that people don't actually find that kind of humor funny when they're alone. It's only in groups that they laugh at it, and then it's a shared embarrassment response rather than a true humor response.
So, since most of Mel's jokes involve throwing out something vulgar and waiting for the lolz, you should probably see this one with a group of friends.
The only good thing in this movie is Gene Wilder. And he does get some good lines. ("You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.") But he can only do so much on his own.
'Fraid this one's going up on the DVDSwap shelf.
I want to like Mel Brooks' parodies, I do. But starting with Blazing Saddles and just about everything afterwards, I just can't. There's plenty of reasons why, but let me jump into the really big ones.
First, you know what's really funny? Rape. Mel Brooks finds rape to be an unending source of amusement. If you were playing a Blazing Saddles drinking game and took a shot every time there was a rape joke, you'd die of alcohol poisoning. The movie can't go 15 minutes without a rape joke. Because rape is just so funny.
That's to say nothing of the sexism. Look at the female characters in this movie, look me in the eye, and try to tell me you don't see a problem.
This is especially ironic in a movie about the evils of racism, but perhaps even more ironic is the rampant anti-gay jokes. Not nearly as common as the rape jokes (because nothing could be), but still, day-um. Don't be trying to tell me that homosexual rights weren't even on the radar in 1974, because the sheer number of gay-bashing jokes in this movie gives lie to that. Now, you could argue that viewpoints were radically different 35 years ago and maybe that's fair, BUT it does IMO show a lack of critical thought at the time. Did Mel ever stop to think "you know, I'm making commentary on how wrong discrimination is and at the same time I brutally bashing this other group any chance I get. Is this problematic at all?"
So, you take out the rape jokes, the gay-bashing jokes, and sexism jokes, and... You don't have a whole lot of movie left. What you do have... Frankly, it's not funny. For example, one line that's supposed to be hilariously funny is the schoolmarm reading a telegram she has composed to the governor, in which she tells him that this "just goes to show that you are the biggest asshole in the state."
....
This is one of your best jokes, Mel? Because, see, I live in Illinois. To me, "the governor is the biggest asshole in the state" is just a statement of fact. (The whole Blagojevich thing? "OMG, a corrupt Illinois governor! Who woulda thunk it?")
There was a study done in the 1990s when shock jocks were popular that found that people don't actually find that kind of humor funny when they're alone. It's only in groups that they laugh at it, and then it's a shared embarrassment response rather than a true humor response.
So, since most of Mel's jokes involve throwing out something vulgar and waiting for the lolz, you should probably see this one with a group of friends.
The only good thing in this movie is Gene Wilder. And he does get some good lines. ("You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons.") But he can only do so much on his own.
'Fraid this one's going up on the DVDSwap shelf.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Movie: The Dark Crystal (Spoilers)
This time it's another one from my private collection, Jim Henson's "The Dark Crystal". It's the story of the love-hate relationship between a flock of vultures and a band of Gyuto monks.
Or not.
It's not a bad movie. It's a very superficial eye-candyish movie, but it's pretty good, especially if you don't mind that it's mostly battle scenes with giant bugs spaced out by watching Brian Froud doodles prance around. I'm actually OK with that, because I think Brian Froud doodles are cool to look at. But at the same time I have to acknowledge that while the movie is only about 90 minutes long, it only has about 40 minutes of story.
Or there might be two hours of story there, but most of it got cut to make room for Brian Froud doodles.
Also, if you ever simultaneously want a textbook example of the "Magical Negro" effect and proof that it can be applied to women as a group, just sit back and watch Kira. I mean, honestly. She talks to animals, she knows everything except the prophecy itself, and the wings... The wings put it right over the top. Seriously, watch it with this idea in mind, and tell me the wings don't just make you laugh when they're piled on top of everything else. Jen doesn't do anything except play his flute once to find the shard, annoy a Skeksis enough to earn an ass-whooping, shout Kira's name at a key point, and then finally put the shard back in the crystal -- and that's after he drops the shard like an idiot and Kira has to go and get it for him. Oh, and he whines a lot.
Really, it's downright ludicrous. Kira is this insane-level ubermunchkin who takes Jen everywhere and does everything, but somehow he's the hero of destiny and she's the supporting cast.
Oh, and I know this is wrong, but I cheered when the Skeksis tossed Fizzgig into the crystal pit. Blasphemous, I know, but I hate Fizzgig. OK, so you crossbreed a Pomeranian with a tribble and make sure it has absolutely no useful qualities whatsoever.
So, in other words, don't think about the movie too hard. Just get some popcorn, enjoy the fairy tale, enjoy the Brian Froud visuals, and as long as you don't expect anything deep, it's a fun, pretty, bubble-gummy 90 minutes.
Or not.
It's not a bad movie. It's a very superficial eye-candyish movie, but it's pretty good, especially if you don't mind that it's mostly battle scenes with giant bugs spaced out by watching Brian Froud doodles prance around. I'm actually OK with that, because I think Brian Froud doodles are cool to look at. But at the same time I have to acknowledge that while the movie is only about 90 minutes long, it only has about 40 minutes of story.
Or there might be two hours of story there, but most of it got cut to make room for Brian Froud doodles.
Also, if you ever simultaneously want a textbook example of the "Magical Negro" effect and proof that it can be applied to women as a group, just sit back and watch Kira. I mean, honestly. She talks to animals, she knows everything except the prophecy itself, and the wings... The wings put it right over the top. Seriously, watch it with this idea in mind, and tell me the wings don't just make you laugh when they're piled on top of everything else. Jen doesn't do anything except play his flute once to find the shard, annoy a Skeksis enough to earn an ass-whooping, shout Kira's name at a key point, and then finally put the shard back in the crystal -- and that's after he drops the shard like an idiot and Kira has to go and get it for him. Oh, and he whines a lot.
Really, it's downright ludicrous. Kira is this insane-level ubermunchkin who takes Jen everywhere and does everything, but somehow he's the hero of destiny and she's the supporting cast.
Oh, and I know this is wrong, but I cheered when the Skeksis tossed Fizzgig into the crystal pit. Blasphemous, I know, but I hate Fizzgig. OK, so you crossbreed a Pomeranian with a tribble and make sure it has absolutely no useful qualities whatsoever.
So, in other words, don't think about the movie too hard. Just get some popcorn, enjoy the fairy tale, enjoy the Brian Froud visuals, and as long as you don't expect anything deep, it's a fun, pretty, bubble-gummy 90 minutes.
Sunday, March 8, 2009
Movie: Million Dollar Baby (Spoilers)
This week's Netflix offering in Million Dollar Baby, one of Clint Eastwood's recent creative endeavors. This one is from 2004, and uses a reluctant trainer and female boxer as the set-up.
I want to like this movie. I want to love this movie. It's 90% great. There's pathos and emotion and psychology and deep issues. Clint Eastwood is absolutely the master of unstated backstory. There's even a side of Morgan Freeman.
But, there are also some flaws in this movie, and one of them is an absolutely show stopper for me: Maggie's trailer trash, welfare-cheating family. Oh, and let's throw in "fat" as major character flaw. Seriously, the first time Maggie talks about her family's problems, the list is that her brother is in jail, her sister cheats welfare by claiming one of her kids isn't dead, and her mother is 312 lbs. You can see where these are on par.
I was OK until we actually met them, though, and then it really goes over the top. You've got a mother complaining that her daughter bought her a house because what'll it do to her welfare payments and medicare and why couldn't she have just given Mom the money directly where it would be easier to hide from the government. I won't deny that there are some people like that who do exist, but they are such an extreme minority of the actual poor and such an extreme majority of media portrayals of the poor. This to me is a bit like watching what would be a really great classic movie, except at key points there's a terribly offensive blackface minstral show character who cannot be ignored or written off.
Then, just to really put it into "people like this don't exist at all"* territory, Mom tells the world-famous daughter who is bringing in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars that everyone is laughing at her and she needs to just find a man and live like normal people.
(* I put the little star there because I can't rule out that there are people that trailor trash who would rather see their daughter living in poverty with a miscellaneous man than being rich, famous [and generous to said people] via professional sports. But, I have no evidence that they exist.)
That, however, is my peeve. It may not bug others so much. Something you will have to suspend your disbelief for, though, is the over-protective boxing trainer. I would actually have no problem if he was only over-protective of the only female fighter he has ever trained who happens to be the age of his extremely estranged daughter. But no, he's overprotective of all of his fighters. Um, boxing trainer? Hello? "I'm going to teach you to beat people's brains out for sport, but I don't want anyone getting hurt." Does not work. It can be looked past, but it's not easy.
Finally, this is not so much a movie-killing flaw, as just a slight lament that wouldn't turn me off the movie at all on its own. The ending takes the easy way out. In doing so, it is feeding another unfortunate stereotype, one that was at least partially disproven by a well known public figure. (I'm trying to dance around the spoiler, here.)
And did anyone else groan when you realized that we have to go to Father Asshat for spiritual guidance?
So, here's what I think: between the climatic turning-point event and the ending, the movie is wonderful. (Except for the white trash family's appearance.) Takes much longer than really needed to get to the climatic turning event. So, we shorten the lead-up, put the climatic turning point event earlier, and that gives us time to do the hard ending instead of the easy one. It's going to be hard not to be smarmy with the hard ending, but there are real life people that can be used as a basis for realism. Oh, and we rework White Trash Family. I suggest Middle Class Asshats Whose Middle Child Can Never Do Right No Matter What She Does Right, myself, but I'm open to other suggestions. That would be a 10 on my movie scale.
So, what we actually got, would I recommend it? Yes, I absolutely would with the "White Trash Minstral Show" caveat. It's much easier to point out the few things that are wrong rather than the many many things that are right. Great psychological story, great subtext. It's got flaws, but it is a very good movie overall.
I want to like this movie. I want to love this movie. It's 90% great. There's pathos and emotion and psychology and deep issues. Clint Eastwood is absolutely the master of unstated backstory. There's even a side of Morgan Freeman.
But, there are also some flaws in this movie, and one of them is an absolutely show stopper for me: Maggie's trailer trash, welfare-cheating family. Oh, and let's throw in "fat" as major character flaw. Seriously, the first time Maggie talks about her family's problems, the list is that her brother is in jail, her sister cheats welfare by claiming one of her kids isn't dead, and her mother is 312 lbs. You can see where these are on par.
I was OK until we actually met them, though, and then it really goes over the top. You've got a mother complaining that her daughter bought her a house because what'll it do to her welfare payments and medicare and why couldn't she have just given Mom the money directly where it would be easier to hide from the government. I won't deny that there are some people like that who do exist, but they are such an extreme minority of the actual poor and such an extreme majority of media portrayals of the poor. This to me is a bit like watching what would be a really great classic movie, except at key points there's a terribly offensive blackface minstral show character who cannot be ignored or written off.
Then, just to really put it into "people like this don't exist at all"* territory, Mom tells the world-famous daughter who is bringing in hundreds of thousands or maybe even millions of dollars that everyone is laughing at her and she needs to just find a man and live like normal people.
(* I put the little star there because I can't rule out that there are people that trailor trash who would rather see their daughter living in poverty with a miscellaneous man than being rich, famous [and generous to said people] via professional sports. But, I have no evidence that they exist.)
That, however, is my peeve. It may not bug others so much. Something you will have to suspend your disbelief for, though, is the over-protective boxing trainer. I would actually have no problem if he was only over-protective of the only female fighter he has ever trained who happens to be the age of his extremely estranged daughter. But no, he's overprotective of all of his fighters. Um, boxing trainer? Hello? "I'm going to teach you to beat people's brains out for sport, but I don't want anyone getting hurt." Does not work. It can be looked past, but it's not easy.
Finally, this is not so much a movie-killing flaw, as just a slight lament that wouldn't turn me off the movie at all on its own. The ending takes the easy way out. In doing so, it is feeding another unfortunate stereotype, one that was at least partially disproven by a well known public figure. (I'm trying to dance around the spoiler, here.)
And did anyone else groan when you realized that we have to go to Father Asshat for spiritual guidance?
So, here's what I think: between the climatic turning-point event and the ending, the movie is wonderful. (Except for the white trash family's appearance.) Takes much longer than really needed to get to the climatic turning event. So, we shorten the lead-up, put the climatic turning point event earlier, and that gives us time to do the hard ending instead of the easy one. It's going to be hard not to be smarmy with the hard ending, but there are real life people that can be used as a basis for realism. Oh, and we rework White Trash Family. I suggest Middle Class Asshats Whose Middle Child Can Never Do Right No Matter What She Does Right, myself, but I'm open to other suggestions. That would be a 10 on my movie scale.
So, what we actually got, would I recommend it? Yes, I absolutely would with the "White Trash Minstral Show" caveat. It's much easier to point out the few things that are wrong rather than the many many things that are right. Great psychological story, great subtext. It's got flaws, but it is a very good movie overall.
Saturday, February 28, 2009
Movie: Taxi Driver (Spoilers)
For those keeping score at home, yes, this means I went out to see a movie, came home, and watched another movie. This makes for a very good Saturday in my book.
So, the second was the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver", which caught my attention solely for having one of the most quoted and parodied lines from cinema: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? There's no one else here, so you must be talkin' to me." Which is not actually a word-for-word, but is how it's usually parodied.
So, the movie itself. It is two hours of watching the effects of sleep deprivation on a mentally unstable ex-Marine turned Taxi Driver. As one (positive) reviewer put it, mental illness is actually pretty boring most of the time. This is all leading up to the trippiest gun fight evah. Turns out you can put any number of large caliber bullet holes in someone and it won't really affect them. Blood's spurting everywhere, but other than the slight annoyance, they just don't notice. Gut shot, right through the neck, put a few in the face, it doesn't even matter. Blow three fingers off some guy's hand, it just pisses him off.
And the ending is such complete bullshit that I actually think that just about everything in the movie happened solely in the main character's head. You do not kill three people in cold blood and not go to jail. No, I personally think that this 12-year-old popped into his cab for 3 seconds one night, and everything else is just a warped little fantasy around it which he wrote in his diary, just like the letter to his parents claiming he's doing super secret work for the government.
Can't recommend this one.
So, the second was the 1976 movie "Taxi Driver", which caught my attention solely for having one of the most quoted and parodied lines from cinema: "You talkin' to me? You talkin' to me? There's no one else here, so you must be talkin' to me." Which is not actually a word-for-word, but is how it's usually parodied.
So, the movie itself. It is two hours of watching the effects of sleep deprivation on a mentally unstable ex-Marine turned Taxi Driver. As one (positive) reviewer put it, mental illness is actually pretty boring most of the time. This is all leading up to the trippiest gun fight evah. Turns out you can put any number of large caliber bullet holes in someone and it won't really affect them. Blood's spurting everywhere, but other than the slight annoyance, they just don't notice. Gut shot, right through the neck, put a few in the face, it doesn't even matter. Blow three fingers off some guy's hand, it just pisses him off.
And the ending is such complete bullshit that I actually think that just about everything in the movie happened solely in the main character's head. You do not kill three people in cold blood and not go to jail. No, I personally think that this 12-year-old popped into his cab for 3 seconds one night, and everything else is just a warped little fantasy around it which he wrote in his diary, just like the letter to his parents claiming he's doing super secret work for the government.
Can't recommend this one.
Movie: Gran Torino
I treated myself to a cinema trip today. I wanted to see Milk, but unfortunately the only place in my painfully stick-up-the-arse city that's showing it is only doing late shows, later than I cared to go. I'll probably have to catch that one when it comes to DVD. However, several people have recommended Gran Torino, so I decided to give it a go instead.
I'll try to avoid spoilers, since it is still in theaters.
It's not bad. I could become a late Eastwood fan. He hasn't knocked my socks off yet, but it's been a good two hours when I go to see one of his flicks. Now, this one in particular, you've seen this movie. Even if you haven't seen Gran Torino, you've seen this movie. Crotchety old racist makes friends with teen of the race he hates. Let's not even pretend it's a new or innovative story.
That said, this is a pretty good rendition of it. I especially like the particular brand of badass that makes up the climax.
I gotta ask, though. Is that Clint Eastwood's real voice, or was he trying way too hard? Because Walt Kowalsky sounds like Jack Palance trying to do Christian Bale's "Batman" voice. And could he maybe not sing? Please? Because... just don't.
(I went to find a semi-recent Eastwood interview. No, that's not his real voice. He's trying way too hard. And I think he might have been wearing "old" makeup, too. Which just becomes funny. Clint, you don't have to pretend to be old. You're 79; you are old! Very well preserved, though; I will give you that.]
I also personally like that you know how this old guy's kids don't have anything to do with him unless they want something and his grandkids hardly talk to him unless they're asking for stuff when he dies and he's all alone and blah blah? Yeah, that's at least as much his fault as anyone else's. I think it does a good job of showing it realistically without vilifying either side excessively.
Summary: Good movie. Worth the price of admission. But not terribly innovative.
I'll try to avoid spoilers, since it is still in theaters.
It's not bad. I could become a late Eastwood fan. He hasn't knocked my socks off yet, but it's been a good two hours when I go to see one of his flicks. Now, this one in particular, you've seen this movie. Even if you haven't seen Gran Torino, you've seen this movie. Crotchety old racist makes friends with teen of the race he hates. Let's not even pretend it's a new or innovative story.
That said, this is a pretty good rendition of it. I especially like the particular brand of badass that makes up the climax.
I gotta ask, though. Is that Clint Eastwood's real voice, or was he trying way too hard? Because Walt Kowalsky sounds like Jack Palance trying to do Christian Bale's "Batman" voice. And could he maybe not sing? Please? Because... just don't.
(I went to find a semi-recent Eastwood interview. No, that's not his real voice. He's trying way too hard. And I think he might have been wearing "old" makeup, too. Which just becomes funny. Clint, you don't have to pretend to be old. You're 79; you are old! Very well preserved, though; I will give you that.]
I also personally like that you know how this old guy's kids don't have anything to do with him unless they want something and his grandkids hardly talk to him unless they're asking for stuff when he dies and he's all alone and blah blah? Yeah, that's at least as much his fault as anyone else's. I think it does a good job of showing it realistically without vilifying either side excessively.
Summary: Good movie. Worth the price of admission. But not terribly innovative.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Movie: Night of the Hunter (spoilers)
I am very behind of my movie reviews. I may backfill some in a little while.
For now, though, this weeks' Netflix offering was the 1955 "Night of the Hunter".
This is a movie that seriously deserves to be remade. Any movie that has Lillian Gish kick someone's ass is worth watching. Even more so if it practically starts with a crazy guy saying to God "I know You don't mind the killin', Lord. Your book's full of killin'." But it was very much showing the time during which it was made.
For one, it could stand to have the story-telling method updated a bit. For example, there are sequences of scene after scene after scene where each scene consists of 2 or 3 lines of dialog and then it goes to the next scene. Let's fix that.
And maybe we could take out the "idiot" points. If you're going to hide a murder victim in a body of water, may I suggest you not chose the clearest body of water in 3 states? The one where you can see 50 feet straight down as though it were right in front of your face?
And if you happen to look into the clearest body of water in 3 states and see a murder victim just sitting there, go to the police. Just go.
(And to really add insult to injury, neither of these dumbs was necessary to the movie. They cancel out. You can completely take them out and not affect the movie one little bit.)
Oh, and let's not even pretend that the money's hiding place is a surprise to anyone, so just be honest about it up front. Honestly, the attempt at hiding it just mucks up a plot point.
Finally, I'd love to see this done with some child actors who can actually act. You know, since they have 80% of the camera time and all.
Despite that:
The character of Harry Powell is wonderful. I would love to see him played by a good actor, rather than just pointing the camera at Robert Mitchum and letting the melodrama spill out. I'm thinking do him as a more realistic sociopath/classic abuser. Start very charming, then kind of ramp up the abuse headfucking. And maybe we could suck the misogyny out of the rest of the movie and pile it all on him, because it really fits well there.
And maybe we could show the Harper's marriage as being abuse as well. It'd make Willow falling into Powell's trap more believable, I think. She's already primed to be beat down by someone and think it's her fault.
And the "bad religious person" versus "good religious person" thing at the end? Great job. I would file some of the rough edges off Ms. Cooper. Not make her saccharine, mind; there just seems to be a disconnect where she's very harsh sometimes, and utterly loving sometimes. Just keep the character a bit more consistent, or flesh out the seeming contradictions more (because people do have internal contradictions and faces they put on).
The original book may do it better, having more time to flesh things out. I don't know, although I am tempted to find a copy.
So, final conclusion. Good movie. Worth a watch. But, could benefit from the some technical updating.
For now, though, this weeks' Netflix offering was the 1955 "Night of the Hunter".
This is a movie that seriously deserves to be remade. Any movie that has Lillian Gish kick someone's ass is worth watching. Even more so if it practically starts with a crazy guy saying to God "I know You don't mind the killin', Lord. Your book's full of killin'." But it was very much showing the time during which it was made.
For one, it could stand to have the story-telling method updated a bit. For example, there are sequences of scene after scene after scene where each scene consists of 2 or 3 lines of dialog and then it goes to the next scene. Let's fix that.
And maybe we could take out the "idiot" points. If you're going to hide a murder victim in a body of water, may I suggest you not chose the clearest body of water in 3 states? The one where you can see 50 feet straight down as though it were right in front of your face?
And if you happen to look into the clearest body of water in 3 states and see a murder victim just sitting there, go to the police. Just go.
(And to really add insult to injury, neither of these dumbs was necessary to the movie. They cancel out. You can completely take them out and not affect the movie one little bit.)
Oh, and let's not even pretend that the money's hiding place is a surprise to anyone, so just be honest about it up front. Honestly, the attempt at hiding it just mucks up a plot point.
Finally, I'd love to see this done with some child actors who can actually act. You know, since they have 80% of the camera time and all.
Despite that:
The character of Harry Powell is wonderful. I would love to see him played by a good actor, rather than just pointing the camera at Robert Mitchum and letting the melodrama spill out. I'm thinking do him as a more realistic sociopath/classic abuser. Start very charming, then kind of ramp up the abuse headfucking. And maybe we could suck the misogyny out of the rest of the movie and pile it all on him, because it really fits well there.
And maybe we could show the Harper's marriage as being abuse as well. It'd make Willow falling into Powell's trap more believable, I think. She's already primed to be beat down by someone and think it's her fault.
And the "bad religious person" versus "good religious person" thing at the end? Great job. I would file some of the rough edges off Ms. Cooper. Not make her saccharine, mind; there just seems to be a disconnect where she's very harsh sometimes, and utterly loving sometimes. Just keep the character a bit more consistent, or flesh out the seeming contradictions more (because people do have internal contradictions and faces they put on).
The original book may do it better, having more time to flesh things out. I don't know, although I am tempted to find a copy.
So, final conclusion. Good movie. Worth a watch. But, could benefit from the some technical updating.
Saturday, January 3, 2009
Movie: The Man Who Knew Too Much (spoilers)
This was the original 1934 The Man Who Knew Too Much with Leslie Banks, not the remake with Jimmy Stewart -- which just seems wrong. You know, Jimmy Stewart as Average Dad turned super spy. I just... can't.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
But that's not the one I watched. I watched the one from 1934, when they had kinder, gentler spy movies. For instance, gun fights are terribly messy business, so let's fight with chairs instead. Lots and lots of breakaway chairs. And our master spy (an unusually adorable Peter Lorre), when leaving the hero-turned-hostage under the watch of an underling, ominously orders "If he tries anything, shoot him -- in the leg." Because, you know, they wouldn't want to kill the hero. And of course, when you want to make sure a woman doesn't leave, the bad guys brutally shorten her skirt.
Seriously, that one was just a wonderful little culture shock. This woman comes in with her skirt hem at her knees, Peter is laughing his ass off, and I'm sitting there going "What? What's going on? What am I missing? Oh, it's 1934!"
The other fun little historical bit is that back then, evil spies were always automatically German. Russia hadn't figured out this spy thing yet. Always German. This really threw Fritz Lang for a loop when he made his movie Spies, because he was German. There he was, needed evil German spies, but his heroes had to be German. He ended up making his master spy more of a crimelord. (And a banker, so he may have been implying Jewish. After all, it was Germany in 1928.)
OK, I don't really know why Fritz did that.
(So, during the Cold War, did the Russians have spy movies with evil American villains. They had to, didn't they? Know where I can find one subtitled? That'd be awesome to watch! I bet it'd be flippin' hilarious.)
Anyway, back to the movie. I can't really suggest it. Talkies were still having the bugs worked out, and Hitchcock was still figuring out that directing thing. It's also very much an Idiot Movie. I mean, even looking past the basic fact that these expert professional spies are getting their ass kicked by Average Dad and Helpless Mom, the villains can't see anything like hostages just walking out behind them, they can't hear anything like hostages breaking through doors, they aren't smart enough to go "cops are shooting at us through the window. Maybe we shouldn't stand next to it." It's... just not good. And just to add insult to injury, the quality of cut that Netflix has is simply awful. Not visible attempt at restoration or preservation at all.
Spies are very good babysitters, though. I heartily suggest calling a few spies next time you want to catch dinner and a movie without the kids in tow.
Personally, I'm just here for Peter Lorre. Young, chubby, moon-faced, fresh off the boat, doesn't even speak English yet, Peter Lorre. With a piebald streak, for no readily apparent reason. Seriously, this was Lorre's first English film and he learned his role phonetically because he didn't really know much English. And yet he still acted circles around Leslie Banks. He was a really good master spy. Totally stole the show, such as it was. It's almost worth watching it for Master Spy Peter Lorre. But not quite.
And I think that's just my thing.
In the end analysis, if you're not a Lorre fan and you're not a diehard Hitchcock fan, there's not a lot of point to seeing it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
