Please wake me up in about two years, so that The Hunger Games movie has come out and the fandom has had enough time to make their way through all the usual complaints a fandom undergoes when their beloved source material is changed on its way to the screen and I can talk with people again about the actual content of the story as opposed to whether or not every single person cast looks right for the role. And by looks right, not, I don't mean is made to look right via training and make-up and costume. I mean bitching about how a young actress actually has meat on her bones and is thus an inappropriate choice despite what the author and director say.
Despite being a bit above the target age range for Suzanne Collins' The Hunger Games trilogy, about a month and a half ago I decided to give it a spur of the moment read and I admit I was instantly addicted. It's an engrossing story with what I think are generally interesting characters and pretty decent writing. I will happily discuss whether the love triangle is annoyingly overplayed in Catching Fire, whether Katniss' behaviour in Mockingjay is either due to proper characterization or author laziness, and whether the ending is sufficient or not.
What I cannot stand, however, are the same debates I participated in, intensely, mind you, once upon a time when I was a thirteen-year-old crazed and newly indoctrinated Harry Potter fan. Was I pissed that Daniel Radcliffe had blue eyes and not green and found it silly he wasn't wearing contacts to fix that? You bet. When I was older and I realized that a) such an obsession was stupid, b) that it really didn't matter that much, and c) that Daniel Radcliffe was unable to wear the contacts because of irritation, I got over it. I think most fans did eventually because we realized what a stupid little debate it was. Harry's blazing green eyes, like his mother's, are a huge deal in the books. In the movies, they're less so. They're still a deal - Lupin remarks on them particularly in the third film and I imagine they'll play their related role in the final film - but the films adjust for the problems faced.
These sorts of issues, as The Hunger Games movie inches slowly towards filming and, eventually, completion, are floating around the fandom in abundance. People are bitching about everything, and while Willow Shields' unibrow was a big hot topic, the biggest hot topic of all is the casting of Jennifer Lawrence as the beloved lead character of Katniss Everdeen. Now, I think Jennifer Lawrence is a great actress and I can completely see her personifying what I think is a strong female protagonist in Katniss. She probably doesn't look anything like I originally imagined Katniss to look like, but I can see it in her, just like I started to see Peeta in Josh Hutcherson, who also looks differently than one might have imagined Peeta (and don't get me started on the fans who are still obsessed with picking naturally blonde actors who are rather stringy in my opinion). Some people, however, are far too obsessed with the appearance, particularly parts of Jennifer Lawrence's appearance that are harder to fix than her hair color - and I'm not talking about the debate raging over Katniss' skin color, I'm talking about her weight.
The objections to Jennifer Lawrence's curves, to put it bluntly, piss me the fuck off. It rings in my ears of all the horrendous standards that we hold women up to and the ways in which women are still objectified so much in film as having to be whatever image we deem correct and if it doesn't fit with our mold, then it is wrong. I know that when most people comment on Jennifer Lawrence's curves, they don't mean that actresses can't be curvy. Of course not, we have Queen Latifah, known for her bodacious body. But this is really not the norm. We have such bizarre and unrealistic and every-changing standards for women and we never seem to be able to do it right. As Jennifer Hudson has lost weight, many of her fans have been rather shocked and disappointed that she felt the need to lose weight, while simultaneously people are constantly wondering if Gabourey Sidibe should lose some weight because she might be dangerously unhealthy. Don't get me wrong, I do think obesity is a problem in this country and not one we should glorify. But neither should we glorify appearances that are unattainable or at the very least extremely difficult for normal women to attain. While we encourage girls to embrace their curves, we continue to bash women whose weight changes regularly, like Kelly Clarkson. When Lady Gaga puts on a few pounds, suddenly her stomach becomes a huge national problem - Why isn't she as skinny as she was in the Telephone music video!?!?!? we wonder, because it's wrong for these women who are supposed to be visually perfect to ruin our images of them by being human. Weight fluctuation is hardly unheard of amongst the normal folk and beneath the personal trainers and strict diets, celebrities are normal folk too.
That said, then, shouldn't we choose actors who can physically embody the very specific framework we have in mind for a character? Dumb, dumb, dumb. I get it, Katniss' character is very specifically one who has suffered from malnourishment her entire life. But even if we get a sickly stick of an actress who could potentially perform the role of Katniss brilliantly, there's still a difference between a healthy, skinny body and a malnourished, skinny body. And let's face it, we're not going to cast someone that is literally malnourished - that is, unless Christian Bale was in the role and he would just make that choice on his own probably and the fans would hail him for it, but would it be right? Everyone also worries when Christian Bale does such a thing, and we'd worry for whatever actress that played Katniss that would do it too. But, BUT, beneath that worry, don't even lie to yourself, you'd be proud of that actor for taking such a dramatic step. You'd be impressed and pleased that the actor would be willing to take such a risk for the sake of art. I'm not going to lie, I'd probably be impressed too. But while being impressed, I'd also be disgusted.
There is a poster that hangs in the health services office in my college. It shows two pictures of legs. One is a starving child. One is a runway model. Their legs, despite one pair being cleaner than the other, are indistinguishably similar in shape. That horrifies me, which is the point of the poster. If you are naturally skinny, there's nothing you can help about that. Same with if you're curvy. But there is still, always, a difference between what is natural and healthy and what is unnatural and unhealthy. You can suffer from either no matter what shape or size you are.
We need to stop boxing women into categories based on their size though. Daniel Radcliffe has grown up to be a lot stockier than I imagined Harry in the books to be - Harry always seemed so stretched and, at times, lanky. Daniel Radcliffe is of more average height and weight in appearance. But he has also grown into becoming a better actor and a better Harry over the years. Movie!Harry and Book!Harry are different in their appearance and y'know what? That's okay, because Daniel Radcliffe still manages to capture the general essence of what the character of Harry Potter is, at least in the movies. A smaller debate has raged in the Potter fandom community over the looks of its female characters. In the books, Ginny is supposed to be very popular and supposedly pretty good-looking, but Bonnie Wright's beauty doesn't seem to be particularly played up in the movies making her a bit more plain. Alternatively, in the books, Hermione is generally pretty average looking from the perspective and her hair frizzy, but by the third movie, Emma Watson was clearly turning into a pretty young woman and her hair was no longer made to look quite so frizzy. I have long contended, particularly in Hermione's case, that these are just examples of how different the book and movie versions of the characters are. And THAT'S OKAY.
Why is that okay? First of all, when it comes to movie adaptations of books, I tend to believe that the best adaptations are more interpretations. Good adaptations should be done by fans of the original source material, but intelligent fans who have enough distance from the source material to be able to know what the story is about without obsessing too much on details that may be less important. My favorite example of an adaptation is Lord of the Rings. I love the books and the movies, but though they capture a similar plotline and a similar essence, they are truly different stories, but they are both grand and know what story they want to tell. My main problem with, say, the Harry Potter movie adaptations is that they're a bit scatter-brained, not just because of the different directors, but also because most of the earlier films didn't give strong enough hints of what this story was supposed to be about. I have no expectation that The Hunger Games movie will be just like the book, and I really hope it isn't. I want to watch something that takes the plot and the morals and the characters and shape them ever so slightly different to fit the very different medium that film is from novels. I want the actors to be good and the script to be strong and the effects to be well-done and all the elements of filmmaking to be well-executed, and if it isn't the same as the book, so long as it's well-made, I am totally okay with that.
Secondly, reality is not so easy to manipulate as the written world of a book and whatever live-action movies are, they are capturing something that was physically there, in reality, at some point (not counting CGI). Reality can be manipulated, but in a different way, for different reasons.
Finally, I want to break out of the boxes we have created for women. Katniss can still be Katniss even if her ribs aren't frighteningly protruding. I cannot accept the fact that women have to be defined by their appearance, that Katniss can only be a skinny girl, for instance. Stanley Tucci is a pretty fit individual, small and seemingly average in his weight and yet isn't Caesar Flickerman supposed to be rather rotund? I have not heard a single person complain that his stomach isn't the right size for the role. You may argue that that isn't the same, it doesn't define Caesar like it does Katniss, but Katniss is defined by much, MUCH more than her weight. If all Katniss was was a malnourished girl, she wouldn't be the strong character I believe her to be. Women's appearances are a part of who we are, certainly, but there is so much more that goes into defining ourselves, just like men, that I really wish we could stop placing more value on a woman's appearance than her other features. "The Girl Next Door" is more of a look than a personality type. "The Blonde Bombshell." "The Femme Fatale." These types and the many others women exemplify are so defined by appearance in our minds rather than attitude, and most of the categories really are about the attitude.
So, in conclusion, either the entire world needs to change or I really need to learn how to bite my tongue. Well, I've already got a scar from biting through my tongue a lot as a kid, I might as well keep up the hard work.
Showing posts with label people who suck. Show all posts
Showing posts with label people who suck. Show all posts
Monday, May 16, 2011
Wednesday, September 29, 2010
Glee: The Rachel Problem & More
Been a little busy with the kick-off of the semester, but I'm going to try for a minor new blog post.
So. Glee.
Sometimes cute. Often talented. And also quite often a piece of gooey, unkempt, poorly-defined messes.
I like Glee for some reasons, I really do. The cast is talented, there have been some stronger episodes (particularly toward the beginning of the first season), the musical numbers are usually quite entertaining, and lately when the show just gives in to its messes (i.e. Power of Madonna and last night's Brittany/Britney) it is quite enjoyable in that format. I mentioned earlier to a friend that if Glee just devolved into incoherent musical numbers (which, to an extent, it already does) I'd still watch it and truly enjoy it for the variety/cabaret like quality it could be and is best at.
There are also many problems with Glee. The writing is often weak, continuity is crap, the "realism" is pathetic, and the treatment of minorities often stumbles off the fine-line between embracing and exposing stereotypes, not to mention giving heavy-handed speeches hand-in-hand with satirical nonsense. It's these weaknesses that make me think Glee could be just as successful and twice as entertaining if it abandoned plot all together and just played with its cast of characters as is and ran it like the best, most epic variety show/cabaret. I've always wanted cabarets to make a comeback though...
Amongst my many issues with Glee, I'd probably say the biggest one right now has a name: Rachel.
Sure, many of the characters are mishandled, underused, overused, given too much credit for their lack of abilities (I'm looking at Finn's singing AND dancing), etc.... but Rachel really takes the cake for me.
The thing is, Lea Michele is undeniably talented. She's got a great voice. I'm not sure if it's my favorite voice, but it's definitely good. Clearly, it makes sense that Rachel is often the lead. She's assertive and talented. The problem? She's an unrestrained diva who never learns from her many mistakes. Rachel is not only annoying, she is often insufferable. All together, these two episodes in the second season, I think I may have liked her for all of about ten seconds, in the latest episode, when she tells Finn that she'll stop being controlling since she's discovered her own empowerment. AWESOME. GREAT. ...and then, she goes back to her crazy, dramatic ultimatums. And I think to myself, WHO DOES THIS? What kind of crazy pills is this girl on?
Rachel has no redeeming qualities. Her personality is horrible. She is controlling, obnoxious, rude, self-centered, and displays somewhat sociopath-like behavior (her "I'm doing this because I love you" shtick in the season opener, much?). Rachel also has an obsessive personality, which means when she gets on about something, she harps on about it incessantly, because she's also a loud-mouth. Sure, she "owns up" to her mistakes, sometimes, but then she goes and does another horrible thing next week. And whoops, again, and then another thing, and then she's got a clean-slate again. Seriously, I used to wonder what Rachel saw in Finn, but what the hell does Finn see in Rachel? She's pretty and talented, and that's about it.
And the show exploits this. The show is convinced that Rachel is our hero, that Rachel really does mean well, and that Rachel is worth loving despite her flaws... because why? Because she sings really, really well, and here, let's demonstrate by having her sing a big, dramatic number at the end of the episode (the modus operendi for this season thus far, and used a bit last season as well - Episodes 2, 17, and 18). We're led to believe that Rachel is redeemed because she sings a heartfelt song, but she still resorted to crazy-ass, selfish means to keep Sunshine out of the club, and she still gave Finn a crazy-ass, selfish ultimatum. I don't see how being talented makes up for being a shitty person.
Rachel is the center of Glee's problems for me, because Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing her as someone that she really does not come off as: a victim. In the first season, somewhat, when Finn was actively ditching her, I could see it, but now she's only a victim of her own behavior. Likewise, Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing its show as a well put-together, honest, real show, when it's really just a fun hot mess. The problem is that Glee has got an epic fanbase, a great appeal, lots of merchandising, and the ratings to keep going for years.
It reminds me of the second season of Heroes, however. I knew Heroes wasn't the strongest show, but I was in love with it anyways, in love with its possibilities and its conceits. Heroes too was a huge hit when it started, if anyone can remember that a few years back. But Heroes too lost itself in numerous characters, bad writing, weird plotting, and stock in unchanging characters (including, also, an unlikable heroine with Claire). Heroes fell off ratings-wise, however, killed by the writer's strike. Heroes also didn't have built-in merchandising. It was, however, also hailed for its originality. Heroes brought superheroes to network television, Glee brought the musical. Neither were first, exactly, but they were hailed as successes moreso than others, though. It seems odd, because Heroes and Glee are nothing alike in actual context, but I simply see a lot of similar problems. Glee is so in love with itself, so doting on its fanbase, and so inconsistent, doubting that it could ever go wrong. Maybe Glee will improve; I think it has the possibility, but I doubt it will.
I'll just keep on watching Glee until it's too much of a train wreck to stand anymore (give it another season). It's still enjoyable and has its moments, but I'm not recommending it to anyone anytime soon. I learned my lesson about corrupting my poor friends when Heroes was in a downfall. There I thought it would get better and was wrong. Maybe if I expect Glee to keep on descending in quality, it will actually get sharper.
And so ends my mega-long ramble on Glee. g'night folks. I'm off to watch No Ordinary Family! I also hope that is better than Heroes. >.>
So. Glee.
Sometimes cute. Often talented. And also quite often a piece of gooey, unkempt, poorly-defined messes.
I like Glee for some reasons, I really do. The cast is talented, there have been some stronger episodes (particularly toward the beginning of the first season), the musical numbers are usually quite entertaining, and lately when the show just gives in to its messes (i.e. Power of Madonna and last night's Brittany/Britney) it is quite enjoyable in that format. I mentioned earlier to a friend that if Glee just devolved into incoherent musical numbers (which, to an extent, it already does) I'd still watch it and truly enjoy it for the variety/cabaret like quality it could be and is best at.
There are also many problems with Glee. The writing is often weak, continuity is crap, the "realism" is pathetic, and the treatment of minorities often stumbles off the fine-line between embracing and exposing stereotypes, not to mention giving heavy-handed speeches hand-in-hand with satirical nonsense. It's these weaknesses that make me think Glee could be just as successful and twice as entertaining if it abandoned plot all together and just played with its cast of characters as is and ran it like the best, most epic variety show/cabaret. I've always wanted cabarets to make a comeback though...
Amongst my many issues with Glee, I'd probably say the biggest one right now has a name: Rachel.
Sure, many of the characters are mishandled, underused, overused, given too much credit for their lack of abilities (I'm looking at Finn's singing AND dancing), etc.... but Rachel really takes the cake for me.
The thing is, Lea Michele is undeniably talented. She's got a great voice. I'm not sure if it's my favorite voice, but it's definitely good. Clearly, it makes sense that Rachel is often the lead. She's assertive and talented. The problem? She's an unrestrained diva who never learns from her many mistakes. Rachel is not only annoying, she is often insufferable. All together, these two episodes in the second season, I think I may have liked her for all of about ten seconds, in the latest episode, when she tells Finn that she'll stop being controlling since she's discovered her own empowerment. AWESOME. GREAT. ...and then, she goes back to her crazy, dramatic ultimatums. And I think to myself, WHO DOES THIS? What kind of crazy pills is this girl on?
Rachel has no redeeming qualities. Her personality is horrible. She is controlling, obnoxious, rude, self-centered, and displays somewhat sociopath-like behavior (her "I'm doing this because I love you" shtick in the season opener, much?). Rachel also has an obsessive personality, which means when she gets on about something, she harps on about it incessantly, because she's also a loud-mouth. Sure, she "owns up" to her mistakes, sometimes, but then she goes and does another horrible thing next week. And whoops, again, and then another thing, and then she's got a clean-slate again. Seriously, I used to wonder what Rachel saw in Finn, but what the hell does Finn see in Rachel? She's pretty and talented, and that's about it.
And the show exploits this. The show is convinced that Rachel is our hero, that Rachel really does mean well, and that Rachel is worth loving despite her flaws... because why? Because she sings really, really well, and here, let's demonstrate by having her sing a big, dramatic number at the end of the episode (the modus operendi for this season thus far, and used a bit last season as well - Episodes 2, 17, and 18). We're led to believe that Rachel is redeemed because she sings a heartfelt song, but she still resorted to crazy-ass, selfish means to keep Sunshine out of the club, and she still gave Finn a crazy-ass, selfish ultimatum. I don't see how being talented makes up for being a shitty person.
Rachel is the center of Glee's problems for me, because Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing her as someone that she really does not come off as: a victim. In the first season, somewhat, when Finn was actively ditching her, I could see it, but now she's only a victim of her own behavior. Likewise, Glee has disillusioned itself into seeing its show as a well put-together, honest, real show, when it's really just a fun hot mess. The problem is that Glee has got an epic fanbase, a great appeal, lots of merchandising, and the ratings to keep going for years.
It reminds me of the second season of Heroes, however. I knew Heroes wasn't the strongest show, but I was in love with it anyways, in love with its possibilities and its conceits. Heroes too was a huge hit when it started, if anyone can remember that a few years back. But Heroes too lost itself in numerous characters, bad writing, weird plotting, and stock in unchanging characters (including, also, an unlikable heroine with Claire). Heroes fell off ratings-wise, however, killed by the writer's strike. Heroes also didn't have built-in merchandising. It was, however, also hailed for its originality. Heroes brought superheroes to network television, Glee brought the musical. Neither were first, exactly, but they were hailed as successes moreso than others, though. It seems odd, because Heroes and Glee are nothing alike in actual context, but I simply see a lot of similar problems. Glee is so in love with itself, so doting on its fanbase, and so inconsistent, doubting that it could ever go wrong. Maybe Glee will improve; I think it has the possibility, but I doubt it will.
I'll just keep on watching Glee until it's too much of a train wreck to stand anymore (give it another season). It's still enjoyable and has its moments, but I'm not recommending it to anyone anytime soon. I learned my lesson about corrupting my poor friends when Heroes was in a downfall. There I thought it would get better and was wrong. Maybe if I expect Glee to keep on descending in quality, it will actually get sharper.
And so ends my mega-long ramble on Glee. g'night folks. I'm off to watch No Ordinary Family! I also hope that is better than Heroes. >.>
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
My Thoughts on Eclipse. Let Me Give Them To You.
I have to give credit where credit is due. I may not have wanted to face it, but I admit that The Twilight Saga: Eclipse is probably the most tolerable Twilight movie. There were fewer moments than the earlier installments where I just wanted to scream it was so bad, but there are several reasons for that and there is one in particular, near the end, that stands out.
As much as I can't stand Bella as a character, she does give an interesting speech that I think relates to a lot of fantasy stories, the central idea being that, only in said fantasy world does she really belong. Now, I don't know if that stems from the actual book or if it's a movie only thing because I've never read the book, but it was interesting. I'm not sure if I like it, though, because it is a question that I feel is important to consider in any fantasy landscape.
The Hero's Journey, as written about in a book I recently read on screenwriting entitled The Writer's Journey (by Christopher Vogler), has a step near the end called "The Road Back." Such a grand example could easily be found, say, in The Lord of the Rings where it is a literal road back to the shire. The literal road back leads our four dear hobbits back to their homeland. Whether the book version or the movie version (because The Scouring of the Shire chapter is not in the movie), the shire is (or is eventually) a proper home for three of the four again. Sam, Merry, and Pippin, despite their wild adventures, can find home in this place. Frodo, on the other hand, does not belong in this world anymore. Bilbo, also, in The Hobbit can be said to have gone on the road back to the shire and he lives comfortably there for a long time after his adventures outside of his home.
One reason I think it is very easy for Bella to not go on the road back is because she doesn't really go on a road to the vampire world. To be quite fair, I read an article recently comparing the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises and stating that one obvious advantage Harry Potter has over Twilight is the fantasy world. Comparisons aside, there really isn't a lot of definition over the vampire world. Vampires are described, sure, but there isn't a lot of fantasy involved and Bella isn't really transported into a whole new environment, unlike in Harry Potter where Harry is constantly learning the crazy differences between the muggle and wizarding worlds. But, like I said, this is comparison aside. The world of Twilight is very normal and, honestly, not very interesting. I like my mortality most of the time, however, and unlike Bella, I feel as if I can achieve things in a mortal life, as if I do belong here, even when it's uncomfortable, awkward, or stunted, which it often it.
Even on The Road Back, however, there really is no going back, especially because The Road Back is not the last stop. There is still "Resurrection" and "Return with the Elixir." To be quite honest, Twilight follows this Hero's Journey outline well in the end. Bella clearly goes under a resurrection when she is transformed and boy oh boy, does superstar model and wicked talented vampire!Bella have an elixir. The road back isn't about returning to an old life as much as it is returning to an old home as a new person. There is no spontaneous "Happily Ever After" and then fade to black, because we are always growing beyond the end, which is clear in the last sections of the journey. I think the problem here with Twilight is that it assumes a happily ever after and there is an eternity where neither Bella nor Edward nor the other Cullens will ever grow. It is as Rosalie says in Eclipse, how they are frozen in time.
So while it is easy to say other literary characters such as Bilbo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to their old lives, it is also wrong. They all return to their old homes as completely changed persons/hobbits, leading their old lives into new realms. That is their resurrection (well, if we're ignoring The Scouring of the Shire, which could be cited as the real zone off a resurrection) - upon their return, they resurrect their old lives with new spirits and lessons.
Even in Harry Potter, as much as we may criticize the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows, it does prove interesting to observe what happens after the final battle, what happens after Harry goes back. Not to his old life as a wizard stuck in the muggle world, no, but back to being a generally normal kind of life, but after some very abnormal experiences. We see Harry as a new person, as a father and husband and man changed by his adolescent ordeals. It is important to understand this, even if its execution leaves something to be desired (I mean, Albus Severus? Really? Poor kid, poor poor kid...), because we see Harry resurrected into his future self. This is kind of a double resurrection though, as only a chapter earlier did Harry undergo a semi-literal resurrection after Voldemort supposedly kills him but he doesn't actually die and has that beautiful conversation with Dumbledore in "King's Cross." Oh how I love that chapter. But that resurrection is a figurative one as he comes back not so different than he was beforehand - he still has a battle to fight and he has not really gone on the road back yet; he hasn't finished his job just yet, but he's nearly there.
I think the reason Breaking Dawn split fans was that it presented a shitty conclusion to a mildly interesting premise. Bella gets to live in both the ordinary and fantasy world in the end, which is not right and downright selfish of Stephanie Meyer to grant her protagonist that. She gets to have a child, something to propel her forward, as well as remain in the fantasy world forever. It's gross and one of the many reasons I absolutely hate the introduction of "teethbaby" (aka Reneesme or however it's spelled). The debate between Team Jacob and Team Edward, the debate between life as it should be and life as it is (as Bella phrases it in the movie), is destroyed in the final chapter as totally irrelevant, which is appalling to me.
But Eclipse gets credit as probably the most interesting installment in the franchise. Bella and Edward, though still Mary Sues and lacking personality to the point of painfulness, have grown as a couple and are not totally disgusting when they're together (as a perpetually single girl surrounded by her perpetually dating friends, I know the difference between a sickening couple and a couple who has grown into their affection for each other, which sometimes takes a really long time and sometimes no time at all, but my personal life aside...). While the action is still horrible, the dialogue cheesy, and most of the characters pointless or annoying, there is something appealing in the actual story of Eclipse. I don't like what Bella chooses, and I hate how it turns out thanks to that atrocious author, but I relish the decision that has to be made and the options and the weight of it all. I can respect Bella's choice for one reason: namely the way she phrases it as how life "IS" rather than how life "SHOULD BE." That is such a mature and great phrasing that I can forgive her other nonsense about not fitting into a normal world, which, though understandable, just makes me dislike her more and more because it never feels like she deserves that special world. She never earns her keep, to me, which makes her such a dull character. But that aside, I have to give it to the three leads, their acting was totally watchable and occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, engrossing. Mostly, though, I live for Charlie, because he gets the only good dialogue in any of the movies.
I still can't stand Twilight for the many reasons I have brought up in the past and will bring up in the future, but I respect the movies more than the books. It helps that it would be even stupider to describe on film CONSTANTLY Edward's beauty and perfection. Actually, it's quite tamped down in this installment, which I liked a lot. On some occasions, I could almost even spot a personality. Granted, when he said things like how he'd let Bella go if he chose Jacob, I also felt like he was thinking to himself "...and then I'd kill myself." But I might blame that on the Eclipse 8-bit game of AWESOME where I know there's at least one scenario where Edward dies of a broken heart. Regardless, I feel as if some of the major flaws in the books are fixed in the movies. But the story is still rather crappy, so there's really no fixing that, no matter how many unintentionally interesting premises come into play.
For instance, I wonder to myself if Stephanie Meyer actually caught that Jasper had filled the same shoes as Riley once. I know the film noticed it, but it wasn't particularly direct, though clear to any intelligent moviegoer (which, I think it is safe to say, many Eclipse viewers cannot claim upon their viewing of the film. NOT THAT THEY ARE STUPID PEOPLE, but fangirls will be fangirls and when you are drooling over your fave hunks, you are not paying attention to plot details). I have no faith in Stephanie Meyer's writing abilities though, to be quite honest, and I feel that it may have been an unintentional thing. She MAY have realized it later, but I'll be a wee bit surprised if she had intended such a connection.
All in all, I can say that there were parts of Eclipse I genuinely liked (more than Twilight, where the only elements I liked for real were the vampire baseball and the soundtrack/score... and New Moon, where the only elements I liked were nothing). It was still bad overall, but I can understand the appeal more than ever. But then, that's me. Sexy vampire romance? Eh, not my thing exactly. Topics that raise a question that every fantasy story tackles in one way or another? I'm totally sold. That's what Eclipse has going for it, in my opinion, and that is where Eclipse surpasses the previous two films (not that it's too hard to do that).
I could go on for ages about the "ordinary world" and the "special/fantasy world" and the Hero's Journey and fantasy stories at large, but I'll hold onto that for another time because this post is long enough.
As much as I can't stand Bella as a character, she does give an interesting speech that I think relates to a lot of fantasy stories, the central idea being that, only in said fantasy world does she really belong. Now, I don't know if that stems from the actual book or if it's a movie only thing because I've never read the book, but it was interesting. I'm not sure if I like it, though, because it is a question that I feel is important to consider in any fantasy landscape.
The Hero's Journey, as written about in a book I recently read on screenwriting entitled The Writer's Journey (by Christopher Vogler), has a step near the end called "The Road Back." Such a grand example could easily be found, say, in The Lord of the Rings where it is a literal road back to the shire. The literal road back leads our four dear hobbits back to their homeland. Whether the book version or the movie version (because The Scouring of the Shire chapter is not in the movie), the shire is (or is eventually) a proper home for three of the four again. Sam, Merry, and Pippin, despite their wild adventures, can find home in this place. Frodo, on the other hand, does not belong in this world anymore. Bilbo, also, in The Hobbit can be said to have gone on the road back to the shire and he lives comfortably there for a long time after his adventures outside of his home.
One reason I think it is very easy for Bella to not go on the road back is because she doesn't really go on a road to the vampire world. To be quite fair, I read an article recently comparing the Harry Potter and Twilight franchises and stating that one obvious advantage Harry Potter has over Twilight is the fantasy world. Comparisons aside, there really isn't a lot of definition over the vampire world. Vampires are described, sure, but there isn't a lot of fantasy involved and Bella isn't really transported into a whole new environment, unlike in Harry Potter where Harry is constantly learning the crazy differences between the muggle and wizarding worlds. But, like I said, this is comparison aside. The world of Twilight is very normal and, honestly, not very interesting. I like my mortality most of the time, however, and unlike Bella, I feel as if I can achieve things in a mortal life, as if I do belong here, even when it's uncomfortable, awkward, or stunted, which it often it.
Even on The Road Back, however, there really is no going back, especially because The Road Back is not the last stop. There is still "Resurrection" and "Return with the Elixir." To be quite honest, Twilight follows this Hero's Journey outline well in the end. Bella clearly goes under a resurrection when she is transformed and boy oh boy, does superstar model and wicked talented vampire!Bella have an elixir. The road back isn't about returning to an old life as much as it is returning to an old home as a new person. There is no spontaneous "Happily Ever After" and then fade to black, because we are always growing beyond the end, which is clear in the last sections of the journey. I think the problem here with Twilight is that it assumes a happily ever after and there is an eternity where neither Bella nor Edward nor the other Cullens will ever grow. It is as Rosalie says in Eclipse, how they are frozen in time.
So while it is easy to say other literary characters such as Bilbo, Sam, Merry, and Pippin return to their old lives, it is also wrong. They all return to their old homes as completely changed persons/hobbits, leading their old lives into new realms. That is their resurrection (well, if we're ignoring The Scouring of the Shire, which could be cited as the real zone off a resurrection) - upon their return, they resurrect their old lives with new spirits and lessons.
Even in Harry Potter, as much as we may criticize the Epilogue of Deathly Hallows, it does prove interesting to observe what happens after the final battle, what happens after Harry goes back. Not to his old life as a wizard stuck in the muggle world, no, but back to being a generally normal kind of life, but after some very abnormal experiences. We see Harry as a new person, as a father and husband and man changed by his adolescent ordeals. It is important to understand this, even if its execution leaves something to be desired (I mean, Albus Severus? Really? Poor kid, poor poor kid...), because we see Harry resurrected into his future self. This is kind of a double resurrection though, as only a chapter earlier did Harry undergo a semi-literal resurrection after Voldemort supposedly kills him but he doesn't actually die and has that beautiful conversation with Dumbledore in "King's Cross." Oh how I love that chapter. But that resurrection is a figurative one as he comes back not so different than he was beforehand - he still has a battle to fight and he has not really gone on the road back yet; he hasn't finished his job just yet, but he's nearly there.
I think the reason Breaking Dawn split fans was that it presented a shitty conclusion to a mildly interesting premise. Bella gets to live in both the ordinary and fantasy world in the end, which is not right and downright selfish of Stephanie Meyer to grant her protagonist that. She gets to have a child, something to propel her forward, as well as remain in the fantasy world forever. It's gross and one of the many reasons I absolutely hate the introduction of "teethbaby" (aka Reneesme or however it's spelled). The debate between Team Jacob and Team Edward, the debate between life as it should be and life as it is (as Bella phrases it in the movie), is destroyed in the final chapter as totally irrelevant, which is appalling to me.
But Eclipse gets credit as probably the most interesting installment in the franchise. Bella and Edward, though still Mary Sues and lacking personality to the point of painfulness, have grown as a couple and are not totally disgusting when they're together (as a perpetually single girl surrounded by her perpetually dating friends, I know the difference between a sickening couple and a couple who has grown into their affection for each other, which sometimes takes a really long time and sometimes no time at all, but my personal life aside...). While the action is still horrible, the dialogue cheesy, and most of the characters pointless or annoying, there is something appealing in the actual story of Eclipse. I don't like what Bella chooses, and I hate how it turns out thanks to that atrocious author, but I relish the decision that has to be made and the options and the weight of it all. I can respect Bella's choice for one reason: namely the way she phrases it as how life "IS" rather than how life "SHOULD BE." That is such a mature and great phrasing that I can forgive her other nonsense about not fitting into a normal world, which, though understandable, just makes me dislike her more and more because it never feels like she deserves that special world. She never earns her keep, to me, which makes her such a dull character. But that aside, I have to give it to the three leads, their acting was totally watchable and occasionally, OCCASIONALLY, engrossing. Mostly, though, I live for Charlie, because he gets the only good dialogue in any of the movies.
I still can't stand Twilight for the many reasons I have brought up in the past and will bring up in the future, but I respect the movies more than the books. It helps that it would be even stupider to describe on film CONSTANTLY Edward's beauty and perfection. Actually, it's quite tamped down in this installment, which I liked a lot. On some occasions, I could almost even spot a personality. Granted, when he said things like how he'd let Bella go if he chose Jacob, I also felt like he was thinking to himself "...and then I'd kill myself." But I might blame that on the Eclipse 8-bit game of AWESOME where I know there's at least one scenario where Edward dies of a broken heart. Regardless, I feel as if some of the major flaws in the books are fixed in the movies. But the story is still rather crappy, so there's really no fixing that, no matter how many unintentionally interesting premises come into play.
For instance, I wonder to myself if Stephanie Meyer actually caught that Jasper had filled the same shoes as Riley once. I know the film noticed it, but it wasn't particularly direct, though clear to any intelligent moviegoer (which, I think it is safe to say, many Eclipse viewers cannot claim upon their viewing of the film. NOT THAT THEY ARE STUPID PEOPLE, but fangirls will be fangirls and when you are drooling over your fave hunks, you are not paying attention to plot details). I have no faith in Stephanie Meyer's writing abilities though, to be quite honest, and I feel that it may have been an unintentional thing. She MAY have realized it later, but I'll be a wee bit surprised if she had intended such a connection.
All in all, I can say that there were parts of Eclipse I genuinely liked (more than Twilight, where the only elements I liked for real were the vampire baseball and the soundtrack/score... and New Moon, where the only elements I liked were nothing). It was still bad overall, but I can understand the appeal more than ever. But then, that's me. Sexy vampire romance? Eh, not my thing exactly. Topics that raise a question that every fantasy story tackles in one way or another? I'm totally sold. That's what Eclipse has going for it, in my opinion, and that is where Eclipse surpasses the previous two films (not that it's too hard to do that).
I could go on for ages about the "ordinary world" and the "special/fantasy world" and the Hero's Journey and fantasy stories at large, but I'll hold onto that for another time because this post is long enough.
Saturday, June 19, 2010
Ego: Anton Ego and yours.
When I think about which Pixar movie is my favourite - and believe me, as a clear lover of everything Pixar, I think about this often enough - Ratatouille usually isn't at the top of my list (though it is never at the bottom). But that isn't because I don't love it - I truly do. Ratatouille was a grand experience - my first real foray into appreciating animated "kids" movies as, well, not an adult, but a seventeen-year-old, who might normally think they're too good for an animated movie and fully capable of seeing every movie at that age (three years later, I still get thrown off when I get carded 'cause I'm just so used to seeing everything regardless of rating, something my thirteen-year-old self would be jealous of). I'd seen most of the other Pixar movies, I'd lived through the Disney renaissance, but not like this.
The main thing I take away from Ratatouille is not the beautiful main message of the film, the one whose slogan rings throughout - "anyone can cook" - and translates into a tale of rising above one's circumstances based on talent and drive. The most beautiful and meaningful message any film has given me is also the most grounding of them - Anton Ego's stunning review of his meal at Remy's hands.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."
One reason I admire film critics and all people who love film is how they love finding something new to share with everyone else. It's such a pleasure to ask a friend, "have you seen ___?" and to hear them reply in the negative. Then, you are granted the opportunity to open their eyes to that world.
But it is that same admirable quality that I also can't stand in film critics, people who love films, and oftentimes even in myself. Because, as much as I love film myself, most people do not care nearly as much as people like me and people who dedicate themselves to a life of loving, understanding, and analyzing film.
We all have different opinions. Like everyone else, I fall prey to being upset when someone disagrees with something I feel so strongly about - people who refuse to see Star Wars or people who avoid animated movies because they're "for kids" or people who are too stuck up to appreciate the badassery of Death Race or people who are too bored with film to listen to my recommendations. But all of those people exist and I'd be a fool to hate all of them for those reasons. I love film, but people who only like it or don't like it at all are not any worse or better than me by that mere characteristic.
Ego's speech from Ratatouille, particularly the first few sentences, often give me the swift kick in the rear I think everyone involved in film (other fields too, I'm sure, but the entertainment and art fields in particular fall prey to this most, I feel) really needs. We all need a reminder that our opinions, what we say and what we write and all the time and energy we dedicate to our field isn't the be all and end all. So many people simply do not care about what we have to say or what we do. Saying that one movie sucks or one movie is awesome doesn't really matter at all, because we're all going to make up our own minds, and so many people won't even bother to do as much as they simply don't care enough to see the movie. You might praise some obscure title non-stop, but that won't it an instant classic. You might get a few more viewers, but there's no guarantee, no matter how influential your position is. Even Oprah doesn't reach everyone.
Our dedication and love for our craft matters to us, but not to everyone, so we shouldn't get frustrated or try to change the world to fit our style. I would never discourage anyone from doing what they love - considering my life as a film student, this is not news - but I would recommend not obsessing over it to the point where you simply cannot accept a contrary point of view.
Now, where does this all come from? Of course, it comes from a combination of Ego's speech always being with me and from the few negative reviews Toy Story 3, which I previously reported brought me to crazy-ass tears. There are two ways I can spin this little speech of my own. Firstly, I can say that it is totally the opinion of the reviewers to say what they will. As much as I may be prejudiced against and frustrated by the reviews, they're just opinions and they don't change how the movie made me feel.
The other thing to take away, though, is where the reviews are coming from. I won't dare to presume that these couple reviews come from anyplace unnatural or forced, but I know there are critics in the world who do enjoy being mean or contrary for the sake of their own enjoyment and to be different in some way or another. Or they choose to only look at a movie or other work of entertainment/art from a certain perspective so as to find the negative angles. To those critics, I say shame on you. Let your opinions come from your heart as well as your head. We can praise the technical achievements or complain about ordinary dialogue, but what really matters is what the film does for you, personally, and that's all we can take away. Each review is individual to the person who writes it and we might agree or we might not. We all appreciate different works for different reasons, and that's fine by me. I mean, my love for Toy Story 3 comes from somewhere deep in my heart, though I'd also defend most other aspects of the film. Other films, though intelligent and well-made and good in so many respects, may still leave me wanting more or totally emotionless.
I want to be involved in a movie I watch, not detached and watching it for the sake of observing it. As a film student, I do plenty of observing and, though it's useful, it's also work. Some films take work and it pays off, but others don't give me anything. And I like films that can absorb me and fill me up - there are good films that give and good films that take.
Anyway, I'm rambling. My point, simply enough, is that first and foremost, no man is an island and no one should ever assume that what they love would capture anyone else in the same way. As a film major with so few film major friends, I am reminded again and again that my friends really don't want to talk about movies 24/7, although I most certainly could. We lovers of cinema shouldn't be so full of ourselves... and believe me, plenty of us are that full of ourselves.
Second and final point: Within that larger scope of life on Earth in general, there is the smaller scope of the film world. Within it, none of us are the same. There are those who make film for entertainment and those who make it for art. There is plenty of success and plenty of failure in both categories. Let's not be snooty or untrue to our own tastes. I won't pretend I like something because other people do, but I also won't trash on something other people like just to be different. I wish more people lived by that.
The main thing I take away from Ratatouille is not the beautiful main message of the film, the one whose slogan rings throughout - "anyone can cook" - and translates into a tale of rising above one's circumstances based on talent and drive. The most beautiful and meaningful message any film has given me is also the most grounding of them - Anton Ego's stunning review of his meal at Remy's hands.
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the new. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations, the new needs friends. Last night, I experienced something new, an extraordinary meal from a singularly unexpected source. To say that both the meal and its maker have challenged my preconceptions about fine cooking is a gross understatement. They have rocked me to my core. In the past, I have made no secret of my disdain for Chef Gusteau's famous motto: Anyone can cook. But I realize, only now do I truly understand what he meant. Not everyone can become a great artist, but a great artist can come from anywhere. It is difficult to imagine more humble origins than those of the genius now cooking at Gusteau's, who is, in this critic's opinion, nothing less than the finest chef in France. I will be returning to Gusteau's soon, hungry for more."
One reason I admire film critics and all people who love film is how they love finding something new to share with everyone else. It's such a pleasure to ask a friend, "have you seen ___?" and to hear them reply in the negative. Then, you are granted the opportunity to open their eyes to that world.
But it is that same admirable quality that I also can't stand in film critics, people who love films, and oftentimes even in myself. Because, as much as I love film myself, most people do not care nearly as much as people like me and people who dedicate themselves to a life of loving, understanding, and analyzing film.
We all have different opinions. Like everyone else, I fall prey to being upset when someone disagrees with something I feel so strongly about - people who refuse to see Star Wars or people who avoid animated movies because they're "for kids" or people who are too stuck up to appreciate the badassery of Death Race or people who are too bored with film to listen to my recommendations. But all of those people exist and I'd be a fool to hate all of them for those reasons. I love film, but people who only like it or don't like it at all are not any worse or better than me by that mere characteristic.
Ego's speech from Ratatouille, particularly the first few sentences, often give me the swift kick in the rear I think everyone involved in film (other fields too, I'm sure, but the entertainment and art fields in particular fall prey to this most, I feel) really needs. We all need a reminder that our opinions, what we say and what we write and all the time and energy we dedicate to our field isn't the be all and end all. So many people simply do not care about what we have to say or what we do. Saying that one movie sucks or one movie is awesome doesn't really matter at all, because we're all going to make up our own minds, and so many people won't even bother to do as much as they simply don't care enough to see the movie. You might praise some obscure title non-stop, but that won't it an instant classic. You might get a few more viewers, but there's no guarantee, no matter how influential your position is. Even Oprah doesn't reach everyone.
Our dedication and love for our craft matters to us, but not to everyone, so we shouldn't get frustrated or try to change the world to fit our style. I would never discourage anyone from doing what they love - considering my life as a film student, this is not news - but I would recommend not obsessing over it to the point where you simply cannot accept a contrary point of view.
Now, where does this all come from? Of course, it comes from a combination of Ego's speech always being with me and from the few negative reviews Toy Story 3, which I previously reported brought me to crazy-ass tears. There are two ways I can spin this little speech of my own. Firstly, I can say that it is totally the opinion of the reviewers to say what they will. As much as I may be prejudiced against and frustrated by the reviews, they're just opinions and they don't change how the movie made me feel.
The other thing to take away, though, is where the reviews are coming from. I won't dare to presume that these couple reviews come from anyplace unnatural or forced, but I know there are critics in the world who do enjoy being mean or contrary for the sake of their own enjoyment and to be different in some way or another. Or they choose to only look at a movie or other work of entertainment/art from a certain perspective so as to find the negative angles. To those critics, I say shame on you. Let your opinions come from your heart as well as your head. We can praise the technical achievements or complain about ordinary dialogue, but what really matters is what the film does for you, personally, and that's all we can take away. Each review is individual to the person who writes it and we might agree or we might not. We all appreciate different works for different reasons, and that's fine by me. I mean, my love for Toy Story 3 comes from somewhere deep in my heart, though I'd also defend most other aspects of the film. Other films, though intelligent and well-made and good in so many respects, may still leave me wanting more or totally emotionless.
I want to be involved in a movie I watch, not detached and watching it for the sake of observing it. As a film student, I do plenty of observing and, though it's useful, it's also work. Some films take work and it pays off, but others don't give me anything. And I like films that can absorb me and fill me up - there are good films that give and good films that take.
Anyway, I'm rambling. My point, simply enough, is that first and foremost, no man is an island and no one should ever assume that what they love would capture anyone else in the same way. As a film major with so few film major friends, I am reminded again and again that my friends really don't want to talk about movies 24/7, although I most certainly could. We lovers of cinema shouldn't be so full of ourselves... and believe me, plenty of us are that full of ourselves.
Second and final point: Within that larger scope of life on Earth in general, there is the smaller scope of the film world. Within it, none of us are the same. There are those who make film for entertainment and those who make it for art. There is plenty of success and plenty of failure in both categories. Let's not be snooty or untrue to our own tastes. I won't pretend I like something because other people do, but I also won't trash on something other people like just to be different. I wish more people lived by that.
Thursday, June 3, 2010
Aaaaaah! (real monsters? No, CGI ones in ads)
You know what I've been craving? McDonalds. Which is silly because the only thing I can eat there is, like the fries (and the salads and Mcflurries... just shut it, I KNOW WHAT I CAN AND CAN'T EAT).
But there are those crappy Shrek/McDonalds commercials that have been everywhere lately (and I keep telling hulu that they are NOT relevant to me and yet they keep playing as I watch Lost) and as much as I hate those commercials, every time I see them I just want McDonalds!
SEE THE MADNESS HERE.
I am so sick of that commercial. Even the 15 second version is killing me. Maybe if I finally buy some McDonalds, it'll stop. PLEASE STOP. I ALREADY SAW SHREK FOREVER AFTER AND IT SUCKED.
Although, I have two gems to share that I put into my phone's notepad because they were so awesome:
Shrek: "My donkey fell in your wafflehole." (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID)
and
Donkey: "Are my babies cute or do they make people uncomfortable?"
So ends this spontaneous mini-rant of doom. I take back what I said recently about commercials getting more awesome these days. Sure, there are the Ubykotex commercials and the Old Spice man on a horse, but beyond that... there are stupid picnickers (who the hell picnics with MCDONALDS?) not freaked out by the CGI ogre behind them.
But there are those crappy Shrek/McDonalds commercials that have been everywhere lately (and I keep telling hulu that they are NOT relevant to me and yet they keep playing as I watch Lost) and as much as I hate those commercials, every time I see them I just want McDonalds!
SEE THE MADNESS HERE.
I am so sick of that commercial. Even the 15 second version is killing me. Maybe if I finally buy some McDonalds, it'll stop. PLEASE STOP. I ALREADY SAW SHREK FOREVER AFTER AND IT SUCKED.
Although, I have two gems to share that I put into my phone's notepad because they were so awesome:
Shrek: "My donkey fell in your wafflehole." (THAT'S WHAT SHE SAID)
and
Donkey: "Are my babies cute or do they make people uncomfortable?"
So ends this spontaneous mini-rant of doom. I take back what I said recently about commercials getting more awesome these days. Sure, there are the Ubykotex commercials and the Old Spice man on a horse, but beyond that... there are stupid picnickers (who the hell picnics with MCDONALDS?) not freaked out by the CGI ogre behind them.
Wednesday, December 23, 2009
Because Nobody Likes a Total Snob.
Two things.
One - I hate film snobs. I love movies. I love good movies. I love bad movies. I love commercial movies. I love experimental/artsy/etc. movies. Not all of any of those categories... but I can't help that. There are good movies I dislike (Let the Right One In... that's supposed to be a good movie, right?). There are bad movies I dislike (...this list would be much longer, but let's limit it to a piece of trash like You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Yeah, I wasted money on that movie). There are commercial films I dislike (er, again, this would make a long list, but I think Zohan fits here too). There are experimental/artsy/etc. movies I dislike (I don't see a lot of these, to be frank, but film class helps expose me to them and some just are not my style). But no matter what movie I see, even if I go in thinking I will hate it or like it or whatever, there's still a clear opinion that I cannot deny myself. Like Avatar, which I went into expecting to not be impressed, determined to not be impressed and was... impressed. Like Let the Right One In, which I'd heard was awesome, which people told me was great, but I walked away not really enjoying it. Like Twilight, which actually had some awesome moments for so bad a movie I will happily admit to (and honestly, with such shitty material, snaps to Catherine Hardwicke for doing it any decency).
So, pretty much, I just really hate people who rip on commercial films because of the industry. Or people who rip on foreign language films because for whatever reason people hate subtitles (honestly, I love me some subtitles; I used to watch movies in English with subtitles for kicks). Or people who rip on independent filmmaking because they think it's too snobby (unfortunately, too often, they're right). I dislike the pressure some people put on me as a socially conscious individual to avoid commercial filmmaking, to avoid Hollywood, to avoid supporting the big guy. And y'know what? I would love to focus in on independent fare. And I love independent fare. But you know what else? There are some major pretentious jackasses over there, just like there are some obnoxious full-of-themselves douchebags in commercial filmmaking. Wherever you go, there will be jerks. So I might as well watch and make movies that I like, whether it be through a big distributor or a small one. 'Cause, really, in the end, we can generalize all we want about each field, but there's no right or wrong way to make a movie. And I tend to prefer movies made for art rather than money, but there are some SHITTY movies made for art rather than money too.
To all you film snobs out there determined to hate big movies, to diss on The Dark Knight because it's too commercial to like, like my former college film advisor, who complained about the Hollywoodization of Milk: shut the fuck up and just enjoy the movies. You can criticize the roots separately, but the movie itself is something worth approaching and appreciating without major critique to where it is coming from. Just enjoy the experience without the jadedness while you're watching it. Relive that innocence within you. It's refreshing, believe me.
On that note, yes, I do like Juno. No, I do not think it is the bee's knees, I think it is wildly overrated but still a good movie. Yes, I do have something against Diablo Cody and it's not just her "dress" she wore when she won an Oscar. Although I appreciate where her attitude of "I'm so awesome" comes from, I dislike what she does with it, promoting the most crappy eclectic things as she can and being the ultimate hipster goddess. Jesus H. Christ.
I can get a bit snobby about movies, but believe me, I like my fair share of crappy movies, commercial products, and movies from many walks of... production. I rented Maid in Manhattan like once a week when I was 12. I LOVED that movie. I still think it's kind of cute. >.>
Two - I am seeing Up in the Air tomorrow. I am excited.
One - I hate film snobs. I love movies. I love good movies. I love bad movies. I love commercial movies. I love experimental/artsy/etc. movies. Not all of any of those categories... but I can't help that. There are good movies I dislike (Let the Right One In... that's supposed to be a good movie, right?). There are bad movies I dislike (...this list would be much longer, but let's limit it to a piece of trash like You Don't Mess with the Zohan. Yeah, I wasted money on that movie). There are commercial films I dislike (er, again, this would make a long list, but I think Zohan fits here too). There are experimental/artsy/etc. movies I dislike (I don't see a lot of these, to be frank, but film class helps expose me to them and some just are not my style). But no matter what movie I see, even if I go in thinking I will hate it or like it or whatever, there's still a clear opinion that I cannot deny myself. Like Avatar, which I went into expecting to not be impressed, determined to not be impressed and was... impressed. Like Let the Right One In, which I'd heard was awesome, which people told me was great, but I walked away not really enjoying it. Like Twilight, which actually had some awesome moments for so bad a movie I will happily admit to (and honestly, with such shitty material, snaps to Catherine Hardwicke for doing it any decency).
So, pretty much, I just really hate people who rip on commercial films because of the industry. Or people who rip on foreign language films because for whatever reason people hate subtitles (honestly, I love me some subtitles; I used to watch movies in English with subtitles for kicks). Or people who rip on independent filmmaking because they think it's too snobby (unfortunately, too often, they're right). I dislike the pressure some people put on me as a socially conscious individual to avoid commercial filmmaking, to avoid Hollywood, to avoid supporting the big guy. And y'know what? I would love to focus in on independent fare. And I love independent fare. But you know what else? There are some major pretentious jackasses over there, just like there are some obnoxious full-of-themselves douchebags in commercial filmmaking. Wherever you go, there will be jerks. So I might as well watch and make movies that I like, whether it be through a big distributor or a small one. 'Cause, really, in the end, we can generalize all we want about each field, but there's no right or wrong way to make a movie. And I tend to prefer movies made for art rather than money, but there are some SHITTY movies made for art rather than money too.
To all you film snobs out there determined to hate big movies, to diss on The Dark Knight because it's too commercial to like, like my former college film advisor, who complained about the Hollywoodization of Milk: shut the fuck up and just enjoy the movies. You can criticize the roots separately, but the movie itself is something worth approaching and appreciating without major critique to where it is coming from. Just enjoy the experience without the jadedness while you're watching it. Relive that innocence within you. It's refreshing, believe me.
On that note, yes, I do like Juno. No, I do not think it is the bee's knees, I think it is wildly overrated but still a good movie. Yes, I do have something against Diablo Cody and it's not just her "dress" she wore when she won an Oscar. Although I appreciate where her attitude of "I'm so awesome" comes from, I dislike what she does with it, promoting the most crappy eclectic things as she can and being the ultimate hipster goddess. Jesus H. Christ.
I can get a bit snobby about movies, but believe me, I like my fair share of crappy movies, commercial products, and movies from many walks of... production. I rented Maid in Manhattan like once a week when I was 12. I LOVED that movie. I still think it's kind of cute. >.>
Two - I am seeing Up in the Air tomorrow. I am excited.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Return of the Chuck: How NBC Will Probably Ruin It
So with all the excitement over at EW.com about Chuck's possible earlier return, a lot of good points have been brought up that are very important to Chuck's long term success rather than Chuck coming back as soon as possible.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
a) Promotion.
If they suddenly bring Chuck back either because of Southland's recent cancellation or if they cancel the under-performing new series Trauma (or the cancellation that it deserves but hasn't gotten yet for Heroes), there will be next to no time to properly promote the series. Chuck has a loyal following, yes, but if Chuck is to actually succeed (especially in NBC's current fail!environment with very little to offer viewers aside from their comedy block and the handful of people who want to watch Jay Leno every night and the people like my roommate who are Law & Order addicts), it needs to build up an even stronger following of new and curious viewers. Chuck is a great show that can appeal to a whole host of viewers. It's a spy comedy drama with geeks and hot girls alike, episodic and large arcs alike, interesting main characters and a great ensemble, and it's just very likeable and accessible in many ways. But if it doesn't get the proper promotion, if there isn't at least a couple weeks of build up before it gets brought back, it'll get trashed and then we probably won't even manage to see more than a handful of episodes ever again.
b) Timeslot.
Chuck's old timeslot of 8pm on Mondays (when it would lead into Heroes) is now occupied by Heroes. And while Heroes totally deserves cancellation after a dismal third season and a limping fourth, this time slot would KILL as it has, amongst other things, HOUSE to compete with. And House, although I personally have been getting bored with it, still gets excellent viewership. If Trauma got cancelled, 9pm wouldn't be quite so bad a time, but the challenge that CBS' Two and a Half Men and The Big Bang Theory present might be too much, especially since Chuck, as half comedy, would be interested in drawing the same crowd. As for other potential timeslots, the originally intended spot for Southland, on Fridays, would also completely demolish any chance Chuck has at continuing beyond this fall. The best option I heard in the comments was to shorten The Biggest Loser to a one hour show and put Chuck in on Tuesdays.
The main problem that Chuck has is that NBC came dangerously close to not renewing it at all before and give them even a split second's doubt that Chuck can sustain decent numbers and I have absolutely NO faith in NBC's capacity to give Chuck another chance. It took a lot of effort to bring it back for March and although I love Chuck and I would love for it to return sooner, if bringing it back in fall means that either it won't get enough promotion or that it'll end up in a poor timeslot then I would much rather wait until March when it would have a real chance at a future.
Mostly this all goes back to an overall disappointment with NBC. Now, personally, I don't watch anything on NBC anymore except for Community. I know people who watch The Office and 30 Rock, of course, but are any of the scripted dramas on that network any good? Heroes has gotten so bad that even a devout fan like me has given up. And everything else on there is either medical (Trauma, Mercy) or law (Law & Order, Law & Order: SVU) shows. More and more is the Jay Leno Show looking like the stupidest idea ever, cutting out the chance for so many new shows to get a chance, proving that NBC has absolutely no faith in giving shows a chance. And when their most critically acclaimed (and pretty decently viewed) shows is about to return (I'm talking about Southland, which I never saw, but heard only good things about), they cut it out completely. Yeah, it's too dark for the 9pm time slot? Then stop with the madness of Jay Leno five times a week! Sure, it's cheaper, but that just makes your network that much cheaper. As evidenced by Tina Fey's acceptance speech for 30 Rock at the Emmys, even NBC's most stable show has absolutely no respect for the network anymore.
Oh how far the mighty hath fallen.
Oh, and NBC? If you DARE to cancel Chuck before its time, I will join the army of angry fans in setting your studio on fire. You know it'll happen. Stop being pussydicks (excuse my crudeness), and start showing some real television.
PS: If you haven't experienced Chuck, do it. And don't give up if you can't get into the first season. While the first season is definitely good, in my opinion, the show really finds its pace as the second season progresses, and morphs into a truly great television show.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Oh television... what a wonderful time consuming entity you are...
At least I'm not as bad as my roommate who skips sleep and drugs herself up on red bull to watch more X-Files. Anyway...
Shows I Give A Shit About And Intend To Continue Watching (That Are Currently Airing):
- FlashForward
- Community
- Glee
- How I Met Your Mother
- Gossip Girl
- Mad Men
Shows I Intend to View At Some Point In Time/Catch Up With:
- Dexter (halfway through season 3... will eventually catch up and continue watching methinks)
- Modern Family (I'm going to try and catch the first few episodes online this long weekend)
- Lost (I've decided that once it finishes, I'll rent the whole series on DVD and devote like a month to watching it)
- Breaking Bad (...I hope that I eventually get up the energy to start watching it)
Shows I Am Way Excited For Their Return:
- Chuck (BRING IT BACK NAUGH, PLZ, I MISS IT SO)
- True Blood (I am suffering from Alexander Skarsgard withdrawl... also the show itself is just pretty damn good overall)
Shows I Have Been Losing Interest In:
- Heroes (I'm considering to watch the season four premiere and then decide if I want to bother to keep watching painfully or just divorce it completely)
- House (I don't know why, but I just don't feel up to it anymore. Even the thought of eventual Huddy doesn't entice me like it used to. I did watch the premiere though)
Shows That Are No Longer Airing But I Will Enjoy The DVDs/Reruns Forever:
- Gilmore Girls
- BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (<3 <3 <3)
- COWBOY BEBOP (<3 <3 ...I had a recent urge to rewatch the series; I haven't watched it in far too long)
- Boy Meets World (although the reruns are seriously all but gone)
But here, let me speak about the shows I am enjoying, particularly the new ones!
So I finally managed to watch Community, and I like it. It's a nice laugh out loud comedy and while I tend to not gravitate toward the sitcom, with my recent involvement in HIMYM, I gave Community a chance after hearing good things, and have been enjoying the first four episodes which I just viewed in a row. Funny, witty, energetic, and just a nice joyride, I'm liking the series.
I watched these episodes of Community after catching up with tonight's latest installment of FlashForward. So far, I am very impressed with how the series has kept up its well-written high-octane energy revolving around the central plot without getting too bogged down or feeling too constantly-climatic (something I know a few people had a problem with in regards to the AMAZING The Dark Knight having too many moments of build-up; but I think FlashForward handles this very well). Also, it doesn't hurt that the main character is played by the sexiest Shakespeare ever and the younger brother of Voldemort, Joseph Fiennes. I love him so and am so glad to see him regularly. The premise of the show in general is very cool, and I am highly impressed with how they are handling this single event and making it last without seeming to drag it on and on (thus far).
And, of course, one of my favourite new shows, GLEE. Now, many people have dismissed Glee as silly, which is totally is, or maybe just "eh," but I think it is wonderful. It boasts a talented cast with interesting plays on the usual stereotypes of high school and the characters involved. That and it has some bitchin' musical numbers. It's just a blast to watch and I don't feel the least bit guilty for loving Glee. I think it is just an amazingly enjoyable experience, very entertaining, very funny, and just overall so much fun to take part in.
As for the other shows, the only one I really have additional comments on is Gossip Girl. Now, although typically every character but Blair Waldorf and Chuck Bass annoys me to at least some minimal extent, I have to say that I was very impressed by the most recent episode of Gossip Girl. Not only did I feel very limited disdain towards the characters of Gossip Girl (Jenny embracing her role as Queen by the end instead of being annoyingly rebellious against the structure! Serena doing something other than having boy, frenemy, or paparazzi issues! Nate not just being in some mysterious hotel room with Bree! Tyra Banks being awesomely hysterical!), but I also was nearly convinced by the episode to LIKE Hilary Duff. Now, for anyone who knows me, I have strongly disliked Hilary Duff since back in her Lizzie McGuire days. LONG ago. Like back when she tried that singing career thing and had a song called "Math" and I totally made fun of my friend for buying her CD... anyway, Hilary Duff's character on Gossip Girl? She could so easily be annoying and lame and blegh, but I actually sort of liked her. And I much prefer her with Dan than Georgina. Believe me, I loved Georgina in seasons 1 and 2, but now I am just bored with her occasional presence in ruining Blair's life at NYU. But she wasn't in last night's episode (except for the LAMENESS at the end with SCOTT, omg, PLEASE just get rid of Scott, he is SO unnecessary). In fact, the only person (other than Scott) that I actually felt some annoyance at was my darling beloved BLAIR. Oh believe me, I'm not angry with her, just disappointed in her brief stint of lameness during the episode in crawling back to Constance. I mean, it makes perfect sense, it was just painful to watch.
Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. I need to see movies this weekend as well, but TV's really all I've been able to fit in at school. I'm on a long weekend, but have a shitload of homework. Hopefully I'll get a chance to get to a theatre at least once. Either way, I'm out. I needs muh sleep (and I might continue watching old HIMYM episodes on my iPod before bed...)
Shows I Give A Shit About And Intend To Continue Watching (That Are Currently Airing):
- FlashForward
- Community
- Glee
- How I Met Your Mother
- Gossip Girl
- Mad Men
Shows I Intend to View At Some Point In Time/Catch Up With:
- Dexter (halfway through season 3... will eventually catch up and continue watching methinks)
- Modern Family (I'm going to try and catch the first few episodes online this long weekend)
- Lost (I've decided that once it finishes, I'll rent the whole series on DVD and devote like a month to watching it)
- Breaking Bad (...I hope that I eventually get up the energy to start watching it)
Shows I Am Way Excited For Their Return:
- Chuck (BRING IT BACK NAUGH, PLZ, I MISS IT SO)
- True Blood (I am suffering from Alexander Skarsgard withdrawl... also the show itself is just pretty damn good overall)
Shows I Have Been Losing Interest In:
- Heroes (I'm considering to watch the season four premiere and then decide if I want to bother to keep watching painfully or just divorce it completely)
- House (I don't know why, but I just don't feel up to it anymore. Even the thought of eventual Huddy doesn't entice me like it used to. I did watch the premiere though)
Shows That Are No Longer Airing But I Will Enjoy The DVDs/Reruns Forever:
- Gilmore Girls
- BATTLESTAR GALACTICA (<3 <3 <3)
- COWBOY BEBOP (<3 <3 ...I had a recent urge to rewatch the series; I haven't watched it in far too long)
- Boy Meets World (although the reruns are seriously all but gone)
But here, let me speak about the shows I am enjoying, particularly the new ones!
So I finally managed to watch Community, and I like it. It's a nice laugh out loud comedy and while I tend to not gravitate toward the sitcom, with my recent involvement in HIMYM, I gave Community a chance after hearing good things, and have been enjoying the first four episodes which I just viewed in a row. Funny, witty, energetic, and just a nice joyride, I'm liking the series.
I watched these episodes of Community after catching up with tonight's latest installment of FlashForward. So far, I am very impressed with how the series has kept up its well-written high-octane energy revolving around the central plot without getting too bogged down or feeling too constantly-climatic (something I know a few people had a problem with in regards to the AMAZING The Dark Knight having too many moments of build-up; but I think FlashForward handles this very well). Also, it doesn't hurt that the main character is played by the sexiest Shakespeare ever and the younger brother of Voldemort, Joseph Fiennes. I love him so and am so glad to see him regularly. The premise of the show in general is very cool, and I am highly impressed with how they are handling this single event and making it last without seeming to drag it on and on (thus far).
And, of course, one of my favourite new shows, GLEE. Now, many people have dismissed Glee as silly, which is totally is, or maybe just "eh," but I think it is wonderful. It boasts a talented cast with interesting plays on the usual stereotypes of high school and the characters involved. That and it has some bitchin' musical numbers. It's just a blast to watch and I don't feel the least bit guilty for loving Glee. I think it is just an amazingly enjoyable experience, very entertaining, very funny, and just overall so much fun to take part in.
As for the other shows, the only one I really have additional comments on is Gossip Girl. Now, although typically every character but Blair Waldorf and Chuck Bass annoys me to at least some minimal extent, I have to say that I was very impressed by the most recent episode of Gossip Girl. Not only did I feel very limited disdain towards the characters of Gossip Girl (Jenny embracing her role as Queen by the end instead of being annoyingly rebellious against the structure! Serena doing something other than having boy, frenemy, or paparazzi issues! Nate not just being in some mysterious hotel room with Bree! Tyra Banks being awesomely hysterical!), but I also was nearly convinced by the episode to LIKE Hilary Duff. Now, for anyone who knows me, I have strongly disliked Hilary Duff since back in her Lizzie McGuire days. LONG ago. Like back when she tried that singing career thing and had a song called "Math" and I totally made fun of my friend for buying her CD... anyway, Hilary Duff's character on Gossip Girl? She could so easily be annoying and lame and blegh, but I actually sort of liked her. And I much prefer her with Dan than Georgina. Believe me, I loved Georgina in seasons 1 and 2, but now I am just bored with her occasional presence in ruining Blair's life at NYU. But she wasn't in last night's episode (except for the LAMENESS at the end with SCOTT, omg, PLEASE just get rid of Scott, he is SO unnecessary). In fact, the only person (other than Scott) that I actually felt some annoyance at was my darling beloved BLAIR. Oh believe me, I'm not angry with her, just disappointed in her brief stint of lameness during the episode in crawling back to Constance. I mean, it makes perfect sense, it was just painful to watch.
Anyway, I've rambled on long enough. I need to see movies this weekend as well, but TV's really all I've been able to fit in at school. I'm on a long weekend, but have a shitload of homework. Hopefully I'll get a chance to get to a theatre at least once. Either way, I'm out. I needs muh sleep (and I might continue watching old HIMYM episodes on my iPod before bed...)
Friday, August 14, 2009
Ancitipating District 9... and a TDK rant.
So here I was all sad that there wasn't a movie both adventurous and interesting, a movie in the same vein as The Dark Knight, that both excites and provokes me, and here comes District 9, a movie that I have not yet seen but deeply want to now. I hadn't heard much of it beyond a title and that Peter Jackson was involved until recently, when Entertainment Weekly did a cover story on it last week. Since then, I have really wanted to watch this movie and have heard a great deal about it.
Unfortunately, I am currently on vacation in Venezuela, but when I get home, I am getting to the nearest movie theatre and watching District 9 (...and then Julie & Julia, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, and Taking Woodstock).
Don't tell me what happens! I want to see for myself. I don't want to be overexposed because I want to be thrilled by what I see not thinking, "oh I remember reading about this part" (although, I have to admit, reading about and seeing the Joker in a nurse's uniform is still different enough for the visual to be hilariously awesome).
BTW, I am skimming rottentomatoes at the moment in a slight pit of boredom and saw that some critic, I forget who, commented that The Dark Knight does not seem to recognize the absurdity of its premise, or something similarly phrased. And, in return, I say, you, sir, are full of shit. "Oh man, a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime." Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. So does "a bunch of hobbits going on a journey with elves, dwarves, and men to fight evil and destroy a ring of power." It upsets me when people have to reduce a telling story to the superficial premise. I did it with Harry Potter ("ooh a book about some boy wizard. sounds stupid") before I read the books and realized that I was mistaken; yes, the superficial premise is there, but that's not what the story's about. And why not dress up like a bat to fight crime? It seems pretty practical: you have a dark exterior, you can hold out your "wings" to fly and... yeah, that's about all that's different about Batman's get together and, let's say, a dude who just dresses up in armour with weapons to fight crime.
Yeah, that is clearly totally absurd. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the maniac who is known as the Joker. Hmm... well, firstly, he's insane... and secondly, ...he dresses funny and refers to himself as the Joker? I think the first one covers it all: he's insane, Mr. Movie Critic, and why not do crazy things like pretend you're a court jester with some grenades and guns if you're insane?
Anyway, this started out as excitement and anticipation to see District 9 and ended with The Dark Knight. Don't all my posts? My apologies, as I've said before, The Dark Knight is simply among the best films I've ever seen.
Unfortunately, I am currently on vacation in Venezuela, but when I get home, I am getting to the nearest movie theatre and watching District 9 (...and then Julie & Julia, The Hurt Locker, Inglorious Basterds, and Taking Woodstock).
Don't tell me what happens! I want to see for myself. I don't want to be overexposed because I want to be thrilled by what I see not thinking, "oh I remember reading about this part" (although, I have to admit, reading about and seeing the Joker in a nurse's uniform is still different enough for the visual to be hilariously awesome).
BTW, I am skimming rottentomatoes at the moment in a slight pit of boredom and saw that some critic, I forget who, commented that The Dark Knight does not seem to recognize the absurdity of its premise, or something similarly phrased. And, in return, I say, you, sir, are full of shit. "Oh man, a guy who dresses up like a bat and fights crime." Yeah, it sounds ridiculous. So does "a bunch of hobbits going on a journey with elves, dwarves, and men to fight evil and destroy a ring of power." It upsets me when people have to reduce a telling story to the superficial premise. I did it with Harry Potter ("ooh a book about some boy wizard. sounds stupid") before I read the books and realized that I was mistaken; yes, the superficial premise is there, but that's not what the story's about. And why not dress up like a bat to fight crime? It seems pretty practical: you have a dark exterior, you can hold out your "wings" to fly and... yeah, that's about all that's different about Batman's get together and, let's say, a dude who just dresses up in armour with weapons to fight crime.
Yeah, that is clearly totally absurd. Oh wait, I'm forgetting about the maniac who is known as the Joker. Hmm... well, firstly, he's insane... and secondly, ...he dresses funny and refers to himself as the Joker? I think the first one covers it all: he's insane, Mr. Movie Critic, and why not do crazy things like pretend you're a court jester with some grenades and guns if you're insane?
Anyway, this started out as excitement and anticipation to see District 9 and ended with The Dark Knight. Don't all my posts? My apologies, as I've said before, The Dark Knight is simply among the best films I've ever seen.
Thursday, July 9, 2009
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XXVIII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From February 26, 2009:
"So I was just writing my weekly report for Intro to Documentary Media and we're doing WW2 based propaganda films this week, so I just read comments by Andre Bazin on Why We Fight where he writes about the appeal of making documentaries based off of wars. Because of this, I thought it would be nifty if I wrote about the documentary No End In Sight as we are supposed to be watching a documentary a week outside of class (but not really; more like we're supposed to relate a documentary we've seen outside of class to the readings/discussions/other films we're watching) and write about said documentary. As it is about the Iraq War it certainly says something about the appeal of war-based documentaries, also the use of editing in No End in Sight is really poignant and it presents a particular viewpoint about from "hey guys, here's the Iraq War going on."
And then just as soon as I finished that and printed it out, I go to check my e-mail, and the Yahoo News story is: Iraq Withdrawl Gets Date.
This is weird because I said in my weekly report that there was still no end (I didn't add the "in sight" part because I knew that it was something Obama planned to work on, thank goodness). But what timing to have this announced at the same time I'm writing this!
Oh also I feel very proud; I did almost all of my documentary reading this week. I have all of it done except for the bit I have to read in one of our books I'm going to go do now; I just wanted to write my weekly report before I forgot about my idea. I just hope that my professor isn't like "well, ACTUALLY" about my comment on there being no end.
One more thing about documentary. So, today in our screening, we watched Listen to Britain and Triumph of the Will. The latter got kind of long and repetitive (its point, but as the Nazi regime isn't really one to be enthused about anymore, it got a little boring). So my film pal Molly and I ended up just fooling around 'cause the professor left at the beginning of the screening; staff meeting. There was this funny shot of this guy hanging on a pole during Hitler's visit to the Hitler Youth (I think that was the segment anyway) and Molly and I found this really funny and for some reason we started saying all these famous movie lines but adding pole at the end. Like, "I don't know how to quit you, pole!" and "You complete me, pole!" It was quite hilarious so we were laughing a lot. Also at the fact that Hitler's pants and belt, as well as most SS members, made his ass look really big. We also made up, based on the "awkward turtle" the "awkward German" where you do the awkward turtle, just where a moustache would grow (like Hitler's!) Then Molly was texting with her friend about the upcoming Spiderman the Musical and naming a bunch of funny song titles, and I started performing some of them. We found this all incredibly hilarious, including some other random stuff. And I couldn't control my laughter (I was really low on sleep last night), so I kept repeating, like "I know this isn't a comedy! But I can't stop laughing anyway!" Oh and I also had this awesome deja vu moment where I told Molly that I was writing in my notes about "check out the bitchin' Nazi flags!"
Anyway, I am not some idiot who would dare undermine the horrors that the Nazi party committed and all the shit that went down because of stuff like Triumph of the Will and the strength and power of Nazi Germany.
However, some lame kid in our class, disagreed.
After the screening ended, he came down to talk to me and Molly and he asked "You... you guys know that wasn't a comedy, right?" he said condescendingly. I gave him this look and responded with a "Yeah..." with a facial expression that said "duh." Apparently Molly has another class with him or else has heard more about him; apparently he's a douche; said he does a lot of playwriting and thinks he's the next Chekov. We bitched about him for a while until we parted. What a nosy little condescending bastard. Yeah, we're totally assholes who don't understand what that documentary was about or the impact of it and its featured star."
From February 26, 2009:
"So I was just writing my weekly report for Intro to Documentary Media and we're doing WW2 based propaganda films this week, so I just read comments by Andre Bazin on Why We Fight where he writes about the appeal of making documentaries based off of wars. Because of this, I thought it would be nifty if I wrote about the documentary No End In Sight as we are supposed to be watching a documentary a week outside of class (but not really; more like we're supposed to relate a documentary we've seen outside of class to the readings/discussions/other films we're watching) and write about said documentary. As it is about the Iraq War it certainly says something about the appeal of war-based documentaries, also the use of editing in No End in Sight is really poignant and it presents a particular viewpoint about from "hey guys, here's the Iraq War going on."
And then just as soon as I finished that and printed it out, I go to check my e-mail, and the Yahoo News story is: Iraq Withdrawl Gets Date.
This is weird because I said in my weekly report that there was still no end (I didn't add the "in sight" part because I knew that it was something Obama planned to work on, thank goodness). But what timing to have this announced at the same time I'm writing this!
Oh also I feel very proud; I did almost all of my documentary reading this week. I have all of it done except for the bit I have to read in one of our books I'm going to go do now; I just wanted to write my weekly report before I forgot about my idea. I just hope that my professor isn't like "well, ACTUALLY" about my comment on there being no end.
One more thing about documentary. So, today in our screening, we watched Listen to Britain and Triumph of the Will. The latter got kind of long and repetitive (its point, but as the Nazi regime isn't really one to be enthused about anymore, it got a little boring). So my film pal Molly and I ended up just fooling around 'cause the professor left at the beginning of the screening; staff meeting. There was this funny shot of this guy hanging on a pole during Hitler's visit to the Hitler Youth (I think that was the segment anyway) and Molly and I found this really funny and for some reason we started saying all these famous movie lines but adding pole at the end. Like, "I don't know how to quit you, pole!" and "You complete me, pole!" It was quite hilarious so we were laughing a lot. Also at the fact that Hitler's pants and belt, as well as most SS members, made his ass look really big. We also made up, based on the "awkward turtle" the "awkward German" where you do the awkward turtle, just where a moustache would grow (like Hitler's!) Then Molly was texting with her friend about the upcoming Spiderman the Musical and naming a bunch of funny song titles, and I started performing some of them. We found this all incredibly hilarious, including some other random stuff. And I couldn't control my laughter (I was really low on sleep last night), so I kept repeating, like "I know this isn't a comedy! But I can't stop laughing anyway!" Oh and I also had this awesome deja vu moment where I told Molly that I was writing in my notes about "check out the bitchin' Nazi flags!"
Anyway, I am not some idiot who would dare undermine the horrors that the Nazi party committed and all the shit that went down because of stuff like Triumph of the Will and the strength and power of Nazi Germany.
However, some lame kid in our class, disagreed.
After the screening ended, he came down to talk to me and Molly and he asked "You... you guys know that wasn't a comedy, right?" he said condescendingly. I gave him this look and responded with a "Yeah..." with a facial expression that said "duh." Apparently Molly has another class with him or else has heard more about him; apparently he's a douche; said he does a lot of playwriting and thinks he's the next Chekov. We bitched about him for a while until we parted. What a nosy little condescending bastard. Yeah, we're totally assholes who don't understand what that documentary was about or the impact of it and its featured star."
Stealing From My Livejournal Part XVII
As I use my livejournal for little else except for movie rants and decided to switch over here, I thought I'd recruit some older posts so as to show a history. I'll bother with new ones as they come to me.
From December 30, 2008:
"So because I am a movie nerd, I follow the Entertainment Weekly's website's Oscar blog which posts some stuff I don't care about, but mostly talks about the possible noms and other award shows, which does interest me (if you couldn't tell from the majority of my posts). I assume that most people who read Entertainment Weekly in the first place are similar enough to me that they like movies, and typically they like movies for less common reasons, but not too cynical reasons, because EW is neither total fluff nor is it hardcore serious.
So what baffles me is, well, there is this one most recent blog post that the guy made about box office and award consideration and if one influences the other (this was in relation to Benjamin Button's higher per-theatre average against Frost/Nixon's). Now, this was genuinely interesting to me so I felt like, for probably the first time, I'd make the comment. I started skimming the comments already there, seeing the opinions of others. Now, what baffled me was that I kept reading comments about people bitching about the Oscars, saying how they were stupid and no one cares, people bitching about the movie industry, people just generally bitching about movies that were mentioned, and people bitching about pretty much everything that blog was about.
And I'm sitting here, thinking, why the fuck are people who don't like a) award shows, b) the movie industry, and/or c) award-magnet movies reading this blog in the first place (or this magazine/website)?"
From December 30, 2008:
"So because I am a movie nerd, I follow the Entertainment Weekly's website's Oscar blog which posts some stuff I don't care about, but mostly talks about the possible noms and other award shows, which does interest me (if you couldn't tell from the majority of my posts). I assume that most people who read Entertainment Weekly in the first place are similar enough to me that they like movies, and typically they like movies for less common reasons, but not too cynical reasons, because EW is neither total fluff nor is it hardcore serious.
So what baffles me is, well, there is this one most recent blog post that the guy made about box office and award consideration and if one influences the other (this was in relation to Benjamin Button's higher per-theatre average against Frost/Nixon's). Now, this was genuinely interesting to me so I felt like, for probably the first time, I'd make the comment. I started skimming the comments already there, seeing the opinions of others. Now, what baffled me was that I kept reading comments about people bitching about the Oscars, saying how they were stupid and no one cares, people bitching about the movie industry, people just generally bitching about movies that were mentioned, and people bitching about pretty much everything that blog was about.
And I'm sitting here, thinking, why the fuck are people who don't like a) award shows, b) the movie industry, and/or c) award-magnet movies reading this blog in the first place (or this magazine/website)?"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
