tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-122920222024-03-21T12:24:47.888-07:00Erratic ThrillerHe will try to dizzy you with his intellect, but - honestly - at worst you'll get mildly nauseous.Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comBlogger489125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-51090560073004902652024-02-17T14:21:00.000-08:002024-02-17T17:15:26.397-08:00On Dakota Johnson (NSFW)<p></p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipy10UwWQDaBul9ZqyPYwqsDipjAMt18aBq9iKUGQSNxSNthdlwgNjvijfAB7VPxI3nQRB0qVRgpl5u12V26YChKMMMxQQNi9W6sJgDAlDUu4mtW7Ng6qXxOrsPANy2WySyDJYhNoj1LePD-RTeF5vvJsXUSFZrcKnmYqaYEUNg7TObW0JLBNc/s275/IMG_9142.jpeg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEipy10UwWQDaBul9ZqyPYwqsDipjAMt18aBq9iKUGQSNxSNthdlwgNjvijfAB7VPxI3nQRB0qVRgpl5u12V26YChKMMMxQQNi9W6sJgDAlDUu4mtW7Ng6qXxOrsPANy2WySyDJYhNoj1LePD-RTeF5vvJsXUSFZrcKnmYqaYEUNg7TObW0JLBNc/s1600/IMG_9142.jpeg" width="275" /></a></div><br />Without going through the history of nudity in cinema, which I'm kind of prepared to do, I think I can safely say that everyone understands movies aren't the hot beds of lust they once were, and as much as that has to do with foreign markets, the fact that you can watch whatever porn you desire on whatever device you're using to read this is a bigger factor. People used to go to movies for pornography, like how people used to masturbate to clothes catalogs. And though there are people who will tell you that the hint of sex is more erotic than sex itself, and that there's something infinitely more erotic about seeing but maybe not seeing a nipple or the hint of areola than someone spread eagle showing all, the former takes work, and involvement. Porn skips to the end.<p></p><p>Which is why it was something of a big deal for an actress to play the lead in FIFTY SHADES OF GREY because that book talks about the "Dirty Sex" that one woman wanted the leads in TWILIGHT to have, so it's something of a bait and switch. You might be drawn in by the idea of butt plugs and leather, but the end result is of course, marriage and domesticity. Having only worked on it without watching in total in the final film, they get married and I don't think anything actually naughty happens by the end. They have married sex. No one gets peed on. The sex contracts are a thing of the past because Christian is I believe "cured." Because it's a pornographic fantasy. No one's throwing a finger in the other's butt for old times sake because that would connote a real relationship. </p><p>Taking on the role of the girl (I am not looking it up, its Anastasia Steele or something IIRC) in the film was a big deal, and made Dakota Johnson's career. And yet the films - like the books - have fallen off the world. Though recently How Did This Get Made did the first film, and I think they were planning on watching all three (they still might) but I got the impression that the film sucked too much for them to continue. As Jason Mantzoukas so eloquently put it "Why am I bored when there's this much nudity on screen?" Which is basically asking the question "Why isn't it erotic when Dakota Johnson is naked?"</p><p>I'm about to show some NSFW images of Miley Cyrus to make a point. So, if you're embarrassed easily, I'm sorry. </p><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsUM2KjX06Bzu5n9HW7eRhsUc2skYoXI-5V_t_ILbFoLk4AzJD7naFEfqVF9vYhiphhcmzD7t-hZkij1HZrdr0t__k8mKaI1tWU0JPzDk4h4v9jEaDCY4T2GuBk-Y0F-DeWALSUCEb59dZgUOeLJicIHz0EieGnRmlkU0uE077jocA70RVi1gQ/s275/images.jpg" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="183" data-original-width="275" height="183" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEjsUM2KjX06Bzu5n9HW7eRhsUc2skYoXI-5V_t_ILbFoLk4AzJD7naFEfqVF9vYhiphhcmzD7t-hZkij1HZrdr0t__k8mKaI1tWU0JPzDk4h4v9jEaDCY4T2GuBk-Y0F-DeWALSUCEb59dZgUOeLJicIHz0EieGnRmlkU0uE077jocA70RVi1gQ/s1600/images.jpg" width="275" /></a></div><div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;"><a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFE3il090F2pPtXqFiZh3iKILiO0YJPF6WOIMsfhEc3H8iLd1cq2HJNsIyEj8th2MRltdMACdueBwiQ8GYGftoSFpaCbcBWiOY2ZqkdMuSQftk5BySxvetl23iddsdVYI_zjZ4eQHb7_Xe68XoP3Yw4LPrYrt0uEMDr0OO4Aev4qT8aVg874La" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img alt="" data-original-height="450" data-original-width="600" height="240" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEjFE3il090F2pPtXqFiZh3iKILiO0YJPF6WOIMsfhEc3H8iLd1cq2HJNsIyEj8th2MRltdMACdueBwiQ8GYGftoSFpaCbcBWiOY2ZqkdMuSQftk5BySxvetl23iddsdVYI_zjZ4eQHb7_Xe68XoP3Yw4LPrYrt0uEMDr0OO4Aev4qT8aVg874La" width="320" /></a></div><br /><br /><p>Hopefully you've seen these before, I'm only using them to make a point. But here we see Miley Cyrus felating both a Billy club and an actual dildo. These are provocative images, and you can make an argument that Cyrus is bold and transgressive for doing this. </p><p>But, and hear me out: What if she's not? What if instead of this being revealing (and there are less censored versions of these images), she just doesn't actually care? And that lack of care is actually just privilege? </p><p>For generations, people who have posed nude for photos and cinema knew what they were doing and that it could come at a societal cost. Or if nothing else they were being revealing, that they were showing themselves in a way that was - for lack of a better word - naked. That people were so desperate to see Halle Berry topless that she could get paid a million dollars to do a nude scene. That attractive people could get naked and make a living at it. There is good and bad to this, but it isn't my point. Outside of actresses seemingly convinced they should after the big phone hacking, most new starlets don't really want or have to do nude scenes any more because that's the province of television. But we've seen a lot of nepo babies being almost cavalier about nude scenes. Dakota Johnson, Zoe Kravitz, Margaret Qualley, Maya Hawke, Lily Rose-Depp, etc. etc.. But at a time where most stars don't have to. </p><p>But as the math is different, a lot of their nudity doesn't feel revealing or intimate. When Miley Cyrus is doing what she's doing in the pictures above, it might be shocking but I don't think it reads as erotic. Arguably it isn't meant to be erotic. It achieves a blatancy as does a lot of aggressively sexualized behavior that it's no longer recognizably human. You may want to sex someone so hard their eyes cross and their toes curl, but you can cross that line into it being so performative it isn't actually about the thing anymore. These are pictures that are so about sex they aren't. Because I don't believe Cyrus is wrapping her lips around that police pole with the intention of getting cops turned on, nor is it much of a commentary on policing, etc. It's pointless provocation and weirdly sexless sexuality. But maybe the point is its pointless if - and only if - Miley does it. From a semiotics viewpoint, she isn't giving anyone pleasure but herself, it's pictures of auto-fellatio. She's sucking her own dick, not anyone else's.</p><p>There's the old quote about rich people not being like you or I, but one thing that's changed is that the ability to be bubbled is greater than it's ever been in the history of the world. Angelica Huston saw some shit, but a lot of these nepo talents, born into fame and into ridiculous money, given the best private schools, told that they are special from birth, gifted into an industry through easy connections, never having to worry about paying for things or needing things or not getting free things... perhaps there is an entire class of people who - if not removed from humanity - have no idea how it functions for everyone else, and have no interest. Maybe we can feel that Johnson doesn't care. Maybe what's happening is that we know they're bragging that they can do this and there will be no consequences because they've proven they can do it without consequences so it doesn't have an erotic charge of being revealing. Maybe Miley Cyrus isn't celebrating the freedom that everyone can suck a cop's Billy club and not get in trouble or have people look at you funny, or in any way endanger your career. Maybe she's showing that she can, and most everyone else can't. And maybe Dakota Johnson isn't bad at acting or line deliveries, maybe she's just trying to act like a normal person but doesn't know how to, because she doesn't actually understand things like hunger or desire on a primitive level as she's never experienced them. And maybe we've got an entire generation of famous actors children who are incapable of emoting certain levels of remorse or despair because it's just not in their wheelhouse. Why should it be, they didn't have to work to get it. </p>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-62599056564250578772022-10-02T18:31:00.001-07:002022-10-02T18:52:53.093-07:00TIRED OF THE DISCOURSE: ON BLONDE ON<p><b>FIRST HALF: ON </b><i><b>BLONDE</b></i></p><p>For anyone who wants to avoid Andrew Dominik's <b><i>Blonde</i></b>, may I recommend the <i><b>South Park</b> </i>episode about Britney Spears. It's been a while since I've seen it, but it points out how America elevates a pretty woman into superstardom and is just as quick and likely to absolutely destroy them. To sacrifice them. The episode is about 21 minutes and gets much of the same point across (so does David Lynch's <b><i>Twin Peaks: Fire Walk With Me</i></b>). But - since before Monroe, and definitely after - we've seen the world destroy some of its most beautiful creatures, and if it doesn't destroy them it often makes them insane. America and the world is horribly misogynistic, and there is a base connection between arousal, self-hatred, and the desire to hate what makes you aroused (because of often religious - AKA bullshit - guilt) that often leads to tragedy. </p><p>This is such a known thing that we've come to accept it. You Must Remember This can have a series on Dead Blondes. The jokes about the downfall happened before Tara Reid (or whomever you want to fit under this guise) burned out. Some of the attitude about this changed with the Me Too movement - it's impossible to look at the stumbling out of control-ness of Paz de la Huerta and now think "oh she's a hot mess" when the truth is she is an assault survivor. There are no set pattern to the ends of Monroe, Sharon Tate, Dorothy Stratten, Dominique Dunne, Brittney Murphy, and on and on, but it seemingly always happens. We've known about the producer's couch since long before I was born, but it has only been moderately curtailed as of the last - what? - six years? The system makes it hard not to go crazy if you want to be a successful working actress, and the audience is ready to hate you for being beautiful. Showbiz: So glamourous. </p><p>As someone who was born in 1976, I first became aware of Marilyn before I was sexual. And like a lot of sex symbols thrust upon me at a young age, I wasn't moved. Not because I don't find Monroe attractive, it's that my sexual tastes didn't really exist yet beyond preferring girls in a general sense, so when you're told before you can control your erections what the hottest person who ever lived was, it doesn't make you go "oh, you're right." I don't know, maybe some people fell for her right away. Maybe because I could "discover her" or maybe because she didn't play dizzy dames, or maybe because she had huge boobs, I was always more a Jane Russell kind of guy. </p><p>But I do know this: <b><i>The Seven Year Itch </i></b>is really gross. And so by the time I became a cinephile I never warmed much to Monroe's star filmography outside of the ones she did for Howard Hawks. Not because she was bad, but because the movies tended to be - at best - pretty good, and she didn't do it for me enough to want to watch her work for Fox hacks. As such, I never invested much in her, and I guess like the Manson murders, it just never felt worth investigating for me. It was just... sad. </p><p>But even as someone who never got excited about Marilyn Monroe, or felt the need to defend her as an artist (she was), her legacy has been well known for almost my whole life. The lobby in one of the theaters I spent my youth going to had a French three sheet for <b><i>The Seven Year Itch </i></b>up until it closed. We know she died young and not sober. We know she sang for the president, we know the key images, from <b><i>Playboy </i></b>to <b><i>Gentlemen Prefer Blondes</i></b>, which served as inspiration for Madonna, if not intentionally lyrically than at least visually. Not everyone knows she appears in <i><b>The Asphalt Jungle </b></i>or watched <b><i>There's No Business Like Show Business</i></b>, but most everyone - even people who may not know they're doing it - can do a Monroe version of "Happy Birthday."</p><p>A lot of people who don't like <b><i>Blonde </i></b>hate how it treats Monroe. I don't think the film is interested in her at all. I think it's interested in the legend of Monroe. As such, it doesn't even mention plastic surgery, or show her making more than a handful of her films. It doesn't waste time with pointless "and here's Jon Hamm as Clarke Gable" or whatever you normally expect from showbiz biopics. I think because it's not about trying to understand or make sense of Monroe's life. It's trying to unpack her image. And in doing so it's kind of an unpleasant ride. Granted, as someone who loved semiotics and dissolves, I was probably always going to appreciate a movie where Marilyn achieves orgasm as her bed dissolves into Niagara Falls, but the reason why I think this is a good movie is because I find its intentions interesting.</p><p>What is the myth of Marilyn? For everyone that's probably a little different, but of a certain age, <b><i>Itch</i></b>, <b><i>Gentlemen</i></b>, <b><i>Some Like it Hot</i></b>, JFK, Arthur Miller, Joe DiMaggio, ODing, being a hot mess are part of the popular consciousness. And almost every single one of them is gross. Gross to her. Gross in general. As funny as <b><i>Gentlemen </i></b>is, and I'm an avowed fan, removed from the joke of it all, the most famous images are Monroe in an opulence bukake as men proffer her money for her attention as she sings "I'm going to get old, and people won't pay me any more, so I take the money (I am a whore)." <b><i>Itch </i></b>gets into the whole weird sexual energy of the time, where leering at Monroe's panties (because they hide her vagina) is what the film was sold on. </p><p>The film was sold on leering at her privates. </p><p>The film itself has Monroe playing someone completely (seemingly) unaware of the effect she has on men so she tells her neighbor she puts her underwear in the fridge. Hawks gives her power, but the conceit of <b><i>Blondes </i></b>is that Monroe believes it's okay that sex is transactional because she is a venture capitalist. But even though it empowers her, it's still saying she's kinda a prostitute. <b><i>Some Like it Hot </i></b>has her complaining about getting a raw deal and dating musicians, and it ends with her with a musician with no prospects. It's not a mistake that Monroe is tied to the birth of Playboy, which introduced the idea of getting nudie mags into peoples homes under the auspices of being a gentleman's journal. The explosion of porn becoming commonplace is tied directly to her.</p><p>There's a lot to unpack about American sexuality in that era, and put in this form it showcases that every single thing that marks Monroe's fame and notoriety is tinged in terribleness. Arthur Miller didn't get her or take her seriously, she was never respected as an actress, she got hate mail from women, etc. etc. And what would happen if you're having an affair with the POTUS? When you game it out, it sounds terrible, being a - at best - kept woman? Though it's fascinating in an historical sense, the reality of it would be sport fucking, and dudes who can't keep it in their pants aren't known for respecting women. I get why people don't like <b><i>Blonde</i></b>. but I also think it's possible they're not appreciating what the film is trying to do. I get not liking or enjoying the film, but also, this is not meant to be definitive, or even close to comprehensive. </p><p>But then also, this is based on a book, and so I get how this may be tired discourse - there are some people who are probably sick of pointing out the bad and would rather focus on her strengths and the positive side of her. But for me, as likely the target audience, the way Dominik shot the subway grate sequence, it made me sad, angry and a little disgusted, to which the film twists the knife: her husband is offended, but mostly because he sees her crotch as his property. If Monroe is treated only as a great icon that doesn't acknowledge that her story should also be warning that Hollywood and America will destroy beautiful women because men want to pretend that they're animals.</p><p><b>END HALF: <i>Blonde </i>On</b></p><p><b><i>Blonde </i></b>premiered about - what - two weeks ago at this point, and has been out for less than a week. It kinda feels like it's already done. </p><p>Recently when I've gotten together with my film loving friends, we find that a common thread is "Avoiding a movie that became a talking point." Waiting to watch films like <b><i>Licorice Pizza</i></b>, or <b><i>The Last Duel</i></b>, or <b><i>JoJo Rabbit</i></b>, or <i><b>West Side Story</b></i>, or whatever because you are tired of the discourse. Nowadays, films aren't just graded by stars, they're also graded by morality. And if you like them, do you really want to defend a film that people feels seems to be okay with pedophilia? Or racism? Or features someone accused of a sex crime where there's no law involved so it's like "is it real or is it internet"? Or whatever? Why would you want to have a public opinion on anything like that? The problem is this discourse often happens around films about adult subjects that expect the audience to meet them halfway. </p><p>Part of the problem is the dying of criticism. Timed tweets. Insta Reactions. No one has time to digest art any more. How many people are composing their reviews and tweets while the film hasn't even finished? News Stories about "That infamous scene" for a movie that comes out in two weeks. No one gets to sit in art, and any film that deals with troubling things leads the most basic of us to question "this shows a bad thing, is this a bad thing?"</p><p>The thing that makes this most troubling is that when films are about problematic things without addressing them, no one says shit. Elvis Presley met Priscilla when she was how old? And kept her? And Married her when? And cheated on her throughout? Dude's a literal groomer. <b><i>Doesn't everyone think that's bad now? </i></b>If the film <b><i>Elvis </i></b>doesn't put it front and center does that make it okay, does it make Elvis okay? <b><i>Top Gun </i></b>got hundreds of people to join the Navy, are we not going to talk about how its sequel is also propaganda? Are we going to address the role of the military in American cinema ever? How they give money and tools to Hollywood because they're peddling Viagra warrior fantasies?</p><p> We don't sit with art any more, we consume it. We move on to the next. And a lot of art that asks people to look at the worst of us is treated like it's bad art. Granted, right now, we've been going through some shit, and the last three years have been a hellscape. But I wonder, as we see fifty year old men think nothing of buying <b><i>Star Wars </i></b>clothes for themselves, and have very serious opinions about the MCU and <b><i>Star Wars</i></b>, and Halloween basically starts in September now, the fact that adult art is dying is likely because a lot of adults have little interest in being adults any more. (That though, is way too big a topic, so SIGNING OFF).</p>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-50610090260921120972022-03-02T23:29:00.004-08:002022-03-03T00:07:45.202-08:00The Fetishistic Nothingness of THE BATMAN<p>Fun fact: I didn't grow up reading comic books. I was born in 1976, and other than feeling fucking old of late, one of the big things about my generation is that we didn't have Disney films growing up like other generations. Those of us born in that era were in that sweet spot where home video was growing but not ubiquitous, while Disney animation itself was on a slow decline for over twenty years before they figured out how to make animated films again, and I was way more likely in 1988 to watch BIG BUSINESS or OUTRAGEOUS FORTUNE (Disney/Touchstone films) than, say, OLIVER AND COMPANY . The first animated film that brought them back came out when I was thirteen. And though I may still have been watching DUCK TALES, I wasn't exactly going to go to the theater or rent a video for THE LITTLE MERMAID. Subsequently, I didn't see much of the Disney relaunch at the time. Teen boys weren't running to see THE LION KING or MULAN in the nineties. I saw reissues like BAMBI and new stuff like THE BLACK CAULDRON, but was driven more towards stuff like E.T. and GREMLINS as a pre-teen and was on to ALIENS and ROBOCOP by the time I was hitting double digits. But basically, I don't like being resold my youth. I hate it. I want to be an adult. </p><p>Maybe because I was also front and center for the world of Grunge. And though there is a lot of pick through with that whole movement, the idea that corporate art sucks is something that has always been with me. Not that a corporation can't make great art, but it is never in their interest; they would rather be able to sell something marketable, and marketable and good are not always the same. But we are now at a point where most of the major art that can be made in a studio setting isn't new. It has to be IP, and it suggests that film - as it currently exists - will be dead in the next ten, at best twenty years? Like, who do you get to direct the next Marvel movie if indie directors are coming from under million dollar budgets and isn't that basically TV people, so the big difference between theatrical and home viewing will become how much it cost to make, but only event films will then be theatrical? Disney are such fucking assholes for not making non-Disney movies when they own Fox at this point. They have no interest in the future of cinema, and will likely destroy it as it currently exists. </p><p>The problem is that movie fandom has been taken over, upended as it were, by comic book movies. They do not function like normal films, and going by Marvel and DC's more recent output, they sometimes barely function as films. They are often very successful, sometimes insanely so. But we are getting to a point where it must be said, whatever the appeal of these movies taps into isn't about cinema. That's not to say comic book movie fans don't love movies, but there's an entire audience of movie goers that either doesn't understand or care about craft. But then also, that gets weird too. Respected critics gave Zack Snyder's JUSTICE LEAGUE: THE ASSEMBLY CUT glowing marks and it's hard to tell if they liked it, or are afraid of the violence prone dweebs who like to threaten critics for not genuflecting to lord Marvel and God Snyder, which is a legitimate reason to hand wave it off. That said, I think people may legitimately love ZSJL, but it isn't a movie. Whatever it is isn't as intended even as it tells you it is as intended which is the lie that you have to swallow. And a lot of modern fandom requires swallowing things. As there have been so many sea change moments, none sticks with me more than knowing people hated the Ewoks because of how crass and commercial they seemed. Forty years later and Baby Yoda is fucking everywhere. SELL OUT/THEY LIVE/CONSUME it says. The audience seems to say "yes, yes, take my money." We are culturally at a point where adults know what being pandered to is, and want it more than going to movies that don't. "Please, don't challenge me in any way!" </p><p>One of the things that's been happening is that as the Comic Book Movie Universe grows, we've seen that structure and cohesion no longer matter, and that narratives have no economy. It's all about the saturated fats, it's all about bloated runtimes to make you feel satisfied that you got a full meal, even if there's no great story or action, why complain if you get so much of it? Third acts that basically have no stakes because they have no alternate conclusions. A lot of this started with the prequels, which famously had a sword fight take twenty minutes that could have been over in thirty seconds. That there is a rabid fanbase for the prequels who think everyone was wrong asks the question about some childhood favorite and if they have ruined people's tastes. </p><p>I saw THE BATMAN. There's a point maybe when you're with a friend and they are being hit on by someone else and you tell your friend "that person is trying to take pictures of you having sex while you're dressed as a clown and if you don't walk away they probably will." And you know it's bad news, and you know your friend may be plied with flattery and substances that might take a hard no to a soft yes, but you know it's not your place to parent your friend, so you're also left asking yourself "should I have done more, did they want it, or did they get talked into it?" as they try on clown shoes "as a goof." </p><p>I guess from my perspective, making a grounded three hour movie about Batman chasing down The Riddler is where you end up, and maybe it seems like a good idea at the time, but from where I'm sitting, GROSS. I don't think it's where anyone started their night, and I think if you don't think about the start, you don't maybe think about how each iteration keeps getting more and more boxed in to one version of the character. And it's not that the film is bad, far from it, it's totally watchable, exciting in parts, but it only exists because fandom craves seeing Batman, but Batman in a very fetish-specific way. And I've got nothing against fetishes, it's just so much effort for so little, and this seems like the moment where the world is pot committed to this nonsense in ways that mean movies will be even less artistic.</p><p>Batman is the story of a rich orphan who beats up criminals. Now, say, eighty years ago when people like Al Capone and the like were part of the fabric of pop culture, the idea of super villains made a lot more sense. But here we are. This is more disconcerting with the DC movies because they want to traffic in the real (Marvel movies are lame at times, but they don't try to suggest anything is practical or realistic any more, so you don't really have to think about the real world), and so the question becomes, why are people jerking off to a rich guy beating the crap out of criminals that don't exist? Look, as often as these characters can bring in some "of the moment" devices, The Riddler is modeled on The Zodiac. Who killed people fifty plus years ago. </p><p>So again, is this what you really wanted? You want a realistic portrait of a crime fighter, but then also he goes up against criminal masterminds that are more cinematic invention than reality, while Batman also spends some time around The Penguin and lets him get away with criminal acts. Literally does crime in front of Batman. The important part is that Batman punches good? I don't get it.</p><p>For the record: I think the Adam West film is great, and the TV show is a blast because it isn't serious. It's kids stuff. I think Burton found the camp he wanted, and with the German expressionist visuals, he created something that exists clearly as fetishistic and weird and cartoony, mixing film noir with pop art. I find both his movies uneven, very horny and fascinating, though I don't think most of the characters are in the same movie. Schumacher saw the whole thing as camp, and that gave the game away somewhat. Homophobes don't like being told their homoerotic art is gay, it seems. That said, Schumacher seems vaguely indifferent as a filmmaker, so I can't hold his two in high regard, even if that reveals how much he feels like the whole thing is beneath him, which it might be. Nolan going more realistic was refreshing at the time, it worked and was its own thing (It also happened 15 years ago, before a lot of the Marvel/Wall Street crash/housing bubble/Trump, etc). If the wheels came off that run by the final movie, a lot of that has to do with Heath Ledger dying. But also Nolan had his own vision of the character that was nothing like what was done previous. The Snyder Batman is interesting, because Affleck is inspired and he does good work in dogshit movies, though I don't really think of those as Batman movies, or really movies. Van Art? But also, that's not a practical Batman, because he's dealing with space aliens and Amazons. Snyder would have been the absolute worst choice to do a solo Batman movie (especially after Rorschach-ing WATCHMEN, a film I like), but he doesn't desecrate the character too much (other than that futureworld sequence where Affleck basically threatens to kill Leto's Joker using an F word that feels like the actor smiling while he says it) like he does Superman, so there’s that </p><p>Robert Pattinson is great as Batman. It's just, he's playing a variant of Bale's version. I mean, I'm sure people will make a case that it's totally different, except there's nothing really to latch on to with any iteration of Batman. He's not an interesting character as a superhero or human being, and basically all Batman cinematic narratives come to that conclusion. The main reason he had love interests in the Burton run is because that's what you did then (and also to de-gay all the leather, because, honey). There's some stuff about his parents maybe being POSs that's interesting, but it's 2022. Rich people fucking suck. We know this. What is Batman a fantasy of and who's it for? Why are we now accepting three hour runtimes from popcorn movies that should be 105 minutes? I guess I can understand if it becomes a hyper-stylized essay on good and evil or a fun phantasmagoria type situation. And I totally get having a take on these movies. I don't think JOKER is a <span style="font-family: inherit;">great movie, but it is a movie and it does have ideas. This feels like a variant on everything that's been done before, just enough different that it isn't 100% Nolan-y, but just Nolan enough to make those fans happy. Im trying to think of a singular insight the film has in to human behavior, crime, violence, etc I don’t think it has one. So why is there a new Batman? Because the market is there, and the audience is rabid </span></p><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">The film uses Kurt Cobain - who famously wore a "Corporate Magazines Still Suck" shirt to a Rolling Stone photo shoot - and the song "Something in the Way" to be a Batman theme. The lyrics go like this: </span></p><div style="text-align: left;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">"<span style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">Underneath the bridge<br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: inherit;">Tarp has sprung a leak<br /></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124; font-family: inherit;">And the animals I've trapped<br /></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">Have all become my pets<br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">And I'm living off of grass<br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">And the drippings from my ceiling<br /></span></span><span style="font-family: inherit;"><span jsname="YS01Ge" style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">It's okay to eat fish<br /></span></span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124;"><span style="font-family: inherit;">Cause they don't have any feelings"</span></span></div><div><p><span style="font-family: inherit;">Sounds like a portrait of a homeless man losing his mind. The antithesis of a rich kid who beats up bad guys and fights crime for catharsis. My guess is Batman and the filmmakers, like the audience Cobain decried, <span style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">knows not what it means. </span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">Knows not what it means, a</span><span style="background-color: white; color: #202124;">nd I say yeah.</span></span></p></div>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-52297034514793363992021-06-26T14:20:00.003-07:002021-06-26T14:21:51.261-07:00NO STRINGS ATTACHED (FROM DAMON’S DESK)<p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">Hey, readers, I started this as my review of <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings Attached</span></strong>, but it became something greater, so it is a review of that, but mostly in passing and near the end. As I am more interested in writing about the genre than the film itself, I’ll give you my star rating, and talk about the film intermittently, but there you go.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><strong style="background-color: white;">ON ROMANTIC COMEDIES AND <span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">NO STRINGS ATTACHED</span></strong></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">The problem with romantic comedies is partly the nature of cinema. For most of us, relationships are defined by attraction and then functionality. These are sometimes mutually exclusive: sometimes the people we want to fuck are a hot mess to deal with, and sometimes the people we’re most comfortable with offer no sexual thrills. Attraction is inherently cinematic but can only be drawn out so long, while showing how a relationship works is probably best left for television than a two hour narrative. Even when people “meet cute” in real life, generally the obstacles that keep them apart are easy fixes or are ultimately too great to hurdle but – at the very least – are generally not that funny. If you are married and meet someone you like better, then that’s not that amusing. Such is why great romance narratives use world events as a backdrop, or use great tragedies (like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Titanic</span></strong> or <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Remember Me</span></strong>) to heighten the immediacy. Sometimes you meet someone and there’s that passionate flame, but then there’s the after, and the after is hard to turn into a three-act structure without a dilemma.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">Rom-coms usually have very silly obstacles and it’s difficult to show the relationships after the two leads have had sex because then there is a level of acceptance (especially in Rom-com films pre-1970) that negates the rest of the narrative. This is partly because sex was considered reserved for marriage (at least in movies), but even without marriage, once sex is introduced it’s hard to find a better ending. In real life sex is usually a dividing line of seriousness or something that comes early, which is why setting a film in high school (even that gets dicey now), or in a workplace (like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Office</span></strong>) can add some juice to explain why the two leads aren’t already jumping in the sack and calling themselves exclusive. <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings Attached</span></strong>has a semi-solution to that problem, but it also shows the weird chemistry that is involved with making a good love story.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-31918" height="300" loading="lazy" sizes="(max-width: 194px) 100vw, 194px" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/MPW-11337-194x300.jpg" srcset="https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/MPW-11337-194x300.jpg 194w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/MPW-11337-97x150.jpg 97w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/MPW-11337.jpg 450w" style="border: 0px; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 15px 15px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="MPW-11337" width="194" /><span style="background-color: white;">Most films in the rom-com genre find the most strained ways to keep their perfect couples from fucking (which is usually the closer). That’s generally why the best relationship comedies aren’t about meeting and falling in love. <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Annie Hall</span></strong> is the ultimate example, but melancholy doesn’t really go hand in hand with films starring Kate Hudson or Katherine Heigl. Some of the best love stories are buried within genre work (like – as I’ve said before – the films of Edgar Wright, all of whose films could be describes as rom-coms), which often create an obstacle greater than the clichéd Baxter character. “I will become a man for you by standing up to zombies” is – in its way – usually more interesting than “she thought we were second cousins” or “she thought I was married,” etc. But to that end, <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Rio Bravo</span></strong> can be typed a romantic comedy. If we remove genre efforts, the object of all romantic comedies is to find a believable obstacle that keeps two attractive people from each other long enough so they get to know each other and we believe they could be happy together, if only.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">Bringing up the Baxter, it’s worth delving into that cliché. The Baxter was defined by the film <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Baxter</span></strong>, which had Michael Showalter playing a character with numerous perfect women, but always left for the “better man.” The archetypal Baxter is Bill Pullman’s character in <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Sleepless in</span></strong> <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Seattle</span></strong>, but this character exists in a lot of movies as both men and women. The problem with a Baxter is that the film needs to dismiss them, and if it shows a powerful or interesting man or woman with an asshole, a doormat or a loser, it also dings your sympathy for them. In <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">You’ve Got Mail</span></strong>, Tom Hanks is dating Parker Posey and at no point do believe they would be together. Then you’ll have one like Bradley Cooper in <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Wedding Crashers</span></strong>, who pretends to be a nice guy. But – again – the problem with that is it suggests the female lead doesn’t know the real person they’re dating. Romantic comedies rarely have the time or interest to make it about a real struggle to abandon this person, and though being in a bad relationship or dysfunctional one is commonplace, it’s hard to make that cinematic without dinging your character’s sympathy. One of the best movies about this is Ernst Lubitsch’s <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Trouble in Paradise</span></strong>, where both women the male character has to chose from are worthy of his affections. But then also being alone is awkward because it suggests the character is not currently sexually successful, and/or desirable.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-31919" height="300" loading="lazy" sizes="(max-width: 202px) 100vw, 202px" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-poster01-202x300.jpg" srcset="https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-poster01-202x300.jpg 202w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-poster01-101x150.jpg 101w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-poster01.jpg 460w" style="border: 0px; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px 15px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="eternal-sunshine-of-the-spotless-mind-poster01" width="202" /><span style="background-color: white;">The best romantic comedies tend to fuck with the formula in interesting ways, either by playing on role reversal (like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The 40-Year-Old Virgin</span></strong>), or by diluting the saccharine (like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Apartment</span></strong> or <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</span></strong>). The genre is mostly a ghetto, but a lot of the greatest filmmakers have made them and the one’s that work best don’t come from a bullshit place. On the commentary for <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Say Anything</span></strong>, Cameron Crowe talks about how John Cusack brought a darkness to his character, and it may explain why it’s still one of (if not the) best things he’s ever done.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">And what’s interesting about modern romantic comedies is that they usually come from a place of complete and utter bullshit. They are removed from those sorts of pain, even if they mostly come with a musical montage when the female or male lead blows it. Let’s take a film like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Failure to Launch</span></strong>. The premise of the film is that Mathew McConaughey (how’s it going) is a successful guy who lives with his parents. Right there, the film is harder to swallow than Peter Parker designing his own web-shooters. But then Sarah Jessica Parker plays a woman whose job it is to help men like him to find their way out of their parents’ house. I guess metaphorically, the idea that a number of men are grown-up boys is a good start for a romantic comedy, but the film throws anything resembling reality out the window. And for set pieces, you have a scene in a film like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Ugly Truth</span></strong>, where a young child finds the controls of the vibrating panties that Katherine Heigl is wearing. So basically she’s being raped or sexually assaulted by an underage boy. Something I’m sure most viewers can relate to. But this is also escalation of the new sensibilities, and trying to find the new “I’ll have what she’s having” is a hard business.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-31921" height="300" loading="lazy" sizes="(max-width: 202px) 100vw, 202px" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ST2947-202x300.jpg" srcset="https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ST2947-202x300.jpg 202w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ST2947-101x150.jpg 101w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ST2947.jpg 303w" style="border: 0px; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 15px 15px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="ST2947" width="202" /><span style="background-color: white;">But that said – so many things in mainstream romantic comedies that are considered charming or romantic could lead to a restraining order. This cuts both ways – <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Amelie</span></strong> is either a slice of whimsy or a movie about a sociopathic women who doesn’t enjoy sex and likes to interfere in other people’s lives. <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Cinema Paradiso</span></strong> used standing outside a woman’s window every night as proof of an everlasting love. Lloyd Dobler shows up outside his ex-girlfriend’s house and to make her reconsider their break-up plays the song that played during their first sexual encounter. These things are romantic when the two parties love each other. But if they don’t…</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">One of the biggest romantic comedies of the last twenty five years involved Julia Roberts playing a hooker, so perhaps the appeal of these sorts of films for a modern audience is their complete bullshitiness. Figures of romantic allure like Robert Patinson or Richard Gere may seem unattainable to the lady in accounts receivable, so saddling the narrative with real world problems only conflates the dissonance of a masturbatory fantasy (it adds zippers to the zipless fuck). Some men may aspire to be Spider-Man like some women aspire to be Kristen Stewart in <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Twilight</span></strong>. The core truth (doing good, being loved) is not clouded by the things we cannot be. But the modern skewing of these male fantasies is toward more and more realism and darkness, where the modern feminine fantasy has become in mainstream cinema less realistic. Or perhaps part of it is that these are considered date films, and there’s nothing less appealing than being on a date and having your problems reflected back on you.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">It’s interesting that men have in some ways co-opted the genre in that a lot of films that cast schlubby men in the romantic leading role, though this may have more to do with modern living. Men like love stories as well, and so a rotund Seth Rogen or a sexless 40-year-old man become the male avatars. Even something like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Notting Hill</span></strong> suggests that the fantasy is more for the male character than the female (though Julia Roberts is playing the polar opposite of her character in <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Pretty Woman</span></strong>). These films speak to male insecurities about attractiveness and experience. There have been few – if any – plump female romantic comedies, and generally they star Toni Collette. The Farrelly brothers tried to wrestle with this, but ultimately failed in <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Shallow Hal</span></strong>. But – for whatever reason – the more male versions of these sorts of movies are usually the one’s championed, be it the work of Judd Apatow, or <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">There’s Something about Mary</span></strong>. In these cases it’s the men who are the ugly ducklings, but the sappiness is diluted by profanity and more explicit sexual talk (but the films themselves have become relatively sexless). And such may be why Elizabeth Meriwether’s script for <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings Attached</span></strong> is peppered with profanity and the – now expected – somewhat filthier sex talk. But – like so many of these films – there’s not a lot of lust. When you watch a film like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">The Lady Eve</span></strong> that Henry Fonda wants to have sex with Barbara Stanwyck is unquestionable. Or <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Ball of Fire</span></strong> (one of my favorite films in the history of ever), Gary Cooper definitely wants Stanwyck’s sexual attentions. Whereas when I watch something like <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings Attached</span></strong>, I don’t know if I really believe either actor wants to make hot monkey love, and if I give <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Twilight</span></strong> credit for anything, it’s that Kristen Stewart definitely seems hot to trot for her leading man in the film (which may be the ultimate sign of acting).</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img alt="" class="alignright size-medium wp-image-31923" height="300" loading="lazy" sizes="(max-width: 200px) 100vw, 200px" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ugly_truth_poster2-200x300.jpg" srcset="https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ugly_truth_poster2-200x300.jpg 200w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ugly_truth_poster2-100x150.jpg 100w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/ugly_truth_poster2.jpg 480w" style="border: 0px; float: right; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 0px 15px 15px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="ugly_truth_poster2" width="200" /><span style="background-color: white;">The funniest thing for me in the watching of <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings Attached</span></strong> was talking to a number of female colleagues when the film was over. The premise of <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings</span></strong>is that Natalie Portman and Asthon Kutcher’s characters decide to become fuck-buddies (the film’s original title), who just have sex but aren’t supposed to be committed to each other. Kutcher shows up at her place after a bender caused by his ex girlfriend dating his father (Kevin Kline). He wakes up on the couch and then moves to her bedroom where she suggests they get to the fucking with a less than two minute insert-to-complete timeline.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Imagine what he’d smell like?”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Terrible. I keep breath mints near my bed so it isn’t gross to kiss in the morning.”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Also, he’d been drinking all night. I would be shocked at his… readiness.”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Or hers.”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“Sandpaper.”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">“And who would that be good for? You’ve just proved that he can pop quick.”</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">Funnily enough I didn’t mind the scene as much as the women did, but I understood their points. For me the moment I was turned against the film happens early. The film has about three prologues, with the two leads meeting as children, then in college, and then in current times before Kutcher’s night of debauched drinking. In the college setting, we’re introduced to the four main characters, with Kutcher and Portman hanging out with their friends who also are their BFF’s a couple years later. Greta Gerwig plays the female best friend, and she’s supposed to be the antithesis of Portman’s character in her way (that is to say, in a vaguely defined sense that may have been left on the cutting room floor), and is the more slutty of the two. But her character is introduced wearing shorts that say “whore.” It was a moment I felt shame for the actress, her character, and everyone involved.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><img alt="" class="alignleft size-medium wp-image-31922" height="300" loading="lazy" sizes="(max-width: 197px) 100vw, 197px" src="http://www.chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/the-baxter-1997-poster-large-197x300.jpg" srcset="https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/the-baxter-1997-poster-large-197x300.jpg 197w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/the-baxter-1997-poster-large-98x150.jpg 98w, https://chud.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/the-baxter-1997-poster-large.jpeg 600w" style="border: 0px; float: left; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: inherit; font-variant-caps: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px 15px 15px 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;" title="the-baxter-1997-poster-large" width="197" /><span style="background-color: white;">Oh well. From there the film sets up about its premise (these two have sex and then fall in love), but then it also establishes a vague threat in a male Baxter. You know you’re not with the film when you think that guy has a point. He’s a coworker who tells Kutcher that he’s just an empty headed prat who she’ll fuck for a while until she realizes that Kutcher’s a loser. and he’s a doctor. Since Portman wants a relationship with someone who understands she works 80 hours a week, he’s got a point and Kutcher’s character denies that he’s had his life handed to him, but seems to have gotten his job because of his father. This is made less sympathetic by his desire to be a writer – but a writer for the show he’s on, which appears to be a <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">High School Musical </span></strong>clone. For people in the industry this might make more sense than for those not. Often getting started means working on things you might normally not, but the film doesn’t build that in any reasonable way, so his real goal appears to be writing for a Disney/Nickelodeon type show.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">If there’s one thing that <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">No Strings</span></strong> gets mostly right is how digital technology has changed everything. These are characters who text. And if I’m not satisfied by the end product, it’s at least fair to say that the film recognizes the current dating landscape where texting is way more prevalent than – in a lot of cases – talking on the phone, and where a text message has both a timeline, but a long editing session. Personally, other than my immediate family members, I’m more likely to text or Skype than call these days, especially in the exploratory period.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">But though there’s a Baxter-y threat, the main thing that keeps the two characters apart is the fact that Natalie Portman’s character is insane. This isn’t necessarily in the text, but her reasons for breaking up and wanting the relationship the way it is are barely explained at best. I guess it’s because she’s a career-driven woman, but the problem is that – at a certain point in the film before the two break up and before their end reunion (spoilers?) – she all but says that she loves him. Kutcher’s character is in love with her from the start and puts up with her shit, and it only takes situations like him taking two women home after she suggests that they see other people, or later another woman after she’s ended it for her to figure out he’s a keeper. At a certain point I would have been happier if the film didn’t end up with them together, because – as Robert De Niro would say – she had her shot and she BLLEWWWW it. Forgiveness is romantic in its way, but there’s a point where if someone doesn’t understand that you love them, or they can’t reciprocate when comforted with dead-on feelings, I don’t understand sticking around. At least cinematically. But Portman’s (and by default their) biggest obstacle is that she’s nuts. Take it back, maybe this does speak to certain truths. No wait, it doesn’t.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">The other big problem in the film is that their obstacle is no obstacle, so they spend the middle of the film basically having a great time together, and acting like they’re in love, so there’s about zero dramatic tension. If you’re fucking and go on romantic dates, then you’ve removed any sense of escalation, because cinematically they spend all their time together. They’re – in the film’s terms – clicking, and that’s all we see, so okay, what’s the problem? The problem is that she just wants to be fuck-buddies, but doesn’t understand that sex has an emotional component that comes from hanging out with each other? This would be a better film if someone said that Portman’s character had Aspbergers, because the problem with their relationship is an ill-defined sense of definition, whereas the human condition is usually contingent on malleability. Or, to quote someone else, “life is what happens when you’re busy making plans.” The film doesn’t do a very good job explaining why Portman’s character doesn’t want attachment after it appears she is mostly attached.</span></p><p style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto; border: 0px; caret-color: rgb(255, 255, 255); font-family: "Open Sans", Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif; font-size: 13px; font-stretch: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin-bottom: 1.5em !important; margin-left: 0px; margin-right: 0px; margin-top: 0px; margin: 0px 0px 1.5em; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;"><span style="background-color: white;">To that end, director Ivan Retiman and company pepper the film with a number of great female actresses and waste them. Lake Bell plays one of Kutcher’s coworkers, Abby Elliot plays a bisexual – possibly lesbian – waitress, Mindy Kahling and Greta Gerwig play two of Portman’s housemates, Jennifer Irwin (of <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Eastbound and Down</span></strong>) plays a bitchy boss, and Olivia Thirlby plays Portman’s sister. The film has much stronger females, though Ludacris does have a funny line or two, and Kevin Kline is way too good as the hippy, drug taking father. Kline is encased in Teflon in the film, he gets to show up and do what he wants. Reitman at this point hasn’t made a great film in fifteen years (I’ll give him <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Dave</span></strong>), and he’s not really on his game in this film, but in a lot of ways the film feels more like the product of Meriwether, or at least she seems more like the driving force. Perhaps that’s the publicity, or the sense that Reitman likely doesn’t text as much. It’s funny that Meriwether comes from Diablo Cody’s posse (no jokes) because <strong><span style="border: 0px; font-family: inherit; font-size: inherit; font-stretch: inherit; font-style: italic; font-variant-caps: inherit; font-weight: inherit; line-height: inherit; margin: 0px; padding: 0px; vertical-align: baseline;">Juno</span></strong> is a way better textured romantic comedy. This film is mostly harmless, but the premise of dealing with how people often fall for each other after they’ve had sex is a great place to start, as is a film that at least tries to attempt to deal with sex in more modern terms. But, ultimately, this feels like a strong pitch-based premise that never cracked the film’s conceit. Which seems to the number one problem with genre: They find some convoluted excuse for people who are going to fall in love to have difficulties, but it rarely feels real because the conceit is inorganic.</span></p><p><br class="Apple-interchange-newline" style="-webkit-text-size-adjust: auto;" /></p>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-35713927275385237462020-12-29T17:05:00.006-08:002020-12-29T17:18:54.288-08:00TIRED OF THE DISCOURSE: WONDER WOMAN 1984 EDITION<p>Everyone is annoyed right now (at least - though not only - in America). I was standing in a long line to get groceries today, which shows how inconvenient the world is right now, and there was a guy standing outside with no mask on. And it was making me furious how long he was standing in line at distances six feet apart without putting one on. I don't know this guy, and we can stand six feet apart and if we aren't talking or breathing too hard maybe it's not a risk, but we're all tired and cranky. And it took a lot for me not to scold a guy I don't know who may have lost a mask and needed to buy one. I don't know. But I feel like this whole event makes us all feel like everyone else is an asshole. <br /></p><p>For smart people who've spent the last nine months sheltering in place it's because we recognize this could have been over if people weren't being so selfish and short sighted. For less smart people it's because they feel limited by people telling them what to do. Everyone is upset.Gal Gadot first stepped in this with the now infamous "Imagine" video, which saw her and a number of visibly unsure celebrity friends sheltering at home in their lovely houses singing the Lennon song. What was likely the effort of a bunch of theater kids to brighten the mood went over horribly, partly because for a certain section of the population class politics are more important than ever, especially when there is so much income disparity and a bunch of rich doofuses telling the world to cheer up Charlie just doesn't play. But, it was also easy to clown because it was earnest. And earnest requires leaving yourself open to be mocked. The question is how much is that just the world basically listening to the mulletted smoker in the fleece jacket mocking Boy George and Whitney Houston? It is the easiest thing in the world to be cynical, but what and who are we picking on and why? <br /></p><p>One of the disappointing side effects of the Trump presidency is then the coarsening of our culture. People who might think of themselves as pacifists - when pressed - might be up for bad things happening to the president and his cronies. It falls somewhere between justice and eyes for eyes. And their intentional disinterest in managing a natural disaster, and the fact that the entire Republican party is now a clown show filled with grievances for nonsense reasons is going to be something that will either be put down, or eventually ruin the country. Yes, 81 Million people voted for one guy. 74 Million voted for the other. DURING THIS. They wanted the guy running things now to run them more. </p><p>The unfortunate problem is that releasing WONDER WOMAN 1984 right now is like releasing a feature length version of that Imagine video. Not that it's a shitty DIY bunch of celebs looking like idiots for even trying/caring, but it is a film meant to be a salve against the Trump era. It's an earnest film.</p><p>I say this having seen the film a couple of times now. The first time I saw it my reaction was "this is not going to go over well." I couldn't totally articulate why I didn't think it was going to work, but I could tell this was not going to play with some audiences. Maybe because it's bright, maybe because it isn't very Marvel, maybe because the trailer suggested a film more driven by the 1984 setting, which is mostly kept to a clothing montage and opening sequence. I didn't have a bead on it until I watched it again, and then I saw what the film was trying to do.</p><p>Wonder Woman never throws a punch. In the entire movie. Once you understand that, the whole film opens up. You may not like it, but there is a design to it. </p><p>In the mall fight scene, everything is about defense and keeping the bad guys tied down. Having a fight scene where the main character is acting defensively plays weird. She is never the aggressor, but will leave the bad guys incapacitated. This fight is capped by the most violent Diana moment in the whole thing, where the bad guys are dropped on the roof of a car, but it's played for laughs. And if you have already decided this movie sucks you can be like "that would kill them." And if you say that to me, buddy, have you watched an action movie? When Diana protects Barbara from pushy street guy, we just see that he's been knocked away, not the act itself - we only see that Diana caught her. But when Barbara defends herself it's an act of horror because she is partly the aggressor. In the Middle East chase, Diana rips out a steering wheel and tells the driver the brakes still work. The reason why the car she's under flips is because it's falling apart and she grabs a pipe that causes it to go airborne, and then uses a missile to save children. The White House fight shows Diana at her most aggressive (she kicks), but it's always a defensive maneuver. This then is contrasted when Barbara gains her strength and beats the crap out of the secret service that then Wonder Woman has to also save from Barbara, while also protecting herself from them. I don't know shit about martial arts, but I assume WW's technique is all water based, using people's energies to defeat them etc., but that's not my area of expertise. <br /></p><p>In the end Wonder Woman kills no one, not even Barbara. The only purely bad guys are the criminals at the beginning (and maybe the creepy street guy), but the film ends with redemption for everyone else. Because the story is about how cheating is bad. Which is why the film opens with WW losing because she cheated, it's why she can't have Steve, and why we can't trust magical BS artists who say they can give you everything. The film is about the redemptive possibilities of empathy, and the desire to fight bad with good. But not good that's accepts the only response to violence is violence. <br /></p><p>And I can see audiences - many people isolating by themselves during the hardest time of the year to be alone, or even people who visit family members or flew and knowingly put themselves in danger because it's been a rough year - watching this movie and being annoyed with it's perkiness. This is a film that is trying to show a world without Trump, that doesn't appeal to base instincts of violence and revenge. And right now that's super easy to say to that "fuck you." Because the difference between "Imagine" and "Many things" is not that far. <br /></p><p>DISCLAIMER: I can also tell you things that don't work about this film. I mean, I don't think the Cheetah design works at all, but a dodgy five minute CGI sequence in a superhero movie is not a deal breaker because if it was I could never watch them. Ultimately I think this is a pretty good studio movie. <br /></p>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-84955500766193736622020-12-24T16:49:00.001-08:002020-12-24T17:07:31.401-08:00George Lucas Doesn't Get Yoda<p>The Mandalorian seems to play well for some. That "some" seems to like the prequels and hates THE LAST JEDI. Even if they know that THE RISE OF SKYWALKER is infinitely worse, they fucking hate THE LAST JEDI so they will beat up on it using Mando as a gotcha. I had to stop watching it because I didn't see a point in hatewatching nostalgia nothings. And that's what it is. But you know, if you enjoy it, go for it. I'm tired. There's a pandemic. </p><p>But I think part of the divide is that there's some of us who have known George Lucas is full of shit and he doesn't totally get STAR WARS, which is why the prequels don't work, and those who think the prequels are as intended, and do so much heavy lifting to make them a coherent whole thatthey want to claim it's a master's thesis. But Lucas just doesn't get Yoda. At all. </p><p>But, you say, didn't Lucas create Yoda? Yes and no. In a script credited to Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan and a story by George Lucas, there is room to suggest that Lucas had nothing to do with how Yoda turned out. But then you counter that Brackett died in 1978 - her credit is part courtesy - so there is always this thought that there are unknown knowns, or known unknowns. But here's the thing, George Lucas is credited as the writer of the STAR WARS novelization that has Luke as a twenty year old and Leia as 18. Either Lucas didn't actually write it (Alan Dean Foster is also credited, IIRC), or Lucas didn't actually know they would be brother and sister until RETURN OF THE JEDI, when they felt they needed another big twist like in EMPIRE STRIKES BACK (also one that could justify why the lead didn't get the girl). Regardless, the emperor has no clothes/master plan. Lucas never had a fleshed out nine film cycle, he lied. If you can't sense his change in attitude from THE PHANTOM MENACE to ATTACK OF THE CLONES to respond to criticisms, I hope that Kool Aid tastes delicious. <br /></p><p>The other big thing is this, EMPIRE director Irvin Kershner was Lucas's film professor in college. Think about that. What a flex to hire your teacher to make a film about your cinematic avatar (and Lucas put a lot of himself into Luke) to then make a film about teaching that avatar how to be an adult. </p><p>And then think about how much of a flex it is to make that movie, and then have it be as good if not better than STAR WARS. To then create an indelible figure like Yoda who basically tells the main character that he's a chump, and then when that main character ignores the teacher's advice, shows that he's a failure. And it works as a middle chapter narrative, so you can't even say Kersh was being a dick to do it. That's some fraught melodrama behind the scenes. But he did establish Yoda, what he is and what he's about. And Lucas doesn't understand Yoda at all. </p><p>How can I say that? It's simple really. When Yoda says "Too old to begin the training" in EMPIRE he's negging Luke. It's not a Jedi rule in the universe at that time. How do I know? BECAUSE YODA FUCKING TRAINS LUKE. Not because he's their last hope, but because Yoda did it because needed Luke to know he ain't shit. Luke at that moment thought he knew everything, and Yoda needed to make him a pupil. That's not one plus fourteen times x to the fourth, that's what's on screen. Yoda pretends to be a weird old creature because he needs to teach Luke that he is looking at the world wrong. Which is why the most important line in the entirety of STAR WARS is "judge me by my size do you? Where you should not."</p><p>When Yoda says Anakin is too old to begin the training in TPM, it's a callback, but one that doesn't make any god damned sense. Why? Because it was never about age. But to make it about age makes it a thing. "Oh, that's how they do it." But if you recognize all those moments in the prequel that recall Luke's training are basically fan service (the blaster helmets) it's not a coherent ideology, but Lucas not really engaged, throwing out these moments to make fans happy. And any attempts to spin "How can the Jedi be such idiots?" into a coherent narrative betrays the fact that Lucas had no interest in doing any heavy lifting so he creates obstacles that are non-obstacles to keep them from being all powerful. I cannot watch the PT films (which I have recently) and say that Lucas had any plan so much as that any time he felt like "I should address why this is" his best response was "reasons" that now people try to map out into a coherent thing. And I'm not attacking this because I think I know Jedis better than George Lucas, it's because it's lazy. It's giving R2 the ability to fly after four movies because you can't write yourself out of a scene lazy.<br /></p><p>How can I say that he doesn't get Yoda? Because it's a different character, and a much less interesting one (which is endemic of Lucas's PT films). Where's Yoda's sense of humor? Did he turn into a goofball magically twenty years later? I mean, it's possible being isolated on a swamp planet gets you goofy, but I don't think Yoda was bored. But as damning as TPM is in showing Lucas just not caring to engage with the ideas of the original trilogy, the moment that proves Lucas doesn't get Yoda is the minute Yoda fights with a light saber. Not because he turns into a whirling dervish, but because as a master he should never have to. It's a complete lack of imagination to have Yoda get into a fight and then lose because he's overwhelmed because it's judging him by his size. If you don't understand that Yoda is the moral heart of this universe, you don't get that universe. </p><p>And this is something Rian Johnson understands to his core, and something Mandalorian does not, because it allows Baby Yoda to be a cute murderer. If you don't understand why I don't find that appealing, I don't understand why you like things. </p><p>I think part of the reason why this is vexing to me is that the Lucas mythos is sort of like Trump. You're buying into this package that ignores the human element that suggests something completely different than what is being projected. And to find coherent ideology of the Jedi's actions (even if you can) in the prequels is to ignore the bigger picture for the service of something else. Like what you like. Enjoy the prequels if you do. But don't pretend it's something that it's not. <br /></p>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-81075419326453968232020-06-30T16:27:00.000-07:002020-06-30T16:27:47.909-07:00The Underrated Insanity Of Tsui Hark And Jean-Claude Van Damme’s KNOCK OFF<div class="js-fitvid Article-content">
Tsui Hark’s <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em> has fallen by the
wayside, like much of America’s brief fascination with Hong Kong cinema.
Which is unfortunate as the film deserves to be canonized for its
commitment to insanity. It also features Jean Claude Van Damme’s best
performance outside of JCVD… not that he’d recall as he’s suggested he
was so coked out at the time he doesn’t remember filming it. Like I
said, it’s a special movie.<br />
<br />
Let me start with a little bit of history. Before the handoff in 1997, there was a concern (made explicit in films like <em><strong>Hard Boiled</strong></em>)
that Hong Kong and its film community would be destroyed by the change
of rule from England to China. This led many artists like John Woo to
make films that seemed to also serve as audition reels. Hollywood --
wowed by the impressive stunts and action sequences in those movies --
were quick to work with these directors and stars in a move that draws
parallels to the importing of German filmmakers in the 1930s and 40s.
Actors like Jackie Chan, Jet Li and Chow Yun Fat dabbled with making
films in America, while directors like John Woo, Ringo Lam and Tsui Hark
also tried their hand stateside. The directors were often handed low
budget action movies, and all three mentioned made their first English
language films with Jean-Claude Van Damme.<br />
Van Damme’s appeal, like Chuck Norris before him and like contemporary
Steven Seagal, is that he’s a white martial artist, which meant that
many films were built around his ability to punch, kick and do the
splits (seriously, he did the splits a lot) while speaking a form of
English. Of the action guys, he’s easily one of the best actors:
Seagal’s range seem to go from squinty to ticked off, while Van Damme
can actually emote (perhaps like a caveman, but still). And unlike
Seagal and Norris, he can be both convincing and appealing in a love
scene, or if nothing else it never seemed cruel to the actress. During
the 90s one could expect a Van Damme film or two a year, with <em><strong>Timecop</strong></em> his biggest hit, and <em><strong>Street Fighter </strong></em>his biggest fiasco.<br />
<em><strong> </strong></em><br />
<em><strong>Hard Target </strong></em>imported John Woo, and there Woo showed America he could handle our industry, while <em><strong>Maximum Risk</strong></em>
got Ringo Lam to make a film about Van Damme playing twins (which he’s
done a couple times) in a global thriller that was a swing and a miss,
though it’s a film I find very watchable despite its flaws. By the time
Tsui Hark got to Van Damme in 1997, they made a buddy picture with
Dennis Rodman. <em><strong>Double Team</strong></em> came at the end of
America’s fascination with Hong Kong cinema as Hollywood began to absorb
their techniques, so there’s a sense with it that they threw a bunch of
things in the film to make people excited. Not only do you have Hark,
Van Damme and Rodman, you also get Mickey Rourke, a riff on the British
TV series <em><strong>The Prisoner</strong></em>, and some very nutty
action sequences, with the capper involving the heroes being saved from a
gigantic fireball by a Coke machine. <em><strong>Double Team</strong></em> is pretty bonkers, and it’s well worth checking out. But it can’t compare to the gleeful insanity of <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em>.<br />
<br />
By 1998, when Van Damme and Hark reteamed for <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em>,
it was like the world wasn’t paying attention. For the most part, they
weren’t. Though John Woo showed he could direct big blockbusters like <em><strong>Face/Off</strong></em> and <em><strong>Mission: Impossible 2</strong></em>, Van Damme’s career (much like Seagal’s) was pretty much over, and films like <em><strong>Double Team</strong></em> and <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em> grossed about ten million each. His next movie went straight to video (which was shocking then), and the film after that was <em><strong>Universal Soldier: The Return</strong></em>. It was a sequel to one of his biggest hits and when that tanked it spelled the end.<br />
<em><strong> </strong></em><br />
<em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em> began with a script by Steven E. de Souza, the action writer of the 1980’s. <em><strong>Commando. 48 Hrs., Die Hard. The Running Man. Hudson Hawk. The Flinstones</strong></em>. He did it all. And by the 90s, he wanted to make fun of the films he made popular. <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em>
(as made explicit by the title), was meant to be a joke on all these
same-y action movies, which may have been why Francis Ford Coppola
briefly flirted with making the movie (though it’s hard to imagine his
version being made with JCVD). According to de Souza, much of the film
is as written. Perhaps it would have been funnier had an American
directed it, but in Hark’s hands it becomes a borderline surreal
concoction.<br />
The film follows Van Damme’s Marcus Ray, a former denim knockoff artist
who has moved on to work for V-6 Jeans. But as the film starts, the
movie is more concerned with Russians in Hong Kong, who are not only
dealing in knockoff jeans, but ones that have little explosives in them
that are as powerful as a stick of dynamite, and emit green flames (yes,
green flames). The movie starts in the middle of a sting operation
where the Russians are trying to get their latest shipment, but
something goes wrong and the cops move in. The film briefly sets up some
of the Russian antagonists, mostly by giving them colorful looks, or in
one case a cough. But when the cops arrive (led by Michael Wong),
everything goes nuts.<br />
<br />
And from this opening action sequence, it seems that Hark -- who directed such classically constructed films like<em><strong> Once Upon a Time in China</strong></em>
and has been referred to as the Asian Spielberg -- decided he didn’t
want a single shot in the movie to be boring and so every place he puts
the camera is interesting and surprising. In the opening chase sequence,
Michael Wong is in a boat chasing the Russians, and one of the Russians
has a sniper rifle. He shoots one of Wong’s men, but to show that
death, Hark cuts to blood bursting in air. It’s impressionistic, and the
film borders on chaos, incoherence even, but every decision is bold and
crazy. Right away he sets the tone, as the film stock seems to change
in moments, and he’ll use a fisheye lens for the hell of it.<br />
<br />
After this opening set piece we’re introduced to Marcus’ partner Tommy
Hendricks (played by Rob Schneider) as the camera decides to go through
an earring, because why the fuck not? He’s surrounded by models, and
Schneider attempts to make jokes and points out that Marcus isn’t
around. So Ray gives Marcus a call. And what does the camera do? It
decides to follow the phone call through the universe. We then see Van
Damme driving a nice car and singing along to a Cantonese pop song. At
this point you are either with the film, or it’s just going to turn you
off. Marcus checks in on some former employees, and their shoddy
knockoff products (which involves Hark having a picture in picture just
because), and there we meet Skinny (Glen Chin), who seems to have become
the top dog in the knockoff market. He also introduces the idea that
Marcus is about to be in a big race.<br />
<br />
So the race involves rickshaws, with Marcus carrying Tommy through
crowded Hong Kong streets. It seems to be a big deal because there’s
Americans and Australians who are also competing. Also in the race:
Eddie Wang (Wyman Wong), who’s like a brother to Marcus, and also deals
in knockoffs. For the competition Marcus needs sports shoes so Tommy
bought him Pumas, but it turns out the shoes are knockoffs (the name has
two M’s), and the film shows Marcus putting on the shoes from his
foot’s POV.<br />
<br />
Let me say that again, <em><strong>Knock Off </strong></em>features a foot’s point of view.<br />
<br />
So Marcus, Eddie and Tommy start the race, and it involves running
through Hong Kong markets at breakneck speeds, while Marcus’ knockoff
shoes start falling apart (we can tell because the camera goes inside
the shoe as the glue unsticks). And by going through the marketplace, it
gives Schneider a chance to grab an eel. Why? So he can whip Van
Damme’s ass, which he does twice (it makes Van Damme whinny). Eddie is
cheating and has a double run in his place, but that double is grabbed
by Russians. Since Marcus is friends with Eddy and thinks his friend has
been kidnapped, he chases the car with his rickshaw, and gets it to
crash into a supermarket. Van Damme, unarmed, must take on the Russians
with their guns, which leads to a bullet POV shot that goes through a
can of soup. The action becomes partly impressionistic as Van Damme must
sense where to move to avoid being shot.<br />
<br />
The sequence ends with Marcus
and Tommy being taken in by the cops, and introduces Karen Lee (Lela
Rochon), an executive from V-6 Jeans who informs them that their last
shipment was stocked with knockoffs. After this terrible day, they get
dinner, where Tommy is taken in by some tough looking guys. It turns out
(after a fight scene) that Tommy’s CIA, and he partnered with Marcus
for cover, which leads to some of the best acting in both Van Damme and
Schneider’s filmography. His boss, Hendricks (Paul Sorvino), is
monitoring the knockoff artists and the Russians, who it turns out are
in bed with Skinny and want to kill Eddy because he sent the shipment
from the beginning into the ocean. Crosses and double crosses ensue.<br />
<br />
The first time I saw this film in theaters was probably mid-week with a
friend, and we weren’t expecting much nor likely were the three other
audience members, but there came a moment at the end of one of the fight
sequences where there were subtitles on screen, and I was incapable of
processing the words. The film offers so much unique visual information
that it’s overwhelming. Which is probably why I went back and saw it
again the next day, and made a point to see it five times in the
theaters. The film spoke to me, and it continues to, I’ve probably
watched it at least once every year, and love showing it to people who
have no idea what they’re in for.<br />
<br />
Film Crit Hulk asked me to write this piece, so allow me some Hulk level
discursions. Let’s talk about filmmaking for a second. There is a
language to cinema in which every shot can enhance and/or advance the
storytelling. This is best shown in horror movies. Why are you tense?
It’s because of what you can and can’t see, and the length of the
shot(s). This is all basic 101 filmmaking stuff, so I won’t dwell on it
too long, but the sad truth is the language of cinema has been degraded.
This is part and parcel with so much of cinema being about making days,
and the devaluing of visual storytellers. It’s the old joke of
shot/reverse shot in which so much of what happens is basic information
that has no flair. It used to be that TV directors were waved off as
middlebrow hacks, nowadays television has become one of the best places
for adult drama, the lines are blurred, and a television director helmed
the most successful film of the last three years.<br />
<br />
Let me give an example of the good and the bad of this. There is a shot in<em><strong> The Avengers </strong></em>where
the camera goes up and over the bickering Avengers to look at Loki’s
staff. This shot sticks out in the movie for a couple of reasons. One is
that Joss Whedon, to that point, hadn’t really done anything like that
in the movie before. Like inserting iambic pentameter in the midst of a
rap verse, it’s jarring. To a certain extent it should be, it’s meant to
be, because it’s drawing focus to the staff. The problem is that
Whedon’s visual language isn’t precise, and the fact that Loki’s staff
is a corrupting agent is spelled out in the dialogue. You can see
exactly what he’s trying to do, but it doesn’t quite work. To research
this moment, I put the film on again, and watched the scene and then
watched the movie to the end. It’s funny how Whedon isn’t a great visual
storyteller (his visual sense, when not guided by special effects, is
meat and potatoes), but the film is totally compelling regardless.<br />
<br />
Whereas a brilliant example of the shorthand of cinema can be found in <em><strong>Fargo</strong></em>.
There’s a moment that’s stayed with me since first seeing the film (not
that I haven’t seen it a number of times since), when William H. Macy’s
Jerry Lundegaard finds the body of his father-in-law. The film doesn’t
use dialogue to convey how he feels in that moment. All we get is the
shot of his trunk being popped, and we the audience know everything.
That’s brilliant visual storytelling. And using the language of cinema,
using the distance characters exist from the camera to suggest where
they are in the world, to present POVs for a specific reason, cutting
between images to create tension or parallels are why film fans may
adore a film like <em><strong>Stoker</strong></em> even if the narrative
isn’t all that great, or why so many of us love filmmakers like Brian
De Palma and Edgar Wright. You would think a filmmaker would make every
frame count for something, but that’s just not the case most of the
time.<br /><br />
Now, I’m not about to make the argument that Tsui Hark is working on that level of mastery or perfectionism with <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em>.
No, there’s something more punk rock about the film, and what’s
apparent is that there’s at least one eye-catching shot in the film
every minute of screen time. And because Hark obviously knows what he’s
doing behind the camera, this must be read as intentional.<br />
And it’s the thing that keeps me coming back: Hark’s fascinating choices
in terms of staging are consistently of the “what the fuck” variety. I
don’t know what the boring way to film a rickshaw race is, but here
there’s a shot where the camera starts from a rooftop, descends and
swoops into the action. A possibly boring sequence where Lela Rochon
chews out Van Damme and Schneider is staged so when Rochon stands up to
talk we see it from her point of view and makes the men look smaller.
They’re also put in frame with toys on a desk, which makes them seem
clownish by nature. In a sequence where a bunch of faceless goons are
mowed down, one is shot through the head and a white cloud of brain mist
rises from his head. There are at least a hundred indelible moments in
the movie, and perhaps it is sensory overload. But… that’s why I love
it.<br />
<br />
Not to mention the weirdness, cause this is a weird fucking movie (in
the best possible way). Marcus has to confront Eddy about the nanobombs
in the knockoff product, and it gives Van Damme his finest acting moment
to date, where he tells his semi-brother that he made a deal for him
with the feds as he’s threatened with a gun. Sure, you could compare it
to the “pull the strings” speech in <em><strong>Ed Wood,</strong></em>
but Van Damme is fully committed. That scene then ends with Eddy being
targeted by a missile which sends him flying outside, to die in a green
flame explosion. It’s followed by an action scene starts where Van Damme
and Schneider must escape from a fruit warehouse, which is a stunning
set piece of claustrophobia as most of the fruit workers have long but
dull knives, and the fruit around appears to be spiky pineapples (it
doesn’t have the stems so I’ve never been sure) which makes even the
fruit hreatening. The sequence ends with Schneider and Van Damme
escaping and mumbling “Hoola, hoola hoola. Hoola hoola hoola.” This is
then followed by a scene where Van Damme chases down Skinny, and to
knock out Skinny’s bodyguards he climbs the beams in the warehouse, and
uses them to jump down on his opponents.<br />
<br />
Sometimes great directors will pull out all the stops visually, but often they end up like Francis Ford Coppola’s <em><strong>Bram Stoker’s Dracula</strong></em>.
Awesome in theory, but sort of torturous in its entirety. And this is
similarly a kitchen sink film, but it’s as if Hark was using the film
not as an audition piece, but as a chance to try everything he ever
wanted to do with a camera. It’s not so much an action movie (though the
action sequences are well staged, exciting and bonkers) as an
experimental film that just happens to star Jean-Claude Van Damme and
Rob Schneider. There may be no point to it, but in this package, as a
Van Damme vehicle, it’s fascinating as it tells a coherent story that
the filmmaker has little interest in. It’s more about the end fight
sequence, where everyone’s on a boat that’s wet, and the motion of the
water makes it easy for Van Damme to slide around (literally, like he’s
on a slip and slide) and kill people. That end sequence is like nothing
you would ever see in American action movie, and maybe in the context of
a subtitled Hong Kong film it would seem of place, but here, with all
these American actors, it achieves a sublime strangeness.<br />
<br />
Francois Truffaut talked about a scene in Howard Hawks’ <em><strong>Scarface</strong></em>.
To quote the master directly: “The most striking scene in the movie is
unquestionably Boris Karloff's death. He squats down to throw a ball in a
game of ninepins and doesn't get up; a rifle shot prostrates him. The
camera follows the ball he's thrown as it knocks down all the pins
except one that keeps spinning until it finally falls over, the exact
symbol of Karloff himself, the last survivor of a rival gang that's been
wiped out by Muni. This isn't literature. It may be dance or poetry. It
is certainly cinema.” When I think about <em><strong>Knock Off</strong></em>, I think of this quote. For better or worse.<br />
<br />
Things of note:<br />
<br />
The film cuts from a fat man smiling to a gigantic fish. Then has Van
Damme and Schneider talk while showing two men’s asses. Symbolism!<br />
<br />
Lela Rochon gives one of the worst line readings ever in a major motion
picture: “You were pretty eager to five minutes ago,” is the worst.<br />
<br />
The theme song for the film is amazing. “I’m convinced that this is
really not my song, I bought it in Hong Kong, it’s a knockoff. I’m
convinced that we were really holding hands, sorry that’s no hand, it’s a
knockoff. So close to real, the look, the feel, so close and yet, the
paint’s still wet.” It’s one of the best novelty tie-in songs.<br />
<br />
The film’s last line of dialogue is Rob Schneider saying “No action movie is complete without sweat.”<br />
<br />
It’s worth nothing there’s a kind of terrible section of the movie where
– towards the end – our heroes and villains are all in a boat as the
handoff is taking place. The boat begins to drift out into international
waters and the ship is targeted by a British officer who notes that if
the boat crosses a line, he’ll have to blow it up. Conceptually, the
idea that most of the heroes have no idea they’re in jeopardy from this
attack, and the relief that comes for those that do know when it’s
narrowly avoided is very theoretically cool, but the fact that the
footage of the helicopters who are sent in to destroy the boat looks
like stock footage (with some who are arming missiles shown to be
unarmed) meant to pad out the film to a ninety minute run time (the film
runs 91).<br />
<br />
I once went to a screening of <em><strong>Goodfellas</strong></em> where Paul Sorvino did a Q&A beforehand. Afterwards I rushed out after him with a copy of <em><strong>Goodfellas</strong></em> and<em><strong> Knock Off</strong></em>. Point one: I was way more excited about him signing my copy of <em><strong>Knock Off </strong></em>than <em><strong>Goodfellas</strong></em>.
Point two: I wasn’t sure if he’d get mad at me for even asking him to
sign it, so I started by saying what a huge fan I was of the movie.
Thankfully he enjoyed making it and was pleasantly shocked when I showed
it to him. I was worried he might punch me.<br />
</div>
Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-3163229803479589642020-06-07T14:11:00.002-07:002020-06-07T14:11:19.821-07:00EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: BONG JOON-HO (THE HOST) <span style="font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">The
more cineastes get to know Bong Joon-Ho and Park Chan-Wook, the more
likely it is they’ll be known as the Spielberg and Lucas of Korea.
They’ve already redefined Korean cinema, and made huge blockbusters that
have outgrossed each other (Oldboy was a huge hit, but <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Host</span>‘s
gross was so high that 25% of the population has theoretically seen
it). But who’s whom, or – more to the point – who wants to end up as
George Lucas? Both are supremely gifted, and have shown their talents
through a couple of films that could be called masterpieces. You could
nerd out and tap Bong as the Lucas figure, partly because he gave Park a
copy of the Manga of <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Oldboy</span>.
But to flip that script, more damning evidence comes this Friday, as
Park has already made a (Vengeance) trilogy, while Bong has made his
monster movie with the masterful <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Host</span>, which can easily be called the best monster movie since Jaws. </span><span style="font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">And the big screen high of <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Host</span>
is one of my favorite movie going experiences in recent memory. I
already had tickets to see the film Friday night as part of a festival
screening when I got an invite to interview director Bong. As such I was
offered a complimentary ticket to see the film Saturday afternoon, and
loving the film as I did, decided to watch it twice in a day. Shortly
after my second screening, I sat down with Bong and an interpreter. Bong
speaks some English, and would sometimes respond in my native tongue,
while other times he let the translator do her job. The film opens
Friday, and should be sought out. </span><br />
<span style="font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">I was wondering are there any of the Free Park Kang-du shirts , did you make any extras, are they for sale?</span><br />
<br />
As you can see there were
many T-shirts, and everyone was wearing them, so myself and the crew
thought "Hey, we’ll get one afterwards," but, due to budget constraints
they were made in China, so after a couple days of shooting and poor
storage, they were too smelly, rotten, and impossible to wear. But we
have the design still so maybe we should make it as a souvenir. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">I’d buy one! (Bong laughs) I have to
tell you I thought the film was amazing, I absolutely loved it. You’ve
said that the scene where the daughter shows up and starts eating (which
is revealed to be a dream) is the heart of the film. It seems the sort
of thing you can’t get away with in America. Do you face any pressures
to make it more linear?</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />That
was in the script from the beginning, and even when people were reading
the script they were like "what happened?" "Why is she here?" "Is this a
typo?" (laughs) But for me it was the most important scene, it’s an
objective illusion. To me there was never any confusion, but the people
around me were not as sure. Something I found out after the final cut of
the film was that at the time, the investors and distributors didn’t
like the scene and there was some talk. "We should take that out, normal
audiences won’t understand it." But the production company took care of
it, so it never reached my ears. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">With the last two films (this and <span style="font-style: italic;">Memories of Murder</span>)
you’ve been writing genre pictures, but what makes them some of the
best films of recent memory is how you interlace these human moments
into the story. So, when you’re writing it, you seem to embrace the
framework of genre… one of my favorite scenes in<span style="font-style: italic;"> Memories</span>
is when the main character is having sex but then his penis falls out,
and moments later his girlfriend’s cleaning the blackheads out of his
ear… so when you’re writing how do you weave those in? How do you
balance it out?</span><br />
<br />
Honestly, I don’t know what
to say, it’s just how I work. My starting point is from an American
genre type film, but I’m never trapped by it. Although I may start with
the idea that <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Memories of Murder</span> is a thriller, or <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Host</span>
a monster movie – and I do – but from that point on I get further and
further away from the genre. Find those, you know, cracks in the genre
is where I add my detail, or my Korean details or Korean emotions. Also,
all my characters are very normal or very weak, so it’s very natural,
it’s fundamental that audiences will be drawn to the more normal person.
All my characters have faults and defects. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">What was the genesis of<span style="font-style: italic;"> The Host</span>? What made you want to make a monster movie?</span><br />
<br />
Well, I’m not one of those
big or manic fans of the monster movie genre, it’s not that or that it’s
my slogan "I have to make one of these films!" It came from the
location, the Han River, When I was younger I lived in an apartment by
it, and watching the water flow back and forth I thought "what if the
Loch Ness monster had popped out, what would happen and what a mess that
would be?" So it might have been juvenile, but it stayed in my head,
and eventually turned into a film.<br /><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><span style="font-weight: bold;">So when you get ready to write something like this, do you go out and rent the <span style="font-style: italic;">Orca</span>s and <span style="font-style: italic;">King Kong</span>s and the <span style="font-style: italic;">Godzilla vs. Megalons</span> and all the genre pictures? I ask because one of the things that I find so great about <span style="font-style: italic;">The Host </span>(and <span style="font-style: italic;">Memories of Murder</span>, for that matter), is how it understands the constructs of the genre, but also plays with them. Do you sit down and watch <span style="font-style: italic;">King Kong Lives</span>?</span><br /><br />For reference or inspiration? In this case, not this kind of typical monster movie, I was inspired by M Night Shymalyan’s <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Signs</span> and Steven Spielberg’s <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Jaws</span>.
For instance in the movie Signs it deals with an alien invasion, but
it’s hugely different from other alien invasion films like <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">Independence Day</span>,
the reason being it focuses on the family, and isn’t a film of
spectacle. It’s about the family, and the minute details of the family.
That’s a film that inspired me.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Recently it was announced that Universal bought the right to a remake of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Host</span>. Are you involved at all?</span><br />
<br />
I’m already in the process
of preparing two new projects, so I don’t like rehashing old stories, I
like doing new stories. I have no interest in doing the remake, and I
don’t think Universal has any interest in me doing the remake, so I
think we’re both happy where we are right now. I’m just curious about
it, it would great to have a director like John Carpenter or M Night
Shymalyan do it. <br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><span style="font-weight: bold;">I would like to see that too. I understand that you passed <span style="font-style: italic;">Oldboy</span> on to Park Chan-Wook.</span><br />
<br />
I’m a big Japanese Manga
comic book fan. I always read them, they’re always in my bag and in my
head. The original Oldboy wasn’t that famous or popular in either Japan
or Korea, but sometime in 2000 or 2001 I found it in a very old
bookstore, the story fascinated me, and I recommended it Park Chan-wook,
he’s a close cinema friend of mine. "Read this, very funny" but his
adaptation is amazing. You know the original story?<br /><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><span style="font-weight: bold;">No, I just know the film.</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />The
beginning part, the first half is almost the same, but the other half
is a complete creation. The story of incest wasn’t in the novel. The
story of him being in prison for 15 years is the same, but from the
prison to incest and on is a complete creation and is shocking and
powerful. It disturbs you.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">From what I understand he’s producing your next movie. <span style="font-style: italic;">Le Transperceneige</span>, or <span style="font-style: italic;">Snow Train</span>?</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />Maybe my next next one, yeah, yeah. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">I understand that’s going to be in English.</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />Not
exactly. The story is about the train. There are many survivors there,
from many other countries, so mixed dialogue, but 30-40% may be in
English. The others Korean and Japanese, all mixed.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">Is there a role for Song Kang-ho (star of <span style="font-style: italic;">The Host</span> and <span style="font-style: italic;">Memories</span>)?</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />I can’t speculate.<br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">So, you’re a huge comic book fan?</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />Yes,
I like graphic novel comic books from Korea, Japan, Europe, it’s my
hobby. There was a point where I wanted to be a graphic novelist, but
though that didn’t come to fruition, I draw the storyboards for my
films, so that’s when I pretend I’m a graphic novelist. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">In the film "seori" gets mentioned a couple of times. Was that a phenomenon in Korea?</span><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><br />It’s
not a phenomenon – it’s actually just children’s play. It does have
traditional history. When you go into a field and steal a fruit or two,
if you get caught they do give you a pound on the head, but it’s not
serious enough to go to the cops. It’s like a traditional things that
kids could do when playing. When we were doing the subtitles, we
couldn’t find an equivalent word in English, so after we went through an
extended thought process, we though oh well we’ll write "seori" and
explain it in the dialogue next. <br />
<br />
<span style="font-weight: bold;">On last quick question, what was the last movie you loved?</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Science of Sleep.</span><br /><br style="font-weight: bold;" /><span style="font-weight: bold;">Oh, did you love <span style="font-style: italic;">Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind</span>?</span><br />
</span><br />
<br />
<span style="font-family: verdana,arial,helvetica,sans-serif; font-size: x-small;">Of course, that was very good. But I loved <span style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;">The Science of Sleep</span> more. </span>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-60434697811225711512020-01-22T00:46:00.000-08:002020-01-22T00:46:04.108-08:00Horror Stories: Liz Phair's autobiography and my Liz PhairWhen I was 17, Liz Phair's Exile in Guyville came out. At the time I had a subscription to Rolling Stone. I think I mostly got it for the movie stuff. Weirdly, I didn't have a subscription to a magazine like Premiere. I had a take it or leave it attitude towards the mag; I don't remember if my dad got it for me, or I got a subscription because of some school promo or what. As I get older I try not to make up lies for myself about what I do and don't remember, and as I get older, there is just more that gets lost in time to the fact that who fucking cares (but I do I know I had the Twin Peaks cover issue, that much is certain). I don't know if that's how I heard about Liz Phair, but it seems likely. I was watching MTV's 120 Minutes around that time also, but I remember 120 more from College, as the University of Oregon provided its students with free cable, and I don't know if one of her videos - which were never all that amazing - hooked me. I doubt it. But at that time, it was for sure not radio play (outside of College radio, I don't think I've ever heard Phair on the radio). <br />
<br />
The reason I would love to have an origin story is because there are few acts of art that have reverberated through me like Exile in Guyville. It was like reading Plato's Symposium or the cave metaphor for the first time, or films like Jaws, Five Easy Pieces, Nashville, Rules of the Game, Happy Together.... these pieces of art are touchstones of my being. And as such, Liz Phair became my everything. (Side note: because of the nature of rock and roll, I never considered getting a boner from the until I heard her. Though Rock is usually sexual, I don't think I would have considered masturbating to an album before Guyville. Every woman reading this is probably rolling their eyes.) As much to that point as I loved Davids Byrne and Bowie, or Prince, they never opened up worlds for me like Liz. Much of the art I was most invested in to that point came from men. I wouldn't say I lived a double life, but as I entered my senior year in High School, as my disconnection from schoolmates went into overdrive, she was my Northern Star. <br />
<br />
I've probably written about this before, but my mom got my brother and I into the rich kid's public schools while we were lower middle class, so I always felt a out of place from my surroundings. I would hang out with kids who kept their G.I. Joe toys in boxes, maybe never to be opened, while I would do chores for days and weeks on end to get to go to the store that had piles upon piles of the Gonk and medical repair droids STAR WARS toys. We grew up in a neighborhood that was twenty years away from gentrification, and had more minorities than the rest of Portland, so I felt both out of place in my neighborhood and my school. They wanted me to skip fifth grade at one point, but I believe I was held back mostly because it was readily apparent I wasn't socialized. But that was a problem long past high school for me. Maybe most of us try to patch up those holes our entire lives. Some never succeed. And in some ways I feel like I've been getting better and better about being aware and connected for the last thirty years of my life, but also that I'm still learning. The other weekend someone commented on my posture. I slouch because I'm six four. I slouch to make myself less physically intimidating. I see myself as inherently threatening so I try to reduce that threat by wearing glasses and making myself as small as I can. But I don't slouch consciously, at least I didn't until then... The glasses I knew. <br />
<br />
But back to Liz Phair: From the get, from track one Six Foot One, I was fucking in. There was something urgent to the music, but also the album is all over the place emotionally in such a way that that becomes the through line. A contained narrative and something more. An essay, a memoir, a confessional. Exile - to me - showed every facet of being a woman in the nineties, the highs and the lows, and the peaceful, somewhat stoned, happy place of someone believing in something that lies between religion and mysticism. But maybe I loved the naked honesty most. Though during high school and much of college my best friends and closest confidantes were women - those friendships weren't sexual, they were born of being in school together - Phair's dialogue wasn't something those friends could or would share with me. I remember an Arsenio Hall interview where an actor said because of an IN LIVING COLOR sketch where an Asian man said he was super horny, he hadn't thought about Asian men as being interested in sex. That is fucking stupid, but also - culturally - this is understandable as we're growing to see how important representation is to show the humanity and interests of other cultures. Because when you see them you can see that you're like them. When the white male gaze is the dominant one in television and cinema, if you are a straight white male, you don't think about how other people see things because you're afforded the luxury of not having to. <br />
<br />
So listening to Phair sing about fucking blew my god damned mind. As much as a song like Flower may have turned me on, it was Fuck and Run and The Divorce Song that made me love her. The sense of repetition, that these were things that even if you knew were coming would still be unavoidable, the Raymond Carver-esque detail for humanity, I was in. Phair was every girl I had a crush on. But she was also me. She struck me as smart enough to observe the mistakes she was making while she made them. The patterns we fall into, but are unable to avoid. <br />
<br />
And not to besmisrch artists like Alanis Morrisette or Sheryl Crow, one got that Phair was the author and creator of her material in a way that made it all personal. Honest. Not... presentational? I'm not saying they're phonies, that's not it, but their art seems more commercial and by that nature more opportunistic, whether talking about having fun or blowing someone in a theater. Phair also has a swagger, which I think is why I gravitated to her and PJ Harvey over artists like Tori Amos, who was more sad angry than aggressive angry. I mean, seriously, PJ Harvey's Dry is one of the most badass songs ever written, and I love her too, but maybe because Phair is an American there's a bit of a difference. But also Phair was obviously a white upper-middle class woman who liked smoking pot and having sex and playing music and there's less of a confrontational vulnerability to her. And perhaps - like Catherine Bigelow - there's an element of her borrowing from men to make herself better understood, I mean Exile was scene as a response to The Rolling Stone's album. <br />
<br />
I have listened to Guyville more than any other album (the only competition is Broken Social Scene's You Forgot it in People), and still it's an album that's evergreen for me. I followed Liz's career intently for the next decade. Her follow up, Whip-Smart, is solid but is also very much a sophomore effort. It's a little more aimless, but it's mostly great. The only problem is you can just feel how some songs have been kicking around for a while, and some are new and the structure isn't as perfect because you feel her trying to replicate what worked about the first album with the same narrative hook. Guyville was conceived as a song by song response to Exile on Main Street, and that gave it a structure that (even if the original concept was abandoned) gives a greater focus than anything else she's done before or since. That said, I think her second best is Whitechocolatespaceegg, because it seemed to accept that Phair had grown older, and though she was wrestling with success and trying to find new ways of talking about the same things, and motherhood and adulthood, songs like Polyester Bride and Go On Ahead are still brutally honest, while also rocking. Though there is an obvious push in these songs towards a more commercial approach (they're much cleaner sounding, etc.), that's not a bad thing and it doesn't feel overproduced like her next album "Liz Phair."<br />
<br />
Let me be clear: I don't hate the self titled album. And I understand why it broke some fans, but also, they were attacking for the wrong reasons. Phair was obviously trying to do something more commercial, and that turned her into a pariah for a number of fans and websites that saw her as one of the great indie rock icons of the '90s, and when she tried to cash in, they resented her attempt. And if you can look back now with 20/20 vision, she was persecuted, railroaded and the worst part is that this seemed to shake her confidence. I don't want to say she never recovered, but her next two albums are hurt by an artist trying to second guess themselves.<br />
<br />
That said, it's got obvious issues. The problem is that pop culture took a lot from Guyville, and you could see that Phair - who by then was divorced single mother - had different things to talk about and some landed better than others. People talk about HWC as a low point, but my big problem with the album is that she worked with two sets of superstar producers and you can feel their fingerprints on the sound, which makes it one of her least coherent albums. There's some stuff that feels like it's too much of Michael Penn's production, and other stuff that feels like Phair gunning for radio play at the detriment of what makes her great. Perhaps as a single mom she wanted more out of her career, but by the time of Somebody's Miracle, she started sounded a little bland.<br />
<br />
But maybe I'm wrong. This weekend after finishing her book I revisited Whip-Smart, the self-titled album - and thought Little Digger is maybe her greatest accomplishment - and finally listened to Funstyle and I found things to like. I don't know if I've popped on Somebody's Miracle in over ten years, so there was a definitely a cultural movement against Liz Phair The Sellout that changed how I listened, and that noise might have driven me away. But also... with musicians, sometimes they have a period you really respond to, and though I think it's sad that when people see Paul McCartney in concert they treat new music as the time to check their phones between Beatles songs (where they Instagram five seconds of Hey Jude to show that they've seen Macca), but also I put on his new album and got bored at a certain point, so I get it. Maybe I didn't try hard enough, or maybe Maybe I'm Amazed is a better song than anything on it, and I'm missing nothing. <br />
<br />
But this last year, Phair won me back and then some with the release of her memoir "Horror Stories." It is seventeen chapters on different moments of her life. No, she doesn't walk through Girly Sounds or the inspiration for much of her music (though she does note that "Fuck and Run" is meant to talk about how sometimes relationships fall apart quickly, that we often have these relationships that explode in and out of our lives, which is what it always seemed like, and does point out that when she was twelve, it wasn't actual sex, as she says she was a virgin until college). One story is about running into someone she knew in school who achieved a level of fame that was totally different than hers. Another is about giving birth while - to use her words - high as fuck. Another is about Ryan Adams and all of the sexual harassment she's experienced over her life.<br />
<br />
On some level, Elizabeth Phair, of what I know, was never going to be a normal soccer mom. But to appreciate her art, you can tell that she was drawn to the suburban life she grew up around, and wanted that, but going by her music that was never going to satisfy. And so you get the stories you expected about shitty relationships, bad behavior on everyone's part, and some wild ass anecdotes about infidelities. But also portraits. She talks about a Trader Joes cashier who she flirted with that goes in wild directions, and points out something I have noticed about myself, which is that sometimes when you are trying to take care of someone else, you're just trying to take care of yourself in the least selfish way possible. Or the relationship she had with a guy who got someone else pregnant while they were dating and how hard she fought to stay in it, and how she felt bound to him partly because of the relationship/sex, but also because of her connection to his kids. I think like a lot of people around my generation, she realized she was doomed to repeat a previous generation's mistakes. And did. Because the tools weren't there to fully reject some of the worst rules of the game. <br />
<br />
Her chapter on #MeToo made me weep, because she's got a laundry list of people who have creeped on her. And for me at first I was like "I would never, I have never" but then also, I had to admit to myself I've never been in a position of power that would let me take advantage of others. And I don't know, I can't honestly say that if I achieved great success at the age of 25 or 30, I might have become gross because I could. I don't know. But I know enough about myself to know that I could have gone down terrible paths, simply because I felt disconnected for much of my life that I could get sucked into bad shit. And so as much as I want to believe I'm decent person, there are some tests I've never taken. And hopefully I would or will pass them, but just the same, knowing that is something. <br />
<br />
But more than that, her memoir is like MAD MAX FURY ROAD for all of us who love Liz Phair (I would like to say I love Elizabeth Phair, but I'm not going to pretend to know her). It's everything you've ever loved about her in it's purest, most perfect distillation, because she has always been a master storyteller. She was always a ray gun, shooting lasers of truth, and she rocked while doing it. Horror Stories doesn't have a beat to dance to but it reveals more but also everything you always suspected. The world is a better place with Liz Phair in it, and as I understand, she signed a two book deal. I would read her until the end of days. Bring it. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-16740372343177308722019-12-21T21:44:00.003-08:002019-12-21T21:52:23.477-08:00THE RISE OF SKYWALKER spoiler thoughtsImagine Donald Trump in the waiting room for a medical visit. Imagine him getting bored and playing with the toys for children. At first he pushes those beads with his fat fucking fingers. It's like a slide for the piece of wood. Ha ha. But then he gets bored. He then sees one of those toys where you're supposed to match shapes. And so the president decides to push a square peg into a round hole. Someone from the secret service says "I'm sorry Mr. Trump, I don't believe that fits." But Donald being the Donald, he decides to keep pushing and pushing, thrusting this piece of plastic into a hole its not meant for (I'm sorry if this sounds like rape, but then also our president is a rapist, so that's going to happen) until finally brute strength lodges the piece into the hole, but he has now made the game broken and unplayable.<br />
<br />
This is EPISODE IX of STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER.<br />
<br />
Writer/Director J.J. Abrams has shown himself to be good at a number of things, specifically television pilots and first episodes of rebootquels - which may be the exact same thing. But as critical as I can be of the man, THE FORCE AWAKENS is near a miracle. It introduces a squad of new characters and most of the old ones, and ingratiates them into a new but familiar narrative. He does so with energy and reminds you why you loved the OT in the first place. The biggest problem with the film is that Abrams sets up mysteries like Rey's Parents, or what's up with Luke? But he does them in such a way that's so vague it could be anything, so it could be anything. It's just we've seen what happens when he plays with his mystery boxes, and when he leans too hard into them, you get SUPER 8.<br />
<br />
Rian Johnson, in taking over for THE LAST JEDI, took all of those loose ends, and turned them into something way more interesting than anything Abrams could come up with. The mystery of Rey's parentage is a mystery to her. She wants to believe that her parents are special, that they left for some unknown reason that will make sense of why they abandoned her. It turns out they're just terrible people. Why is Luke hiding out on an island? Because he's abandoned the force due to fucking up the training of his pupil, sorta like what Obi-Wan did. And as much as people want something different, many of these choices seem the only logical ones after what Abrams punted (you can't really make Luke a force for good if he's been hiding out where no one could find him, unless he too is on a quest that is ill defined and at odds with everything that's going on), while also subverting expectations (people wanted Luke to be a badass, but at the end of the day, he's always been this character, someone who sometimes gives up too easily at the wrong things). A number of people did not like this, but when it comes to Star Wars and the internet it's hard to know what percentage is real, and what is propped up by the loudest, most annoying fanbase this side of DC/Marvel and Ghostbusters fanatics (which may all be the same crowd). From my perspective, they seem annoyed that Johnson tried to make the story interesting, relevant, and drawn from all of the source material. Which is why Luke's final act is so perfect, and sets up a way more interesting movie than what we eventually got. Some people seem to think he betrayed THE FORCE AWAKENS, but he didn't, he just didn't approach the narrative with the sort of flippancy that Abrams did, and so when the rebels have claimed their victory, of course shortly thereafter the First order would follow them home in the hopes of destroying their rebellion. Why wouldn't you start shortly after the end of the first film? Sure he could have kicked it down the line some, but that's where I perked up and others I guess tuned out. Rian Johnson approached his sequel as a filmmaker.<br />
<br />
Abrams, faced with what Johnson did, decided to start pushing that square peg into a round hole and he basically ruined his Star Wars.<span class="st"> Salieri</span> got his revenge on Mozart, but at what cost? Me, I'm fine with never watching TRoS again, but since I saw it last night, let's unpack some shit.<br />
<br />
Because Johnson got rid of Snoke, guess who's back? The Emperor. Why? Because Ben Solo needs to redeem himself. And the only way he can do that is by having someone more powerful than him to turn against. What has the Emperor been doing? Building an army for thirty years in secret just as he survived. None of this makes any god damned sense, in terms of the franchise, the previous two films, or in terms of the film at hand. That is a huge problem with this movie. Everything happens because reasons, as if Abrams objected to trying to find motivation.<br />
<br />
The next hour is then basically people chasing after objects that will lead them to more objects, and so when people talk about this film is in a rush and doesn't have much time for character, that's objectively Abrams fault because a lot of these side quests could have been eliminated to spend more time on the character dynamics, many of which were introduced by Abrams himself. But because Johnson complicated them, he decides to take his ball and go home, much as Maz Katana is left with nothing to do again. And because he doesn't like what Johnson did with his characters, he decides to avoid character arcs and growth. Other than maybe Kylo getting killed and resurrected and then realizing that he's an asshole? I think that's his arc? His character is woefully under-serviced by this film. Poe and Finn also have nothing, and Rey is afraid of going bad (even though she confronted that in the last film), but this lets Abrams do his Empire homage by having evil Rey face real Rey. <br />
<br />
For the most part, new characters serve to realign the fracnhise to make it less interesting and more familiar. A perfect example of this is the character played by Keri Russell. Why is Felicity in this movie? It seems two reasons: To make Poe into more of a Han Solo character (he has a past as a "Spice Runner," which is like a weak way of avoiding calling him a smuggler), and to de-gay his relationship with Finn. Fans have often felt that there was a love/sex triangle with Finn in the middle of Poe and Rey, but this film decides to abandon that, and all of the sexuality of the previous films, outside of a pair of relatively chaste kisses. The film also sets up a new matching color relationship for Finn, but then abandons that female to Lando. I guess Abrams wants Finn's secret that he only wants to share with Rey now to be that he's force sensitive, but it reads in the film like he's afraid to tell her he loves her in front of everyone.And also, Finn developing Force powers fees like such a punt for a story at its conclusion. <br />
<br />
Abrams brings back Greg Gunnberg, seemingly as an act of defiance. By what we saw in the last film, he wasn't around and likely killed off screen, but now he's back and he brought Dominic Monaghan with him. Rian obviously cast some of his friends in TLJ, and there's nothing wrong with it, but Johnson also hid Jospeh Gordon-Levitt as an alien, and even if Noah Segan got face time, he didn't get much if any dialogue and is killed. One senses Abrams gloating by bringing back his old buddy, and adding more familiar faces from his previous work (see also: Keri Russell). <br />
<br />
And as much as him basically neutering Kelly Marie Tran into a red shirt who doesn't die in this film is a slap in the face of TLJ, I was more offended with what he did to Hux. Johnson decided to make Hux into - not a joke but - a person who is driven by power and is feckless, whcih I find an improvement over his bland loud fascist character in TFA. Because he's been defanged for good reasons, Abrams then makes him a traitor/spy, and then once that's revealed kills him off immediately, and replaces him with Richard E. Grant's character, which could have been interesting... if it wasn't in keeping with every other artistic decision made in this film, which is erring on the side of conservatism. But the very fact that he's made a spy, but then is killed off minutes after that's revealed suggests an annoyance with what that character's become. Or perhaps it's just bad storytelling. Either or. <br />
<br />
I don't want to stretch too much, but just as it would have been a lesser movie if Norman Jewison had directed MALCOLM X instead of Spike Lee, J.J. Abrams is a child of wealth, and comes from a successful Hollywood family. I don't think he understands why it was so important, so powerful, to make Rey not special in the familial sense. And the bloodline thing here would be horribly insulting if it had any conviction. The film posits that the Emperor had children. So, what, was he married? Did he knock up a prostitute? Partly because of his role in the OT, but partly because of the antiseptic nature of the PT, the Emperor has no sexual energy for anyone in the franchise other than perhaps Anakin. But then also, his son/daughter already rejected him, so the bloodline aspect is already horribly compromised and rushed. It's as if the only purpose is to make Rey special in a way only someone of a bloodline would understand. And maybe rich people shouldn't be making fantasy stories for proletariats (see also: PRETTY WOMAN). But it also feels like he doesn't know how to tell this story without having that reveal, and that's just like someone with a fetish unable to achieve release without the fourteen things their fetish requires. On top of which, right now in real life we're seeing how bloodlines are part of what's making the world a worse place. It's a bad look.<br />
<br />
As we've seen with Abrams before, specifically STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, he wants to create emotion with big shocking things, and then immediately walks them back. Three characters over the course of the film are killed and resurrected so quickly that it's impossible to mourn or believe the deaths have any meaning or purpose. <br />
<br />
Also, as we've seen with Abrams before, he likes to make choices that look cool, but don't follow the rules of the narrative. It makes no sense for the Enterprise to be under water, but it looks cool for the Enterprise to emerge from water, so cool trumps all. The Emperor shoots lightning so powerfully he's able to knock all of the (and just the) rebel ships out of the sky, but that's a heretofore unknown power that probably would have come in handy before, just as setting up some of the new mythology that all comes in a exposition dump right before it happens would have been preferable to whatever the fuck this was. Why would Rey holding two lightsabers, two weapons, defend herself from the Emperor. It doesn't make sense in context of the film, this trilogy or the franchise as a whole. Going by what we know, she shouldn't use a weapon at all.<br />
<br />
It's a fucking sloppy ass movie where characters show up where they need to at times the plot calls for it, with no bearing on what's going on,, what they said previously, anything. Part of me thinks the biggest problem with the film is that they wanted it out two years after TLJ, and when Colin Trevorrow was let go they had a time crunch, and Abrams was their only options when Johnson passed. I've long heard that Abrams wanted to make Star Wars his new playground, and perhaps when tasked with closing out the Skywalker saga, his main innovation was to not. Sadly, I think all the loose ends, and pointless narrative choices were partly about keeping the door open to continue this story, so Finn's secret, and Lando's new mission with the former stormtrooper, and all sorts of shit is left dangling because he hopes to make Episode 10-12. Going by Friday's numbers, I don't think that's going to happen. Honestly, I think they need to regroup before they go forward with anything more than the Disney + shows because this is a disaster, and I don't think even the most vocal TLJ haters are going to be happy with this. I think because they were never going to be happy with this.<br />
<br />
All of this said, I thought Leia/Carrie Fisher was handled as well as possible, even if the use of deleted footage feels like a mad lib at times. There was no easy solution and though some may complain about the logic of the Han Solo dream, it makes sense in the context of Fisher's death, and I think it works, it's probably the best scene in the movie. Because it has heart, a heart partly because it's so obvious Ford did it knowing Carrie couldn't. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-54988773296535372062019-09-07T17:32:00.001-07:002019-09-08T11:46:11.817-07:00Damon's Definitive Rankings of the Marvel Cinematic UniverseSo, um, most days at some point I feel an existential dread. As an adult male I would like to have a family and children, but also the world is GD F'd right now that it seems like that's an act of sadism, and we've got a moron at the wheel acting like he's in the midst of a cocaine-fueled commitment to a bad decision. And that moron is lauded by at least a sizeable chunk of America's population and I live in California and it disgusts me that so many states like mine subsidize the lives of the people who are making this country worse. I hope the whole left coast secedes if we get a second term of the noxious terrorist. Republicans are basically evil at this point as there is no policy arguments any more. It's all personal stuff, which should have been left out in the first place, but basically they all seem like bad boys waiting for their spanking, which never comes because we never hold successful white men accountable. <br />
<br />
And this is because the Republican party is dying and it knows it and it wants to take everyone down with it. Because Trump is the last electable Republican presidential candidate and they know this. But then also, his election was a fluke and may have been partly caused/helped by Russian interference, but we're not going to look into that.<br />
<br />
Here's my pet conspiracy theory: There is a rise of incest porn in pornography. I found this out due to a Mark Ronson podcast about the death of porn star August Ames, which is so weird I wish I knew more about it. Also, I mean, I've been to Pornhub, and it's not exactly subtle how much of it is "hot step-someone f's me." Do we know if this is because of Russian hacking? Do we know why Incest is a super popular porn thing, or maybe it's popular because of bad people trying to make the world worse? Or should we look at how many people have Oedipus complexes? Because we live in a shame-based society, no one is going to talk about this until it's too late. Just in the same way culture is becoming weaponized. Fucking I love RICK AND MORTY and the last thing I want to see is more RICK AND MORTY because of the way culture has turned it into this thing. Similar to DIE HARD. I love that movie, stop the XMAS discussion already, it's "Sylvester Stallone put on 20 pounds to be in COPLAND" level of discourse. But every year, every couple of months it arises again. <br />
<br />
23. THOR - This is the film that most shows Marvel's growing pains. They hire Branagh, who's main thing seems to be Dutch Angles, and then split between the immense size of Asgard and the tax rebates of New Mexico. Also, it's a non-origin origin movie. Fuck this. <br />
<br />
22. THE INCREDIBLE HULK - Ang Lee's movie is a masterpiece of Freudian discourse. The follow up is like "SMASH." And as such it's perfectly watchable and instantly forgettable.<br />
<br />
21. AVENGERS: AGE OF ULTRON: Joss Whedon is a terrible director. There are good things in this movie, but see the first sentence. <br />
<br />
20. AVENGERS: INFINITY WAR: I don't like spending 149 minutes on set ups that aren't paid off. <br />
<br />
19. SPIDER-MAN: FAR FROM HOME: Jake G is great in this movie, but it - like THOR and IRON MAN 2 - feels like it's too busy servicing things that aren't directly a part of the narrative.<br />
<br />
18. IRON MAN 2: For a long time this was the bottom entry, but ENDGAME makes it slightly more interesting. After it Marvel films get pretty watchable. Also, it posits that Bill O'Reilly is a HYDRA agent.<br />
<br />
17. DOCTOR STRANGE So much legwork to set up weird shit that eventually becomes normied. Cinematic gentrification.<br />
<br />
16. ANT-MAN AND THE WASP: Pleasant room temperature. <br />
<br />
15. ANT-MAN: No Comment.<br />
<br />
What do we do? Do we revolt? Are we afraid of dying? On some level I am and on another I'm not. Like, what does it mean that I'm willing to suffer and die for something I believe in while still worrying every god damn day about the fucking rent which seems reasonable for where I live, but then I don't know how long I'll get to stay due to the world being what it is right now. For much of my time in LA I had places where the rent was a thousand bucks or under. Partly due to roommates and whatnot. If I move any time in the near future getting a place for under $1500 seems unlikely. And it's not like there's an equal move to pay me more, so how would I have money to pay for what Fox News would call inessentials like, you know, a nice meal out from time to time. <br />
<br />
14. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY - Parental issues mixed with the remix factors of this move make me actively not like it while also enjoying the surface pleasures. Like eating McDonald's it is both filling and garbage.<br />
<br />
13. SPIDER-MAN: HOMECOMING - I wish they made a sequel to this movie. Michael Keaton and Donald Glover are the main reasons why this ranks so high, but Marvel's run on Spidey is best in his guest appearances in other movies. <br />
<br />
12. CAPTAIN MARVEL - This movie is perfectly fine. <br />
<br />
11. THE AVENGERS - This movie shouldn't work and is actively terrible for at least thirty to forty minutes. Whedon can't direct to save his dick and yet... Fuck me when it works it <i>fucking </i>works. <br />
<br />
10. IRON MAN - The basic-est bitch of the MCU, this movie succeeds because of casting and tone. As a story it's fine, but Robert Downey Jr. - who will probably spend the rest of his life trying to walk away from the character that cemented his legacy - is perfect, and created the archetype that the franchise needs to move away from. <br />
<br />
9. THOR: THE DARK WORLD - Am I ranking this way too high? Probably, but I think if the film had anything more than a television director, it would be (for everyone else that is) a top ten Marvel movie. The third act is stellar and it turned Thor into "God Jack Burton" a film before RAGNAROK did. (this also points out that most Marvel movies are three star efforts - Sorry not sorry)<br />
<br />
8. AVENGERS: ENDGAME - This movie is a failure on so many levels, but only because there was way too much it had to accomplish. So it focuses on some things it can get right and forgets the rest. All the talk about time travel and everything that happens because of it is perfect nonsense because the film is about giving you a boner when the CGI dudes beat up the bigger CGI dude. I spent ten years watching these films and I'm happy they've ended some shit even if it felt like contractual obligation deaths. <br />
<br />
7. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE FIRST AVENGER - If this film had a stronger third act, instead of "Shit we need to happen for THE AVENGERS" it would easily be the best Marvel movie.<br />
<br />
6. CAPTAIN AMERICAN: CIVIL WAR - I'm sorry, Giant-Man is better than most things. <br />
<br />
5. GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2 - There are few sequels (outside of THOR) that really up their game by diving into what's there. And if the first film was about family this film is about FAMILY and it fucking nails it on a galaxy brain level. There is the family we have and the family we can choose and I prefer it's Freudian noodlings to the first film, perhaps because it's unintentionally a remake of ANG LEE's MOTHERFUCKING HULK. <br />
<br />
4. IRON MAN 3: The Third act is CGI explosion meh (ON A FUCKING SHIPYARD which has been a set piece for at least two recent action movies previous on top of LETHAL WEAPON 2), but as a course correction for the franchise and as a stealth sequel to KISS KISS BANG BANG, it's aces. <br />
<br />
3. CAPTAIN AMERICA: THE WINTER SOLDIER - Hey, did you know, Republicans are Nazis? Seems crazy, right?<br />
<br />
2. THOR: RAGNAROK - This is the DIE HARD of Marvel movies. Perfect popcorn. <br />
<br />
1. BLACK PANTHER - I don't think this is a flawless movie, but I don't think the Marvel franchise is anywhere close to being more than "somewhat thoughtful franchise film-making." Mostly they're some basic bitch shit and pretending otherwise is ridiculous (even if I enjoy them). But this is the one that suggests there is a glass ceiling to the MCU and that eventually it will be broken. Because having its final fight on an underground railroad... It's at once subversive and submersive. I want more Wakanda.<br />
<br />
I don't know if I care about Marvel going forward. I don't know if I care about Star Wars going forward. We've hit the breaking point. I don't know if I care about Hollywood moving forward. Because we move every day closer to COUPON: THE MOVIE and I like it when art explores things, and currently we're at a point where art doesn't make people want to question anything. STRAW DOGS is a great movie and I want more cinema like that - purposely transgressive, not "I'm a racist in sheep's clothes" transgressive - but I also get that when you have to deal with so much external chaos it's hard to want to examine yourself/society. And I hope we get to some place that allows that level of discourse to return, but as long as we're having active shooting drills instead of banning guns, that's not going to happen. <br />
<br />
0. HULK - This movie is better than any MCU film by substantial margins and if you don't agree you're wrong. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-1491179973830306782019-08-04T21:47:00.001-07:002019-08-05T01:00:36.056-07:00A Memory of a Summer DriveI was a theatre kid. All through middle school and (at least) at the beginning of high school I auditioned for every play, and though some I couldn't appear in because of other activities, I often got cast. I got burnt though. I was doing mostly construction toward the end of my sophomore year but put a lot into the department even when I wasn't acting. During the big end of the year party/speech the drama teacher thanked everyone but me, so I stopped doing it. I was too insulted, and that probably led me to pursue writing more than acting. Also, by Junior year, I was on track to spend two months in Russia in the middle of the year, so I had other things to do, and my love of film was growing to the point that I would rather study Criterion editions (on laserdisc, I'm old) than appear in Auntie Mame (not helping - I couldn't sing). By senior year my best friend had graduated and lived less than five minutes from campus and my schedule was such that I could duck out at lunch. So I was done. Nowadays I would never think to act, though as someone who is a nerd, I have certain improv abilities based around the fact that when bullied the best recourse is often "yes and." <br />
<br />
Regardless, when my eighth grade was coming to an end I auditioned for an acting troupe called Teens and Company, because an older student - who was obviously awesome - did the exact same thing, and I too got cast. We would go from school to school doing sketches we wrote ourselves about sex and sexuality. I had a killer audition, I could tell. The problem was everyone else in the troupe was sixteen, seventeen, and eighteen. I was fourteen. I had maybe kissed a girl at summer camp at this point, but... I think I got in because they needed more men (mostly women auditioned) and I was snappy, but also there was a sense of intentional diversity NINETIES STYLE. So we had one gay performer, an African American male and female, a fat girl, an Asian lady, a stoner, a super serious actor, and a class clown. But once we found our positions, I was the kid brother. I was a ham. I was that year's Brooks Whelan.We had a pow wow at the end of the year after we did this thing, and one
person kinda apologized that I was butt of a lot of jokes. Looking back,
I get that I deserved it, but maybe I never should have been in the
troupe to begin with. I had nothing to say about sex, my experiences were non existent. <br />
<br />
Many of our shows (to which I would have one, sometimes two bit parts) involved traveling around Oregon. And one time we went to the middle of nowhere so our advisors had to rent a van and drive us to - I believe - Corvallis. Bruce, who as cliche would lead you to believe was in fact the gay one, was our defacto leader, and he had a couple of the girls as his partners in crime (and since we all came from difference schools and groups, three was enough to be the deciding voice in a troupe of ten), as such, much of the music on the trip was Depeche Mode. Violator had just come out, and so I probably heard it eight times on that trip alone. As a fourteen year old boy in 1990, I wouldn't say I was homophobic - I liked Bruce, we were friends - but I wasn't a dancer yet. I was an insecure, sexually inexperienced boy who wasn't comfortable enough in my sexuality (which at that point was just kinda coming into the fore, I had recently figured out how to masturbate) to enjoy it. But because of AIDS, pop culture was knee deep in exploiting gay panic, and I was consuming all of it. It wasn't a fear of the other, it was a fear of self. I wasn't ready to accept Depeche Mode into my heart, because at the time Depeche Mode was known for being a gay band (for more background: https://gawker.com/5951419/the-stigma-of-synth-my-secret-life-with-depeche-mode), and I was a little more Public Enemy. That said, as much as it may have been gay panic, it could have been also that that was <i><b>all </b></i>they ever wanted to listen to, and as the younger kid brother, I felt sat on.<br />
<br />
The funny thing is, I actually got one of my tapes played at one point I think because they recognized their monopoly. And my choice was a tape that contained the first two albums by The B-52's. They HATED it. Because it wasn't cool. I wasn't cool. But it makes me chuckle to think about. Because the band I loved was probably more gay than the band that every straight white male in 1990 would call gay. The eighties were weird. If you missed it, you missed nothing (except some great art, but that happens in all decades). Still, it was pretty awesome trolling. And The B-52's are the fucking best. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-10046827979038969632019-07-29T01:17:00.000-07:002019-07-29T22:10:27.124-07:00On ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD and The One RAround the time when I was graduating from college my father was having problems finding a job. He had worked for one company most of my life, but when he didn't take a promotion, he was made redundant. The main reason why he didn't take the job was because he/we would have to move to Seattle (as I have been told, much of this is second hand information that I remember from twenty + years ago). As a man who didn't grow up with computers, the world was passing him by. My mom and I noticed that his behavior had gotten a little off, and one night when I think my mom asked him what he wanted to do, his answer was that he wanted to die. Then he had a stroke in front of us. It was, to say the very least, theatrical (like I said, the very least).<br />
<br />
My father then spent the next ten years living up to his wish, albeit slowly. He had multiple miniature strokes, which ruined his short term memory, and the longer it went on the "simpler" he got. Sadly, he was in care for years in Portland as my mom could no longer
live with him or take of him because there was a persistent and real fear
that he might accidentally do something terrible (like leave the gas
on) if he was left alone. Eventually he lost the ability to speak, and in one of the last conversations I had with him, he told me that he recently watched THREE FUGITIVES and loved it. I moved to Los Angeles in 2004, he died in 2007. I didn't see him for most of those three years, but by the end he was in a wheelchair, out of Portland in a Veteran's home, unable to speak, and toothless due to a root canal. There are so many layers of horrible to this story. One of the worst is that he sort of wished it on himself.<br />
<br />
Before I moved to Los Angeles, I started dating a girl named Sara. We had gone to college together and she worked in the computer center, so I saw her all the time. I was painfully shy then (while also being loud, such is my lot), and we may have flirted a little, but when I ran into her at a Liz Phair concert - around the time I was let go from working as a film buyer for a theater chain - we connected through Friendster and set up a date (which happened after I was let go). Around that time I came to LA to see if I could live there, and as I had a number of good friends already in the city, it seemed like the right thing to do. So, here I was dating Sara and we had an amazing first date. One where you talk all night until you get in the car and then make out for so long (but because it's a first date you don't push it) you go home sore and exhausted. But the longer we dated the more I had to think about my future. LA was calling, but could this woman I went to college with be "the one?" Eventually our clothes came off, but by the time we got around to having sex, I was twisted to the point where I couldn't perform because there was too much pressure, and if we had I might have felt locked in. She dumped me shortly thereafter. I think I'm legally required to tell you that that hasn't happened to me again, but it's one of those things where I know that what was going on in my head made it a non-starter (which is a form of decision-making). I moved. And a couple years later, maybe even a decade or so after, I checked in on her - for whatever reason - on Facebook. As I can best make out from what's available there, she had a brain tumor and died a couple years ago.<br />
<br />
I don't talk about this ever (out of respect for her), but I dated a supermodel. She lived in my apartment complex and we ended up hanging out for a week and a half before she moved back to Europe. It was perfect. We went out dancing, we watched the World Cup, we were clicking, I could make her laugh. And after she left I ended up sending her an email a couple weeks later just saying that I missed her. She then said she was going to a party in Somerset, and needed a date. I told her that I didn't think I could afford it, and she said she had frequent flier miles. Two days later I was on a plane bound for England. Oh, also, around this time I was fired from one of my writing gigs, just as another place I was writing for folded. My trip to England to see her (and my brother and his family) was fucking magical. Ask to see the pictures some time.<br />
<br />
Two years later she got in touch and we had lunch. It was going okay, no BEFORE SUNSET, and then I joked that if Trump got elected, we should get married, because I wouldn't want to live in America any more. She then said, "but what about kids" and said something along the lines of "would it be real?" And I was like "yeah, I'd love to have kids, I would totally marry you for real" and she said "then why didn't you ask me two years ago?" I just assumed I was good company. That she liked me, but that also I was in her life because she wanted <i>someone</i>. I never thought she wanted me. I went home after she basically said "I don't like you any more" and I put on STOP MAKING SENSE because it was all I could do to stay sane. (she invited me to her birthday party this year, so I think we're good, though that could have been an automatic thing).<br />
<br />
Should I have proposed back then, or tried to stay in Europe? I remember that moment (one of our last together) where she was on the fence about going home or coming to meet my brother and maybe staying a while, but as we had just left Somerset after sleeping for maybe four hours in a tent in the middle of a party, I was exhausted and wasn't up for twisting her arm even if she wanted me to do so. But then also, everything to that point had been perfect, and I didn't see a future for us, so why ruin perfect? Maybe I just wasn't looking hard enough. But then also, that would have been insane. Like, what am I going to do in Europe. Also, we never watched a movie together. If I put on something like RIO BRAVO is she going to dig it? I mean, not that it's that important, but still. I've fallen in love with people and moved fast, but I don't know how that with her would have worked. Would I have found a job in Europe, or would we come back to the states, but if the... None of it made sense to me.<br />
<br />
I went out drinking with a friend a couple years back, and he was having a rough time because he had just broken up with someone, and asked if I had regrets. I said no. I said something after that like "are there things I regret, yes." and he told me I blew it. When I think about the things where I feel like I failed, where there was a moment to choose path A or path B, I don't always feel good. Well, some of them I feel good because they were awesome. But at the same time, I can't dwell on them. I lost my father before I lost him, and as the situation worsened I was talking to another friend about it, and his father died when he was three. And when I was opining that I wish I got to know my father as a man, he was like "well, you're talking to the wrong person about that, at least you had one." And though I wish I had known my father better, and I wish I didn't remember the sick version of him more than the non-sick version, my father was essentially a good egg, all things, and though I might have some qualms about how he raised me, and questions about who he was, I don't have any control over it. I know my father's life was probably miserable in his final years, but I also know that if I spent more time with him, it would have destroyed most of the best memories (of which there are less than I would like), and would have been at a certain point more for me than him. Did I abandon him? Maybe. What would my life been like if I stayed in Portland and married Sara? Would I have gotten a job at a place like Powells (or more likely retreated back to Movie Madness, even if there would have been zero money in it), would we have been happy, had kids? Would the European have my kids and maybe we get divorced, or we compromise and live in England, where I might have been able to find work and would have been closer to my family? These are all paths that could have been. <br />
<br />
I don't know. But I also don't think about these things except when I think about these things, because it's wanking. And I've got nothing against jerking off, but I don't like dwelling on whatever happened that I cannot change because A) that's not how time works and B) I believe I am made of my decisions, good and bad. This is the path that got me to where I am now. And that may not be the best path, but I don't hate my life, or the various and numerous highs and lows that have come from it. Is it possible the best me has an Oscar/mansion/children by now? Of course. I could also be dead. I could also be blind. I could also be in a plane wreck. If you're really going to start rolling some twenty sided dice, go all the way. <br />
<br />
The things that I have done that I feel like may have hurt people I don't feel good about, but I think a lot of them - if I were to apologize - might net blank stares. Mostly because I don't know if they always feel the same way I do, just as probably the most embarrassing moments of my life may not be a blip on theirs. Maybe I feel this way because often when people quote me back to me I generally don't remember that bit of cleverness. Things stick to people in different ways. There's very few people I would want to apologies from- but I'm also willing to admit that is partly white privilege talking. I've lived my life trying not to hurt people almost to a fault. I feel like Frankenstein at times while my inner soul is Bill Haverchuck. I'm this super large skinny nerd. <br />
<br />
Speaking of. ONCE UPON A TIME... IN HOLLYWOOD, let's dive into spoilers.<br />
<br />
SERIOUSLY, SPOILERS<br />
<br />
SPOILERS BITCH<br />
SPOIL<br />
SPOIL<br />
<br />
At the end of the film, our heroes kill the three people who would have killed Sharon Tate and those who were staying with her at the time. This is something that once the film screened was kind of spoiled immediately because no matter how you dance around the subject, you can't talk about the movie for great lengths without talking about the ending and by talking about Tate, by including Tate, one suspected Quentin Tarantino would pull another INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS situation by reworking what happened. Honestly, I was hoping for something more clever, like that the Manson clan killed Cliff and Rick instead. Not because I hated them, but because their deaths would be a transference like what happens in DEATH PROOF.<br />
<br />
Instead, the Manson clan are taken out by a "good guy with a gun" as played by Brad Pitt's wife killer Cliff Booth. And as much as it is satisfying to watch the three die a grizzly death, the violence towards women is more pronounced (perhaps because there are two of them), and over the top. I am not defending the Manson people in any way shape or form, but the images of a woman set on fire, and having their brains beaten out register stronger than what happens to Tex, who gets chomped hard by a pitbull, which - using that kind of dog - seems a conscious choice. And though I felt catharsis in this moment, it's a deeply conservative movie in the sense that it validates the viewpoint that competent but terrible people may be the solution to abjectly terrible people. (As for the narrative beat of Pitt's character being a wife killer, I suspect as much as this is a point Tarantino makes to give him a greater redemption arc, but could also be that Hal Needham told him a story about Robert Vaughn's stunt double that he had to include because it was too out there not to.)<br />
<br />
This is a movie about regret. But what regrets? For a movie about 1969, Tarantino removes race, sex, and war mostly out of his equation, relegating all three to a trunk ride. Yes, Sharon and Roman Polanski go to the Playboy Mansion, but it's to dance around clothed people. Bill Cosby isn't there even if he was. Polanski, who - going by what I know of the situation - was an all around shit husband who wanted an open marriage, is not much of a character, nor are many of the Hollywood icons featured in the film (Damian Lewis must have had most of his role cut out, right?) This is about two middle aged white guys who need affirmation and support and redemption. Because they know they need it.<br />
<br />
Ever since DEATH PROOF, Tarantino has been making period films. I wouldn't say he's retreating to the past, but he has - at least in 3/4 - been righting historical wrongs. You can get away with that easy in DJANGO because of genre. But the brilliance of BASTERDS - which was apparent from reading the script - was that his changing of history was also about playing against our expectations. "They're going to try and kill Hitler, but they will fail because history." "but what if they did succeed?" That's a great narrative gimmick, but it's also an atomic bomb. Christopher Nolan must have felt the same way with MEMENTO and INCEPTION and DUNKIRK. There are certain narrative devices that can only be used once, or only used once people forget about them. That QT goes to that well again is unfortunate even if he does an incredible job of making his alternate timeline a rock solid case. But once he introduces the alt timeline, the ending is boring. Sure, it's fun, but we know where it's going.<br />
<br />
My problem, on a DNA level, is that this isn't useful. It's fun in IB because it's about sticking it to Nazis and giving Hitler the death he deserved, but this is more personal - even if Tarantino elides the underbelly of the real people and the time and place. I love Tarantino, and outside of THE HATEFUL EIGHT (which as politically on point as it is, is self indulgent wankery) I like to love all his movies. But at the end of the day, even though I think the ending is saved by Rick being shy and awed by Jay and Sharon liking his work, Tarantino wants to change the past. I don't.<br />
<br />
But also, I get it, I didn't spend twenty years working with and for Harvey Weinstein. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-55614645898033176332018-11-11T12:54:00.000-08:002018-11-11T12:54:53.183-08:00On the fear of conformityRecently A WRINKLE OF TIME was on in the background. There's a sequence in the film where the main characters end up in a cul-de-sac where every house has a child in front who are bouncing balls at the same time. We then see all the children, and all are of different races with different haircuts. At this moment the film fails because it tries to paint a portrait of multicultural assimilation, and it at once says too little and not enough. It's a hopeful portrait of terribleness that doesn't work because we've taken way too many steps forward and too many steps back from the 1950's version of the American dream for it to be inclusive.<br />
<br />
If our culture, if America were different, there might be a case for this fear of multicultural assimilation, and hopefully things will change so much in the next thirty years that this portrait will feel right (spoiler alert: it won't). But in a post 9/11, Post-Trump American landscape, this is a patently ridiculous thing to show/fear. America is nowhere near the point where it is accepting of different cultures and races for a myriad of reasons, to cite one obvious recent example: a Jewish temple got shot up because conservatives have portrayed George Soros as a boogeyman. Republicans have so stoked the fear of the other that White Nationalism has become the bedrock of their beliefs.<br />
<br />
Alas, the fear of suburban complacency doesn't exist any more as no one accidentally becomes a Republican. No one can fear <i>accidentally </i>turning into a pod person or Stepford wife in America at this point in history. The fear of complacency is non-existent because the American Dream no longer exists.<br />
<br />
These days, going to college guarantees you nothing but debt if you are lower or middle class. On top of which the middle class is an endangered species. Many adults would sell their soul if it gave them a home, a partner, and children that they could afford to the point they wouldn't have to worry about taking care of braces or a wrecked car. I know too many people who have good jobs that are working second jobs because they have to make ends meet. Most people live in debt.We've gone from an economy that supports a single breadwinner to an economy where to have two children both parents tend to need to work, and where having a full time job is no guarantee you can afford room and board. If the previous appeal of Conservatism was that it was the party that taxed you less, that doesn't matter when taxes aren't the reason why you can barely afford things and it isn't easy to get by. Republicans have ruined selling out, because there's no one to sell out to.<br />
<br />
But, perhaps just as importantly, the fear of becoming a pod person, the fear of falling in line with more conservative elements in our culture is gone because to be a modern Republican you have to embrace racism, sexism and the fear of the other to the extent that it's a feature, not a bug. You can't pretend that it's a cultural thing, or a belief system argument. Trump and his administration is actively pursuing policies for the benefit of no one but racists. They don't want people to be tolerant of viewpoints they don't accept while also being offended that their intolerance is not as tolerated as those minorities they look to oppress. <br />
<br />
It's not that people are being converted - this is nothing you can fall into accidentally at this point - it's that people's truths are being revealed. We reached the end of They Live, Nada has destroyed the cloaking device, and a good chunk of the population is cool with being led by aliens who obviously don't have their best interests in mind.<br />
<br />
I say this, but I also look at James Woods on twitter, who's been called to arms because of the California fires, and it's obvious he's a terrible person who found his humanity when he saw something that might change his life/day/people he knows. The problem with other-ing to point that modern Republicans are at these days is that it's effective only when you have no practical experiences, and can be destroyed if that person is capable of accepting truths. It's easy to hate things you don't know. It's harder when you live and work and are surrounded by people who are just like you, who want similar things as you, but maybe look a little different. To be a modern Republican is either to be rich and selfish or dumb and hateful. Racism is inherently stupid, and racism has become a core tenant of modern Republicanism, so that party is now for stupid people, by stupid people, and the feedback loop of Trump and Fox News is getting dumber and louder.<br />
<br />
They forgot the carrot for people who are comfortable with racism as long as it's not front and center. They forgot to provide for their true Scotsmen because it's the end of this hustle so they are just pillaging what they can. The white picket fence is no longer a realistic dream, it's no longer a dream, period. Good job, Republicans, you ruined the myth that you're whole fucking ideology is based around. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-20288671427669204762018-09-11T01:11:00.002-07:002018-09-11T01:11:52.520-07:00THE TREE OF LIFEToday, Terrence Malick's fifth film hits DVD and Blu-ray through Criterion in both the film's theatrical and extended cut. Has Terrence Malick's Plame d'Or winning film been on the wane since its release in 2011? What has changed that fifty additional minutes of a Terrence Malick film are not treated with the hushed whispers of a quest for the holy grail? And the answer to the question"what changed" is (close to literally) everything.<br />
<br />
I am 42. For more than half my life, Terrence Malick had only directed two movies. He returned to movies in 1998 with The Thin Red Line, and it would take another seven years for his follow up, 2005's The New World. It took only six years later to get The Tree of Life. And since 2011, what's happen in seven years? Three feature length films already on home video, a documentary, and another film that may yet be released this year. In thirty two years Malick made his first four features. In seven he made his second four. And though The Tree of Life topped a lot of year end lists and won prizes, Malick is one of those artists that people describe as pretentious even when they like his work. Add to that, the next three films - To The Wonder, Knight of Cups and Song to Song - were not exactly wide releases that got little critical or commercial support. Yes, there are still Malick cheerleaders, but that leads to the other big sea change.<br />
<br />
Sure, we may get a New York Times review of this release, but The Dissolve is no more. The AV Club currently has no review. Blu-ray review sites have already put up their pieces, and it's hard to imagine a lot of local newspapers running a review, outside of maybe a home video corner-type mention. There is no primary film critics any more as there is no national platform that doesn't extend to all critics. There is no Roger Ebert, and though Criterion is respected as a curator of the canon, there are no more video stores, so the only people who are going to watch this are people who want to buy it and people who go to libraries. I spent a long time writing for Collider, and they probably would have covered the film if I was still writing Blu-ray reviews, but they are on the hustle, they wrote a story about Avengers being sorted at Hogwarts because they knew it was a cute stupid story that people would share. The internet tends to share stuff like that over - say - three thousand word articles on the analysis of L'Argent, to make a not entirely inaccurate false equivalency. <br />
<br />
On top of all that is the very act of making a longer cut is no longer special. Sure, you can blame unrated cuts of comedies for this, but this extended version wasn't Criterion and a squad of dedicated restoration experts dedicating themselves to reassembling a director's pruned vision. This was about letting Malick fuck around with all his footage to deliver a longer version. There are no still images for missing sequences, nothing seems to have been lost.<br />
<br />
And yet, this is still special. And yet, this is one of the most important cinematic events of the year.<br />
<br />
<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtaqiG6bynuTHZ5U_U22BRGdEKMRYIlktmPLbKzVv5Db7o8hxGdz4JRTydV6URhUL3IRkAi2p71TH0dSrHUy5pj1EyQ3PT2a20hPopHta3LfQwbuc-S5opb4oSJIa8Iyssx8kc/s1600/the-tree-of-life-tree-dinosaurs.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="434" data-original-width="630" height="220" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhtaqiG6bynuTHZ5U_U22BRGdEKMRYIlktmPLbKzVv5Db7o8hxGdz4JRTydV6URhUL3IRkAi2p71TH0dSrHUy5pj1EyQ3PT2a20hPopHta3LfQwbuc-S5opb4oSJIa8Iyssx8kc/s320/the-tree-of-life-tree-dinosaurs.jpg" width="320" /></a></div>
<br />Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-14093421110098404042018-08-25T20:44:00.001-07:002018-08-25T20:51:51.177-07:00Notes on INFINITY WAR and why JUSTICE LEAGUE is more entertaining (and here be spoilers)<div class="separator" style="clear: both; text-align: center;">
<a href="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHSysR_gOHF5vf2LbGK3NyMYSh8zpfdKqIGKrsi5cm7JlxqOlIo5hgQd4NcBNaNEjUEf3GhmiFgUax0FMgVYkiwd8396KLn74398wKhxnGZKPl7hwvmqNS5FaZo8ZolLsNVVDz/s1600/avengers-infinity-war-happy-hogan-1007474.jpg" imageanchor="1" style="margin-left: 1em; margin-right: 1em;"><img border="0" data-original-height="350" data-original-width="590" height="378" src="https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEgHSysR_gOHF5vf2LbGK3NyMYSh8zpfdKqIGKrsi5cm7JlxqOlIo5hgQd4NcBNaNEjUEf3GhmiFgUax0FMgVYkiwd8396KLn74398wKhxnGZKPl7hwvmqNS5FaZo8ZolLsNVVDz/s640/avengers-infinity-war-happy-hogan-1007474.jpg" width="640" /></a></div>
So I just rewatched The Avengers: Infinity War for the second time. I saw it the Thursday night it opened, and have been eyeing it since it hit home video. The problem was I knew what my reaction would likely be (I wasn't a fan when I saw it), and now I can safely say that I find Justice League the more entertaining watch. I will say that I appreciated some of it more than I did theatrically, but I also finished watching the 150 minute movie in about an hour. It's probably because so much of what happens in the movie is pointless spectacle, so I fast forwarded through almost all of the last hour. <br />
<br />
Never mind that Thor spends the majority of his screen time trying to get a new hammer after learning in the last film he never needed a hammer in the first place, the problem with the film is that it has so many pieces to put into place for the next movie that it never feels like a film so much as a collection of "things that need to happen." Gamora's death scene goes on for like five minutes and there is only one thing that can happen in this sequence: Gamora has to die for Thanos to get the thing he wants. We know that by the end of the film he'll succeed because that's where the whole thing is going, so the only interesting thing about it is the return of Red Skull because you're surprised they still remembered that character was part of this universe. But there are way too many sequences in the film where what is about to happen has no variables. Of course Peter Quill fucks it up because the heroes can't win at this moment, and it feels like they could have done something with that because he's fighting alongside a DUDE WHO WENT INTO THE FUTURE AND KNOWS WHAT QUILL WILL DO. It's a more interesting movie if they did win at that moment but then still lose. The problem is that in situations like this I don't bemoan the character making a dumb decision, because it feels more like a character being forced to do that because the writers painted themselves into a corner.<br />
<br />
Another big problem is that they've established a number of these characters are essentially Gods - if not literally - and so to make it a fair fight, the film hopes we forget that. Vision suddenly can't do shit for no apparent reason other than if he behaved as he has in other movies, the film would end. Hulk usually only gets angrier the more he fights, and it seems the only way to stop him is to make him return to being Banner or possibly choking him out. But here he just loses and it's meant to be a game changer, but it feels like they've made him weaker without justifying the why of it. This continues the trend of the last couple Hulk appearances where they keep trying to make the act of transforming back and forth more volatile for the character, but the problem is that he's Hulk. We came to see him Hulk. And unless this is some meta commentary, "are you not entertained?" shit, Hulk smash. Just as I wouldn't go to a Right Said Fred concert and wonder if they're going to play "I'm Too Sexy," trying to make dramatic hay over if Banner will be able to transform back into the Hulk is a waste of everyone's time. <br />
<br />
But that ties into another of big problems with the movie: It's not a movie, it's a half movie. And so Banner doesn't Hulk out in the big fight at the end of this movie, because he's going to have to Hulk out at the end of the next movie (which is actually the end of this movie), and maybe in the next one he'll have learned an important lesson, like that he's always angry. Or maybe they'll kill him. But probably not because - as the film underlines when Thor muses about how Loki's been dead before - it's hard to say that anything that happened in this film counts, and Marvel seems deathly scared of icing off anyone. Removing half the cast is the same as not removing any of them, even if it makes scheduling easier for the next film. It's not just that Black Panther is coming off the most successful Marvel film ever made (at least domestically), it's that you might believe and be emotionally charged by the death of Tony Stark or Winston Duke's M'Baku, but you know when they "kill off" Spider-Man, Black Panther, The Falcon, The Winter Soldier, Dr. Strange, Groot, The Scarlet Witch, etc. that it's just a narrative ruse. Which then opens the door to all the deaths in the film being reversible, which makes the Gamora scene all that more intolerable because it too will likely not count. And to this the marketing and buzz kind of fucked the movie because they said "stakes" and we though "oh, they're finally going to kill either Tony or Steve" but then they didn't in this film and so when they do it for real in the next one, and I have zero doubt we're going to get at least one if not multiple "my contract is over, time to die a hero" moments in the next film, it's going to sting a little because it should have already happened.<br />
<br />
This also sets up what will likely be the biggest problem with the next Avengers movie: it's going to spend the whole movie reversing the events of this film. It's going to be a two hour plus movie of getting the survivors and Captain Marvel together in some way to take on Thanos and reverse what he did to save everyone else, and they'll succeed but at a price. There is no way I'm wrong about this. The way this film ends, that's the only movie they can make as a follow up. And it makes Infinity War useless because nothing that happens in it really matters other than locations. The film functions as a trailer for the next movie, as we've seen in these poorly bifurcated narratives. <br />
<br />
The funny thing is that Marvel usually avoids these sort of narrative pitfalls, even if their early movies suffered from similar lunkheaded obvious plotting (see for instance: the first Thor, or don't, it's bad). While watching Infinity War this time I thought about how much more entertaining it would be to see the Avengers throw a house party. That would be a better Marvel movie because it would be more in the spirit of what had come before. This was almost like an attempt at a DC movie. And sadly, I would rather watch Justice League. Let me explain...<br />
<br />
TO BE CONTINUEDDamonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-82547439002859048212017-12-20T01:54:00.001-08:002017-12-20T09:02:49.272-08:00THE LAST JEDI: Why I love this movie (Spoilers)There is so much to love in THE LAST JEDI, and I think the haters are being given way too much attention, though I've found (at least at my office) that there are a number of relatively rational people who just don't like this film. I get it. Hey, it's product. Hey, it's a franchise that's been around for forty years. (One co-worker said it was a little too Guardians of the Galaxy. I held my tongue.) Etc. etc. I get it. Don't care, but I get it.<br />
<br />
But here's the thing I love most about the film. And it's a spoiler, but I said that at the start. Rey's parents are nobodies. There's no lineage, she's just super talented. Rian Johnson has returned the Jedi to the people.<br />
<br />
Now, I can't say I'm so old that I remember seeing the first film in the theater, I don't, though my parents told me I was scared of Darth Vader. I have scant memories of seeing EMPIRE on the big screen, which I saw at four, and it left such an impression I would hang upside down on the jungle gym and try my damnedest to make objects move (alas, it never worked out, though one girl said she was a witch and chased me around the playground because that's how Kindergartners crush on each other). As a young blonde boy I wanted to be Luke Skywalker more than anything until I realized - around the time of puberty - girls were better than magic tricks. There's a reason I wanted to be a Jedi: In the original STAR WARS, Luke Skywalker isn't the son of the most famous Sith lord, he's just a regular kid whose head is in the stars, and who thinks he's special. It turns out he is. <br />
<br />
You could say the big reveal in EMPIRE betrays that, but as much as Luke is related to Darth Vader, it's also about having the narrative rug pulled out from the main character as hard as possible at the end of the second movie, which also means it doesn't really become about bloodline until the next film. Ultimately the twins stuff is where it gets messy, but from a narrative perspective, the son confronting the sins of the father and redeeming the father isn't bad, and as someone who grew up in peak early STAR WARS - I remember going to a mall where a television center was playing the first film and two teenage boys were reciting every line as it played - even I could tell that some of the narrative decisions were based on making the love triangle play out so Luke wasn't a chump. It wasn't planned no matter what Lucas said, and so it was about creating the most difficult obstacles for this young man to navigate, and what is more difficult to maneuver around than finding out the person you think you hate more than anyone happens to be your father?<br />
<br />
And here's where it's hard not to kick dirt at the prequels. When you have a writer who says he always had a plan and then makes films that had no obvious plan, and a director (both George Lucas) who was not only off his game, but also had no interest in getting back on his game after he gave up when the only film (THE PHANTOM MENACE) that reflected his interests was rejected by a large section of the audience. Because the storytelling is so shitty, it becomes about bloodline and destiny. There was no tragedy in Anakin's turn, because he's a lackluster character with an unbelievable love story. At no point does Lucas challenge himself or the narrative. He doesn't paint himself into corners and find organic ways of getting out, he enters round rooms and still gets paint on his feet. <br />
<br />
Back to THE LAST JEDI. The great thing about avatars is that they can be anyone, and when you tie that to bloodline and destiny, you limit possibilities, on top of suggesting something that history has shown is generally not true. In fact, Episode VIII shows that the children of famous people are often the worst. Rey came from nowhere, yet she's still amazing, Ben Solo had everything, and he'd rather destroy the world/past because he'll always be in the shadows of legends. Modern dynasties give us people like Paris Hilton and the Trump children, and the idea that a bloodline is somehow a determiner of worth or fame is something best tied to kingdoms, and other wholly outdated belief systems. STAR WARS was about, and probably always should have been about, how the force can belong to everyone - as the denouement underlines.<br />
<br />
*** OTHER SIDE NOTES *** <br />
<br />
Snoke sucked in THE FORCE AWAKENS, but I loved how THE LAST JEDI made him dangerous and a character, but also cleared him away. If they went another route, It would have been easy to say that Snoke showed the worst aspects of J.J. Abrams's instincts in repeating another round of servants and Emperors - this time with an even more thinly developed character - but by killing him it makes his inclusion in THE FORCE AWAKENS all the better because he proved to be a Macguffin and not a mystery box. Regardless of how this new trilogy ends, we care about Kylo Ren/Ben Solo, because he's an interesting character, and whether he is victorious (never gonna happen), killed, imprisoned or redeemed, that will have more weight than anything that could ever involve Snoke. Even if Snoke was some reincarnation of a figure like the Emperor, that shit isn't interesting.<br />
<br />
I loved how Hux becomes a character in this film. He's a toady, he's a bureaucrat, he's a modern neo-Nazi with a tiki torch who is as dangerous as he is laughable. And Phasma gets ditched, which, whatever, she's a costume.<br />
<br />
I wish Finn wanted to leave the ship because he thought he was the tracking device. Just saying.<br />
<br />
Puppet Yoda felt like a return to form for the character in so many ways. George Lucas never got Yoda like Kasdan and Kershner did, in the prequels it became about bad sentences more than a belief system. <br />
<br />
I love how the film starts. At the end of TFA, the first order says they know where the rebels are and the meeting between Luke and Rey needs resolution as well, so that's where you have to start. You can't cut to three months/days/years/decades later. Abrams punted so much, but now I'm thankful he did. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-30003416861451110462017-07-04T12:54:00.001-07:002017-07-04T12:54:11.856-07:00Let's do mathsDomestic: <br />
Transformers 1: $319 Million <br />
Transformers 2: $402 Million<br />
Transformers 3 (3D): $352 Million<br />
Transformers 4 (3D): $245 Million<br />
Transformers 5 (3D): $102 Million (still going)<br />
<br />
International: <br />
Transformers 1: $708 Million <br />
Transformers 2: $863 Million<br />
Transformers 3 (3D): $1124 Million<br />
Transformers 4 (3D): $1104 Million<br />
Transformers 5 (3D): $432 Million (still going)<br />
<br />
Domestic:<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 1: $305 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 2: $432 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: $309 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (3D): $241 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 5 (3D): $166 Million (still going)<br />
<br />
International:<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 1: $654 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 2:$1066 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 3: $963 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 4 (3D): $1045 Million<br />
Pirates of the Caribbean 5 (3D): $710 Million<br />
<br />
In both cases what we're seeing is that both franchises found their international footing with later pictures, while both peaked with their second films domestically (as likely people loved the first film most and were disappointed with subsequent entries). If we remove 3D from the equation it looks like Pirates dropped around or over a hundred million with each subsequent sequel (until the most recent) while Transformers has a similarly precipitous return on investment. Domestically.<br />
<br />
There have been a number of stories about how this is a bad summer for franchise films, but graphing these sequels shows that America had already lost most of their interest in these films and if the studios thought there would be a different result from these films, they would have to be dumber than our sitting president. They were not. America was an afterthought.<br />
<br />
But then <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/yearly/chart/?view2=worldwide&yr=2017&p=.htm">also, this</a>: <br />
<br />
The first film where America counts for most than 50% of the gross? The LEGO Batman Movie at number 16. At number 12? The Mummy, which is being treated as one of the biggest bombs of the summer (that said, it may lose money, but let's also do some quick comparisons. If you look at the <a href="http://www.boxofficemojo.com/people/chart/?view=Actor&id=tomcruise.htm">worldwide chart </a>outside of the Mission Impossible franchise, this is a solid WW gross for Tom Cruise, tracking a little behind Edge of Tomorrow, which is getting a sequel) . Seven of the top movies for the year (so far) made over eighty percent of their money overseas.<br />
<br />
Similarly<br />
Cars: $244 Million<br />
Cars 2: $191 Million<br />
Cars 3: $121 Million (Still going)<br />
<br />
International:<br />
Cars: $462 Million<br />
Cars 2: $562 Million<br />
Cars 3: $174 Million (it looks like this hasn't opened in most territories).<br />
<br />
Pixar knows what they're doing.Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-4447999761229830742016-12-15T01:36:00.000-08:002016-12-15T01:36:22.185-08:00ROGUE ONE: On Prequels (A Non-Review)A lot of my friends love ROGUE ONE. Bully for them. I don't. I feel sort of bad about it, and maybe an eventual revisit will warm me to it, but I have very specific problems with prequels, and they may explain why this film left me colder than SNOW FALLING ON CEDAR.<br />
<br />
Most prequels don't need to exist and probably shouldn't. The problem prequels run into frequently is they tell us information that is irrelevant. For instance, I know Anakin is going to turn bad. Seeing that happen isn't interesting if I'm not emotionally invested. To make me invested I need to care about that character. Lucas spent three films not doing that. OZ, THE GREAT AND POWERFUL is charming at times, but what parent or person wouldn't rather watch the 1939 film? The Hobbit films at least had their roots in a book, but it was distended beyond nature - it's the Mr. Creosote of trilogies. But more than that it tries to engage you with spectacle that only works when you have a rooting interest. The problem is often how, and how is so often overlooked in these films.<br />
<br />
What are good prequels? My list is thin. The best example currently going is BETTER CALL SAUL. There are a number of reasons for this. But foremost is that the creators from the first frame show that whatever Saul/Jimmy/Cinnabon employee man does, his fate is determined. And so we can wonder if the events, as they unfold, are inevitable. Jimmy McGill isn't loved by his brother. But Jimmy had bad tendencies. Would brotherly love have fixed or enabled him? Is Chuck right, even if he is an asshole? The little things add up, but this show has given those little seismic shifts the weight of earthquakes.<br />
<br />
My mind then goes to RISE OF THE PLANET OF THE APES. What is so great about this film (and less so, so far, about the sequels) is that it showed something that we never got to see if we take certain time travel theories to be correct (essentially, if we accept that Taylor arrived on timeline A, the time travel of Cornelius creates a timeline B by altering events of the past. This may have been explained in the films proper, though the films suggests that Taylor's craft was not created in 1968, while Cornelius and Zora arrive in 1971 most obviously). But the story of RISE is about enslavement and rebellion and it works by creating a new template for the franchise. It also works because it adapts modern concerns to the franchise, while the first film ended on a note of nuclear panic, this later film is about genetic modifications and superbugs. It also wasn't a story that had been previously told in the franchise, even if it has similarities to CONQUEST.<br />
<br />
The thing about THE GODFATHER PART II is that the prequel elements are also not telling us anything we knew before. It works because it acts in parallel with the story of Michael Corleone. Perhaps we thought Don Vito was mostly honorable, but it paints a portrait of immigrant life which feels historically correct. A minority oppressed, with limited opportunities, and one oppressed by its own. Vito built an empire on blood, and the family paid the price, but Vito hoped his legacy would be Michael, but not the Michael Michael became. Seeing the life of Vito is not telling us things that had been explained or inferred by the first film. <br />
<br />
You know what's a great prequel? KILL BILL VOLUME ONE CHAPTER FIVE. We know that the bride defeated O-Ren Ishii, it's obvious from the end of the first chapter of that film. What we don't know is the how. And the how is fucking amazing. And I gauge prequels on the how. <br />
<br />
So, ROGUE ONE. The information about how the rebels got the missing plans was covered in a crawl, so it was disposed of within, literally, the first three minutes of the original film as a minor detail. But going in to this film, I knew two things: The new characters can't play a part in future films, and the rebels gonna get those plans.<br />
<br />
Here's where disappointment set in for me: At no point does anyone have any great special skills to get those plans, nor do the main group of rag tag thieves have that many defining character traits. People will probably point to the new droid (and he's the best thing in the movie), or Donnie Yen, but that's not enough. I kept waiting for something, anything to happen where someone had a special set of skills that were useful. And though that sort of happens a little bit, so much of the third act was for me more impressive spectacle versus engaging craft.<br />
<br />
Now, here's where I can play a little bit of devil's advocate and say that this might possibly be the point, that it's not about skilled people doing things they are good at but ordinary people thrust into extraordinary circumstances who have to deal with the cards they're given.<br />
<br />
And if the film was that subtle, I would totally forgive it if the film's denouement wasn't as ham fisted as a punch from Porky Pig. I guess some see the ending as the natural conclusion to the narrative about hope. For me It was fan service dialed up to eleven. And maybe I'm not connecting to the thematic resonances therein. But perhaps I'm too turned off by a kung fu Darth Vader and a poorly acted CGI Tarkin to care.<br />
<br />
I think you could probably take a character getting coffee and turn it it into a feature film. About how the beans were grown, about how they were cured, about how they made their way to a Starbucks (or wherever) and make it interesting, but if that's the case I have to be engaged on a level more than "Eventually these people get their coffee" and that was how I felt about ROGUE ONE. Eventually, the rebels are going to get their Grande Mocha.Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-81145793630594020952016-05-07T02:46:00.001-07:002016-05-07T02:47:52.046-07:00Dancing Days are here again...I wish I knew more people who loved to dance as much as I do. At The Short Stop, I was and am known as "the firestarter." I wonder how many other people know what that's like. When I dance, I can get people dancing. I don't know if it's because of my enthusiasm or skill, but I know it to be true. I may be the first person dancing on a Saturday, but eventually people are going to dance on a Saturday because it's Saturday. When you can get a crowd whipped up on a Wednesday, that's when you know it's not just the day. I wonder about my movement. I know I've gone through transitions. I've moved my hips more, my legs more, my arms more. I've found patterns I like to repeat, but it's all self-taught. There might be a little Travolta (very little) or found items, but maybe it's best if it's primitive. No idea. Rhythm is math, understand the math. <br />
<br />
One thing dancing has made sacrosanct is that woman are to be treated kindly or left alone. I say this because one thing the dance floor has taught me is what it means to be objectified. On an off night, people can do what they want, but when shit gets crowded, you get guys who are on the hunt. What that means is a line of guys just looking, dudes who get into groups and will stand around in the middle of a dance floor (MIDDLE OF THE DANCE FLOOR!!!) not dancing, sometimes just looking at their phones. This makes me think an entire generation of people don't know how to interact, so they just want to be in it.<br />
<br />
But I also know that as someone who hits the floor so regularly and with such passion, that I am captured on people's phones. People think they're being subtle, but they're not. Some days I treat it like my friend Scott - who used to pose in the background of photos at Universal Studios, creating an album of images that will never be seen by anyone - as something that happens but is my personal in-joke. These days when I see phones pointed at me I get mildly annoyed because I know that this is going to end up on social media platform to which I have no access and I have no idea how what I'm doing is being viewed. Am I being singled out because of my skill, or is it "look at the white guy!@!" I have no idea. Because these people don't talk to me, I can't be sure. And that makes me mad at the level of a dull ache.<br />
<br />
Being objectified also means that people will touch me. My ass has been pinched often, women have tried to kiss me, and people will offer me advice I don't want about how to dance. I don't need to be told how to dance, and I generally don't want advice from someone I don't know. I have control. It may look frenzied or big, or whatever, but I know what I'm doing and I know the space I have, which means when I have a lot of space I like to take advantage and go big. I would compare this to being a woman if it happened all the time, but really it only happens when I'm dancing so I won't pretend to relate. If I do talk to a woman on the floor it's because I know she's interested, or I feel the need to tell them they are a great dancer and I leave it at that.<br />
<br />
Unfortunately, flattery is my downfall. It's late Friday and I'm at home without going out. That's because I threw my back out a while ago, and I don't know if it recovered. I often carry groceries in a backpack and I think the weight differential puts my spine out of whack. Sad. But the reason why I'm hurting so bad is because I was out Wednesday night after work, and I got the dance floor going. I hit, and people joined in. Eventually a woman - who had a boyfriend - hit the floor. I had been peacocking for a while as there was enough space, but the people who were clapping on my moves made me feel supported. Even though she was with a guy, she wanted to dance with me, and that seemed awesome, so I danced with her, eventually going full DIRTY DANCING. When she came over to show me all the photos her boyfriend had taken, I couldn't be happier, happier to be included in this game. But my back showed signs of distress, which I ignored because the DJ was cute and I was being properly lauded. <br />
<br />
I recently joined Tinder. I don't care for swipe culture, but I also felt it was important, as I think I'm ready to date again for the first time on social media. I want people to know I'm ready. I have no idea how many swipe right or lefts I've gotten, but I figure that if I'm at a club and people see my profile that it can't hurt. Then again I was at work today, and as I got out of the elevator to go to work, I got a "yeah" nod from a female who must work near me. I assume this happens all the time to women, but it happens to me only from time to time. It's that "yeah" nod that suggests that person is in to you, sold American. And that's the divide from men to women perhaps, though perhaps not, of when I want to be objectified. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-48364036211881495072016-04-30T11:12:00.002-07:002016-04-30T11:13:51.236-07:00Camus had a point talking about SisyphusI lived on Beachwood Drive for about ten years, give or take. For those who've never visited Los Angeles, what may be most famous about said street is that it seemingly leads directly to the Hollywood sign. You know, that sign that says Hollywood and gets destroyed a lot in post apocalyptic and disaster movies. Note: The street doesn't actually get you to the sign. <br />
<br />
There were two things one would encounter because of this, often on a daily basis: Tourists asking you to take their picture, and tourists parking illegally in your driveway so they could take pictures. Never mind the absurdity of taking a picture in front of a sign that is famous for being a sign that is famous (Hollywood in a nutshell). But no matter how nice or how awful you were to these people, there was nothing you could do about it to make a change. How could you? Were they going to tell the next person you ran into? No. <br />
<br />
I walk a lot every day if I can help it. And the one thing you can not change is that some people have spacial awareness and some people do not. Some people do not almost blissfully so, to the point that it leaps over into awareness of being an asshole. But no matter how nice or how awful you were to these people, there was
nothing you could do about it to make a change. How could you? Were they
going to tell the next person you ran into? No.<br />
<br />
I go out dancing all the time. Gross dudes don't understand they are gross dudes. Here is the one time that sometimes Sisyphus makes progress that seems real, even if it isn't. I don't usually peacock to peacock, but if the floor is right (that is to say, if I have space), I will go big to make a point. Sometimes that inspires gross dudes to go with me, like they think I'm on their side. But more often than I'd hope they get the point. And they do because ironic dancing only gets you so far when faced with skill. I have been going out dancing since I was able to buy a drink, and at this point I have to admit to myself (and others) that I'm good because false modesty becomes unbecoming.<br />
<br />
But even if I win the battle, the floor usually hits capacity, and there's nothing I can do about gross dudes who don't understand that women like watching me dance - whether it's because they think it's funny a tall blond balding white guy is throwing down, or because they might want to fuck me - and that seeing me dance inspires them to dance, and that women don't want to dance when the see guys who stay on the floor and don't dance but either stare or look at their phones and don't like guys who stand in a line by the side of the dance floor. I don't like describing women as prey but as I have probably said before, a dance floor is an ecosystem, and any ecosystem with too many predators is doomed to collapse. But this is also about who's in the bar at the time. <br />
<br />
It's funny, I was thinking about this last night, there was a guy in a toque who was standing around the floor in the middle of the dance floor, who migrated to the center, and I was dancing near him. Amerie's 1 Thing came on (<a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bbqVg_23otg">for reference</a>), and I was like "time to show off" because... that song and immediately after throwing down the two hottest ladies in the club started dancing near me. As if the fates wanted to prove my point. But this dude persisted in hanging out in the middle of the dance floor. The middle is sacred to me. One of the old bouncers at the Short Stop (my joint) used to call me "fire starter," because I could get the floor going, and if you're in the middle - if you're in the focal point - you want to be throwing down because that's where the energy comes from. To stand in the middle is an affront.<br />
<br />
After, this led me down a rabbit hole of thought. What I've experienced of late is that more people than you'd expect aren't so much cold as anti-social, or ill equipped with social interactions. Everyone wants to be a little bit Don Draper - to be the playboy, what have you - but so few of us are. And I want to be inclusive, you always want to be inclusive, because it results in better net gains, as it were. I was totally dancing with the lesbian couple next to me and we were all digging it, but this guy I couldn't get a bead on - but at this point with legalized weed so many people are probably stoned all the time and don't even know where they're at. Part of me want to grab this guy and ask "Why the fuck are you standing here? What do you think you'll accomplish? Why aren't you sitting down or standing on the side of the floor?" Honestly I wanted an answer, I wanted catharsis. But the truth is that there was
nothing I could do about it to make a change. How could I? Was he going to tell the next person I ran into who did the exact same god damn thing? No. But I move the bolder up the hill just the same. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-9338013924694222062016-04-21T15:19:00.003-07:002016-04-21T15:19:53.699-07:00Ten Declarative Statements About Prince1. Prince made you want to dance.<br />
2. Prince made you want to fuck.<br />
3. Prince made you want to believe in God.<br />
4. Prince made the Super Bowl cool.<br />
5. Prince made the Eighties, if not cool, bearable.<br />
6. Prince made Minnesota cool. Minnesota.<br />
7. Minnesota.<br />
8. Prince concerts were always an experience worth having.<br />
9. Prince knew he was Prince and had fun with it. <br />
10. Prince is gone and the world is a less funkier, sexier place for it.Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-28977363721353627572016-03-24T02:42:00.001-07:002016-03-24T02:49:28.282-07:00Batman V. Superman: Dawn of RedboxHow movies are bad these days has changed by leaps and bounds, and it's partly to do with the current studio system. With fewer and fewer mid-range budgeted films, there's less room for filmmakers to learn their craft before moving on to the Jurassic Worlds of cinema. And with Disney currently operating as it does (and this may change due to filmmaker pressure at some point), the standard "one for them one for me" model isn't tenable. You make a hit movie for Disney/Marvel, they're not really in the business of making passion projects. Do you see Joss Whedon getting his next film going at Disney yet? Shouldn't he? Auteurism has been ceded to the studio/brand. Who senses that Justin Lin touch in Fast Five, or James Wan's hand in Furious 7? J.J. Abrams and Sam Mendes are hit directors whose biggest hits mark their films as professionally made, but with little sense of the filmmaker behind them (at least in their franchise work). <br />
<br />
Twenty years ago, I would go see films that might be bad, because you never knew. In 1996, critics were just likely to be dismissive of Kids in the Hall: Brain Candy as they were The Frighteners, as they were Kazaam, as they were whatever Jean Claude Van Damme was doing at the time (in this case Maximum Risk). Sometimes they were right, but also, they may not have grasped what Hong Kong filmmakers were doing with craft as they used JCVD to make whatever insane piece of art they were after. Reasonably budgeted movies had a certain autonomy. But even the big summer films of twenty years ago often had the stamp of the director, of someone or something behind it that wasn't a brand. Here's a list of the top ten films of 1996:<br />
<br />
1) Independence Day<br />
2) Twister<br />
3) Mission: Impossible<br />
4) Jerry Maguire<br />
5) Ransom<br />
6) 101 Dalmatians<br />
7) The Rock<br />
8) The Nutty Professor<br />
9) The Birdcage<br />
10) A Time to Kill<br />
<br />
Five of these are definitely products of their director, but even of the most cynical it's hard to say that something like Twister or Independence Day were noted to death. Fox heads may have had some input in ID4 (a film I like), but the film seems to be a pleasure machine based on what audiences had liked before as surmised by the filmmakers. It feels naive in its cynicism; it loves its cliches. Two of these seem like straight-ahead hackwork: Dalmatians and Twister - but even Twister, bad as it is, was mostly a success due to audiences reacting to changing technologies, much as people responded to 3D regarding Avatar. A Time to Kill is just Joel Schumacher adapting a popular novel so it's a non-starter, benign. I would find it hard to say any of these films are truly great, but I would say most are entertaining, and have personality.<br />
<br />
I've seen all of the Marvel proper movies in theaters, and have hated a couple (looking at you Thor), so it's not that I get angry at all studio-run projects, but when big movies are bad these days, there is nothing for someone who loves films to get all that excited about, but this also points out why the best Marvel movies often have the stamp of their director(s). The turning point for me with trusting criticism of big budget movies is two-fold: Critics are now more sensitive than ever to geek concerns, and bad studio product movies are bad in ways that make them no fun to read/watch.<br />
<br />
As for the first point, well, let's face it: geeks won. Ain't it Cool may not be the powerhouse it once was, but it seeds are planted, and not just at Hitfix. Critics who are in their thirties and forties grew up with Spielberg and Lucas, and though they may not even be versed in Hitchcock (to be fair, many are), they aren't as snobbish as the old guard who may have worshiped Cukor and Stevens and Stanley Fucking Kramer. The old guard are the ones who favored films like Out of Africa, or Gandhi, or Chariots of Fire, films that have no great value these days, the people who may have given The Artist four stars. I may not always agree with Devin Faraci, or Drew McWeeney, or Eric Vespe, or a number of the film critics that (full disclosure) I've known socially (in some cases just online) for years, but I know that they are nerds/geeks/whatever the polite descriptions of indoors kids are. Or, more to the point, they are the target audience. And as time passes, at least for the foreseeable future, this will only grow more the case as Hollywood churns out films based on the brands critics grew up with. <br />
<br />
The second point is that I saw Star Trek Into Darkness in theaters, and that was a film that I made a promise to myself after, and that promise was that I wasn't going to pay to see a film that I knew I would hate simply to be a part of the conversation. This advice has served me well, as I skipped The Amazing Spider Man 2, Jurassic World and many more in the theater. I caught up with them on home video, and they proved to be as bad - if not worse - than I feared/heard at the time. I hate beating up on films like Fantastic Four or Terminator Genysis, but they seem a product of current Hollywood thinking as much as anything, and when they hit home video, there were no champions for it, and it's unlikely that auteurism 3.0 in twenty years will make a great case for these films. These are not the sort of detritus that turn out to be hidden greatness. I know this because I could find that in the films of twenty years ago while I was watching them. I could be proven wrong, and would love to be, but it comes down to voice, and what marks these films is a lack of it, or a lack of an original one.<br />
<br />
The problem is that without that voice, without a sense of real guidance, these films are bad in ways that aren't interesting. Say what you will about Sucker Punch, but that's a fascinatingly bad/misguided film. That's a film that's after something, that's trying to say something and may have utterly failed in doing so, but it is also after something beyond branding. Even Man of Steel, as flawed as that movie is, has a guiding voice and an idea behind it, whereas with so much of modern cinema it doesn't take sunglasses to read that the main idea behind them is CONSUME. And on some sort of political level, I can't support paying for art that is so cynical. At the end of the day, the Marvel films are usually at best fun rides, but it's hard to say they're more than that. The same goes for the new Star Wars (which I like), but at least they're enjoyable. And it makes me wish more people would give a director ten million dollars to make a film with Jean Claude Van Damme and leave them well enough alone. You might get shit, but you might get art. Throwing half a billion dollars at a filmmaker that has a checklist that's more important than the story? Fuck off. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-23788955963546477382016-03-09T01:40:00.002-08:002016-03-09T01:43:34.371-08:00Contextualizing FARGOThe passage of time makes it harder to see how gravitational pulls effect orbits. Supposedly Howard Hawks was one of the first directors on CASABLANCA before he made TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT. Do we see that the similarities between the two as studio mandated, that Hawks - unable to do his version - eventually made the film he wanted to make without those impediments, or that Hawks was aping the success that came before? As it's always hard to parse the rumors of that period, it's hard to know for certain as Hawks loved to take credits that may not have belonged to him (and denied some that may have).<br />
<br />
This I can say for certain. In the spring of 1994, the Coen Brothers had their film THE HUDSUCKER PROXY come out and do a belly flop in theaters. I remember seeing it, and though I loved it from frame one, and though the darlings of the independent scene may have "sold out" successfully, they did not attract a mainstream audience in doing so. Two months later, a little film called PULP FICTION won the Palme d'Or at Cannes, a prize the Coens had won with their previous film three years before, and with it Quentin Tarantino achieved commercial and critical success the likes of which the brothers had never attained. Maybe it was Harvey, maybe it was the zeitgeist, it doesn't matter. <br />
<br />
When we talk about the Coens, they're the modern - albeit stoned - iteration of the Kubrick model, in that though they are more public personas, they do little to reveal themselves or what they think about their material - to this point previous special editions of FARGO have gotten little input (or output) from the directors on the material. Joel and Ethan Coen made their breakthrough movie with paltry means with their debut BLOOD SIMPLE, which was a neo-noir through and through, casting a old testament biblical light with some impressive directorial chops onto the genre. And when we think about masters such as these, it's not always that we see them licking their finger and seeing which way the wind blows.<br />
<br />
As such, this much is true: FARGO was the movie that reignited them, made them Oscar favorable, and cemented their place as masters. On paper, it's hard to say that anything that happens in FARGO was drawn at all from Tarantino and his previous films. But it's also not hard to see filmmakers who may have felt that they needed to do something of the moment but also that had their own spin on it. A spin that Tarantino may have taken farther in his own works to that point, but is it so hard to trace a line between RESERVOIR DOGS and BLOOD SIMPLE, even if surface details muddy the point? Can one not apply the saying <span class="st">"The innocent must suffer, the guilty must be punished, you must drink blood to be a man" to RESERVOIR DOGS?</span><br />
<span class="st"><br /></span>
<span class="st">FARGO is rarely compared to PULP FICTION for a number of good reasons, and yet I am left wondering if the former's existence have everything to do with the latter's. Even if the Coens were going back to basics, which to some extent they were - though some they weren't - context tells you a lot.</span>Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-12292022.post-38207547024987653312016-02-24T09:28:00.004-08:002016-02-24T12:19:37.569-08:00THE REVENANT is a Cannon movie in Oscar ClothingHitchcock once said something like "plausibility is the province of dull critics," but let's look at what happens in THE REVENANT from the perspective of the Ree/Arikara tribe over the course of the movie (from what I remember, granted):<br />
<br />
Before the movie begins the chief's daughter is kidnapped by French trappers for the purpose of rape.<br />
<br />
The Ree then attack the American trappers headed up by Domhall Gleeson, Tom Hardy and Leonardo DiCaprio with the precision of World War II snipers, reducing what was a party of 40 to around - and soon less than - ten. They do this because they are looking for the chief's daughter.<br />
<br />
Leo's Hugh Glass says they should abandon their boat. They do, which is smart because the Ree are already down river and torch the boat. The Ree then go to the French trappers (who have the chief's daughter) and get horses. Not noticing that the daughter is somewhere nearby.<br />
<br />
They then find the remains of Hugh's Indian son and then when they see Hugh by himself in the water, even though there's no way he could have the chief's daughter, decide to try and kill him, because... I mean, I get it, I'd try and kill him too for fun, but whatev's.<br />
<br />
I think there's another cutaway to the Ree, but the next time they have a real presence is after Hugh has freed the Chief's daughter, and if we're to believe the French trapper who shows up at the American post, Hugh somehow slaughtered the entire French trapping community by killing two guys (using a pistol that could only have fired one shot at the time) and scaring off their horses, but him having Hugh's water bottle is the tell. It's possible the Ree got to the French as well, I can't tell if that's not clear, or the film's reshoots turned what was meant to be a much bigger scene of Hugh killing the French into a smaller one and then things didn't cut together, or if the script didn't have shits to give.<br />
<br />
Geographically, one would think the Ree would run into the French camp and then either find or be able to track the daughter from there, but the next time we see them they're trying to kill Hugh again and send him riding his horse off a cliff. <br />
<br />
Side note: When the American hear about a survivor who fucked up the French, they go out to look for this person. 1) Geographically, wouldn't they then run into the Ree first? 2) The dude went off a cliff. So what's the path that would make that easy for them to run into him?<br />
<br />
Side Side note: The French kill Hugh's friendly Indian companion. Why? They obviously have dealing with the Ree all the time, or enough that they know that they're both deadly and nearby. Perhaps getting away with stealing the chief's daughter emboldened them, or perhaps nothing that happens in this movie makes any sort of character sense (just a thought). But even if he's a part of a different tribe, wouldn't that stoke the Ree up? Or is it more plotting for the sake of leaving Hugh alone?<br />
<br />
Side Side Side note: For a film that made a big fucking deal about shooting in natural light and DiCaprio eating a real raw Bison liver, his character is attacked by a bear and lives. That's fine, that's based on a true story that was mostly ignored for the rest of this tale. But then he also goes down the rapids at one point and jumps off a cliff and falls into a tree a little bit later, but that seemingly doesn't do any additional damage to him, and he's able to go toe to toe with Tom Hardy at the end, seemingly with no noticeable limps or broken bones. Even Rambo would find this implausible.<br />
<br />
So then the final moment of the Ree is when Hugh sends the dying but not totally dead Tom Hardy down river so the Ree can finish the job of scalping them they started years ago, and this time the Ree don't try to kill Hugh, maybe because the chief's daughter is there. But then Hugh says some mystical shit about not being consumed by revenge after sorta spending the last ninety minute of the movie supposedly consumed by revenge (this is non-text subtext in that the audience is to assume this, even though nothing in the movie makes it clear until Leo finally says something about it, near the end of the film, even though, you know, he has these visions that are mostly about his dead wife and son and not about his all consuming need for revenge, which he seemingly has at some point) so he lets the Indians, which we suspect that Alejandro G. Iñárritu would not treat like bloody savages, act as bloody savages because they finish what Hugh started. <br />
<br />
One wonders if the moment that DiCaprio stares into the camera at the end of the film is the actor asking us if we believe this shit. I don't.<br />
<br />
Another sort of nitpick. There's a shot of Hugh, having finally dragged himself away from the camp, seeing water. This is at a point where he's not really walking yet. Where does he see that water from? The top of a cliff. The next shot? Him drinking water. Dude can't walk. Top of a cliff. So, what, two, three days later?<br />
<br />
Also, it's made mention that DiCaprio's Hugh Glass is a great tracker and guide. At no point in the course of the movie does he ever use those skills, unless we are to believe his plan was to get Domhall Gleason killed and then use him as bait the entire time. And that's possible, the character could just hate gingers. Damonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13901285373157600337noreply@blogger.com