First of all I would like to apologize for last night's bizarro post - I had a few beers in me and reading it this morning, it made absolutely no sense. So I deleted it. No hard feelings.
Bheeler made a great point about how (un)important it is for a product of popular culture to have some sort of an artistic merit. This was a response to my praise for BSG to be an intellectually stimulating and challenging show. I agree with Bheeler that when comparing a show like Lost with the works of Shakespeare, the winner is determined - by proxy - to be the latter because of its chronological advantage. Not that Shakespeare doesn't merit academic scrutiny, but the pedestal the academics and the critics put him on makes me question the validity of his artistic merit even more (that's two merits in one sentence). Same goes for the Oasis vs. the Beatles battle.
I also agree that studying or debating the made-up mythology behind popular culture is also an act of legitimizing them in our minds that they are serious shows and not just popcorn entertainment. A show like Lost, or BSG, or Alias have as much popcorn value as they do artistic value, but because of their chronological disadvantage and their inferior medium (television) will make them less worthy in artistic terms when academics will look back on early 21st century popular culture.
I have just watched last night's episode of BSG online and I had goosebumps all over me. Yes, I keep salivating over this show too much maybe, but my excitement does not only stem from what I see on the screen, but what this show will represent in the years to come.
The filmmakers of our generation will be remembered for a few new innovations and developments that are, in my opinion, rather bland compared to the previous generations. Now, I'm not trying to say that Casablanca is a more worthy addition to the film cannon than Fight Club, but I would rather my generation be represented with filmmakers not named McG or Eli Roth. Let's face it - the current filmmaking generation sucks ass. Yes, Scorsese still comes up with a scorcher once in a while. Yes, the Coens got their groove back (somehow), and yes Fincher just revealed a side we have never seen before. But they are not strictly our generation. (Well, maybe Fincher is. And let's not forget Nolan). But, the predominant products of popular culture of our times are rather ... well... un-artistic, for want of a better word.
Now, here's my point. I see a show like BSG shining like a beacon for the generations to come. Not because it has the best special effects on television I have ever seen, nor because it put a fledgling cable network (SciFi) in the big league. But because I feel that it will be a show critics and academics will be talking about not because of its place in a timeline, but because of its content. How many shows or films of the last 20 years can claim to that? You can go on about Blair Witch and Cloverfield's brilliant marketing strategies, but they are nothing but glorified Creature from the Black Lagoon - again, nothing is wrong with that. But BSG, in my humble opinion, goes a little beyond that. And that's why I think it will be a landmark show - not in a popular sense (how many people can say that an Antonioni film is their favorite?), but in an academic sense. I can now claim to have been witness to a show that transcended popular culture and academia legitimately.
So say we all ...
The Ru
P.S. There are a few slight SPOILERS in this link, but it is an interesting article about shows that ultimately come to an end.
Saturday, January 31, 2009
Friday, January 30, 2009
What the F*CK is wrong with Matt Damon?
After reading The Bru's last posting and reading the article from the link, I have to ask: What the F*CK is wrong with Matt Damon. Seriously, Matt, I still want to be your bro and all. But bro's need to know when to slap around another bro, and bro, you need to be slapped! (okay, I'm done with the bros).
Not only does he call Bond "repulsive" and fail to see the merit in the story quality of his over-exaggeration, he lets the rag who quoted him get away with calling Miami his home town. Miami? HIS HOME TOWN? A sad, sad day for Bostonians.
Anyway, I agree with The Bru - New Bond = Good Bond, but this is one of those apples-oranges situation - they're both fruit, and they're both good (and good for you).
And yes, I think I just called James Bond and Jason Bourne fruity.
Not only does he call Bond "repulsive" and fail to see the merit in the story quality of his over-exaggeration, he lets the rag who quoted him get away with calling Miami his home town. Miami? HIS HOME TOWN? A sad, sad day for Bostonians.
Anyway, I agree with The Bru - New Bond = Good Bond, but this is one of those apples-oranges situation - they're both fruit, and they're both good (and good for you).
And yes, I think I just called James Bond and Jason Bourne fruity.
Cylons, Others and TV's Mythological New Wave
Okay, so the title of this blog sounds a bit more academic than I'm actually feeling right now. To be honest, I think there's a paper there, and if I ever get REALLY, REALLY bored, I'll write one. But the fact is, the mythology we're finding in shows like Battlestar, Heroes, Lost, Fringe and basically anything else that has to do with J.J. Abrahms has a great number of us dedicating hours to television without actually (and conceivably ever) sitting down in front of one. The symbolism in numbers, the complications of history, the meaning of the name of a character, a passing character, even a hydrogen bomb - the diehards in our audience spend hours dissecting, to varying levels of insanity. Occasionally I find myself asking "why?" It's like succumbing to a spell, this dedication to determining meaning, often in things that were never meant to be determined.
Ask yourself this - is it really necessary to ponder whether or not the H-Bomb in this week's episode of Lost was named after an Archie character. Is it a coincidence? Are we wasting our time searching for meaning in the meaningless? Or are we mean to decipher that fact? And even if we do, what answers, insight, NEED could that reasoning ever really supply/meet. What I'm asking is this - why does it even matter?
It's at times like this, when I'm wondering if I'm playing ridiculous mind games with a dubious, manipulative opponent who's spinning me around like a carefree marionette player, that I wonder why I even bother. Sometimes, it just feels like too much energy wasted on something that will only in a very small percentage actually change my life (if at all).
But then again, that isn't the point. We may be putting too much faith in these shows, dedicating too much of our lives to popcorn entertainment (I'm 87% certain I am with Heroes), but it's fun. We're not going to stumble across a life-changing secret. But we can debate, relate and contemplate with our fellow viewers, dorking our way through this new age of entertainment the same way great philosophers dorked their way through story time, and great minds studied Shakespeare. What makes Shakespeare so worthy of studying? What does his work have that Lost does not?
Nothing, if not prestige. So yeah, I'll continue to read the Doc Jensen columns over at EW. (daily, as long as I'm trapped at my desk at work). And at some point I'll delve into BSG. Because a.) it's fun b.) it's intellectually stimulating d.) it's every bit as artistically credible as fucking Kafka.
Peace n Love
-Bheeler
Ask yourself this - is it really necessary to ponder whether or not the H-Bomb in this week's episode of Lost was named after an Archie character. Is it a coincidence? Are we wasting our time searching for meaning in the meaningless? Or are we mean to decipher that fact? And even if we do, what answers, insight, NEED could that reasoning ever really supply/meet. What I'm asking is this - why does it even matter?
It's at times like this, when I'm wondering if I'm playing ridiculous mind games with a dubious, manipulative opponent who's spinning me around like a carefree marionette player, that I wonder why I even bother. Sometimes, it just feels like too much energy wasted on something that will only in a very small percentage actually change my life (if at all).
But then again, that isn't the point. We may be putting too much faith in these shows, dedicating too much of our lives to popcorn entertainment (I'm 87% certain I am with Heroes), but it's fun. We're not going to stumble across a life-changing secret. But we can debate, relate and contemplate with our fellow viewers, dorking our way through this new age of entertainment the same way great philosophers dorked their way through story time, and great minds studied Shakespeare. What makes Shakespeare so worthy of studying? What does his work have that Lost does not?
Nothing, if not prestige. So yeah, I'll continue to read the Doc Jensen columns over at EW. (daily, as long as I'm trapped at my desk at work). And at some point I'll delve into BSG. Because a.) it's fun b.) it's intellectually stimulating d.) it's every bit as artistically credible as fucking Kafka.
Peace n Love
-Bheeler
Bourne Vs. Bond: Let Battle Begin
Matt Damon doesn't like James Bond films. He recently reiterated his contempt for them. I think he is right on the money with branding Bond as a misogynistic, imperialist, Martini-chugging murderer. However, I think it is a cheap shot and futile one at that. First of all, Bourne movies - in my ever-so-humble opinion - will take the Bond movies to circus and leave them as appetizers for the lions (bad metaphor, but it's still too early). As for the futility of the jab, I don't think Bourne movies will ever replace the Bond movies in film history, now will they ever threaten their legacy. Yes, they are both spy films, but can they be any more different?
It is true that the last two Bond movies took a lot of inspiration from the Bourne franchise, broke many a box-office record, and received critical applauds across the board, but they are not quintessential Bond movies. I don't hide the fact that I am not a Bond fan and I actually prefer the last two films - in purely cinematic sense - to the earlier ones by a mile (with the exception of the brilliant Goldfinger). Yet, they feel so alien in terms of what the Bond franchise stands for. They are no longer escapist fantasies (yes, politically incorrect, but what is really politically correct about Hollywood cinema?), but gritty, I-will-punch-you-in-the-nose-till-you-bleed-to-death-while-I-don't-sleep-with-this-incredible-Ukrainian-beauty action-fests.
I prefer Bourne films, but I think comparing them is not necessary and, like I said before, futile. It is like comparing The Godfather and GoodFellas - two gangster movies that are completely different in their appproach to the genre. And no - I am not comparing Thunderball with The Godfather.
The Bru
It is true that the last two Bond movies took a lot of inspiration from the Bourne franchise, broke many a box-office record, and received critical applauds across the board, but they are not quintessential Bond movies. I don't hide the fact that I am not a Bond fan and I actually prefer the last two films - in purely cinematic sense - to the earlier ones by a mile (with the exception of the brilliant Goldfinger). Yet, they feel so alien in terms of what the Bond franchise stands for. They are no longer escapist fantasies (yes, politically incorrect, but what is really politically correct about Hollywood cinema?), but gritty, I-will-punch-you-in-the-nose-till-you-bleed-to-death-while-I-don't-sleep-with-this-incredible-Ukrainian-beauty action-fests.
I prefer Bourne films, but I think comparing them is not necessary and, like I said before, futile. It is like comparing The Godfather and GoodFellas - two gangster movies that are completely different in their appproach to the genre. And no - I am not comparing Thunderball with The Godfather.
The Bru
Thursday, January 29, 2009
I Think I Might Be a Cylon
The re-imagined Battlestar Galactica is nearing its end and it is a sad state of affairs. What has been a great run since 2003 is coming to a close in mere 8 episodes. Quite how satisfactory the end will be is up for question, but I am pretty sure that it will be nothing short of phenomenal considering the quality of the series so far.
It is usually quoted as being one of the smartest show on television and I concur with that statement wholeheartedly. Even though I am a Lost fanatic like my fellow contributors of this blog, Battlestar Galactica is the only show I can go on for hours contemplating and debating (usually with myself) the philosophical questions put forward at every single episode: What does it mean to be human? Who decides who should be human? Is the notion of an omnipotent creator a merely human creation? In extreme situations - such as when mankind faces total annihilation - should our point of view concerning issues such as abortion or racism be altered to accomodate the circumstances? And so forth ...
There is a plethora of material online that synopsizes the show, but the gist of it is that humans living on 12 distant planets created Cylons - machines, robots, toasters, etc. - to help them in their daily lives. However, the Cylons somehow evolved (not an accurate word to describe what happened, but it will do now) and wage war against the humans. After a lengthy armistice (40 years - a clear religious allegory) the Cylons attack the humans and annihilate them all, save for a ragtag fleet. The remaining humans search for a mythical planet - the 13th colony - Earth, while the Cylons are in hot pursuit. The catch? They look like humans now.
The original 1978 series painted a very Manichean worldview and it was an escapist, shiny, Mormon-influenced Star Wars copy. Ronald D. Moore and David Eick took out all the varnish and presented us a rather pessimistic worldview with moral ambiguities hitting us left and right. I think the most important question asked by the writers is whether we are humans or Cylons. I, personally, don't share the religious beliefs of the Cylons, but I think I might be a Cylon. Or, perhaps I would like to be a Cylon. Maybe I am. And if so, watch out humans ...
The Bru
It is usually quoted as being one of the smartest show on television and I concur with that statement wholeheartedly. Even though I am a Lost fanatic like my fellow contributors of this blog, Battlestar Galactica is the only show I can go on for hours contemplating and debating (usually with myself) the philosophical questions put forward at every single episode: What does it mean to be human? Who decides who should be human? Is the notion of an omnipotent creator a merely human creation? In extreme situations - such as when mankind faces total annihilation - should our point of view concerning issues such as abortion or racism be altered to accomodate the circumstances? And so forth ...
There is a plethora of material online that synopsizes the show, but the gist of it is that humans living on 12 distant planets created Cylons - machines, robots, toasters, etc. - to help them in their daily lives. However, the Cylons somehow evolved (not an accurate word to describe what happened, but it will do now) and wage war against the humans. After a lengthy armistice (40 years - a clear religious allegory) the Cylons attack the humans and annihilate them all, save for a ragtag fleet. The remaining humans search for a mythical planet - the 13th colony - Earth, while the Cylons are in hot pursuit. The catch? They look like humans now.
The original 1978 series painted a very Manichean worldview and it was an escapist, shiny, Mormon-influenced Star Wars copy. Ronald D. Moore and David Eick took out all the varnish and presented us a rather pessimistic worldview with moral ambiguities hitting us left and right. I think the most important question asked by the writers is whether we are humans or Cylons. I, personally, don't share the religious beliefs of the Cylons, but I think I might be a Cylon. Or, perhaps I would like to be a Cylon. Maybe I am. And if so, watch out humans ...
The Bru
Sad, Pathetic People Doing Sad, Pathetic Things - Revolutionary Road (Movie Review)
A nice, vibrant young couple from the city (played by Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet, a.k.a the doomed couple from Titanic) gets married, has a baby and moves to the suburbs to live out the American dream. They get a nice white house, with red shutters and a blue roof. They meet nice people, bring in nice money…and begin the dull, deathly decay towards lifeless existence.
I’m going to tell you something right now – everybody I talk to about this movie hated it, and surprisingly not just because it’s morbidly depressing and incredibly upsetting. They hate the characters, the story, the atmosphere, the movie’s very existence. Are there good performances by talented actors? Sure, but they don’t care because they can’t stand who the actors are playing. Is the 1950s/60s set design done well? Of course, but you can get that on Mad Men, and Mad Men doesn’t suck.
I actually didn’t quite hate this movie, but only because I have such respect for director Sam Mendes. Since bursting onto the scene at the end of the century with American Beauty, Mendes has displayed a knack for the craft, for finding the symbolism in the moment, the excellence in a shot. Stylistically, compositely, he’s one of the very best. What he’s not always good at, apparently, is picking the best story.
Revolutionary Road is the rare film that was doomed before a single scene was ever shot. Why? Because the screenplay (by newcomer Justin Haythe) is simply despicable. I never read Richard Yates’ novel, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s something there worth merit. But if there is, Haythe failed to tap into it. In fact, based on what we have here, he seems to have avoided it.
Because the characters aren’t just hateable, they don’t even seem real. Their aliens, spinning about creating needless problems and ruining their lives all because they can’t shake the feeling that they’re already ruined. They flail about, uncontrollably upset and self-destructive, and incredibly unaware of how horrible they are.
The thematics here are nothing new – it’s your basic quarter-life crisis, with young people realizing that life is finite, and believing they’ve missed their chance to truly live it. But aside from a broad sense of that thematic, there’s no reasoning here for us to understand, no tangible force to push or pull at our characters, or our sympathies. It all just seems so…pathetic.
Maybe that’s the point. I don’t know. I do know the only thing that seems real in this movie is the helplessness of powerless people consumed by a truly horrible yet nonsensical fight. And that frustration is nothing to base a movie on.
Sorry, Mendes. You’ll get ‘em next time, champ.
- The Movie Guy
I’m going to tell you something right now – everybody I talk to about this movie hated it, and surprisingly not just because it’s morbidly depressing and incredibly upsetting. They hate the characters, the story, the atmosphere, the movie’s very existence. Are there good performances by talented actors? Sure, but they don’t care because they can’t stand who the actors are playing. Is the 1950s/60s set design done well? Of course, but you can get that on Mad Men, and Mad Men doesn’t suck.
I actually didn’t quite hate this movie, but only because I have such respect for director Sam Mendes. Since bursting onto the scene at the end of the century with American Beauty, Mendes has displayed a knack for the craft, for finding the symbolism in the moment, the excellence in a shot. Stylistically, compositely, he’s one of the very best. What he’s not always good at, apparently, is picking the best story.
Revolutionary Road is the rare film that was doomed before a single scene was ever shot. Why? Because the screenplay (by newcomer Justin Haythe) is simply despicable. I never read Richard Yates’ novel, so I’ll give it the benefit of the doubt and assume there’s something there worth merit. But if there is, Haythe failed to tap into it. In fact, based on what we have here, he seems to have avoided it.
Because the characters aren’t just hateable, they don’t even seem real. Their aliens, spinning about creating needless problems and ruining their lives all because they can’t shake the feeling that they’re already ruined. They flail about, uncontrollably upset and self-destructive, and incredibly unaware of how horrible they are.
The thematics here are nothing new – it’s your basic quarter-life crisis, with young people realizing that life is finite, and believing they’ve missed their chance to truly live it. But aside from a broad sense of that thematic, there’s no reasoning here for us to understand, no tangible force to push or pull at our characters, or our sympathies. It all just seems so…pathetic.
Maybe that’s the point. I don’t know. I do know the only thing that seems real in this movie is the helplessness of powerless people consumed by a truly horrible yet nonsensical fight. And that frustration is nothing to base a movie on.
Sorry, Mendes. You’ll get ‘em next time, champ.
- The Movie Guy
Biopics, Che, Oscars, etc. - An Email Rant from Rican
Personal depth is what we seek in biopics. But to be quite honest, I'm fed up with them; even though I just watched one... I got to see Che a couple of weeks ago.
Although it lacked "personal depth" in the traditional sense, it made up for it by showing Che's impact by his interaction other historical characters in the film and overall behavior (but that's just Method Acting). However, we truly never got a reason for his actions. It's a good companion piece to Motorcycle Diaries, although both are very, very different. They both do, however, romanticize and mythologize the Che respectively. Benicio is incredible in it and his omission from the Oscar ballot pains me a little.
Which leads me to...
I found the Oscar roster kinda... boring (except for a few nods). I only wish to see Mickey Rourke and Robert Downey Jr. win for their respective categories. Unfortunately (Fortunately?) and quite inevitably, Ledger may take it home. I think getting the Globe (and all the other awards he's received already) ought to be enough, in my Brown opinion.
I do think that Brad Pitt could win since everybody is so darned obsessed with the guy despite his just above average acting talent (again, Brown opinion). Although I haven't seen it, I'm willing to bet that Button works for Pitt because of Fincher (duh!) and because half of the movie he is a CGI'd novelty act (as the geriatric Gollum-esque geezer, thus pleasing the skeptics) but when he ages into the beefcake that we're used to, I'm certain that the movie pivots toward the female demographic. Ugh! I hope Rourke takes it home so he can vindicate his career. Pitt's got 20 great movies and many nominations ahead of him. Rourke may have 20 B-Movies ahead of him and probably no further Oscar nom.
I do, however, agree with The Dark Knight getting the golden shaft. I mean, come on... The Reader...? It's probably the richest and most accomplished Action/Thriller (disguised as a Cartoon movie) and considering all the records and high praise, it makes no sense why it wouldn't be... I think that Slumdog will sweep as it is so underdog. I think it's main competition would be "Button" as it appears so epic.
The lack of a real host truly bothers me. Why can't Charlie Day host the Oscars... ? Or Broken Lizard...? But Hugh Jackman???!!!
... I bet the 'Bru is pleased and looking forward to it.
-riCan
Although it lacked "personal depth" in the traditional sense, it made up for it by showing Che's impact by his interaction other historical characters in the film and overall behavior (but that's just Method Acting). However, we truly never got a reason for his actions. It's a good companion piece to Motorcycle Diaries, although both are very, very different. They both do, however, romanticize and mythologize the Che respectively. Benicio is incredible in it and his omission from the Oscar ballot pains me a little.
Which leads me to...
I found the Oscar roster kinda... boring (except for a few nods). I only wish to see Mickey Rourke and Robert Downey Jr. win for their respective categories. Unfortunately (Fortunately?) and quite inevitably, Ledger may take it home. I think getting the Globe (and all the other awards he's received already) ought to be enough, in my Brown opinion.
I do think that Brad Pitt could win since everybody is so darned obsessed with the guy despite his just above average acting talent (again, Brown opinion). Although I haven't seen it, I'm willing to bet that Button works for Pitt because of Fincher (duh!) and because half of the movie he is a CGI'd novelty act (as the geriatric Gollum-esque geezer, thus pleasing the skeptics) but when he ages into the beefcake that we're used to, I'm certain that the movie pivots toward the female demographic. Ugh! I hope Rourke takes it home so he can vindicate his career. Pitt's got 20 great movies and many nominations ahead of him. Rourke may have 20 B-Movies ahead of him and probably no further Oscar nom.
I do, however, agree with The Dark Knight getting the golden shaft. I mean, come on... The Reader...? It's probably the richest and most accomplished Action/Thriller (disguised as a Cartoon movie) and considering all the records and high praise, it makes no sense why it wouldn't be... I think that Slumdog will sweep as it is so underdog. I think it's main competition would be "Button" as it appears so epic.
The lack of a real host truly bothers me. Why can't Charlie Day host the Oscars... ? Or Broken Lizard...? But Hugh Jackman???!!!
... I bet the 'Bru is pleased and looking forward to it.
-riCan
Skim, not Whole Milk (Movie Review)
Every so often a film comes around that is so un-inspirational in its quality, so middlingly good, that it is difficult to find an argument either for or against, and therefore troubling to review because we don’t really feel one way or another about them. Generally a critic will send these films off with a shrug. I myself have probably labeled them as films that are “just there.” But when said film is a buzz-generating, award-gathering film like Milk, “just there” becomes the heart of the argument.
Milk is the winner of at least eighteen 2008 film awards, and is the source of numerous Oscar nominations, including Best Picture, Director (Gus Van Sant), Actor (Sean Penn, as title character Harvey Milk), Supporting Actor (Josh Brolin, as Harvey’s closeted, struggling political opponent) and Original Screenplay (the true story was arranged for the screen by Dustin Lance Black). Is it good? Sure. But is it great? It’s obvious by now that I don’t think so.
I thought it would be. It’s the story of the first openly gay American politician, a man who stood for his beliefs, his people, his way of life, and then lost that life, in more ways than one, to that very cause. It’s pretty naturally presented by Black and Van Sant, pretty seamlessly acted by Penn and co-stars Brolin, Emile Hirsch and James Franco. But it never transcends that quality. It never pushes past the barrier of “good” and rises to the next level. It’s never, really, as inspirational as its story, a story that itself is bigger than the film.
Like fellow Oscar runner Frost/Nixon, Milk is a historical piece that essentially “gets by” on its history. It presents that history with confidence, and with great players playing great roles. But that wasn’t enough in Frost/Nixon to keep the Movie Gal from labeling it “boring,” and it isn’t enough here for me to approach this film with anything more than a shrug.
I won’t put it down, or chastise it. In fact, I think to a lot of people it will live on as a shining beacon of historical inspiration. You can’t account for taste in this critical world, and you can’t account for personal politics. I will say that I like Frost/Nixon better because it excelled in the one area I believe Milk most failed – personal depth. Frost/Nixon was able to carve into real people and find their soul, to the extent where we got to know them for more than their actions. Milk is glossier, and despite a penchant for intimate moments and subtle ticks, I never really felt like I got to know these people on a personal level, or why they made the personal choices they made.
And that’s what you hope for from a great film – a personal (ideally inspirational) experience or goosebump greatness. Maybe this says something about me as a person, but I got that from the Oscar snubbed Dark Knight. I didn’t get that here.
- The Movie Guy
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)