Monday, August 27, 2012

A list of films, Fall/Winter 2012 edition

I have to admit, this post is much more for me than usual, (I've really been dragging my feet on a Cosmopolis post), but I thought it'd be a good idea to write out some of the films I'm interested in seeing that are coming out later this year. There's a lot of interesting stuff coming up, and I plan to try and save some cash to see a few NYFF films. ($24 for one ticket hurts!)

August (now)

  • Robot and Frank: It seems like this is getting mixed reviews, but if you haven't noticed, I really like robots/androids/AI, so I'm excited to see it.
  • Side By Side: I love film, and I'm really sad that it's dying out so quickly, and I'm always interested in cinematography. Learning about the processes of shooting on film and digital will be really great, and apparently Keanu Reeves is a pretty damn good interviewer. (I also still have a soft spot for him anyway after all these years.)
  • Lawless: It looks interesting, Tom Hardy is in it. I haven't read any reviews of it yet, but I might try and catch it if I don't blow my money on other films (or booze, let's be honest here).
September
  • The Master: I have never seen a Paul Thomas Anderson film, and to be honest, I don't think The Master is really my thing, but it's shot on 70mm and critics are freaking out about it and I should probably get on the PTA train at some point anyway. I really hope it'll be projected on the full 70mm over here.
  • Looper: The fact that I haven't seen a Rian Johnson film is pretty silly, there's been a lot of buzz around this film, and Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Do you really need much more?
  • Samsara: A very close friend recommended Baraka, which I still haven't seen. There's no 70mm screenings, apparently, but I'm positive this is something I need to see in theaters.
  • Dredd: I think the twitter campaign got me, but it at least looks like my kind of fun. Also Karl Urban helps.
New York Film Festival
(note: these don't have as good reasons, to be honest, the fact that they're at the festival is usually draw enough. Either that, or I just saw a critic rave over it. Unfortunately, unless money starts falling from the sky I probably won't be able to see more than one, two if I'm lucky.)
  • Caesar Must Die
  • Fill the Void
  • Holy Motors
  • Lawrence of Arabia (restoration)

October
  • Cloud Atlas: I'm really hoping this is good, because I loved the trailer, and I still believe in the Wachowskis.
  • Seven Psychopaths. Yeah, I'm not going to lie, all I know about it is that it has a cool cast, including Tom Waits. Sometimes I don't have the best reasons.
  • Argo: Not entirely sure about this film, but the trailer interested me, so it's another 'depends on cash' sort of thing.
December/January/whenever it comes out?
  • Django Unchained: I was in love with Inglourious Basterds, and the premise of Django seems even better. I heard that the release date might get pushed back to 2013 but hopefully it'll come out before the year is over. I'm actually so excited for this that I'm trying my best to go in blind; I haven't watched a single teaser and the only images from production I've seen were by accident. I went into Inglourious Basterds not expecting much, and I'm hoping I can be pleasantly surprised by Django too.

Thursday, August 2, 2012

The Animatrix - The Second Renaissance: crimes against sentience and its importance in the Matrix trilogy

So I promised I'd write something following up my Ash and David comparison, but uhhh...that might not be happening anytime soon. I've been kind of lazy in trying to get the Alien DVD, and now it's been close to a month since I saw Prometheus, so David is kind of falling out of my mind. I also meant to see Aliens just to talk about Bishop, but that never happened either. I really do want to get back to that at some point (or at least mention something about Bishop, since he seems like, chronologically, the first android in the series that doesn't try and kill anybody), but for now it's kind of on the back burner until I get around to watching Aliens or rewatching Alien.

So instead of talking about androids in the Alien franchise, I want to talk about the machines from the Matrix trilogy. Now, now, I know Reloaded and Revolutions are intensely unpopular (I still think Revolutions is decent, it just doesn't live up to the first film), but don't worry, I don't really plan to mention them. In fact, I'm not going to talk much about the first movie either (though I do love it and need to watch it again so don't be surprised if there's more Matrix talk in the future). I'm going to talk about the Animatrix, specifically The Second Renaissance segments. The other parts are all pretty good (I'm also a huge fan of World Record and Program), but The Second Renaissance has a depth and sophistication that the others do not, mostly because it tells the backstory of the world pre-Matrix. I read somewhere that its story was originally intended to be one of the other Matrix movies as a prequel, but some sort of executive meddling prevented that. I'm really torn on whether I'd like it better as a full movie or in this form. I think it definitely has enough to make a feature out of, but on the other hand, there's some powerful and disturbing imagery that I'm not even sure they could get away with in live-action.

(Interesting but unrelated: the machines were originally enslaving humans to use their brains as processors instead of using their bodies as energy, but the powers that be thought that might be too complicated for people. I almost wish they had kept it in though, at least so smartasses would stop bringing up flaws in the battery logic. Not the point!)

Tuesday, July 3, 2012

Personal bias in reviews, or I saw Beasts of the Southern Wild and did not enjoy it for possibly dubious reasons


Beasts of the Southern Wild has been getting a lot of critical praise ever since it debuted at Sundance back in January. The mix of two powerful performances from non-actors, the magical realism, and the setting, a poor community in Louisiana near-destroyed by an epic storm, have blown away many, many people. I am not one of them.

I’m not completely bewildered by the praise; Quvenzhane Wallis does very well as the main character, a young girl named Hushpuppy, and I was shocked to find out that the man player her father, Dwight Henry, had never acted before this film. Wallis maintains the grim stoicism that her father instills in her with childlike fantasies (this is where the magical realism comes in). Henry is menacing, cruel, charming, and heartbreaking, and I really cannot emphasize how good he is. Their community, The Bathtub, is expertly constructed, throwing the viewer into what is, for most of us, a completely alien world. There is definitely a lot to like in this film.

But I think it’s a clumsy film, and to be honest, I’m a bit uncomfortable with some of the reasons why it’s being praised. There’s a lot of praise for the cinematography, but I think that’s where I started having issues. There are amazing shots, but there’s also some completely unnecessary shakycam, the type that looks less like a style choice and more like just plain unsteadiness. There are also plenty of shots early on with distracting focus racking; I know this is super bitchy to say, but it made me feel like the focus puller had a fever and was just off his game or something. These seem like nitpicks (and they might be), but it’s the sort of thing that really takes me out of a movie, especially one that’s lauded for its imagery.

Even ignoring the cinematographical errors, I felt the metaphors in the film were extremely heavy handed. Miss Bathsheeba, Hushpuppy’s teacher, tells her students about the harsh realities of the world; nature considers everyone to be a piece of meat, and it’s an eat or be eaten situation. She tells the children about the ancient aurochs, which for the rest of the film is a visual metaphor for the flooding of The Bathtub, and possibly for climate change in general. The aurochs (which are actually the savage precursor to domesticated bovine, but are represented here as giant warthog-type creatures), are where the magical realism comes in, made into reality by Hushpuppy, but I felt like it was pretty clumsy. I don’t think I’m a huge fan of magical realism in general, but as a metaphor they felt as subtle as a bull running through a china shop, and their last scene, where they burst into actual reality, interrupt an extremely powerful moment between Hushpuppy and her father. As symbolism, it’s obvious, but still stunning imagery. As a part of magical realism, I felt it almost cheapened its effect.

But what really bothers me is something that I’m not sure I should be bothered by. The film shows this impoverished community as a jovial community who are more in touch with nature and myth than the technology and industry on the other side of the levee. They refuse to evacuate both before the storm and after it, when most of their houses and belongings are literally underwater, and are resentful when forced to live in a shelter. I guess my problem with this is easiest to describe if I mention what word often comes up when discussing it: soulful. There’s an obvious comparison being made here between the poor, yet lively and soulful people of The Bathtub, and the sterile, impersonal industrial world that force themselves on The Bathtub. I’ve read a review or two that suggests that the film criticizes the people on The Other Side for only caring about the impoverished when a disaster strikes, but frankly, I don’t see the problem and I don’t like the implication. (There’s also a very brief racial/cultural implication, a snippet where we see Hushpuppy being yelled at by a white shelter worker, dressed in a blue dress and with her usually wild hair pulled back. I wish they had elaborated on that, because it was the only thing that seemed like a valid complaint.)

It seems like they’re trying to say that these poorer people are somehow wiser because they’re not corrupted by money and technology and antibiotics, and I just don’t understand. Hushpuppy in particular has these monologues that paint her as an old soul in a child’s body; talking about life and the universe as if she’s seen it all. There’s a very frustrating disdain towards the outside world, and I can’t figure out if it’s genuinely problematic or if I’m just too privileged to “get it”. How can this film honestly expect me to understand why someone would resent being taken away from a waterlogged (and later barren) ruined shantytown to a place with clean clothes and actual medical treatment for an unnamed disease that kills one of the characters who refuses traditional treatment? Does that not make sense to anyone else, or am I too much of a middle-middle class technology addicted snob to appreciate The Simple Life? Do I actually have a valid issue with this film, or am I just mad that I’ve been forced to acknowledge the poor (or something similarly classist)? They’re tough questions that are kind of personal, but I feel that even when I’m writing an opinion piece, I have to maintain a certain amount of objectivity. Should I really be ragging on a movie because it goes against my personal sensibilities? Is that even okay? I just get the feeling of “Oh look at these poor folk, so happy and wise in their adversity! Shouldn’t we all be a little more spiritual?” and I think “No!” Isn’t that kind of reductive of the actual problems of being poor, or glorifying the The Simple Life while ignoring the fact that the characters in this movie never chose that life; it’s the cards they were dealt? Or am I just overreacting because I really hate the sort of “technology is turning us into beep boop computer zombies and we’re losing social skills and the human element” line of thinking?

I really have absolutely no idea, and it’s really frustrating me.

Thursday, June 28, 2012

David 8 and Ash


I’m pretty sure on Tumblr, David 8 is the most popular character in Prometheus, and it’s not hard to see why. While I can be cynical and say that it’s because he’s played by the absolutely stunning Michael Fassbender (both in acting skill and in appearance), the fact is that David is the most interesting character in the film. There’s a lot we don’t know about him by the time the film ends, but while there’s room to speculate on his motives, he doesn’t show the lack of common sense or character inconsistency that the others do. Furthermore, he’s also the most developed character next to Shaw.

But what makes David even more interesting is when he’s compared to Ash from the original Alien. In general, I think that comparing Prometheus to Alien is a terrible idea; the two films really don’t have much in common besides the very basic premise (crew goes to planet, finds alien stuff, everything goes horribly wrong); the structure of the film and the themes are so radically different that expecting anything like Alien automatically breeds disappointment. While Prometheus still has serious problems, treating it as an Alien prequel makes it a complete failure. But it is interesting to look at David as the precursor to Ash. I read on Tumblr someone asking how Ash would be an improved version of David, and that got me thinking. On first glance, David seems like more of a success than Ash; he’s friendly  and congenial where Ash is distant and cold, he seems to be more capable of emotion than Ash (or at least has the capacity for empathy), and above all, he wants to be human (or at least accepted as such).

Think of how we meet David; even if you hadn’t seen any of the promotional material, you find out very early on that David is an android, and it’s very quickly established that he admires humans and tried to be like them. He models himself after Peter O’Toole in Lawrence of Arabia, down to meticulously dyeing his hair, and although we’re told he cannot feel emotions (which in sci-fi is almost always a lie), he shows visible disappointment when Weyland says that he can never have a soul. We are meant to empathize with David from the very beginning: he just wants to be accepted alongside other humans.

[Actually, empathizing with David is kind of how I started thinking about all of this; I was having a discussion with a friend about how Tumblr tends to want to mother characters that they sympathize with, even when they are not really a “sweet baby ____”. (I’m looking at you, Loki fangirls!) I mean, I’m not completely free of that, but there is almost definitely a sector of the internet that sees David as some sort of “sweet baby robot Pinocchio prince”, despite the fact that he does some really creepy and amoral shit. I was joking that wouldn’t it be funny if Tumblr treated Ash like some sort of “sweet baby corporate robot”? My friend replied that it would never happen because Ian Holm isn’t all handsome and pretty like Fassbender, and while that is definitely true (though idk, there’s something to be said for men Of An Older Age with brownish-grey hair and blue eyes…) there’s definitely more incentive to like David.]



don't judge me man


All of this makes sense within the film as well; David’s original purpose was created to take care of humans and work well with others, so he would naturally try to make a pleasant impression on others. He’s got these big blue eyes that kill you every time he looks hurt, and his status as a surrogate son allows him to have a unique personality compared to other androids of his same model. We learn that he’s taking orders from Weyland, but we never find out what they are, and they seem to be flexible enough that David can devote time to fixating on Shaw.

Ash, on the other hand, is pretty much the polar opposite of David. [I should note now that I’ve only seen Alien once, and that was a while ago, so I may not remember every Ash detail.] We assume he’s human for the first half of Alien, though he separates himself from the rest of the crew. He’s much shiftier than David, but while David can fall into the uncanny valley of creepy smiles, Ash’s creepiness is much more plausible as human. We can see that something is off about him, but he just seems at worst like that guy you might be a tiny bit wary of when you’re the only two in the subway car at three in the morning.

This all makes sense if you consider what Ash was presumably made for; he’s a science officer. His primary duties have little to do with social interactions, so he doesn’t bother with them. He doesn’t even really seem to like humans all that much; he’ll pass as one, but he’s much more attracted to the alien, to the point where he emulates the facehugger by trying to shove a magazine down her throat. (Of course, there’s more to that scene than pure emulation, but the rapey overtones of that scene and the facehugger could be its own article.) Ash has no desire to be human; he just plays the part when it suits him, and completely drops the façade once Ripley finds out his orders. He’s purposefully more not-human that David, automatically distancing himself from the viewer’s sympathies.

But the question is still unanswered: How is Ash an improvement over David? The improvement is Ash actually sticks to his purpose and nothing else. David is, by robot standards, unpredictable; he certainly wasn’t told to be the dream equivalent of a peeping tom, and while he may have been told to bring back the alien goo and infect someone with it, he clearly chooses Holloway out of malice (and probably jealousy). Ash fulfills two main purposes: pose as the science/medical officer for the crew, and bring the alien back at all costs, and everything he does is directly related to those orders. Some people speculate that Ash attacking Ripley is actually a malfunction, but it follows the second order; Ripley was definitely going to warn the rest of the crew, and he had to prevent that. What’s the easiest way to keep her from talking? Kill her. This isn’t to say that Ash is completely logical; once again, his choice of weapon proves that. But his desires still match up with his orders, whereas David’s were completely unrelated.

Tuesday, June 26, 2012

Prometheus: Sometimes my first impression is wrong


It has come to my attention that Prometheus is not a well-written movie. Like, at all. And not because it didn’t answer the questions about the Alien universe that everyone was expecting, but…the film just didn’t make that much sense; the characters either completely lost any of their common sense, or they didn’t have any in the first place. I actually didn’t mind that we don’t find out what the “Engineers” wanted or why they made humanity or why they decided to kill it off; I can deal with the idea that we weren’t meant to know (or that it doesn’t matter). I didn’t even mind most of the scientist stupidity (“Let’s take off our helmets in this unknown environment!”) And to be honest, I kind of like that the reason for the cave paintings was left unanswered. Film Crit Hulk’s article on Damon Lindelof calls this the “ ‘I want the answers!’ ‘You can’t have the answers!’” dynamic (and by the way, you all should be reading his work because it’s amazing), but personally, I felt that wasn’t important. The reasons aren’t important, but everyone’s reaction is. The main theme isn’t about the actual creation of humans, but the search for it.

The problem is that the results of the search and character reactions don’t mean anything because the characters are so inconsistent and flat. Holloway falls into a drunken depression within hours of learning that he’s right, but he can’t personally talk to an alien. He’s had this theory about intelligent life for what we assume to be years, and he’s sad because he can’t personally have a conversation with them? Sad enough to down a bottle of vodka? Really? Milburn is scared shitless by a bunch of dead alien bodies, but when he sees a live vagina monster, he’s not scared in the slightest? Janek doesn’t give a fuck about the mission, and yet he somehow figures out that the xenomorph primordial soup was a biological weapon meant to kill us? Jackson the security guy sees a twisted body that was originally in the Temple of Doom and his first reaction is “Hey, look at this” ? (Protip: if you’re ever in a scary situation and see something unusual, don’t get closer to examine it! “Hey look at this” is almost guaranteed to get you killed!) Shaw has the ability to go home, away from the alien crazy, and instead decides to go after the aliens who could kill her in a second along with the robot that’s been creeping on her for the entire movie? What?

Speaking of David, I loved him (as I do most robot characters), and he’s possibly the only nuanced character; I only wish we got more time with him. The Weyland family dynamic is really something that was shoehorned in (“Kings die someday, DAD”), and David’s devotion to his father combined with his fixation on Shaw hands down makes him the most interesting character on the ship. He’s supposed to be support for the crew, but it’s made clear very early on that he has his own agenda, and while his agenda is vague, it’s not baffling. David is driven by his desire to gain acceptance as a true son by his father, his fascination with Elizabeth, and his curiosity about alien life. The last point may be related to the first; Weyland has spent over a trillion dollars and possibly sacrificed an entire crew just to have a chance to meet the creators of the human race, and so David’s fascination may be an extension of his desire to please his father. However, it also may relate to Ash’s admiration of the alien in the original Alien; David has spent his entire life trying to be accepted as a human son, so perhaps he is curious about the first non-human creature he’s ever encountered. Poisoning Holloway may have been an experiment to see what this life form was capable of, but it is unclear whether this was part of Weyland’s plan or David’s interpretation of it. Whichever it was, the fact that Holloway is Shaw’s boyfriend was definitely a factor, and David definitely has a vastly different version of morality than anybody else on the ship.

But talking about David, Weyland, and Vickers reveals the biggest problem with Prometheus; most of the meaning derived from it is completely subjective. A lot of the things I just said were how I interpreted it, and there are a ton of different interpretations, some of which are based on prior drafts or deleted scenes from the film. Supposedly there’s going to be a director’s cut, which seems like a bit of a cop out to me. The film should make concrete sense on its own; any theory that is based on deleted scenes is automatically invalid because those scenes weren’t in the finished product. Personally, I think that David’s actions can be explained, but it’s never truly clear, and while it’s a much more interesting mystery than why the Engineers try to kill off humanity, it’s still an important element of the film that’s kind of left dangling. I can say that David’s lack of morals is an example of the non-humanity that he struggles with for the entire film, but I don’t really know if I’m not intended to be sure of that or if Ridley Scott and Damon Lindelof don’t know either, or just don’t care. I think comparing Prometheus to Alien is pretty unfair (they’re only tangentially related at best, and Alien is tightly focused whereas Prometheus is intentionally sprawling), but Ash is given a clear and direct purpose: bring the alien back to earth at all costs, and in retrospect, everything he does comes back to that directive. David has much more of a developed personality than Ash underneath his congenial demeanor, with his own wants, but that makes his motives much more unclear.

And that’s really the thing about Prometheus; I liked it at first, but what I was interested in (besides the amazing cinematography) was more the seeds of ideas instead of something truly concrete. I still wouldn’t say it’s a bad movie by any means, but it’s definitely more vague than it should be.

Tuesday, June 19, 2012

The Mansion scene in Shutter Island


I recently posted my entire final paper for my film theory class, spurred by rewatching Shutter Island. I enjoy the movie overall, but I just feel like there’s still more I want to write about it. Every time I try and watch it, I get stuck watching one scene on repeat. Apparently I’m not the only one who’s captivated by it; there are two videos on youtube of it labeled “Shutter Island best scene.” It’s only the fourth or so scene in the film, where Teddy and Chuck are invited to Dr. Crawley’s mansion. It’s a beautiful scene on its own; the music and imagery come together amazingly, but it’s the acting that ties everything together, particularly on repeat viewings. The scene can be viewed here; it’s early enough that it’s not a spoiler, though I will be spoiling the film when I talk about it. This post also has no proper ending because I do what I want.

Monday, June 4, 2012

Camera, mind, and belief: apparatus and ideology as used in the films of Martin Scorsese

I was rewatching Shutter Island and thinking about writing a post about the great nuances, both in the construction of the film and the performances. Then I realized that I pretty much already did, in my final paper for my film theory class in my senior year of college. I don't usually feel comfortable posting my academic work online (how can I compare to people who actually know what they're doing?), but a friend convinced me to do so. So here's a 12-ish page paper on Scorsese, subjective reality, and the ideal American male.