girl watches 2001 a space odyssey: doesn’t get it

February 13, 2013 in movie reviews, reviews

2001-a-space-odyssey-ape

I don’t typically post arbitrary Youtube videos here on the website.  I had all but decided not to post it when I realized that I could not, NOT post it.  This isn’t going to become a regular occurrence, and when my wife questioned the secretly-importantness of this video all I had to do was look and realize that the video has just 225 views.  That means that only 225 people have seen the brilliance of this 18:01 minute video.  Presumably at least 200 of those views were from KittyCat5341, the screen name of the uploader.

I was writing an article and needed a refresher on a scene from 2001 A Space Odyssey, while in Youtube I stumbled across this video titled Let’s Watch 2001 A Space Odyssey Part 1: Rise of the Monkeys!!  My initial thought was that this was a fan film, or some crazy recut of 2001.  It’s not.  This is a girl with a video camera taping herself watching 2001 for the first time.  She freely admits that she basically knows nothing about the film, in fact in the video she incorrectly says that it was made in the 80’s, and while reading the credits can’t pronounce Stanley Kubrick’s name.

It’s actually a pretty genius idea, 2001 is a classic, you’ve probably heard of HAL 9000 or his infamous line “I’m sorry Dave, I can’t do that.” It’s probably an even greater guarantee that you’ve heard the films theme Also Sprach Zarathustra.  You’re probably also aware that this is an epic 161 minute marathon of a film, broken up into four parts, The Dawn of Man, TMA-1, Jupiter Mission, Jupiter and Beyond the infinite.  That here we have a person who apparently knows none of that, is a recipe for some amazing moments.  It’s like that video of those kids watching the Empire Strikes Back for the first time and learning that (spoiler alert) Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker’s father.

Having seen 2001 is not a requirement to enjoy this video, but if you have seen the film or at least know some of the aforementioned details, then you will find yourself rolling on the floor dying of laughter.  At the beginning the narrator tells us that people/the internet has told her that this is a “really good space/science fiction movie, and that it has robots in it.”  It does not have robots.

Basically from that point forward she bullheadedly narrates every moment of the films first fifteen minutes or so.  Here are some of the highlights,

-Having her mind blown to confusion during the films black screen overture, which she fast forwards through, accidentally resets to the beginning, and genuinely believes that the recording only captured the sound.

-Believing that the film is set on Mars, (The Dawn of Man) wasn’t a good hint that it’s earth.

-Naming everything in the film incorrectly.  Calling the Tapir a pig “boars to be exact” the Jaguar she calls a cougar… and so on.

-Her belief that the Man Apes were actual monkeys, it was an afterthought that it was someone wearing a costume.

-When she realizes just how long the movie is: “if it’s about space I don’t mind, if it’s about monkeys I do mind, and I’m going to skip it.”

-When the “monkeys” fight: “this scene reminds me of politics really, this is what I see every time I hear the frickin politics blow up my sound system. With their bull crap.”

-When she sees that the film is rated G: “there’s no swearing or funny parts in it then.”

-Her hatred of static landscape shots.

I could go on and on.  This video is incredible in every way, but what might be most amazing is that she stops the film before they ever get to space.  Now that I’ve seen her commentary of the first fifteen minutes all I want is to hear her talk about all the other crazy shit that happens in this film.  I would pay money to hear her interpret the films final half hour leading up to the Star Child moment.  Oh. My. God. she has no idea what she missed.

This video was posted back in August of 2012, though it’s labeled part 1, there is yet to be a part two.  Did she never finish the movie?  Did she finish it and never upload the videos?  Did 2001 melt her brain?  So many questions and so few answers.  All I know is that after watching this 18 minute video I want KittyCat5341 to narrate every film I watch.  Prometheus, I so badly want her to narrate Prometheus for me.

Before watching the video my wife asked if this was a joke, and while that crossed my mind, I’m fairly certain that this is real. Even if this video was fake, very little of it’s amazingness would be lost, because only a crazy person would fake a video of themselves watching 2001 A Space Odyssey and pretend that they were seeing it for the first time.

It’s been hours since I first watched this video and all I can think about is how badly I want to meet this person, and then hear their opinions on… everything.

welcome to doe bay

January 22, 2013 in movie reviews, reviews

cropped-SG

The tag line for the brand new PBS documentary Welcome to Doe Bay is “A documentary about the greatest music festival you’ve never heard of” which is also our tag line in a nutshell.  Therefore I had to cover it.  I’m glad I did.

You may or may not have read before or remember that I don’t have television, everything I watch is either online or through Netflix/Hulu/Amazon, this means that I miss a lot of commercials for things coming up that I don’t want to miss.  One of those things that I didn’t really know I was going to miss was this Doe Bay documentary.  Lucky for me, my Dad knows me well and taped it for me.

If you don’t know what Doe Bay is, then you are the documentary’s target audience.  Though 2013 will be it’s sixth year it’s far less familiar than Bumbershoot or Sasquatch.  What exactly is Doe Bay?  It’s a three day music festival that takes place during the dog days of Summer in August.  Music is performed around the Doe Bay grounds, which is located on the Eastern side of Orcas island, just south of Point Lawrence.

It’s an indie music festival for indie music, without any major corporate sponsors.  This festival exists because the people who put it on love music, and the artists attend because they love playing music.   The people come because Doe Bay is a serene and mystical place, the bands are some of the Northwest’s best, and because there is an intimacy there that you are unlikely to find anywhere else.

There’s no illusion to Doe Bay, people aren’t there to catch a Celebrity sighting, or today’s gimmick band.  You don’t take a ferry ride to the middle of nowhere in Puget Sound’s San Juan Islands to get VIP wrist bands and stand in the shade of a Bud Light beer garden tent, while having your picture taken in front of a blue screen at the Verizon wireless booth.  At Doe Bay the artists walk among you because they are there for the same reason you are.  To be a part of something special, something that can only happen under special conditions, with special people.

So this is the part where I tell you that I’ve never actually been to Doe Bay, not the festival anyway.  In fact the only people I’ve ever known to actually attend the festival are artists who’ve performed there.  Namely Deep Sea Diver, Lemolo, and others.  Although I do know the owner, Joe Brotherton who was my Business Ethics teacher in college.

The documentary is really a thing of beauty, reminiscent of Hype!  If you haven’t seen Hype! by Doug Pray before, stop what you’re doing and check it out.  Welcome to Doe Bay has a similar gritty texture to Hype! and yet at the same time centers itself around the nature that acts as the festivals setting.  It keeps the exposition light and cuts right to what makes this documentary feel magical, the performances.

Filmed during the 2011 festival, the documentary includes performances from bands such as Lemolo, Pickwick, The Head and the Heart, Campfire Ok, Brian John Appleby, and many others.  In addition the film pinpoints a hand full of bands that Doe Bay has been associated with from their earliest days.  It’s these stories that really tell the tale of what Doe Bay is all about, not marketability, but talent and community.

The films greatest draw back is that by the end you feel almost as if you’ve just watched an hour long advertisement for the Doe Bay Festival, a festival that it’s entirely possible that you may never get the chance to attend.  I don’t hold it against the filmmakers however, because I understand how difficult it can be to walk that line between selling and urging, especially when your dealing with mostly unknowns.

If you are like me and don’t have television, then you’re in luck because the entire documentary is available online here.  The first time you watch it you’ll wish that you’d been there each of the past five years, the second and third time you’ll appreciate how the camera penetrates the audience to make you feel like you were there, if even just briefly.

Doe Bay is quickly reaching critical mass, the last two years the festival has sold out within minutes.  Which means two things; it has now reached very high demand, and that there aren’t many tickets available.  They are faced with the age old dilemma of expanding to allow room for the growth they’ve earned, or keep the festival in neutral which will severely limit the number of ever growing fans.

Expanding would need to be a delicate process in order to keep with the anti-corporate sponsorship they’ve been so dedicated, while still bringing in more people.  If they instead decided to park the festival in neutral, they risk loosing the interest of fans.  If you can afford to go but can never buy tickets, then how could you ever stay interested.  This is a big problem for the PNW’s favorite music festival, one that is touched on lightly in the film, and one that threatens its very existence.  Perhaps for the next few years its exclusivity will be its strongest asset.

The Monster Cash-In

October 31, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

 

Picture from Threadless, via the discriminating geek’s mecca Badass Digest (badassdigest.com)

This story was Originally Published in September of 2011, we loved it so much that we decided to publish it again this year for Halloween.  Thanks again to Eric.

A monster is supposed to be an incarnation of the world’s ugliness. To be a monster is to be in pain and cause pain, to kill or be killed, to come up on the wrong side of life-and-death every time. The only thing worse than running into a monster is being one.

That is, unless there’s Twilight money in it.

As the fourth and final film in the supernatural-young-adult-romance phenomenon approaches and threatens to force people out of that phase they’ve been soaking in, it’s evident that the damage done to one of the most beloved movie monsters – the vampire – may take some time to regenerate itself.

Q) What happens to a vampire when it steps into direct sunlight?

A) (over the age of thirty) It disintegrates and dies. Obviously!

B) (under)It bedazzles and becomes a beautiful sparkling magazine cover!

Q) A vampire’s immortality is ____ .

A) A terrible curse of loneliness and torment.

Or

B) Totally rad! You get to go to high school, like, forever!

The recent flop of the 3D remake of Fright Night, a vampire movie from the 80s in which hearts are more inclined to be eaten rather than broken, suggests that vampires need to sit on the bench for a while and let some of the other monsters get a chance. There’s even a half-assed meta Twilight reference in the first act, spoken between misfit high schoolers.  The movie has its cake and bloodlets it, too: “We’re nothing at all like Twilight, but we’re obligated to remind you that it exists, anyway.” Maybe it thought teenagers passing by the theater would overhear the “T” word and frantically buy tickets.

Twilight didn’t just stop at defanging the vampire mythology, either. Werewolves become equally neutered.  Abercrombie models transform into fluffy, well-groomed pooches by moonlight… er, by… daylight. By the light of convenience of the plot?  Well, at least the wolf transformation is excruciatingly painful, as any bone-crunching metamorphosis should be… wait. Scratch that (pun intended). Apparently becoming a completely different creature in Twilight land is as quick and painless as the wave of a fairy wand. Sneezes look more jarring.

As a working writer, not to mention a member of the Me-llenium Generation, I’m driven to both complain about this trend and cash in on it. So while audiences nationwide reel from exhaustion of these muted monsters, I propose supernatural-young-adult-romance incarnations of other creatures to tide us over and whet our monstrous hunger for, “It’s exactly like this, only a tiny bit different.”

The Gill Man

In the shallow world of high school, Billy Gillman dares to swim in the deep end.

It’s not easy being a freshman in a community as competitive and superficial as Black Laguna Beach, but for Billy Gillman it’s even worse. He’s the new kid in town, having recently moved to Southern California from the Amazon River. His inability to fit in is compounded by the inability to go more than six minutes out of water before shriveling like an old sponge. A lovelorn, fragile young misfit sees through his scaly complexion and falls for him hard when he quickly rises in the ranks of the swim team. Soon her hormonal advances work together with the hot, dry desert air to take Billy’s breath away. Will she run away with him to start a family under the waves of the Pacific, or bend under the pressure of her overbearing parents who insist she breathe oxygen?

Pennywise

For the class clown, love is no laughing matter.

Senior Denny Weiss, aka “Denny the Penny,” is a “crying-on-the-inside” type of clown. Aside from the other theater kids, no one wants to be anywhere near him. His voice keeps cracking, he tries too hard to be funny, and he confronts each classmate with their worst fear through demonic hallucinatory powers.  Unexpectedly, those same powers are what bring a lovelorn, fragile young misfit to his door. When he appears in their homeroom one day as an apparition of her convicted felon father, she swoons, “He gets me!” Soon Penny is working a part-time job at McDonald’s birthday parties in the hopes of buying a promise ring while the young lovers face their own worst fears:  life after graduation… and giant spiders.

Mummy

When the bandages come off their souls, can young lovers withstand the pyramid pressure?

Tutankhamen Jones can’t seem to graduate. Cursed with an ancient spell of ADHD, his rich parents are at their wits’ end. After centuries of failing trig, he’s practically braindead… until, that is, a lovelorn, fragile young misfit opens the sarcophagus to his heart and gives him a new lease on life. He showers her with gifts of treasure, gold and scarabs but she fears an eternal commitment. How can he profess his literally undying love when his jaw is locked from years of angsty self-loathing and rigor mortis?

The Thing

No matter how much he shape-shifts, this square has to come full-circle to the shape of a heart.

It’s hard enough figuring out your identity when you’re a sophomore. When The Thing’s spacecraft crash-lands into Arctic High, he immediately begins facing taunts from the rest of the school. They give him the name “The Thing” because they’re typically inarticulate teenagers. He has no choice but to attack the student body and alter his cellular structure to change his own body until he’s a bizarre mash-up of every clique. But transforming to look like other people hurts his self-esteem even worse than the vague insults. A lovelorn, fragile young misfit has just moved to Antarctica to be with her seismologist father and she soon falls in love with The Thing because, well, everyone else is dead and there’s not much else to do in Antarctica. Can she thaw the Thing’s heart before lovesickness spreads like an alien plague?

Whatever This Is

What is this? An alien made of elbows? Does it have a name? Maybe it’s already a teenager…?

Cloverfield High (Home of the Fightin’ Clovers) gets a new transfer from… the bottom of the ocean or outer space or something, it’s not really clear. Anyway, it smashes the school in five seconds. The only student who escapes is a lovelorn, fragile young misfit who tries to keep a video journal of her feelings. Unfortunately, her hands are so shaky that people throw their hands up at a certain point and give up trying to discern what the hell’s going on.

Quell’s Razor

September 26, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

The Truest Meaning of The Master is Also the Simplest… But It Might Not Cut the Deepest

Warning: Don’t read a word until you’ve seen The Master, as this is literally a read-through of the entire damn thing.

The Master doesn’t seem like a very simple film. In part, it’s because it’s not very succinct. At one hundred-thirty-seven minutes, the film doesn’t so much fly boldly in the face of conventional movie economy and attention-deficit patronizing as it does cruise idly past that same face, as slow and steady as the boat Lancaster Dodd rides in on. As that face grimaces, furrowing its brow in examination of the unusual beats wading by, it starts to make assumptions. “There must be a lot to unpack in a movie of this scale,” it would suggest. “There must be a lot of issues at play.”

These assumptions go further once the thinly-veiled contours of Scientology can be recognized. “This is a movie about IMPORTANT THINGS… man’s need for a spiritual life! The cons and restrictions of organized religion! A vast expose laying bare the injustices and mistreatments of The House That Hubbard Built!”

The postwar setting, too, is a fertile period for American films around Oscar season, intent on displaying an important crossroads in the country and addressing Big Issues in Dramatic Ways. In a movie, every decision made in the late-40s/early-50s has extra significance, whether it’s moving to the suburbs or smiling at the nice African-American family across the street. Plus, everyone just seems dressed for something so much more important back then. With the Sunday-best dresses and three-piece suits, watching a movie set in the 50s feels like spying on a funeral. Surely this time period is key to the Very Important Issues of The Master, you think.

A fan of Paul Thomas Andersons (and I’m a huge one) is prone to squint even harder at the passing shape of The Master. After all, this is the man who made narratives as sprawling and far-reaching as their SoCal settings with Magnolia and Boogie Nights, films that weren’t happy until they’ve exhibited every possible emotion In the human experience… and then doubled back around to exhibit every possible emotion PRETENDING to be every OTHER possible emotion. This is not a man, a movie buff would say, who makes “simple movies.”

He does not. But he does make simple characters.

And it doesn’t get much simpler than Freddie Quell.

In one of the earliest shots of The Master, a collection of Naval officers on shore leave pass the time by forming a naked woman out of sand. Freddie (already made immortal by a frighteningly convicted performance from Joaquin Phoenix) stalks past the men, throws himself onto the sand woman, and simulates sex with reckless abandon and a total, desperate lack of self-consciousness. The other sailors laugh… at first. Then they look around awkwardly. The joke’s gone on too far. Because Freddie isn’t joking… this is serious business for him. He’s gone to war, spent years on a ship with hundreds of men in peak physical condition, but he still can’t convince himself he is a real man. Not yet.

Because Freddie Quell is a virgin.

The Master is the story of one man’s decade-long struggle to finally get laid.

“No.” You might say. “Stop. Nope. I’ve seen this movie, and it’s much, much, MUCH more than that.”

Well, sure, it’s a beautifully detailed and nuanced portrait of a man’s agonizing quest to lose his virginity. This isn’t an 80s comedy for the college set. It’s not about fumbling with condoms until they slingshot across the bedroom. This is serious business, because we’re in Freddie’s shoes, and to him there’s nothing more serious than finally feeling like the man that life, the government, the nation, and a sea of other men have told him he has to be. The stakes are high because this is the be-all, end-all for Freddie. Look at his age. Look at his body. Look at his mental state. This man is dying. He needs this.

Being a man means a lot of things to a lot of people. It’s as distinctive as a fingerprint. To Freddie, it means having sex.

And why would it mean anything more at this point in his life? Freddie is a man of thorough pain and real emotions, yes, but intellectually he’s frozen at a juvenile, high-school level at best. Maybe even middle school. We remember those days. We relate, though we don’t appreciate the reminders, thank-you-very-much.

And boys in high school want to be men, whether it meant achieving, fighting, or screwing. And the boys who think the most about sex… who OBSESS over it… who never shut the hell up about sex… are the ones who’ve never had it.

“Nice theory,” you might say, “But just because Freddie’s obsessed with sex doesn’t mean he’s a newcomer to it. Look at his fling with the shopgirl at the department store!”

Yeah, look at it! It’s a mess. Nervous giggling as he fumbles under her bra, and that night he’s passed out drunk as she plays with her drink. Classic snapshots of juvenile stumbles towards intercourse.

“Well, he tells Lancaster Dodd that he had intercourse before during his Processing interrogations. In fact, they were fairly disastrous experiments with incest. Remember?”

Well, sure. Freddie is a liar. He describes himself as able-bodied as he fights to hold his scoliosis-stricken back upright with both hands. He refuses to take accountability for the death of the migrant worker whose death is directly tied to Quell’s customized alcoholic concoctions. Freddie fibs in defense, like a trapped animal gnawing at himself, and he’s never more vulnerable than when his would be mentor Lancaster Dodd (Philip Seymour Hoffman, every bit Phoenix’s equal in performance here) grills him with his patented series of questioning called “Processing.” Freddie admires Dodd, looks up to him, is drawn magnetically to him. There’s no way he’d admit his virginity to a powerful man like Dodd, even if the alternative is dredging up shameful old sexual thoughts about his aunt. But we have no more proof that Freddie acted on those thoughts than Dodd does after knowing Freddie for a handful of hours.

Again, think of what we see and what the film shows us. We don’t see him having sex, with his aunt or anybody else, by this point. We are given proof of Freddie’s obsession with sex, evidence of his failures, and his tendency to lie under fire at this point. Nothing more.

And what of the touching flashbacks we see to Doris, the young girl who Freddie pines for, labeling her as his great lost love that he left to join the war effort? Doris, at the time we see her, is a virginal sixteen-year-old girl. Is this creepy, unclean, lecherous and cruel of Freddie, who is clearly older? It feels quite the opposite as we see these two together, really. It feels strangely right. Freddie and Doris are separated by age but united in intellect and experience level. He weeps over the loss of his love because she might have been the only one who wouldn’t find his lack of sexual prowess off-putting, wouldn’t know any better to call him out on it. He reads her love letters, arrested in a teenage concept of romance. If she was seventeen, she might’ve been one year too smart and too worldly for him.

Many audience members and critics alike weigh The Master carefully, attaching stakes to its simple frame in attempts to dissect Freddie’s motivations for staying with Dodd’s upstart religion/ philosophy/ cult mentality “The Cause.” Vulture has a strong case for Quell’s need for a family and his hope to find familial ties within The Cause, particularly his citing of a dream of family love and his pathetic attempt to recall that dream later, his body and mind weakened by booze. But Freddie wants to fulfill his idea of manhood. He doesn’t want to be the little brother of this family, he wants to be a patriarch. And no man is a patriarch asexually. Their potency is evident in the existence of the family itself.

Freddie is drawn to the ship that The Cause operates off of by the siren song of a wedding, the ultimate sexual innuendo. Weddings are the social (and socially accepted) announcements and celebrations of a relationship being consummated, ESPECIALLY by religious standards. Commitment-phobic Freddie gazes at the wedding of Dodd’s daughter with a cocktail of envy and longing, knowing full well what he’s missing out on (it’s not commitment he’s longing for here).

Freddie gets with Dodd and his Cause in the hope of finally getting that elusive transition into manhood. As young women study Dodd’s powerful voice and The Cause’s principles on the ship, Quell writes them blunt notes requesting… well, let’s just say he’s not requesting conversation.

But he STAYS with The Cause because it offers that which every religion excels in: repression. Freddie thinks that, by giving his mind and body over to this strange Frankenstein’s monster of a spiritual life, he can cage and ignore his sex drive and finally end his awkward, painful misadventures towards his milestone. Maybe, Quell thinks, there’s another way. Maybe he can fulfill his personal ideal of manhood without that pesky detail of needing to connect with another human being long enough to orgasm.

As he embraces the sexual repression of The Cause, then, his redirected sexual frustration comes out in a backslide further into alcohol abuse and, most memorably, startling outbursts of rage and violence. These outbursts are around the point where, following in the acclaimed footsteps of There Will Be Blood, audiences might expect the film to escalate into Blood’s fisticuffs and the cathartic release of the film’s unbearable tension through tangible confrontation.

But There Will Be Blood is a fundamentally asexual film, perhaps the most asexual film of the new century. It’s rare in its total lack of interest in sex, relationships, or gender roles – especially coming from the filmmaker who broke onto the scene in Boogie Nights. Its sole interest is blood. The Master has a different bodily fluid at its core.

Later in the film, Dodd’s newlywed daughter feels a strange forbidden attraction to this odd Quell fellow, walking her fingers across his thigh. But by this point, Freddie refuses the call of nature in favor of the call of Dodd, and pushes her hand away from his new position within a tight bottle of repression. For the first time, his dream is within reach, but he’s forgotten what his destiny is.

Despite his gung-ho efforts to embrace the religion’s tight leash on his subhuman impulses, he can’t help but idly sit by and fantasize that all of the women surrounding his new mentor are completely naked, in a shocking shift to Freddie’s point of view that jarringly calls much of the film’s reality into question. As Freddie’s experience progresses, this questioning of reality falls back into questioning his motives. The passive, impotent daydream of a room full of female nudity seems to be his sad resignation to a part of his brain he’ll never fully escape and a goal he’ll never truly forget about.

He even dares to imagine the ultimate forbidden fruit in the nude: Dodd’s wife Peggy (a deceptively willful and powerful Amy Adams, in the reversal of her naïve Christian subordinate from Doubt), several months pregnant and positioned at Lancaster’s right hand. In a candid scene soon after, we discover that it’s Peggy’s right hand with the real sway. She dominates Dodd with a quickie handjob, reasserting his power and duty in The Cause while paradoxically cementing her influence over him.

It’s here that we see the great joke in Freddie’s journey: there was indeed sex to be found within The Cause, as he’d initially hoped, but it’s not intercourse, it’s not intimate, and it clocks in at under a minute.

It’s in considering Freddie’s narrative as a “journey” that we can find a simple handle on his equally simple goals and desires. The character arc Anderson gives Freddie is so straightforward it’s almost comical when viewed through the tired lens of Joseph Campbell’s “Monomyth” or “Hero’s Journey,” a theory of storytelling considered by Hollywood executives, development workers, and “creatives” as a jackpot formula for success. If you filter Freddie through the repetitive and reductive map of “the hero’s journey,” it almost feels like Anderson is taking the piss out of Campbell’s theory: Freddie wants to lose his virginity and finally have sex. He goes to a new world first in pursuit of it, then in refusal of it. He returns to the “real world,” but now he can use what he learned on his quest to finally reach his goal.

Quell impulsively escapes The Cause on that ultimate 1950s phallic symbol, the motorcycle, waking up from his repression to remember his single-minded pursuit. He tries to return to the virginal Doris, but alas, she is married. Not everyone stays virginal forever, Freddie. It’s his lowest low, sending him into an undisclosed amount of time spent wandering, drinking, sleeping, and sinking into a defeated impotence.

Upon seeing Dodd again, an impulse is reawakened in him. He turns away from The Cause for good in London, walks to a nearby pub, propositions a local young woman for sex, and…

Well, look. If you view the film through this lens, it’s impossible to view The Master as anticlimactic.

Freddie never could have made a truly intimate connection with his first sexual partner without the tools he learned from Processing and The Cause. He implements them in a scene that is darkly ironic and gently sweet all at once. The troubled, simple man has realized his manhood on his own terms in an unexpected way.

The last shot of The Master is a long take of Freddie snuggling up to that female bosom made entirely of sand. The ambiguity of this inclusion leaves Freddie’s future as unstable in our minds as his past. Will he lie down and rest comfortably beside the partner he always pictured now that he finally got that release? Or is the recall to the woman made of sand a suggestion that the man’s on an endless self-destructive cycle, that he’ll always be thrusting uselessly into his own imagination and an impossible idea of manhood?

That’s open to interpretation, of course, as is the entire film. But from what I can see, the crux and conceit of The Master is an extremely straightforward story of a late bloomer finally coming into his own through the sex act, not at all unlike Anderson’s deeply underrated cult film Punch Drunk Love.

Occam’s Razor is the principle that the answer lies with the simplest interpretation and the fewest assumptions. Yes, applying this theory to a reading of a film feels foolhardy. Film is about layers, multiple engines all working together, and deep wells of subtext. But Freddie Quell is a man with no subtext. He wants what he wants, and even a charming opening line to a prospective lay is more pretense than he can muster.

Lancaster Dodd nearly loses his mind trying to unravel Freddie and find layers within. As the entire film community asks the question “What is The Master about?” we may do well to remember that the simplest, most primal drive might be the answer.

Freddie has a razor too, early on… well, a machete, in fact. As he wields it to open a coconut, we flinch, worrying for his well-being. We can tell intuitively that this simple man needs to busy his hands with a different activity.

comfort movie part 2, fargo

August 9, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

Last year I wrote an article about my comfort movie, Step Brothers.  A comfort movie’s one you watch to make yourself feel better, one to distract you from everyday life, one you watch when you feel overwhelmed.  It’s not a requirement that the movie be considered critically or technically good, it just needs to comfort you.

Yesterday amidst some long and hard yard work in muggy overcast weather, I thought to myself, “ I can’t wait to have a shower, lay on top of a freshly made bed, and watch Fargo.”  I stopped and questioned myself, wondering why of all things that movie came to mind.  It’s a great movie, certainly one of my favorites, but why is this what immediately came to mind when I thought about decompressing from my day?  Is this also my comfort movie?

The strange thing about Fargo as opposed to any of my other favorite movies is that I can vividly recall the times and places I’ve ever watched it. The first time was on my parents boat in La Conner Washington on a grey a windy evening.  No one else understood what or why the film was what it was but I loved it.  The second time I watched it was a number of years later by myself during Christmas break in High School.  The third time was a number of years after that when my wife (then girlfriend) and I rented it on a hot Summer afternoon in 2007.  I saw it again just a week after moving to Los Angeles when as a gift my parents gave us a cable subscription.

I watched it again amidst a freak late May snowstorm in Mt. Shasta City, holed up in the honeymoon suite of a Best Western.  There were a few other times but you get the idea, I can clearly remember each viewing right up until last night.  That’s when I asked myself if this is another comfort movie, albeit an unexpected one?  I had always thought of comfort movies as something escapist, funny, or possibly on the shallow side.  None of these particularly describes Fargo; a dark, violent, stressful film that follows the incompetence of a man trying to extort his father in law by having his wife kidnapped, and the criminals hired to do the job who fail at every step.

When I wrote about Step Brothers I analyzed just what I felt made this my comfort movie.  I didn’t have to delve too deep before I realized that Step Brothers is about two 40 year old men who still live with their parents and refuse to grow up and take responsibility for themselves.  Their social relationships and aspirations are childish, their goal being to create a world wide entertainment company called, Prestige World Wide.  It’s easy to fantasize about a time in my life when my days were spent eating microwaved nachos on the couch watching Shark Week in a Chewbacca mask.

Does Fargo defy the logic of the comfort movie?  At first I thought it did.  Until I considered what I love about the film.  For the main character Jerry Lundegaard (WIlliam H. Macy) things go awry right from the very beginning, and it is clear that he’s in way over his head.  Script writing 101 tells the writer to find a way out of this predicament, but not here, Jerry just digs his hole deeper and deeper until there’s no possible way out, and he never gets out.  This story doesn’t belong to Jerry, it belongs to Marge Gunderson (Frances McDormand) the police officer investigating the trail of carnage left by the hit men Jerry hired. It plays like a pulp novel set in a flat and frozen midwest landscape.

Our sometimes contributor Eric Stolze who happens to be a Coen brothers mega fan could talk on a much deeper level about this film, but I am attempting to understand just why after a hard day did I want to settle in with this film.  And here’s why.  I love the movie, but also I love the idea that I can sit back on my bed and watch as Jerry Lundegaard gets into seriously deep shit and know that he never get’s out of it.  Meanwhile I’m sitting there relaxed knowing that despite whatever might be going on in my own life it’ll never reach those lows.

This isn’t such a weird idea I suppose.  Why do most people watch those ridiculous reality shows?  If you probed just beneath the surface it’s probably because it makes them feel better about themselves.  Fargo from the viewpoint of Jerry is a sad story on a truly sadistic level, up until he’s arrested while desperately trying to crawl through the bathroom window.  Everything about Jerry and his story is truly tragic.  Juxtaposed with the mundane everyday life of Marge and her husband, it’s almost funny.

I’m not even touching on the films most iconic scene, the one that caused a generation of wives to forbid their husbands from every buying a wood-chipper.

Perhaps what I realized the most was that my definition of a comfort movie had to change, it wasn’t just pure escapism, sometimes it could simply be a film that makes you feel better for yourself.  My wife for instance has two comfort movies Lord of the Rings, the Fellowship of the Ring, obvious escapism.  Her other is A Few Good Men, which is just a compellingly simple story with incredible, classic Hollywood acting.

I asked this question a year ago, but that was before I’d truly come to understand what a comfort movie could be, so I’ll ask it again.  What’s your comfort movie, what movie makes you feel better, relaxes you, or just plain comforts you?

moonrise kingdom and wes anderson the one trick pony?

July 31, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

 

Bullseye’s Jesse Thorn said it best when he tweeted this in response to Wes Anderson’s nay sayers:

Plenty of folks make not-Wes Anderson movies, so I’m just gonna let Wes Anderson keep making Wes Anderson movies. Because: he’s great at it.

From Bottle Rocket right up to his most recent Moonrise Kingdom, Wes Anderson has been criticized for his particular style, not because it’s bad or thoughtless, but rather because he has a very particular style.  I’m not going to argue that fact, with the exception of the Fantastic Mr. Fox, you could easily confuse any moment of one movie for any of his movies.  Only the actors, and not always, seem to change.

The worlds of his films are ones of a perpetual lack of 21st century technology, as if the digital age drove by in a red sports car and never stopped.  Every film contains a scene of rock n’ roll slow motion, a montage, and almost always at least one cross-section of a set.  The films are brightly colored and everything is lit as if it were a stage play.

Naturalistic is not a word that comes to mind when I think of Wes Anderson, he’s planned everything out right down to the way a character holds an object it seems.  His writing is esoteric, in the hands of any other director or in any other world for that matter, it would seem uncomfortably awkward.  In short Anderson has spent a career creating nostalgic films, recreating places and memories from his past and applying them to stories he’s writing today.

I’ve always found it unfair to discredit Wes Anderson as a filmmaker on the merit of all his films having a similar feel.  Most people accept the unwatchable Baz Luhrmann films as his particular style, Tim Burton is lauded for his artistic genius despite a similar style in all his films, and Martin Scorsese apparently shits a golden egg every time he turns on a camera.  I’ve always thought it was unfair to discredit Anderson’s work purely on his esthetic choices.

Despite being a big fan of his work I often have a difficult time jazzing myself up for his films, the same goes for Quentin Tarantino.  I always think I’m not going to like the film and so I don’t see it in the theater, then I hear an interview on Fresh Air or some such place, I watch the movie and love it.  I wasn’t sure if I was going to get out to the theater to see Moonrise Kingdom, but with so many friends speaking so highly of it I decided I had to get out and see it before it left theaters.

So… as a hardcore Rushmore fan I didn’t think that Anderson would ever make a film that could impress me more than that (Fantastic Mr. Fox not included).  It’s been four days since I saw Moonrise Kingdom and I think he might have done it.

First of all, this felt very different from his other films (excluding Fantastic Mr. Fox, in fact I’ve said it enough.  I dearly love that movie but I’m excluding it from all talking points because it was animated).  On the surface yes, it is very similar, there’s a montage, a scene in slow motion, a cross section, bright colors, etc. but it was very different.

The storyline.  His previous films were not exactly story driven, and the few that were still didn’t give you a clear idea of what the character specifically wanted.  Those films revolve around the characters discovery of what they really want in life.  Here the story couldn’t be more simple, twelve year olds Sam and Suzy want to be together, and they will do so at any cost.  It’s a love story, pure, innocent, and completely genuine.  I can’t remember the last time I saw any film portray love as sincere as Anderson does here.

We follow our lovers from the beginning of the film all the way through to the end.  There are obstacles they must overcome that are external, not the internal self inflicted struggles Anderson’s characters often face.  The story is lean and it seems as if all the excess fat was removed in the final cut, as everything relates to our characters, either how they got where they got or how they will get where they are going.

The casting of the children could have been a disaster but Sam (Jared Gilman) and Suzy (Kara Hayward) are spot on.  Though an awkward pair in appearance, emotionally they work perfectly together.  The scenes in the little inlet (the Moonrise Kingdom) could have been performed by adults, the fact that it was children was all the more magical.  There is never a wink at the audience suggesting that this is all just young dumb love between two preteens, this is genuine love, love that we rarely credit children with the capability to feel.

As different as the film may be this is still classic Anderson nostalgia, this time that nostalgia has more logic as the film takes place in 1965.  A record player and a suitcase full of children’s books plays a large role in the romance.  The opening shots were in my opinion the best staging of Anderson’s career as he introduces us Suzy’s house and her family members with clean horizontal shifts of the camera from room to room.

The characters in his films are stoic representations of people from a bygone era.  Anger, happiness, sadness, and fear, are portrayed in that same guarded look.  Moonrise Kingdom found a way to keep that stoicism while allowing the characters to express emotion within it.  The climactic scene of the film is easily Anderson’s emotional best, the only moment of his career that feels close to that is Steve Zissou in The Life Aquatic confronting the Jaguar shark.

I titled this article One Trick Pony because that is what critics have boiled Wes Anderson down to; a filmmaker who uses the same styles, same characters, and same effects throughout all his films, sandwiched between a thin layer of story.  Moonrise Kingdom is perhaps the best use of those styles within a beautifully simple and compelling story.  Maybe it was his time spent working on the animated Fantastic Mr. Fox that gave him new perspective as he returned to live action, maybe it was the very personal feel of the characters and story.  Either way Wes Anderson proves in Moonrise Kingdom that he is not simply a one trick pony.

The film has been out for some time now and if you’re still looking to see it I suggest you do it sooner than later, before it leaves all but a few second run theaters.

beasts of the southern wild

July 20, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

 

Just hearing the name, Beasts of the Southern Wild, I was on board.  After I saw the trailer I was over the moon.  When I read the early reviews that discussed Cajun folklore and magical realism, I felt compelled to drive the 1,100 miles to the nearest theater showing the film.  The next week it opened in two theaters here in Seattle and I didn’t have to make that drive, what I’m getting at is that this film is my kind of thing.  The magical poetry of Sam Shepard, Jose Rivera, and Charlie Kaufman, mixed with the youthful beauty of The Black Stallion and Where the Wild Things Are.  Of course all that would be ruined if the film didn’t live up to my expectations.  No need to worry, it did.

It’s been a good long while since I’ve seen a film that delivered so superbly in all facets.  The acting, which was comprised of mostly new comers and non-actors was spot on.  The writing was pure poetry.  The cinematography was breathtaking and full of wonderment.  The music, the direction, the design… all of it was truly magical.  I tried long and hard to figure out just one thing I didn’t like and I came up with this, the movie ended.  That’s it.

As far as the story is concerned, here’s what you need to know.  Six year old Hushpuppy played to unimaginable perfection by (Quvenzhané Wallis) lives in the Bathtub, a fictional Southern Delta community of New Orleans, with her father Wink (Dwight Henry).  Their relationship is tumultuous, much of that owing to Wink’s mysterious illness, his disappearance for days at a time, and his very tough love.  Hushpuppy’s mother disappeared long ago, but appears later in a dreamlike sequence that is a real highlight of the film.  The story really begins after a storm (Hurricane Katrina) hits the coast and the Bathtub is flooded.  Hushpuppy goes on the physical and emotional journey of becoming independent.  After staring down the beasts (aurochs) unleashed after the melting of the polar icecaps, she becomes the king of the Bathtub.

There is so much I want to and could say about this film, instead of rambling for pages and pages I’ve boiled it down to two elements; style and emotion.  The style borders on an almost documentary feel, with its shaky cam, grainy film, and constant refocusing camera lens.  It has you questioning what is real both in terms of the story and in terms of the real world, and what is Hollywood magic and Hushpuppy’s imagination.  The rotting animal carcasses, the caterpillar infested leaves, or waterlogged landscapes give you the sense that they were simply captured right there on the spot.

In stark contrast to the realism is the obviously fantastical elements, the aurochs, Hushpuppy and friends swimming out into the Gulf of Mexico, the gatorbomb, or the floating Catfish house.  Most films draw a clear distinction between what is real and what is imaginary, here they revel in that ambiguity.  It all looks real but our brains tell us it can’t be.  It’s rare to have that feeling in life and I loved experiencing it.

Then you have the emotional context of the film.  This story is endlessly complex, family structure, poverty, community relocation, illness, and growing up, not to mention the penrose steps that is Hurricane Katrina, all are multilayered issues.  For many films, attempting to tackle all these issues is a potential death sentence.  Not for Beasts, here they shift all the perspective to Hushpuppy, the story unfolds for us as it does for her.

Hurricane Katrina is just a storm, in fact the name is never even used.  Wink’s illness isn’t cancer, AIDS, or blood poisoning, he’s just sick.  We take adults at their word believing that the rising waters and the appearance of the Aurochs is due only to the melting of the Polar ice caps.  We engage in fantasies real or imagined that help us work through or understand the tough times in life.

As an audience member this can become frustrating at times, we’re just not sure of a characters logic.  Is wink neglectful or is he preparing Hushpuppy for his eventual departure?  As I mentioned, these topics are complex, but when viewed through the eyes of a six year old girl, they have a surprisingly simple explanation.  When moments become too heavy for Hushpuppy’s mind to wrap around, just like the refocusing lens of the camera, the details get fuzzy.

This is an emotional film and I noticed my wife crying through a majority of it.  Normally we discuss movies endlessly on the ride home, but the most I could conjure from her was a head nod.  I had a feeling that this movie was very visceral for her both in the imagery and the emotional core.  By the following morning she was able to talk about it and confessed her love of the film, in the moments after she was left a little raw.  For perhaps the first time in the ten years I’ve known her, silence was her greatest compliment.

Something else happened just as the movie was ending.  As Hushpuppy delivers her closing voiceover my pregnant wife felt a series of major contractions.  They ended up going nowhere, but at the time we thought that it was the real deal, that just hours after watching this film we’d be holding our little girl.  Hushpuppy was a fighter, a survivor, an independent leader of her neighbors by films end.  I wanted all the same for my daughter, I just didn’t want hser to endure the same experiences.  It’s an emotional reaction that can only be expected of parents or soon to be parents.

As I look back on what I’ve written here I realize how much is left out, how much of what makes this film wonderful, brave, original, and beautiful I just didn’t touch on.  I could have written a whole book on this film.  What it really comes down to in the end is that this film made me jealous.  Jealous that I didn’t write it, that it wasn’t my story.  That is the best compliment that I can give it.  Get yourself to see this movie now, it’s got a fairly limited theatrical release but if you look hard enough your sure to find a theater playing it somewhere relatively close to you.

and everything is going fine ~ spalding gray

July 6, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

If I think back over the course of my life and am really honest with myself, the artist who has had more impact on me than any other would be Spalding Gray.

I was a senior in college and on an uncharacteristically warm February Friday, while taking a break from writing our masterworks in playwriting class, our teacher Mame Hunt showed us Spalding Gray’s Swimming to Cambodia.  It was one of those rare moments in life where you realize in the moment that your perception on art in life is forever changed.  I had never seen anything like it before or since.  Though it has been relatively few years since he changed my life, I have spent those years trying to incorporate the lessons of Spalding Gray into my own work.

Spalding was the accidental creator of a new genus of storytelling and without question the best to have done so.  His work was presented simply, without flare or extravagance while sitting at a desk with a glass of water, a notebook, occasionally a microphone, and sometimes a prop, he told personal stories from his life that at times felt like a private confessional.  He created over a dozen monologues each of which could be considered a masterpiece.  Each would eventually be transcribed into a book or collection, and three of those monologues were turned into films: Monster in a Box, Gray’s Anatomy (Steven Soderbergh), and Swimming to Cambodia (Jonathan Demme).

If you’ve never seen or don’t even know what Swimming to Cambodia is, get to your local video store or amazon right now and get it.  A masterpiece among masterpieces, Gray discusses his role in Roland Joffe’s The Killing Fields.  Crosscutting between his experience in Thailand filming the movie and a history lesson of the actual events of the Khmer Rouge genocide and the killing fields in Cambodia.  It is quite possibly the greatest eighty-five minutes ever committed to film.  It is also a book, one which I read yearly.

Sadly Spalding committed suicide in 2004.  He suffered his whole life with depression and severe manic episodes, many stemming from the suicide of his own mother.  What really makes the story of Spalding Gray a true tragic tale is that in the five or so years leading up to his death he’d acquired a family and seemed to come to some kind of understanding with his demons.  It was a near fatal car crash that left him with severe brain trauma that led to numerous surgeries that reopened the gate to those demons.  Unable to cope with the pain he felt on a minute to minute basis and the depression he’d suffered his whole life, Spalding took his own life.  It is presumed that he jumped from the Staten Island Ferry.  Two months after having been reported missing his body was found along the shore in the East River.

It was sometime in 2006 while literally devouring everything written or recorded by Spalding Gray that I heard early rumblings of a documentary on Spalding’s life directed by Steven Soderbergh.  I immediately had visions of how I would direct my own documentary, with plenty of static shots of foggy New England harbors, and New York City streets, all playing over the voices of people from Spalding’s life.  It was a beautiful idea, in my mind.  All the while I couldn’t help but think that there was something unnatural about someone else telling his story.  I didn’t know how to achieve the goal of having Spalding tell his own story but that just seemed the most “true” way to do it.

When I saw the first trailer for Soderbergh’s film, And Everything is Going Fine, I understood exactly what my mind was grasping for but just couldn’t reach.

And Everything is Going Fine is not so much a linear story as it is a piecing together of a story from rarely seen interviews and performance clips.  Those clips are used to explain some of the more meaningful events of Gray’s life.  The documentary is a beautiful piece of filmmaking that acts as the final monologue of Spalding’s career.  Clearly Soderbergh didn’t approach the project as an objective observer, but rather as a dedicated fan of the work.  This show’s in every cut.

Subsequently any fan will find this to be a perfect encapsulation of what Spalding Gray was, an unparalleled storyteller, one who could make a simple trip to the grocery store into an epic tale.  I had to wonder just what a non fan would get from the film.  Due to the nature of the storytelling it leaves out the simple details such as, his birth, his siblings, his suicide is not mentioned once.  Being as familiar with the material as I was, I understood what was being referenced in every clip, the casual observer might not.

Then there is the reality that while many of us may think that through his monologues we had an understanding of who he really was.  We didn’t.  Spalding often had difficulty not telling a story, the interviews in the film aren’t windows into his unguarded self, they’re just micro performances.  In one clip Spalding is filmed candidly walking poolside in the snow with his father, even here in this semi private moment he has difficulty blocking out the camera and dropping the performance.

It should also be noted that subjective storytelling such as this can lead to cross-chatter between fiction and reality.  Gray freely admits throughout the film that as he told the stories over time, he began to forget just what had been fictionalized.  As a pure biographical documentary, this leaves much to be desired.  Then again it never makes the claim to be attempting to do so.  This is his story, through his eyes, with his own words, the only way that most of us ever knew him.

This film is a genuine work of art that in the end presents Gray’s life the only way it really could be told, through his own words.  It becomes a delicious appetizer sampler tray, teasing you to try the main course after the credits.  Perhaps there is still a chance that one day a more linear (and ultimately less honest) documentary will be made, one with static shots of harbors, and New York City Streets, all while telling the story of my greatest artistic influence.

And Everything is Going Fine is out on DVD now and can be found on Netflix instant streaming.  It’s a superb accomplishment of editing and one last look at Spalding Gray.

 

understanding prometheus

June 14, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

**spoiler warning!  If you plan on seeing Prometheus and want everything to be a surprise you might want to skip this article.  You should probably have skipped the trailer too.  If you don’t care about reveling plot points before you see the film then by all means read away.**

If you read this website regularly than you know that I am an Alien uber fan, and that I have been eagerly awaiting Ridley Scott’s revisitation to the Alien universe with Prometheus.  Last night I finally got out to see the film and I feel that it would be a missed opportunity not to give you my impressions and perhaps even build a better understanding of the complex ideas it contains.

First off, despite all the secrecy surrounding the films connection to Alien, it is a prequel.  Perhaps not a direct prequel with the same characters, but any attempt to label the film otherwise is purely a filmmakers escape clause to avoid answering questions about the loose ends dangling in our imagination.   The story greatly differs from that of Alien and its series of sequels, rather than a pure survival-horror film, it asks very big questions and then attempts? to answer them.

If there was no such thing as Alien and Prometheus existed purely as a singular unconnected film, I probably would have liked it more than I did.  The design and direction were superb and exactly what I was hoping for.  I found the film scary and suspenseful, at one point I became aware of my hands and found that I had death gripped my popcorn bag into a tight ball.

As a fan of Alien there was also much to like.  The look and feel of the film was very similar to that of Alien, right down to the texture of the walls.  Unlike so many directors who revisit material from thirty plus years before, Ridley Scott has not forgotten many of the key filmmaking elements that made Alien such a unique movie.  Serious fans will note subtle sounds in the films score that are lifted directly from Alien, these tonal subtleties are used masterfully.  Thematically there is much that ties Prometheus to the Alien saga, from spoken lines, to story arcs, even juxtaposing the darkness of the story with brighter melodic music at the end credit crawl.

All that said, the film contains some major flaws most notably with the story and it’s structure.  The first major problem is it’s excessive use of exposition.  What made Alien so intriguing was how little you really knew about anything, it kept things moving and cut out all the fat.  We understood the characters most base desires, to make money, to survive, to fulfill the order of the company.  It didn’t matter how they all ended up working for Weyland industries, or how their father died, or that once twenty five years ago they ate too many candy corn and got sick.  Prometheus is full of unnecessary exposition that tries to explain far to much of  characters back story, and hints at a surface motivation.  Zaki Hasan said it best:

 Like the creature from which it took its title, Alien was a perfect organism. No time or space was wasted, and every second of runtime had a functional reason for being there. With Prometheus, there’s a little too much breathing room. Too many digressions and dead-ends that, while fascinating and engaging on their own, don’t do much to make the overall experience any more fulfilling.

The film should have gone from the Engineer drinking the black goo right to the title card, we get more exposition than we need from the pointer sequence fifteen minutes later aboard the Prometheus.  David watching Elizabeth’s (Noomi Rapace) dream is an unnecessary layer that plays little role in the movement of the story.  The lengthy intro of the android David (Michael Fassbender) wandering the ship attempting to connect with humanity,  while the crew is in hyper-sleep could have been cut.  The chasm between humanity and it’s life like creations is touched on through out the film already.

This is all to say that the story could have been cleaner, and more focused on the moment at hand and not unnecessary dead end bits from the past.  Trusting an audience to connect with a character even when you don’t know intimate details of their history is a lost art form and it seems that Ridley Scott has forgotten that as well.

What I found to be the central flaw of the film is that I entered the theater with a number of questions that I was seeking an answer for.  I didn’t expect them all to be answered, the filmmakers strongly cautioned people against this from the beginning.  As I left the theater I had more questions than I began with.  Even that would have been okay, if nothing else Ridley Scott is a competent business man, and he knows that a full denouement would kill the sequel potential and a possible cash cow.  Money will always override art in Hollywood.

What frustrated me was that I could not tell what was being unanswered for a reason, and what was a plot hole.  The “black goo” is a mysterious substance that reacts differently with the Engineer in the title sequence than it does with Charlie (Logan Marshall-Green).  At the end of the film when the Alien emerges from the Engineers chest, why does it look different from the Alien we are so familiar with from the later films?  Are they on the same planet, and is the space ship the same one from Alien?  Does Peter Weyland (Guy Pierce) know what’s on the planet already?  If so, how?  Are these questions to be answered in later stories or is this shoddy story writing?

In Star Wars Revenge of the Sith I understood that it was simply shoddy writing, George Lucas created plot holes and inconsistencies that were unintentional and I was able to view them as such.  So many writers today are creating stories for sequels and it serves only to confuse the audience as to what is an intended question and what is unintentional.  Certain plot holes surrounding the “space jockey” from Alien might be better filled in by my own imagination, but Peter Weyland’s understanding of the planet is an important story point that demands an answer.

The final problem many had with the film were the grandiose questions it asked of us and the characters.  Some of which I found intriguing, some of which were a little too broad.  Does God existWho are weWhere do we come from? Who created us? And Why?  For Charlie and Elizabeth the question seems to be, who created us and why?  Isn’t the possibility of meeting alien lifeforms enough of a reason to seek them out?  The god element of the story felt only half formed.

The questions of human origins and our creator are expansive and demand the full attention of the story.  In Prometheus they clash with the more compelling question of who are the Engineers, and why did they want to destroy us?  I had to go home and review my classical Greek literature to find some possible answers to these unanswered questions.

Prometheus was a Titan, who is credited with creating man from clay, he is also credited with having given man fire.  For this act he was punished severely by Zeus, who binds the immortal Prometheus to a rock and has an eagle feast on his liver.  Every night the liver regenerates and the eagle returns to feast on it again, committing Prometheus to life of unspeakable pain.  In AeschylusPrometheus Bound, we learn that Prometheus is being punished for foiling Zeus’ plans to destroy the human race.  He also knows of information that could lead to Zeus’ downfall, and when he fails to divulge this information he’s pummeled with a thunderbolt and cast to the bottom of the abyss.

Simply understanding Prometheus the mythical figure won’t necessarily answer your nagging questions about what the more mysterious elements of the film represent.  It is important in understanding the groundwork upon which the Prometheus story is laid.  Look closely at the story of Prometheus the mythical figure and Prometheus the film you will begin to find similar story elements of punishment, creation, gods, and conspiracy.  This is also true in Alien, a simple working knowledge of the Joseph Conrad novel Nostromo (the name of the ship in that film) will help you understand that at its core Alien is a film about corruption of one kind or another.

After all these words you’re probably saying to yourself the same thing I’m thinking as I write this: really?  Do I have to be that well versed in Greek mythology and early twentieth century novels to understand this movie about aliens that turn you into zombies and burst forth from your chest?  It enhances the film going experience but don’t get me wrong, the major flaw of Prometheus is not knowing what questions we’re supposed to have at the end of the film.

I do want to reiterate once again that while there were many frustrating things about this film, I did enjoy it.  Does it fill the same place in my heart that Alien was able to do?  No, would I watch it again?  In a heart beat.  Some of what I was hoping the film would be able to accomplish fell short, never the less it was intriguing and suspenseful.  I hope that Ridley Scott does make a sequel, not only because I’m still looking for answers but because I think that he is a mast at Science Fiction suspense.

hello, i’m david and this movie better be great

April 19, 2012 in movie reviews, reviews

If you’ve been living under a rock, if you don’t religiously read this website, or if you just don’t have internet access, you might not know what Prometheus is.  Let me enlighten you.  Prometheus is Ridley Scott’s latest film, and though he’s quick to deny that it’s a prequel to Alien, it’s basically a prequel to Alien.

The first time I watched the trailer I lost my shit, it was awesome.  I talked specifically about what I was so excited for in a previous article here.  I can’t deny that even if I had no context for this film (a non-prequel-prequel) based on the look and feel alone I would be over the moon for it.  June 8th couldn’t come soon enough.  I tried to temper my excitement, building it up so much almost inevitably leads to disappointment, and I’ve been hurt before.

I’m sure deep down I knew that Star Wars The Phantom Menace would failed to live up to my enormous expectations.  Watching it for the first time was like sitting in a room full of people all witnessing your dreams be eviscerated and not being able to do a thing about it.  It’s just one in a series of films to receive a sequel or prequel, decades after the last installment.  Wall Street Money Never Sleeps, Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, and the most egregious Godfather Part III.  You can’t expect every film in a series to strike gold, but you can expect them to at the very least, exist on the same level as their predecessors.

There’s also another type of disappointment, which is brought on by the hype of a film trailer.  If Entourage taught me anything, and it did teach me one thing, it’s that even a shitty movie, albeit fictional, can have a great trailer.  Over the last twenty years it’s become an art form and I’ve been duped.  Films like the Green Hornet, and Funny People were far less interesting than their two minute counterparts. By now I should know better than to let a convincing and pretty looking film trailer get me all hot and bothered.

Prometheus has the potential to hit both types of disappointments.  It’s been thirty-three years since Alien was released, and the trailer is a work of promotional art unto itself.  I should keep my expectations at a simple low frequency.  That said, what I saw yesterday made it impossible for me to keep my exuberance under wraps.

It appeared on facebook with the title David 8.  A two and a half minute vignette featuring the android David played eerily plastic by Michael Fassbender.  It looks and feels just like a perverse Apple commercial (no strange territory for Scott, remember the 1984 commercial?) where a unseen voice asked questions of David such as, “What can you do?  What do you think about?” And the most spooky, “what makes you sad?”  It took me about ten seconds into this video to realize that it wasn’t a commercial the whole video was a kind of faux commercial for Weyland Industries, a fictional company within the film.

This came on the heels of another three minute vignette featuring Guy Pierce as Peter Weyland, at a fictional Ted Talk 2023.  This video was more obviously an advertisement for Prometheus, as it sets up the theology surrounding the premise of the film, yet it still felt like something other than your typical hype.  Not that Prometheus is any stranger to hype, there was a countdown to the fucking teaser trailer after all.  And okay yes, the Guy Pierce vignette was probably paid for by Ted, and the David 8 was clearly paid for by Verizon, they just don’t feel like part of an ad campaign.

I followed links to the websites in the video and ended up at two separate fictional websites.  Projectprometheus.com which it appears is the name of the spaceship within the movie, and weylandindustries.com, a website for the fictional company Weyland Industries.  Both had an incredible amount of detail with extremely limited real world commercial involvement.  If you poke around long enough you’ll find yourself at Prometheus-movie.com a more traditional film website.  This doesn’t take away from what I think Ridley Scott is trying to do in the final months leading up to the film.

He’s trying to create an immersive experience, with two faux websites and realistic ad campaigns, that are similar to what Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind did with their Lacuna Corporation trailer.  Here Prometheus commits fully, which is what you would expect for a film ten years into the twenty first century.  I don’t know if these two videos are made up of footage from the film, or if they were created just for the films ad campaign, either way they are surprisingly effective.  Not only have they gotten me more excited for the film than I already was, they give me hope.  Hope that Prometheus will be as artful as these videos.

Again, I know better than to get my hopes this high, they’re bound to come crashing down with shattered bones.  But why shouldn’t I have serious expectations for this film, after all it’s predecessor is a masterpiece, and when I take these videos into account the barometer points heavily toward awesomeness.  That’s right, I drank the Koolaid and now I’m literally leaning out the door of a plane 30,000 feet in the air, ready to jump.  I hope when I pull my cord there’s a parachute there.