Dear television,
I think I love you. Then what am I so afraid of?
It could be the granola crunching, NPR listening, sustainable social justice advocates that happen to be my friends. They’ve never been very fond of you. Something about brain rotting and imagination killing. It seems irrelevant to them that throughout my relationship with you I have continued to believe in and appreciate the fight for immigrant rights, public radio, and organic cereal. Many of my friends find our love to be poisonous. I must say, sometimes, I can’t blame them.
I know about your flaws. It’s no secret you are not one of discriminating tastes. Your love of exploitative, racist, sexist, classist, mind-numbing trash is hard to ignore. You’ve given birth to a 24-hour news cycle that changed the American political system into even more of a three-ring circus than it already was. And then there is the advertising. There is no amount of brilliant programming that will change the fact that you are a prostitute for capitalist consumer culture, whoring yourself out to the highest bidder without judgment or critical thought. You bend under the pressure of our conservative, patriarchal society, standing up against the prude only when it titillates you. Your poor decision making skills reflect everything that is wrong in American culture today.
But nothing is perfect.
You’ve come a long way since you first became a household staple. Your history is important to understanding how you operate as a medium today, but it’s also available on Wikipedia, so I won’t recite it for you here. The critical piece is that today we are in a time when the same amount of talent, effort, and money that goes into making the finest films also goes into making television. There is also an opportunity in pay cable, such as HBO, for television to operate with similar censorship rules as a feature film. This gives us something wonderful: high quality, mainstream, serialized entertainment. The ability to observe a large cast of characters, in depth, over a long period of time. The storytelling possibilities are endless.
To be fair, you’re not the first to do this. Literature, while mostly existing in single novels, does experience a great deal of success in serialized story telling. This is most notably seen in young adult series like Harry Potter (seven parts) but is also frequent in adult genre fiction, like mystery, romance, and sci-fi. Comic books, another lover of mine, also utilize serialized story telling most of the time, often carrying on a narrative for years, sometimes decades. Each of these mediums knows the benefits of the serial, and has used the format with great skill for a long time, and certainly will continue to do so for years to come. But, in what is perhaps a great tragedy, no book, except maybe the Bible, the Koran, and the twilight series, will reach and affect the lives of as many people as the television.
I love both literature and comic books. I will always love to read. I don’t think I will ever be able to say that I love you, the television, more than I love to read. I love you both equally. But I think that not only have you accepted my love of literature, you have embraced it.
For I think it is time for us to begin thinking about my relationship with media as a polyamorous one. It is simply impossible to have a fulfilling relationship with you without having a passionate and loving relationship with literature and film, and to a certain extent, video games. Our love is just more satisfying when I can fully appreciate where you learned your mad skills. I won’t be jealous when you reference Dostoyevsky, Fellini, or Alan Moore. I’ll take it as a sign that you appreciate my intellectual promiscuity. And every time you mention a book I haven’t read or film I haven’t seen, I’ll know I need to spend some time with my other lovers.
We are in a relationship. This is not a blind love or an obsession, although it may be a healthy addiction. Neither of us is perfect. Our love takes work. You struggle to overcome societal norms and be a catalyst in changing how we view the world. I struggle to make it past the first thirty pages of Ulysses instead of watching reruns of Flavor of Love 2. You promise me that you’ll make an effort to portray strong women and non-stereotypical gays and main characters of color, and I promise I will work really hard in school so that some day I’ll have a job helping you fulfill that promise.
The future holds a lot for us. It’s going to be difficult. There’s lots of knowledge to be gained, prejudices to be broken, minds to be changed, hearts to be won. Then there’s your addiction to advertising money that must be healed. But you are a powerful tool that connects our lives and reflects our culture. You bring a continuous story into our homes, week by week, and spark discussion, community, and imagination. True, millions of viewers abuse their relationship with you, using their time with you as an opportunity to shut off their minds and forget about the world. But they haven’t learned to love you the way I do. And I do love you.
Love is always a frightening thing, especially when it involves an inanimate object. But I know what I feel for you is true, and that together, we’ll move mountains.
Friday, May 28, 2010
Friday, July 3, 2009
Moon Review
Moon is an example of what I hope we will see from the next generation of great filmmakers. The era of the twist ending, which brought us The Sixth Sense (good), The Usual Suspects (great), Memento (good), Fight Club (good), The Others (alright), Identity (so-so), and Secret Window (bleh), has reached it’s point of cliché. Now, if a crazy movie ends with the protagonist being split personality, dreaming, actually the bad guy, hallucinating, or a ghost, I can usually see it coming and feel a bit cheated. It’s a cop out. It’s almost a twist not to have a twist these days, and that’s how I felt about Moon.
Moon is about a man named Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) who has been working for three years mining some sort of clean energy resource on the moon. He is two week away from getting to go home, but after three years he’s unbearably lonely and maybe a little crazy. His troubles only get worse after he is involved in a mining accident and upon returning to the base, finds himself. Not in the backpacking across Europe way, but in the coming home to find a flesh and blood exact clone of yourself doing your work kind of way. He freaks a bit, understandably, but then teams up with himself to solve the mystery of why there are two Sam Bells (answer: Because Sam Rockwell is awesome and should form a seriously underrated actors club with Paul Giamatti).
I sat through Moon waiting for a twist I hoped wouldn’t come. I thought “Maybe he’s dreaming, maybe he’s crazy and actually locked in an asylum, maybe he’s part of a government social experiment.” He wasn’t. It was great.
This is a small, self-contained movie. The settings involve the inside of a space station, and the surface of the moon. Characters include Sam Bell the astronaut, played by Sam Rockwell, a second Sam Bell, also played by Sam Rockwell, video messages from Sam Bell’s wife, and a computer named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey, a truly inspired casting choice. There is elegance in the restraint involved in a low budget, high quality science fiction picture. The simplicity of the setting allows for us to focus on a subtly complex narrative.
It’s tricky, following a movie about clones where one of them isn’t evil. The second Sam Bell we meet is exactly the same as the first, with the same memories and knowledge. At first I thought we were just dealing with an unreliable narrator, like all the twist movies mentioned above, but it turns out we’re just dealing with two narrators that happen to be the exact same person. It’s slightly jarring, especially after watching old school Star Trek where Kirk being cloned or split into two people is a regular plot device, and there’s always evil Kirk and good Kirk. But ultimately I thought Moon really pulled it off conceptually, with several scenes of Sam talking to his double the same way he was talking to himself while he was still alone. There’s also a great scene where second Sam gets pissed about something and flies off the handle, and first Sam says something about how he now understands what his wife meant about his temper.
The one complaint I have about Moon is that it didn't feel as tight as it could have been. I think a couple minutes could have been shaved off here or there, scenes made slightly more direct. It’s the first film for director Duncan Jones (also responsible for the story idea) and screenwriter Nathan Parker (first time writing, but has been working in film for quite some time by the looks of his IMDB page) and I think it shows a bit in the editing. It’s like a really cool child’s Halloween costume that’s slightly too large, and all the neighbors go “Wow, great costume! Is it your first time making one?”
But it’s also clear that Jones comes from the same film canon that all future successful filmmakers will come from. Moon oozes Kubrick in the nicest ways, from the slightly awkward cross fade transitions in the first half of the movie that feel just like The Shining, to the several beautiful shots lifted directly from 2001. It gave me a feeling of comfort knowing that even if Jones' art is still a bit rough around the edges, he definitely has the tools to perfect it.
Also, the music by Clint Mansell (responsible for the music in Pi and Requiem for a Dream, among many other things) is great. And there were many lens flares, which I will never not notice in film ever again, thank you JJ Abrams.
Fun fact: Duncan Jones is David Bowie's son. His given name is Zowie Bowie, but he's changed it legally.
Moon is about a man named Sam Bell (Sam Rockwell) who has been working for three years mining some sort of clean energy resource on the moon. He is two week away from getting to go home, but after three years he’s unbearably lonely and maybe a little crazy. His troubles only get worse after he is involved in a mining accident and upon returning to the base, finds himself. Not in the backpacking across Europe way, but in the coming home to find a flesh and blood exact clone of yourself doing your work kind of way. He freaks a bit, understandably, but then teams up with himself to solve the mystery of why there are two Sam Bells (answer: Because Sam Rockwell is awesome and should form a seriously underrated actors club with Paul Giamatti).
I sat through Moon waiting for a twist I hoped wouldn’t come. I thought “Maybe he’s dreaming, maybe he’s crazy and actually locked in an asylum, maybe he’s part of a government social experiment.” He wasn’t. It was great.
This is a small, self-contained movie. The settings involve the inside of a space station, and the surface of the moon. Characters include Sam Bell the astronaut, played by Sam Rockwell, a second Sam Bell, also played by Sam Rockwell, video messages from Sam Bell’s wife, and a computer named GERTY, voiced by Kevin Spacey, a truly inspired casting choice. There is elegance in the restraint involved in a low budget, high quality science fiction picture. The simplicity of the setting allows for us to focus on a subtly complex narrative.
It’s tricky, following a movie about clones where one of them isn’t evil. The second Sam Bell we meet is exactly the same as the first, with the same memories and knowledge. At first I thought we were just dealing with an unreliable narrator, like all the twist movies mentioned above, but it turns out we’re just dealing with two narrators that happen to be the exact same person. It’s slightly jarring, especially after watching old school Star Trek where Kirk being cloned or split into two people is a regular plot device, and there’s always evil Kirk and good Kirk. But ultimately I thought Moon really pulled it off conceptually, with several scenes of Sam talking to his double the same way he was talking to himself while he was still alone. There’s also a great scene where second Sam gets pissed about something and flies off the handle, and first Sam says something about how he now understands what his wife meant about his temper.
The one complaint I have about Moon is that it didn't feel as tight as it could have been. I think a couple minutes could have been shaved off here or there, scenes made slightly more direct. It’s the first film for director Duncan Jones (also responsible for the story idea) and screenwriter Nathan Parker (first time writing, but has been working in film for quite some time by the looks of his IMDB page) and I think it shows a bit in the editing. It’s like a really cool child’s Halloween costume that’s slightly too large, and all the neighbors go “Wow, great costume! Is it your first time making one?”
But it’s also clear that Jones comes from the same film canon that all future successful filmmakers will come from. Moon oozes Kubrick in the nicest ways, from the slightly awkward cross fade transitions in the first half of the movie that feel just like The Shining, to the several beautiful shots lifted directly from 2001. It gave me a feeling of comfort knowing that even if Jones' art is still a bit rough around the edges, he definitely has the tools to perfect it.
Also, the music by Clint Mansell (responsible for the music in Pi and Requiem for a Dream, among many other things) is great. And there were many lens flares, which I will never not notice in film ever again, thank you JJ Abrams.
Fun fact: Duncan Jones is David Bowie's son. His given name is Zowie Bowie, but he's changed it legally.
Monday, June 29, 2009
Transformers: Rise of the Fallen Review
I don’t care if the dialogue sucks. I don’t care if the acting is terrible. I don’t care if the plot is nonexistent. I didn’t go see Transformers for its clever wit or emotional weight. I just want to see big fuck off robots change into cars and back, then beat the crap out of each other, and maybe destroy some large buildings or pyramids in the process. When there is more plot than robot carnage, the movie fails. Especially if the movie is two and a half hours long.
Shia LaBeouf goes to college. His parents are zany. Megan Fox is hot. Hey, look, all college girls are hot! The military is doing something, and someone is trying to stop them, Optimus Prime is shiny, there are some evil robots and some borderline racist robots (think Jar Jar Binks). LaBeouf’s roommate is zany, a hot coed is actually a robot, Optimus “dies,” more military stuff, John Turturro’s talent is wasted in an incredibly obnoxious character (what else is new?), and they go to -- Egypt? Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf have petty relationship drama. The parents and roommate continue to be zany. There is more military action that goes on forever, then a happy ending. There's simply not enough Optimus on Megatron action to make sitting through all that worth it. I don’t think any amount of robot fighting would make me want to sit through Fox and LaBeouf arguing over who says, “I love you” first. Who the hell cares?
The summer action blockbuster has never been a genre to strive for greatness, but there are films prove that you don’t have to be mind numbingly stupid to make money in the hotter months, especially in recent years with the comic book geek takeover in Hollywood. The first Spiderman, X-Men, and Pirates movies, last summer’s Ironman, the newest Star Trek, and of course, The Dark Knight, had action, adventure, explosions, and a plot that made sense, clever dialogue, and artful direction. I enjoyed the first Transformers movie. Was it a work of art? No. Was it a lot of fun? Yes. They have the money. They have the talent. A gazillion people are going to go see it no matter what. What excuse is there not to give us something really good?
I’m not sure who is to blame for this endless, boring monstrosity. The first suspects are certainly the writers, Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. However, Orci and Kurtzman are responsible for the newest Star Trek screenplay, which was fairly strong piece of writing (the movie was very strong, I think mostly thanks to J.J. and the existing canon). Maybe Transformers was just a paycheck for them, because there is an obvious lack of effort here. Or maybe they didn’t work very much on it at all and Kruger (The Brothers Grimm, The Skeleton Key, The Ring) is to blame. Orci and Kurtzman wrote the first Transformers movie as well, while Kruger is an addition for the sequel. Who knows why they brought on an extra person, why Kruger, or why it took three people to write this piece of drek. However, while this movie definitely suffers from bad writing, I don’t think that’s what killed it.
I truly believe that if an hour of people talking and traveling and running from stuff had been cut from this movie, I would’ve liked it. I would’ve been entertained instead of my brain turning to mush. And I don’t know who is responsible for not cutting this movie down significantly, Michael Bay or the four editors. I’m inclined to blame Michael Bay, because even if the editing was bad, as the director, he has the authority to change it. And because he made Armageddon and The Rock and should know better. And just look at his face. He just kind of looks like a douche.
Regardless of whom I direct my anger towards for not giving us a better movie about 80’s toys, this movie is rolling in the dough. And the more money this one makes, the less effort will be put into the next one. But all I want from a third Transformers movie is an hour and a half of really badass action sequences involving massive violent robots and rockets and mass destruction, without character development or comedic relief getting in the way (unless, of course, they decide to make it creative and witty). Is that so much to ask?
On a side note, the Untitled Star Trek Sequel will also bring on a third writer, but there is nothing to fear, because it’s Damon Lindelof. He’s awesome. And he wrote this: (WARNING: LOST SPOILERS)
Shia LaBeouf goes to college. His parents are zany. Megan Fox is hot. Hey, look, all college girls are hot! The military is doing something, and someone is trying to stop them, Optimus Prime is shiny, there are some evil robots and some borderline racist robots (think Jar Jar Binks). LaBeouf’s roommate is zany, a hot coed is actually a robot, Optimus “dies,” more military stuff, John Turturro’s talent is wasted in an incredibly obnoxious character (what else is new?), and they go to -- Egypt? Megan Fox and Shia LaBeouf have petty relationship drama. The parents and roommate continue to be zany. There is more military action that goes on forever, then a happy ending. There's simply not enough Optimus on Megatron action to make sitting through all that worth it. I don’t think any amount of robot fighting would make me want to sit through Fox and LaBeouf arguing over who says, “I love you” first. Who the hell cares?
The summer action blockbuster has never been a genre to strive for greatness, but there are films prove that you don’t have to be mind numbingly stupid to make money in the hotter months, especially in recent years with the comic book geek takeover in Hollywood. The first Spiderman, X-Men, and Pirates movies, last summer’s Ironman, the newest Star Trek, and of course, The Dark Knight, had action, adventure, explosions, and a plot that made sense, clever dialogue, and artful direction. I enjoyed the first Transformers movie. Was it a work of art? No. Was it a lot of fun? Yes. They have the money. They have the talent. A gazillion people are going to go see it no matter what. What excuse is there not to give us something really good?
I’m not sure who is to blame for this endless, boring monstrosity. The first suspects are certainly the writers, Ehren Kruger, Roberto Orci, and Alex Kurtzman. However, Orci and Kurtzman are responsible for the newest Star Trek screenplay, which was fairly strong piece of writing (the movie was very strong, I think mostly thanks to J.J. and the existing canon). Maybe Transformers was just a paycheck for them, because there is an obvious lack of effort here. Or maybe they didn’t work very much on it at all and Kruger (The Brothers Grimm, The Skeleton Key, The Ring) is to blame. Orci and Kurtzman wrote the first Transformers movie as well, while Kruger is an addition for the sequel. Who knows why they brought on an extra person, why Kruger, or why it took three people to write this piece of drek. However, while this movie definitely suffers from bad writing, I don’t think that’s what killed it.
I truly believe that if an hour of people talking and traveling and running from stuff had been cut from this movie, I would’ve liked it. I would’ve been entertained instead of my brain turning to mush. And I don’t know who is responsible for not cutting this movie down significantly, Michael Bay or the four editors. I’m inclined to blame Michael Bay, because even if the editing was bad, as the director, he has the authority to change it. And because he made Armageddon and The Rock and should know better. And just look at his face. He just kind of looks like a douche.
Regardless of whom I direct my anger towards for not giving us a better movie about 80’s toys, this movie is rolling in the dough. And the more money this one makes, the less effort will be put into the next one. But all I want from a third Transformers movie is an hour and a half of really badass action sequences involving massive violent robots and rockets and mass destruction, without character development or comedic relief getting in the way (unless, of course, they decide to make it creative and witty). Is that so much to ask?
On a side note, the Untitled Star Trek Sequel will also bring on a third writer, but there is nothing to fear, because it’s Damon Lindelof. He’s awesome. And he wrote this: (WARNING: LOST SPOILERS)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)