Insomnia

This thrilling drama draws you in to the mind of a detective deprived of sleep, burdened by guilt and dazed by the endless sunlight in far northern Alaska – and it’s a gripping crime story to boot!

From the mind behind Memento comes another film that deals with loaded psychological issues. The hook here is the setting – the town of Nightmute, Alaska, where the sun shines 24/7 in the warmer months. The issues are ones visited by Nolan time and again - guilt, justice, responsibility. Al Pacino plays Will Dormer, a detective of legendary stature sent north to assist local police on a particularly puzzling case, while back in LA he is under the scrutiny of Internal Affairs.

The film is basically a straightforward crime drama until half an hour in, when a chase through the Alaskan fog leads to an accident that changes the course of the investigation, and the film. The majority of the film deals with Wills struggle against the murderer, Walter Finch, despite his deteriorating state as he fails to sleep, night after night.

The performances here are fantastic, particularly Al Pacino as the bad-ass cop slowly coming apart and Robin Williams as a surprisingly chilling villain. The editing is nice, with recurring flashbacks that add to the mystery and atmosphere, especially the very creepy extreme close-up of blood drops soaking through a piece of fabric. For lovers of crime films, this is a must-watch thriller, with heavy atmosphere and surprising plot turns.

SPOILERS FOLLOW

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol

The fourth instalment in the 15 year spy series, leading man Tom Cruise brings back the action with spectacular flair. Balls-to-the-wall from start to finish, this spy adventure delivers the thrills, especially on the big screen. Watch this film, and enjoy.

First a few changes to my blog: Spoilers will now be placed 'after the jump'. Everything on the front page of the website, and the front page will be much more compact. Hopefully people are interested enough to click a single button to get to the meatier bits of whatever I'm talking about. Also, I'll write a summary of the film and my opinion at the head of each post, before the picture. I need to work on creating a hook for the post, and encourage people to start reading rather than blabbing on about never getting time to watch movies. Speaking of watching movies, I actually got up off my lazy arse and made it out to the cinema this week! Here's a review of something that's actually screening right now...

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. MI4, some may call it. If they keep at it a few more films, this series will be verging on Bond territory. In short: I loved it. In long: think The Incredibles in live action, with real(ish) people. Or Bourne, with high-tech gadgetry. Or Bond, with failing gadgetry. I'm not in a position to comment on how this film stands with the Mission series as a whole, but from what I've read, this is undoubtably the best of them. The pace is frantic, as the narrative thrusts us from one action set piece to the next, via some short expository interludes. The breathless pacing is matched in every scene by visceral and frenetic action, and more broadly by the urgency of the world-ending threat. This is something close to a perfect action movie. 

Characters have arcs, and a little time is given to each of them, but that's not the point. There's just enough backstory to understand where each member of the team is coming from, and to establish them as a tight group - with a dynamic that ranges from hilarious to occasionally tense, but consistently watchable and entertaining. Given the lack of character moments, the actors contribute hugely to creating this tight sense of belonging in our small group of hapless heroes.

What did I not like? Well, spoilers...

Paul

This post is late; I'm surprised how strongly I reacted to this film.

I'll say upfront that I haven't (yet) seen any of Simon Pegg and Nick Frosts' other collaborations, but by the sounds of it they are funnier than this one, and I definitely look forward to checking them out... eventually.

As for Paul, I'll keep the review brief then share a few thoughts about what stuck with me after the movie. A short history: Paul is the result of yet another collaboration (the third, I believe) between Nick Frost and Simon Pegg - although it is not counted in their 'Blood and Ice-cream trilogy' alongside Sean Of The Dead and Hot Fuzz. This is probably appropriate, as it doesn't appear to have garnered such high praise and classic status as those films. This may not be entirely their fault; reportedly there was some heavy studio intervention during pre-production on this film, in an effort to make it more 'mainstream', possibly to justify the cost of the CGI. The end result, however, still seems aimed squarely at a narrow audience of sci-fi nerds. The film is, essentially, a love letter to geekdom. And that's probably how it was originally intended.

Sadly, the film is just above average - with hints of potential greatness in some of it's ideas. It's funny, but I never laughed out loud (granted, I watched it alone). It drags a bit in the middle, although the last 20 minutes suddenly get very exciting. It's loaded to bursting with references to science fiction and pop culture, at least half of which went straight over my head. The way the alien is integrated into the the world of the story is extremely clever - in such a way that leaves the filmmakers free to rip off any alien movies they like, and have it make absolute sense. The concept is so great, and the execution is mostly adequate but there's something just a little off... I think Roger Ebert summed it up best: the problem lies in the character of Paul; he is, essentially, Seth Rogan with green skin.

SPOILERS FOLLOW:

Ok, so the main thing that resonated with me in the film was the subplot involving Ruth, the stereotypical naive fundamentalist christian girl, suddenly encountering this alien, and absorbing his knowledge in a faith-shattering experience. As a Christian, it's a little disappointing to see my faith on screen being represented as reprehensible, unlikable, unagreeable, narrow minded... The sort of things atheists accuse Christians of being over the internet, when they're more interested in stirring up a fight than having an actual argument. I'm not saying that all Christians are above this, but it's frustrating to see such deep and important issues reduced to Straw Man and Ad Hominim arguments (look them up).

This film has an overtly atheistic slant, poking fun at the extremity and hypocrisy of some christian sects (Jesus shooting Darwin??) and more generally poking fun at the idea of God, in a universe clearly driven by naturalistic mechanisms that have produced life separately, on more than one planet; Paul himself being the clearest evidence for this.

So my first reaction was just to be annoyed. Later, I found myself wondering about the themes of the film. Risk might be one of them; Paul encourages Graeme to 'roll the dice'; to take a chance. I thought it kind of surprising that Paul turns out to be... exactly who he says he is. Graeme puts his trust in him at the start - for no real reason other than to take that chance - and in the end finds his trust rewarded. His faith rewarded. That was it, this movie is about faith. That got me thinking.

Take the character of Paul; a being from another world, who imparts knowledge and demonstrates fantastic powers. He heals the blind, and sets the girl free from her confined life. He's persecuted by authorities, trusted by a few friends. Ultimately, he puts his life on the line in order to save his friend from death and ascends from earth... Need I go on? He's a perfect Jesus allegory! Down to the point that Ruth paraphrases the Bible, saying "Now I see". She means this literally in that her eye has been healed (Jesus reference) and metaphorically in that he has opened her mind to the reality of the universe, delivering her from the set ways of her old religion and, dare I say, freeing her from sin.

But I get the feeling that's not what they were going for. In bringing up God and aliens, though, it seems the film was going for a discussion of faith. These two nerds have a religion of their own, and Paul appears to them like a saviour. I'm sorry! Enough with the allegory. If we just examine the idea of faith from this film, what we see the 'true' faith of the nerds is rewarded completely. Paul is everything he claims to be, and becomes a great friend as well as a cool guy to hang out with. And it's this that makes the film, as almost every reviewer has called it, a 'sweet' film. There's no deception, there's no bitterness or cynicism; just a couple of dudes hanging out, with this other dude with green skin. This is about faith gone completely right. It may be overtly anti-religion, but underneath it seems to carry a different message; sometimes it pays to just have faith.

Batman Begins and The Dark Knight

I'm going to do something a little different this week. Firstly, since I was too busy to blog last week, I'm going to write a double post this week - on a series of movies that I love. Secondly, I'm going to start writing my post, then watch the two movies back to back, then finish writing with what stands out to me this time around (my fourth or fifth viewing). 

Some obligatory speculation on what the third instalment in this trilogy will bring will probably be included, but that's not what this post is about. This post is about appreciating a series which has elevated a 'mere' comic book into a spectacular tale interwoven with fantastic production values and deep explorations of themes. This is Christopher Nolans' Batman.

I'll start by saying I have very little history with Batman lore prior to these films. I saw Batman: The Animated Series a few times in my childhood, and I saw Batman action figures aplenty back then as well. I never saw Tim Burtons' films (but I think I remember seeing Batman Forever), and I certainly never saw the 60s serial. I learnt about all these after seeing Batman Begins. 

From what I understand, Spider Man was the movie that demonstrated how a comic book about a super hero had the potential to achieve commercial success as a blockbuster film, with huge crowd appeal and spectacular action. Batman Begins was the first time a comic book character achieved all that and could be taken seriously. The gritty realism in Batman Begins coupled with the believable characters, dark and serious themes and a powerful atmosphere made for a blockbuster that was unique, and thoughtful, unlike much of commercial Hollywood.

The Dark Knight was even more remarkable - firstly because it was a blockbuster sequel that deepened rather than destroyed the canon of the first film. But mostly because it took the comic book blockbuster to a whole new level of credibility. It carried on the themes, characters and world of the first film, but developed them from that origin story. It introduced new elements (most notably the Joker) to discuss different themes, as well as delivering more action and powerful drama. The film played like a conventional crime thriller, and despite the fact it was basically about a man in a bat costume fighting a clown, it was executed so well people were clamouring for a nomination for Best Picture.

There's a lot to be said about both of these films, especially The Dark Knight. My favourite discussion has to be from Christian podcast More Than One Lesson, which explores the underlying philosophies behind Batman and Joker, tracing the latter back to Frederick Nietzsche, and drawing comparisons between TDK and Lord Of The Flies.

And without further ado, I'm going to interrupt this blog with a screening for myself of the films in question. I will be back in a few hours to give my thoughts on the series as a whole, and whatever else springs to mind.

...

...

5 IN-MOVIE HOURS LATER... BRING ON THE SPOILERS!

...

...

Alright, I'm not going to try do this again. It's been 24 hours since I wrote the first half of this post, and spaced out across that time I have watched both Batman movies. Life just gets in the way of everything doesn't it.

I'll start with the big issues of Batman. Justice, for one, is laboured upon heavily in Begins, with the League of Shadows representing an absolute system of justice and punishment, while Batman forges his own path of compassion, intended to inspire redemption of the city. The second film focuses on the role of the hero - as times change, people begin to rise up against the corruption of their city (inspired by Batman), but begin to look to others, such as Harvey, to be the hero.

It is fascinating to see the transformation that goes on in Bruces' mind from grand idealism (in childhood, following his father) to mere vengeance (wanting to kill his parents murderers) to seeking justice (training with the League) to finding a balance between justice and compassion (inspired by Rachel, and in opposition to the League). In TDK he gets even further from his initial concept of justice, leaning more and more towards compassion for the people of Gotham. Eventually he sacrifices his own reputation in order to save that of Harvey Dents'. Jesus parallels abound, and the final montage of TDK sums up his position perfectly: people deserve to have their faith rewarded. Bruce realises that justice is not about revenge, not about balance, not even about himself, the hero, but the thing he started out to create; an idea. Batman symbolised the beginning of the end of corruption in the city, but could not see it through. He had to set aside his lone hero persona, in order to let Gotham save itself.

Initially, it seems, Harvey goes on a similar journey to Bruce Wayne; from the sweeping idealism of the political hero, the good man in the spotlight; to suddenly losing it all, and thirsting for revenge. Who knows, if given time and the right influence, maybe Two-face could have become more like Batman. But Gotham no longer needs Batman; they need a White Knight. And because Batman has taken responsibility for his crimes, Harvey is immortalised in the minds of the people as the ideal; the public face that they can aspire to be.

One scene in TDK reminds me of a video game. It's a shot that spins around the trio of Gordon, Harvey and Batman - in a way that's stylish and effective at presenting them as the three pillars of good in the city - but somehow feels a little like the cutscene right before a mission in a game. Gordon and Harvey argue, while the Batman silently watches; the player character. After some exposition, some character moments, some conflict, the pair of them turn to Batman as if to say 'we've laid it out for you, now go play the level.' Batman of course says yes, because that's always the answer video game heroes give. He then proceeds to Level 10: Hong Kong, where we witness our next action set piece. That's not a criticism, just an observation. Perhaps indicative of the way video games rely on the 'hero' concept for almost every story they tell.

But The Dark Knight shows us Batman as the perfect hero, in a way that most games, and most movies for that matter, don't. Batman is the perfect hero because when it comes time for him to step aside, he does so. More than that, he takes on a heavier burden to allow other people to continue what he started. He set his goals in Batman Begins - to become a symbol and to inspire people to stand against injustice - and stayed true to them to the point of self sacrifice. For most heroes, if it came down to something like that, their pride would get in the way.

It occurs to me now, I've pretty well finished my raving, I haven't said a thing about The Dark Knight Rises. Well, I have high hopes for the film. And having just watched these two, I'm all the more excited. I've heard talk about the idea that Batman may die at the end of the next film. I honestly can't tell whether or not that's something that Christopher Nolan might do! Or something he might want to do, but the studio would never allow. In any case, I feel like that ending would be (on the one hand) appropriate, to completely round out the story, carry the themes of justice and sacrifice, and bring a real gravity to the film. That is, of course, if it is executed well... doubtless it will be though. On the other hand, Batman is a character who should endure. The appropriate ending to a Batman movie is one like the other two we've received; the Dark Knight overcomes all obstacles and ends up standing on a rooftop, surveying his city, which he will continue to defend. Of course, the discussion of Batman passing on his mantle in TDK casts some doubt on that ending, and TDKs ending itself carried some implications for Batman that are bound to make the next film completely and utterly unique, even amongst these two already different films.

In sum: I don't know what's coming, but I sure look forward to it. Batman has lived long enough to see himself become the villain... and don't we all want to know what he'll do next!

Firefly (so far)

Note to self: stop procrastinating and write the thing on the day it's due. Or write in advance and publish on time!

I haven't finished Firefly yet, but my viewing of it has been spread out across such a long time, I think if I get a few thoughts out now, I can do a post about the series (or the movie) later to wrap things up. For now; my impressions and my questions.

Firstly what I think of the show: love it. When my girlfriend and I started dating we decided to watch some favourite TV series together. I chose Trigun (definitely worth a post in the future) and she chose to show me Firefly (Buffy being her true favourite). Interesting that they both be Sci-Fi Westerns, albeit completely different in style. In a word, Firefly is brilliant. The setting is interesting and well fleshed out, characters have great personality brought on by a fantastic cast with solid writing - I understand Joss Whedon is a bit of a legend of television. I know it's old, but the whole show feels utterly fresh to me, and the blend of old styles, new ideas, and random eccentricities of speech thrown in is so great, and the story thus far is engaging as well.

If you haven't seen this beloved Sci-Fi classic, and have any interest in the genre at all, give it a watch. I can't speak for the second half, but at least the first is well worth checking out.

I THINK THAT'S ALL I CAN SAY WITHOUT SPOILING THINGS, SO HERE GOES...

Today I watched the episode "Ariel", the 9th in the series. If you include Serenity, thats probably the halfway point, right? I'm really looking forward to getting some answers from the remainder of the show/film. What happened to River, and why? What kind of powers has she got, and what will she do with them? I know the Reapers will come back, and presumably those men in blue gloves (two great, creepy and threatening villains), how will that pan out? I already know there is lots of shooting and space battles involved. Does team Serenity win? I guess that's a given, but will they all survive? And the ship?

The character of Mal is an interesting one, as a hero. In a scene I watched today, he knocked his treacherous crew mate out, threw him into the airlock and threatened (very seriously) to shoot him off into space as they left the atmosphere. That's pretty brutal. But, necessary? It certainly was a heinous betrayal, and the ordeal no doubt got the message across. Mal is in many ways an admirable leader; true to his word, compassionate towards his crew, if only in secret. He's tough on those who oppose him, but considerate to those who are vulnerable. Perhaps his trouble is that he's too honest with the kind of scum-of-the-universe that he deals with (I don't think any heist they've attempted has gone smoothly), and he's too closed about his compassion for those around him; expressing it only reluctantly, or in anger.

Where am I going with this? I don't know, but I think he's my favourite character in the show, and it will be great to see how he fares throughout the remainder of it. I expect to see some serious bad-assness, as well as some touching moments - though I'm not sure if he can ever get the girl. Something about that wouldn't sit quite right; he's too independent and headstrong to be able to depend on anyone else. Of course he has this flirty thing going on with Inara, but I think in order to develop that relationship he would have to embrace a completely different side of his character - one that she loves but he's hesitant to acknowledge.

Or I'm just rambling. Will post an update as the series draws to a close, for me at least.

Twilight: Breaking Dawn

No, I don't care that its full name is The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn Part 1. That is not a snappy title for a blog post. Or a movie, for that matter.

So it is I'll admit, with only a twinge of shame, that I saw Breaking Dawn the other night (instead of writing my blog post on time!). Wasn't sure what I was going to write about anyway, so since I've gone and done it I might as well review a popular new release film. I actually enjoyed my experience in the cinema watching this - perhaps in part because my local Hoyts just opened up a new and especially large screen in time for it. Also, I'm grateful that my girlfriend is not a die-hard fan of the series, so if I feel the need to laugh at a scene, she'll just slap me and smirk.

For the purpose of this review, I'll assume a little familiarity with the Twilight franchise, as I'm sure most people probably have. I've only seen the first two movies myself, and never read the books. I'll start with what I liked about Breaking Dawn...

Firstly: the Dad. I liked him from the very first film - not only does he have the best one liners in all the movies (I know he'll be a good husband... Because I own a gun.), but he's the only character I find that I really sympathise with emotionally. As he walks her down the aisle in an early scene, I could feel the conflict inside of him more than whatever Bella was feeling. You can see it in his eyes; he isn't completely sure about the wedding, but he wants his daughter to be happy, and he wants to trust her judgement.

WARNING: SPOILERS FOLLOW (AS IF YOU DON'T ALREADY KNOW WHAT HAPPENS)

There are also two scenes in particular that stand out as awesomely intense - at least in the theatre I was in. One scene when Jacob is fleeing in anger (his main purpose in this film) and Bella... psychically calls him... or something? I don't know, but it was confusing and cool, even if I'm not sure there was a purpose to it. It's solid, well-directed filmmaking, at least for these scenes. The other is the delivery scene, which is pretty graphic and really intense for a series aimed at kids. The sound, the blurriness, the confusion, the imagery, the heavy red saturation... it's a well cut sequence which delivers the horror without the gore of a cross-bred monster tearing its mother apart from the inside. Mind you, once she's out, she's really not that much of a monster. She looks like a normal, albeit 2-month-old, newborn.

And having seen that bit where her back snaps as she goes into labor, I cringe every time I read the title... "Breaking Dawn"

Ok, what was bad? A lot. But I'll try and focus on what stood out for me the most: character relationships.

I may have missed a lot of this love triangle drama in the third film, but what is up with Bella and Jacob? Every scene that these two are in together is really uncomfortable... especially if Edward is also there. I gather they are supposed to be friends? Why do they dance so close, snuggle so much, and have whatever psychic connection nonsense? If she knows how frustrated he is that he can't have her, why does she lead him on like that? If he knows she's just going to tease him, why does he keep coming back? When Edward and Jacob interact it's fine. It's like two dudes have to get stuff done, and they might have some history, but whatever, they're dudes. Bella just brings in an uncomfortable, disconcerting group dynamic whenever she's with them.

In fact, everyone seems so desperate to stick their neck out for Bella... BUT WHY?? She's being stupid and stubborn about something that's dangerous to herself and others. It's like bad news doesn't affect her - in her mind, as long as she acts tough and sees it through it will all be fine. Her well thought-out retort to Jacobs attempts to reason with her is "Everything will be alright." Even in the face of the doctor saying "It will kill you before you can give birth", she's straight down the line. What happened to that anyway? The movie seemed to just ignore that seemingly solid piece of evidence, and proceed with a deus ex machina series of coincidences which systematically saves everyone, and resolves everything peacefully. Don't worry young girls, if you're stubborn enough, the world will be a happier place. Goodness comes from wanting things your way, and getting it.

In short; I don't hate Twilight. What I hate are the lessons that it teaches, and the fact that this franchise is so astoundingly popular. It's not even that surprising, but it is tragic.

PS. Ranting is fun! I hit 800 words... I'm not very good at this cap thing.

Grand Theft Auto IV

Or, a short reflection on storytelling in video games, and the gangster genre.

I know the trailer for GTA 5 just came out, but I still haven't finished the last game! As such, I've been playing it incessantly. And I'm picking up more than ever on its similarities to films in the gangster genre - and films in general for that matter. For those who don't know, the Grand Theft Auto franchise is over 14 years old; it's a video game series known for allowing players to commit acts of theft and violence in a realistic open world, emphasising free play and exploration, although there are always main objectives and side quests to be completed. More recent instalments have woven in a central story to the missions. I haven't played a whole lot of GTA - I played San Andreas a little on the PS2, but only picked up GTA 4 last year, because it was 75% off on Steam.

Best. Value. Ever.

Not only is the open world format ridiculously fun, and can soak up hours of time, but the main storyline is lengthy as anything, and thoroughly engaging... at least, as far as I'm up to. In terms of films, the game obviously has a lot in common with the gangster genre (Although this morning I played a mission which felt like a re-enactment of the truck scene from Raiders!). The main character, Niko, rises through the ranks of the underworld, coming into contact with a number of archetypal gangster film characters - from the Italian mafia, to the Irish family, the corrupt cop, to the prison-hardened black man. Everybody has enemies, and dirty work that needs doing.

Like Goodfellas, GTA 4 take us through life in 'the business', - drawing the player in to the mind of Niko. He does bad things, but he's a sympathetic character, and one to be identified with, in cutscenes at least. Interactivity is a crucially unique aspect of video games - decisions that can affect the story help involve the player in a way that film simply can't. Choices like whether to kill or spare a character, or who to side with can affect the way the narrative plays out, which makes for a far more interesting and potentially complex experience. To be honest, I don't know exactly how much the little choices matter in this game (at least not yet), but as I'm going through, it's certainly giving me the feel of control over the story, and a chance to affect the outcome. Exactly how, I'm not sure. I'm not there yet.

My one criticism with the narrative of GTA 4 is that its thrust is utterly deflated after almost every mission. The problem (in the broadest sense of the term) is that the game is too fun. The random stuff you can do in an open world like this is compelling enough to warrant hours upon hours of free-play, and (in my case at least), it may be several sessions before you get around to continuing with the storyline. The immediate tension of the plot is lost due to the nature of both the episodic open-world gameplay, and the lengthiness of the story itself, that demands several sittings. This was particularly frustrating when I picked up the game after several months break, to be confronted with the choice to kill on or the other of two brothers who had each been instructing me in the past few missions. I couldn't remember what either of their relations were to other characters, or which one I actually liked the more. Apparently one of them was sick? I don't remember. I spared the one who I vaguely remember giving me more interesting quests in the past. Unfortunately, thats where his mission path ended, so I feel like I made the wrong decision.

But this also speaks to the potential for games as narrative devices: I care about Niko, and the people around him; I am invested in this story, and I want to see it through to the end. Games are more and more frequently mining the potential for story-telling through interactive gameplay. I haven't played Heavy Rain, but it sounds like a fascinating experiment in this kind of innovation; other games by Rockstar have developed on other genres (like the western and film noir/crime). By and large, right now, games tell crap stories. Usually it's an excuse to blow things up and kill people. But GTA feels just a little more complex then that. Apart from all the shooting and mayhem in between, GTA 4's storyline holds up as one great trip through gangster world. delivering what film has been called upon to provide in the past: an escape from reality, wrapped up in a cathartic emotional journey.

Gee, I hope the ending for this game is good!

Memento

This might be my favourite movie. Ever.

It's one of those movies that, if you're not prepared for what you're in for, will blow you away. And if you don't understand it the first time (and you certainly won't), the second time will blow you away again. I've seen it three times now, and every time I see it I feel like I appreciate a bit more about the characters, the construction of the world, the style of the filmmaking, the complexity of the narrative, the themes explored elegantly in the tight, tense script. Watching this movie made Christopher Nolan my favourite director of all time, and I've loved everything he's done to varying degrees (although Insomnia is on my 'to watch' pile), but Memento is my absolute favourite.

If you have watched it, and don't feel like you understand it, This Article from Salon.com may just shed some light on it. It breaks the film down scene-by-scene, and lays out the character motivations, etc. Theres also some reflection on the meaning of the film, that should get your brain-cogs a-turning. I remember reading this years ago when I first saw it, and being almost as stunned by it as the movie itself.

Moving on: this, my third time viewing Memento, was in light of the maturity and broader perspective university allegedly endows you with, and a few things in particular clicked for me. First was the label of 'neo-noir'. If you're like me, you might have heard the term 'film noir' before. You might have thought 'gee, that sounds cool, why can't they make more of those these days?'. Y'know, the private detective, the gravelly voice over, dark urban setting, striking lines, heavy tone... I guess the thing I never quite grasped about noir is that it is a dark, dark genre. Morbid even. Cynical, certainly. I never understood why they were only made in the early hollywood days and not now. I guess the answer is: nobody wants that much depressing cinema in their lives nowadays. Film noir expresses a vision of the world that is dark, bleak, brutal, and harsh. This may not come across so strongly in older Hollywood as it does now in what have been labelled neo-noir films; new noir. Films like Sin City, parts of Watchmen and, of course, Memento, carry many of the tropes of the genre. Memento features an investigator protagonist who narrates to us through the telephone. He is cynical and paranoid, yet is seduced and screwed over by a femme fatale, Natalie. Blinds, harsh lines and light are featured prominently, and some scenes are even shot in black-and-white; a direct throwback to the noirs of the 40s. Memento embodies everything that the film noir once was... but completely turns it on its head with its transcendent style and heavy substance. This film, I would suggest, is the very definition of 'neo-noir'.

Perhaps if I type fast enough, my word count won't keep up with me?

THE SPOILERS ARE DOWN HERE.

The second thing that struck me was the way in which Leonard's world is constructed; the way it is conveyed to us, and the way it is used to reflect the kind of worlds we all live in... the ones we make for ourselves. I'll be short on this one: theres a line right at the end where Leonard says "I have to believe in a world outside my own mind". The problem being, as we shocked viewers sit there realising at this point, is that the world he thinks is outside is a fabrication. He believes Teddy is his target only because he falsely led himself to believe so. Teddy on the other hand, sees a guy with a problem, and turns him into an opportunity to profit from a scam. What I'm saying is: if you approach the film with the thought in mind: how does the way Leonard constructs a world for himself reflect the way we as individuals construct our own world? How much of what we perceive comes from what we construct for ourselves to perceive?... I could elaborate on this all day, but I've blown my word limit, I need to call it sometime.

Theres so much to be said and thought about in this movie. It deserve repeat viewing time and again. Works best with someone who hasn't seen it before - just don't give it away!

Dude, Where's My Car?

Grr! I've failed! 4 weeks in and I've missed the deadline. I think thats a pretty good effort...
Note to self: plan better in advance for busy weekends.
Note to self #2: next weekend is also very busy.

So, I watched a bunch of movies this past week, some crap ones and some amazing ones, and some in between. My film class watched Indy Jones, but I think I'll have to take a rain check on writing about it - possibly do a post on the entire trilogy (the originals). The film I really wanna talk about today is Dude, Where's My Car.

This movie is... not a masterpiece. To say the least. But it is interesting, in a bizarre sort of way. I've never taken pot, but I get the feeling that if I did, life would kinda be like this film. I've heard it described as a gross-out comedy, but it really isn't. I've also heard it compared to Waynes World, which might be more apt (I haven't seen that movie for too long). It's basically a friendly, dumb, trip out tale of some dudes being dudes.


The plot revolves around Jesse and Chester. They live together, possibly with another dude who lives in the closet and only comes out once a day to pee in the pot plant. Theres pretty much no point in including his one scene in the movie. They wake up to find that after a night of partying, their fridge is full of pudding, they've trashed their twin girlfriends' house, and Jesses car is missing. Also, aliens are involved. If you haven't seen this movie, and this premise entertained you at least mildly, then it's probably worth your time to watch it, so long as you're with the right group. If reading this made you groan, you will hate the experience.

SPOILERS FOLLOW, but I'll try not to ruin any of the gags.

For me, my inner wannabe-film-critic was in a constant state of dissatisfied mumbling about consistency, character, plot development, bad writing, bad acting and bad effects. But, I managed to tune out of that part of my mind, and come along for the ride. There are things to appreciate in this film.

Lets start with some basic pretentious film interpretation: This movie puts you into the mind of its characters. By the end of this film, you could well be disappointed by its blatant regression to the cliche: "It was all just a dream... OR WAS IT?". But of course, we know it was all a dream. We sane people watching this film know that the things that play out in this film are utterly ridiculous, and given that the main characters are established as stoners, theres a good chance that none of it is real, and they're high as a kite the whole film. It's the kind of nonsense you might expect these two to talk about, and imagine are happening, in the car on their way to meet their girlfriends. But it's more than that; the film gives you a sense of what it's like to be these characters, while they're on their trip. Theres a kind of naive warm-heartedness with which they approach every obstacle in their path. When they get arrested and threatened by police, the pair act innocent until one of the cops recognises them. When said cop accidentally impounds their car and has it sold, they laugh it off and hop along on their quest to retrieve it. The two leads do play an excellent and charismatic bromance, that really conveys the sense of dumb fun that the movie requires of you to enjoy it.

I actually love how it starts out with an almost-realism about it, before it goes completely wacky. The real crazy stuff gets introduced slowly, and built upon, until it climaxes in an orgy of ridiculousness, thats so laughably lame you can't help but smile at it. The film is about escapism; going along for a ride, without fear or rationality, just pure dumb fun. If you do plan to watch it, check you're brain at the door,  bring some friends with you, and just be dumb together.

The Wedding Of River Song (and Doctor Who Series 6)

I'm going to start out with a short review of this episode, then add a spoiler tag before I talk about the series as a whole. I'm also going to go ahead and bump up my word limit a bit. Since we're talking about a TV series that is at least 10 times the length of an average film, I'll assume it's reasonable to devote double my normal words to it.

To set the scene: I am not quite old enough to be a long time fan of Dr Who, but as a child I did watch bits and pieces of the old series as they were rebroadcast. I tuned in at the start of the new series, and was quite dazzled by the newness of it. I wasn't a mad fan though, and although I watched most of the following series, I wasn't hooked and I didn't follow that closely.
What got my attention was Steven Moffat (who, in my mind, always seems to be spelt 'Stephen'. Weird.) Both for his excellent contributions to the Dr Who series, and for his other stuff. I didn't see much of Coupling, but Sherlock was brilliant. So when I found out he was to be show-runner, I started to give it some attention. His first full series was probably the best of the bunch... until this one came along. That said, there's plenty of holes to plot and nits to pick, so I'll get stuck straight in.

The Wedding of River Song is one of the most confusing experiences I've had watching a TV show. All those weeks of building up suspense, and showing those crazy ads (WHOA, pterodactyls? in Dr Who?), and they finally let us in to... whatever this world is. Everything is mushed together like some kind of living history museum where somebody's jumbled up all the facts just for fun.

It's a bit jarring, and strange, but it becomes clearer as it goes on, and I do find this episode to be very intriguing to consider as a series final. Usually there's more hype. There's more grandiose claims about the survival of the universe - there's more 'universe' shown to us to be in peril. Here the grand special effects serve the purpose of building up the world, rather than adding to the 'ultimate-ness' of the ending. Right up front, all the show and fluff merely sets the scene for what really boils down to a very convoluted answer to the question 'does the Doctor really die?'.

If you've watched Dr Who for any length of time, you should already know the answer to that.

The extra bits are fun though. It's great to see more of the Silence, even though they're far better suited to the eerie bits of the Impossible Astronaut/Day of the Moon two-parter. References to past Dr Who, from this season and others, and from other material as well (the Dickens reference was particularly clever, both referencing Who lore, and reinforcing the strangeness of the world). Interactions between characters are entertaining, and while the resolution is a little questionable, the focus on character and engaging story are a welcome break from the bloated end-of-reality-time-space-everything-disaster stories seen in seasons past.

SPOILERS, FROM THIS POINT ON (FOR THE ENTIRE 6TH SERIES)

Let's get to that resolution, shall we?

All that extra storytelling explains what? The Tessalecta impersonated the Doctor, and was shot by River in Utah. I've been uncertain throughout the whole series about how satisfyingly they would be able to pull off the Doctors' escape from apparent death. All in all, I am still uncertain about this conclusion. It's easy to say it's a cop out - just a man in a robot suit, not very surprising or interesting. It makes me wonder why the Doctor even had to be on the beach then? To control the robot so it acted like him I suppose, but at one point he also says that 'Time demanded that I be on that beach at that moment'. Makes me wonder who this Time person is and how he controls everything in the universe? (There doesn't seem to exist a God in Dr Who canon, except for the Doctor of course). Seriously, why does he have to be there? What is a 'fixed point in time'? How is one created? How does one know when one happens? How can free will interfere if it is 'fixed'?

Brushing that aside, this conclusion has some pretty intriguing implications for the series. The Doctor has been seen as a messianic figure a few times more than once in the past 6 series. He's travelled everywhere across parallel dimensions and alternate galaxies, has conquered foes that threatened to destroy existence itself, has had dozens upon dozens of inspiring speeches said about him... and just generally, it seems, the universe relies on him way too much. I thought this show started out as being about a simple traveller who went places?

I digress: implications! With the universe believing the Doctor to be dead and gone, what shall he do now? Obviously theres a whole lot of questions still to be answered, about the fields of Trenzelor, and the fall of the eleventh (the eleventh Doctor, perhaps?). But for the Doctor, this will mean a chance to just kick back and relax with the whole 'saving the universe every other weekend' thing. Perhaps for the show this will mean a return to simple, small-scale stories. Perhaps, like this year, they will be driven by the characters (All of which were great, by the way). I hope they take this opportunity to really delve into the Doctors' character; what makes him tick?

The fact that the question is the first, the oldest, and is hidden in plain sight, and is in fact the very title of the show perhaps points to a highly self-reflexive season next year. Maybe the Doctor will realise that he is the very reason that this universe exists - that everything around him was invented for him by screenwriters and novelists, and his entire life, all he's ever known is in fact a television show broadcast to millions worldwide! Man, if only that were Tru.

Maybe all this hype is around the reveal of his name. I hope not. That would be dumb.

Other loose ends continue to hang. Madame Kovarian was only killed in the aborted timeline; she and the rest of the Silence still loom in the distance. I think series five never got round to explaining why the Tardis blew up. Considering this series was all about how the Doctor both escapes death and the attention of the universe, perhaps that's something he might now wish to follow up on. Maybe he did follow up on it in the 200 years of his timeline that transpired. That seems like an awful lot, doesn't it? Lots of gaps that could be filled in.

It's hard to say what the next series will bring along, but there's plenty of ways it could go, and although it could slide down a dangerously canon-crushing (or worse, uninteresting) path, there is potential here for something amazing, and I look forward to tuning in next year!

The Lightbulb Conspiracy

Once upon a time..... products were made to last. Then, at the beginning of the 1920s, a group of businessmen were struck by the following insight: 'A product that refuses to wear out is a tragedy of business'. Thus, Planned Obsolescence was born...

Ok, this one's a bit obscure. I finally got around to watching a few short films from a festival that my friend gave to me. This one was an hour long - not what I expected when I sat down for a few minutes of down time, but I resolved to watch the beginning. To my surprise, it was thoroughly engaging and insightful, breakdown of the driving forces and dark secrets behind the capitalist economy that runs our society (or, at any rate, mine).

The documentary begins with an ordinary Barcelonan man trying to print something with his Epson. But the printer isn't working! Best get a new one, all the technology shops say. A part in it needs replacing, but to do so would cost more than it's worth. As the man embarks on a quest to restore his printer to functionality - a printer with not a thing wrong with it other than a full ink overflow - the film explores the origins and effects of Planned Obsolescence.

You may not have heard of Planned Obsolescence, but if you live in a developed society, you most definitely would have experienced it. It's the concept of every thing that you purchase having an "expiry date". Even though it could be designed to last for longer, it has been intentionally built to break after a certain period, to encourage consumers to buy a new one. Another definition given to us is the "desire on the part of the consumer to own something a little newer, a little sooner than is necessary..." The film explains that it all began with the first mass-market light bulbs, when the leading manufacturers got together and agreed that the limit for a light bulbs life span should be universally set at 1000 hours (prior to this, 2500+ hours had been achieved). This meant that the customers would be forced to purchase a new bulb more often, making them more money.

Although at first the film seems to finger-point at the big businesses and corporations behind this seemingly sinister suggestion, it isn't afraid to examine the issue more thoroughly, and delve deeper into what the concept meant for the industrialized world. In America, it was the adoption of Planned Obsolescence on a broader scale - from cars to fridges to stockings - that revitalised the economy, and pulled them out of the great depression. In East Germany and other socialist states, the hardy made-to-last products that suited the communist economy couldn't hold up in a capitalist market, where spending drives growth, and growth is the ultimate objective. 100 000 hour bulbs now only exist in museums. Ultimately, it is society that is to blame, and every individual that takes part in it.

What comes to mind is a quote I learnt from Civilization IV, which baffled me when I first heard it:
"The bureaucracy must expand to meet the needs of the expanding bureaucracy"

In a fascinating and poignant final segment, the movie then follows massive shipping containers of 'broken' technology out of America and accross the ocean into third-world Africa. There we see a society whose home has become a waste dump for our excess; the more we grow, the more these people must strive.

In sum: the film is challenging, and engaging, and if you didn't zone out when I mentioned capitalist economy (or even if you did, and you skipped to the end to read the summary), look for a chance to check it out. It's shorter than a full length movie, but will make you think harder. And if there's any hope of getting ourselves out of this rut, it's going to take a lot of thinking...

The Shining

So, it's 2 minutes to midnight on Saturday night... If I start writing now it still counts as on time, right? :)

This week I didn't watch any movies that I was desperate to relive. Instead, because my film class is focussed on Horror movies this week, I watched The Shining. In fact, I watched it twice. The first time was supposed to be in class, but I skipped class that day, and watched it alone, at night instead.

Crap, that was a bad idea. Didn't sleep well at all - had visions all night of creepy twins, and a river of blood... I have to say that this is one of the most unpleasant experiences I've had watching a movie, while at the same time it is such an admirably well-made film. The absolute highlight for me was that cascade of blood; possibly the most arresting image I've ever seen on the screen. I had seen it before, on youtube, but in the context of the film it's used to great effect, and it never seems to get old, or less disturbing, no matter how many times it's shown.

In fact, I thought I'd show it to my girlfriend - she loves horror movies - to see if she thought it was as incredible as I did. The moment she saw it she said "We're watching this. Now." So, I sat through this disturbing flick a second time in the same week. It's amazing that even when you know what's coming, the movie is powerful enough to keep you as unsettled as the first watch. Redrum is now our catchphrase.

HERE ONWARDS BE SPOILERS!!

Taking a cue from the Slashfilmcast (probably my favourite movie podcast), I just threw that tag up there to let you know: I'm going to talk about the ending, and other plot details of the film, so if you haven't seen it, read no further. Mind you, I read the plot summary of The Shining on wikipedia years ago; It's not the twists of plot that gets to you, it's the heavy, heavy atmosphere.

One other moment that sticks out for me is when Jack starts screaming in his sleep, and awakes frantic. He looks genuinely frightened as he describes the horrible things he did in his nightmare to his wife. I'm not a father, but having a baby sister, and being a committed boyfriend, I can empathise with the kind of terror that would strike a father at the thought of losing his mind and striking out against the people that depend on you to protect them. I see this scene as a rare moment of sanity for Jack, on his slippery slope into madness, when he suddenly realises that the visions he's seeing are horrible, and desperately seeks a reprieve in his ever-commited wife.

Now, the movie does imply (very definitely in the extended version) that Jack is not a great father; an alcoholic and abusive man, who doesn't care for his family, despite Wendy's incessant loyalty. It's this checkered past in their relationship that makes her turn on him in his time of need, accusing him, quite reasonably, of injuring Danny. Although it is a sad moment of misunderstanding, and perhaps Jack wouldn't have gone quite so mad if she'd stuck with him in that moment (he then proceeds, frustrated, to get an invisible drink from the imaginary bartender; his first vision that ultimately leads to his rampage), in a way it is his own fault, for the way he's treated them in the past.

If you're like me, and wondering what the hell was up with all that craziness at the end (like the visions that Wendy sees, and the motivation behind the ghosts), the book is much less ambiguous, and from what I gathered from Wikipedia, it goes thus:

The Overlook hotel is in fact a psychic entity itself. When Danny arrives, it seeks to obtain his psychic power by killing him. It sends him visions, trying to break him, but he defends himself through his split personality - Tony is like the psychic aspect of himself. Failing that, the hotel attacks Jack, playing off his flaws, to drive him to do it's bidding, i.e., go mad and kill his family (namely Danny). When Halloran is murdered, the hotel absorbs his psychic power, which allows Wendy to see the 'ghosts'.

In sum, the film is a masterpiece, with some harrowing and unsettling imagery and music (Oh the music!), wrapped up in a plot that's both simple and subtly ambiguous. It could be read any number of ways, and the themes in it are powerful, and worth dwelling upon. I've only really offered a taste of the potential for reading this movie, but I guess that's the point of only writing snippets.
800 words. Too many. I'm off to bed.
Redrum.

Snippets

Ok, I created this blog because my last one sort of flopped, and here is why:

• Because I didn't give myself any deadlines - only a vague promise to update once a month.
• Because I ambitiously thought that I would be patient enough to write 1000+ words per post, much less have somebody else read them!
• Because I limited myself to talking about things that I like. It's much easier to talk about things when you don't like them. Strange.

So, Snippets has some new rules for me to stick to, and you dear reader to enforce:

1. Once a week, every week. Something must be posted.
2. 300-500 words - give or take. Short and easy to read.
3. Love or hate, this is a blog for expressing all sorts of thoughts. Except long ones. Too much effort.

I will post here every week, on a specific day (Possibly Saturday, since that's when I'm starting, but it's my prerogative if I want to change) with a Snippet of my thoughts about a film or show or something that I've seen. Hopefully they won't devolve into a weekly recap of whatever show I'm obsessed with at the time - but again, my prerogative (Right now Dr Who is dishing out some solid stuff, but never fear, the series will be over soon)

The purpose of this is to hone my writing skills (Ha! As if I don't write enough in class...) and to open up my brain and empty some of it out on the keyboard every week. I'm not writing formally, I'm writing however the hell I like, to whoever reads it. Although, I do try to follow the laws of grammar. Mostly. I swear, I will deviate only rarely from the strict formalities of essay writing, and only when I feel it's appropriate.

If anyone happens to stumble across this, I guess I'd better welcome you. Welcome! This is my blog of my thoughts, but I do appreciate any feedback you deem fitting to leave. Comments that promote discussion are preferred, although encouragement is also good, and if you feel the need to criticise at least do it constructively. Spam and haters are pretty bad, but if they're shooting at me, I must be doing something right, right?

So, if you are skilled (and kind) enough to encourage me with a constructive criticism that provokes a discussion, I will put you in a special little virtual box that says 'This One Is Listening'. And I'll give you a virtual medal.

I'm rambling, I know, and probably not very entertainingly, but it's only so I can pad out this initial post to the 500 word objective. I've covered all the important stuff already, so I'm kind of just procrastinating. Right now I have a 2000 word research essay looming which I haven't started writing in earnest. I'm finding it much easier to write nonsensical crap about nothing in particular than to formulate and pose an argument. And what are blogs for if not to spread nonsensical crap?

Or maybe I'm looking at this the wrong way? Maybe this little tangent (starting a blog and committing myself to a weekly deadline of additional writing from here on out) is just a warm-up, and now I'm going to completely rip through this essay? In any case, I'm over my limit now.

Here's to yet another opinion out there on the internet!

(Only this one's different, because it's mine :P)