Tuesday 29 November 2011

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.

Sunday 20 November 2011

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.

Friday 11 November 2011

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!

Saturday 5 November 2011

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!