Pages

Monday, May 20, 2013

SWEET LORD: John Wayne is enormous!


Add it to the litany of standard cultural tropes that I somehow missed out on: John Wayne is huge! Obviously The Duke casts a broad shadow across film history. But that is hardly what I mean. Now, I am not an expert on floor design and foundation planning on the Texas frontier, but unless there is a detailed historical record explaining how farmhouses maintained drastically tiered floors, then Wayne absolutely towers over other cast members. Some light research indicates that Wayne's stature played no small part (get it?) in his role as an American icon of masculinity. Huh. So there's that.

That being said, this is not the place to discuss the problematic nature of traditional models of masculinity, of which Wayne may have been the pinnacle, and its potentially pernicious effect on estimations of the self-worth of the American male in an increasingly depersonalized, industrialized, fluorescently-lit, perhaps even effete, modern society. I am sure that has all been done. We are nothing if not original.

It just so happens that I recently read a history that John Ford's The Searchers was at least partially based upon. The raids of the Comanche on the Texas frontier were legendary for their pugnacity and brutality. No embellishment is required to convey the terror with which the horse tribes kept settlers and soldiers along the edges of Llano Estacado. Likewise, the tales told upon the return of those few who were taken captive and survived gained permanent place within American cultural mythology. Foremost among these was the life of Cynthia Ann Parker, who would be sought-for by her uncle for some 24 years. The rub, perhaps hardly fit for Hollywood, is that Parker's eventual return to 'society' was marked with a deep unhappiness for the rest of her life. She had lived longer in the highlands of Comancheria than with the, long-since massacred, Parkers. Cynthia Ann, or Nadua, felt a deep and abiding kinship to her adopted Comanche family. She had married, had children (her son Quanah was to become a, perhaps the final, great chief of the Noconis band) and lived within a close-knit community that welcomed her as one of their own. Knowing this history, though the film departs greatly from its actuality, deepens what is already an exceedingly rich accomplishment.

Upon my first viewing I will simply say that the film does much, and seems to do it all very well. While John Wayne's character may seem like another case of the (formative) traditional masculine paradigm come to life on the silver screen, in truth he suggests a personage that is much deeper. For as black and white as the politics and ethos at work appear, the film does much with a studied subtlety that, upon first view, seems slightly incongruous. In its seeming celebration of a certain type of heroism, history and politics, The Searchers works suitably as a celebration of American mythos. But, if you will allow it space, the quieter moments reveal that much else is at work, that motivations and actions are rarely so simple. Relationships between enemies are as complex and fraught as those among loved-ones. How we make sense of our own responsibilities, towards ourselves and others, is rarely, if ever settled. The strength of Wayne, and the movie, is that it allows us to make much or little of the story. We will find only what we seek for.

Upon my first viewing I cannot hope to convey all there is on-hand. Thus, I will watch it again. 

Saturday, May 18, 2013

Iron Man 3 - not bad, and that's good enough for me


I'm afraid that if you've started reading this review expecting something as well-thought out, erudite and historically-aware as some of the other posts on this Blog Fantastic, then you are going to be sorely disappointed.

In much the same way, if you start watching Iron Man 3 expecting it to be much more than lots of explosions, snappy one-liners and more explosions, then you are going to be... well, not sorely disappointed, because explosions and one-liners are AWESOME. But you won't get what you expected, if you weren't expecting explosions and jokes.

Perhaps not an earth-shattering conclusion, that, but I'm new at this movie reviewing malarkey. Once I've got a few under my belt I'm sure I'll develop a style or formula, much like Skyd has when they review products.

Rest assured, however, that I will not be asking whether any movies I review are a hat. Unless I'm pursuing some sort of elaborate metaphor.

So, Iron Man 3. Is it a bad movie, like Olympus Has Fallen? No, and not only because no one was stabbed in the brain. Iron Man 3 lacks Olympus' bevy of plot holes and stupidities (apart from the villain's motivation to destroy seeming to stem, primarily, from a dislike of the hero after a relatively minor slight way, way back in the past when the villain looked a lot uglier but RDJ was as attractive as ever).

Is it a good movie, then? Not really. There aren't any crazy twists in the plot, there are no profound messages or lessons to learn, and no characters so great, so incredible (on this blog, referred to as "Characters Fantastic"?) that you just have to know more about them.

Iron Man 3 is a superhero movie, with lots of references to other parts of the franchise; I'm sure there were many that I missed, and that people with a greater knowledge of Marvel's comics will be able to spend hours arguing over the consistencies of the various movies.

But while I enjoyed the feeling of a movie fitting in to a larger (and cohesive) whole, that's not really why I enjoyed Iron Man 3. I enjoyed it because it was fun. It didn't take itself too seriously (and try to have a profound message or lesson) so you could just relax and enjoy it. But it took itself seriously enough that it wasn't bad, and attempted to convince the viewer of nothing that a reasonable suspension of disbelief wouldn't allow.

Maybe that is the easy way out when making a movie: put in enough effort that it's not crap, but not so much that people will think you were trying hard, and therefore hold you to more stringent requirements. Maybe we should be asking more of the film industry as discerning consumers of their art (with AND without inverted commas).

But maybe that's good enough for me: to be able to go to the cinema, enjoy a movie and not feel like I got ripped off.

Sunday, May 12, 2013

Another Mid-Nineties Jim Carrey Vehicle: Batman Forever


Merchandising. Merchandising. Merchandising. Merchandising!!!!

Confession time: I loved Batman Forever when it came out. I remember seeing it at Mann's Grandview Theatre with my best friend, James Pinkett, on opening night. The place was packed. This was to be the first Batman movie of our time - being a little too young to appreciate the import of Batman Returns. Jim Carrey was exploding on the scene, at the height of his powers,and we were enamored of his slapstick gesticulations and gyrations. The hype was everywhere, the anticipation was palpable: this was a summer movie blockbuster at its finest.

It is a certainty that I saw the film more than once. I probably could have relayed the general plot to you, even these 16 years later (assuming I probably saw it sometime after 1995). But, watching it again, what struck me most was the merchandising. Even my memory has become commercialized. Most commonly I thought: "I remember that (toy, card, McDonald's promotion)." The Batmobile and the Bat-Wing (had the latter, friend had the former). The soundtrack. The Riddler's cane (check) and at least two or three of those crappy McDonald's glasses. Visions of trading cards, action figures, video games and movie posters dance in my head. THIS was a summer movie blockbuster at its finest.

I suppose it had to be all those things, for the film begs to be forgotten. Tommy Lee Jones as the over-the-top Two-Face. Val Kilmer's smell-the-fart acting.  Nicole Kidman's undergraduate psychology - that fucking ink blot looks like a bat, I don't care what she says. Alfred's two-penny humor. And Chris O'Donnell... I am glad he is no longer a part of my life.

Yet everything is largely window-dressing for Mr. Carrey. He excels given the strictures placed on the story, the abrupt transitions and the total lack of contextualization for his mania and rise. Adjustment issues, lonely, mad scientist, hero-worship gone awry; you know the drill. But he does more with a cartoon than anyone else could. Manically prancing across the bat-cave, he is the proverbial insane super-villain in the candy-shop. When he and Two-Face set-out on an old fashion crime spree - sticking up banks and knocking over jewelry stores - his childlike sense of fun is pitch-perfect. He remains a bright spot, even if it bears little relation to the rest of the effort.

And, at its heart, Batman Forever is supposed to be fun. Clearly the product of studio group-think and pitched at a younger audience, like my ten-year-old self, we can only judge a piece of art based upon the premises under which it was conceived. In the balance this is where the third Batman installment fails the most spectacularly. Mr. Carrey aside, its a bore. Kidman's will-I or won't-I love machinations, Dick Grayson's attempts at rage and vengeance, too much glow-in-the-dark thuggish face-paint, all make Gotham and the people who inhabit it part dystopian comic fantasy, part shoddy thesis on power and madness. Everything and everybody is (at best) a two-dimensional  piece in a puzzle that doesn't fit together. It's not that the film is incoherent.  Rather, it is many different kinds of nothing.

Except a commercial. After all these years, it is still a commercial.

And now, a word on Balloon Animals; or, as I discovered, Balloon Modelling

Despicable Me  is a relatively charming, totally forgettable movie. For all intents and purposes, you have seen this movie before, and that is not necessarily a bad thing.

I fell asleep half-way into it and didn't feel at all bad about that.

But one scene led me to wonder a bit about balloon animal-making (you could say that Despicable Me is less than fully engaging).

To whit: the following is from an interview with Art "Jolly the Clown" Petri:


"One odd thing that I remember from the early days [assumedly on the balloon modelling scene]  was encountering a few twisters who thought that I was doing balloons all wrong. Their opinion was that it wasn't true balloon sculpturing if you used a pump or if you used a marking pen. Accordingly to them, inflating by mouth added moisture to the balloon which somehow made it better. I don't know where that philosophy came from. But I was curious to find out if there was something to it. So I tried twisting dozens of balloon that had been mouth inflated against dozens that had been pump inflated. I found no difference. At any rate, I haven't heard that philosophy in about 20 years, so it looks like it may have died out. My opinion is that if adding a few marks on a balloon makes it look better or if it gives it a personality, then why not do it? After all, who are we trying to please, the person receiving the balloon or some type of balloon police?"

If you're scoring at home, Mr. Jolly intimates that such disciplines as balloon twisting philosophy and theory have a rich history. Furthermore, the field is rife with issues surrounding the practical application of conceptual bricolage.  What is most terrifying, surely, is a coded suggestion alluding to a clandestine and shadowy enforcement of construction protocol by, surely, some well-funded, paramilitary organization. 

How deep does the rabbit-hole go? Glad you asked.

The Ohio College of Clowning Arts
Founded in 1989, in Akron, Ohio, (we can only imagine the road not taken), The Funny Shop Comedy Club upgraded to full college status in 2002 - seemingly to clear-up a dispute (my guess is intellectual property issues) with Ringling Brothers. True to form, the Board of Directors is composed largely of clowns (and Pat Julian - the Director of Operations at "a large furniture manufacturing company"). 

Curriculum Includes:
Clown Characterization
Performance Practicum and Costuming
Balloons and Magic for Clown

Founder Robert Kriedler, a.k.a. Rufus D. Dufus, passed away in 2010. He is sorely missed, but his spirit lives on.
bob - rufus

So... there you go.

Friday, May 10, 2013

Why I Feel Bad For Not Liking Badlands More Than I Did


Badlands is unquestionably a good movie - it is probably even a great movie. It explores questions of innocence and loneliness, desolation, isolation, and making your way both into adulthood and finding your way in the world. Sissy Spacek's innocence is heartbreaking, while her falling-into and out-of love with Martin Sheen could be rendered as tragic. Martin Sheen's wandering eyes morph from unsettling into something slightly-less than full blown psychotic. Its a twisted, modernist anti-fairy tale and Terrence Malick has certainly achieved something unique. I recognize that the movie will grow in my consciousness, and that I may find myself puzzling over how the isolated incidents of violence, distanced from the surrounding psychological violence of society take on a different dimension and succeed in a subtle shift of meaning.  And plaudits and plaudits and plaudits can continue to follow. All of these are true and not to be marginalized - it is a great piece of art.

Withthatbeingsaid, Badlands for me, groaned under the weight of its own (potential) transcendence. I cannot remember a movie that had so much to say, seemingly achieved it with such felicity, and yet pushed me away from the experience so much. It would be trite to blame an overly hokey-ness of the constructions which Kit (and perhaps Holly) seem to be rebelling from. Yet I could never shake the notion - his one insightful existential scene aside - that Kit was a young man with little to offer, who made violence his excuse for holding himself above the norms of his world. Holly does what any teenage girl might do with a perverse fascination - she gets sick of Kit. Simple enough. Try as he might, not even Kit's violence can disconnect him from a world of triumphant normalcy. He is doomed to be a forgotten episode of crazy violence. While Kit's selfishness and braggadocio brings about the death and downfall of himself and others, being unable to care for him seems to render the rest of his universe, and therefore his actions, meaningless. The film's nihilism isn't what bothers me; to the contrary it is not unsettling enough. Trapped in its own perspective, we are left remote if we simultaneously cannot enter in. The journey from life as traditionally-defined, to outlaw status in a world of your own making requires an investment in the journey's origin.

While it would be tempting to say that such disconnects irredeemably flaw the experience, I can conversely understand how all of this gives the film its evocative power in the first place. Or maybe I cannot see beyond its almost universally acclaimed status. Perhaps the normalcy that is meant to begin (and end) the journey is never meant to be so normal. Perhaps the journey is one into the self more than out into the barren expanse. Rupture rarely come as a cosmological tearing of fabric; we fall in contradictory times, simultaneously bound by the moment and imbuing a folded time into it. We depart, only to return. Is it any wonder that our grip is lost through subtle shifts and  perturbations within and across moments we never would have expected? The film is contradictory: sparse and jam-packed; vacuous and full-of-meaning. Perhaps hinting at a deeper statement. Surely, it is fitting that I felt similarly conflicted watching it.


Tuesday, May 7, 2013

Gerard Butler is Infallible, or, “I am gonna stab you in the brain with my knife.”



Olympus Has Fallen
We learn a few lessons when North Korean (or is it South Korean) terrorists attack, and successfully take, the White House in Millennium Pictures’ Olympus Has Fallen. First off, that even though 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is supposedly the “most heavily protected building in the world” it can be over-run with comic ease by what amounts to a well-funded, decently coordinated street gang. The whole violent incursion is a flimsy excuse to perpetrate a third-world style coop on American soil – complete with smoking capital shots, machine gun-toting men in ski masks and ammunition, ammunition, ammunition as far as the eye can see. Let me tell you, if Gerard Butler wasn’t so proficient at the patented around-the-corner-no-look-straight-to-the-head kill-shot, Harvey Dent might never have gotten out of there.

Yes, the President is being held hostage in a White House bunker, along with the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, the Vice-President and the Secretary of Defense (remember the comic ineptitude of America’s security apparatus). The bad-guys are down there and they are extracting launch codes. Which brings us to lesson number 2: torture works. And it is not just the shady Koreans. Witness our vigilante hero stabbing unsuspecting captives in the throat to entice their buddies to divulge a totally useless piece of information. I guess America is fully over that whole messy Abu Ghraib thing then? No, now is not the time to pussy-foot around, just ask Dylan McDermott: “Globalization!” “Wall Street!” The only way to exact justice is by any means necessary. Everyone’s cards are on the table and you gotta know when to play ‘em, even if you bet your soul in the process.

In the end, this movie suffers from a total failure of anyone involved to question the validity of the counter-argument; or, really, what is at stake. When the President is being held hostage, with the nuclear codes, in a bunker, with all the other people with the codes, from a place where those codes can be deployed to wreck a nuclear holocaust, it is understandable that the antagonist would want to by the one setting the tone of the debate. Yet the counter is never broached: umm… this guy has zero bargaining chips beyond the President. Aaron Eckhardt’s classic good looks are the whole show. There is never any case for why this man must survive. If it is only because he is the President, then the minute Morgan Freeman takes-up the mantle, the whole drama is erased. If you don’t buy that this control over the office-as-embodiment makes our villain powerful, then the whole premise of the movie falls apart and turns into little more than a farce. And farce, sweet dear lord, farce it is. The whole thing could sound like a twisted Bob Newhart sketch. “What? You say you’ve got the President? And to get him back we have to start World War 3 and subject our country to nuclear holocaust? Listen, fella, let me tell you something about the phrase collateral damage.” At no point does one waiver from the thought, fuck it, just kill the Aaron Eckhart and our problems are solved. I suppose that emotion is a worthwhile experience in and of itself. The movie takes what could be an interesting, nuanced problem of how to balance the idea of government with national security and absolutely refuses to say anything novel. Well, better to have Gerard Butler stab guys in the head anyway.

Here is looking forward to: White House Down. Yes, another one. Bring on Channing Tatum.