Movies You May Not Like: The Favourite

For some reason New Years Day in Hampton Roads is always gray, damp, and unseasonably warm.  It sucks.

So its a perfect day to go to the movies, and it has become something of a tradition for me to pack myself off to the theater to start the new year.  This year, I saw The Favourite, because it was a movie that my wife did not really want to see and it would allow me to get back home by 1:00 in the afternoon, just in time for the customary Upper Malakvian New Years lunch of salted Cod, salted Potatoes, salted beans, salt, and Schlivovitz -- who wouldn't want to miss that!

The Favourite was very well done, engrossing, and kind of unsettling, in a way, mostly due to how the movie ends.  Part farce, part political drama, it is (loosely - very, very loosely) based on actual events, where the favored advisor to Queen Anne, the Duchess of Marlborough, is slowly supplanted by Abigail Masham (nee Hill).  It imagines them in a sort of love triangle, which is, apparently, actually possible but not substantiated.  I think its been shortlisted for some awards and for good reason - Emma Stone and Olivia Coleman give fantastic performances; Coleman's Queen Anne in particular being fascinating.  The costuming and sets are incredible, it is well shot, the soundtrack is haunting.  I would recommend it, though I found the movie a bit depressing, in that it is another one of those movies that has no real hero, no positive influence, and the ending is abrupt and stark and really sticks with you.  I think the last good movie in which I saw something of the heroic was Dunkirk, and that was going on a year and a half ago.  These are dystopian times.  And I am sure there is more that I can say about the movie's sexual dynamics and the #MeToo movement and all of that stuff, the cultural moment we find ourselves in and how the movie reflects on some of that.  But my friends, I simply don't have the cultural acumen to do it.

Olivia Coleman as Queen Anne in The Favourite

But I do have some historical acumen, and that might come in handy if you decide the movie.

Here's the thing:  aside from the fact that it was set in the 1600s or 1700s, I had little idea what it was going to be about.  I knew there was a Queen, and some sort of power struggle, and that it was supposed to be good, and because I do whatever the New York Times tells me to do I should go see it; but that was about it.

To my joy, I found that I was in the one situation in my life where my smattering of British history was actually useful, as I could draw on some useless trivia to give me a firmer footing in a film that otherwise may have been rather confusing from the start.  Maybe the film-makers would rather you didn't have any background at all - but I found it to be useful.  

It isn't much, but this is what I brought to the table: 

So at the beginning of the movie there is reference to a war that is ongoing and draining the British purse, and this war comes to dominate a lot of the political machinations the characters go through as they struggle over the decision to fund it by taxation or sue for Peace from an advantageous position.

Now,  I know that I recently said "No More War Movies" in 2019, but fortunately the combat is kept far away and my new year's resolution is intact.  

Anyways, in this scene at the beginning of the movie, Queen Anne speaks of a great victory and, thinking the war is over, is prepared to give the Duchess of Marlborough a palace.  

The war in question:  The War of the Spanish Succession, fought in the early 1700s over who would be king of Spain (I suppose).  The Bourbons in France had a claim, and the British, Dutch, and others were determined to stop them.  Much of the war was actually fought in what is today Belgium (I think).  

The victory is probably the Battle of Blenheim, a massive victory by the British and their coalition over the French in 1704 that changed the course of the struggle.  The leader of the British forces was John Churchill, Duke of Marlborough, husband to (and here is where the connection comes in) Sarah, the Duchess of Marlborough and aide to Queen Anne.  And yes, John Churchill is the ancestor of THAT Churchill, old huffen und puffen, trinken und sleepen Winston Churchill himself, with those stupid paintings of his.  You know who was a great painter?  Who could paint one room, in one afternoon, two coats?  I'll give you two guesses. 

The palace proposed at the beginning of the movie was built in honor of the Battle of Blenheim, and is actually called Blenheim Palace.  I think in the movie they refer to its name one time.  We also see the Duke of Marlborough (who second to Wellington is probably Britain's greatest military leader of all time) occasionally but he is a minor character.

And that is really it.  The war would drag on until 1714.  Of the political intrigue in Queen Anne's Court I had little notion.  

As I write all this, it makes me think that maybe it was a conscious choice of director Yorgos Lanthimos to divorce the action on screen from the details of the actual back story, placing the action in a sort of alternative reality where the rumors behind the relationship between the three protagonists is allowed to flourish with all of its Sapphic fire.  If the movie hewed more to a more likely reality it may have only left a sort of tension between the three that may or may not have been sexual in nature, though again the actual relationship between these three women is, based on what I know, difficult to be sure of.  They may has simply been every effusive in their letters to each other, or they might have been true bed fellows.  The only ones who really know, probably, are Queen Anne, the Duchess of Marlborough, and Abigail Masham.  And maybe their dogs and those rabbits the Queen liked to keep in her bed chamber.  All long gone.    

The ending of the movie is what makes it so dissonant, but I will leave that to the brave.  The Favourite; run time two hours; rated R for some fruity language, some sex acts, and the odd nipple here and there.  

  

In Which a Clumsily Rendered CGI Nick Discusses Rouge One :: MODERATE SPOILERS!

In what has become a New Years Day tradition, I drove into Hampton and plunked my sweet ass down into the theater to watch a movie.  Don't quite do it every year, but I try my best.  Why?  Because without the cement of tradition, our lives would be as shaky as...

This year's choice was Rouge One, which remains the number one movie in America two weeks in a row and, despite some less than great reviews from the critics, it has been, I think, well received by my friends.  I saw the end credits roll about three hours ago, I've since had some nachos and a coffee (which is not a great combination, in all honesty), and I think I am ready to share some thoughts.

The Venue:  I chose my local IMAX 3D multiplex.  I made the mistake of wearing my thick framed poets glasses and the 3D glasses juuuuuuuust barely fit over them.  That's a lot of hardware to wear on one's face for two hours, but those are the sacrifices one must make for art.

The sound system was just....spine shatteringly loud.  And that bring me to....

The Previews

I noticed the sound system was spine shatteringly loud because each and every single preview began with a load, deep "BOOM" that made every atom in my body vibrate at a low resonance, threatening to tear the very fabric of my body into pieces.  This was true even of the previews for movies that probably didn't really need a BOOM to herald their future existence, like some silly movie where Alec Baldwin voices a baby who talks and....I dunno, wants to take over the world or trade stocks or something.

The only preview that really made my blood quicken was for "Dunkirk", naturally.  I'm going to see that when it comes out.

At last, time for

The Show

It begins in a time long ago in a Galaxy far, far away.  And I'm waiting for the iconic accent of the orchestra and the blaring of the horns and that big old beautiful Star Wars logo scroll across the screen in full, voluptuous IMAX 3D BUT....

That doesn't happen.  The movie just starts.  And I was very confused.

But not for long.  I got back with it.  The plot is a pretty good one, and I will summarize it with a simple question or two:  Have you ever wondered how it was that the biggest, most deadliest weapon in the Galaxy could be taken down by a bunch of snub nosed fighters flying down a trench and shooting a pair of photon torpedoes?  Have you ever wondered WHY exactly those snub nosed fighters had to fly ALL the way down that trench?

This movie doesn't provide a convincing answer to the second question.  But it does provide an answer to the first.  One of the scientists who built the Death Star did so under durress, and he built the exhaust port flaw into its design as an act of sabotage.  If he can smuggle the plans out to the Rebellion, they will have the means to launch an attack that will destroy it.  He sends out a feeler message with a willing Imperial cargo pilot, and the Rebel Alliance finds his daughter Jyn, whom he has been separated from for....years.  16 years?  Maybe?  Hard to say.

The Rebels rescue her from an imperial work camp...how they figure out where she actually is and the story behind the mission to get her, I guess, will be another opportunity for another prequel.  She is able to in turn reunite with Forrest Whitaker, sees a hologram of her father brought to him by the cargo pilot, and learns that the structural plans that detail the flaw are on some tropical like planet that kind of looks like Guam, though with not as many Japanese people or seedy strip clubs.    

A big ass battle ensues and the Rebels get the plans.  For a moment it seems the Rebels are going to flake out, but Jyn gives an impassioned speech that manages to convince just enough people to take a chance that the plans are on this planet, and they go in with a plan that make the Expendables look like the fucking Duke of Wellington himself (i.e. there was no plan...less than no plan, actually, if that's possible.  Like a negative plan).  But Rebellions are based on Hope, so....

Yeah.  They get it done.  

A Specific List of my Beefs

Here is the fun part, where I get to point out each and every thing that I found wrong with this movie.  Take a deep breath.....

The Guv:

Governor (or Grand Moff) Tarkin, who features in Episode IV as played by Peter Cushing, makes a reappearance in this film.  Unfortunately, Peter Cushing died in 1994.  Rather than exhume his corpse or try to reconstitute his ashes, the whiz kids at Lucasfilm decided to CGI him back into the movie.

The effect is....not great, though it is an impressive effort.  For some reason we can CGI Transformers and Damn Dirty Apes and even squid people like the one that shares an Imperial cell with Jyn at the start of the film, but we can't CGI a human and make them look really real.  I'm not saying it was a crappy job - I'm just saying that even at its best (and it is pretty amazing), CGI still has its limits.  You CGI a human next to another human and have the two act with each other for more than three seconds, and the CGI guy, no matter how well done, starts to look like Abe Lincoln out of the Hall of Presidents.  They do a better job with a young Carrie Fisher at the end, but she is on for such a short duration that it works.

Oh - if anyone sees the movie again, check to see if the Grand Moff ever gets his feet shown in this movie. According to Wikipedia, of all things, Peter Cushing convinced George Lucas to let him act in slippers because the Nazi riding boots that all Imperials wear didn't fit well and hurt his feet (I only just found this out today, but a quick Google search assures me that I am one of the last to know).  So you never see his feet in "A New Hope".  It would be cool to see if they honored that in Rouge One.

Those Damn Stoopid Storm Troopers:  

I think all the tacticians in the Empire must have gone to Trump University for their courses in military science.  "Hey, you know what....we just sent that squad of storm troopers head long into that Rebel held defensive position, but it didn't work.  Like, everyone of them is dead or seriously injured.  What do we do guys?........Yeah Smitty, I agree.  Let's send another squad in just like before.  They'll never think we'd never try it for the fourth time."

Seriously, it's become a cliche, a joke. In Episode IV and V Storm Troopers at least struck fear and maybe a little perverse admiration into the hearts of the 10 - 14 year old boys they were supposed to impress.  You might remember that in Episode IV they take the Princesses ship, and in Episode V they successfully assault the rebel base at Hoth.  I think the Battle of Endor is where they start to lose some of their luster, start to look really, really bad at what they do.  But hey - it happens.  The Russians were beaten in Afghanistan, we were defeated in Vietnam; every super power has  a bad day at the office.

But now?  I think the guys that made this movie were actually making fun of how bad the troopers were.  It was like watching that scene in Indiana Jones where that swordsman does all that sword play to intimidate Indy and Indy just shoots the guy with a revolver, but not once but a thousand times, over and over again.  A bloody robot, a single robot, killed like whole Battalion while Jyn and Captain Cassian are getting the plans in the archives.  If there are to be more of these movies, we have to have the Storm Troopers perform better, because they are lousy villains at the moment.  You would never expect them to win in any engagement now. I think a movie from their point of view might actually be worthwhile.

And Speaking of Captain Cassian Andor

I kept waiting for him to say "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my faddah.  Prepare to die."

Was I the only one who noticed that he was the only person in an Imperial uniform with facial hair?  Like none of them, NONE of them, have facial hair in any of the movies.  No beards, no mustaches....not even really a decent set of sideburns.  Captain Cassian looked awfully suspicious walking around in an Imperial Officers digs with a 2 week beard on his face.  You think that would tip people off that something isn't right, that this guy might be an imposter.  But....well, see above.

Vader makes a Pun?

So Vader is choking the head Death Star Scientist who clearly wants to command his creation.  Vader (still voiced by James Earl Jones) quips, says something like "Be sure that you are not choked by your ambitions" before releasing him.

What what?  Vader, with a sense of humor?  And a bad one at that?  Unforgivable. The rebels are the ones who deliver the silly little one liners in any Star Wars film;  it makes them kooky and fun.  Loveable. Servants of the Empire do not tell jokes.  I'm sorry.  They just don't.  It makes them easier to hate.

The Score

It ain't John Williams.  It's like John Williams, its similar, there are familiar motifs and themes sort of modulated and such in the back ground.  But it rarely ever goes full blown Star Wars (except maybe during the last battle), and it just lacks that certain something....

The Verdict

Which sort of brings me to my conclusion.  This was a solid movie, an enjoyable film (I give it a B-, but I am hard to impress).  I like the fact that the Rebel Alliance is portrayed with a little bit of shade to it, filled with characters who have killed for what they believe in and carry that with them in the dark places of their hearts.  The obligatory protocol droid in this movie was actually my favorite of any of them - way funnier than C3PO and a bright spot of comic relief throughout a movie that needed it.

And the battle at the end...THIS is the space battle you have been waiting for, Star Wars fans. Absolutely incredible. Just as good if not better than the climatic battle in Return of the Jedi (though I did notice the absence of Wedge Antilles, even though I thought I heard his name).  Its not as iconic as the one in Episode IV (it is actually rather derivative of it), but it was still awesome to see, and something that hasn't been a part of the more recent movies.

But somehow, in someway, it seems like Star Wars lite, like it was a really good copy of a Star Wars movie but it wasn't quite as good as the real thing.  A knock-off German beer brewed in New Jersey. Louisville Slugers from Louisville, Colorado.  Replica Glocks. Implants.

And that I think is my worry for the franchise;  that like the Marvel movies these films will just become more and more ubiquitous and eventually they will all be mediocre and the same.


 

  

In Which Nick Plays Catch-up

Wow!  A whole month has gone by without a new blog post!  Crikey Jean that is bad!

It's not like I haven't had anything to talk about.  I've been reading books, I've been watching the news, I've rejoiced in the beginning of Baseball season and the Orioles fast start, which I think is too good to last.  I've chided friends for drinking beer with ice (travesty!) and all the while slowly developing a plan to take over Canada which, in Donald Trump like fashion, I think they are just going to let us do after an honorable exchange of gunfire.  Except for the Quebecois...

So I may as well catch you up on what I have been thinking about the past month.  If you are getting ready to be wowed with incredibly revelations....well, prepared to be disappointed.

I finished Watching House of Cards
In one of my last posts I waxed rhapsodic about season four of House of Cards.  It felt like the show was back to its old self now that Claire and Frank Underwood had declared open season on each other after separating at the end of season three.

It didn't last.  Talk about a story of two halves!  While the first half of the season was incredibly fun to watch, the back end was horrible, I thought.  Claire becomes Frank's running mate during a contested election (in which, naturally, the Underwoods manage to make sure Claire wins in an underhanded way).  Still they are losing a re-election bid to who I think is the governor of New York.  And of course Frank is sort of lobbing bombs at some terrorist group in the middle east that is like ISIS but with different initials, but as the polls continues to suffer home-grown radicals kidnap some people and Frank uses that to goad the nation into total war against terrorism.  As one of the people is beheaded by the kidnappers the Underwoods broadcast it to the nature, which has echos of things that Milosevic used to do to get the Serbs hot under the collar to go fight the Croats or the Albanians (violent films and soft core porn, according to War is a Force that Gives us Meaning  by Chris Hedges).  The Underwoods hope is that the war will win them the election, bringing the nation together.  One almost thinks they orchestrated the whole kidnapping themselves.

Its hard to know why they do all this.  Power for the sake of power's sake?  Naked ambition?  Frank Underwood is dying before our eyes, it's not like his time as POTUS is actually doing him any favors.  And yet the carry on.  There will be a fifth and maybe sixth season.  But my patience is not limited....I may have say fare thee well to the Underwoods.

I read SPQR by Mary Beard
Lately as I have been reading books, particularly non-fiction ones, I have been looking for the one thing in the book I will always remember. For SPQR it is the fact that before 117 AD all the Roman Emperors are clean shaven (though I did find a picture of Nero where he has chin straps), but then suddenly with the Emperor Hadrian all the emperors have full beards.  No one knows why.  Mary Beard doesn't know why, and I don't know why.

THOUGH - I like to think that Hadrian, perhaps on campaign in the north, grew a beard to keep his face warm and forgot to shave on the day that his picture was taken.

Interestingly, if you look at the Wikipedia list of of Roman Emperors,  they all are shown with beards until the Emperor Geta in 209 AD.  Why the switch back?  Maybe his wife had something to do with it...

I saw Eye in the Sky
It was really good!  It really turns over all the questions of the ethics of war (and the ethics of drone strikes in particular) in a very compelling way.  In a nutshell, the British have been following this terrorist (a British citizen) who has made her way to Africa and is helping some group to carry out suicide bombings.  They have actionable intelligence that she in such and such a place and that she is readying two young men for suicide missions (they have a drone the size of a bug inside the house she is in).  But outside the house is a child selling bread.

What do you do?  Most of the military people in the movie want to strike and hope that the girl survives, reasoning that if they do kill the girl they will also kill the suicide bombers and therefore save the lives of many more people.  But the civilians watching, high level British officials who also have to okay the strike, are torn. They don't want to take a chance killing the girl, and make some legitimate arguments for not doing so.

And that is what is great about the movie.  I don't think it really leads to you what the right answer is.  It offers some complexity to a situation in which I think many of us who have never had to make such decisions have an answer that we are sure is right.  This movie suggest that maybe you are wrong.

The only thing I don't like about the movie is when the British try to get American input into the situation.  They contact the Secretary of State and he's like "Yeah, do it, whatever".  The Attorney General is also very sure that the strike is right.  I suppose the British think we are just a bunch of cowboys....

The Election is Really, Really Boring.
When will it be over?

Prince Died.
Yes he did.  I honestly was surprised by the outpouring of emotion that occurred after his death was announced.  I think he's a good musician, but I never considered myself a fan.

But that isn't it....I guess it's social media.  Someone dies, they are famous.  Famous people feel compelled to make a statement about how great that person was, and then the rest of us common folk see it and we get all wrapped up in a big giant sugar ball of emotion.

I wonder what would happen if someone famous I cared more about died suddenly.  Say....Dave Grohl perhaps, or Nikki Giovanni.  Would I expect the same outpouring of emotion?  Would I want to see it?  Would I too turn to social media and post my remembrances, just in an effort to touch a moment and be with others even if it is only digitally?

Maybe I would.  Maybe.

Well, that's about all for now. Hopefully I'll get back into the swing of things...though I suppose for a month, the world survived without my two cents.

My Thoughts on The Force Awakes - WITH SPOILERS

Before you start reading this you should know something:  this discussion of the new Star Wars movie contains spoilers, some of them of the mega spoiler variety.  It is intended for people who have either seen the movie or will never, ever, see the movie because movies or the Star Wars franchise itself is odious to them. 

Yes, you may find it hard to believe, but there are few people out there who really hate Star Wars.  Not many, I’ll grant, not many.  Most people prefer Star Trek or at least kind of ambivalent about Star Wars, but I know one man who went to see Episode IV in 1977 and walked out of the theatre after 10 minutes, and he will still contend with you that Star Wars ruined American cinema.  Ruined it. 

I won’t bore you with a summary of the plot, because I am now assuming that if you have gotten this far you have already seen the film or you simply don’t care.  But here are my thoughts, in the form of a short catechism:

Overall, what did you think?  It was extremely enjoyable and quite good.  And it was fun!  I think the CNN reviewer said that this feels more like an Indiana Jones movie than a past George Lucas film, and I’d have to agree with him (or her).  There are more quips and one-liners intended to draw a laugh, and from me they got a smile.  I thought overall the dialogue was good, and I thought the actors all did really quite well within the limits set for them.  The John Williams score tied it all together.   Felt like getting back together with an old friend, who has been gone for a long time and has come back at long last.

Oh, and Stormtroopers are people again, reversing what I thought was one of the most damnable things about Episodes I-III.  The First Order seems to have settled on armies of indoctrinated soldiers, perhaps a mix of volunteers and people pressed into service.  They do seem to shoot a little better. 

Was it the greatest movie in the world?  No. 

Was it great in proportion to its marketing?  I don’t think so, no. 

An “overwhelming experience”, as the initial reviews suggested?  Nah.  But it put a smile on my face, and that ain’t easy to do.  I enjoyed it.  It gets a solid A in my book, though it doesn’t quite make it to an A+ level (which is really hard to do – I don’t like movies very much).  Go and see it.

What surprised you the most?  I was actually surprised at how central the role of the old characters was.  I thought that we’d kind of see them, they’d say “hey kids, how’s it going?” and they would kind of slip away.  A passing of the torch to a new generation.  Not so.  Han Solo had a huge role in this film.  Princess Leia less so, but she still figured in an important way.  And Luke?  We don’t see him till the end when Rey has found him and is holding his lightsaber out to him (I TOLD YOU THERE WOULD BE SPOILERS!!!!) and it’s clear that he will figure greatly in any future film.  He has to. 

Luke Skywalker really fucked things up, didn’t he?  Seems so.   It’s a shame Episodes I-III were so lousy, for if they had been better they may have seen wider release and maybe he’d know that bad things happen when Jedi Knights fall in love.  The movie doesn’t really say so, but I THINK that Rey is his daughter, and for that to happen he had to have fallen in love or at least, as my wife so charmingly says, “boinked” somebody.  Clearly she was British, because Rey has a beautiful accent. 

Oh Luke….I know it’s so hard to keep the old wibbly wobbly in the Hackensack when the gin and bubble is all apples and bears, but for the good of the galaxy couldn’t you have taken the bishop up to Exeter on the 5:11?  For the good of the galaxy.  Now look what you have done. 

Captain Phasma?

One real disappointment out of two for the movie.  The galaxy is a more diverse place, and that is definitely for the better.  Women are now allowed to pilot X-wing fighter craft and, apparently, be the commander of the First Order’s Stormtroopers.  But we never see her face, never hear her story, and she is the one who, at gun point, lowers the shields that allow the resistance fighters to attack “The Weapon”, which is just a very, very large Death Star that has actually been built into a Planet.  The First Order is a fanatical regime, they feel kind of like Nazis, and I imagine that any one that fanatical would rather have died then live with the shame of both being captured and lowering the shields.  It’s the one part of the movie where I was like “Come on!”  Equally inexplicably Finn and company don’t kill her after she has lowered the shields.  A friend called Captain Phasma a wasted character, and I’d have to agree with her. 

She at least LOOKS important.  Look!  The Stormtroopers have formed Square!

Disappointment the Second?

I don’t honestly think much of Kylo Ren – yet.  We live in age of television and film where there are no real heroes and no real villains, everyone has shades of light and dark.  That may be realistic, but it’s disappointing here in a world where giant furry things converse effortlessly with Droids.  I like my villains to be pure evil.  Best villain ever?  Jason Isaacs portrayal of Colonel Tavington in “The Patriot”, which is on the 5^th watching a really horrible film but Colonel Tavington is an equally horrible person, down to his core, and he is played ever so well by Isaacs.  Only thing that makes the movie still worth watching.

Kylo Ren is just a kid.  How he has he been given so much power by this Lord Snook person who looks kind of like Voldemort with a nose (and, for my money, Kylo Ren with the mask off sort of looks like a young professor Snape) I do not know.   He is not master of his own emotions, his anger explodes in violent outbursts, and he is an extremely conflicted young person.  All you maybe need to get him on the side of good is a couple sessions of good therapy and maybe a 20ml dose of anti-depressants.  The Weapon is on a cold and dark planet – maybe he has Seasonal Affective Disorder (aptly abbreviated as SAD).  Maybe a move to a nicer planet would bring about positive change.  I read some reviews that thought his mercurial character could be exploited in interesting ways in the future; I on the other hand would rather him get his shit together and be the villain I want him to be.

And granted – Darth Vader of Episodes IV-VI also showed conflict, but these were little pinpricks of light against darkness.  Love eventually overcame hate in the man’s stoic heart, and it was a Romantic triumph of the spirit over the power of darkness.  By contrast, it’s hard to say what is going to come out of the angst-ridden soup of Kylo-Ren’s soul.   Could be anything, and in some ways I think that makes his own conflict less meaningful, at least as a movie character.  It certainly would make any victory of good will less impressive.

Final Thoughts?

Love BB-8.  Wouldn’t mind seeing the last of C-3P0.  Looking forward to the next installment.  

In Which I Read McCarthy's "No Country for Old Men", watch "Birdman", and Find Myself Wanting to Write Endless Swear Words

So here we have two items that are no doubt very "good", but not at all very fun.  

First, Cormac McCarthy's No Country for Old Men.  I had already seen the movie twice;  I saw it when it came out in theaters and then again on the plane home from a trip to Germany in 2008.  Why they decided to show it on the plane home, in its full un-edited form with all the blood and guts and all I have no idea.  But they did.  And I enjoyed as much the 2nd time as I did the first, though it left me just as bewildered.  Anton Chigurh as played by Javier Bardem ranks high on my list of best villians -- number one, in case you were wondering, would have to be Jason Isaacs portrayal of British Colonel Tavington, the only thing in my opinion that still makes The Patriot worth a watch.  

So the book lacked a bit of suspense because I knew how it all would end up going down.  That being said I thought it was very good, but like the movie it sort of had an odd ending.  Anton Chigurh just slips away after the car crash.  The one thing that is different is that there is much more of the sheriff's thoughts in the book, which explains the sololiloquy that ends the movie and left us all scratching our heads.  So THAT makes sense, now, at least.  I do have a hard time figuring out what exactly McCarthy is getting at.  Is Chigurh a symbol for the evil of drugs and violence and relative morality that American has let out of the bag?  Whatever Chigurh is, McCarthy does at least seem to think that America is kind of a messed up place.  His writing style (pretty much sans punctuation) is also interesting but maybe too direct for my taste.  I'd be interested to read more McCarthy, as long as all of his books aren't written the same way. 

Second - Birdman.  Won a bunch of Academy Awards, you got everyone saying how awesome everyone is in it, etc. etc., yeah yeah yeah.  It's on Amazon Prime as a rental so I figure "eh, what the heck," and I download it, watch it, and....

Okay, honestly, what this movie made me want to do was get on my computer and write a string of swear words, plain and simple.  "Fuck fuck shit fuck" or "damn damn double damn damn damn damn damn!"  I'm not sure why....I guess it's because maybe I didn't like it.  

But it's hard for me to say that, because it seems like this is a movie I SHOULD like.  It's artsy. Its bold.  It's unsettling.  It has some deeper meaning that I can't quite figure out.  I'm not sure but I think the movie is picking on Hollywood's propensity to just trot out a bunch of handsome dudes in capes flanked by explosions and a big breasted love interest, which is something I think deserves to be picked at.  It's apparently filled with brilliant performances.  The people at the Academy are daring me not to like this film, because if I was like them I would "get it".  

But I didn't like it.  It wasn't fun to watch.  I didn't enjoy it.  Which makes me wonder about the nexus of art and entertainment, and how movies fall into that.  Does art have to be entertaining?  

The answer clearly is no.  Dostoevsky's The Brother's Karamozov isn't exactly fun to read...but its a great work of literature, and it's deeply interesting if at the same time difficult.  I wouldn't consider it entertainment, but there is a lot to grab hold of in the book and you can come away with a lot of meaning (and in some parts, surprisingly enough, it can actually be something of a page turner).  It may not be the author's intended meaning, but it at least means something to me.  

But in Birdman?  I can't really make heads or tails of it.  It's so abstract, so oddly disconnected even though it's edited to look like it was all made in one shot, so full of smart little snippets that don't seem to add up to anything at all.

So, if that is a "smart" movie, well, I'll reckon I'll take my gravy and my grits and go watch a man fly around in capes, hitting space aliens on the nose while his big breasted love interest zooms around on a motor cycle dodging explosions and Nazi Zombies.  It may be dumb, but at least it's something I can understand.  

    

  

Two Movies in the News -- "The Interview" and "American Sniper"

I watched the two movies that have been in the news recently:  "The Interview" and "American Sniper". Without further adieu, here is what I thought about them:

The Interview:

Watching The Interview became an epic 4 day struggle.  I made it through the first 20 minutes on day one, fell asleep on day two, made it to the actual interview in The Interview on day three, and finally finished the film on Day Four.

My two big takeaways:  the North Koreans need to develop a sense of humor, and I was glad I was able to watch this movie for free on Netflix.  I got my money's worth.

Was it funny?  Sure, in parts.  It had good special effects.  But it was also needlessly crass and just...dumb. Surely a poster-child for free speech should at least be interesting. I felt a little dumber for having watched it.

American Sniper:

Now we're talking.  I've been looking to see this movie since it came out, and I finally got my chance today. I wish I had gotten the chance to see it before it became a political football.  It's a shame that in this country we have become so commercialized that we can only express ourselves in what we consume, and have to graft our culture wars onto what is, in my opinion, a fairly nuanced film about the war.

Yes, you can complain that the movie doesn't portray Iraqis and Muslims well, and there is no mention about Abu Ghraib or other atrocities perpetrated by the American military during the war.  But I don't see why a movie about Iraq, specifically one that focuses on Chris Kyle, has to include all of those things.  There are other media, other films, that investigate those issues quite well for the person who cares enough to explore.  There shouldn't be a checkbox that you have to go down to please everyone when it's time to make a film about Iraq War; God knows you simply can't.

I know as well that there are some (Michael Moore, the aforementioned wunder-kind Seth Rogen, Bill Maher) who try to paint Chris Kyle as some kind of war loving, rascist psycho-path.  Michael Moore goes so far as to insinuate that Chris Kyle is a coward, and that the insurgents are merely just trying to defend their homes against invaders (us).  I wouldn't disagree with these liberal figureheads (though what Seth Rogen is doing in there I don't know...) that the war in Iraq was a horrible, misguided, tragic mistake.  That being said I wouldn't allow those feelings about the war to denigrate someone's service and turn him into something that he is not.  I don't like the fact that American culture is one that continues to honor violence, but in the same breath I would say I'd consider Kyle to be an American hero, not only for what he did on the battlefield but also the work he did when he finally came off with sufferers of PTSD, work that cost him his life.  In that way he himself is a casualty of this horrible war.

Enough with the politics.  As a movie itself it's really quite good.  It lacks the epic sweep of a Saving Private Ryan, but as a character study it is top notch.  We see Chris Kyle change in small, subtle ways as the war goes on and his combat tours increase, thanks to a brilliant performance by Chris Cooper.  Kyle seems human at the beginning, and human at the end when he's found his way back to his family, but during the war he gets more and more like a machine, and Cooper gives subtle hints that behind the stoic exterior the violence is starting to affect him.

Anyways, my two cents.

Reckon I'll go watch Rambo now.

Movies You May Not Like: The Omen (1976)

So next on the boss's list?  The Omen.  Not the 2006 version, but rather the 1976 version with Gregory Peck.

All in all its a pretty uncomplicated film.  The movie opens in an Italian hospital where a woman has just given birth to a stillborn child (thankfully we do not see this).  The woman's husband, this dude played by Gregory Peck, decides at the urging of a Priest to adopt a child and raise him in place of the stillborn babe.  "Your wife
'a, she never know'a the difference'a, capice?"  So he does it.

In the fun filled two hour journey that follows we learn three things:

1.  The child is the Anti-Christ (even though Johnny Rotten would, a couple years later, claim that title for himself).

2.  The dude must kill the child in a Church to save the world.

3.  If you get your head cut off by a pane of glass that has fallen from an out of control glass truck, its just so cool that it will replay three times.  Three.  No more, no less.

My boss at the crackerjack factory assured me it was frightening, but I did not find it to be especially scary (and believe me, I don't really do scary movies).

But this film is rather creepy and the final scene where the dude (I think his name is Robert) is preparing to kill the evil Satan child Damien is very disturbing.  Damien is 5, after all.  He doesn't realize he is the Anti-Christ yet, and he won't know that until college after a really bad experience with jungle juice forces himself to take a good hard look at himself in the mirror and ask himself "Who are you, Damien?  Who are you?  What in the hell am I doing in this place?  Why am I majoring in coal mining when I know that inside of me there is an interpretive dancer just waiting to burst out?".  No, as his dad lays his body on the altar, he is just a scared, confused little boy.  Even though I know this child is the Anti-Christ and is going to bring about the Armageddon, well, I still found myself saying "Don't do it, The Dude whose name I can't remember!  I would rather take the  consequences of letting the Anti-Christ live than see you kill that poor little boy."

Well, guess what?  It's a happy ending!  The British police (did I mention that The Dude was the American ambassador to my adopted homeland?) shoot The Dude and the little boy goes to live with The Dude's best friend, the POTUS.

That's right.  The President Of The United States of America.

And sometimes, as we have seen, the son of  POTUS can one day become the POTUS himself.  Maybe that is what The Omen is all about.  Be afraid America.  Be very afraid.  If Damien was 5 in 1976, he's now 36 years old.  A little too young to run for office just yet.  But soon.  Very soon....

Perhaps more frightening is Gregory Peck's left eyebrow.  Good god man, he can cock that eyebrow.  Gives me goosebumps it does.

Movies You May Not Like: The Deer Hunter

So, the next movie on my boss's list was "The Deer Hunter".  I've seen the final hour or so several times, but never seen the whole thing.

I imagine many of you have seen it, but the plot is easy enough to summarize.

1.  A bunch of guys finish their work at the mill (yo yo yo Western PA!) and go to a wedding.  It goes on for a long time.  Three of the men, Steven, Michael (played by DeNiro) and Nick (Christopher Walken) all good friends, are going to be shipping out to Vietnam in a few days.

2.  Vietnam happens.  All three of them end up as prisoners of the VietCong where they are forced to play Russian Roulette for their captors amusement.  Michael, who is in special forces, manages to use the game to overcome his captors and rescues his three friends.

3.  We see the aftermath of the war and how it effects everyone. Spoiler spoiler:  no one is really changed for the better.  Make sure you have some tissues handy, because this is a sad one.

The basic lesson of the film is one that we as a nation have become sadly well acquainted with as late (again):  War is terrible.  No, I didn't need this movie to teach me that, but I haven't seen many movies that really capture how hard it is for some of our veterans to come home, how difficult it is to live with trauma of combat.  Typically, a war movie ends when the mission is achieved and glory is won.  Often the great cost in lives lost and men wounded is seen as the price of war, but I've never seen any movie that focuses on what happens when the guys who survive come home in the way this one does.

The documentary "War", by Sebastian Junger, maybe comes close, in that you hear the soldiers in it wonder what they are going to do when they get home, and some of them fear that the war has left them hopelessly fucked up.  What makes that documentary sadder is that the soldiers aren't actors and they are all so young.  God, they are young.  While the platoon Junger is following around does sustain wounded and has at least two men killed during their deployment, we get the sense that among the heaviest prices to pay are the burdens that these young men will be carrying for the rest of their lives.

We've known for years that war does this.  It shatters lives.  I'm not saying war is never an option - sadly, sometimes it is - but we must always ask ourselves if it is worth the cost in lives lost and destroyed.  I wonder if often we find that it is not.

And the movie also portrays in great detail (and a fair bit of accuracy) a true Eastern Orthodox wedding, complete with the three turns around the altar and the massive quantities of alcohol consumed.

Speaking of which, here's a tip:  If you are at your wedding and you are given a funny looking glass of wine to drink, and if you are told that if you spill any bad luck will follow you all the days of your life, try not to spill any.

You may ask yourself: why do the Russians introduce the possibility of bestowing a horrific curse upon two married people on one of the greatest days of their life?  And how do the stalwart Russian people keep from falling flat on their faces in a philosophical sense in the face of such a horrific juxtaposition?  How do they keep their balance and move on with their lives?

I will let this funny little singing milkman guy explain.

Movies You May Not Like: Bull Durham

Got to be honest with you guys; didn't really like this one so much.

I mean, yeah, it had its moments.  The movie may have been saved had I not had to watch Susan Sarandon and Kevin Costner have sex for 10 minutes, with all apologies to Ms. Sarandon to whom I mean no disrespect (and who was pretty good in this movie, though her character was a little odd.  She loves baseball.  I mean, she really, really, really loves baseball).  It was just...guh.  Too much.

And that's all I have to say about that.

Movies You May Not Like -- Ben Hur

So a while ago it occurred to my boss at the crackerjack factory (look, someone has to make those sweet kernels of deliciousness...you may say that is a waste of an extremely expensive college degree.  Well guess what?  I like working at the crackerjack factory.  So get bent, eat my shorts, go jump in a lake, fuck off, etc. etc. etc.) that while I am reasonably well read and well versed in music I have seen very little of the iconic films of the past.  This is the kind of things we talk about the crackerjack factory because, let's face it, people are starting to wise up to the fact that these things are actually not really very good for you.  

So, my boss made me a list of films, and told me that next year's merit raise depended on me watching each one and delivering a full report.  The list is 30 films long, and from "Ben Hur" to "The Goonies" to "One Crazy Summer", they are classics all.  Some of them I have already seen ("Jaws", "A Christmas Story", "The Godfather", among others), so I actually only have 26 to go.

I decided to start with Ben-Hur, because it seemed in keeping with Easter Season.  The plot (SPOILER ALERT...not that it matters, because apparently everyone on the planet has seen this movie except for me) is basically that this Roman General becomes the head honcho of Judea where he runs into his boyhood friend, Judah Ben-Hur, who is a well respected Jew (played by Charleston Heston).  The General, Messala, wants Ben Hur to betray some of the Jews who stand against Rome, but Ben-Hur refuses.  When Ben-Hur's sister accidentally knocks out the new Roman Governor of Judea, Messala uses this as a pretext for taking Ben-Hur down.  His family is imprisoned and he is sent to the galley's.  On the way out to the galley's he is marched through Nazareth, where Jesus (who has not yet begun his ministry) meets him and gives the thirsty Ben-Hur some water.  

From there, Ben-Hur (let's just call him Ben) becomes the best damn galley slave this side of Corinth, and he manages to win the respect of a Roman naval officer.  He becomes a charioteer, and finally returns home to settle old scores.  He beats Massala in a chariot race (the famous Ben Hur chariot race), and as a result of injuries sustained during the crash Massala dies, but not before informing Ben that his mother and sister(?) are in a leper colony. This seems like a victory to him, and he dies a proud and happy man. 

The rest of the film is basically about Ben trying to get in touch with his family, and about his desire for further revenge.  But now Jesus's ministry is in full swing, and Ben's love interest, Esther, is speaking to Ben about forgiveness.  At last he takes his mother and sister to Jerusalem because Esther thinks they can be healed by Christ.  But by now he is being tried, and the movie ends with the cruxifiction.  But in a very southern baptist touch the blood of Jesus, washed from the cross, comes into contact with Ben's mom and sis and they are healed.  'Tis a miracle!

The movie is very, very long, some 3 hours and 20 minutes.  It took several sittings to get through, and I must admit I found it a little slow.  It has a nice message, and a happy ending, and I would even say that by the standards of 1959 the acting itself isn't bad.  I have immense appreciation for the scale of the effort in terms of building sets and staging extras.  There was, after all, no CGI when Ben-Hur was made, and who ever owns the rights to it has been wise not to put in CGI effects into the film after the fact in some sort of crazy George Lucas kind of way.  

Even so, I'm happy at this point to just cross it off the list and move on to the next one.