Friday, March 14, 2014

7 Quick Takes Vol. 34

-->
Welcome Conversion Diary readers!

1.     I’ve been suffering from idea overload lately: I’ve got so many story ideas that I can’t seem to settle on any one of them long enough to make anything out of it. Lot of monsters, dragons, and snakes. Most of my stories involve snakes somehow. And, for some reason, people getting eaten (but usually not by snakes: what’s up with that?).

2.     I finally checked out a trailer for Noah, and I gotta say, I think it actually looks pretty good. Of course, I’m deeply suspicious about any contemporary religious film, especially if it comes from mainstream Hollywood, but I thought that at least what the trailer showed seemed interesting and respectful (I particularly liked the “I'm not alone” bit). I’ve been severely skeptical of this project from day one, but you never know; it might surprise me.

3.     By the way, one thing I like about how Noah looks is that they’re bringing some imagination and energy to the film. I think that’s one of the things that hampers most Christian projects: they’re too timid and prosaic. The Passion of the Christ was great, in part, because it went all out with imaginative religious imagery (Satan haunting the via dolorosa, where only Jesus and Mary can see him; Longimus the Roman soldier kneeling in the spray of blood and water coming from Christ’s side; Jesus suddenly addressing Pilate in perfect Latin, etc.). However Noah turns out, I hope future Christian filmmakers will take note.

4.      I think I’ve found another new favorite blog: the TOF Spot. Check out his 9-part examination of how heliocentrism replaced geocentrism, which begins here. Fair warning: if you’re a big Galileo fan, you might want to brace yourself for a disappointment.

5.     Actually, what struck me most about that rundown is how it seemed to be another example of the phenomenon I noticed surrounding the Depression: the gregarious, talkative extravert (here Galileo) makes a big splash and gets all the credit, despite actually accomplishing very little or even making the situation worse, while the quieter, less attractive introvert (here Kepler) isn’t much remembered, but actually achieved more. I really think I’ll have to make a study of this pattern to see if I can find any other examples.

6.     Speaking of Galileo, here’s his finger. 

Three guesses which one!
(sorry; my initial caption was even more immature) 

7.     Quote:
“In the great fulfillment we must have a citizenship less concerned about what the government can do for it and more anxious about what it can do for the nation.”
-Warren G. Harding.
That’s right: JFK’s best line was a snappier paraphrase of Warren G. flippin’ Harding!
Makes me wonder whether Kennedy just stole all his good lines from obscure past Presidents. He probably cribbed the “We choose to go to the moon” speech from Chester A. Arthur or something.

Vivat Christus Rex!

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

Reviews: Frozen


 
            I was kind of hesitant to see Frozen. Everyone seemed to be raving about it, but certain rumors had reached my ears that indicated it might not be the kind of thing I would enjoy. Now that I’ve seen it, I’d say that my fears weren’t exactly confirmed, but I found it disappointing all the same.
            Since it’s already won two Academy Awards, been a huge hit with audiences of all ages, and practically entered the lexicon of Disney greats, let’s admit it has some very real strengths: the animation is gorgeous, the female lead is adorable, the comic-relief sidekicks are delightful, there are at least a couple good songs (including one knock-out), I thought a final-act twist was a delightfully devilish piece of writing, and the climactic moment of self-sacrifice was beautifully done.
            But these are mixed in with serious flaws: it’s unfocused, it suffers from jarring tonal shifts, the male lead is pretty much strictly comic relief, some of the songs are just kind of lame, and it lacks any of the symbolic power that it ought to have. It’s like a movie that doesn’t know what it wants to be when it grows up, except that it knows it doesn’t want to be Hans Christian Anderson’s The Snow Queen or anything like it.
            The film opens with a haunting song about the power of the ice, sung by a baritone chorus of icemen. The ice, the song says, is as beautiful as it is dangerous. During the song we meet young Kristoff (voiced as adult by Jonathan Groff) and his pet reindeer, Sven.
            From there we cut to two young princesses, one of whom, Elsa (Idina Menzel), is quiet and shy, but has the power to make ice and snow with her fingertips, the other, Anna (Kristen Bell), is energetic and carefree. Their playtime in the snow that Elsa creates in the ballroom is cut short when an errant blast strikes Anna, leaving her unconscious.
            Frightened by this close-call, their parents separate the two (after taking Anna to a local troll for magical healing and memory modification to hide her knowledge of her sister’s power), leading to years of confused, plaintive isolation for both of them while Elsa’s powers grow swiftly harder and harder to control.
            Then their parents die at sea, Elsa has to assume the throne, and all hell breaks loose, causing her to flee into the mountains and inadvertently leaving her kingdom in a state of perpetual winter.
            So, Anna, leaving the visiting Prince Hans (Santino Fontana), her ostensible fiancée, in charge, sets out to find Elsa and convince her to come back and take away the winter. She’s aided in her quest by a now-grown-up Kristoff and they’re soon joined by the talking snowman, Olaf (Josh Gad).
            From there, the film stumbles in a rather aimless way through Anna’s journey to reach her sister, both physically and emotionally, which is levied by a number of crises that feel less apiece with the story and more driven by the need to have something happen, including a curse with a strict timeline, a betrayal, and a Beauty and the Beast-like siege scene that isn’t remotely as exciting or inventive as its inspiration.
            That’s really one of the chief problems with the movie; the story simply isn’t tight enough. It wanders among its disparate elements and can’t seem to make up its mind what it wants the story to be about: is it about sisterly love, about the thawing of a frozen heart, a romance, a journey of discovery and growth, the need for self-expression, what? There’s no clear goal present, just a vague notion of “find Elsa, shut down the winter, try not to die.” Everything presses and jostles together, the tone shifts wildly (sometimes right in the middle of a scene), and none of the various plots and subplots come to a really satisfying conclusion.
            For instance, when Elsa runs away and builds herself a gorgeous ice palace while singing the film’s best song – Let it Go – it seems to be setting up for her to be a defiantly isolationist Snow Queen…but she doesn’t really. She just acts exactly the same as she did before, in a different outfit and location. Her self-made palace and proud declarations of independence all come to nothing except an awkward interview with her sister and a single tepid action sequence. There’s nothing triumphantly independent about her once the song is over.
            Where do Elsa’s powers come from anyway? Are they, like one character says, a curse? If so, who cursed her? Are they just somehow natural to her? Has anyone else in the kingdom ever had them? Being able to build ice palaces and sentient snowmen with your mind really seems like something demanding an explanation. But the film isn’t interested in this; Elsa’s powers drive the story, but the story itself is oddly blasé about them, to the point that she can’t even use them effectively or consistently. When the bad guys are storming her icy fortress, why doesn’t she just whip up a few more icy minions to fight them off? The one snow-golem she makes is pretty effective, maybe she could make more? It doesn’t seem to cost her anything. Maybe she could freeze the doors shut, or pile up snow and ice to make a barricade or…well, a lot of things. Having given its heroine ill-defined, but clearly overwhelming power, the film then clumsily tries to put her in danger from obviously inadequate foes (seriously; she built an entire palace with a thought and creates abominable snowmen with a wave of her hand, but has trouble taking on two guys with crossbows?). 
            In a way, Elsa’s character arc reminded me of Wicked (lonely and different girl with powers she doesn’t understand, forced to hide and bottle them up before bursting free in a completely awesome song that the subsequent story doesn’t really deliver on, played by Idina Menzel), which might be fine, except it also makes Wicked’s mistake of leaving its heroine too much of a light-weight for the role she’s supposed to be playing. Elsa’s not my idea of a Snow Queen; she doesn’t have the force of personality, let alone the icy demeanor that such a role should call for. At best, she’s a Snow Teenager.
            Anna, the other sister and main protagonist, is a much better character; sweet, endearingly optimistic, naïve, and courageous, she’s a worthy heroine by any stretch. Most of the film is seen through her eyes, and she’s a large part of why the film works to the extent that it does. The moment you meet her, you just want to cuddle her up in a warm blanket and make her a nice mug of hot chocolate.
            Rare for this kind of movie, there are two male leads, just as there are two female leads, though this doesn’t factor in the way you might expect. Only one of the guys is playing the role he seems to be, while the other assumes a different character later in the story, one that I thought worked pretty well, though it’s jarringly at odds with how he’s behaved up to that point. I don’t just mean that he seemed different, I mean that his whole manner and actions seemed contrary to what is ultimately revealed about him to a distracting extent, less like he was putting on an act and more like he was just doing what the script told him to do. In particular, his actions in a key moment of crisis are the opposite of what, in retrospect, he ought to have done. I mean, his whole scheme would have succeeded if he had just ‘not noticed’ something for one more second: why would he sabotage himself like that (except to fool the audience for a few more scenes)?   
            The other male lead is a decent enough sort, though he’s more or less extraneous to the story and is almost entirely relegated to comic relief. Unlike most Disney films, this one isn’t primarily a romance but a story of sisterly love. Still, the fact that the love interest is almost entirely a source of humor and never gets to affect the story appreciably or really do anything heroic means that what romantic element it does have falls flat. He’s just another element that is set up, but never pays off in an interesting way.
            (Hmm, this may count as a spoiler, but I would like to note that in a film that at least broaches the possibility of a romance between a princess and an iceman, no one ever so much as points out the social gap between the two. I guess in today’s world nobody cares, but A). the movie isn’t set in today’s world, B). you’d think said iceman would at least comment on hanging out with a princess at some point, or the fact that they had a secret encounter as children that she doesn’t know about, and C). this robs the relationship of a lot of its potential fun, since half the joy of a fairy tale romance is precisely that it’s so uneven: peasant and princess, maid and prince. The fact that no one even seems aware of the difference makes the characters seem disinterested in their own relationship, and if they don’t care about it, why should we?).  
            Then there’s the snowman, Olaf. I’m a little torn on him. On the one hand, he seems to have wandered in from another movie entirely and his existence is never adequately explained (so, Elsa can create life? How does that work?). On the other hand, whatever movie he wandered in from was a very funny and endearing one, so I’m glad he’s here all the same. The movie gets a lot of mileage from his piecemeal body and loveable innocence, making for a weird, but effective combination of dark humor (as his body parts go flying and he eagerly longs to know what ‘heat’ feels like) and real sweetness.
            The humor here works, for the most part. Olaf’s hilarious and charming, and Kristoff the iceman gets a lot of good jokes, both himself and in connection with his reindeer, Sven (with whom he holds hilarious one-man, two-sided conversations). Anna is likewise as charming as you please, and she and Kristoff play off each other well. I thought an early dance scene with a visiting bigwig was both a cute sisterly moment (one of the few they get) and one of the funniest bits in the film (“let me know if you’re about to swoon!”). Another great bit is a scene set in a local trading post (“I sell ice!” “Oh, wow; that’s about the worst job you could have right now.”).
            As for the songs, I found really only two to be at all memorable: the opening Ice number, and, of course Let It Go (although I thought the latter ended on an almost comically weak note compared with the rest of the song. Like as if, say, The Imperial March ended with an extra couple notes on triangle). The rest range from forgettable to lame, though some of this might be the fact that, for the most part, they’re bizarrely at odds with the larger dramatic context, almost as if they wrote the songs separately and then shoved them into the plot. The worst of these is when they stop to have a comedic/romantic number while the heroine is dying of a curse. Granted, the characters at least make a few efforts to bring this fact up, but from the audience point of view it’s the film’s biggest “what the hell were they thinking?” moment. It’d be like Aladdin putting A Friend Like Me in the scene where Jaffar gets control of the Genie.
            There are a lot of potentially  interesting themes here: the birth of the Snow Queen, the love between diametrically opposite sisters, a romantic triangle of prince, princess, and iceman, the dangers of moving too quickly in relationships, love melting an icy heart, and so on, but almost none of them are played out. The film hits one and moves on to the next without doing anything with the idea.
About the only one of these themes I’d say the film really does anything with is the dangers of quick romances, but even with that I’m not sure the events of the film really jell: as noted above, the bad guy acts too heroically for the first three-quarters of the film, making the twist when it comes feel like a last-ditch effort to give the film a little extra drama. I like the twist itself, I just think it could have been better integrated into the story (I can’t resist: contrast this with Wreck-It Ralph, where the ‘hidden bad guy’ steadily became more and more overtly villainous, while a seemingly-unrelated element is quietly set up elsewhere, only to bring the two together in a genuinely unexpected revelation that not only makes sense, but which is in perfect synch with the film’s central theme). 
Sisterly love also fairs comparatively well, though the structure of the film means it mostly plays out in a single spectacular moment. Before then, we only have the opening (adorable) scene of them playing in the snow and a few strained conversations scattered through the rest of the film. It’s more about Anna’s desire to have a relationship with her sister than it is about the actual relationship. You certainly could make a film about that, but to really spark interest it would need something more than what we have here: a greater sense of real (as opposed to imposed) distance between the two sisters, a more serious obstacle to reconciliation than just “I haven’t figured out my superpowers yet.”
            Part of the problem, I think, is the fact that there’s no real disorder present in the main plot; just a series of misunderstandings with tragic consequences. There’s nothing for the heroines to push up against, no evil power that needs to be overcome. There’s just one heroine’s out-of-control powers that she can’t shut down and another heroine’s attempts to…have her shut them down. The whole plot basically hinges on an issue of proper handling with a few related complications, which makes it feel oddly aimless and impersonal. The whole thing could be straightened up in five minutes if just one character had any kind of solid information, and that doesn’t really make for gripping drama (oddly enough, there is a character who seems have that kind of information available, but no one bothers to ask him about it: “hey, Mr. Troll, you seemed pretty knowledgeable about my ice powers when I was a kid, do you have any suggestions how I might control them better?”). 
 You might think that prejudice or unreasoning fear would be the antagonizing force, but it really isn’t. That sort of thing is set up as a threat, but basically limited to a few completely-reasonable terrified reactions on the part of the citizenry and the actions of a minor bad guy, while the chief villain’s evil scheme is only tenuously related to the main plot at all.
            I really think the film would have benefited from making Elsa an honest-to-goodness villainess; someone who finally turned against the people who imprisoned and feared her, and coldly sees their sufferings as just punishment for what she herself suffered at their hands. It might have been more difficult to pull off maintaining sympathy with her (though I’m not so sure; no one has trouble sympathizing with the Phantom of the Opera for instance), but I think it would have made for a much stronger and more satisfying film, as well as being closer in spirit to the original fairy tale (and how cool would it be to have a Disney villain that is redeemed at the end of the film? I don’t think we’ve ever seen that).  
            Which brings me to the fact that the symbolism here is all wrong; there’s no ‘icy heart’ that needs melting, except in a bluntly literal sense. Elsa isn’t cold; she’s just scared. Anna is the very reverse of cold. They might have had some interesting winter/summer symbolism here between the two sisters, but I couldn’t detect any except superficially (since Elsa isn’t being herself for most of the film, so we don’t get much sense of her real character). There is a genuinely ‘cold heart’ present, but it never gets melted. The symbolic power of the original fairy tale of love thawing a frozen heart is completely gone: the climactic act of love might as well be healing a heart murmur.
            Actually, this revised version could be said to be conveying a very nasty message: that really cold hearts can’t be thawed, and that only a heart that was never frozen to begin with can be melted by an act of love. The truly cold-hearted are simply bad and worthless: a kind of Calvinistic/Gnostic predetermination, or in other words, the exact opposite of Anderson’s theme. I doubt very much that this is what the filmmakers were going for, but there’s nothing here to contradict such an interpretation.
            On the other hand, the film’s climax, even shorn of the tale’s symbolic power, is unexpected, extremely moving, and a beautiful vision of selfless love that gives all for the beloved. That’s the moment the whole film is structured around, and it’s almost glorious enough to make the film worth seeing just for that moment.   
            In summary, Frozen has all it needs to be a great film, but it just doesn’t come together. A lack of focus squanders its potential and it ends up being merely okay where it might have been superb.

Final Rating: 3/5: Gorgeous visuals, endearing characters, and some strong material are wasted by a tepid, unfocused storyline that largely fails to live up to its potential. 

Friday, March 7, 2014

7 Quick Takes Vol. 33


Still hosted by Conversion Diary.

1.     So, I completely failed the ‘7 Posts in 7 Days’ challenge: it completely slipped my mind last weekend. Bitter failure!

2.     We’re finally in Lent! My Lenten commitments include limiting snacking between meals, limited types of snacks available (basically fruit, nuts, and cheese-and-crackers), soup for dinner most nights, and at least one hour of deplugging every evening (which does not count drive times, exercise, or any other time that I couldn’t be on computer anyway).

3.     Finished A Princess of Mars last night during one of those deplugged times. I loved it, though it does get a little undisciplined towards the end (and then…the Green Martians suddenly become allies with the good Red Martians, but now the bad Red Martians have a million men, and…). Super-romantic and with lots and lots of monsters and sword fights. And it has a simply gorgeous ending line.

4.     Also found and read Red Nails, the last of Robert E. Howard’s Conan stories. It was deliciously pulpy, with lots of monsters, magic, good-looking women, and stabbity stabbity action.

5.     What struck me most about these pulpy works (Burroughs and Howard) is how, well, decent they are. The heroes slaughter bad-guys by the hundreds, but they also meditate on things like honesty, family, kindness, friendship, self-sacrifice, and so on. John Carter would “willingly depopulate all of Barsoom” for Dejah Thoris, but he wouldn’t tell a lie to save himself from death. Conan’s a barbarian, but he’d never attempt to ‘force himself’ on Valeria (even if she weren’t currently threatening to stab him). The Natural Law is strong in these stories, by Crom it is!

6.     So, I went and saw Frozen after work today, since everyone’s been raving about it for four or five months. Honestly, I wasn’t that impressed. I’ll probably do a full review soon, but I thought it seemed rather jarringly put together, as though they came up with a bunch of different ideas and then put them all in without thinking whether they meshed. That, and the natural symbolism of the story was almost completely absent, with no one's "cold heart" being melted. It’s not bad, just…not great.

7.      Ending with another quote:
“If someone had told me I would be Pope one day, I would have studied harder.”
-Pope John Paul I.

 Vivat Christus Rex!

Friday, February 28, 2014

7 Quick Takes Vol. 32


Part of the 7 Posts in 7 Days hosted by Conversion Diary

1.     So, LCD is tentatively still my main project at the moment: I’ve restructured the story completely into a version that feels more satisfying, so it’s back to work. To give you an idea of what the restructuring looks like, consider this:
In all previous versions, a key supporting character is introduced by initiating an exposition-fill conversation with the hero.
In this version, he’s introduced doing a version of the “long-list of better insults” scene from Cyrano de Bergerac, which devolves into a massive bar fight that ends with all concerned fleeing the town watch.

2.     I’ve been reading The Temperament God Gave You, furthering my studies in personality type (though, as the authors note, temperament is not synonymous with personality). Very interesting! In case you were wondering, I’m Melancholic with a dash of Phlegm, meaning I’m a reclusive idealist who frets over the imperfections of life, but who also is sympathetic and patient with the wretched, weak people who infest this accursed world.

3.     I cannot believe I only have three more chapters of Chronicles of Hendricks left to post! Unfortunately, these are the ones that need the most work and which I’ve been putting off until now. Better do something about that.

4.     By the way, the chapter posted today, Boa vs. Python is a large part of why the book was written in the first place. See, I used to watch a lot of Sci-Fi Channel Original Movies (no, I don’t know why), and one of them was, well, Boa vs. Python. I was really excited about this one, so excited that it became the first one I watched with a friend. I also turned out to be the worst and most unpleasant SFCOM I had seen yet (the very worst I’ve seen, the one that made me give up the practice entirely, was Abominable, which was like “Rear Window with monsters, as done by someone who personally hates the viewer”). Among its many, many sins was the fact that the titular fight lasted maybe a minute and consisted entirely of the two very-bad-cgi snakes nipping at each other until one got hit by a train. So, when I started working on Chronicles (which started life as a tribute to SFCOMs), I determined to do that fight properly. Through the innumerable changes the story has gone through over the years, that fight has been one of the few things that’s always been there. So, enjoy!

If you haven’t started reading Chronicles and would like to, you can begin here.

5.     Saw The Apartment for the first time last night and absolutely loved it. It was just the kind of romance that appeals to me, and Jack Lemmon was a simply phenomenal actor (which I already knew, but hadn’t fully appreciated yet). I don’t know that I would personally classify it as a ‘comedy’ except in the classic sense (a story with a happy ending), since it’s really pretty serious for most of its running time, but I’m also not sure what else I would call it. I may write more about it sometime soon.

6.     I’ve been getting a lot of support from family and friends about my plans to move to (probably) Texas. So much so that I have to keep telling them that I still have no idea where exactly I’m looking or even the kind of job I’ll be looking for. As usual, my plans are much less advanced than most people seem to think.

7.     A fun quote:
“Some men are graduated from college cum laude, some are graduated summa cum laude, and some are graduated mirabile dictum.”
-William Howard Taft

Vivat Christus Rex!

Thursday, February 27, 2014

Simple Bad Guys

                Someone asked me on my Wicked post why I thought the Witch was such an interesting character. Of course, I couldn’t simply give a quick rundown; this had to turn into another blog post about villains in general (the fact that the next day I ripped apart a terribly done villain also factors in).
                These days we like complexity in everything, including our bad guys: “he’s not just a simple villain” or something like it is becoming such a common source of praise that one wonders whether it’s approaching its expiration date (the way “spectacular special effects” has done). Now, I’m not going to object to this habit; I like complex, humanized antagonists as much as the next man. But I notice that the villains we really gravitate to, the ones that stick in our minds are, for the most part, the ‘simple bad guys.’
                If you were to list the most memorable and iconic villains in cinematic history, your list would probably look something like this: Dracula, the Wicked Witch of the West, Darth Vader, Blofeld, Hannibal Lecter, Mr. Potter, and Freddy Krueger. These are the villains who capture our imagination, whose image we keep coming back to, who become bywords or cultural touchstones, so that even people who haven’t seen the movies know at once who they are. And with the possible exceptions of Hannibal and (arguably) Vader, they’re all extremely simple characters. They’re two-dimensional, flat, ‘just villains.’ Yet they are the ones who fascinate us (this notion is further supported by the fact that the most celebrated movie villain of recent years is The Dark Knight’s emphatically non-humanized Joker).
                This to me suggests that maybe complexity and what we might call ‘humanity’ isn’t necessarily what we look for in our bad guys. Or, to put it another way, that when we compare complicated, distinctly human villains with simply evil bad guys, we’re actually comparing two very different things.
                When we view a story featuring a humanized villain, we’re seeing a conflict between two men; Mal and the Operative are both just men with competing philosophies and characters. Mr. Smith and Sen. Paine likewise are just men who, finding themselves at the same moral crossroads, took divergent paths.
                On the other hand, you can’t really call, say, Mr. Potter a ‘man’ at all. He’s a caricature, a bogey; the embodiment of greed, corruption, and self-interest. The Wicked Witch likewise is a bogey; a living expression of ‘wickedness,’ with all its implications of cunning, cruelty, spite, and covetousness.
                The distinction, then, is between what we may, for present purposes, call an ‘antagonist’ and a ‘bogey.’ An antagonist is a human bad guy; someone who opposes the hero for clear and understandable reasons because they either both want the same thing or want two mutually exclusive things. A bogey is a mythic bad guy; less an actual person than an imaginative representative of some idea or quality. To put it simply, an antagonist possesses certain qualities; a bogey embodies them.
                Let’s take an example: contrast Mr. Kirby in You Can’t Take it With You with Mr. Potter in It’s a Wonderful Life. Both characters are greedy, unscrupulous, self-centered businessmen of a well-known type: the uncaring rich man who gobbles up everything he possibly can by hook or crook, who relentlessly seeks more and more even when he already has more than he could ever use or enjoy.
                But Mr. Kirby is an antagonist: he’s greedy, snobbish, and heartless when it comes to his business, but he loves his son dearly, has a sense of humor, and is capable of acts of kindness and self-reflection. Mr. Potter, on the other hand, is a bogey: he has no family, no apparent interests apart from being a heartless miser, and he only ever laughs when he’s getting one over on someone else.
                A key difference is that Mr. Kirby has a past: he and other characters make references to things he had done or characteristics he had had before he became so obsessed with business. There’s a sense of Mr. Kirby being fallen from what he once was. Mr. Potter has no past; as far as we know, he entered life old, rich, and evil. As Hannibal Lecter said in a cut line from Silence of the Lambs, “nothing happened to me. I happened.”
                Bogeys don’t have pasts. Of the villains I listed above, I believe only one – Darth Vader – is given any kind of back story, and that very little: he was a Jedi Knight, he was seduced by the Dark Side, he betrayed the Jedi, his wife and infant children went into hiding to escape him (note that I’m not counting later attempts to give these characters histories, both because these efforts come after they have already become seared into the public mind and because they almost all fail spectacularly). Having a past humanizes the villain, and some villains don’t want to be humanized.
                In Batman Begins, there are several scenes where characters discuss the idea of symbols: a mere man can be destroyed, or ignored, or locked up, but a symbol is something more, something eternal and incorruptible. Bruce consciously sets out to achieve that kind of mythic status through a combination of solitude, anonymity, and primal imagery. That is what a ‘bogey’ villain is meant to do; to encompass in a single figure some archetypal evil. When they succeed, some vast, formless shadow in the viewer’s mind is given a definite shape or symbol, almost in the way a sound is associated with a letter. That vague idea of seductive, yet life-sucking evil finds its expression in the form of Dracula. The chaotic, violent subconscious that so terrifies us in our sleep is given the name and face of Freddy Krueger. The half-suspected cruel intellect manipulating world events from behind the scenes becomes a soft-spoken man stroking a Persian cat. Thus our formless notions of evil are given shape and character in these mythic villains.
                Though let me be clear that these are not mere ‘symbols,’ so that you can say that Mr. Potter is the evils of unbridled capitalism, or Hannibal Lecter is psychopathic tendencies. Rather, they embody these things in the way that Apollo embodies music or Diana embodies the woods: it is a deeper kind of symbolism, one that doesn’t allow for a one-to-one comparison (i.e. Potter’s confinement to a wheelchair represents to actual impotency of capital, etc.), but which tries to capture the feel or beats of the thing itself in one archetypal figure. In describing the effect, it often seems like mere symbolism, but it actually goes much deeper than that; the thing being expressed is caught in elements you could never really put down in a list of matching qualities. It’s found in the witch’s cackling voice that has an undercurrent of a snarl. It’s found in the goddess’s bare arms and deer-like strides as she runs under the moon, a bow on her shoulder and dogs baying at her feet. It’s in the old man tossing off muttered sneers as he recommends ruining another man’s livelihood. In short, the whole ‘feel’ of the character captures the feeling of the thing itself in our minds. Like in music, it’s the piece taken as a whole that creates the effect.
                 Now, obviously there is a lot of grey area here, where a bad guy fails to either be humanized or achieve any kind of mythic grandeur. It might be said that a ‘bogey’ is the easiest kind of villain to write and the hardest kind to do well. The ones listed above are a mere handful of the innumerable blunt, simplistic, one-dimensional bad guys that flood cinema screens. Most, frankly, just feel lazy or boring. Some rise to a mild level of archetypal power, but not enough to really capture the viewer.
That, I think, is why we often sneer at bad guys who are ‘simply villains;’ not because it’s bad writing in itself, but because it fails so often. This sort of thing is very advanced storytelling, so advanced that most examples of it happen, as it were, by accident; the right combination of design, script, and performer come together to capture the intended effect, often as much to the writer’s surprise as the viewers’. If Dracula had been played by anyone other than Bela Lugosi – even great actors like Conrad Veidt or Lon Chaney Sr., both of whom were considered for the part – I’m willing to bet that he wouldn’t have made half the impact he did (the fact that none of the many, many actors who had assailed the part since have come close to eclipsing Lugosi supports this view). The same thing with Anthony Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter (an earlier Lecter film featuring Brian Cox is now barely remembered except as a trivia question), or Margaret Hamilton as the Wicked Witch. The best most filmmakers who attempt this sort of character can reasonably hope for is generally something like Red Skull from Captain America or Jack Wilson from Shane: a villain who captures the right feel of the thing, but not spectacularly so, and only, as it were, for the time of the film. They serve their purpose in the story, but don’t take a place in the ‘pantheon’ of the culture.
                Regarding complex villains, these, I think, generally fill out the middle or upper-middle of the storytelling spectrum; they fascinate and intrigue and trouble us, but I find they almost never rise to the artistic heights of ‘bogeys.’ Much as we enjoy them and admire the craftsmanship that went into them, I think it’s clear they don’t grab us in the same way the others do. Sheriff Hank Quinlan from Touch of Evil is an intriguing character and a great villain, but who remembers him? In fact, the only indisputably ‘complex, three-dimensional bad guy’ I think of off the top of my head who reaches iconic status is Norman Bates (I’m not counting characters like King Kong or the Frankenstein Monster, whose ‘villain’ status is debatable). These ‘antagonists’ as I have called them have our cheers and our critical approval, and rightly so, but they don’t fascinate us like the bogeys.
                And that, to finally answer the question that prompted this post, is why I think the Wicked Witch of the West is an ‘interesting’ character (at least in the movie: I haven’t read the books); she’s one of those great mythic figures that capture an idea so perfectly that she becomes the means of conveying that idea. She’s interesting in the same way that Hecate is interesting; because she taps some primal well of imagery in our minds and becomes more than just a character in a children’s story. You could, if you really wanted to, break her down into Freudian or feminist or religious or Marxist interpretations, but you’d spoil the effect, just like you’d spoil a joke if you tried to explain it, or kill an animal by dissecting it. She’s interesting not because you can dissect or examine her, not because she raises interesting questions or poses moral quandaries, but simply because she is what she is: the Wicked Witch of the West.



Vivat Christus Rex!

Wednesday, February 26, 2014

Guardians of the Galaxy Trailer


 
                My reaction to the ‘Guardians of the Galaxy’ trailer has been enthusiastically positive, though with a little ‘left-brain, right-brain’ debating:

                Left-Brain: “Oh, for Pete’s sake, not another ‘bad-boy’ superhero movie!”
                Right-Brain: “It’s the superhero/scifi version of The Usual Suspects! I’m betting the tree is Kaiser Soze.”

                Left Brain: “Ah, the girl is psychopathic murderer. Feminism!”
                Right-Brain: “Hooray! Zoe Saldana as a green-skinned space-babe in a movie that probably isn’t green propaganda!”

                Left Brain: “Rocket Raccoon is worth the price of admission.”
                Right Brain: “Agreed.” 

Seriously, though; this looks like it's gonna be a ton of fun. 

Vivat Christus Rex!

Tuesday, February 25, 2014

The Mandarin or ‘Davy Jones Syndrome’


                  It’s a little late, but it’s time to get this off my chest: the handling of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3.

                  (FAIR WARNING: I'm writing this piece assuming that you've seen the movie, or at least don't care enough about it to bother about major spoilers).

                  Some people think the twist a brilliant piece of satire. Others think it unutterably stupid.
                  Me? I think it was the single worst decision in any superhero film since someone decided Arnold Schwarzenegger would be the ideal Mr. Freeze (and no, I am not forgetting the death of Cyclops or evil Tobey Maguire thrusting his pelvis at the camera).
                  Imagine if, midway through The Dark Knight, Batman had tracked down the Joker only to learn that he was an innocent clown hired by for a birthday gig that got out of hand and that Eric Roberts’ Mafioso character was the real villain. Or if the original Star Wars had killed off Darth Vader and kept Grand Moff Tarkin as the main bad guy. I call this the “Davy Jones Syndrome:” wherein a work introduces an awe-inspiring or iconic villain, only to sideline him in favor of a more generic bad guy who gores whatever ox the writer happens to be obsessed with (usually capitalism or patriotism or some other institution liberals don’t like). It’s named, of course, after the disastrous Pirates of the Caribbean sequels, which – in addition to their many other sins – inexplicably decided that an utterly generic evil capitalist would make a better chief bad-guy than a super-powered demonic cross between Captain Nemo and Cthulhu as played by one of the best character actors in modern Hollywood.
                  Iron Man 3 makes almost the exact same mistake: a diabolically evil villain played by a master bad-guy is unceremoniously tossed aside to make room for a nondescript corrupt corporate executive. The only saving grace of this debacle is that Guy Pearce is an excellent actor in his own right and can make a perfectly serviceable villain, unlike…whatever the hell his name was in Pirates. The trouble, though, is that Pearce is best at playing rather ordinary or at least human bad-guys (see his deliciously heartless turn in The Count of Monte Cristo). As a comic-book super-villain, ‘Guy Pearce as evil businessman’ is no match for ‘Ben Kingsley as all-knowing terrorist mastermind.’
                  This is so stupid, so anticlimactic, and so indescribably lame that I find it single-handedly derails the film (in my review, written shortly after I had seen it, I thought that it didn’t quite, but upon reflection I realized that the film’s contrary virtues are all ones that only really come on the first viewing, and the black hole of badness created by the Mandarin and the many other flaws grows ever larger the more you think about it).
                  I’ll try to explain why and how this was such a terrible, terrible idea (because I think it's instructive). To do that, I’ll have to recount the basic set up of the first half or so of the film and read it as though they were not going to pull their disastrous twist.
                  The Mandarin (played with chilling coldness by the great Ben Kingsley) is established as a master terrorist; Osama Bin Laden by way of Fu Manchu. He has a deep, abiding hatred for America and all it represents, a hatred he expresses through precise and symbolic bombings across the globe, accompanied by stylistic propaganda videos explaining his reasoning. He often announces his targets ahead of time, but the authorities prove helpless to do anything to stop him. At one point he openly challenges the President of the United States by threatening to execute a hostage if the President doesn’t call him in time. Then when the President does, he kills the man anyway. He’s made his point: he is in charge.
                  The Mandarin gives off an air of chilling omnipotence; he is so cunning and subtle that he can make a phone number appear in the President’s personal cell-phone while effortlessly eluding all attempts to bring him to justice. Combined with his theatrical manners and trappings, he seems almost more than a man.
                  Then, one day, Tony Stark’s friend is injured in one of the Mandarin’s attacks. Tony, enraged, offers a public challenge to the terrorist. The Mandarin accepts by bombing Stark’s house into rubble.
                  The impression is that, for once, Tony has really bitten off more than he can chew. The Mandarin is the kind of bad-guy, like Bane or the Joker in the Dark Knight films, who cuts right to the point with a speed and ferocity that the hero is unprepared for; an intricately planned blitzkrieg that overwhelms and crushes him right where he thought he was most powerful.
                  In the midst of this is Guy Pearce as a character named Aldrich Killian; a business rival with a serious grudge against Tony Stark for snubbing him years earlier. Killian possesses an unstable performance-enhancing technology called ‘Extremis’ which is tied up in the Mandarin’s schemes, and appears to be working with – or for – the terrorist, who headquarters in Killian’s Florida mansion.
                  Now, what happens in the film is that it turns out Killian is the one in charge and the Mandarin is actually a funny little British actor who has no idea of the crimes he’s involved in. Killian is in league with the Vice President and has a deal in which he’ll kill the President in exchange for the Vice President supporting his war profiteering (in a desperate attempt to save face, the writers have Killian inexplicably screaming “I was the real Mandarin!” right before he dies).
                  First of all, lame, lame, lame, Lame, LAME! Political corruption, a personal vendetta, and war profiteering? Boring! Seen it a thousand times. Hell, the last two Iron Man movies did all that, and did it better! Killian is basically just a mix of Iron Monger (the war profiteer), Vanko (the personal grudge against Stark), and Justin Hammer (the corrupt business rival), all of whom were a heck of a lot more interesting and fun.
                  Even if we hadn’t seen it all before, a corrupt corporate executive with an old grudge is a petty, rather pathetic figure. There’s no power or grandeur to him. He’s a perfectly serviceable villain, but he’s a mid-level bad-guy, not the ultimate threat of the climactic film of a trilogy. On one side we have the Master Terrorist who hates the Land of the Free and the Home of the Brave and all it stands for, and on the other we have a shallow, soulless man who can’t forget a personal slight. All the laws of drama scream in protest when you take the latter over the former.
                  What should have happened is that Killian, out of his hatred of Stark, would join forces with the Mandarin, thinking, in his arrogance, that he could control the terrorist. This would lead to the crucial moment where he realizes that he has been toying with a force far more powerful and dangerous than he bargained for and would presumably pay the price. The dynamic would be rather like Dagget and Bane in The Dark Knight Rises: the greedy businessman who, looking for an edge over his rival, turns to someone who really believes in something greater than mere Mammon and finds, to his horror, that the ideologue is something far beyond the control of a petty creature like himself. Killian, like Dagget, is a small man; a man of spite and greed and envy, whose overwhelming arrogance is the only thing that prevents him from realizing how dangerous someone like Bane or the Mandarin really is (or ought to be).
                  Which brings me to one of the crucial points: the Mandarin, as established in the first half of the film, hits Tony at a point he’s never been hit before. He strikes right at the roots of who he is and what he does. He forces Stark to face the question “what, exactly, are you fighting for?” Stark has always supported and ‘fought for’ America: both when he made weapons for the military and when he took the fight directly to the Afghan terrorists. But really, Tony has always had his own interests at the forefront. Even after he became a hero, it’s always about either cleaning up his own mess or protecting his own friends and loved ones.
The Mandarin forces him to question all that. He forces Tony to look for the ideal beyond any personal interest; it’s not about him, his past, or even his friends, it’s about the bigger issues of Freedom, Justice, and so on that Tony is supposedly fighting for. Do those matter to him at all? If so, is he really certain he’s on the right side? When push comes to shove, can Tony fight for something higher and nobler than himself?
                  See, the Mandarin, had they but allowed him, would have forced Tony to do some serious self-examination and answer some hard and interesting questions. He wouldn’t have just been a physical or intellectual challenge, but a spiritual one.
                  But perhaps I’m asking too much. Modern Hollywood seems almost incapable of imagining a man fighting for a higher cause like Justice or Honor; even Captain America wasn’t allowed to have any more profound a motivation than “I don’t like bullies.” Hollywood morality is, as a rule, entirely self-centered: personal exploration, personal empowerment, supporting one’s friends and families (if we’re lucky), and so on. The idea of fighting for a flag or an idea, for the “ashes of your fathers and the temples of your gods,” seems entirely alien to them. If so, then I can only say that if they can’t comprehend the ideas that make stories worth telling, they should stop telling them.
                  Still, even if they were never going to make the most of the Mandarin, what they actually decided to do simply hideous. On the most basic dramatic level, setting up an omnipotent, deadly mastermind able to run circles around the most powerful nation on Earth only to throw aside the curtain and show him to be nothing but smoke and mirrors is a stunning misstep, on the level of having the characters wake up and realize that it was all a dream. Having it done as a cheap joke (complete with toilet humor) only adds to the insult.
                  There is a time to be subversive and a time to be conventional. In both cases, that time ceases the moment it begins to hurt the story. In this case, it doesn’t just hurt the story; it maims and kills it. “We know you came for an elemental confrontation between Iron Man and his greatest foe, but that’d be too obvious, so we thought you’d enjoy more of the exact same kind of stuff you got in the first two movies, only stupider.” Or, alternatively “yes, I did just spend an hour setting up an utterly terrifying villain only to turn him into a cheap gag at the last minute. Ain’t I a stinker?” For goodness sakes, that’s the kind of joke you get on a Simpsons episode; it doesn’t work in an actual movie!
                  I’ve heard some people say they support the twist on the grounds that the Mandarin is a ‘racist’ character. Personally, I don’t know what racist stereotype is forwarded by a man who can outsmart the whole United States Military and go toe-to-toe with Iron Man. I’m not sure what negative statement this makes about Orientals or Anglo-Indians. Moreover, if we’re going to play the ‘racism game,’ isn’t the twist a lot more racist than the alternative would have been? Isn’t the implication (if you insist on drawing one) “oh, of course an Oriental couldn’t be the real bad guy: they’re just a funny little people. For a real mastermind, you need a white man”?
                  Besides that, what about the Mandarin is at all racist? A ‘mandarin’ is just an aristocratic class of civil servants from Imperial China who served as advisors, barristers, treasurers, and that sort of thing. An equivalent Western bad guy would call himself something like “the Bureaucrat” or, less amusingly, “the Judge.” This, of course, makes perfect sense for the Mandarin as presented in the first half of the film; a master strategist who appoints himself to stand in ‘judgment’ over the United States, and does so from the heritage of his own (ostensible) culture.
                  The only other grounds for calling the Mandarin a ‘racist’ character is the mere fact that he isn’t European, in which case good God! Do you realize how idiotic that position is? In the first place, it actually is racist to assume that people of one race do not suffer the same temptations and passions that any other race does and hence cannot be villains. In the second, pick up a newspaper sometime and see how much relation that notion has to the real world.
                  I can think of two, maybe three reasons for the decision the filmmakers made. The first is a simple desire to do something different, in which case they ought to be reminded that their job is to tell a story, not to win a Calvinball tournament. Originality is a tool, not an end, and the moment you start worrying about being original rather than simply telling a good story, you have lost your way and should put down your pen until you find it again.
                  The second reason is a fear of overseas markets. I suppose I can’t really fault them for that; filmmaking is a business, after all, but we’ve reached a very low point of culture indeed if we’re so desperate for the wealth of the tyrannies and dictatorships of the world that we dare not say a word against them. That’s even assuming that the Mandarin was explicitly connected to the Chinese government in any way, which would be an easy thing to avoid. Indeed, if they were really so worried about that, it seems to me the obvious solution would be to introduce a sympathetic Chinese character or a flattering depiction of the Chinese government to balance the portrayal (though the latter would be morally questionable in its own right).
                  The third and most troubling reason is that they really believe this is closer to how the world works: that the director or screenwriters subscribe to a kind of ‘9/11 Truther’ view of politics in which nations like America really fabricate terrorist threats to gun up the military-industrial complex that pumps wealth into the pockets of the right people. If so, then they’re despicably ignorant and callous people who need to learn to face the real world and their film is not only bad, but actively offensive (the fact that it came out mere weeks after the Boston Marathon Bombings only emphasizes this).
                  Unfortunately, I suspect the last is the true, or at least primary, motivation. Something I read quoted from an interview with the director indicates that he subscribes to this kind of insanity (I can’t find the interview at the moment).
                  So, in summary, the treatment of the Mandarin in Iron Man 3 squanders great dramatic potential, is hideously anticlimactic and stupid in itself, and seems to stem from motives that range from silly to despicable. It’s a real winner. Storytellers, we’re going to file this under the ‘don’t’ category.

Vivat Christus Rex!