The end of this month marks the anniversary of a curious event in pop culture, the day a guerilla marketing campaign for a cartoon movie collided with US national security. And depending on how old you were and how savvy you were to internet culture, the event was either an outrage or an overreaction.
So, the sequence of events went more or less like this. On the night of January 29, 2007, two Boston area artists, Peter "Zebbler" Berdovsky and Sean Stevens, placed several magnetic light-up signs featuring the moon-dwelling Mooninite characters from Cartoon Network's late night "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" show around the city. The devices were part of a guerilla marketing campaign meant to promote the upcoming "Aqua Teen Hunger Force Colon Movie Film for Theaters," but there was nothing to indicate that they were advertisements. The next day, the devices caused a bomb scare, prompting the Boston authorities to shut down bridges and tunnels, snarling traffic and raising tensions throughout the city. Cartoon Network's parent company, Turner Broadcasting System, didn't notify the Boston authorities about the signs until the late afternoon.
The authorities, of course, were not amused. Nor were most of the citizens of Boston, stuck in traffic or rattled by the scare. The media referred to the incident as a "bomb hoax" for several days, even though there clearly wasn't any intention to mislead anyone. But how could Cartoon Network and the marketing company be so foolish, putting all these homemade electrical devices around town that incorporated an exposed circuit board, with nothing to identify it as an ad? This was only a little more than five years after the 9/11 attacks, and the country was still in the thick of the Iraq War. The gravity of the situation prompted Turner Broadcasting to accept full responsibility, paying $1 million in "good faith" money to the city of Boston to cover the expenses related to the incident. Cartoon Network's general manager and executive vice president, Jim Samples, resigned.
However, if you were under the age of thirty and internet savvy, the events of January 31, 2007 played out differently. I spent much of the day online, checking in with various message boards and communities connected to Adult Swim, the programming block that aired "Aqua Teen Hunger Force." In 2007 I was still a major anime nerd, and definitely part of the Adult Swim fanbase, even if I didn't watch "Aqua Teen." Frankly, the news coverage struck me and others as bizarre. It didn't take anyone online long to identify the image on the sign as one of the Mooninites giving people the finger. Or to find the photos of other devices around the country that fans had snapped, many of which had been displayed for several weeks. The devices didn't look like bombs. They looked like Lite-Brites. The massive response by the Boston police and Homeland Security was really overdoing things, bordering on silly. It was hard to take the whole thing seriously.
Zebbler Berdovsky and Sean Stevens clearly felt the way we did. The bizarre highlight of that day was watching the pair give a press conference after their arrest, where they insisted on only talking about hairstyles of the '70s. They would apologize fully for their part in the mess later on, but I understand why they treated the whole thing like a joke. From the POV of the young adults who were more familiar with adult cartoons and guerilla marketing campaigns, the situation was more funny than threatening. The police response was ridiculous. And the media insisting it was a hoax, and blurring out the Mooninite's offending finger was even more ridiculous. Immediately, the mockery and the protest began, with fanmade signs and T-shirts and other merchandising circulating in the following days. "Stop letting the terrorists win" was a popular slogan.
Many commentators pointed to a generational divide being responsible for the difference in reactions. I think this is true to some extent, but the Mooninite invasion also highlighted a difference in basic worldviews, between those that were still sensitive to the aftereffects of 9/11 and those who were tiring of it. I also like to think of it as something of a turning point, when we had an opportunity to step back and really look at what the post-9/11 climate of fear and security theater was doing to the country. I'm glad that it prompted a good amount of soul-searching, and lively debates in the press. The Boston authorities, to their credit, viewed the incident as an embarrassing misunderstanding, and Berdovsky and Stevens were only sentenced to community service.
The incident is a lot less funny in retrospect, since Boston really did suffer a major, devastating terrorist attack in 2013. However, the Mooninite invasion was an important sign of the times, highlighting the absurdity of life in the Bush era, the emerging power of internet denizens, and the growing fragmentation of the popular culture. It's funny that despite all the bad press, the scare had no real effect on "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" viewership. The show continued for another seven seasons, and ended in 2015.
---
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
"The Good Place," Year One
Major spoilers ahead. All of them.
It turns out that Hell is a sitcom, or at least a place where manufactured sitcom dilemmas are part of the torture. I really didn't see that ending coming, probably because I'd grown to like Ted Danson's Michael so much, and was convinced of the innate goodness of Chidi and Tahani, despite some pretty big honking flaws. Frankly, there are some elements of the big twist that I'm not really sure pass muster with what we've seen previously - the definition of "torture" seems awfully suspect - but then a lot of that can be handwaved away by pointing out that this was just an early experiment in new techniques, and Michael is new at being in charge. If Eleanor hadn't figured out the truth, I can see how the situation could have gotten a lot worse for our foursome in a hurry.
The show has overall been excellent for its entire, too-brief first season. It's paced just right, doling out new information at reasonable intervals, and not abusing the cliffhanger endings too much. The characters really grew on me as they revealed new bits and pieces of their past lives and personalitites. Janet and Jason falling in love has been especially fun, and the source of some of the best laughs in the last few episodes. Kristen Bell really sells Eleanor's gradual rehabilitation, and I buy her change of heart. I think Tahani and Chidi still need a little work - their supposed love connection was the least convincing of all the possible matches, but the actors have been excellent. William Jackson Harper's reactions are priceless. Even the smaller, one-shot roles are so well conceived, like Maribeth Monroe's nutty Mindy St. Clair, and Adam Scott's awful Trevor. Not to mention, we have characters referred to as Fake Eleanor, Real Eleanor, and Bad Janet. And is anyone ever going to explain Bambadjan?
The worldbuilding has wisely been kept pretty simple so far, but each new concept has been so well executed, and the humor is just the right amount of wry and self-aware. Mindy St. Clair's's digs in the Medium Place, for instance, aren't really "medium," but a grudging compromise between the operators of the "good" and "bad" places that results in the only available movie being "Cannonball Run II." Janet in love is a wonderful mix of cutesyness and alien oddity. Her wedding with Jason remains a big highlight of the season because it's so enthusiastically wrong. We still don't know a lot of the details about how the afterlife works, and there's a good chance that a lot of what we do know is wrong, because of Michael's scheme. Speaking of Michael, even knowing that he's really a baddie, I still like him. Even when he's being malevolent, and a meta showrunner stand-in, he's still adorable!
In a different show the reset ending would have infuriated me, because it suggests we're going to have to replay a lot of previous levels to get back to where we were, but "The Good Place" has been so unpredictable, who knows where the story is going to go? There are so many tantalizing questions that have been set up, and so many things that need to be reevaluated. This is the first show in a while where I'm seriously tempted to go back and watch several of the earlier episodes to see how they play with the new information. And the twist wasn't even that difficult to guess from the beginning - I saw several outlets bring it up as a possibility right after the premiere - but how they pulled it off was fantastic. On the other hand, how is any subsequent season going to live up to it?
I'm really rooting for the show to come back next year, which is far from certain. Ratings have been decent, but maybe not decent enough. And that's a shame, because as good as television is right now, I'd be hard pressed to name another sitcom that's been doing anything close to what "The Good Place" has been doing these past few months. Then again, this run of episodes is so good, having more might spoil it.
---
It turns out that Hell is a sitcom, or at least a place where manufactured sitcom dilemmas are part of the torture. I really didn't see that ending coming, probably because I'd grown to like Ted Danson's Michael so much, and was convinced of the innate goodness of Chidi and Tahani, despite some pretty big honking flaws. Frankly, there are some elements of the big twist that I'm not really sure pass muster with what we've seen previously - the definition of "torture" seems awfully suspect - but then a lot of that can be handwaved away by pointing out that this was just an early experiment in new techniques, and Michael is new at being in charge. If Eleanor hadn't figured out the truth, I can see how the situation could have gotten a lot worse for our foursome in a hurry.
The show has overall been excellent for its entire, too-brief first season. It's paced just right, doling out new information at reasonable intervals, and not abusing the cliffhanger endings too much. The characters really grew on me as they revealed new bits and pieces of their past lives and personalitites. Janet and Jason falling in love has been especially fun, and the source of some of the best laughs in the last few episodes. Kristen Bell really sells Eleanor's gradual rehabilitation, and I buy her change of heart. I think Tahani and Chidi still need a little work - their supposed love connection was the least convincing of all the possible matches, but the actors have been excellent. William Jackson Harper's reactions are priceless. Even the smaller, one-shot roles are so well conceived, like Maribeth Monroe's nutty Mindy St. Clair, and Adam Scott's awful Trevor. Not to mention, we have characters referred to as Fake Eleanor, Real Eleanor, and Bad Janet. And is anyone ever going to explain Bambadjan?
The worldbuilding has wisely been kept pretty simple so far, but each new concept has been so well executed, and the humor is just the right amount of wry and self-aware. Mindy St. Clair's's digs in the Medium Place, for instance, aren't really "medium," but a grudging compromise between the operators of the "good" and "bad" places that results in the only available movie being "Cannonball Run II." Janet in love is a wonderful mix of cutesyness and alien oddity. Her wedding with Jason remains a big highlight of the season because it's so enthusiastically wrong. We still don't know a lot of the details about how the afterlife works, and there's a good chance that a lot of what we do know is wrong, because of Michael's scheme. Speaking of Michael, even knowing that he's really a baddie, I still like him. Even when he's being malevolent, and a meta showrunner stand-in, he's still adorable!
In a different show the reset ending would have infuriated me, because it suggests we're going to have to replay a lot of previous levels to get back to where we were, but "The Good Place" has been so unpredictable, who knows where the story is going to go? There are so many tantalizing questions that have been set up, and so many things that need to be reevaluated. This is the first show in a while where I'm seriously tempted to go back and watch several of the earlier episodes to see how they play with the new information. And the twist wasn't even that difficult to guess from the beginning - I saw several outlets bring it up as a possibility right after the premiere - but how they pulled it off was fantastic. On the other hand, how is any subsequent season going to live up to it?
I'm really rooting for the show to come back next year, which is far from certain. Ratings have been decent, but maybe not decent enough. And that's a shame, because as good as television is right now, I'd be hard pressed to name another sitcom that's been doing anything close to what "The Good Place" has been doing these past few months. Then again, this run of episodes is so good, having more might spoil it.
---
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
"The BFG" and "Finding Dory"
I finally had time to catch up on some of last year's kids' titles. Whatever you want to say about the rest of the summer blockbusters, the major kids' films have maintained a pretty decent level of quality. It's just a shame that this hasn't been reflected by the box office.
So let's start with one of last year's major bombs, "The BFG," based on the children's book by Roald Dahl, directed by Stephen Spielberg, and crewed by all his regular collaborators. Disney handled distribution, a first for a Spielberg film. So it comes as a bit of a surprise that "The BFG" is is without question one of the weirdest, most idiosyncratic pieces of media to have come out of a major studio in some time. I liked it quite a bit, and I'm sure many children will too, but it's no surprise that the film has failed to connect with audiences in a busy summer season.
I know the original Roald Dahl book very well, and Melissa Mathison's scripts sticks very close to it. A little orphan girl named Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is swept away on an adventure with the gentle Big Friendly Giant, or BFG, (Mark Rylance), who lives in the faraway Giant Country and spends much of his time collecting and distributing dreams. Sadly, all the other giants are not friendly. Instead, their brutish, human-eating louts lead by the vile Fleshlumpeater (Jermaine Clement). They bully the BFG and threaten Sophie, until the pair hatch a plan to fight back, with the help of the Queen of England (Penelope Wilton).
I'd been looking forward to seeing Spielberg direct another children's film, but it's almost shocking how much of a throwback "The BFG" is, even with its heavy reliance on CGI effects. The pacing is downright leisurely, letting Sophie explore the BFG's giant home and the land of dreams for at least a full hour before anything resembling a crisis or end goal appears. Their are plenty of chase and action sequences, but the film largely relies on the charm of the interactions between a very large, eccentric giant, who speaks with a half-mangled vocabulary, and a very small girl with reputation for rule-breaking. As such, the film is very incidental, full of dream logic, and unfolds the way that you might expect from a small child relaying the story.
I found the film endlessly charming and inventive. The design and animation of the giants is a wonder, allowing the performances of Mark Rylance and Jermaine Clements to come through while still looking suitably otherworldly. There's a storybook loveliness to the production design, especially Dream Country, where dreams look like the glowing will-o-wisps, and can be bottled like fireflies. At every level, there's so much care and consideration put into every detail. It's one of the more absorbing fantasy films I've seen in a long time, simply because it gives the viewer the time to really take in all the gorgeous visuals.
At the same time, "The BFG" strikes me as being a film that will probably play best with smaller children. The few things that were changed from book to screen involve toning down the much nastier crimes of the bad giants, specifically eatng children. As good a job as Spielberg & Co. did bringing the BFG to life, the story is missing that gruesome edge that Roald Dahl always had, and the film adaptations of his works rarely address. "The BFG" is careful to emphasize wonder and silliness over creepiness and putridity. After the first ten minutes, the film is largely tension-free and will probably be a bore to viewers looking for more excitement.
Now on to "Finding Dory." First off, I have to confess that I'm not a big fan of "Finding Nemo," having enjoyed the animation, but none of the characters struck me as all that compelling or original. The one exception was Dory (Ellen Degeneres), a blue tang fish, whose short term memory loss and positive attitude made her so memorable. Putting Dory at the center of her own movie was a great decision, as well as having most of the story play out in a Marine Life Instittue, which looks an awful lot like the Monetery Bay Aquarium. This time out, Dory is searching for her parents (Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy), who she lost long ago and has only recently remembered.
I appreciate that with their latest round of sequels/prequels, PIXAR has taken pains to tell well-consisdered stories that highlight different characters and life lessons. So while "Monsters University" gave Mike Wazowski the spotlight and taught kids about accepting failure, "Finding Dory" uses Dory and her new friends as a stand-ins for people with disabilities, and shows us how they can triumph in spite of them. There was a bit of this in "Finding Nemo" with Nemo (Hayden Rolence) and his damaged fin, but Dory faces a much tougher time coping because of her memory problems. From the very first scene, where a teeny young Dory's worried parents coach her on asking for help from strangers, the stakes feel more personal and the situation more poignant.
"Finding Dory" isn't a very subtle movie. Among the new characters are an octopus, Hank (Ed O'Neill), who is missing a leg and doesn't want to be released back into the wild, a nearsighted whale shark, Destiny (Kaitlin Olson), and a beluga named Bailey (Ty Burrell) with busted echolocation. As you might expect, they all end up working together to help Dory, and there's a lot of emphasis on focusing on what they can do instead of what they can't. Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo are also along for the adventure, mostly to help fill time with their own subplot, and to act as Dory's cheerleaders. And it's all entertaining more or less, about as entertaining as the first film, though the writing is a bit sloppier and the situations more ridiculous.
I give the edge to "Finding Dory," though, because this one looks so gorgeous, with its kelp forests and picture perfect aquarium exhibits. There's a much bigger variety of marine life this time around, thanks to the Marine Life Institute, and we get to meet sea lions, otters, loons, and more. The best new character is undoubtedly Hank, the grumpy octopus, who sneaks all over the Institute, and can change color to blend in with his surroundings. He adds a lot of good humor and energy, though he is curiously underdeveloped for a PIXAR character. I wonder if they're saving his backstory for another sequel.
I wouldn't object, considering how well "Finding Dory" came out. Dory remains my favorite character of the series, who has smoothly transitioned from comic relief to plucky heroine. I have never seen a lead character like her in any children's film, someone with a mental disability who is portrayed in such realistic, empathetic terms, without being tagged as "special." And it's PIXAR's willingness to commit wholeheartedly to her story, and push at those boundaries, that keeps them a cut above the rest.
---
So let's start with one of last year's major bombs, "The BFG," based on the children's book by Roald Dahl, directed by Stephen Spielberg, and crewed by all his regular collaborators. Disney handled distribution, a first for a Spielberg film. So it comes as a bit of a surprise that "The BFG" is is without question one of the weirdest, most idiosyncratic pieces of media to have come out of a major studio in some time. I liked it quite a bit, and I'm sure many children will too, but it's no surprise that the film has failed to connect with audiences in a busy summer season.
I know the original Roald Dahl book very well, and Melissa Mathison's scripts sticks very close to it. A little orphan girl named Sophie (Ruby Barnhill) is swept away on an adventure with the gentle Big Friendly Giant, or BFG, (Mark Rylance), who lives in the faraway Giant Country and spends much of his time collecting and distributing dreams. Sadly, all the other giants are not friendly. Instead, their brutish, human-eating louts lead by the vile Fleshlumpeater (Jermaine Clement). They bully the BFG and threaten Sophie, until the pair hatch a plan to fight back, with the help of the Queen of England (Penelope Wilton).
I'd been looking forward to seeing Spielberg direct another children's film, but it's almost shocking how much of a throwback "The BFG" is, even with its heavy reliance on CGI effects. The pacing is downright leisurely, letting Sophie explore the BFG's giant home and the land of dreams for at least a full hour before anything resembling a crisis or end goal appears. Their are plenty of chase and action sequences, but the film largely relies on the charm of the interactions between a very large, eccentric giant, who speaks with a half-mangled vocabulary, and a very small girl with reputation for rule-breaking. As such, the film is very incidental, full of dream logic, and unfolds the way that you might expect from a small child relaying the story.
I found the film endlessly charming and inventive. The design and animation of the giants is a wonder, allowing the performances of Mark Rylance and Jermaine Clements to come through while still looking suitably otherworldly. There's a storybook loveliness to the production design, especially Dream Country, where dreams look like the glowing will-o-wisps, and can be bottled like fireflies. At every level, there's so much care and consideration put into every detail. It's one of the more absorbing fantasy films I've seen in a long time, simply because it gives the viewer the time to really take in all the gorgeous visuals.
At the same time, "The BFG" strikes me as being a film that will probably play best with smaller children. The few things that were changed from book to screen involve toning down the much nastier crimes of the bad giants, specifically eatng children. As good a job as Spielberg & Co. did bringing the BFG to life, the story is missing that gruesome edge that Roald Dahl always had, and the film adaptations of his works rarely address. "The BFG" is careful to emphasize wonder and silliness over creepiness and putridity. After the first ten minutes, the film is largely tension-free and will probably be a bore to viewers looking for more excitement.
Now on to "Finding Dory." First off, I have to confess that I'm not a big fan of "Finding Nemo," having enjoyed the animation, but none of the characters struck me as all that compelling or original. The one exception was Dory (Ellen Degeneres), a blue tang fish, whose short term memory loss and positive attitude made her so memorable. Putting Dory at the center of her own movie was a great decision, as well as having most of the story play out in a Marine Life Instittue, which looks an awful lot like the Monetery Bay Aquarium. This time out, Dory is searching for her parents (Diane Keaton, Eugene Levy), who she lost long ago and has only recently remembered.
I appreciate that with their latest round of sequels/prequels, PIXAR has taken pains to tell well-consisdered stories that highlight different characters and life lessons. So while "Monsters University" gave Mike Wazowski the spotlight and taught kids about accepting failure, "Finding Dory" uses Dory and her new friends as a stand-ins for people with disabilities, and shows us how they can triumph in spite of them. There was a bit of this in "Finding Nemo" with Nemo (Hayden Rolence) and his damaged fin, but Dory faces a much tougher time coping because of her memory problems. From the very first scene, where a teeny young Dory's worried parents coach her on asking for help from strangers, the stakes feel more personal and the situation more poignant.
"Finding Dory" isn't a very subtle movie. Among the new characters are an octopus, Hank (Ed O'Neill), who is missing a leg and doesn't want to be released back into the wild, a nearsighted whale shark, Destiny (Kaitlin Olson), and a beluga named Bailey (Ty Burrell) with busted echolocation. As you might expect, they all end up working together to help Dory, and there's a lot of emphasis on focusing on what they can do instead of what they can't. Marlin (Albert Brooks) and Nemo are also along for the adventure, mostly to help fill time with their own subplot, and to act as Dory's cheerleaders. And it's all entertaining more or less, about as entertaining as the first film, though the writing is a bit sloppier and the situations more ridiculous.
I give the edge to "Finding Dory," though, because this one looks so gorgeous, with its kelp forests and picture perfect aquarium exhibits. There's a much bigger variety of marine life this time around, thanks to the Marine Life Institute, and we get to meet sea lions, otters, loons, and more. The best new character is undoubtedly Hank, the grumpy octopus, who sneaks all over the Institute, and can change color to blend in with his surroundings. He adds a lot of good humor and energy, though he is curiously underdeveloped for a PIXAR character. I wonder if they're saving his backstory for another sequel.
I wouldn't object, considering how well "Finding Dory" came out. Dory remains my favorite character of the series, who has smoothly transitioned from comic relief to plucky heroine. I have never seen a lead character like her in any children's film, someone with a mental disability who is portrayed in such realistic, empathetic terms, without being tagged as "special." And it's PIXAR's willingness to commit wholeheartedly to her story, and push at those boundaries, that keeps them a cut above the rest.
---
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
Quick Thoughts on the 2017 Oscar Nominees
At this point in the season, there's still a lot I haven't seen, and a lot of reviews I haven't written. I also haven't been keeping an eye on the race as much as I usually do, which is nice in a way because this morning came as more of a surprise. I'll have more to say about all the nominees in the weeks ahead, but here are a couple of preliminary thoughts.
First, the Academy clearly got the message that we needed some more diversity, because I counted seven minority actors with nominations, and four of the nine Best Picture contenders have predominantly minority casts. "La La Land" dominated, of course, and is probably going to win almost everything on Oscar night, but "Moonlight" came away with eight nominations, and "Lion" got six. I'm also very excited to see "Arrival" doing so well, as the Academy rarely pays so much attention to science-fiction. None of my favorties got left out of the Best Picture race, though I'm surprised to see "Hacksaw Ridge" and "Hidden Figures" up there instead of "Silence" and "Sully," which were both almost totally shut out. I liked them all about the same, but the politicking is always interesting.
The Directors race usually points to who the frontrunners are, and in this case the usual suspects, Damien Chazelle for "La La Land," Barry Jenkis for "Moonlight," and Kenneth Lonergan for "Manchester by the Sea," are joined by Denis Villeneuve for "Arrival" and comeback kid Mel Gibson for "Hacksaw Ridge." That puts "Lion," "Fences," "Hell or High Water," and "Hidden Figures" firmly out of the running, which is also reflected in the number of nominations they got. My guess is that of the nine Best Picture nominees, "Hidden Figures" was the one that just squeaked through. If there had been a tenth nomination, I think the more uplifting "Florence Foster Jenkins" had a better shot than "Jackie." Or maybe Scorsese and Eastwood supporters could have rallied ennough to puch through "Sully" or "Silence."
The acting races are a mix of good and bad, as usual. Both of the actress races are very strong, so much so that I'm not unhappy that Amy Adams missed a slot for "Arrival." Even Meryle Streep, who usually comes off as a legacy pick, truly deserves to be up there this year. I think Joel Edgerton should have replaced Andrew Garfield or Viggo Mortensen in Actor, but it's not a bad race at all. Supporting Actor is interesting, in that the Academy chose to give Michael Shannon a nod over Aaron Johnson, who won the Golden Globe. Neither of them are up for the corresponding SAG Award either, which is usually one of the biggest predictors of these nominations. If I were to predict the winners now, I'd go for Casey Affleck, Isabelle Huppert, Mahershala Ali, and Viola Davis. Maybe Emma Stone instead of Huppert.
Other surprises include a Screenplay nod for Greek director Yorgos Lanthimos for his brutal comedy "The Lobster," "The Red Turtle" and "My Life as a Zucchini" beating back a flood of American box office hits in Animated Film, "Kubo and the Two Strings" getting a rare Best Visual Effects nod for an animated feature, and appearances by "13 Hours: The Secret Soldiers of Benghazi" (Sound Mixing), "Trolls" (Song), "Passengers" (Production Design and Score) and "Suicide Squad" (Makeup and Hairstyling). Not too many major complaints here, but surely they could have found a Best Documentary nominee less mawkish than "Life, Animated"? And Best Foreign Language film is a mess as usual, missing several of the major contenders, including "Elle." And how is the only nomination for "Hail, Caesar!" in Production Design?
I don't think it's going to be a particularly exciting year as far as the races go, but I look forward to a very entertaining telecast. "La La Land" is a bona fide box office hit, which means the award ceremony will attract more viewers and give the showrunners a lot of material to work with. And everybody is going to be waiting to see if Meryl Streep or someone else gets in a few more digs at Donald Trump.
Oh, and better luck next time "Deadpool."
---
Saturday, January 21, 2017
"Rogue One" (With Spoilers)
And when I say spoilers, I mean all the spoilers.
"Rogue One" is getting a lot of kudos for being a darker film that wasn't afraid of killing off all the major characters, but what I found really daring was that the filmmakers really committed to making the film a one-shot project. No matter how much money it makes, there will be no sequel, and there are vanishingly small chances of a spinoff. Frankly, as much as I liked the ensemble, the individual characters are too thin to sustain films by themselves. It wasn't until the final act, when the terrific death scenes started piling up, that I realized that I did care about them in the end, just a bit. It was the terrific momentum of the final mission for the Death Star plans that really sustained that ending.
This was the biggest disappointment of the film for me, because I came into "Rogue One" actively wanting to like these new characters, and wanting to get emotionally invested in them. Alas, the writing is simply too haphazard in the first two acts, with plot holes and weird ellipses everywhere. Not all the characters are handled poorly, but everything feels rushed and piecemeal. Forrest Whitaker's Saw Guerrera came off the worst, a rebel from the Rebellion with a murky philosophy, murky loyalties, and is pretty murky in overall construction. The bit with Bodhi and the brain slug seems to have no actual narrative impact, except to make Saw seem dangerous and sinister, until fifteen minutes later, when he isn't. And then he's dead, which actually comes as a relief. Forrest Whitaker was never able to stop being Forrest Whitaker long enough to mesh with the rest of the "Star Wars" universe.
I tried to be more open minded about Jyn Erso. I tried to forget that I'd seen (and been less than impressed by) Felicity Jones in other films. I tried to ignore the many similarities between Jyn and Daisy Ridley's Rey from "The Force Awakens." And while I have no major complaints about her or her narrative arc, Jyn simply strikes me as bland and unconvincing. I didn't buy her change of heart, but went along with it because the film simply refused to slow down long enough to let me think about it very much. It was the same with Diego Luna's Cassian Andor, someone potentially interesting, but who never really got around to fulfilling any of that promise. The rest of the good guys were colorful types, who didn't need to do much heavy lifting, and mostly succeeded at being fun supporting players. To reiterate, I liked them enough to care that they died, but that was about the extent of it. This is perfectly par for the course for most action spectaculars, but I still felt disappointed.
I've been critical of "Force Awakens" for having too many references and bits of fanservice. "Rogue One" is guilty of this too, but it's more forgivable because of the way the story directly connects to the original "Star Wars." I could have done with out the Cantina patrons and the familiar droids, but resurrecting all that great hardware - the ships, the costuming, and even the '70s era operating systems graphics, was a treat. Darth Vader was in the mix just long enough, not too long to overwhelm the proceedings, but long enough to make a big impact when it counted. In some instances, I also liked the return of smaller characters from the original trilogy in larger roles. Mon Mothma (Genevieve O'Reilly), for instance, was a familiar face who served the plot in a perfectly agreeable way.
This brings us, unfortunately, to the subject of the CGI resurrection of Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin. Though the technology has gotten better, the filmmakers are simply too ambitious with it, and CGI Tarkin stands out like a sore thumb in every scene he appears in. The CGI Princess Leia in the closing shot is hardly any better, but she's onscreen for only a few fleeting seconds, and easier to make excuses for. Ditto Red Leader and Gold Leader making their tiny cameos in the final space battle. Tarkin, unfortunately, has about as much screen time and narrative weight as Mon Mothma, and the CGI simply isn't up to snuff. I'm worried that this is going to set a precedence for more deceased actors being similarly revived before the technology is ready.
On purely visceral terms, "Rogue One" delivered all the action blockbuster thrills I ever could have wanted, and the "Star Wars" fangirl in me loved the nostalgia. However, the cynical cinephile part of me is worried about what this could mean for other upcoming "Star Wars" films, and franchise films in general. The films leans so heavily on nostalgia and spectacle, there doesn't seem to be room for much else.
----
"Rogue One" is getting a lot of kudos for being a darker film that wasn't afraid of killing off all the major characters, but what I found really daring was that the filmmakers really committed to making the film a one-shot project. No matter how much money it makes, there will be no sequel, and there are vanishingly small chances of a spinoff. Frankly, as much as I liked the ensemble, the individual characters are too thin to sustain films by themselves. It wasn't until the final act, when the terrific death scenes started piling up, that I realized that I did care about them in the end, just a bit. It was the terrific momentum of the final mission for the Death Star plans that really sustained that ending.
This was the biggest disappointment of the film for me, because I came into "Rogue One" actively wanting to like these new characters, and wanting to get emotionally invested in them. Alas, the writing is simply too haphazard in the first two acts, with plot holes and weird ellipses everywhere. Not all the characters are handled poorly, but everything feels rushed and piecemeal. Forrest Whitaker's Saw Guerrera came off the worst, a rebel from the Rebellion with a murky philosophy, murky loyalties, and is pretty murky in overall construction. The bit with Bodhi and the brain slug seems to have no actual narrative impact, except to make Saw seem dangerous and sinister, until fifteen minutes later, when he isn't. And then he's dead, which actually comes as a relief. Forrest Whitaker was never able to stop being Forrest Whitaker long enough to mesh with the rest of the "Star Wars" universe.
I tried to be more open minded about Jyn Erso. I tried to forget that I'd seen (and been less than impressed by) Felicity Jones in other films. I tried to ignore the many similarities between Jyn and Daisy Ridley's Rey from "The Force Awakens." And while I have no major complaints about her or her narrative arc, Jyn simply strikes me as bland and unconvincing. I didn't buy her change of heart, but went along with it because the film simply refused to slow down long enough to let me think about it very much. It was the same with Diego Luna's Cassian Andor, someone potentially interesting, but who never really got around to fulfilling any of that promise. The rest of the good guys were colorful types, who didn't need to do much heavy lifting, and mostly succeeded at being fun supporting players. To reiterate, I liked them enough to care that they died, but that was about the extent of it. This is perfectly par for the course for most action spectaculars, but I still felt disappointed.
I've been critical of "Force Awakens" for having too many references and bits of fanservice. "Rogue One" is guilty of this too, but it's more forgivable because of the way the story directly connects to the original "Star Wars." I could have done with out the Cantina patrons and the familiar droids, but resurrecting all that great hardware - the ships, the costuming, and even the '70s era operating systems graphics, was a treat. Darth Vader was in the mix just long enough, not too long to overwhelm the proceedings, but long enough to make a big impact when it counted. In some instances, I also liked the return of smaller characters from the original trilogy in larger roles. Mon Mothma (Genevieve O'Reilly), for instance, was a familiar face who served the plot in a perfectly agreeable way.
This brings us, unfortunately, to the subject of the CGI resurrection of Peter Cushing's Grand Moff Tarkin. Though the technology has gotten better, the filmmakers are simply too ambitious with it, and CGI Tarkin stands out like a sore thumb in every scene he appears in. The CGI Princess Leia in the closing shot is hardly any better, but she's onscreen for only a few fleeting seconds, and easier to make excuses for. Ditto Red Leader and Gold Leader making their tiny cameos in the final space battle. Tarkin, unfortunately, has about as much screen time and narrative weight as Mon Mothma, and the CGI simply isn't up to snuff. I'm worried that this is going to set a precedence for more deceased actors being similarly revived before the technology is ready.
On purely visceral terms, "Rogue One" delivered all the action blockbuster thrills I ever could have wanted, and the "Star Wars" fangirl in me loved the nostalgia. However, the cynical cinephile part of me is worried about what this could mean for other upcoming "Star Wars" films, and franchise films in general. The films leans so heavily on nostalgia and spectacle, there doesn't seem to be room for much else.
----
Thursday, January 19, 2017
"Rogue One" (Without Spoilers)
Let's not kid ourselves here. "Rogue One: A Star Wars Story" is about as superfluous a film as has ever been made, another prequel meant to capitalize off of the existing "Star Wars" fanbase's nostalgia for the original trilogy. And in this case, with the events of "Rogue One" leading directly into the events of 1977's "A New Hope," the new film has familiar locations, spaceships, and characters around every corner. I doubt there are five minutes that go by without a reference to something else familiar from the "Star Wars" canon. After last year's disappointingly familiar "The Force Awakens," it seemed like folly to expect anything truly original from "Rogue One."
And yet, Gareth Edwards and his crew do manage to make "Rogue One" a different kind of "Star Wars" movie. It's absolutely drenched in fanservice from beginning to end, and doesn't work too well on its own, but it stands out from the prior seven films in the series by being the first that really puts the "War" in "Star Wars." We get to see a much less romanticized view of the Rebellion, where our heroes, like Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), do terrible things in the name of their cause. Following in the tradition of older WWII films, we watch a small, ragtag group of desperate rebels go up against overwhelming odds with very high stakes, and the Empire is absolutely ruthless in this film. This is easily the darkest "Star Wars" film, to the point where I'd caution parents of smaller children to be wary.
The plot revolves around Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a small time criminal who is the estranged daughter of Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelson), an Imperial scientist working on the Death Star. When an Imperial pilot, Bodhi (Riz Ahmed), defects with a message from Galen, the Rebellion recruits Jyn to help track down her father, which eventually leads to the famous mission to retrieve the plans for the Death Star. She and Cassian are joined by a cynical droid, K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), and have run ins with a cyborg freedom fighter, Saw Guerrera (Forrest Whitaker), a blind warrior monk, Chirrut (Donnie Yen), and a heavily armed mercenary, Baze (Jiang Wen). The main antagonist is Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn), a power-hungry Imperial officer working on the Death Star. None of these characters are very well fleshed out, but the cast is excellent, and the film is designed in such a way that they get plenty of support from slick action spectacle and well-orchestrated melodrama.
The first two thirds of "Rogue One" has some ups and downs, but everything clicks in the final act, which is a massive battle sequence on a a picturesque tropical planet called Scarif. And it's my favorite piece of "Star Wars" action since the original trilogy due to the sheer sense of scale and the excellent execution. Aside from a few instances of dead actors being resurrected with odd CGI doppelgangers, the visuals are great. All the old bits of "Star Wars" art design have been lovingly recreated, and appear suitably grungy and '70s era appropriate. The world feels much more tactile and immediate here than any of the other "Star Wars" films in decades, thanks to a lot of practical effects and on location shooting. The characters are also appealingly ordinary, mostly soldiers and misfits, played by a very diverse cast. The Jedi barely seem to exist in this universe.
Instead, the standouts are K-2SO, who is a constant source of gallows humor, Krennic, who benefits hugely from Ben Mendelsohn at his most craven, and Chirrut, who is exactly as cool as you'd imagine a Donnie Yen character in the "Star Wars" universe would be. The rest are fairly generic, which is a shame, but not too much of a black mark in this kind of film. Ultimately, I have absolutely no complaints about any of the performances, except to note that I suspect there were some rewrites of Saw Guerrera's role, because his part in the story is clearly truncated and doesn't really add up. Also, there was really far too little of Mads Mikkelson, but at least he was better used here than in "Doctor Strange."
It's the "Star Wars" universe that is the biggest winner here, more fleshed out and grounded than it has ever been. It's the Rebellion and the Empire that get the most characterization, oddly enough, through their clashes with each other. We see the lengths that the Empire is willing to go to in order to secure a victory, and the massive sacrifices necessary for the Rebellion to operate. There's a real weight to the stakes this time out, and "Rogue One" is one of the rare prequels that actually does a good job of setting up its predecessor - in this case the original "Star Wars."
There's a lot more I want to talk about, but I'll continue in a spoiler post. The long and the short of it is, "Rogue One" is a typical action blockbuster, but a refreshingly atypical "Star Wars" film, and I really appreciated it for that.
---
And yet, Gareth Edwards and his crew do manage to make "Rogue One" a different kind of "Star Wars" movie. It's absolutely drenched in fanservice from beginning to end, and doesn't work too well on its own, but it stands out from the prior seven films in the series by being the first that really puts the "War" in "Star Wars." We get to see a much less romanticized view of the Rebellion, where our heroes, like Captain Cassian Andor (Diego Luna), do terrible things in the name of their cause. Following in the tradition of older WWII films, we watch a small, ragtag group of desperate rebels go up against overwhelming odds with very high stakes, and the Empire is absolutely ruthless in this film. This is easily the darkest "Star Wars" film, to the point where I'd caution parents of smaller children to be wary.
The plot revolves around Jyn Erso (Felicity Jones), a small time criminal who is the estranged daughter of Galen Erso (Mads Mikkelson), an Imperial scientist working on the Death Star. When an Imperial pilot, Bodhi (Riz Ahmed), defects with a message from Galen, the Rebellion recruits Jyn to help track down her father, which eventually leads to the famous mission to retrieve the plans for the Death Star. She and Cassian are joined by a cynical droid, K-2SO (Alan Tudyk), and have run ins with a cyborg freedom fighter, Saw Guerrera (Forrest Whitaker), a blind warrior monk, Chirrut (Donnie Yen), and a heavily armed mercenary, Baze (Jiang Wen). The main antagonist is Krennic (Ben Mendelsohn), a power-hungry Imperial officer working on the Death Star. None of these characters are very well fleshed out, but the cast is excellent, and the film is designed in such a way that they get plenty of support from slick action spectacle and well-orchestrated melodrama.
The first two thirds of "Rogue One" has some ups and downs, but everything clicks in the final act, which is a massive battle sequence on a a picturesque tropical planet called Scarif. And it's my favorite piece of "Star Wars" action since the original trilogy due to the sheer sense of scale and the excellent execution. Aside from a few instances of dead actors being resurrected with odd CGI doppelgangers, the visuals are great. All the old bits of "Star Wars" art design have been lovingly recreated, and appear suitably grungy and '70s era appropriate. The world feels much more tactile and immediate here than any of the other "Star Wars" films in decades, thanks to a lot of practical effects and on location shooting. The characters are also appealingly ordinary, mostly soldiers and misfits, played by a very diverse cast. The Jedi barely seem to exist in this universe.
Instead, the standouts are K-2SO, who is a constant source of gallows humor, Krennic, who benefits hugely from Ben Mendelsohn at his most craven, and Chirrut, who is exactly as cool as you'd imagine a Donnie Yen character in the "Star Wars" universe would be. The rest are fairly generic, which is a shame, but not too much of a black mark in this kind of film. Ultimately, I have absolutely no complaints about any of the performances, except to note that I suspect there were some rewrites of Saw Guerrera's role, because his part in the story is clearly truncated and doesn't really add up. Also, there was really far too little of Mads Mikkelson, but at least he was better used here than in "Doctor Strange."
It's the "Star Wars" universe that is the biggest winner here, more fleshed out and grounded than it has ever been. It's the Rebellion and the Empire that get the most characterization, oddly enough, through their clashes with each other. We see the lengths that the Empire is willing to go to in order to secure a victory, and the massive sacrifices necessary for the Rebellion to operate. There's a real weight to the stakes this time out, and "Rogue One" is one of the rare prequels that actually does a good job of setting up its predecessor - in this case the original "Star Wars."
There's a lot more I want to talk about, but I'll continue in a spoiler post. The long and the short of it is, "Rogue One" is a typical action blockbuster, but a refreshingly atypical "Star Wars" film, and I really appreciated it for that.
---
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
Is Harley Quinn a Problem?
Spoilers for "Suicide Squad" ahead.
I decided not to write a "Suicide Squad" review, because I don't have much to say about it. I was expecting it to be worse than it was, but a couple of good characters and performances kept it watchable, in spite of a rushed production and some horrific editing. However, there is one aspect that I think it's worth going into some depth on, the character of Harley Quinn.
Harley, as played by Margot Robbie, is the undisputed star of the film. She outshines everyone, including Will Smith's Deadshot and Jared Leto's Joker, Harley's boyfriend and "Pudddin." I've waited a long time to see Harley on the big screen, having loved the animated version of her from "Batman: The Animated" series. With her appearance in "Suicide Squad," she's now a hit with the mainstream, and was a popular Halloween costume last year. However, there have been some concerns raised about her portrayal, especially her relationship with the Joker, that have rung alarm bells.
In her original animated incarnation, Harley was a zany henchgirl to the Joker and their relationship wasn't explicitly romantic. It was eventually revealed that she was his former psychiatrist, seduced and twisted by the Joker into being his costumed sidekick and girlfriend. Their relationship was abusive, and the two had some spectacular breakups, but Harley always went back to the Joker eventually. She proved so popular with fans, that she was written into the DC comics continuity, and even had her own series for a few years. In the comics, she was portrayed as more violent, with mental problems of her own. Her costumes were also far more revealing, and recently she was retconned to be bisexual.
The "Suicide Squad" version of Harley tweaks parts of her character and relationship with the Joker in important ways. He's far more physically violent with her, subjecting her to electroshock therapy and a dip in a vat of chemicals in flashbacks. There's also the early scene where he uses her to pick a fight with another baddie played by Common. However, their twisted romance is also portrayed positively, as one of the central emotional lynchpins of the story. Harley and Joker's attempts to reunite are given at least as much weight as the relationship of good guys Rick Flag and June Moon, for instance. And frankly, Harley and Joker's love story isn't supposed to be played so straight.
When Harley was primarily used as comic relief, her simpering after the Joker was usually played for laughs. Joker often treated her as an annoyance, a screw-up, or simply a project that he'd lost interest in. They were bad for each other more often than not, with an incredibly contentious, dysfunctional history. In their more serious outings, Harley's attachment to the Joker was portrayed as tragic, because he didn't really care about her. Any affectionate moments between them were always either funny or ironic because we all knew they were only going to lead to further disaster.
The "Suicide Squad" version, where the Joker really does love Harley in his own, sick, special way, can be seen as romanticizing the abuse. Harley and Joker's triumphant reunion at the end of the film certainly seems to suggest that we're supposed to be happy that they're back together, and Harley's fantasies of domestic bliss seem to be serious. There's a strong argument that Harley being part of such an unhealthy relationship makes her a terrible role model for teenage girls, who she's become popular with. Similar criticisms were leveled at "Twilight" and "Fifty Shades of Grey."
Frankly, as a villain, Harley is already a pretty lousy role model all by herself. She's an anti-hero roughly analogous to Deadpool, who is really screwed up when you look at him up close. And "Suicide Squad" is so incoherent, it's hard to tell what the filmmakers actually intended for Joker and Harley. If you think of Harley as a traditional romantic heroine, than yes, the relationship is an absolute travesty. If you think of her as a comic or subversive figure, however, it gets more complicated. Harley's codependency is part of what makes her a baddie in the first place.
Personally, I enjoyed Harley Quinn in her original incarnation, a bubbly, funny henchgirl with all the best lines, who was at least as violent towards the Joker as he was with her. I thought she was a lot of fun on her own too, being an independent reprobate, or teaming up with gal-pal Poison Ivy. Also, though she's been increasingly sexualized over the years, she's retained her strong personality and remained sympathetic.
I like Margot Robbie's interpretation of her, but she doesn't act like my Harley. She could though, eventually - and that's the part that makes me want to put this analysis on hold until the inevitable "Suicide Squad" sequel. If the honeymoon with Joker is over in the next installment, and the weapons come out, it's definitely something that I want to see.
---
I decided not to write a "Suicide Squad" review, because I don't have much to say about it. I was expecting it to be worse than it was, but a couple of good characters and performances kept it watchable, in spite of a rushed production and some horrific editing. However, there is one aspect that I think it's worth going into some depth on, the character of Harley Quinn.
Harley, as played by Margot Robbie, is the undisputed star of the film. She outshines everyone, including Will Smith's Deadshot and Jared Leto's Joker, Harley's boyfriend and "Pudddin." I've waited a long time to see Harley on the big screen, having loved the animated version of her from "Batman: The Animated" series. With her appearance in "Suicide Squad," she's now a hit with the mainstream, and was a popular Halloween costume last year. However, there have been some concerns raised about her portrayal, especially her relationship with the Joker, that have rung alarm bells.
In her original animated incarnation, Harley was a zany henchgirl to the Joker and their relationship wasn't explicitly romantic. It was eventually revealed that she was his former psychiatrist, seduced and twisted by the Joker into being his costumed sidekick and girlfriend. Their relationship was abusive, and the two had some spectacular breakups, but Harley always went back to the Joker eventually. She proved so popular with fans, that she was written into the DC comics continuity, and even had her own series for a few years. In the comics, she was portrayed as more violent, with mental problems of her own. Her costumes were also far more revealing, and recently she was retconned to be bisexual.
The "Suicide Squad" version of Harley tweaks parts of her character and relationship with the Joker in important ways. He's far more physically violent with her, subjecting her to electroshock therapy and a dip in a vat of chemicals in flashbacks. There's also the early scene where he uses her to pick a fight with another baddie played by Common. However, their twisted romance is also portrayed positively, as one of the central emotional lynchpins of the story. Harley and Joker's attempts to reunite are given at least as much weight as the relationship of good guys Rick Flag and June Moon, for instance. And frankly, Harley and Joker's love story isn't supposed to be played so straight.
When Harley was primarily used as comic relief, her simpering after the Joker was usually played for laughs. Joker often treated her as an annoyance, a screw-up, or simply a project that he'd lost interest in. They were bad for each other more often than not, with an incredibly contentious, dysfunctional history. In their more serious outings, Harley's attachment to the Joker was portrayed as tragic, because he didn't really care about her. Any affectionate moments between them were always either funny or ironic because we all knew they were only going to lead to further disaster.
The "Suicide Squad" version, where the Joker really does love Harley in his own, sick, special way, can be seen as romanticizing the abuse. Harley and Joker's triumphant reunion at the end of the film certainly seems to suggest that we're supposed to be happy that they're back together, and Harley's fantasies of domestic bliss seem to be serious. There's a strong argument that Harley being part of such an unhealthy relationship makes her a terrible role model for teenage girls, who she's become popular with. Similar criticisms were leveled at "Twilight" and "Fifty Shades of Grey."
Frankly, as a villain, Harley is already a pretty lousy role model all by herself. She's an anti-hero roughly analogous to Deadpool, who is really screwed up when you look at him up close. And "Suicide Squad" is so incoherent, it's hard to tell what the filmmakers actually intended for Joker and Harley. If you think of Harley as a traditional romantic heroine, than yes, the relationship is an absolute travesty. If you think of her as a comic or subversive figure, however, it gets more complicated. Harley's codependency is part of what makes her a baddie in the first place.
Personally, I enjoyed Harley Quinn in her original incarnation, a bubbly, funny henchgirl with all the best lines, who was at least as violent towards the Joker as he was with her. I thought she was a lot of fun on her own too, being an independent reprobate, or teaming up with gal-pal Poison Ivy. Also, though she's been increasingly sexualized over the years, she's retained her strong personality and remained sympathetic.
I like Margot Robbie's interpretation of her, but she doesn't act like my Harley. She could though, eventually - and that's the part that makes me want to put this analysis on hold until the inevitable "Suicide Squad" sequel. If the honeymoon with Joker is over in the next installment, and the weapons come out, it's definitely something that I want to see.
---
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
