Thursday, September 2, 2010

Strong and Dry

Winter’s Bone starts out with a laid back Missouri porch tune that relaxes you into your seat; and from that point on, it never lets you go. By the time it was over, I was humming Ray LaMontagne tunes in my mind, feeling the evening breeze splash over my hair.
     Set in the heart of the Ozark woods, Winter’s Bone follows seventeen-year old Ree Dolly(Jennifer Lawrence), who is struggling to care for her family. She soon finds out that her vanished father has put their land on jail bond, and sets out to find him. The story that follows is a pocket epic, sprinkled with deception, and driven by Ree’s downbeat determination to unravel the mystery surrounding her father. She meets strange characters, all of whom are a part of a circle of drug dealers, and journeys deep into the forest, though she returns home at the end of every journey. In the time when she is not investigating, she is teaching her little siblings to survive; how to cook, how to shoot rifles, how to hunt, how to be respectful, when to hold on, and when to let go.
        Writer/Director Debra Granik’s vision for this film takes flight with a clean crispness that blends the majesty of the Ozarks’ rolling plains with the snarling tree branches of its forests. Sound mixer James Demer’s emphasis of the trail mix of dirt and gravel crunches keeps the audience trudging along the same path as Ree, and adds a base to the dry atmosphere set up by Granik. Though the story is an epic at heart, it is told with the same inflection and grace as a lullaby before bed.
           There are many unspoken words and off-stage events in Winter’s Bone. Ree’s father is never seen, but the ambiguity of his character informs the twist and turns in the investigation. His past actions leave Ree with furious enemies and devoted friends, all of whom are hesitant to help or stop her.
    Jennifer Lawrence turns in an on-point interpretation of the passive-aggressive Ree, anchoring the film with a performance most actors will envy. She butters Ree with a rich country smoothness that ends in the serrated blade of her gritty determination. Her hawk-like stare freezes the audiences in their seats.
          I’ve never lived in the country before. The closest I’ve ever been are sleepovers at friends’ houses from Elyria to Chesterland(Ohio). At times, I wonder why I used to make the journey out there so much, even though it cost me a hefty share in gas and energy. It’s because there’s something peaceful out there, a closeness that city folk don’t really experience until everything around them is quiet(which is rare). Once you journey through the woods, be it on foot or in a car, you never come out the same. Some of the greatest stories ever told have been told at least partially in a forest. Granik’s film is as much about the Ozark woods as it is about Ree.
        The characters in the story reflect this. They are as close-knit as the trees, letting that closeness guide their common sense. The cast plays their roles passively, substituting drama with juxtaposition that highlights the intricate workings of their strained but hospitable relations. Though some of the names, like Teardrop and Thump, will certainly make any city viewers laugh, the culture that is reflected in every shot is bare-boned and voluntarily vulnerable, daring the audience to judge it.
        Overall, a simple, steady little tale about the Ozarks and its “bread and butter” natives.  

         Ciao. 

"Inception(Christopher Nolan's guide to being a professional Confused Man)"

At first, I feared "Inception" as yet another action movie with a mindfuck twist. Reviews from everybody started pouring in, and my fears were confirmed; this film was "amazing", "thought-provoking", "mind-numbing", "complicated"; basically a piece of shit with flashing neon lights. I sighed in grief. Another "Lost".
     Weeks went by. The ratings skyrocketed. Fan reaction swelled. A buzz electrified the air. The film was adored by people who thought they would hate it, loved by those who thought they would love it. I sighed in frustration. Another "Lost". Yet, due to my incessant desire to critique all things that are hyped, I found myself being pulled towards the film anyway. I finally snapped, and went straight to the theatre after work one day. I made sure to prepare myself as a critic, meaning under no circumstances would I allow myself to get so sucked into the film that I would stop looking at it with a critical eye. With that prepared, I marched into the theater.
     For those of you who are anticipating me saying that my efforts proved fruitless, you will now be disappointed. I never once got totally sucked in. "Inception" is a brilliant movie, enthralling in its own way, and probably the best film I have seen in a very long time. That being said, I hope your disappointment with me is not as great as my disappointment was with this film.
        "Inception" is the story of long time dream-invader and all around confused man Cobb(Leonardo DiCaprio) who is hired/blackmailed by corporate head Saito(Ken Watanabe) to invade the mind of even bigger-corporate heir Robert Fischer(Cillian Murphy) and perform an Inception on him. An Inception is when an expert Extractor(basically a professional Confused Man) enters deep into the mind of a...uh...client and plants a foreign idea into that person's subconscious via the client's dreams. If successful, the Inception will be accepted by the subconscious of the client and forever change him. The act of Inception(god, this sounds like a porno) is an almost impossible process, so it is rarely ever performed. During the Inception mission, Cobb is haunted by the locked-up memories of his dead wife, Mal(Marion Cotillard).
        "Inception" is soft science fiction trying hopelessly to be hard science fiction. For those of you unfamiliar with those terms, hard science fiction is technologically driven writing, the type of SF that is geared solely towards technology and its influence on society. Most hard SF writers were engineers of some kind before they started writing, therefore they naturally write like an engineer would. They do develop characters and explore themes, but the tech and ideas are always front and center. "2001, A Space Odyssey" is a great example of hard SF. Soft science fiction is science fiction that has numerous romantic undercurrents. "Star Wars" and "Star Trek" and the entire "space opera" sub-genre are perfect examples of this. Soft SF uses science fiction as an excuse to write about other things. The writing is usually about modern day society with a twist. This is what "Inception" was, and is why I found the film incredibly disappointing.
      "Inception" has a plethora of big, brain-teasing ideas. Behind these ideas are the technologies that execute them, technologies that are interesting in-and-of themselves. Unfortunately, Nolan never bothers to shine the spotlight on any of them. For example, every single time Cobb and his team jump into somebody's mind, they have to use a mysterious-box-with-blinking-lights. What this box does besides that is never even hinted at. Unless I'm mistaken, the box is never even given a name. Does it contain the built dream they all fall into? Does it save the dreams like a computer?
      Another piece of technology that has a serious personal connection with the characters are their totems---small objects which the dream-team(haha get it?) keeps on their person at all times to remind them that they are in a dream. These objects are unique to their specific carriers, and each one is chosen carefully. After their introduction into the film, they are promptly never seen again(save for Cobb's which is used more as a symbol of his guilt than a totem).     
      The architecture of the dreams gets the biggest shrug of all. In the beginning, Cobb takes on a young design student by the name of Ariadne(Ellen Page). Ariadne's job is to design the architecture of the dreams that Cobb uses to fool Robert Fischer. There is a sequence in which Cobb's partner Arthur(Joseph Gordon) explains the technique behind building a dream to Ariadne. She catches on quickly(as her archetype always does in these films) and is soon an unrivaled expert at the craft(bet you didn't see THAT coming did you?). But after that tutorial sequence is over, dream architecture is swept under the rug and forgotten. The audience sees Ariadne fiddling with cardboard models for one scene and then "shazam, dreamland is ready!" How she transitions from cardboard models to imagination and illusion is never shown, nor how she saves her work for later.
        Had the love story never been in the film, Nolan would have had more time to better explore the workings and capabilities of all these different technologies. I don't know about the rest of the audience, but I couldn't bring myself to give a shit about the relationship between Cobb and Mal. Yes, it was touching at times and might even be a tear-jerker to some, but I found the entire love story to be an anvil that weighed the film down.  
       This is where Christopher Nolan's genius goes sour. From the matrix of memories in "Memento", through the fire of chaos in "The Dark Knight", to the borderless majesty of dreams in "Inception", Nolan has always demonstrated a remarkable connection, understanding, and love for the ideas he presents. He takes pains for them, demands gracefulness, and explores their different textures, colors, and feelings, all while keeping his work smooth and flowing. His ideas are sharp and clear in his mind, and are thus sharp and clear on-screen. They are brilliant by themselves; so why kisses and flowery love stories are more important to Nolan I will never understand. He robs his own work.
         Liked it for the rush, disliked it for its choices, understood its message clearly, and am mixed about it overall. "Inception" has brilliant ideas, a delectable setting, and a clever scheme, all of which is then dashed against the rocks of yet another movie love story; in other words, the-same-bullshit-as-usual-that-could-have-been-amazing.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Finale!

In a perfect world, LOST would have ended with a sledgehammer-to-the-skull so thrilling that the government would have to legalize marijuana just to deter people from choosing to bash their skulls with sledgehammers instead. Alas, this is not a perfect world, and LOST did not have a sledgehammer ending. Nevertheless, a relatively feasible amount of closure was reached…with an equally proportional amount of plot holes. 

The Good: 
1. Frank Lepidus is man I would sincerely share a joint with at a party one day. His survival skills and instincts border on the superheroic. 

2. One million internet dollars for all those who caught the “Christian Shephard” joke before the finale. 

3. As cheesy and corny as it is, the church ending is nice. It was a celebration with those characters whose contributions to the show were major, and while it leaves a rather unsavory taste in the mouths of those who were expecting more, a simple ending only proves that the most important part of any story is the journey, not the result. 

4. Ding-dong, the Smoke monster’s dead! 

The Bad: 
1. Oh, the gaping plot holes and unanswered questions. First up: why the fuck would Ben want the island to himself? He needs to preside over a society. He’s pretty useless if he doesn’t. 

2. The very ending itself is a frock stitched with mystery as to what the fuck the sideways universe is supposed to be. I always thought it was just a history of what would have happened if the plane hadn’t crashed. I didn’t think it needed to be anything special to the main storyline. In that way, the ending really disappoints. 

3. After all of Jack’s hardship and intense fighting, Kate is the one that pretty much kills Smokey? I mean, 4,815,162,342 points for teamwork, but that was supposed to be Jack’s kill---in total. Instead, he just got to kick him over a ledge. Why does Kate always have to ruin everyone else's moment? Boo! 

4. "This little light of mine/ I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/I'm gonna plug-it-with-a-rock/This little light of mine/It will always shine/Go ahead/Take-the-rock-out/But you'll dieeeeeee (unlessyou'reDesmond)." Seriously, the LOST writers have great ideas, but what was the point of the light other than to be a convenient plot device? If the island is as important as Jacob says it is(you know, keeping all the bad stuff in), then why build a way to destroy it? 

The Ugly: 
1. I haven’t seen the alternative endings to the show yet, but I’m hoping they all end the same way and just take different avenues to get there. I say that because if I find out that they are three completely different endings, I’m going to rant and be very mad again; after all, the writers have been telling us for years now that they already knew how it was going to end from the start. 

Answers: 
1. The island exists to keep bad spirits away. All it needs now is a night light; then it could---OOOOOOOOOOH! .....Check. 

“LOST: the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: Series Wrap-up” coming soon…(brought to you by the Dharma Union of Slug-Hunting Tiny Cats) 

Ciao. 

Thursday, April 29, 2010

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Parts 6+7

If you want to know why I haven’t written the last two reviews and won’t write a full review this time, skip directly to the Ugly section(don’t worry, it won’t take you long to get there anyway).


The Good: I don’t know. It’s funny and interesting sometimes.

The Bad: Luckily for me, even the more die hard LOST fans are starting notice more of this stuff. I’ve also noticed that I come away feeling slightly dumber after every new episode. But that’s just me.

Purgatory: Everything until the final episode.

The Ugly: I have decided after much careless and distracted thinking that I will discontinue these reviews until the final episode has come and passed. Reason being: LOST hasn’t changed, and I feel like I’m repeating myself in every single review I write this season. It’s still suspenseful, it’s still mysterious, it’s still dramatic, the writing is still kind of iffy, and the “predictable by being unpredictable” principle is still badly visible. The upside: no time travel. The downside: the sideways universe, which is about as useful as snot. I made all my points last season and LOST has done a terrible job coming up with something new(period) to comment on. I suppose, since I always say that nothing is ever fully explored, LOST has more to offer than I’m seeing and I bet if I looked up the source material for the show and maybe did some sort of comparison thing, I could come up with more interesting things to talk about; but alas, I am one man, with one job, and one life, and thus don’t have too much time to delve into the “deeper mysteries” of LOST.* If you really want to dig that deep, just go to your local bookstore or online and look for the book(1).

Plus, LOST is coming an end, so let’s just enjoy it.

Ciao.

P.S. Lesson of revealing too much too soon: learned.

*By “deeper mysteries”, I mean the stuff that science fiction has been talking about since the 40’s that the mass public is only now becoming awa

References: http://www.amazon.com/Lost-Philosophy-Reasons-Blackwell-Culture/dp/1405163151/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1269356778&sr=8-1

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 5

My wish is apparently LOST’s command. Hi-yuh; samurai action!


The Good:

1. Lots and lots of action to take my mind off of this complicated plot. The action scenes were very well done.

2. The annoying guy in glasses is dead. Finally.

The Bad:

1. Dogen is dead. WTF? I thought he’d be worth many more episodes. Then again, dead on this island never truly means dead anymore.

2. So Locke tells Sayid that he can have anything he wants, and Sayid pretty much believes him. When did these characters get so…trustworthy? First, it’s Jack, then Sawyer, and now Sayid? In myth I can believe this happening because those people listened to their Gods, but this is LOST, and both Jacob and Man-in-Black don’t seem to be too god-like besides the whole smoke-monster ability. It doesn’t even look like the writers are trying anymore. “Shit, Carlton, we need to get Sayid to go back. How do we do that?” “Have Locke tell him he’ll get whatever he wants in life if he does. Sayid will believe him. Other people will believe that as well.”

The Ugly:

1. Nowadays, people are hearing about all the different things we humans are developing that are “advanced”: tablet computers that are so advanced than regular iPods and iPhones, they fit in your bag instead of your pocket; sex robots so advanced they talk and feel just like a high-class whore; computer software so advanced, you won’t ever be able to tell whether an image is authentic anymore. With technology advancing more and more towards the beginning of self-inflicted human extinction, the demand for good television programming has already started to rise, due to the fact that our day-to-day needs are being met quicker. Television is the most accessible form of entertainment out there and, as more time passes, I strongly believe more and more people will be watching it. Programming for TV took a huge leap in a different direction following 9/11, what with shows like 24, LOST, and Heroes sweeping the nation by storm with the whole “what’s going to happen next” ploy. Other shows like “V” and “Flashforward” have emerged under that disguise as well.

Television needs to be careful. Its programming has been the same for a good little while now, but it needs to make sure it doesn’t fall into the pattern of being something that people can count on all the time.

Answers: None

All righty, good times. See ya’ll next week.

Ciao.

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 4

This episode proved that LOST and I have something in common: we both miss Season One.

The Good:

1. We got our first glimpse as to how deep the rabbit hole goes as far as the sideway’s universe is concerned: Jack has a son. Not really a surprise, considering all the daddy issues that blitzkrieg this show every chance they get, but watching Jack trying to be a father is much more interesting than watching Jack trash a mirror because---gasp---he doesn’t know why his name is on a lighthouse gear!

2. I stand convinced that Claire can handle being the henchmen. It’s clear she’s badass, that’s for sure.

The Bad:

1. Dogen’s sideway’s universe character is a loving, musician-dad? When’s the samurai action coming in?! Come on!

Purgatory:

1. The lighthouse itself. A ship parked at the center of the island, a mysterious hatch, a cave in the side of the island with numbers written all over the ceiling, a crashed plane, an air balloon, the abandoned Dharma stations; the thing that all these ruins have in common is that they are all interesting. Why are they in Purgatory? Because they’re all comfortably interesting; logically interesting. They’re all something one would expect anyone to be interested in. There’s nothing in there that’s daring, that’s bold. Sure, it’s strange that they are there, and that teases the brain, but…I don’t quite know how to explain this and if I suddenly get it spot on I’ll let you know.

The Ugly:

1. Chipping off my shoulder this week comes another reason as to why J.J. Abram’s doesn’t impress me. He always does what’s comfortable. I would really like to see him create something that makes us uncomfortable, that makes us question ourselves; something that challenges himself, makes his audience doubt his abilities. I specifically target Abrams in all this because he did “Star Trek” too; and he made “Star Trek” look like something I’m positive it’s not.

Every time someone tells me that “Star Trek” is about the future, I secretly laugh at them; “Star Trek” is as much about the future as James Cameron’s “Titanic” is about the sinking of the RMS Titanic. I think ole’ J.J. does this because he knows that making it ABOUT the future instead of merely SETTING a story in the future is more comfortable, and will make audience’s feel more comfortable. As much as I loved the new “Star Trek”, there was nothing new in it; nothing that made me start a conversation. “Star Trek” has always been about the betterment of humanity, and all the episodes Gene Roddenberry and the other writers wrote were meant to make the audience look at themselves, and question things they believed. The new “Star Trek” film is very comfortable. It’s made to be likable. One walks out of the movie theater afterwards in a state of “awesomeness”. They see a homeless man on the street, and they walk right by him, like usual. They feel good; why on Earth should they risk losing that? They don’t want to be uncomfortable, and homelessness, poverty, disease, misfortune---all that stuff is just so uncomfortable, let somebody else deal with it. That’s the exact opposite of the Star Trek many fans know and love. Captain Picard would never do that to someone who needed his help. Neither would Kirk(Kirk would also use compassion because he cared, not because it would make him look good in the eyes of the Romulan Empire). Captain Sisko would never walk by someone like that, neither would Captain Archer, or Captain Janeway.

I’m sure Gene Roddenberry knew how to write a good show. I bet he could write something like LOST without breaking a sweat. He was keen to audience’s likes and dislikes, and had years of experience prior to writing “Star Trek”. Instead he chose to show them something he felt they needed to see; with content that he knew would make them uncomfortable. He made a Russian one of the main characters during the middle of the Cold War, made a black woman the first “babe on the bridge”---so to speak---just two years after the end of the Civil Rights Movement and when women were still treated as inferior, put out a message of peace during a time when almost all of America wanted nothing more than to blast the USSR and Cuba off the face of the planet. His show reflected his hopes and his dreams, as well as his own beliefs. It had deeper levels, and deeper meanings. LOST doesn’t. Its meanings simply jump through time, and barely go beneath the surface. They are pre-fabricated and rolled out only when they are needed.

“Star Trek” is the classroom, while LOST is the strip club. That’s what doesn’t impress me about Abrams, Cuse or Lindelof. They satisfy the senses, but do not engage the mind past any novel intelligence.

How many LOST fans will go out and read Slaughter House Five, or Grapes of Wrath, or, in some cases, the Bible? How many fans know that there are still witch-hunts going on in Africa(1)? Or that innocent Nigerians are being rounded up and shot for no good reason(2)?

Probably not too many; they’re all too busy being concerned about what’s going to happen next on LOST. If the media spawned by Abrams and his contemporaries are going to represent our generation in history, the least they could do is tell the truth. Entertainment is not a bad thing at all, and very rarely do writers ever try to sit down and magically produce a “phenomenon”, but as I sit and watch this show, and listen to Cuse, Lindelof, and Abrams spout off their inspirations for their material, it seems as though all they ever want is attention, and don't care how they get it.

Answers:

1. The lighthouse. It’s how Jacob kept watch over his “candidates” and brought them to the island. Check.

Bittersweet episode this week. That’s all. If it was a bit too bitter for some, then enjoy this cool article from a very unique LOST fan (3).

Ciao.


References:

1. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/21/world/africa/21gambia.html?_r=1&ref=africa

2. http://english.aljazeera.net/news/africa/2010/02/2010298114949112.html

3. http://www.michaeljohngrist.com/2010/02/the-ruins-of-lost/

LOST---The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly: 6 Part 3

Sorry about the tardiness.

An intriguing sense to be had this week, as the “flash-sideways”(1) continue to unravel and we continue to watch them, chins in palms, yawning. Many thoughts and questions come to mind about the “sideways” universe, especially for Locke and the geeky-looking Ben Linus. Titillation grips me as I write this review as I got to watch one of my own LOST theories came true.

The Good:

1. Locke may not have his legs, but he’s about to get married to the one he’s always loved. His dad also seems to have returned to normal, and they have a good relationship. That was nice, albeit overshadowed by paralysis.

2. Even in the sideways reality, Benjamin Linus stills sucks at life.

3. The smokey-vision was an eerie effect, yet gives viewers a very child-like delight.

4. Seeing as though Kate’s name didn’t appear to be on Jacob’s cave, there is a possibility that Kate is either going to get phased out and booted from the Island, or dead by the end of season 6. Meaning she will no longer get in the way of things. Though I like her character, the writers have completely destroyed her lately.

The Bad:

1. The “sideways” universe is getting boring, fast. So now we get to watch the characters trounce around their regular, normal lives, either moaning like hell or getting extremely lucky? So far, this alternate reality has been almost a repeat of Season One, only slightly less interesting, as the elements that made season one so grippingly dramatic are now replaced with smiling pictures and “hey, I feel like I know you, weird huh?”’s.

2. The Numbers are Jacob’s doodles on a cave wall? This season’s main theme appears to be “heavy disappointment.”

The Ugly:

1. Though I never voiced this theory to anyone but myself, anyone who wishes the doubt the validity of my claim can do so without any retaliation from me; I predicted before season six started that Jack and Locke would forever remain on the island to take over the jobs of The Man in Black and Jacob; to balance out the forces of “black and white”(whatever that may mean symbolically) and guard the island until they found a replacement. Thus I thought that the entire reason they were even on that island was to be evaluated and prepared for taking over the job. While that theory hasn’t fully come true, nor will since Locke is officially dead now, I did kind of pat myself on the back when Un-Locke explained to Sawyer why Jacob had brought him there, seeing as though at least part of my theory was correct. I promise all of you that that theory was not taken from anyone else’s, though I’m sure others have come up with it. Whether you believe me is up to you. Frankly speaking, it seemed like the logical choice, judging by how often the survivors were tested. It almost seemed as if someone were preparing them, and often times the best way to get honest behavior out of someone is to keep them in the dark about why they’re being tested.

Purgatory:

1. The blonde kid. Just after we find out that Smokey has been the one morphing into all the apparitions on the island, another non-Smokey apparition suddenly decides to appear. Great.

Answers:

1. The numbers. Turns out they are Jacob’s way of using Google Calender. How dull. Check.

The ball got rolling a little faster this week, but I still felt as jet-lagged after this episode as I did after last week’s episode. Despite my bashing of it, LOST just isn’t the same without it’s intense mind-fucking. In the meantime, enjoy these other theories about the show from the sci-fi website i09.com. I call them LOST: The Stoner Theories(2).

Ciao.

References:

1. http://io9.com/5474095/go-ahead-and-tell-locke-what-he-cant-do-he-doesnt-mind

2. http://io9.com/5472967/the-secrets-behind-lost-our-50-best-theories