Movie Review

Archived Posts from this Category

May 11, 2010

Thinking With ‘Iron Man 2′

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Movie Review, Pop Culture
Leave a Comment 

Themes:
1) Father/Son legacies. Both Whiplash and Tony have inherited baggage–technical, emotional, moral–from their fathers. What I like is I’m not sure what to make of Whiplash’s intentions and his father’s dying statement: “That should be you.” Did his father hold a bitter grudge or was he merely saying “You are destined for greatness too, son.” Not that the two are mutually exclusive but I wonder if just like Tony, Whiplash has gone off track from his father’s wishes.
2) The misuse of power and ability. Tony’s chest reactor has amazing powers. Imagine what energy problems around the world could be solved with this technology. But Tony’s heart is corrupted–that was established in the first film and this one rachets that up even more. He assumes that only he could responsibly use the Arc Reactor–all the while withholding it from others. Of course we can read ‘nuclear power/weapons’ all over these films. Tony mirrors the message America is currently sending to some countries: “We have nuclear weapons and bombs. We can manage both just fine. You cannot do either.”
3) No one can ‘go it alone’. This plays out in Tony’s romantic reaching out to Pepper and Rhodes. His change of heart is propelled by his heart problems and immanent death. His alliances and friendships are a source of strength for him because there is mutuality and trust. Whiplash and Hammer on the other hand have an alliance that was never fair, trusting, equal, and they both lost in the end.

Filmic References:
1) Top Gun: War Machine’s fly by the tower.
2) Terminator: Rhode’s at the party–”Get out”
3) (…more?…)


Tony Stark:
Tony Stark is interesting because he is beyond the ‘dark’ superhero ‘with flaws’. He is hardly a hero at all. His power comes from his being ‘self serving’ in a very real sense. His Arc Reactor saves his life and is a glorified pace maker. He is a Capitalist whose ethical system is about money, ease, fame, ego. In the first movie he makes an important decision to rectify his company’s weapons dealings and war profiteering. Even when he did that, he failed as a true ‘superhero’ by killing people rather than using his tech prowess to find less than lethal ways of achieving his goals. In the second film, he’s facing down those who are jealous of him. He’s not battling for Truth Justice and The American Way or solving crimes or protecting the weak. He’s fending off Playa Haters who are aimin’ at his game. Its Corporate War. A hostile takeover with a touch of Ghosts of The Past Seeking Revenge. That’s why I’m interested in the Avengers. When there is a team involved and larger issues than just Stark Industries, how will Tony act?

Alchemy:
The hidden and esoteric arts were never really just about turning more crude matter into gold. It was about the perfection of the spirit and attainment of the secrets of God. This was more to do with righteousness and angelic mediators and divine science than potions and wizened hermits trying to get rich. And Iron Man 2 has a bit of alchemy in it also. Tony’s life is literally and relationally saved by his father Howard’s love. His father reaches out to him saying “You are my most important creation.” and also hands him the secret to unlocking Tony’s heart troubles.
Using this knowledge as key, I’m going to offer an analysis that you may or may not agree with:
The circle chest icon on Iron Man’s suit may be thought of symbolizing “oneness”–appropriate for the lonely ‘Rambo’ style of Tony at first.
The triangle chest piece, a gift of his father and a very tangible sign of his father’s love, appears at a time when Tony shows love for Pepper and accepts Rhodes’ help. This triangle can be seen as a ‘trinity’. A sign of community, shared love, and equality.

Scarlett Johansson:
An unfortunate casting in an otherwise well cast film. Every other leading actor here is charismatic and plays off each other well. Scarlett seems a dead weight. Was it that her character wasn’t written well? Perhaps. Was it that she was so cinched into trusses and corsets binding her up that she was unable to breathe let alone move and act like a natural, comfortable person? Most likely yes. If you watch her in the Monaco scene where she greets Tony and Pepper and then stops to speak to someone else, her body is bent into an unnatural posture–most definitely because of her costumer. I love people with curves. In my mind, if you’re going to cast Scarlett, let her be the beautiful woman she is. This is an issue that should have been hammered out between director and costumer.
She also is wooden and unnatural by her own accord. I hope she doesn’t appear in any more Marvel movies.

Happy Little Moments:
1) The way Gyneth Paltrow says ‘struwburries’.
2) The Army Drones feet that clamp unto the ground when firing their ‘tank’ rounds.
3) Whiplash’s great villain entrance as his disguise burns away on the Formula One track.
4) Tony and Rhodes talking in their suits with their masks up before the final fight. They play well and make it a believeable “surrounded cowboys in the OK Corral” feel even though they’re in Arc Reactor powered suits.

Sources of Frustration:
1) Music choice for Tony’s introduction in the movie as he is dispatched from the airplane. With a different score, we could entertain better the idea that he’s being launched into battle–which would make sense to how it is shot and intended. It would have been a nice ‘gotcha’ to have a dramatic sound leading us to believe that rather than fireworks, he’s flying through flak.
2) Scarlett Johansson (see above)
3) Too busy of a movie to have a singular thread that builds or allows characters to have much depth. There’s no tension in this movie. The most threatened we feel is on the racetrack until Tony’s in his suit. There’s no rising threat. Only at the end to we have an almost exact replica of the first movie where Tony blows the shit of the bad guy and it endangers Pepper and she’s the damsel in distress.
4) Much too much is going on. There’s no sense of ‘arc’, finality, or real character growth/depth.
5) The Bonus add-on after the credits seems really arbitrary. The New Mexico setting allows for either Hulk or Cap options–were they trying to throw us off? My guess is no. The creative team probably just didn’t know what Marvel movie to script for so they most likely made a setting that could be believeable for a number of movies and shot different “gasp” shots….Mjolner, Cap’s shield, suspended Banner…whatever movie got finalized first got into the bonus shot. Anywho, it just feels “stock” and impersonal.

And…I tremor with delight that I saw them film the shot where Tony drives his Audi down the PCH near Malibu.
Tremor.

 

May 8, 2010

Preview Review: Robin Hood

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Comedy, Movie Review, Pop Culture
[3] Comments 

Remember that movie “Gladiator” by Ridley Scott and remember wishing you could watch it again with arrows inserted in place of tridents and nets?

Consider this your death bed’s dream come true because no other movie this summer will make you want to immediately die after watching it!

Do you feel like a brainless idiot? Well here’s your hero: Robin Hood!
He’s just like you! He also makes witless rejoinders–
“If you touch me, I’ll cut off your manhood.”
(Get ready, here comes Robin Hood’s response!…)
“Thanks for the warning.”
Oh snap! You hear that shit?! That’s just as ‘pants full of shit and still grinning’ stupid as your ‘Booya!’ on Luis in the staff breakroom last week when you asked him: “Want any chips with your hummus?!”
You and Robin Hood are gonna love being fucking dumb together in a dark movie theatre where no one will judge you.

I know you love your ‘pseudo-historical movie knock off of a 3rd graders misremembered story from late night History Channel’ revved up with all the floor sweepings of a dementia sufferer’s knowledge of history. So guess what?
We got English guys living in the time of dragons with all the requisite mud and potato sack clothes with you’ll never guess fucking what…
D-Day Higgins Boats landing at a Normandy-esque beach!
Watch a movie that takes a shit, calls it ‘anachronism’, fetishizes it, and then makes you its unwitting co-conspirator in an orgy of bastardized cliche.

Do you have trouble figuring out Fox News? Do you fumble around day after day fighting with troublesome ‘wiping your own ass’? Well this is gonna be the right movie for you, my drooling friend!
“Rise and Rise Again. Until The Lamb Becomes The Lion….What Does That Mean?”
(Yeah! And what does “stop breathing through your mouth and eating pork rinds during the funeral service you USA Today-reading pile of putrefaction” mean?)
And what’s Robin Hood’s vacuous response? Wait for it….
“Never give up.”
Awesome. You just rubbed my pea sized ‘inspiration button’ until my thighs shook.

Ridley Schlock, you just convinced me to watch your movie “Robin Hood”!

 

March 7, 2010

Movie Review: Tim Burton’s “Alice in Wonderland”

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Movie Review, news
[2] Comments 

I wish I could say I was underwhelmed. I was in fact de-whelmed.
A dreary, tired and tiring waste that will leave you wanting to watch that 1985 made-for-TV version of ‘Alice’ to wash it’s taste out of your mouth. If previous Alice incarnations have had the flavor of LSD, this is a double dose of Kaopectate and Nytol.

To squeeze all the fun, youthful adventure, intelligence, and bizarre characterizations from Wonderland would seem difficult to do, but Tim Burton makes it look easy in this muddy film that is like a hamster spinning on its wheel or Dirk Diggler trying in vain to awaken his unit. 

Some Words To Tim Burton:
If you’re going to take us back to Wonderland, you’d better have a hook. Why are we going into this well-trod territory? Give us a new spin, a new fresh perspective! Shrek and even The Brothers Grimm (though a bad movie) brought a newness to old stories that made the a valid reason to back there. Your idea of ‘freshness’ is to make Alice a teenager who is revisiting Wonderland continually. That kinda defeats the purpose. Look: It’s become a repetitive and tired dream to her. It feels that way to us too.

You don’t allow any interesting characters to shine. There’s so much muddled mess going on with a Bandersnatch, an old hound dog, and some long-legged Crispin Glover doing nonsense there’s no time to enjoy the characters. There is no interesting vignettes that anyone will be able to recall. The Red Queen interrogating frogs? Nope. Muddy chase scenes? Muddy battle scenes? Screaming unintelligible things at animals that you don’t care about? Nope.

On this topic: you’ve got Crispin Glover, a certified nutball, Helena Bonham Carter, Hollywood’s Bride of Frankenstein, and Crowned Prince of Insanity Johnny Depp. Who of them gets to do anything remotely interesting? You’ve got them so distorted that their performances are lost. Depp does so much with his face that it can be engaging to just watch him at repose. But here you’ve got him so muddled up that watching him is like trying to connect to a kid in a cereal commercial who’s going Cucoo for Cocoa Puffs.

Case in point: You’ve set up that the Mad Hatter does a cool dance and we’re looking forward to seeing Depp do an awesome dance at the end. And what do you do? You CGI some wacky Superbowl Dancing Baby bullshit where his head spins to horrible Danny Elfman breakdance music. I just about shit my pants, scooped my hands through my befouled pants, and joyfully ate my waste at that instant. Do you not realize that Johnny Depp could do any improvised dance at that scene and it would be a hundred times better than that hokey crap?

Lewis Carroll was a brilliant wordsmith and storyteller. His use of language, puzzles, irony, and parody knocked the cultured elites of his time off their high horses. This film has erased any sense of that and been pulled down to prat falls and weak sitcom half-hearted attempts at ‘silliness’. There is no heart nor head in this film.

The story has no arc, meaning, drive, or interest in it. It views like the Level Ending Videos on a bad video game. Seriously, many video games have better characterization and story than this film does. What are we doing here? There is just a back and forth “run around aimlessly” feel. Are we rescuing the Mad Hatter? Getting the sword? Delivering the sword? Killing the Jabberwocky? Who cares? Alice herself hardly cares and this brings us to the next point.

Put some exclamation points in your goddam movie. Alice isn’t convinced that Wonderland is real. She doesn’t buy it and we don’t either. Alice and everybody else isn’t sure she’s the “real Alice”…just people shrugging at each other and that’s how we feel too. Just a big “meh.” In writing and improvisational theatre a rule of thumb is to have some buy-in. A reason to care. People making big decisions and people caring about what they’re doing…Putting exclamation points on the story.

And is this supposed to be a “girl empowerment” movie? You can’t tack on a tacky Avril Levigne song and expect us to believe that there is a message of Girlz Rool, Boyz Drool! It’s pretty condescending to women in almost all respects and any “feminist” message it does have may have been relevant in 1950.
Why do I say that? Because the ‘challenge’ Alice has to conquer in the ‘real’ world is to decide for herself who to marry and not succumb to an arranged marriage. How many 15 year old girls do you know that are having to deal with Arranged Marriage Stress?

I wanted to walk out of this movie. It was a joyless voyage in a murky, uninspired depiction of a land that has been done better a thousand times before.
And why make us look at Anne Hathaway? Her grotesque features made for the most garish face in the film. I would do well to never have to see her grace the silver screen again.
And what a yawn of an “end battle”! We have seen more rousing end climaxes in episodes of Duck Tales!

What a waste. A waste of time, talent, and promise. I can’t imagine who this was trying to appeal to. Teens? Kids? In ten years time, more kids will be watching Time Bandits, Labyrinth, The Sand Lot, Spy Kids, Goonies, and the vastly superior 1951 Disney cartoon Alice in Wonderland.

Do not see this movie at anytime in any venue for any reason.

 

February 4, 2010

Avatar: Movie analysis and response to David Brooks

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Ideas, Movie Review, Pop Culture
1 Comment 

David Brooks has become the most recent but surely not the last in a long line of Avatar critics who level the charge of the film portraying the “White Messiah” narrative. I submit that Brooks’ analysis fails on a number of levels.

First, Brooks’ reiteration of the White Messiah critique of Avatar fails in originality. There have been numerous articles written almost verbatim before him including Annalee Newitz to whom I responded to here:
http://mindflowers.net/2009/12/22/thoughts-upon-avatar-and-response-to-annalee-newitz/

Secondly Brooks gives no idea of what consequences he would expect from the viewing audience (potential and realized). He writes: “Avatar is a racial fantasy par excellence…It’s just escapism, obviously, but benevolent romanticism can be just as condescending as the malevolent kind…” That sounds like a pretty serious charge. Are we to not see the movie? Protest it? Are considerate viewers to be encouraged to educate others about post-colonialism, systemic racism, the history of race in film? Brooks gives no hints at redemption for this film. As I am a movie lover and also a person committed to social justice and anti-racism, I take great joy in finding ways to lead viewers to make tough critical decisions about films and ‘redeem’ them through analysis. This can mean thinking through how the story fails, but also how it can still lead to positive and change-making dialogues. I feel that Brooks’ article commits a common misstep in throwing out a charge of cultural insensitivity without offering new inroads towards positive action, dialogue, or thought. Brooks stays at the (sophomoric) thesis level of ‘this phenomenon exits’. Does his list of six movies including Fern Gully create evidence that these films are alike in disparaging of non-European cultures? This is connected then to my first point: the White Messiah charge is already a tired thread on the internet. What else can a person say about this film besides a quick-reference meme tag, or Hollywood in general that may lead towards true effective and just post-colonial work?

Third, and most importantly, Brooks must misrepresent the film to the point of fabrication to fit it into his pre-conceived mold. I will explain below the statements he makes that lead me to wonder if he saw the film at all or just didn’t watch closely.

Now let me state where I do agree with Brooks. I agree with his spirit and the sentiment of where he is coming from. American big-production house movies have almost a 100% failure record as far as their depictions of cultures that deviate from the white-privileged mainstream. This is not only in issues of race, but of course gender, class, religion, LGBTQ communities, ‘outlaw’ sexuality, etc. I also am in full agreement that white folk have largely just not ‘got it’ as far as how to engage in anti-imperial, post-colonial, anti-racist work.

I will also add that I do feel that the process of greater justice will be greatly quickened through the work of allies, inclusive solidarity movements, and finding connections between oppressions of race, class, gender identities, spectrum of abilities, etc.

I applaud for Brooks listing some more movies than just ‘Dances with Wolves’ and ‘Last Samurai’ that qualify as White Messiah films beginning with ‘A Man Called Horse’. Leaving behind the need of a clear comparison of Avatar with these films (I’m sure by reason of space constraint) we are left to take Brooks’ (and multitudes of others) word for it. These movies are White Messiah narratives.

How are we to interpret White Messiah or White Savior charges? Are Jake Sully of Avatar or John Dunbar of DwW savior or messiah types?

In DwW, Kevin Costner’s character does what that is savior type? He joins the group, the Army finds his journal which threatens the Sioux by disclosing information about them, and then he flees into the snowy passes.

This could lead to some interesting conversations about what a messiah is and how historically savior types have been interpreted.

How about in Avatar? Is Jake Sully a messiah? Brooks is content to limit his characterization of Sully as a messiah by this kind of description: “he’s the most awesome member of their tribe. He has sex with their hottest babe. He learns to jump through the jungle and ride horses. It turns out that he’s even got more guts and athletic prowess than they do…” It doesn’t matter that this isn’t necessarily true. Even if it was, does that a messiah make? Sully does show leadership, by garnering support from the other Navi cultures and he does his part in battle. Is being a leader and warrior count as messiah? And does Brooks neglect that Sully works in relationship and support of both human and Navi allies? Is Brooks overlaying the Great Man theory unto this film also?
Or is Grace Constantine a messiah? She dies and becomes a petitioning saint in a sense, telling Eywa about the dangers posed by the invading humans.
Or is Tsu’tey the fallen Navi warrior? Or are they all messiah? As some traditions hold ‘messiah has a thousand faces’ and many individuals enact redeeming, divine action into the world.

Let me take Brooks point by point:
“The formula [of White Messiah] also gives movies a little socially conscious allure.”
I would posit that Brooks’ own article has the easy veneer of ‘socially conscious allure’. It gives a name to a supposed genre which will sound good to justice minded folks but gives no critical depth, and offers no countering positive input.

“Academy Award voters like it because it is so multiculturally aware.”
Part of what makes science fiction such an interesting genre for me is its ability to ask questions and remain open to multiple interpretations. Is this movie ‘about’ being multiculturally aware? Or does it ask questions of us? Does it challenge us to reflect on our histories especially the ‘minority reports’ that
nationalism and European privilege would mute? Does it challenge us to consider the future we are creating? I honestly wonder how many people who enjoy the movie have said: “I like this movie because it is multiculturally aware.”

“Critics like it because the formula inevitably involves the loincloth-clad good guys sticking it to the military-industrial complex.“
Does Brooks have Spartacus or Jesus in mind here? Or Rocky vs. Ivan Drago?

“The peace-loving natives — compiled from a mélange of Native American, African, Vietnamese, Iraqi and other cultural fragments — are like the peace-loving natives you’ve seen in a hundred other movies.“
Interesting that Brooks doesn’t mention Hebrew culture. Considering that Navi means ‘to see’ with the connection to ‘seer/prophet’ in Hebrew and Eywa is obviously close to Yahweh. And how about conversations about Moses? He was another ‘in between’ identities person as a Hebrew/’Egyptian’ Prince. Can you imagine the loyalties and boundary transgressing he must have gone through?
And are the Navi peace loving? It seems that in the few Navi characters we get to know well, one is quite ready to kick the shit of Sully. Does the movie ever say that the Navi have to history of violence? They do seem to have multiple cultures separated at least by geography and specialization–can we rule out that there is no beef between these peoples?

“They are phenomenal athletes and pretty good singers and dancers.“
Phenomenal athletes compared to who? They’re not human. And I guess I forgot the scenes that display the Navi’s singing and dancing that was so impressive. Look. In science fiction, the aliens will have something that is understandable to us. Can you imagine a movie where an alien species we are to connect to in some way didn’t have religion, music, language, communities, physical bodies? That’s why people scratched their heads at the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey. There was trippy lines across the screen and a floating baby.

“Along the way, he has his consciousness raised.“
I suggest that Brooks take a look at this cool article about embodied cognition that states that selfhood involves at the least our entire body.
http://io9.com/5462883/the-science-fiction-of-embodied-cognition

It also explains how our the title “Our Bodies Ourselves” is really insightful: consciousness is not just floating in our brains but infuses our bodies. When we experience trauma or change to our bodies, it is not like our car getting a dent. Of course Sully’s experience in a different body, created through the DNA of his deceased brother and a Navi, would change his consciousness. Add to that the blossoming love he has for Neytiri. Add to that his experience as a wounded soldier who has seen the effects of violence and war and of course you would have a character who would be ripe for a change of worldview.

“Because they are not corrupted by things like literacy, cellphones and blockbuster movies, they have deep and tranquil souls.“
Are the Navi illiterate? I must have missed that scene. I don’t recall them saying that they do not have a written language. I was interested to find that in one draft of the script, Grace and Sully go to an old Navi school that had been created by the humans to teach the Navi youth, including instruction of English. Grace says something to the effect “The youth are exceptionally bright.” Was this taken out because of the history of Native American schools?
(Read more at Mindflowers about this history here:)
http://mindflowers.net/2009/01/15/did-you-know-about-indian-boarding-schools/

Again, Brooks asserts that the Navi have “deep and tranquil souls”. We see a whole lot of emotion from the Navi. It appears that they are not some species of unfeeling stoic monastics. Also. Why would the Navi want or need movies and cell phones when they have neuro-jacks directly into their heads? They have an equivalent of the internet pumped into their nervous system. There are already plenty of good articles about the possibilities of future human illiteracy due to this type of developments in technology.

“[Avatar] rests on the stereotype that white people are rationalist and technocratic while colonial victims are spiritual and athletic.”
But the humans in the film are depicted as not just white people. There are humans of different races, represented by men and women. Also, the Navi are spiritual in the way that physicists on Earth are ‘spiritual’. The rules on Pandora are not those of Earth. That ecosystem operated as a cohering consciousness. The Navi evolved in that milieu and they operated within the given rules of their physiology and environment. We can also assume their athleticism is similar to a couch potato here on Earth. Is it amazing to Superman that he can fly? No he is from Krypton, his lazer vision to him is as normal as me choking on chicken bones.

Is Brooks speaking here of Star Wars? A lot of the Imperial officers were white. And they loved technology. The Jedi were not always white (Mace Windu, Ki Adi Mundi, Kit Fisto) and spiritual. And athletic. Holy shit! David Brooks is right. Star Wars is about race too.

“It rests on the assumption that nonwhites need the White Messiah to lead their crusades.“
Jake did do his part as leader in gathering alliances and acting as one leader in the battle. I get it. But remember what won the battle and defeated the humans: Grace Constantine told Eywa (the planet consciousness) that the humans would not stop in their destruction and presumably some tips on how to defeat the humans. A dead woman’s supplications to a godlike force won the day. Out of courage and conviction of what was right, Navi and a number of humans worked together. Isn’t this the way that social justice movements have often been framed? A power of balance and justice that is greater than humanity working with and through people of diverse backgrounds in alliance and community?
A clear and honest portrayal of what actually happens in the movie can lead to better discussion of our contemporary values and strategies for racial justice. While it is positive to critique white folks’ when they ‘step in’ the way of progress (even out of the best intentions), and stop them in their tracks when they presume to have the answers about white privilege, let us continue to encourage multilateral and mutually vulnerable allied action on all fronts!

“Natives can either have their history shaped by cruel imperialists or benevolent ones, but either way, they are going to be supporting actors in our journey to self-admiration.“
This is a sentiment I agree with. Yes! Do I want more movies that depict alien species without a human protagonist? Yes. Do I want more movies that honestly depict the struggle for greater justice on Earth from the place of marginalized voices? Yes. We definitely need American movie goers to support movies that are written, directed, and produced by people other than rich white people.

In response to Brooks’ article this response was written to the New York Times:
“The most galling line to me in this latest installment was when “the Messiah” personage was somehow able to rouse the spirits of all the animals and natural forces to choose sides and retaliate against the invasive forces — something that even the supposedly more naturally inclined natives were unable to accomplish.” –David E. Wilkins
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/12/opinion/l12brooks.html

And again to this I have to ask: Did the person see the movie? A dead woman, Grace Constantine told the planet consciousness about the humans and we can guess that the planet acted in its own wisdom from there. Let us not overlook the character of Grace either! She is the most interesting character to me because of the insidious threat that she herself poses as an ‘anthropologist’. Her interest in aiding the Navi originally comes from a place of scientific interest while Jake Sully’s advocacy is born of relationship, community, and love.

So let me put aside Brooks for now and continue with other Avatar thoughts:

What about the movies that Avatar gets compared to? I heard one loud voice recently saying “I thought Avatar’s story was totally a rip off of Fern Gully.” Uh uh. And of course Dances with Wolves. Are people just repeating what other people say? Or do people have a really small knowledge base of films so that every movie they see gets compared to Fern Gully? And why when people talk about DwW do they gloss over the fact that Stands With A Fist is a white woman ‘adopted’ into the Sioux culture? Isn’t the idea of multiple or liminal identities also present in Avatar?

What about Schindler’s List? There we have a German helping Jews. Was he a White Messiah by Brooks’ standards?
What about Baby? You got environmentalism and cross-species advocacy and adventure.
What about Lawrence of Arabia? The English T.E. Lawrence combating the big bad Ottoman Empire (those rationalist technocrats!) with the spiritual Arabs tribes…

If we want movies to also spark conversation about race why not also discuss
He Got Game, Mississippi Burning, Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee, Get on The Bus, Ernest Goes to Africa, Tyler Perry’s films, Killer of Sheep, Malcolm X, Hate, …(these of course are just the tip of the iceberg of films that may be useful to beginning conversations. I know it is not a comprehensive list nor does it represent many voices)

This year’s Precious and The Blind Side also might be good starting points about race. We might start with how The Blind Side does or does not fit with David Brooks’ description of White Messiah.

Better yet, let’s look at movies that I feel really do align with Avatar: District 9, and Terminator Salvation.

In District 9, we have the theme of a human who transforms into the body of an alien species and through his experience (slowly) grows to feel empathy for their situation. This film is one of the year’s best and certainly one of the most interesting scripts I’ve seen in a long time. The question of how does one relate to sentient beings is asked. We are challenged here, as well as in Avatar to question the boundaries of our ethics and empathy. Does might make right? What are acceptable body forms? Can we learn from other ways of being? We need to start forming answers to these questions because while we may not meet Prawns or Navi anytime soon, we do interact with many cultures today and will soon be living with Artificial Intelligences and silicon based life.

In Terminator Salvation we have Mr. Jake Sully himself Sam Worthington doing a role where his identity is multiple, or liminal. Is he human or cyborg? He feels human and fights along side them, but is ‘really’ not of the human ‘tribe’. ‘Salvation’ and Avatar of course are even in their titles appealing to religious connotations. The idea of avatars appearing in different forms and Christian incarnation are all fair game with these two films. I feel that something is being said in these about the ‘limits’ of a body. How connected are we? Where is empathy born? Would Jesus have been able to understand  humanity as fully if he had not been a Meat-God?
I am so excited about the progress in the area of displacing consciousness through the work of an ‘empathy machine’ that situates a person’s perspective and sensation into the body of another. Tests have shown that people projected into bodies of age, skin color, gender, or size difference feel more empathy for those bodies upon exiting. Of course my hope is that all people would feel deep compassion for all living things without any tech assists, but I won’t say no to anything that helps…

And I will conclude on that note:
I won’t say ‘no’ to anything that helps our human situation.
And I say ‘no’ to David Brooks’ article on Avatar because I feel he is misrepresenting the film to fit a type that he does not sufficiently argue for and he offers no helpful insight further than ‘Hollywood films suck at issues of race’. If and when movies are white privileging, we film and social critics need to be clear about what we find demeaning or condescending or racist. We also must be ready to face the complexities of oppressions and not rely on simplistic labels like ‘White Messiah’ and expect the conversation to be over.

I will say ‘yes’ to anything that helps the human situation. So I will enthusiastically take feedback and dialogue about this film. As a white anti-racist ally I want to always be checked and held accountable and be a helpful voice in the movement.

The Article by David Brooks is called “The Messiah Complex” and was written for the New York Times. All quotes are from his article except where otherwise cited and can be found here:
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/08/opinion/08brooks.html

 

January 9, 2010

Movie Review: “Up In The Air”

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Movie Review
[4] Comments 

“Up In The Air” is a lemon merange pie that your neighbor who drinks too much and has open sores around their mouth made. It was made to please and has all the seemingly right ingredients but something’s amiss and it smells like Red Stripe.
And that may sound good to some people, so to those who enjoy rancid saccharin–go for it.
Otherwise, stay away from this Oscar-begging, chock full airsickness bag.

I know that it must be hard translating a novel about most people’s least favorite ‘locations’: hotels, airplanes, dismal corporate offices, and Wisconsin. Reitman had his work cut out for him and I think he failed. How can I say this? Isn’t this supposed to be “Oscar Buzz” stuff?

Well, that’s exactly part of the problem. It seems determined to please the Oscar Usual Suspects: old white douchbags. It parades like its ‘timely’ because it discusses the global economic collapse but that’s just a backdrop to frame its gimmick: The lead character’s job is to fire people. That’s compelling right? That kind of thing got “Sunshine Cleaning” made!

The movie gets confused on the point of how it wants to deal with this issue also. Is this a character study about Clooney or is it a statement to our beatdown nation where many have been laid-off and only more are just waiting for the axe? The first seems the natural answer, but there isn’t much character to study here. The one scene of transition comes wrapped up in a cliche: “I’m here to tell you about my old philosophy…but wait….my new philosophy might just make me act on it right now and I’ll have to run away to the airport to do something really romantic!” It also muddies the water by spending as much time as it does on the characters being laid off and then for some unknown reason….(actually the reason to appear populist and to appeal to jerkoff Oscar voters who actually got suckered in for the ‘Crash’ schmaltz)…the film includes a number of “real life” confessionals of people who had lost their jobs. Why? Who are they talking to? How do they in any way fit into the movie? Don’t ask. Just gape and say “how timely! How true to real life!”

What Oscar could this be in the running for? Not script (cliched sentiments, bad jokes and phony dialogue) or directing. Certainly not acting for who’d get a nod? The either lifeless or high school drama class acting of Anna Kendrick? (her crying scene is laughable in the way of: ‘did the director tell her to mimick Lucille Ball?) Or is it the nothingness of Vera Farminga (whose character is as empty as Clooney’s apartment)? Or is it Clooney doing…..Clooney? (And what else would he do? He shows up on set, flings the charm and goes home. Which is not a bad thing per se. I’m just saying charisma does not good acting make. Notable exceptions include Jack and Tom.)

Somebody said that this is one of the most depressing movies of the year. I wish I could give it that compliment. If it really dwelled in hard places and took a tough stance or any stance at all, that could be true. But its just boring and unmoving and uninspired. Insipid? Maybe. A waste of time? Yes.

Of note: The movie was exacting laughter from the theatre–only the laughter came exclusively from the middle aged set. The younger people I saw in the audience were absolutely listless. Is this the mid-life white folk who love “According To Jim” and Jay Leno? Most likely. And that means this movie will garner some Oscars.

Final Word: A paint by numbers movie unsure of what its doing with unlikeable characters who make no changes with a ‘climax’ consisting of a “Grey’s Anatomy” bad episode scene and hokey jokes. Oh and George Clooney is sexy.

 

December 22, 2009

Analysis of “Avatar”…(and response to Annalee Newitz)

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Ideas, Movie Review, Pop Culture, Thoughts
[2] Comments 

I would like to respond in part to the post by Annalee Newitz titled “When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like Avatar?” and also add some other thoughts upon the film.

First off, let me say that I am with Newitz on the sentiments of her post. Yes: racism in cinema is a perennial problem–especially in American films. Yes, there are too many films created by white men and these films often exacerbate racialized oppressions of colonialism through their themes and mythologies. I would add that films often will reflect the conservative end of power structures because of financing and profit limitations to mainstream medias. I will support the overall intention and stance Newitz takes: it is important to view films with race in mind–as well as gender, class, spectrums of abilities, etc.

However, I feel that a critique of the film as portraying a “white guilt” and a fantasy of white folk (particularly men?) escaping culpability for their privileges of skin and benefitting from colonizing programs misses other points that the film (and Cameron) is making.
Anytime we participate in a film with just one lens or one critique, we can miss facets and interpretations that may be there–even quite plainly.
A worry that I have about Newitz’ post is that if she is taken seriously, the film will then not be. One may then discredit the film as “just another white guilt fantasy” and not take the sort of social action that I think is totally implied and encouraged by the film. No movie or moviemaker is perfect. Let’s get that straight. I feel that there are times when folks concerned with colonialism and social oppressions (of which I count myself one) will write-off a piece of art because there is a perceived flaw, complain about it, and leave it at that (i.e. question ‘when will white people stop doing what I perceive them to be doing’?). This leaves the ‘progressive’, ‘liberal’, ‘anti-racist activist’ absolved from positive reaction. That is, they can remain a bitter critique of mainstream media.
Not that this is what Newitz is doing. Its just a dangerous possibility of critique.
I would like to offer as a counter to Newitz: that ‘guilt’ to me is a paralyzing emotion. It breeds inactivity, shame, and dishonesty. If one were to watch this film purely as race-drama in space–couldn’t Sully, Grace, Chacon, Norm, and Dr. Patel (not to mention the other ‘grunts’ who stay behind in the end) be seen as anti-racist allies?

Newitz compares Avatar to Dances With Wolves and I had thought the same myself when watching it. There are similarities between the protagonists: they both have been close to death–Costner’s Dunbar sees death and is himself injured. So too is Sully familiar with death (his brother’s) and severly injured. They also are in the service of military forces though they themselves are now observant and appreciative of life and less willing to goosestep in line.

I will agree that there can be parallels with Dune also. The ‘outsider savior’ is an overused myth: from Sergio Leone’s films to that story about a Jewish wunderkind. Usually in these types of (Western) hero myths the rescuer comes from without and then leaves either in the sunset or the clouds above Galilee. Stories where a hero stays with the people seems to me a different story that may point more to the transition within the hero–not focusing on their actions. I may be making a distinction between an ‘outsider savior’ and a ‘awakened warrior’.
Avatar follows this second type and is exemplified in the last shot: the opening eyes of Sully in his new (heavenly?) body. He is as Buddha said ‘awake’. But what has Sully awakened to? The situation of materialism: hunger for resources at any dehumanizing cost. The lie of might making right: the ability to violently overcome another as being “justified by the course of nature”. The false hopes of understanding another through study: anthropology (xenopology?) and sociology can distance individuals through thematization.

Is Luke Skywalker an example of white guilt because he sees the oppression of the Empire over the ragtag freedom fighting Alliance? Or is he awakened to a new way of life and being? Or are Leia Organa and Chewbacca race traitors when they fight alongside the Ewoks?

Are the Pevensie children seeking absolution from white guilt when they are introduced to a new world in their wardrobe and fight alongside badgers and centaurs (obviously stand-ins for oppressed and marginalized races)?

Newitz makes note of the protagonist’s name: “our white hero Jake Sully (sully – get it?)”…do we get what? Sully as in “ruined, tainted….”? I don’t get it and I hope someone can explain what Newitz means.
I however might find meaning in his first name, Jake. In the Bible, Jakob takes over his older twin brother’s birthright and role. Jake Sully takes over his brother’s role here. Surely the way they come to this is different: trickery versus death, but is it a stretch? Jakob also become Israel after struggling with an angel. Israel means “struggles with G-d” and Sully here struggles against social pressures and the ‘gods’ of mammon, power, physical ‘restoration’, and convention. I will stretch now: Jakob limped after his fighting the angel, Sully loses use of his limbs (next I’ll do a gematria of the film’s edits!).

Another name of note perhaps: Grace Augustine. As Augustine tried to define and explain sin in an orderly fashion, so too does Grace believe that her science and study can explain everything. Sigourney Weaver does an interesting turn here: she is essentially playing Cameron’s theme of the sinister interest of science. In his ‘Aliens’ the character of Paul Reiser’s Burke uses the idea of ‘study’ and scientific interest to hide behind ulterior motives. I believe Grace here is doing the same. In the beginning of the movie especially, I feel that she is on par with Colonel Quarich or Ribisi’s corporate CEO Selfridge (selfish–get it?) in her desires. Rather than defeat them militarily like Quarich, she wants to understand them. Feminist critique has done a great job unveiling the agendas of ‘understanding the Other’ and its great that Weaver is playing what is essentially a masculinist observer here. Rather than mine the metal from the ground like Selfridge, she wants to mine the culture. Rather than build community of vulnerability, trust, and dignity, she is the scientific onlooker trying to ‘figure them out’.
I thought about Grace’s name too. She is not too graceful towards others so it confused me. It clicked near the end when it becomes clear that her life was channelled into the planet’s ‘spirit’ and used to aid in the battle. This was a grace to her–she has a lot of transformation in the movie and again I contend that she is perhaps the most interesting and dynamic character.

Let’s keep on the theme of names: The People are called the Navi which in Hebrew means “Seer”, which can get rendered as ‘prophet’. It was no mistake that their greeting is: “I see you”. This lends itself to the idea that this story is about spiritual journeying and awakening to a different type of life rather than (just) as a story about race.

Okay–moving on….
Cameron has been clear about his politics in previous movies and they get relayed again here:
A concern for the environment and a feeling that to destroy and exploit nature is to kill alien or ‘magical’ forces is undertaken in The Abyss.
Linking military violence and corporate interests is the theme of Aliens and it is very strong here. In both instances we see how it is not for any real virtue that lives are endangered and Marines are deployed. It is by the direction of greedy corporations who see a resource to exploit.

This last note is the strongest social critique of America’s current military occupations and imperial/colonial agendas. For anyone who views this movie and finds themselves in anyway cheering for The Navi–they should ask themselves how they are any different from ‘insurgents’, or ‘terrorists’.

If you thought Sully was a cool character, check out
http://www.veteransforpeace.org/

If you thought the Navi were cool, check out
http://www.narf.org/

If you were interested in Grace’s character, check out
http://www.iep.utm.edu/irigaray/

Newitz’ referenced post may be found here:
http://io9.com/5422666/when-will-white-people-stop-making-movies-like-avatar

Ryan McGivern

 

December 7, 2009

Movie Analysis: The Road

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Beauty, Ideas, Movie Review, Pop Culture
Leave a Comment 

I’ve been thinking about The Road a bit of late. I’d been turned off from reading the book when it first came out because my friend told me it was too emotionally stressful and I, being emotionally distressed by half empty (full?) coffee cups decided to protect myself and read BoingBoing.net daily instead.
Well, that same friend came to me when the movie’s (delayed) release was ‘fast’ approaching and said “you really should read the book before you see the movie.” Had I grown in my emotional maturity? No, I think not. But I believe that the friend had been able to process the simple beauty of the tale and see it as a hard story with a redeeming and ultimately positive message. So I read it and I loved it and have since read two other of Cormac McCarthy’s corpus and they’re all amazing. So I admit: my love for the book and the creative mind behind The Road coloured my experience of the film but I will say that it is a solidly enjoyable filmic experience.

Anyone who knows me will tell you I’m positive and hopeful almost to a fault. It would come as no surprise to those who know my style that I find this movie uplifting and hopeful. I know that the film looks bleak. Heck, its done in a color scheme of four different shades of gray and everything around them is dead! Its like a travelogue of Eastern Colorado! This film summarizes Cormac’s view of the indomitible human spirit and the courage and tender heart that is necessary to live what he often offers as the closest thing to a ‘good life’.

Art acts as an anvil. It confronts us and decides us. Art is crisis and like an anvil, we each crash upon an individual art piece (in this case a movie) and through our experience, interpretation, and response to it, the art is given a life in us. How that will look is different to each person and of course will differ as we reapproach the same piece. The Road works very well to demonstrate this phenomenon. I would be very interested to hear from those who think it bleak, dark, or depressing. Do they feel the same about “The Pianist”, “Schindler’s List”, “Alive”, or “Cast Away”? I mention these movies because I feel that they, like The Road depict humanity at the edges and yet triumphing. Each is about human dignity, the ethics that some live by even when all circumstances would allow them to be tossed aside, and the deep conviction that life is worth it–even in great darkness.

The word ‘apocalyptic’ has been thrown around a lot it seems in recent years. And it seems that some have spoken of this movie as being ‘an apocalyptic vision’. Well, properly speaking, it isn’t apocalyptic genre (or Apoc Lit for your biblical scholasticizing shorthand needs) and I would say it also is not prophetic literature. Surely, it is prophetic in the true sense that it is speaking to culture with themes of justice and righteousness–but the power of The Road comes from the intimacy of it and its tight focus on the Man and Boy. That makes this film a spiritual story set in a dystopian frame.

The Road–its title recalls the ’path’ that we can undertake in our spiritual journeys or even the name given to early Christian movements “The Way”. It is a roadmovie and as most roadmovies, the journey is interior and the destination (here: South) is not important geographically, but spiritually.
The spiritual crisis is located primarily within the Boy. He is pitted against two positions: his disposition towards the world, and the worldview of his father. It is a crisis that many are familiar with: the LGBTQ young person growing up in a bigoted family, a young one who loves across class or ethnic boundaries that their family disagrees with, the youth who chooses to leave the religious tradition of their family,….and really the life of every youth to some degree in their process of individuation and personal agency.
The Boy displays trust, compassion, and inclusivity versus his Father’s antagonistic fear, eye-for-eye ethic, and isolationism. But let us not be naive–the Boy’s view of others and the world is truly dangerous. In his world and ours. This is the beauty of the movie. It is risky to be as trusting and compassionate as the Boy regardless of the context. That is why there is a spiritual attraction to great figures of compassion-Mother Theresa, Ghandi, Martin Luther King Jr., Oscar Romero, Annie Besant, etc. They challenge the very ‘red in tooth and claw’ “law” of nature which seems so intuitive and unarguable.

The question that comes with the film that I find very attractive to think about is ‘what is civilization’? Is it about technology, amenities, organization of large groups of people? This movie allows a tighter focus than even Lord of the Flies in terms of roots of civilization and the ‘rules of engagement’ in relationships. What makes a ‘civil’ person? Or civil society?
Is America civil? America is said to be a Christian nation by some (and what that means and why some folks think that I’m not sure) but is it an ethical or civil nation? Our consumption, warring, imperial thuggery, death penalty, injustice towards the Original Nations, white supremicist culture, and class structure would be points of contending that indeed we are not.

What makes the movie work is the Father as an Anti-Hero. And by antihero, I mean ‘human’. Heroes in film have a way of often being idealized caricatures of our virtues and hence becoming less real, flawed, complex, morally gray, and ‘human’. (Watch Mel Gibson’s Passion to get a feel for what I’m talking about). Here the Father is so delicious to watch because he is acting out of best intentions and with his Son’s best interests in mind. He is willing to sacrifice so much for the love (or “god”) of his life–with the exception of showing vulnerability and trust. I know: he does give in to his Son–helping Eli (a blind prophet! Ha!) and the Man who stole their belongings on the beach–but it is only after his Son’s badgering.
There is a conservativism that comes with being a parent. Risk and novelty become seen in a different light with the entrance of a child into a person’s life. The Father here is no different than anyone else and I imagine that many parents wouldn’t do anything differently than he.
This leads me to what I see as the thrust of the film: the need to conquer our previous generations’ determinations of ‘safety’. Our world changes much too much in each generation for anyone to really impart the correct worldview that will be best suited for the world of their young. We are continuously at odds with the lives and lifestyles of our ancestors. We are held to the bigotries and denialism that they bore–to the creations they’ve made (napalm, lead based paint, meth, 5.56 mm round, etc.) and we are only alive in part because of there being some worth to their fears.
That’s right. When it comes down to brass tacks, there is a level of survival merit to a degree of skepticism towards others and fear of risk. “Mom, can I eat some shellfish?” “Nope.” “Why?” “Either because there’s honest to goodness chance of bacteria and toxins or God says so.” “Okay.”

But the lesson to be learned is clear: when the grasp of the previous generation is let go, a new community is available. It makes me wonder about my own life: who and what is out there waiting for me to give up my baggage? It is a challenge that the movie leaves with everyone–what are you missing out on? What would happen if you gave up on your fears and distrust?

Bonus Section For Those Who Read The Book
-Hilcoat, director, took an easy way out by starting the film with a flashback, don’t you think? I would have liked to see the film start right-off to allow the audience to question what kind of person the Father is, not be made to feel safe with him by showing him frolicking with a horse and Charlize (one of the best looking people in Hollywood).
-It would have been nice to have more time in the waterfall scene methinks. Here we have some playful joy available and we could see a different facet of the Father/Son relationship. And how’s about that rainbow in the waterfall? God’s promise to not flood the earth has been kept…
-Letting the audience off easy again at the end by having Guy Pierce (one of the best looking people in Hollywood) and (sheesh!) a nuclear family complete with dog was a bit much. I liked in the book how the New Man signifies his moral fiber by burying the Father and that’s all you get for evidence to trust him.
-Also: what’s up with writing in the idea that this mystery family has been following the Father/Son for much of the last half of the movie? I urge Mr. Hilcoat to challenge us even more in his next film. Show us some trust–that’s what the Son would want you to do!

Thanks for reading. May you have many happy days along your own road!
RyMcG

 

December 4, 2009

Movie Review: Ninja Assassin

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Movie Review, Pop Culture
[2] Comments 

A movie that does for ninjas what diarrhea does for soup.

“If you piss-off a ninja: that said ninja will track you down and find you.”
“Hmmm. I better go to uninteresting locales like dark anonymous factories or dark parking lots or phony looking dojos.”

I have seen the bottom of a scriptwriter’s puke bucket after a coke binge and it is filled with California Vegan takeout and cliches from a ninja cartoon your masturbation-obsessed 11 year old brother drew in his Jonas Brothers notebook.

I have learned much of the mystical order of ninja:
Each one has a distinguishing set of scars.
The good ones don’t say much and they do not have emotion. The bad ones also are the quiet type and emotionless, but they grumble like a post game coach with laryngitis.
Sometimes they can choose to disappear in a blur.
They will kill people for a 100 pounds of gold. What they do with the gold is uncertain seeing as they live in a compound the size of a Panda Express on top of the Himalayas.

Women in action movies have been allowed to be other than goofy, clumsy sexual objects since Ellen Ripley-to make them the intellectual equivalent of Scooby Doo without the charisma is just borderline misogynist.

“Greetings.” (In monotone, looking through wet hair.)
“Hi. I’m Jared–I live downstairs in 2G….How are you?”
“I am like thrice fired steel. As keen as the viper striking. As still as the heron.”
“Good. Hey, I wondered–I hate to sound like a douche–but could you keep your noise levels down just like a smidge? Its just that I was trying to watch the Clone Wars yesterday and I heard what sounded like calisthenics and then blades whizzing through wood. And then like some screams as gymnastics occurred.”
“Oh, my bad! You could hear that?”
“I guess–just a little. The floors and walls here are so thin.”
“That’s my bad.”
“And I don’t want to just play the computer louder ‘cuz then I’m like bothering you with my speakers.”
“No, thanks for letting me know. I was just doing pushups on my bed of nails and then throwing my shurikans around my spacious but sparsely decorated apartment…And I guess I just didn’t think about you being able to hear so….I’ll definitely keep it down. Definitely.”
“Cool man. Well, sorry to disturb you.”
“No problem. Thank you. And your name was…”
“Jared.”
“Cool.”
“Alright. See ya round.”
“See ya round.”

If Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Secret of The Ooze met an episode of Simon and Simon and then was made into an after school special called “Boredom in Small Rural Town Leads To Huffing Gas”, it would be better than this uncool, unfun, unfunny, uninteresting diaper.

 

October 20, 2009

An Analysis of “Where The Wild Things Are”

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Art, Ethics, Ideas, Love, Movie Review, Pop Culture, Religion
[23] Comments 

Thinking Through and Feeling Where the Wild Things Are

In my analysis of this splendid film, I want to state first off that I understand that I’m pulling some heavy interpretations that may come across like a 1:1 metaphorical statement about what the film is saying. While I believe that these insights into the film can help flesh out one way of seeing the film, I am totally open to many interpretations and understandings of it. That is a mark of good film: Debate and various parsings. What I do want to dissuade others from is a quick dismissal of the film as ‘depressing’, or ‘dark’.

When I have heard or read others’ reactions to the film including that it is boring, depressing, etc. I have not heard them relate to the film in its mythic level. This to me seems telling when the movie is essentially a step by step hero’s journey with resonances of course to pop-psych, religious, and spiritual motifs. If there are reviews of the film which include why it fails as a mythic quest, I have not seen them and I welcome being turned on to them.

So let me pull no punches. Right off I’ll tell you that I quickly saw the film taking a ‘vision quest’ or hero’s journey type of narrative. This influenced my entire viewing and once I’d locked onto that format, it was hard for me to not see it otherwise. This is the trap of all rigid worldviews, isn’t it? Well, I’m guilty here. But I will say that it made the movie flow quite coherently and endearingly so with fresh interpretations and statements about many of our contemporary conditions.

I’ll also say there’s a bounty of spoilers ahead. If you haven’t seen it, stop here. Also: what’s up with people saying this is or isn’t a children’s movie? Why is that even on the radar? “Because of the book it derives its title and images from, you dullard!” you scream back. But Jonze has repeatedly said that it is an adult’s movie that is about childhood so enough of that. I would say that the youngest a person could be and enjoy the film would be roughly around ten years old.

So anywho: Max, the protagonist (and white male hero figure—haven’t we had enough of these? Didn’t Keanu kind of put the exclamation mark on that stereotype?) is a youth on the cusp of puberty and is living in a fantasy world of unbridled energy. He terrorizes the family dog, he believes that other’s attention should be unwavering from him, that his mother is an extension of himself, and that other’s should play by his own rules (the snowball fight that escalates to a level that is beyond his control or comfort). Ultimately, he is an unchecked ego in the full exuberance of childhood.

But his world is crumbling around him. His sister has developed friendships and possibly romantic interests that are consuming her attention. His mother and father are divorced and mother’s new romantic interest is invading the pacific and Max centered family unit.

We are to understand that Max’s life is an island where his needs and identity rule unchecked. Even from the title card credits, Max has scrawled his name over the production houses’ logos. His name gets etched into the boat, and he plants a garbage bag flag on his snow pile like a colonizing Lord. His interest in self expression and unique spirit are not at issue here. It is his inability to be responsive to the shared social world he is slowly being birthed into. He is reaching the ‘age of accountability’, individuation from his mother, and connecting his actions to consequences.

A number of important events lead to his hero’s journey or spur him on to his crises among the Wild Things.
He learns of the mortality or changingness of all things. Everything changes, flows, dies, transforms. Marriages dissolve, sisters grow up, new relationships begin, and the childhood years of irresponsibility ultimately end. This is a core tenet to many spiritual teachings. This knowledge pushes one to focus on the bedrock values within themselves and their society. Max is faced with not only the mortality of himself and others around him, but the world and indeed the solar system when the Sun itself will transform. We must come to terms with our Earth’s future demise—and face an ethical response to it and the other life that lives on it. Will we cower at this with ignorance or apathy? Will we foolheartedly welcome it with misguided apocalypticism, dreaming of a blood drenched and sword welding Christ? Or will we dissolve ego, see past the lies of a culture of rabid consumption, and humble ourselves in compassion? Anywho, I digress. Max sees death before him, like Guatama on his chariot ride.

Max experiences fear of loss. He had given his heart (in card form) to his sister. When his sister ‘betrays’ him by not standing up for him and his defeated snow fort, he tramples on the card he had made for his sister. His destruction of the heart shaped card is intended to hurt his sister but it hurts him also. One may never lash out at another, hate another, or withdraw love from another without harming oneself, after all. With the help of mom, he performs a mea culpa and tries to restore his sister’s room to its previous condition but as we know physical damages may be patched up but the emotional and psychological effects will ripple much longer. The buildings and neighborhood of New Orleans can and will be restored, but what of the people living there who experienced the largely racialized betrayal of their government? His loss of his sister and the loss of his mother are largely connected—as well as the loss of the father we can presume who is not seen in the film. His repentance towards his sister is connected also to the third event…

Max commits violences towards his mother. Standing on a table he screams, “Feed me woman!” Is this a gendered attack that he had heard from his father? The leering wolf-suited Max stars at his mother from the kitchen table, the demanding male in a house whose status as ‘head’ is being challenged all around. After the divorce, perhaps Max had become accustomed to being the only male presence in the house and now he’s got mother’s new boyfriend in the other room drinking wine and laughing. Max then lashes out and bites his mother-the mouth that like Remus and Romulus had suckled from a wolf had nursed at his mother is now like a wolf biting her. He then runs away into the night and thus begins his journey.

Like any good mythic journey, we’ve got to traverse water—the symbol of the unconscious. He sets off in escape, or adventure? We know that his is a journey that will resolve in his return. This is a circular journey, following the Eastern narrative. The hero leaves, finds his boon, wisdom, transformation, spirit animal, or weapon and returns to his fold.

The first thing Max sees is a fire on the hill. Is this civilization? Hope? A warming fire? No, it is destruction and madness. Appropriately Max finds Carol (the Wild Thing representing his dominant characteristics) crushing bird-nest-like houses. What should be sheltering and a symbol of safety is being crushed by Carol’s actions. I won’t get into too much detail (really?) about the Wild Things, but Max finds semblances of his sister, mother, facets of himself, and presumably others there. These are his spirit animals, perhaps, or his more properly his ‘demons’ in need of taming and stand-ins for the others in his life which he must live with ethically.

Max is crowned King. Of course! This is his new snow fort, his world and he is the unquestioned ruler of it. This is the seductive power of the Dark Side, if I may borrow from Yoda. It is a human experience to want to rule, command, dictate. We may not seek CEO positions or great wealth. We don’t need to. This comes in many expressions: wanting to win each argument, defend yourself when you’re in the wrong, disregard others, etc. The Wild Things reveal that many kings have died and been eaten by them. As it is! Yes, the combat we must face daily with our desire to be right, be served, be gluttons, be God’s ‘elect’, be ‘better than’, is mortal combat. It is perilous. Max will only survive in the end by giving up his crown and declining kingship. This is the Christ teaching that we can all emulate. By accepting a crown of hardship and service to the marginalized and cast-off rather than glory we can survive and succeed in honor.

Max then goes through a journey that has meaning at personal, familial, and political levels.
He tries to create a mono culture—a universal and totalizing system. He is King and his saying is final. This is the desire of egoistic systems—Hegelianism, reductive materialism, maculinist systems of power, exclusivist religious systems, etc. This does not work. Communities, relationships, and power dynamics occlude a universalized or single, easy answer.
Max tries by his design to create a Utopian community. Again, a ‘city’ (really just a bigger bird’s nest) is made with hopes that technology and progress will cure the ‘ailments’ of ethical relations. It does not. There remains in some progressive circles a believe that if only our technoscientific knowledge could be harnessed and a ‘green economy’ created, we would enter a new age of human development. However, as Max finds out, dynamics of power remain: A Wild Thing questions his favoritism of Carol and asks “Can I be your favorite color?” No matter how many solar panels we may make, we as a global community, still need to deal with and find justice in matters of class, race, ‘gender’, ‘sex’, and sexuality.

In even universalizing systems, difference must be accounted for. Difference is an important developmental step to undergo also. How does one deal with ‘difference’? Usually we call it ‘evil’, heretical, bad, impure, ‘against nature’, ‘them’, etc. Max is no different. He separates the Wild Things into Good Guys and Bad Guys. This escalates from a play fight to a real fight and real violences and hurt. Again—I want to support many interpretations of this movie and I understand that individual interior battles and national political policies have overlap and there are many ways to view Max’s interactions with the Wild Things.

Most importantly, Max finally makes his transition. This occurs, unsurprisingly enough within the belly of a Wild Thing. This is the travel into death. The belly of the beast, The Grave, the Death Star’s trash compactor, Jonah’s Whale, Christ’s descent into Hades, and womb imagery and thus ‘born again’ language is the place of transition in many myths and Max is no different. It is here that he ‘faces’ Carol and has his vision or full repentance moment. He is pulled from the mouth reborn.

His first act is to find Carol quickly knowing he must return to his ‘real family’ and not finding Carol leaves his heart again. Mirroring the risk of giving his heart to his sister and overcoming his need to have his name proclaimed, he places a “C” in a heart shape for Carol to find.

But he cannot stay here. He has transformed. Carol finds the heart as Max renounces his Kingship.
Carol, the embodiment of Max’s old childish egotism cannot meet Max. He is already sailing for home and like we all must do, Max can only see his childhood years from a distance. We cannot say goodbye to our old selves, for we have moved on before we know it. Grief, repentance, or ego dissolution can accomplish this transformation of our person and no matter how we transform we are left to look at a distance at our old selves.

And how will we relate to our old self? The Wild Thing who is a Bull, figuring perhaps as the full grown and mature personality that Max will grow into asks Max: “Will you say nice things about us?” Max says he will.
We must look back at ourselves with forgiveness and mercy. The same compassion that we must extend to all life includes our pasts. Without regret and shame.

Max returns to the real world, barking at a neighborhood dog. He has changed but that does not mean he must leave his playfulness and joy behind. One may be childish without being a boor or self important.

His mother greets him at the door and no words are exchanged. This is the triumph of a script: allow the words to be said with knowing faces. They look at each other a mother and her reborn son. The movie closes as Max now watches his mother fall asleep, experiencing his mother as a separate entity—also human, fallible, vulnerable.

So I’ve gone on too long about this movie. But I loved it. Great acting, music, visuals, script…

And it has spiritual impact upon me. I’m cool with people disliking this movie, as with any other movie. However: I beg that one who dislikes the movie first question how they engage any movie that deals with mortality and the spiritual quest that underlies ethics. For I’m of the belief that without a clear stance on one’s feelings towards death and the mythic adventurous we undertake as humans love is stunted.
And love is what its all about after all.

Ryan McGivern

 

August 30, 2009

Movie Review Response: Jenna Busch on “Inglourious Basterds”

Posted by Ryan McGivern under Art, Movie Review, Pop Culture
Leave a Comment 

You can read Jenna Busch’s entire review of “Inglourious Basterds” at the Huffington Post here:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jenna-busch/review-iinglourious-baste_b_254797.html

“Occasionally I found myself thinking that a few of the shots where a character’s name is written across the screen with an arrow pointing them out could have been cut.”
In keeping with the theme of history being redacted continually and any cultural identity being manifold layers of editors’ efforts, this film strives to convey a Multi-Editor effect. There is a narrator who does not appear in the film (Samuel L. Jackson) and who only appears twice in the film. The multiple title styles are for the same effect. It is as though through the process of creating the film, editors could not decide on who in the film was important and how to introduce them. The final and most extreme expression of this is the hand-scrawled arrow pointing.

 ”A friend pointed out that the David Bowie song during one of the pivotal scenes may have been a bit too modern and out of place, though I’ve heard opinions on both sides of that argument.”
The movie begins with an obvious Spaghetti Western score signalling that this movie is going to draw from any genre it likes to get its point(s) across. To criticize the scoring as overly ecclectic seems to miss that this movie is not about a time nor place. This is not a “war movie” anymore than Dr. Strangelove is a war movie though many reviews credit as being so, and it is certainly not a WWII movie. It is a playful meta-movie about an alternate universe to convey themes of the nature and role of cinema in myth making. Huzzah for Bowie!

 

Ryan McGivern

 

« Previous Page — Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.