Chairman MacFarquhar! Chairman MacFarquhar!
I apologize for this breathless interruption. I am informed that Disaster Movie has managed to live up to its name. It just scored an amazing 0% on www.rottentomatoes.com's tomatometer, potentially making it the worst movie ever.
This is one rating that I would prefer to not vet by testing.
Wednesday, September 10, 2008
Sunday, September 7, 2008
... more debates on old and new
Thank you, Chairman MacFarquhar. It has indeed been some time since we last convened this august gathering. Your views on the slightly dated matters brought before this congress were insightful.
One point of dissent. While the orbiculur state of people in the future imagined in Wall-E is not unlike the many who have achieved similarly well covered state, my point was that it is unlikely that given the technology everyone would opt for such a state. The sex drive would ensure that a sizable number would opt for the exact opposite. Having said that, the simplification is no more eggregious than the portrayal of alien worlds as nothing more than glorified towns. Considering the diversity in human civilizations on earth, that portrayal is no more realistic than the plumpness portrayed in Wall-E.
On Watchmen: It is with great sadness that I contemplate the making of 'Watchmen'. What will they make of it? Nothing good, I expect.
The good news is that I had a similar sense of foreboding before the Lord of the Rings. LOFR is a sweeping epic that frankly was so grand that I was convinced that a movie would only be a depressing let down. At first glance, my fears seemed well-founded. The movies make substantial omissions and didn't do justice to characters such as the Ents. On the other hand, the story was retold with spectacular panache, retaining much that was exciting about the books. So, I have been surprised before.
But can we expect the same of a Hollywood blockbuster attempt? I doubt it. The brooding realism of Dark Knight, bore more similarity to James Bond than Batman. And, 'V for Vendetta' was a dismal compared to the comics.
I have such low expectations, that the movie will probably surprise me.
What is your view, Chairman MacFarquhar?
One point of dissent. While the orbiculur state of people in the future imagined in Wall-E is not unlike the many who have achieved similarly well covered state, my point was that it is unlikely that given the technology everyone would opt for such a state. The sex drive would ensure that a sizable number would opt for the exact opposite. Having said that, the simplification is no more eggregious than the portrayal of alien worlds as nothing more than glorified towns. Considering the diversity in human civilizations on earth, that portrayal is no more realistic than the plumpness portrayed in Wall-E.
On Watchmen: It is with great sadness that I contemplate the making of 'Watchmen'. What will they make of it? Nothing good, I expect.
The good news is that I had a similar sense of foreboding before the Lord of the Rings. LOFR is a sweeping epic that frankly was so grand that I was convinced that a movie would only be a depressing let down. At first glance, my fears seemed well-founded. The movies make substantial omissions and didn't do justice to characters such as the Ents. On the other hand, the story was retold with spectacular panache, retaining much that was exciting about the books. So, I have been surprised before.
But can we expect the same of a Hollywood blockbuster attempt? I doubt it. The brooding realism of Dark Knight, bore more similarity to James Bond than Batman. And, 'V for Vendetta' was a dismal compared to the comics.
I have such low expectations, that the movie will probably surprise me.
What is your view, Chairman MacFarquhar?
Saturday, September 6, 2008
Reconvention of the Flophouse Congress
Gentlemen,
I must offer my apologies for this extended absence. I can only say that we all know what the pressures and demands are of this season, and this year. Convention requires that convention be effected. And now that the convention season has come to an end, it is a pleasure to see this august body reconvened in this venue of convenience.
Sorry, I must pause to make use of the conveniences.
...
...
...
There. Let us congress. Well, now, as chairman I would like to make liberty of my privilege to escape from the strictures of the agenda.
If I may, then, without objection, assay to address some old business.
Evil Genius Dr. Domino (Our August Comptroller) has, of late brought to the table some commentary that has unfortunately not been granted the attention it deserves.
The chair would like to acknowledge Evil Genius Dr. Domino (Our August Comptroller)'s stellar endeavours and offer some comments of his own.
On Wall-E --
Evil Genius Dr. Domino (Our August Comptroller)
"What I had ... trouble with, was one of the fundamental premises of the movie - that consumerism would lead to mindless sloth and obesity. ... [T]his view fails to recognize a key aspect of human nature - sexual desire."
The chair believes that Our August Comptroller might be confusing two different things, namely, one the one hand the superficial standards of beauty for any particular cultural moment, and on the other hand, the basic human drive to spawn. The former is basically a fantasy. There are sufficient examples of societies that have differing standards of beauty that still manage to perform sexually. We need not just look at contemporary America, where thousands upon thousands of pairs of obese humanoids freely rut away while their minds are ruled by images of Keira Knightly and Calista Flockheart.
Of course, the future of hippopotamoidism triumphant as pained by Wall-E might not be inevitable, it certainly isn't inconceivable, not anyway from the perspective of popular notions of beauty.
The chairman and his embonpoint pause to catch their breaths.
On Battlestar Galactica (1978) --
The Colonials were not quite the sole humanoids left alive. There were non-Colonial planets with human-like lifeforms. In the face of this, the horror of the remnants of humanity does ebb a bit, doesn't it?
On Mamma Mia! --
Our August Comptroller, has, by admitting to having voluntarily viewed this presentation, called into question his right to the appellation "Evil Genius." Evidence of true geniusness is awaited by the chairman.
On The Dark Knight --
The chairman must admit that throughout the presentation, his mind kept turning to the trailer of Watchmen that had been shown before the feature.
The chairman recognizes Our August Comptroller to address the issue of Watchmen. To be noted is the question — Is it at all possible that this will be the single motion picture adaptation of an Alan Moore work that will not disappoint?
Sunday, August 3, 2008
Seven degrees of separation and the dark knight ...
Just saw 'The Dark Knight'. I had fully expected it to have failed to live up to its hype. It didn't fail. It is every bit as good as the hype suggests.
The difference between 'The Dark Knight' and other movies of this genre is the touch of gritty realism. The Joker has a painted face and a permanent smile, but in a Hannibal Lecter way rather than the farce of most movie versions of comic book villains. There is little effort made to soften or explain the Joker's villainy. Also, the story has twists and turns that are more reminiscent of a well thought out whodunit than a popcorn thriller.
(If you have concerns about spoilers, you might want to skip the rest of this post.)
The one criticism I had about the movie is that when Rachel Dawes dies, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seemed less disturbed about the loss than one might have expected. In fact, Bruce Wayne's reaction was so muted that I had to watch it again to confirm that the Joker had in fact tricked Batman into saving Harvey Dent instead of the Rachel Dawes.
The only other criticism was that all the protagonists, Batman and the Joker included, execute fascinatingly complex plans that, to paraphrase Jeeves, rely on too many imponderables to have a hope of success. All the plans have too many people who need to play their parts exactly, and too many aspects that need to go just right at exactly the right time for it all to work. Like a magic trick, it seems to fall into place as you are watching it, yet, if you look closely, it doesn't quite fit. However, this in itself is a paen to the film's quality. How often does one get round to seriously discussing the plausibility of the plot points of a film based on a comic book?
On a completely different note, I read a fascinating article that suggests that there is evidence to support Stanley Milgram's theory of Six Degrees of Separation, although its more like seven degrees of separation.
Microsoft's research suggests that 78% of people on IM could be connected to one another in 7 or fewer steps. This of course doesn't cover everyone. For one, unless those not on Microsft's IM are not human, it clearly covers Microsoft IM users only. Also, even the research itself suggests that there are at least 22% of IM users who are not as closely networked into the rest of the world. However, 78% is a pretty good coverage.
The other interesting part is that to connect the vast majority of the world in 7 or fewer steps, each person would need to bring an average of ~25 unique connections. I realize that Linked In and Facebook have made this seem more possible than ever before, yet, it does seem rather high. After all, how many people do we know that no one else in our group knows? That many unique connections for everyone seems very unlikely.
Instead, I wonder whether this level of interconnectedness is actually made possible by certain nodes, i.e. highly connected people who connected several relatively independent groups together. I remember having read something to this effect in some marketing research. If that's true, the number of degrees of separation really depends on who we know.
The difference between 'The Dark Knight' and other movies of this genre is the touch of gritty realism. The Joker has a painted face and a permanent smile, but in a Hannibal Lecter way rather than the farce of most movie versions of comic book villains. There is little effort made to soften or explain the Joker's villainy. Also, the story has twists and turns that are more reminiscent of a well thought out whodunit than a popcorn thriller.
(If you have concerns about spoilers, you might want to skip the rest of this post.)
The one criticism I had about the movie is that when Rachel Dawes dies, Bruce Wayne (Christian Bale) seemed less disturbed about the loss than one might have expected. In fact, Bruce Wayne's reaction was so muted that I had to watch it again to confirm that the Joker had in fact tricked Batman into saving Harvey Dent instead of the Rachel Dawes.
The only other criticism was that all the protagonists, Batman and the Joker included, execute fascinatingly complex plans that, to paraphrase Jeeves, rely on too many imponderables to have a hope of success. All the plans have too many people who need to play their parts exactly, and too many aspects that need to go just right at exactly the right time for it all to work. Like a magic trick, it seems to fall into place as you are watching it, yet, if you look closely, it doesn't quite fit. However, this in itself is a paen to the film's quality. How often does one get round to seriously discussing the plausibility of the plot points of a film based on a comic book?
On a completely different note, I read a fascinating article that suggests that there is evidence to support Stanley Milgram's theory of Six Degrees of Separation, although its more like seven degrees of separation.
Microsoft's research suggests that 78% of people on IM could be connected to one another in 7 or fewer steps. This of course doesn't cover everyone. For one, unless those not on Microsft's IM are not human, it clearly covers Microsoft IM users only. Also, even the research itself suggests that there are at least 22% of IM users who are not as closely networked into the rest of the world. However, 78% is a pretty good coverage.
The other interesting part is that to connect the vast majority of the world in 7 or fewer steps, each person would need to bring an average of ~25 unique connections. I realize that Linked In and Facebook have made this seem more possible than ever before, yet, it does seem rather high. After all, how many people do we know that no one else in our group knows? That many unique connections for everyone seems very unlikely.
Instead, I wonder whether this level of interconnectedness is actually made possible by certain nodes, i.e. highly connected people who connected several relatively independent groups together. I remember having read something to this effect in some marketing research. If that's true, the number of degrees of separation really depends on who we know.
Monday, July 28, 2008
Mamma Mia!
Last weekend, I had the distinct displeasure of watching, 'Mamma Mia!' The exclamation mark in the title about sums it up.
Where to begin on what's wrong with it. Let's start with most obvious, the singing. In Woody Allen's 'Everyone Says I Love You' actors with indifferent singing talent burst into song at a moment's notice. The effect is both charming and humorous. However, the music wasn't really supposed to be about humor in Mamma Mia. The primary appeal of the Broadway version was the pitch perfect rendition of the immensely popular ABBA classics. Yet, inexplicably, Phyllida Lloyd opted for the Woody Allen route in this movie, with disastrous consequences. Instead of ABBA renditions in all their glory (and sugary sweet peppiness), we are treated to painful renditions belted out by actors who struggle with the pitch, tone, and seem to shout the high notes. Its like a bad episode of American Idol, without the schadenfreude as the extreme close-up on the actors faces brings into sharp relief the bulging eyes and facial muscles taut with the obvious strain of their effort.
To make matters worse, Ms. Lloyd attempts to mask her actors' musical inadequacies by drowning out their off key notes with background music, which she often opts to start playing well before the actors start singing, thereby alerting viewers to the oncoming song and making the scene even more unnatural than it otherwise would have been.
This was Phyllida Lloyd's first attempt at directing a movie, and it shows. The lighting is so unnatural that many scenes look as if they were filmed on a Broadway set rather than on location, which would have been fine, if that had been the intention. Moreover, her casting was off. In the movie, Meryl Streep plays a woman with a 20 year old daughter, conceived as a result of a youthful affair. Meryl Streep is a wonderful actress, but she's 59. She would have to have had the affair at 39 for her to have been the mother, an age that would seem to diminish the likelihood of such a fling. She looks more like a grandmother than a mother of a 20 year old.
The plot of Mamma Mia! bears an uncanny resemblance to the 1968 movie "Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell" starring Gina Lollobrigida. In that movie, the three fathers actually do know about and support their daughter, and the mother, Gina Lollobrigida, is very much a vamp. Both the character of the mother and the age are significantly more believable. If you would like to see a more believable and better made version of Mamma Mia!, you might want to try the 1968 version instead. If its the songs that really attract you, you'd be better off with a CD of ABBA's Greatest Hits.
Where to begin on what's wrong with it. Let's start with most obvious, the singing. In Woody Allen's 'Everyone Says I Love You' actors with indifferent singing talent burst into song at a moment's notice. The effect is both charming and humorous. However, the music wasn't really supposed to be about humor in Mamma Mia. The primary appeal of the Broadway version was the pitch perfect rendition of the immensely popular ABBA classics. Yet, inexplicably, Phyllida Lloyd opted for the Woody Allen route in this movie, with disastrous consequences. Instead of ABBA renditions in all their glory (and sugary sweet peppiness), we are treated to painful renditions belted out by actors who struggle with the pitch, tone, and seem to shout the high notes. Its like a bad episode of American Idol, without the schadenfreude as the extreme close-up on the actors faces brings into sharp relief the bulging eyes and facial muscles taut with the obvious strain of their effort.
To make matters worse, Ms. Lloyd attempts to mask her actors' musical inadequacies by drowning out their off key notes with background music, which she often opts to start playing well before the actors start singing, thereby alerting viewers to the oncoming song and making the scene even more unnatural than it otherwise would have been.
This was Phyllida Lloyd's first attempt at directing a movie, and it shows. The lighting is so unnatural that many scenes look as if they were filmed on a Broadway set rather than on location, which would have been fine, if that had been the intention. Moreover, her casting was off. In the movie, Meryl Streep plays a woman with a 20 year old daughter, conceived as a result of a youthful affair. Meryl Streep is a wonderful actress, but she's 59. She would have to have had the affair at 39 for her to have been the mother, an age that would seem to diminish the likelihood of such a fling. She looks more like a grandmother than a mother of a 20 year old.
The plot of Mamma Mia! bears an uncanny resemblance to the 1968 movie "Buona Sera, Mrs. Campbell" starring Gina Lollobrigida. In that movie, the three fathers actually do know about and support their daughter, and the mother, Gina Lollobrigida, is very much a vamp. Both the character of the mother and the age are significantly more believable. If you would like to see a more believable and better made version of Mamma Mia!, you might want to try the 1968 version instead. If its the songs that really attract you, you'd be better off with a CD of ABBA's Greatest Hits.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Confused ...
I am a bit confused. I thought the 12 colonies were destroyed in the classic version of the series just as they were in the recent version. Then, how come in episode six, The Lost Warrior, Apollo lands up on a planet with humans? Are the 12 colonies not the only human colonies? If the only survivors are the ones on the ships, then where does this planet fit in? Also, if there are so many planets on which people can settle, why do they insist on taking civilians around ships?
I have to say though that these are growing on me. What is fascinating is that each series is, in a way, an examination of the culture at the time it was made.
I have to say though that these are growing on me. What is fascinating is that each series is, in a way, an examination of the culture at the time it was made.
Sunday, July 13, 2008
What's up with Wall-E?
I was looking forward to watching Wall-E, particularly given the high ratings it has received from critics. Such was not to be.
Before I go on, let me warn you that what is about to follow may contain some spoilers.
On one level, Wall-E is a charming love story. It is a fairytale, where love is predicated on mutual companionship and friendship that can never be consummated, and is not based on physical attraction. It is a modern rendition of the type of fairytale that was the hallmark of Disney movies in Walt Disney's lifetime.
Wall-E has invited the ire of many conservatives for its vision of a bleak world, where consumerism has reduced human beings to bloated fat beings confined to their couches, so engrossed in their catered world of pleasure on demand that they are not even aware of the environment around them. Earth has been reduced to a massive abandoned garbage dump. Not sure why any of this is anti-conservative, ... they doth protest too much.
On the other hand, there are some holes in the story.
Let's start with the more technical. In one scene, Wall-E is blasted off to space stuck on the outside of a massive rocket. Very cute scene, except that it is very unlikely that this would be possible. Wouldn't Wall-E, a garbage disposal robot, be incinerated in the intense heat generated when travelling at the incredible speeds of escape velocity?
In another scene, Wall-E is blasted into space with a small plant. He holds the plant out in the vacuum of space, and the plant survives the experience. But, given how long the plant was in a vacuum of space, is that likely?
More distressing were the fat human slobs, who are unable to get themselves upright in the micro-gravity of the outer space spaceship without assistance from external props, yet, at the end of the movie have no problem standing on Earth, where gravity would surely be many many times more than the simulated gravity of space. How did they suddenly convert their atrophied muscles to such strength in such a short time?
However, we can probably come up with perfectly reasonable explanations to all these. After all, that these weren't explained in the movie doesn't mean that we can't invent ways to explain them.
What I had more trouble with, was one of the fundamental premises of the movie - that consumerism would lead to mindless sloth and obesity. Some of us may have been misled by the increasing girths of Americans and have started to believe that this bleak future is likely. Unfortunately, this view fails to recognize a key aspect of human nature - sexual desire.
While some Americans have become fatter, it is also clear that our definition of beauty has become more exacting. Years ago, Marilyn Monroe was considered a svelte lithesome beauty. Today, she'd be considered fat. Sixty-year-olds now aim to reverse aging and look in their mid-30s, and many succeed. Skin must appear unblemished and unmarked. Hair must be perfect. And, being slim is no longer enough, it must be accompanied by pronounced abs.
All this is not surprising. In fact, as we have more means and more leisure, we try to indulge our more basic emotions such as lust and sexual competition by using those means and that leisure to make ourselves prettier. How then, does Wall-E, expect us to believe that consumerism and corporate sales pitches could replace the basic sexual desire. If we all had some much leisure and so much free time, wouldn't some, if not all of us be busy indulging our sexual fantasies by become the models of beauty that we dream of?
Wall-E is a fantasy in more ways than one. It was enjoyable ... just don't over think it.
Before I go on, let me warn you that what is about to follow may contain some spoilers.
On one level, Wall-E is a charming love story. It is a fairytale, where love is predicated on mutual companionship and friendship that can never be consummated, and is not based on physical attraction. It is a modern rendition of the type of fairytale that was the hallmark of Disney movies in Walt Disney's lifetime.
Wall-E has invited the ire of many conservatives for its vision of a bleak world, where consumerism has reduced human beings to bloated fat beings confined to their couches, so engrossed in their catered world of pleasure on demand that they are not even aware of the environment around them. Earth has been reduced to a massive abandoned garbage dump. Not sure why any of this is anti-conservative, ... they doth protest too much.
On the other hand, there are some holes in the story.
Let's start with the more technical. In one scene, Wall-E is blasted off to space stuck on the outside of a massive rocket. Very cute scene, except that it is very unlikely that this would be possible. Wouldn't Wall-E, a garbage disposal robot, be incinerated in the intense heat generated when travelling at the incredible speeds of escape velocity?
In another scene, Wall-E is blasted into space with a small plant. He holds the plant out in the vacuum of space, and the plant survives the experience. But, given how long the plant was in a vacuum of space, is that likely?
More distressing were the fat human slobs, who are unable to get themselves upright in the micro-gravity of the outer space spaceship without assistance from external props, yet, at the end of the movie have no problem standing on Earth, where gravity would surely be many many times more than the simulated gravity of space. How did they suddenly convert their atrophied muscles to such strength in such a short time?
However, we can probably come up with perfectly reasonable explanations to all these. After all, that these weren't explained in the movie doesn't mean that we can't invent ways to explain them.
What I had more trouble with, was one of the fundamental premises of the movie - that consumerism would lead to mindless sloth and obesity. Some of us may have been misled by the increasing girths of Americans and have started to believe that this bleak future is likely. Unfortunately, this view fails to recognize a key aspect of human nature - sexual desire.
While some Americans have become fatter, it is also clear that our definition of beauty has become more exacting. Years ago, Marilyn Monroe was considered a svelte lithesome beauty. Today, she'd be considered fat. Sixty-year-olds now aim to reverse aging and look in their mid-30s, and many succeed. Skin must appear unblemished and unmarked. Hair must be perfect. And, being slim is no longer enough, it must be accompanied by pronounced abs.
All this is not surprising. In fact, as we have more means and more leisure, we try to indulge our more basic emotions such as lust and sexual competition by using those means and that leisure to make ourselves prettier. How then, does Wall-E, expect us to believe that consumerism and corporate sales pitches could replace the basic sexual desire. If we all had some much leisure and so much free time, wouldn't some, if not all of us be busy indulging our sexual fantasies by become the models of beauty that we dream of?
Wall-E is a fantasy in more ways than one. It was enjoyable ... just don't over think it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)