The Culture Beat

February 4, 2010

Comics Relief: Superheroes Go Towards the Light

Filed under: Uncategorized — Alex @ 2:05 pm


This winter both Marvel and DC are taking their superheroic characters through dark times. As I discussed months ago, the two premier comics companies have been stuck in ever darker big crossover stories that have shaken up their respective universes. Marvel has just finished up its “Dark Reign” saga wherein the evil Norman Osborn (aka the Green Goblin) has used his high security chief position to persecute the true heroes, particularly fugitive Tony Stark, creator of Iron Man, whom he beat into an inch of his life to obtain important information contained in Stark’s brain. Stark currently lies in a mentally “disassembled” state, having deleted his intelligence and memory to keep Osborn from obtaining the info. And Osborn’s forces have attacked Thor’s mythical home, Asgard, in the current “Siege” crossover that is supposed to wrap up years of previous ongoing crossovers. During this period Steve Rogers, Captain America, was arrested, assassinated, and recently resurrected only to step aside and let his erstwhile sidekick, Bucky, continue on as the Star Spangled Avenger, deflating his much anticipated triumphant return. Never one to resolve a crisis, Marvel fans could be understood for wanting a little more fun and escape from these exhausting megastories.

Things are hardly better at DC which is in the second half of, depending on when you started counting, eight to twelve month cosmic catastrophe, “Darkest Night.” After the previous crossover, “Final Crisis,” saw the murder of Bruce Wayne’s Batman, or maybe his banishment to some other time and place where he was last seen painting a bat shape on a cave wall. Since then, the long-anticipated “Darkest Night” centered in the Green Lantern titles but encompassing the DC universe has seen the rise of “Black Lantern” rings that seem to resurrect fallen heroes and villains as murderous cadavers in an overpowering assault against the living, a sort of DC zombies epic. All of this is quite, er, dark, in fact it is the blackest night yet seen, as even some living heroes have had their hearts ripped out before rising again as Black Lanterns. Bleak enough for you?

All of this devastation going on in the superhero world raises the question of why so much horror and doom? Most comics fans were drawn to the genre as kids enthralled by the fantastic tales of adventure and heroism by spandex-clad characters whose valiant efforts against evil helped form their earliest sense of morality. The short answer to why today’s comics are so dark is that many of these same readers grew up still reading these books and required that their heroes “grow up” as well by becoming more brutal in their wars against evil and seeing darkness in their own hearts birthing. In fact, the “grim and gritty” mode of superheroism has been with us since the mid-1980s when it was launched by the success of mostly two graphic novels, Alan Moore’s Watchmen and Frank Miller’s The Dark Knight Returns. The more the “realism” increased, the less fun comics were, an exchange that seems to have held ever since.

While many would argue that it was necessary for comic book superheroes to face the complexities of life, a notion that made Marvel Comics the powerhouse that it became, continually darkening superheroes has had the effect of discouraging entry by the kids who were once the main readership. Thus we have swapped the caricature of the square-jawed and somewhat simplistic caped hero for the now equally cliched tormented and flawed grim avenger.

But maybe things are about to change. Both companies have announced that after their current Gotterdamerungs run their courses, late spring will bring a rebirth of heroic adventure and fun. DC has previewed the dawn of “Brightest Day,” the sequel of sorts to “Darkest Night” adding symmetry to the play on the stirring Green Lantern oath:

In brightest day, in blackest night
No evil shall escape my sight
Let those who worship evil’s might
Beware my power, Green Lantern’s light!

Some comics observers are skeptical that DC’s oft-promised lightening up will really stick this time but if for no other reason, it’s a smart marketing move to contrast with the death and misery of the last six years. And the new era is supposed to include the return of Bruce Wayne, with or without his bat cowl.

Similarly, Marvel’s coming “Heroic Age” will focus on their biggest heroes, which I’m hoping includes “reborn” Steve Roger’s Captain America, now currently sidelined after his anti-climactic return from the dead. It’s one thing to decide to tell brighter, more adventuresome stories–there’s a skill to this kind of storytelling that may have been forgotten after so many years of angst. Writers for the upcoming new stories would do well to look at a recent example of classic superhero storytelling by a master. Veteran Mark Waid’s run on The Brave and the Bold , featuring Batman and Green Lantern among many others, is now collected in two volumes, was thrilling, funny and respectful of the genre without embalming it. This is the kind of return of brave and bold storytelling that I’m looking for.

January 23, 2010

Preparing to Get Lost One Last Time

Filed under: Television, Uncategorized — Alex @ 9:25 pm

Fans of the groundbreaking ABC series have, depending on the depth of their devotion and available leisure time, numerous ways to indulge in their favorite series as they await the Feb. 2nd season première of Lost’s last season, the one in which their patient waiting for answers will be rewarded with some sort of grand explanation of the island’s many mysteries. I absolutely love the series but, perhaps by temperament, have never immersed myself into the vast ocean of website, plot minutiae or peripheral activities spun off by ABC. But I hope to pursue my own line of research of the series as an exemplar of what I call the television Maxi-Series, a dramatic program with an intended ending and thus a limited numbers of episodes, rather than the typical rolling episodes until the series expires creatively and ratings-wise. So here are some ways to prepare for the last chapter, volume or whatever you want to call the last season of one of television’s most magnum opi.

Readers of this blog will recall my love and appreciation for Entertainment Weekly’s Jeff “Doc” Jensen’s brilliant “Totally Lost” blogs that at least double the pleasure of the show. Jensen, one of the magazine’s most energetic followers of pop culture, is also highly intelligent and continuously delves into the more esoteric theories, mythologies, philosophies and scientific ruminations to offer highly entertaining interpretations of the show’s meaning. During last season’s his EW colleague Dan Snierson joined Jensen in an online video series that riffed on the current plotlines and was screamingly funny. I look forward to the guys’ return to the small computer screen.

But meanwhile, Jeff’s latest theory, on the island as a place where addictive behavior of various characters may perhaps find healing, currently the lead piece at Totally Lost, ponders the series’ redemptive theme, and Jensen’s Christian faith again serves him in understanding the need for healers, like castaway Dr. Jack Shepherd, to look at the mote in his own eye before he can truly help others.

Speaking of redemption, I teach a class at Palm Beach Atlantic University called “Redemptive Storytelling in Television and Film and I used this video last year since it encapsulates the various situations from which so many of the characters need redemption.

Another place to look for those wanting very in-depth discussion of whole episodes, there’s “Lost in Translation,” a blog by Shawn McEvoy, Senior Editor of Crosswalk.com. His blog appears at the same place mine is carried, theFish.com. He’s currently going through every episode “looking specifically at Christian/religious themes, other important or interesting concepts, literary references, and the theory that it’s largely been about a game in which someone has won, and someone has… LOST.”

Finally, there’s the ABC Lost site full of clips, interviews and entire episodes to help you get up to speed for season six. Soon we will begin to see just what will become of these complex and compelling characters as they deal with the new chessboard they will find themselves on after Juliet hit the “reset” button on the nuclear device.

January 17, 2010

Sounding Off About Avatar

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 3:10 am

(Above: Some audience members are blue because they can’t live on Pandora)

I was interviewed this week by a Palm Beach Post reporter about my reactions to Avatar. The James Cameron film, on course to becoming the top grossing film of all time, is one of those cinematic cultural phenomenons that hasn’t happened maybe since, well, Cameron’s last film, Titanic over ten years ago. The article tries to find out just why the film has such broad appeal. My remarks were used for indicating there’s a contingent of the audience who didn’t like it the film so if you follow the link to the article, I’m in the second half.

Amidst all the film’s buzz, there’s even discussion now of what you could call “post-Avatar depression,” reported by people who are, well, bluer than a Pandoran native after seeing the film’s immersive fantasy world. This sounds rather sad since the best fantasy is parabolic; first it draws us into a convincing evocation of an imagined world, and then sends us back into the real world encouraged to appreciate the wonder of creation and to better understand life. The words of some of the people quoted here makes it sound as if Cameron’s art is so good in simulating its wondrous jungle planet that these audiences members are disgusted by humanity and their own mundane existence. After all, the film tells us that humans will destroy the earth with our high energy use and then proceed to to exploit other planets–especially to an adolescent mind, this is a despairing vision. My views on the film were stated earlier here and http://theculturebeat.com/2010/01/01/avatar-vs-district-9/, so I won’t dig into that again. I’m just more perplexed than depressed at the film’s success.

January 12, 2010

Spidey Goes Gritty

Filed under: Comics, Movies — Alex @ 2:34 pm

The long-running effort to return Spider-Man to the big screen just took a big left turn with this news release that Sony has decided to scrap the current franchise with director Sam Raimi and star Toby McGuire and reboot the character as a contemporary teenager. Seems that the team that brought billions into the studio’s coffers with the first three films just couldn’t agree what to do next. There was discussion of what villain the hero should face, the most recent being the geriatric Vulture. But all this isn’t really that surprising given that the franchise had succeeded in adapting the comic book hero to film far too successfully to continue.

The first Spider-Man film profitably launched the character with an origin story that stayed true to the classic comics story where Peter’s irresponsibility with his new powers leads to the death of his beloved Uncle Ben and his commitment to dedicate himself to fighting crime. Spider-Man 2 fulfilled the theme of self-denial as Peter’s mission was pursued at the painful loss of a normal life with his beloved Mary Jane Watson. Everything fans loved about the character was beautifully played out in the ultimate Spider-Man story. At the time I wondered where the next film could possibly go thematically that could improve or even equal it. And they couldn’t. The infamous sequel was a confused and constipated mash-up of too many villains, poorly structured plot and badly motivated lead characters. Yet Spider-Man 3 made almost $900,000,000 worldwide so of course Sony would plan on sequels. But Raimi must have sensed that he had succeeded too well and that there was no where else he could satisfactorily take the character.

Thus the tactic too often used by the comics industry–when a character gets tired, reboot it. Since the 1980s, there have been three or four different re-tellings of Superman’s origin. Now, the studio has decided that the only way to sustain the movie version of the character is to re-invent him. IOW, it’s Spider-Man Begins all over again, within memory of young people who can remember Raimi’s first origin story in 2002. By making Peter a teenager again, you return the character to his most appealing period as a new hero trying to get a handle on both his new powers and high school relationships complicated by his double life. But, as Toby McGuire who was 27 when he first played the teen hero and now at 35 is looking a little old for the eternally youthful Peter Parker, the problems of sustaining a comic book character’s unchanging age demonstrates why even a teen Spidey will need to be in a series of films paced every 18 to 24 months, like the brilliantly produced Harry Potter films, to sustain the teen concept.

And this also points to a looming issue for another comic book franchise, Warner Brothers fabulously successful Batman films: The Dark Knight’s billion dollar success left the studio eager to follow up on Christopher Nolan’s artistic and financial success, but The Dark Knight, like Spider-Man 2, are both probably impossible to top and anything else would be a lesser effort–which of Batman’s supervillains could possibly offer a challenge to match the Joker’s? Will Warner’s be able to see this instead of dollar signs or will they follow Sony’s lead and re-conceptualize the franchise yet again with yet another director so that Batman begins yet again?

January 9, 2010

DVD Review: Funny People

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 4:01 am


Writer-Director Judd Apatow’s third film fared poorly at the box office and with many critics but I hope he won’t be discouraged for this anomaly; the film is a risky effort at engaging the psyche of entertainers, specifically comedians who have a love-hate relationship with their audience and the people around them.

I am especially interested in Apatow whose first two films, The 40-Year Old Virgin and Knocked Up were unique mixtures of foul-mouthed comedy and moral parables. Both concern men who are challenged to grow up and take on the responsibility of adults when they’d rather stay adolescents either out of fear or convenience. Though the films feature dope smoking, fornication and amazingly colorful profanity, Apatow’s vision is deeply conservative in his insistence on the superiority of sex within marriage and taking responsibility for seeing an out-of-wedlock pregnancy through to term. I feel a small debt of gratitude for Apatow’s unique sensibility; I wrote about the first two films for Breakpoint a few years ago and the article was later reprinted in a textbook collection of article on writing about popular culture. Thus I was interested in Apatow’s most recent film.

Adam Sandler plays George Simmons, an Adam-Sandler type comedian who learns he has a form of lymphoma that will probably kill him soon. The millionaire entertainer grow despondent at his fate but has no one to confide in. One night at a comedy club, he sees a young new comedian, Ira Wright, played by Seth Rogan, trying out his stand-up act and hires him to write some jokes for him. Soon, Simmons makes Wright his all-purpose assistant, but it quickly becomes apparent, that George has actually hired Ira to be his friend. He asks Ira to sit by his bed while George talks until he is able to sleep. At the same time Ira can see that George uses his talent to express a thinly concealed hostility, his insult jokes have the bite of passive aggression. Apatow and Sandler have been friends for many years and are drawing from their experience in the comedy business where one may have many colleagues but few close friends. Apatow says in the special features production diary that he made the film to express the importance of not letting one’s work overwhelm one’s relationships with family and friends, a problem he acknowledges that he wrestles with.

Because of the nature of George’s plight, the plot isn’t as rollicking in its humor–in fact it’s as much drama as comedy and this may explain the film’s lack of success–audiences primed for more of the same got a reality check when they encountered Apatow’s hero coming to terms with the prospect of his death and the limitations life imposes on us. The ending is not hopeless but wise and sober. Like his earlier films, Funny People is peppered with profanity and two brief sex scenes that are deliberately non-sensual. If you can handle that kind of content, you might check it out.

January 1, 2010

Avatar Vs. District 9

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 3:55 am


I had heard good things about one of the year’s biggest sci-fi movies of 2009 and finally saw it this week. A bunch of aliens is oppressed by human corporate military forces who seek to move the weird-looking aliens from their home to another location. The special effects were amazing, like nothing I’d ever seen and the inventiveness of the filmmakers was endless. And after watching it, I was reminded of another film with a very similar plot that I’d seen last week, Avatar, which wasn’t nearly as good. You see, I finally watched District 9 on Blu-Ray DVD.

I’d avoided District 9 because I’d heard it was awfully violent and figured I’d prefer to see it on home video. Yes, it was extremely bloody in ways I’d never seen in a movie but man, did it out-create Avatar. As my review here discussed, James Cameron’s film portrays the security forces of a big mean corporation using advanced military technology to violently drive out the blue-skinned natives of a forested planet (sort of like the Imperial forces tried to do to the little Ewoks in Return of the Jedi with the same disastrous results.) But watching District 9 was the far richer cinematic experience.

In both films we have a private corporation seeking to oppress aliens. In District 9, the bug-like “prawns” are apparently refugees from some giant otherworldly transport ship that floats stalled over Johannesburg, South Africa. The thousands of aliens within were relocated to a slum outside the city and now, MNU (Multi-National United) the mega-corporation charged with removing the prawns are led by Wikus Van De Merwe, a nerdy bureaucrat who knows just how to smile patronizingly as he tells the shanty town occupants they must sign a form acknowledging they must move. When he’s accidentally exposed to an alien fluid, he begins to slowly transform into a prawn and becomes wanted my MNU to be dissected for alien tissue that can be used to exploit the prawn’s advanced technology. Wikus undergoes more than one kind of transformation as he is forced to see the huge injustice he’s been a big part of.

The first part of the movie is shot partly in documentary style so that we follow the story as outsiders being introduced to the tender mercies of humans quite prepared to violently punish these repellent outsiders and many have recognized director Neill Blomkamp’s referencing of South Africa’s apartheid history in the plot. But every character in the film, so unlike Cameron’s, seems fully fleshed out as characters rather than stereotypes. Avatar’s Na Vi are standard issue noble savages. The prawn apparently have a class system and most of the ones in the ghetto are not only not noble, they are repulsive in their behavior. Nevertheless, we feel both the revulsion of the humans and the cruel victimization of the prawn.

Whereas Cameron has long been heralded as king of the world of special effects and action scenes, other than the beauty of the moon Pandora, almost everything in Avatar felt entirely conventional in staging and presentation as if the director hadn’t had a new idea in 10 years. Blomcamp’s vision is startlingly fresh and all the more intense and scary for it as the 30-year old former digital effects director uses his background to create some of the best interaction between human and “painted-in” digital aliens in film history. After an hour of Avatar, one pretty much gets used to the alien world and the effects don’t feel as special. I never got used to the surprise and innovation flowing from District 9 and the drama of poor Wikus as he fights his transformation holds you till the end. Empty spectacle versus brilliant use of effects to undergird a gripping parable of new found empathy–there’s no contest.

December 29, 2009

The Blind Side–Reel and Real

Filed under: Faith Issues, Movies — Alex @ 5:10 pm


I finally got to the theater with my wife last week to see The Blind Side, after wanting to for weeks. We caught a matinee and found the film just as good as I’d been told; The film, which had received mixed and generally unenthusiastic reviews but terrific box office was the kind of film that Hollywood rarely makes–aimed at the huge American flyover demographic (not just the usual targeted teens and young adults, but football-loving, church-going middle America of all ages) that rarely has films very knowing about their culture. The very smart production was directed by John Lee Hancock (The Rookie) who understands this audience, and starred perennial American sweetheart Sandra Bullock who again demonstrated her range as Leigh Anne Tuohy, an ubercompetent mom and interior decorator and a beardless, Stetson-less Tim McGraw as her businessman husband Sean. The lives of this Memphis power couple and their two children changed when, seeing a hulking black teen walking along the road one cold night, they take him home and make him one of their family. Michael Oher has huge educational deficits brought about by his non-existent family life, having been abandoned by his single mother as a child. Michael had previously slept on the sofa of another black couple and the husband had sought Michael’s welfare by placing him in the same all-white Christian school the Tuohy children attended, Leigh Anne, with Sean’s admiring support becomes Michael’s chief advocate. Michael is played by Quinton Aaron, who brings a moving understatement to the gentle giant’s gradual realization that this family loves him and that he has both academic and athletic potential ready to blossom.

Yes, this is another of the triumph-of-the-underdog sports genre that American audiences love, but the football scenes are relatively small compared to the human drama of this true story. The love and faith poured into Michael by the Tuohy’s and his teachers results in his being recruited by Ole Miss and then last year’s recruitment into the NFL’s Baltimore Ravens. As a film studies professor interested in all sorts of adaptations, I couldn’t help wondering which moments and incidents were real and what had necessarily been scripted to compress months of relationship development that Michael made with his adoptive family. That side of The Blind Side will be examined tonight, Jan. 29th on ABC’s 20/20 where the real-life family (pictured above) is interviewed. The show’s website features video and text apparently already available before tonight’s airing. I expect the show will confirm just how close the film was to this true-life tale of compassion and triumph.

December 22, 2009

Movie Review: Avatar

Filed under: Movies — Alex @ 4:02 pm


As I had noted in my preview last month, Avatar looked like it was cobbled together from the plots of various older movies like Dances With Wolves, Return of the Jedi(primitive tribes overcome evil, more advanced oppressors), and Cameron’s own Aliens(arrogant and cocky Marines get more than they bargained from resourceful aliens). And folks, that’s exactly what happens. No surprises whatsoever.

And yes, the director does give us spectacle rarely seen in less ambitious films–Cameron knows how to fill up the screen with giant bulldozers and soaring mega-trees. There are moments of visual beauty in his evocation of the alien world Pandora and knowing that the Na Vi, the 12-foot blue-skinned dragon-riding natives are achieved through the greatest advance yet in motion capture technology is indeed a wondrous technical achievement.

But it goes back to the story–Jake Sully, the paraplegic Marine arrives on Pandora to join the Avatar program wherein his brain will be connected to a cloned body of a native, his titular avatar.,From the time we learn that this will allow him to infiltrate and win the hearts and minds of the tribe to sell them on the need to move away from a prized deposit of a rare mineral, we know who the good guys really are.

When Jake gains the confidence of the tribe through a coming of age training and initiation process, we know it’s only a matter of time after he starts walking in another alien’s moccasins that his heart and mind will be with the natives. Thus it is that Jake becomes the race’s leader against the armored might of the invaders. The last third of the movie is the final confrontation between the Na Vi led by Jake and the Marines led by the malevolent Col. Quaritch( below left).

Yes, the soldiers are supposed to be former Marines who now serve as security for yet another evil corporation, but the military bearing, dress and ethos of the boys in green clearly presents itself as the American military, the liberal stereotype of rabid baby killers dominant since the Vietnam war.

Of course as long as you are pitting stereotypical noble savages against stereotypical bad soldiers you have to have a hidden advantage for the natives that will give them a way to achieve what has never happened in history when a larger and more powerful force has invaded the land of a primitive people–the Na Vi hold to a pantheistic belief that connects them–literally–to nature. The blue-skinned aliens have braided hair which conceals fine tendrils which bond with the counterparts on their six-legged horse and dragon creatures. The people worship a nature goddess Ewya, which is basically Mother Earth, er, Pandora the spirit that connects all life on the planet. (Possible spoiler alert:) Their sacred trees are large willows with glowing white noodle-like branches and leaves that contain the memories and voices of their ancestors. When you die, your energy returns to the earth and is taken up by the trees in a Circle of Life recycling process. Let’s just say that you don’t want to make Momma angry.

Colonel Quaritch and his corporate superior plan a “shock and awe” campaign on the native in order to fight “terror with terror.” I tried but couldn’t find a relevant subtext of the story with anything going on today. Nobody can with intellectual coherence present current US military efforts in Iraq or Afghanistan as remotely resembling the assault on Pandora. Of course there’s the environmental sermon: Earth is a ecologically devastated brown husk, apparently so because the nations didn’t sign the Kyoto treaty or act in Copenhagen, or do anything to stop global warming back in the 21st century, we’ve now gone on to destroying other planets. Being a big Hollywood director means being able to visualize your most exaggerated fears for profit.

The film is bound to stir controversy on any of these fronts. The spiritual one has already begun with Ross Douthat’s New York Times essay on Hollywood pantheism. It got a sharp retort from blogger David Disalvo. Another blogger is bugged by the long time pattern of Hollywood films featuring white guys who go native and wind up leading the people of color against their enemies.

With a record-breaking December opening, it remains to be seen whether the film with all the aforementioned elements, will have anything like the sustained box office of his last film, Titanic. My hunch, probably not close, at least in the US. The international market, for whom this film, with its nasty take on the American military and New Age feel, should eat this right up and it’s oversees take is already significantly larger than the domestic by more than double. Avatar should be seen if only for its technical achievement as long as you don’t connect with any of the more questionable elements of its ideas.

December 14, 2009

Movie Review: Up in the Air

Filed under: Uncategorized — Alex @ 12:18 am


(Note: I’m back after the last two weeks of teaching classes for the semester with only exam week-ha! Only! left, so please forgive this absence.)

I got an e-mail from a marketing company this past week offering two passes to see Up in the Air, the new George Clooney movie on Thursday. I took my wife and we stood in line before the appointed time–about thirty minutes since it was a first come, first served basis. The line was mostly people over 30, sometimes well over thirty so I wondered if the targeted demographic wanted to reach out beyond the youth demographic, the standard bullseye of most movie marketing for this kind of movie. The film, made by someone not far above that college age range, Jason Reitman, is his third, after the satirical Thank-You for Smoking, and last years wonderful Juno. This kid, son of comedy director Ivan Reitman (Ghostbusters), got his dad’s talent plus a whole lot more savvy at capturing the secrets of the human soul. Up in the Air is his most impressive film to date–at this rate, I wonder where he’ll be in ten years.

The film’s lead character, Ryan Bingham, flies all over corporate America, hired by cowardly bosses to do their firing and laying off. Bingham is smooth and in control at all times, but the real secret of his success is that he has the gift of sensing just the right thing to say to ease the shocked ex-employee into seeing this not as an end but as a chance for a new beginning, and then he hands them their severance packet and tells them they’ll be called later to follow up on their “transitioning.” Ryan spends more than 300 days a year in the air, happy to be above the entanglements of both things and people. His commitment-free lifestyle allows him to make casual hookups with a like-minded lady business traveler, Alex (Vera Farmiga). His purpose driven life is to acquire a magic number of frequent flyer miles and he’s getting close to this arbitrary goal.

Then he learns that a fresh-out-college new hire Natalie (Anna Kendrick) at his company has sold the management a new plan on doing the same job he does by traveling to the companies over internet teleconferences, a cost-saving, “efficient” means of severing employees. Free spirit Ryan sees this not just as a coldhearted way to do a difficult job, but an attack on his independence from everything and everyone. The prospect of being tethered to a monitor and headset angers him enough for him to convince his boss to let me take the newbie Natalie on the road to show her what she doesn’t know about the people she’d fire by remote control. Therein unfolds the gradual unsettling of a complacent floating island of a man as life eventually forces him to question whether travel connections are the only ones that matter.

I won’t get into any more plot points–but I highly recommend it. One of the genius moves by the young director was to film the interviews of people recently laid off in the recession and get them to relate the traumatic experiences on camera. As this NPR article recounts, these were then edited into the montage of severance interviews Bingham conducts throughout the movie giving the film an authenticity no screenwriter could concoct. This is about as timely a feature film as I have seen.

Up in the Air is rated R for some rough language and brief nudity but for most audiences that would be interested–like those in the line that laughed loudly during the screening–they will find this a very good Hollywood movie that reminds us that anyone who thinks he can float above the messiness of real life attachments is likely to face some real turbulence.

November 23, 2009

Home Video: Star Trek (part. 1)

Filed under: Music — Alex @ 2:12 am

Now that J. J. Abrams’ successful relaunch of the venerable sci-fi franchise has come to home video, let’s take a quick look at both its achievement and where it fell short. During last year’s theatrical release I posted two times on my reaction to the film. The first was a long and passionate diatribe how the film’s narrative itself was a seeming disposal of everything we knew about Captain Kirk and his crew–by having the antagonist change history at the moment of Kirk’s birth, it created a new timeline effectively changing the galactic status quo, and, to my mind, nullifying the great stories we loved about the series. The second took into account one of the screenwriter’s statements that they weren’t eliminating the original series’ history, simply using concepts from quantum physics to create an alternate reality where the events of the movie and the original timeline exist in separate universes. I understood that this is simply a means for the revived concept to not be obligated to tiptoe around sacred moments in continuity thus freeing future screenplays to tell new stories on a blank canvas. I can live with that–it’s letting us have our Vulcan and blowing it up too.

That event alone changes the dynamic of the Vulcan civilization, creating new possibilities for storytelling with the remnant displaced population. But the film stayed true enough to the familiar world created by Gene Roddenberry so that we can enjoy the best of both universes. Looking back on the movie’s plot, it’s clear that the film got right what it needed to–the core characters of Kirk, Spock, McCoy and the rest of the crew. The first theatrical film of the franchise, Star Trek: The Motion Picture, showed us the dismal results when characters are not true to themselves–forced dramatics and unbelievable behavior. Abrams’ young new cast did the more difficult deed of making us believe these are the same characters we knew only from the original actors’ performances, surely a praiseworthy achievement.

The special effects and production design are worthy of the bright shiny future the series always held before us, but which Paramount rarely funded adequately, keeping most of the the films mid-range in budget. The new film’s scope and scale fit the soap operatic nature of Star Trek.

Michael Giacchino’s rousing score reminds me again how much this young composer (Lost, The Incredibles, Up, etc.) is filling the movie score space left by John Williams’ reduced work load. It’s just as merrily bombastic and poignant in places as the original series’ and the Jerry Goldsmith and James Horner’s classic film scores

Now, what still doesn’t work in my estimation: The plot is basically a device to re-launch a next generation of the original crew, with villain Nero, a poor man’s Khan, or any other of the cinematic adversaries who have sat in a captain’s chair plotting against Kirk. His revenge motive seems forced and his time travel conceit allows him to be wherever and whenever he needs to be to force the newly acquainted crew members to work together. I hope future movies find a way to avoid having a single snarling baddie in a ship, which, though it makes for great space battles, already looks hackneyed. Many of the best Trek stories usually were about something other than Kirk ordering “fire!” at his opponent’s vessel.

I still have problems believing that the new Kirk bounced from cadet to captain in about three days of the movie’s story time. I know there was the goal of swiftly getting him in the chair, but realistically, Starfleet has sown the seeds of dismay and discontent amongst their command level officers who see this early twenty-something bouncing in barely paying his dues and getting a genius grant for his potential. At least it wasn’t the Nobel Peace Prize.

Speaking of production design, the director bragged about getting the use of a brewery to serve as the engine room set that allowed the filmmakers to finally demonstrate the scale of the ship. The problem is, by announcing this, I’ve never been able to see it as anything other than what it is, a factory full of pipes and big tanks of beer–it really doesn’t seem to fit into a star ship. But I’ll bet Scotty likes it.

I got the Blu-Ray disc of Star Trek on its Tuesday release date but have been saving it for Thanksgiving Day when my family and I will have time to watch it after the feast. I’m looking forward to going through the special features and hopefully I’ll have a part 2 of this report next week.

Next Page »

Blog at WordPress.com.