Saturday, December 4, 2010

Frustration and Adulation.

Yet again, I have read a column by a critic that I disagree with. However, this time he actually makes a cogent argument.
You can find the column here. <=link
I would like to discuss criticism once more on this blog. However, I am not going to discuss his opinion of the film, Up, which to say the least, he did not enjoy. What Mr. Kline, the author, says is his own opinion. He says it formally, and (with the exceptions of some over the top hyperbole and the fact that he disparrages some other critics for calling a children's movie good just because it's a children's movie) uses cogent logic to support his conclusion. His thesis is that a children's film appeals to our inner child. Therefore, we can not experience the film in an adult (and in his opinion, serious) sense.

I disagree, but more on that later...

What stuck out to me is this: the comments. Normally, the comments would be either statements of agreement or just insults. Instead, I found this gem, from a poster using the name Earthboy:

"Alright, I'm a full grown adult, I went to see 'Up' with my friends yes my adult friends. We saw it and we thought it was possibly one of the best movies we've ever seen. I registered for this site (something I usually don't bother with.) Just to tell you what I think, not in that cliche' internet way of calling you a name and proclaiming the movie's awesomeness you'll be getting some real criticism yourself.

I walked into the theater to see the newest film of a studio that has been entertaining me for roughly a decade, pixar's astounding track record aside though here's my problem with your article. Yes it is for children we all get that, which is why a house can fly with balloon's despite that being impossible. Girls who eat poisoned apples can't come back from the dead, and swords can't be made of light, but we don't begrudge these classics because of their implausibility...in fact that's at the heart of why we go to the movies, to see the impossible. Suspend your disbelief and enjoy the story/visual. Second, you say the writing is lazy, this is of course your opinion but that does not mean I will not attempt to correct it. The story was mainly about lonliness, and the desire to 'Go home again.' It reminded (me) at least of how I feel whenever something huge changes in my life it reached out to me and tugged at my heart like very few movies have in the past. I cried at least twice. Maybe you're right and the writing was lazy, and the plot formulaic to a fault, but I was far too busy feeling something at any given time during the film to look for flaws or cliches' -Which is something I usually pride myself on.- So what I'm saying to you in a nutshell is that I think you're wrong about this movie, that myself and quite literally every adult I know whose seen it loved it. Maybe you found the problems with the movie everyone of us missed, but I think that just maybe you're time and perhaps professionalism as a critic has....hardened you to certain things, of course I don't know you so that doesn't mean a lot. I enjoyed up, and I honestly think it to be one of the best written, most beautifully executed movies I've ever seen. "

There are some people who think that legitimate criticism and exchange of free ideas is going away, and my last post left a lot of my audience (possibly both of them) with a negative feeling. I want to say that there are people out there who do exhange ideas in a formal and relatively polite manner. When I see two people offer different views on the internet without dropping f-bombs, using slurs, and trolling, I think there is hope for critism.

As for my opinion on Up, I do think that Mr. Kline is a bit hard on the film. However, I also do not think that this was the best film ever. It takes a combination of many things before I think a movie is one of the best. I also do think his critism of Wall e as a copy off of short circiuot is a bit silly since the movies only have the connection of having a robot with large eyes as a protagonist. However, I do get that he does not enjoy a film that requries a large suspension of disbelief. That's just the way some people are. I don't mind suspending my disbelief if there is something in the film that I believe supercedes the utter silliness (which in the case of Up was the characters). It was not Pixar's best, but most certainly it was NOT the worst of Pixar (which in my opinion is Cars).

Then again this is all my opinion.

Tuesday, November 30, 2010

Hating on Haters: On Bad Critics

I recently stumbled upon something that disturbed me significantly. I was looking up discussions of "Watchmen" on google, becuase I find that this book can draw up some significant debate betwen me and friends that can lead to some profound discussions. I clicked on a webpage for someone (I will not call her a critic after reading this page) named Debbie Schlussel.

The article in question

I am for freedom of speech. If you have an opinion, I don't mind that you voice it. If I don't want to listen, I will go somewhere else, which is what I did after reading that article. However, after that, I realized really what is wrong with her article, and so I decided I wanted to make this post, not about her per se, but about people who call themselves critics.

I would like to ask a question to all the parents in the audience: If you ask your child to clean their room, and when you see it was not a good job, what do you do? If I were a parent in that situation, I would point out to my child that they can do a better job and I show them their weak points so that when they clean their room again, my child doesn't make the same mistakes again. This is an apt description of what a critic does. If I watch a movie, I discuss what went well, and what a director may need to do next time.

What disturbs me is that this post, like many others I see on the interwebs, is not a critical essay. The author does say she dislikes the sex and violence in a movie, but let's face it, that comes with the territory of watching an R rated film. Mrs. Schlussel instead spends a great deal of time criticising the people who watch the movie or read the book. I must preface that I myself love the book, and was lukewarm about the movie (Zack Snyder was not the best director, but it could have been so much worse). If you like something that she does not like, you are, well if you want her words read the article. I do not wish to have that kind of speech in my blog. She is not decrying the movie as much as she is decrying thoughts that are different from hers.

Penn Gillete once said that if you want to test if something is a "racist statement" put in the name of an ethnic group instead of whatever the speaker is discussing. If it sounds offensive, then it is likely, according to him, a "racist statement." I put this in quotes because there are some obvious exceptions ("Man, I just hate mushrooms, they are slimy and taste like dirt" is racist according to that rule). I ask the reader to do the same thing with her statements about Watchmen fans. What I mean is, insert the name of another book, or movie, or piece of art. If you are criticising the people who like that, you have ceased to be a credible critic.

Criticism is discussion of a piece of work on its own or in context, neither of which Mrs. Schlussel does. She decries the fact that parents are taking their children to see this movie, and that toys are sold of this film, but I would like to remind her that this is rated R by the MPAA, and the toys in question are not poseable, and instead are figures for toy collectors. In other words, in all 1,443 words of her article, she brings up no valid points about this R rated film for adults, and instead just bashes anyone who has a different opinion than her.

Lastly, to Debbie Schlussel, if you ever read this, I would like to say this to you: Yes, I did just deconstruct your article and single you out, but that is because you are a good example of a larger trend I am seeing in critics on the internet. I have no personal vendetta. You are entitled to have your own opinion, but if it is what your article says, then do not call yourself a critic. I sincerely hope that on your next film review, you discuss the actual film.

Saturday, November 6, 2010

Evil: Monster or Mobster?

The concept of a scary villain is something I really take to heart. If a villian is either not believable, not bad enough, or just an idiot, it detracts from the hero. I recently saw the film "Batman Beyond: Return of the Joker", and it got me thinking. How do you make a villian scary? Where is the line between an antagonist and someone the audience truly hates, an abomination on a colossal scale? I'm going to use exanples of the Joker for this article. Take a look at the following clips (don't watch if you're squeamish):
The Dark Knight
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QehZjjwb7-I
Return of the Joker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cKEfoC4tvJg
What is the difference between these two? The first clip portrays a man who is essentially a colorful bully. He kills the one mobster as a demonstration. For the most part, he is a complete sociopath, but he behaves in a manner like a bully. His whole plan is intimidation. Bascially, he is just like all the other mobsters in the room, except he takes more chances. I know that he at one point burns all of his money, but that is more because his goal is not to get the money. He wants to make Batman become a villain. His goal is to prove (as Batman himself points out) that everyone is bad. At first, this may seem really devious, but really it's the same maneuver as when a person caught for a speeding ticket claims that everyone was speeding (although that might be trivializing the crimes he commits a bit).
In the second, Mark Hamil's Joker is played quite differently. Instead of flat out intimidating the henchmen, he instead threatens one, lets him go, and then kills him when he relaxes. Not only that, unlike Heath Ledger's Joker, this one seems to actually enjoy it.
This is the kind of villain that disturbs me. He doesn't do bad things for power or to prove a point (as Ledger's Joker). Instead, we find a man who is a complete monster because he does these things for his own benefit (of course) but also plays it off as good fun. He's a lot more like Anton in No Country for Old Men in that he functions as a killer. He's not a bully, he's an absolute monster.
While the Dark Knight's Joker is evil, he doesn't scare me. If you watch him in the movie, he's an evil genius, but the way he manipulates people, it seems like he might easily be able to influence people. On the flipside, if you managed to figure out what he was planning, he tends to be easy to figure out (Once you find out he disguised his hostages as henchmen, his "hostages" are obviously the real henchmen).
The big difference in all of this is that if you are dealing with a real madman genius, he would likely go further than that, and in all probability do something unpredictable. That unpredictability is what can really be scary. It makes him all the more monstrous.
In short, a villian to me is scary when it isn't someone you can reason with. You can't predict it, and you can't stop it. All you can do is react to it. Essentially, this monster is a force of nature. There is no man behind his face, only the Joker.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010

Shut up, Achebe

Thanks for the patience in this blog, I had surgery, then college. Since I keep editing the article I intended to post last week, here's an excerpt from an article as to why I dislike critical articles (this assignment itself was a critical article).
I was asked whether a critic or author has a more important opinion.

The opening of the paper was such:
In my humble opinion, the author's word is the word of god for the story. There is no one with a more intimate knowledge of a piece of fiction than the author. I do not trust anyone other than the author to offer an opinion on the story. Trusting people other than the original author leads to such things as Dracula: The Undead and Scarlett. Everything short of the author is always a secondary source. Because of this, it should never, I repeat, never be considered to have the same weight as the author's word. I listened to a lecture series by Eric Rabkin, a Ph.D. and expert on literature. His opinion on the fairy tale "Hansel and Gretel" was that it was about sex. His opinion on one of my favorite poems, "Annabel Lee", by my all time favorite author, Poe, was that it was about sex. His opinion on "Snow White", Frankenstein, and anything with plants in the story was that it was about sex. Keep in mind that Dr. Rabkin is a respected and knowedgeable professor who should be the expert on such matters.

What it seems to me is that often critics begin reading a story with a perspective in mind, leading to a result that they could have given you before they read the story. One example (I know that I am about to get sturck by lightning for saying this) is Chinua Achebe's description of Heart of Darkness. He begins with the thesis that Conrad (the author) is racist and thus has an entire lecture about how racist Conrad was (in "An Image of Africa"). However, I myself as well as others (Nic Panagopoulos from the University of Athens for one) hold that Conrad was not writing in a manner to demean Africans, but to decry the treatment of Africa by the Europeans (Conrad points out that the most compassionate people, and really the only ones who the protagonist feels any sympathy for are Africans, not Europeans). Unfortunately, after Achebe's famous lecture, most all of the critics who read that book claim it's racist.

What a critic should do is examine literature from his or her perspective, with an open mind, and then report on how someone might react to the piece from a more populist standpoint. In other words, Roger Ebert critiques movies based on whether an audience would enjoy them the same way Dr. J. Rufus Fears of the University of Oklahoma discusses Faust in terms of the moral philosophy therein. A good critic can pull out the general ideas of a piece and summarize them in a way that shows what someone observing the work might see, but also bring out the details that someone might overlook, although they may be significant.

Sunday, June 27, 2010

Top 10 Badasses in Literature

Who says that lit is boring? This is a list of the top 10 (actually 11) people in literature who don't let anyone mess with them

10. Tie:
John Clarke (Tom Clancy)
He’s not the biggest badass, but he’s the only good guy who will cut your fingers off if you lie.

Mitch Rapp (Vince Flynn)
“Let’s play a game. Round one: Lie and it’s your left foot. Round two: Lie and it’s your other one. Round three: Your knees. You don’t want to know what’s round four.”

9. Mr. B. Gone (Clive Barker)
Destroy this book. Destroy this computer if you read this. I am inhabiting this web page. I will devour your soul if you keep reading. Like that? Read the book.

8. The Time Traveler (H.G. Wells)
When was the first time someone fought off baddies in the future with a crowbar? It wasn’t Half Life. That’s for sure.

7. Captain Nemo (Jules Verne)
You think that all of the guys who live under the sea are weak? This guy uses Spongebob to clean the grout in his bathroom..

6. Tarzan (Edgar Rice Boroughs)
He was raised by apes, killed a leopard as a child, and had Phil Collins do his soundtrack. Nuff said.

5. Macbeth (Shakespeare)
He’s a good guy who goes bad, and manages to hallucinate that a blood-spewing spirit stole his chair. Also, of course no one of woman born can kill him.

4. Elizabeth Bennet (Jane Austen)
She killed off hordes of zombies and trained under shaolin masters of-wait, what do you mean “that’s not in the real book”?

3. Dracula (Bram Stoker)
He is so badass that he can make a box explode on command. Also, he turns into a giant werewolf, not just a bat. Stick that in your pipe and smoke it Edward Cullen.
Bonus: He doesn’t sparkle.

2. George Challenger (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
He goes into a jungle by himself, travels to an uncharted plateu, singlehandedly kills a dinosaur and brings it back, and this is before the book even starts.

1. Sherlock Holmes (Sir Arthur Conan Doyle)
What do I need to say. He's the only guy who has outwitted everyone in the entire world, and survived falling down a waterfall. Not only that, he knows Bartitsu, a martial art that not even Bartitsu masters really know about.
Why is he wearing sunglasses in nineteenth century Europe?

The Top 25 Films

Since this is my first real article, I'm going to set up my basic view on films.
These are my 25 favorite films. I don't mean to say that these are actually the best ones ever made, well actually I do.

Warning: These films may not be ones you have seen or even heard of.

25. Tombstone



















There are plenty of good westerns, but the real reason I like this one is that this movie (despite historical inaccuracy) is that it shows a big story. For the most part, the story is real and the ensemble cast leads the story on beautifully. In short, everything comes together well.

24. Short Circuit



















This film was probably the first one I saw with real curse words. Seeing a movie like that as a little kid, it left an impression on me. I remember this film now, I see it ironically as a kidsy movie. Most movies about robots are extremely campy, but in this one, you can actually believe the characters (except for the white guy pretending to be indian) are real people who are trying to find some sort of solution to the problem of a robot that has gained self-awareness.

23. The Goonies



















This is my quintessential childhood film. I have numerous friends who all get together in a goonie-like scenario. Everyone wishes that they could go on some sort of adventure, and it really is a movie about a group of friends having one final adventure before they are all separated.

22. Jaws



















I am from Florida, land of the ocean (that makes no sense). I originally was afraid of big water monsters, but after I watched this film. I wasn't scared anymore. According to my pre-kindergarten mind, I was not like Quint. I was more like Hooper or Brody, who both survive. That apparently worked for me as a child. Aside from that, it's also one of the few movies of the era to have the old Hitchcock style, which almost none in modern day have.

21. Big Fish



















I love this film for the simple reason that it is about understanding your family. The reason I have this on my list is because most feel-good movies about families involve people getting to know each other. That really bores me. You know it's all going to be okay at the end, so why waste an hour and a half? This film is, as I mentioned, about understanding your family. The movie recounts the father's fictional life as his son wants to find the true story. What the truth is, in this case, is that the fiction is used because it is part of the father's life as much as the truth is. The meaning of the life is what matters, not necessarily the events.

20. The Matrix

As a sci-fi fan, I really love a lot of Phillip K. Dick fiction. If you don't know who he is, Phillip wrote the books that inspired Total Recall, Blade Runner, and a lot of other fiction about questioning reality. He didn't write the Matrix. However, his astounding genre of "Is this real?" is summed up in this film. Real life is a fiction, but then again, the "real life" outside the computer system in the film is also called into question. It just makes sense that the movie shouldn't make sense. Those sort of things I just love.

19. Scrooged

When I watch a "religious film", I get nervous. Most religious films that are released currently beat the audience over the head without really showing the meaning behind the story. I dislike Gibson's "The Passion of the Crist" mainly for that reason (and a bunch of others as well). This film, on the other hand, really shows an utterly horrid man (played a little too well by Bill Murray) who has a moral epiphany on Christmas. The story is done in the style of Charles Dicken's A Christmas Carol, but it puts modern life in perspective. This film many times references the real christmas story, but it really puts the emphasis on the meaning of the story: A terrible person has the epiphany that he can do better in this world. He has a chance at redemption, starting on Christmas Day. If you want to get what I mean, read "The Christmas Note" It's the ending speech made by Murray.

18. Citizen Kane

Though Roger Ebert claims this is the greatest film of all time, I disagree. Though this film is wonderful, masterful, and just a generally enjoyable film about the rise and fall of a national leader, it just is too real. We see the story played out every few days with the "lions of Politics".

17. Ferris Bueller's Day Off

I like this film, just because. It's fun, exciting at some points, and we all wish we were Ferris. At least, Ferris for a day.

16. Ghostbusters

I like this for the same reason as the previous. Bill Murray, Dan Ackroyd, Ernie Hudson, and Harold Ramis make the ultimate cadre of buddies that you can identify with. They aren't taken seriously, they have to work against great odds, and they triumph. It's a great story with action and humor. 'Nuff said.

15. Sneakers

As a rule, I hate, I mean hate, spy films. They just open themselves up to the concept of a Deus Ex Machina. Someone will have some item that allows them to do something crazy: laser pens, darts in their cuffs, all sorts of silliness. I can abide silliness, but if a movie tries to pass it off as a serious film, I get mad. This film is the only spy film that treats its audience as adults. The characters are believable, and the story is imaginative. It's also got Ben Kingsley, probably my favorite actor.

14. Gremlins

Aside from a couple short stories, nothing on this scale as a horror film would be made. The story, though with its plot holes, involves something loveable being corrupted into a horrific monstrosity, with lethal results. Stories of corruption in a (non-political setting) work well for me.

13. Signs

I can talk on and on about this film. I'm going to save you all some time since I'm feeling nice today. The plot itself is really just a re-imagining of "War of the Worlds", although without Tom Cruise :).The movie is another of those "religious movies" that I genuinely like. Though this family goes through hell, the manage to come out on the other side better. I am someone who doesn't believe in coincidences. I've had things happen to me that I really think mattered. If they were random, then I must have some sort of weird luck. That's the subplot of this movie.

12. The Sandlot

If anyone wants to have some ready-made good childhood memories, just sit down for about an hour and a half with this film. I just feel good after I see this film. It works every time.

11. The Year Living Dangerously

Earlier I said that I liked Ben Kingsley as a favorite actor, but he's tied with Linda Hunt. This film, based on a true story, is a snapshot of a period in history that not many of my generation have primary information about. This story is just masterful, but the real reason it #11 is because of the supporting character of Linda Hunt. She plays a person who wants their life back, but has come to the realization that no one can go back in time. Linda Hunt's death scene in the film is probably the best death I have ever seen in a movie.

10. Brazil

I like movies with replay value. THe great thing about Brazil is that you can watch it a dozen times, and still you won't see everything. It has one ot the most off beat plots and has some great characters and of course is directed by Terry Gilliam of Monty Python Fame. The theme's also pretty catchy.

9. The Secret of NIMH

If you want a movie that a child could enjoy, as well as a parent, go no further. NIMH is arguably my favorite film from my childhood. THe images are bright, dark, amazing, and deeply affecting. THe movie assumes a different perspective from what a human might see. And so, cats become demons, an owl is the most horrifying beast hell could create, yet wise. Mice become meek and harmless. The themes of this movie are also amazing. In NIMH, we have the conflict of science and magic, and the resolution might even surprise you.

8. The Dark Knight

Considering how I talk about this move, you might wonder why it is this low on the list. Really, I like it because, as Patrick has stated, it has good writing. Christopher Nolan does a good job, and he manages to make a good movie in spite of Christian Bale.

7. Stardust

Most epic fantasy films seem too epic. There's a distinct lack of emotion in most fantasy films I see. Lord of the Rings handles this well. However, this series should be seen as a series, not a single film. Therefore, my absoulte favoirte fantasy is hands-down Stardust. It's a fantasy with emotion, quirk, and the absoulte funniest role Robert De Niro has ever had.

6. Fletch

I honestly had no idea what to make of Fletch when I first saw it. It has the humor of a good comedy, the intrigue of a good thriller, and the Chevy Chase of a vacation flick. It has everything you want in a comedy-action flick. Not only that, Chase has a good ability to do drama, no one knows it unless they watch Fletch.

5. Pan's Labyrinth

If you want something honestly creepy, since maybe the comedic Fletch doesn't float your boat, you can take a trip down Pan's Labyrinth. Starring my favorite actor, Doug Jones as the hideous Pale Man, this movie will leave you with a feeling of fear, wonder, and possibly hope. In a movie that shows how evil the world can be, the end of this film made me have some hope in the human race if we have any Ophelias in the world at all.

4. The Adventures of Baron Munchausen

If the labyrinth is too confusing, maybe there is hope found in this film. Done by the same crew as Brazil, Munchausen works to evoke a feeling of wonder and majesty in its viewers. Characters of old myths walk freely through the scenes, and we see who some of them truly are. The Baron himself is seen by me as one of my favoirte protagonists ever.

3. Blazing Saddles

I mentioned I wanted replay value in my films, and this has absolutely is the epitome of "see it again". Filled with both biting satire on prejudices of Hollywood and the silliness that Mel Brooks.

2. The Illusionist

Up until today, this was my favorite #1 film. It has amazing dramatic performances, Ed Norton in particular, an amazing plot with as many twists as a cruller made by a drunken Austrian Prince (yes I just made that joke). Also, the way the scenes play out, the characters dress, and all sorts of that direction yield an impressive film. It also doesn't hurt that you have Ed Norton performing real sleight of hand on film (I've seen people do the "passage of time" orange trick. It is as amazing the 50th time you see it as it is the first.

1. Interstate 60

Any college graduate, high school graduate, or a person going through some sort of change in their life should see this. It's a great movie about choices and how we live with them. The amazing scenes depict both the hilarious and sadly affecting. It's a movie with everything. Literally. Christopher Lloyd, Michael J Fox, Gary Oldman, Ann Margaret, Kurt Russel, Chris Cooper, James Mardsen, and Amy Jo Johnson (Kimberly from Power Rangers to you) all give their all in an amazing movie. I can't say anything without spoiling the phenomenal plot. This was the first film I had ever seen that really made me feel happy leaving it. The abject realism that is used to depict the fantastic causes you to really wish you could meet the characters in this film, and in doing so, you see that most all of them are actually people you really do know.

Good Afternoon

You've probably either stumbled onto this blog as what some might call a crazy random happenstance. This blog is where I deride and acclaim various films and types of entertainment media. Anything from funny pics, movies, youtube, television, toys, books and more are fair game.