This One Doesn't Get a Movie Pun

I want to clear something up right now. I understand that this movie was not successful. I understand that a lot of you haven't seen it, and that those of you that have actually heard of it forgot all about it not long after you did. I know that this movie has had almost no impact on society and the world of cinema, and I completely get that the only rational course of action for any logical human being is to avoid this film entirely, stop mentioning it, and pretend that it never happened. In a manner of speaking, it isn't worth getting mad about.

I wanted to get that all out in the open. 

Folks, I went to some dark places in preparing for this piece. I mean some Sharp Objects, Se7en, Silence of the Lambs, Psycho, pseudo-masochistic True Detective places. I unfurled two years of inconsolable rage and fervor to bring you this rant and I will call this a rant because that's what it is, and there is no way around that. 

Birdemic: Shock and Terror. 

This movie is a 93 minute exercise in blunt force trauma to the head. 

This film is a one hour 30 minute series of kicks to the genital area. 

This movie will burn your crops and slaughter your weak.

This movie  will spit in your soup and cough in your salad. 

This film will agree to help you move and then let go of its end of the couch as you haul it down the stairs. 

This movie will bury you alive and leave you for dead.

This movie intends to vote for Donald Trump.

This movie is a county clerk and regularly denies same-sex couples marriage licenses. 

This movie wears sandals with socks. 

This movie doesn't care about black people. 

This movie blew up Alderaan.

Oh did you think I was gonna review it? HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

FUCK OUTTA HERE WITH THAT NONSENSE 

This movie sent 20 large pizzas to your house.

This movie beats up fat kids.

This film shut down the government in 2013.

This movie owns a guitar but can only play Wonderwall by Oasis.

This film has the cure for cancer and refuses to release it. 

This movie finished the cereal and put the empty box back in the cabinet. 

You know when you're so angry you'r not even yelling anymore, you're whispering? That quiet passion that washes over you, coupled with a steady fear, fear in the face of a complete lack of understanding of the scope or extent of the rage you harbor deep within you. A hatred so intense you feel as though there isn't even a volume the human voice can physically reach that would express the sincere and angry confusion you feel, and so you whisper. Soft and subtle is your frustration as it creeps from the recesses of your unexplored grief and is purged in bursts of fiery red abuse. 

Never watch it, never even think about the distant possibility of potentially viewing it.

To hell with this movie. To the deepest, darkest circle of the underworld. 

My Neighbor Del Toro

Heads up, I'm going to be referencing the film Sicario pretty extensively here, but I do want to make it clear there are NO SPOILERS AHEAD. I repeat, NO SPOILERS FOR SICARIO IN THIS PIECE.

Now if I promise not to ruin the movie for you, you have to promise me you'll WATCH IT. Ok? Deal.

I won't be reviewing the film here so much as I will definitely be talking about the characters, in particular, that of the beautiful and talented Emily Blunt, and that of the ever-versatile Benicio Del Toro. That being said, this piece isn't just about the movie Sicario. This is about the characters we love, the characters we hate, and the reasons we real life human beings feel anything at all towards those works of fiction.

As per usual, I'll divide this bitch up into sections.

First up...

THE HERO

You can put a whole bunch of words in front of that word right there, and you'll end up with a different archetype each time. The reluctant hero, the romantic hero, the brooding hero, the list goes on and on you can really do whatever the fuck you want with that particular concept. As far as any of us can tell, hero is just another word for protagonist. The person through which we will experience the journey, or the conflict. Their opinions, their hopes, their fears, their desires will all shape how we perceive the events of the story. The classic hero is often a simple character. Morally sound, intelligent enough, naive in some way (important if you want them to learn anything and show growth over the course of the story); the heroes of old are generally blank slates, static enough for any member of the lowest common denominator of people to project THEMSELVES onto that person. Over the years, however, as we've seen storytelling evolve and change, as we have watched the building blocks of mythology catalyze the continuous development of the modern narrative, that hero has become a little more complicated.

Look at Superman for example, arguably the most recognizable superhero on planet earth. People know Superman, at the very least they know what he looks like. For many, he is what comes to mind when the word "hero" is heard. In the beginning, Superman was a pretty boring motherfucker, too. Just like Batman has a gadget for every problem, Superman had a superpower for every obstacle. He stood for justice, for the American way, and that was always very unambiguous. Early Superman never had to ask himself or anybody else what the right thing was because he was always so certain, and that soothed the uncertainty of the very real people that picked up his comic books. I implore you, however, to look at Superman now.

More weaknesses, and less power. A fear of his own strength, and an anger when he isn't strong enough. His arch nemesis has evolved from a stereotypical mad scientist into a highly intelligent and resourceful business man who intends not to destroy or enslave humanity, but to save it. Well that begs its own set of questions. Is Superman even the good guy? Who decides? Suddenly the man of steel is a little less of a god, and little closer to being one of us.

I promise this has to do with Sicario.

Here's why Emily Blunt's character (Kate Macer) is so fucking cool. Set aside the fact that she is a REAL WOMAN (not real like a real life figure, but real as in a believable character) but she is our eyes, she is our proxy, for all intents and purposes, she is us. And the cherry on top is this: she is the perfect blend of old and new when it comes to heroes. She has a code, a very clear set of ethics, and to her credit, she sticks by them with undeniable resolve. She calls out her associates when something doesn't seem right, she wants nothing more than to bring justice to the bad guys, and she has every intention of doing so by the book and within the law. And that is really cool to see. But you and I both know that the modern American judicial system is flawed as FUCK. It just is, and that, like it or not, is the system within which Kate is working. Those are the rules she is following, THEIR rules. And it isn't long before she's thrust into a situation where protocol and training are of very little help. In the world Kate enters, "the land of wolves", the law is broken, and I don't mean by people in certain instances. I mean the law is BROKEN, as in, the law is damaged, dysfunctional, defective, does not work the way it is supposed to in theory.

The genius behind the conception of Kate's character, both in Taylor Sheridan's writing and Blunt's performance, is that she reacts to every situation the way any of us would, or rather, the way most of us would LIKE to think we would react. And in that, we are brought face to face with the flaws in Kate's thinking, and the danger she may be in should she be unable to adapt. Her flaws being OUR flaws. As slow and steady as the tension building is throughout Sicario, it does not take long for the shit to hit the fan, and once it does, our hero is forced to ponder some difficult questions. That is one of the most effective ways to bring us, the audience, to a place where those questions are going through our heads as well.

So yeah, there's the one side of the coin we get to see in Sicario, and in its own right, it is a very effective story element (the use of Kate Macer as the "hero"). But now we get to talk briefly about the real reason I wanted to write this piece. The real motivation behind discussing character.

THE ANTIHERO

Awwwwwww shit yeah.

This is the character where no mistakes need be made in relation to moral ambiguity. Whereas the hero starts in a place of absolute good, and may gradually transition to something less clean, the antihero walks the line between hero and villain from the very beginning. There are no lies or illusions when it comes to the presentation of this character,but  rather, layers are left unseen or untouched. You may feel from the film's start that this is the character you know least about, and sure, they usually are. These are the characters you want to know better, the characters you wish you could read or pin down. These are the characters that have the potential to surprise you.

Think Deadpool, a character that you probably love and root for, but fully acknowledge is not the most wholesome or healthy. The antihero doesn't just have to be a hero that does villainous shit, nor must they be a villain with heroic moments or qualities. In a lot of respects the antihero is just a person, and in that way, more real than most heroes or villains. Rarely do we ever equate ourselves to these people. We want to be the hero, we want to be the main character, or (if the antihero is the main character) we want to be the "best" character. The truth is, not all of us can be; from a strictly realistic standpoint some of us (most of us) are in fact a little more grey in the morals than we want people to know. Deadpool is a selfish guy, he's out for the fun, he's out for the thrill, and when he comes up against baddies in his stories or comics, it's almost always because the conflict affects him on a personal level. Superman might fly into  battle to save innocent citizens, but you won't see Wade Wilson get out of bed for anything completely unrelated to his life or his goals. A quality inherent to antiheroes like Deadpool is they usually have an agenda, and usually, it's a personal one.

Dude, holy shit, Benicio Del Toro. I can't say too much, but there really isn't much more to say than this. Should you watch this film, when it ends, you will think three things for certain. "How did they light that movie?", "Emily Blunt and Josh Brolin were quite excellent,", and "WAIT I NEED TO SEE MORE OF BENICIO DEL TORO'S CHARACTER FUUUUUUUUUCK WHAT THE FUUUUUUUUUUCK DO A PREQUEL OR SOMETHING HOT DAMN." And you know why you'll want a prequel? Because you don't know jack shit about this guy going in, and I'll make sure that remains the case. He's complex, he's calculating, and under the surface, something else is brewing. The conflict is unmistakable, he is the guy you have your eyes on from his first moments of screen time, and when he's not on screen, you wish he was. This is the dude, I am telling you.

It's been a while since I've been affected this way just by a performance alone. How often do we see a character so haunted, so subdued, fleshed out in such an intelligent way. Risks were taken with this movie and with this character, and they paid off, because when it was time for the credits to roll, I was a little lost for words.

MAYBE IT'S JUST ME BUT THIS MOVIE WAS HYPE AS FUCK AND I THINK A LOT OF THE CREDIT FOR THAT GOES TO DEL TORO

The hero and the antihero are two halves of one whole, the two faces of one...well I already used the coin metaphor...fuck...yin and yang, ok? Equal and opposite in a lot of ways, and in a sense, less finite and clear-cut than the dichotomy between hero and villain. You can't have the yin without the yang, you can't have the hero without the less desirable "anti" elements, and vice versa. There's a formula to storytelling, a tried and true arc when it comes to crafting a tale, and Sicario fucks with that formula. Though not in a bad, destructive sense. It's more like when your doorknob gets jammed so you play with it until it opens. With a little ingenuity and some brute force you managed to move forward and in principle, your opening of the jammed door wasn't all that different from opening a normal one. The two types of characters I've just described are what I've said they are, and they've been that way for years, but in toying with the relationship/similarities between the two, you can discover for yourself new ways of presenting what is more than likely a familiar arc in a new and interesting way, without trying to reinvent the wheel.

Sicario's biggest strengths lie in its tension building and its characterization. Taking the false, the fabricated, and adding layers and motivation to it until it appears to be real, if only for a two-hour run time. Watch this movie if you haven't already, it really is something special.

The Long Take Goodnight

"MOM! MOM! LOOK, I did a long take!"

"What? You did what?"

"I...I made a long take, mom. Are you proud of me?"

"When you say you made a long take, what exactly do you mean?"

"Well, I was filming a scene, and I was about to cut, but then I didn't! And then the actors just kept talking, and it was so cool! I'm a director now!"

"You fucking plebe."

"Mom?"

"How dare you presume to be a film maker with an attitude like that, you commoner. What was your REASON for making the take long? Did the scene demand it? Was the dialogue so goddamn terrific you couldn't even fucking fathom cutting between reactions? No, I didn't think so. Here' s what really happened: You watched Goodfellas one too many times and now you've convinced yourself that you could ever even attempt to understand the art of a scene. Get out of my sight you thieving whore, and don't return until you've been booed at Cannes."

"But getting booed is bad."

"Not for artists it's not!"

That was a conversation that happened in real life at some point I assume.

You've seen them, you know them, you have a pretty good idea of what goes into making one happen, but just for shits and giggles, let's really dissect what the term "long take" implies.

It's as simple as it sounds, in theory at least. A long take is a take that is long. More eloquently it is an uninterrupted shot that, by comparison, lasts longer than most shots generally do before they are cut.

Taxi Driver, Goodfellas, Rope, Timecode, Birdman, Season 1 Episode 2 of Daredevil, Season 1 Episode 4 of True Detective, The Raid, The Raid 2, it is a technique you know well, and when done with skill and precision, it is one of the more effective ways to set a scene.

WHY ARE SHOTS CUT IN THE FIRST PLACE?

Thanks for asking. Shots are cut for a variety of reasons. Decent long takes are generally praised simply because of how difficult they are to shoot, and by cutting shots, you are cutting down on the potential number of set ups, considering that when one aspect of a long take goes noticeably wrong, the take must then be reset and tried again. Beyond that, by capturing a particular scene from multiple angles and cutting between said angles, a director/editor can easily make scenes appear more dynamic or visually interesting, while also using the best takes from each angle to construct an airtight exchange between characters. It's weird to ask a question like this, considering that this is just sort of how films are generally made, and the pros and cons seem rather obvious, but I'm arriving at a point and this little section will help us get there.

WHY WOULD YOU EVER OPT TO NOT CUT A TAKE?

Buncha reasons.

For starters, it can actually be easier than setting up various shots from various angles, and depending on the location and the cast and crew involved. In addition, if done effectively, shooting a film using long, uninterrupted takes can be a HUGE time saver. Not only do you eliminate the need to capture the entire scene again from a different spot, you also save time in post-production seeing as how there is no actual cutting that needs to be done. The time saved there can then be allocated towards things like color correction and other such editing tasks. In fact a lot of film makers operating on low budgets (low budget = less time to make your movie) often make use of the long take technique, opting to rehearse and coordinate movements over the course of entire scenes as opposed to breaking down camera and lighting equipment in order to move it all a few feet over to redo a scene from a different spot in the room.

Now, aside from all of the technical/logistical reasoning, there are of course thematic and story-related motivations to consider. Take a movie like The Hateful Eight for example, a recent Tarantino release. That movie depends on the steady building of tension, and thrives on the interactions between the colorful assortment of characters. It's all about the dialogue when it comes to that picture, and on more than one occasion, Tarantino opts to let the camera roll, allowing the conversations to play out largely uninterrupted, adding a layer of unconscious dread and suspense to every word spoken. Now those takes aren't necessarily as long as some of the more noticeable uses of the "oner", but they are still worth noting. Martin Scorsese similarly relies on long and/or tracking shots in two of his most popular films specifically in order to establish characters, setting, and story elements without doing too much spoon fed exposition. The famous track through the restaurant in Goodfellas, the long pan through the taxicab garage in the opening of Tax Driver, or the slow and steady pan away from Travis as he speaks on the  payphone, so on and so forth.

Ok, so now we have arrived at the point. The reason I even decided to start writing.

WHAT MAKES A LONG TAKE GOOD?

It just sounds like a cool, impressive, artistic thing to do doesn't it? To let the camera roll, to coordinate movements and actions for the sake of making the shot longer than it normally would (or should) have been. It just seems like the move. Unfortunately, there's more to a long shot than just not cutting.

Let's say I'm making a short experimental film about apples. I take an average looking apple, I set it down on a table, and I let the camera roll. Slowly, over the course of a five minute period, I zoom in on the fruit, and finally, when I've decided it is enough, I cut, and that is my film. Yeah that's boring as shit, and there's no way to spin that into being anything other than uninteresting. Listen I'm all about trying new and different things when it comes to subject matter, and story, but there's no reality where that apple film doesn't put you right the fuck to sleep.

The long shot is a trade off, and not many people realize that. When you cut shots together, you can create the illusion of action, of movement, and in that way, something boring can all of a sudden appear interesting. But when you remove the ability to cut, you have to supplant that movement. The subject now has to mean something, the movement of the camera now matters, because if it isn't thought through, suddenly the uninteresting becomes apparent. You have to have faith not only in what is written on the page, but in the person behind the camera, the person lighting the scene, and the people performing within it, because if you aren't confident that they can somehow retain the viewer's attention, chances are your long shot is doomed to fail. Shooting anything uninterrupted for a lengthy amount of time is inherently snooze-worthy, which is why it is so vital to understand the art of the long take, and the competency it takes to really achieve it.

If there is no motivation behind making a take a long one, that will shine through whatever you present to your audience, and it will inform how they perceive your work. A certain level of intention is imperative. I believe that the spontaneity of writing and film making is what makes it so special, and that it's the discoveries that we don't expect to make in the moments we don't expect to make them that really make the difference between mediocre and truly inspired, but some things have to be deliberate, and planned out carefully, the long take undoubtedly being one of those things.

It's a tough thing to do, and it's an even tougher thing to be good at, but I think we all strive to be better at the things we find most difficult. Especially when it comes to movies, when I am faced with a genuine struggle, I take the dilemma as an opportunity to better myself and better my craft, and I think that a similar philosophy is shared by most in many a field outside of cinema.

I guess if this piece had a primary take-away it would be, know your limits. Know what you're good at, and take comfort in knowing that you excel at those things. At the same time, know what needs work, and don't be afraid to admit that it does. Pride comes before the fall, my friends.




                                                             Yours Truly,

                                                                                          Me

Cloverfield of Dreams

I remember seeing some of the first teaser trailers for this movie on TV years ago. NOBODY KNEW WHAT THE FUCK THE FILM WAS ABOUT. In fact, the marketing team didn't even reveal the title of the picture in the early teasers, instead opting to show us only the release date. Now I personally was a little young to be clamoring to see Cloverfield when it came out, but I certainly remember being exceedingly curious about the story, and once the movie actually hit theaters, I recall a certain level of hype and praise surrounding the release. Whether you loved it, liked it, or didn't care  for it at all, people were talking, and I think that is largely thanks to a pretty brilliant marketing strategy.

Get this: Each of the characters in the movie had their own real life  MySpace page that regular viewers like you and me could easily access and browse. Not only that, but at no point during the film's marketing campaign was any part of the plot spoiled. In fact, the film underwent numerous title changes during production simply because people kept figuring out what the movie was called and spreading the news (the intended title was always Cloverfield, so this strategy was more than likely just clever misdirection). We haven't seen a film's plot guarded so carefully since The Force Awakens, or, ironically enough, 10 Cloverfield Lane, the latest entry in the Cloverfield franchise, WHICH I'M HYPE AS FUCK TO SEE AGGHHHH.

Yeah, so I fully intend to review this movie, if for nothing else, just because I am endlessly fascinated by how it was handled. I also make you a solemn vow right now that this will be a completely SPOILER FREE review. There are things that aren't even really spoilers that I won't address in this review because I firmly support your experiencing this movie with as little to go on as possible. I think that's missing from a lot of theatrical experiences these days, the sense that you're discovering something, and answering burning questions. At the end of the day, I really feel that that's what puts butts in seats. The difference between racing to the cinema and waiting for the DVD release or online torrent is as small as leaving a little to the imagination, and letting the masses really live with their inquiries unanswered for a bit. It creates an urgency we don't really see anymore when it comes to viewing movies, it creates a sense of necessity; paying money to see the movie as soon as you possibly can just because the mystery is eating you up inside, and you can't risk having that process of discovery stunted by a spoiler some coworker lets slip during Monday morning small talk at the ol' 9 to 5. That's what made James Cameron's Avatar worth two billion dollars, the fact that nobody knew WHAT THE FUCK WAS GOING ON, or how far that kind of technology could be pushed. A movie like that, the big summer blockbuster, has to be an adventure to really be a success, and adventures are all about seeing the previously unseen.

I'll break this up into sections, so let's start with...

STORY

Without divulging too much, the main plot of the film deals with a group of young New Yorkers stuck in a very tricky situation. During a celebration one night, something hits Manhattan and hits it hard, and these plucky young individuals must survive long enough to find a safe way out. Right there, you're setting yourself up for a pretty effective thriller. There are so few moving pieces, and for that reason, your assembly becomes simple, and infinitely more succinct. Make no mistake, there's a pretty huge difference between a simple plot and stupid one, the main distinction being that simplifying a story is not necessarily rooted in intelligence or comprehension.Simplifying a plot is about the ebb and flow of your piece, it is about ironing out the wrinkles between scenes and acts, and removing anything superfluous that might slow us down on our way to the climax. It's about efficiency, and Cloverfield is pretty damn efficient. You should never leave a theater feeling as though any amount of your time was wasted and Cloverfield is successful in the sense that everything that happens, and every line of dialogue that is spoken, feels necessary, propelling the plot forward in one way or another. Comments that appear at first glance to be throwaway jokes or average movie character sentimentality actually serve to advance elements of character development in a way that feels smooth and, by the end, needed.

The story doesn't wander, and that is due mostly to the restrictions of the found footage style in which it is made. We can't be anywhere or see anything separate from the holder of that camera, and for that reason, we advance through the movie's plot almost like a video game, advancing from stage to stage in real time, hopping over obstacles of progressive difficulty, fighting to reach the resolution. The banter between characters is also handled very well. Despite this, in the opening and establishing scenes, specifically the scenes taking place during the celebration, prior to the disaster, certain character choices appear questionable, or impractical. I won't get into specifics, but people say and do things that, to be perfectly honest, functioning adults really shouldn't. As I said before, all of the choices made, even the dumb ones, serve to advance the plot and set up dominoes that will be knocked down in later scenes, but that doesn't change the fact that they don't make all that much sense to begin with. It's like planting a luscious garden. You laid out a bunch of manure, and from it, truly beautiful flowers did blossom, but that beauty doesn't negate the fact that in the beginning, there were no flowers, only cow shit. That's not to say that those early character moments in the film are shit. I'm only saying that, similar to manure, those moments are noticeable, even if they are necessary for that particular movie.

The tension building is expertly done and there are more than a few moments where you will find yourself in utter disbelief at what you have just watched go down. It's some crazy shit, my friends. The biggest compliment I can give the film in this category is that it is truly unexpected, in ALMOST every choice it makes from a plot stand point. It takes the classic Roland Emmerich disaster film conventions that we all know and hate and it turns almost each and every one its head, starting with the decision made by the filmmakers to depict the events of the movie using the found footage style of movie-making; a style that necessitates a certain level of intimacy not often found in disaster flicks. Our character behind the camera is constantly looking UP at what's going on, restricted to his own range of motion and sight. In that regard, we get more of a sense of scale as opposed to a sense of scope. It's no longer just about how big shit is, it has now become about how big shit is in relation to our main characters.

Thematically speaking, the movie throws a fair number of curve balls. I'm talking about some moments of emotion and revelation that I doubt any viewer would be expecting a movie like this to deliver. As tightly wound as the story consistently was, it left room for twists and turns that, in the end, really, and I mean REALLY, made the difference in quality.

Ok, next.

TECHNICAL ELEMENTS

I came to this conclusion after re-watching Cloverfield rather recently, and making note of very specific moments that I personally considered interesting, and at first, it may seem bold to state outright, but consider the fact that most of the entries we get in the found footage style are pretty shit anyways. Cloverfield is the best use of found footage I've seen in film, ever. And I mean that purely in the technical respect. The way each scene is constructed is so deliberate, and the real world limitations of the camcorder are very clearly taken into account by the production staff every step of the way. That means diegetic sound, practical lighting, a fair amount of shaky cam (if that bothers you, just be aware it is present, although handled better than shaky cam usually is in most movies). It all just feels meticulously thought out and executed.

The direction on display is tight, which is a difficult thing to achieve with a film that is supposed to feel like a regular everyday person with no film experience or training is simply filming what goes on around them. There are plenty of LONG, well-coordinated takes throughout, which was a delight to see. Cuts are used infrequently, especially during moments of heightened suspense, and  instead, long stretches of action and dialogue play out right before our eyes, only adding to the "real time, found footage" effect. Matt Reeves, the director, clearly has a knack for framing and shooting action in that manner, and even showcased that talent further with his 2014 hit, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, which I highly recommend checking out if you're in any way partial to good movies. The best part about it all is knowing that it must have been rigorously rehearsed, yet at no point does it feel that way. The editing is smooth and restrained, much like the direction. Two sequences in particular, one near the start of the whole disaster portion of the film and one towards the end of it all, do feel a bit rushed and scatterbrained, and I have no doubt that was intentional considering the general panic of our characters at those points in the story. Nevertheless, you can INTEND to punch an elderly person in the face, it doesn't make the act any less terrible. When a choice doesn't work, it doesn't work, and that just has to be addressed.

IN CONCLUSION

Yeah dude, it's a good time. I'll always give a movie props for managing to be fun, exciting, and original, while still bringing something a little more thought-provoking to the table in terms of how we view disaster, and how fear plays a role in addressing crises in the post 9/11 world. Beyond that, the things the writers and director were able to accomplish thematically and technically in this film are pretty impressive when all is considered, and for that reason, I feel the need to recommend you give Cloverfield a try. If it's not your cup of tea, so be it, it doesn't have to be. This is just me, sharing the experience I had and the things I noticed, and should you give the film a chance at some point in your lives, I will have done my duty in spreading the good Cloverfield word. I don't really do ratings, at least not objective ones, but if I had to classify this movie for you, I'd give it an A- on a scale of 1 to Two Thumbs Up. Does that help? Yes? Awesome. Bye.

Zero Dark Murphy

Ok if you know me personally, you know that in the months following my viewing of the film Interstellar, I wouldn't shut the fuck up about it. I ranted, I raved, I did my very best to convince every human being I could to see it. I even wrote a review for the movie for my school newspaper, in which I essentially declared it the next modern American classic. So that happened. And because that happened, I will not be reviewing the movie again here, I am merely writing to outline for you two major theories I have regarding the film and its characters. Keep in mind that SPOILERS FOR INTERSTELLAR are to follow, so please, plan accordingly. If you haven't seen it and you care to at some point in the future, don't continue reading. As for the rest of you, here are my thoughts.

THE REAL HEROES

A lot of time has been spent debating whether or not Cooper (the film's main protagonist) actually loves his two children equally. Seeing as how Murphy, Cooper's daughter, was chosen by the fifth dimensional beings to finish the equation and save the world, the relationship between her and her father is definitely emphasized extensively. It is my belief, however, that the emphasis placed on this bond is in no way meant to suggest that Cooper loved his son, Tom, any less than he loved Murphy. Hear me out on this one.

Murphy and Tom are the two sides of Cooper's personality.

This becomes clear in the very first scenes of the film, where we learn that Tom aspires to be a farmer, like his father, at one point even telling his dad, "I like our farm. I like what you do." This aspect of Tom's personality is further developed as he grows up, eventually raising his family on the property, refusing to leave even when it is highly suggested that he do so.

Tom, having inherited his father's loyalty and protectiveness defends his family and does what he feels is best for them, but along with those positive qualities, Tom seems to also have inherited Cooper's more negative tendencies. At a point in the film, Cooper points out a major flaw with the outlook he and other farmers share when it comes to life and growing crops. "We farmers we say, 'next year'", Cooper states, referring to the farmer's response to repeated failure and the seemingly regular destruction of crops. As if it were not easy enough to infer that Tom shares this quality with his father, later in the film, and adult Tom describes his plan to Murphy when he is forced to torch his crops, starting with the words, "Next year..." before outlining what he INTENDS to do differently. It is this blind optimism that Cooper is criticizing in the film's first act, fully acknowledging that he is guilty of thinking that way, and his son, once grown up, is no different.

Murphy is the opposite side of that philosophical coin. From a young age she expresses a desire to explore, and investigate, sneaking into her father's car early in the film to help him track down a lead in his hunt for the cause of the gravity anomalies occurring on the farm. An older Murphy, after Cooper has left Earth on the Endurance, does actually leave the farm as soon as she is able, and starts working with Professor Brand, the physicist responsible for solving the problem of gravity and getting humankind off of Earth. Murphy is the scientist, the engineer, where Tom is the farmer, and the parent.

Murphy isn't without her flaws either, flaws she undoubtedly shares with her father. Murphy is impulsive and emotional, and in many ways selfish, where Tom is stoic and concerned more with the well being of his family than he is with himself. Murphy's desire to leave Earth, to discover something meaningful out in the universe, keeps her adaptable, and free, but also renders her painfully idealistic. Murphy's similarities to her father are only further highlighted when you realize that despite her outspoken resentment of Cooper, she wears his coat after his departure, and for the entirety of the film's final act.

Now here's the real kicker. The actual "theory", if you will.

BOTH Tom and Murphy are needed to save humanity.

Sure Murphy has to solve Brand's equation using the data relayed to her by her father, and yes she will receive the credit for doing so, but consider also how Tom's actions may have changed the course of the story.

If Murphy had things her way, there would be no more farm. She would have left the house and the crops and let the place burn and die like so many other farms before and after Cooper's departure. Tom's refusal to leave, Tom's devotion to his family and his unwillingness to let his father go (though he hides this unwillingness beyond a certain point) are what preserved that property. Had Tom not been around to keep things the way they always were, when it came time for Murphy to return to her room (which is left untouched) and finally come to the realization that her father has been her ghost all along, there would be no room to return to. The house would have been ransacked or demolished if not already sold away by a bitter Murphy, who repeatedly admits throughout the film that she wants nothing to do with the farm or her father. Not to mention her only reason for returning to the farm is actually to VISIT Tom, and it is this visit that leads to Murphy returning to her old bedroom and uncovering old secrets. She would never have returned had it not been for her brother.

Tom and Murphy are the two pieces of one ultimate key, and the combination of the two children (Cooper, the father) could arguably be considered the true savior, seeing as how he is the mortal given the power by the extra-dimensional beings to perceive time in a 3rd dimensional space.

Ok, that was a lot. Now, on to the next one.

THE FALL OF MANN

Dr. Mann's involvement in the final act of the film's story, and his ultimate motivation are both highly contested, even to this day, by those who still give a shit that is. And although I've heard a lot of great ideas tossed around in relation to the meaning behind his character, this is my condensed explanation of what he actually symbolizes, based solely on how I have interpreted the evidence provided by director Christopher Nolan.

Mann represents the truth we all look for in our constant search to find out where humanity is actually heading, and what we will look like when we get there. Throughout history, people have continually demonstrated a curiosity as to what humankind will be or appear to be at our peak. We are always looking to the future, with questions about ourselves, assuming that the beings we find there, in the future, will be vastly different from who we are in the present. Dr. Mann represents our peak as a race; as Dr. Amelia Brand puts it quite eloquently, he represents "the best of us."

Which is why it came as such a shock when this man that we all expected to be above average human urges and instincts turns out to be a coward, driven by his fear of death and his will to survive. Mann explains to Cooper in the moments before he attempts to kill him that human nature dictates that in the seconds before death the human mind will always push a little bit harder in order to survive. In defense of Professor Brand's lie (Amelia Brand's father told all those involved in the mission that they could save themselves and their loved ones) Mann also explains to the crew of the Endurance that humans are driven by selfish desires to protect themselves and those they care about. "...empathy rarely ever extends past that line of sight", he elaborates, stating that the only way to inspire cooperation on the mission would be to lie to the participants to convince them they were in some way servicing themselves or their families. This is best evidenced not just by Mann's actions, but by the actions of Cooper and Amelia as well.

Cooper and Amelia, and their respective motivations, actually serve to  prove Mann's point. Cooper is fighting for his children, and Amelia is fighting to reach Dr. Edmunds, a physicist she fell in love with who is stranded on a distant planet. Both Cooper and Amelia, though quick to judge Dr.Mann for his selfish acts, are actually prime examples of exactly what he's talking about, and this is even FURTHER evidenced by the fact that the only two members of the crew who were really participating solely for selfless reasons actually ended up dead. Both Doyle and Romilly, scientists joining Cooper and Amelia on their expedition, were only participating with the goal of saving others as opposed to themselves, and as a result, they both end up dead, failing to exemplify Mann's point about self-service and survival, and thus failing to survive. In dying the way they both do, Nolan actually represents to us visually the cost of bypassing our own senses of self-preservation.

The silver lining in all this is the fact that in the end, Cooper actually does overcome and TRANSCEND what Mann describes as a truth that humans cannot escape. Despite his desire to see his kids, and despite his desire to save himself, Cooper opts to eject from the Endurance as it passes over a black hole in order to give Amelia a chance at surviving AND seeing Edmunds. By making a sacrifice that he expected would mean the end of his life, Cooper proved Mann wrong, and in moving past his instincts and wants, was elevated to a higher plane of existence by fifth dimensional beings. Beings believed to be evolved past the point of being human, and in the moment Cooper manages to perform a truly selfless act and save another person, out of love, he is shown something no human before him had ever seen, and he is seated at the center of a power that Dr. Mann couldn't have ever dreamed of experiencing. Because Dr. Mann's fears prohibited him from ever doing so.

It's hard to sum up my thoughts on both of these points in words, but the fact that I can say that watching this film inspired every word that you just read speaks volumes as to the significance Interstellar truly has as a piece of art and a piece of history. I've always maintained that we have the movie to thank for the discussion  it inspired, whether you loved it or hated it. We all had something to say when this movie came out, and here I am over a year later, still with more words than I can really put to paper.

Thanks for reading, stay classy my friends.

Icky Jump

Here we GOOOOOOOOO

So today I sat down and watched Doug Liman's Jumper, and I have some shit to say. I have upwards of 6 pages of notes on this mess of a movie so this should be good.

Let's begin with a brief summary. David Rice is a shy, meager teen with a crush on his childhood friend, Millie Harris. One day, after walking out onto thin ice to retrieve a snow globe for Millie, David nearly drowns and discovers he has the ability to teleport at will to any location he desires. Little does he know that Roland, portrayed adequately by the esteemed Samuel L Jackson, and his team of religious fanatics known as the "Paladins" (a cult-y group of Templar-esque agents) is bent on ridding the world of these teleporters, referred to as Jumpers. 

In a lot of ways this movie reminded of the 2009 film Push, starring Chris Evans. Or rather Push reminds me of Jumper because Jumper came out in 2008. The point is the two films share a number of similarities, and I felt similarly intrigued by the premises both films set up in their opening moments. Both films also turned out to be pretty fucking horrid. I remember Push being slightly better, but I'd have to give it another watch to decide that, and I might just do that soon.

Let's knock the positives out of the way first, because those are simplest and especially easy to notice considering they are laid against this shit brown backdrop of a motion picture. As I said earlier, the premise is interesting enough, although that is probably owed to Steven Gould, the author of the book on which the film is based. Additionally, the locations are varied and interesting visually, and the special effects aren't always terrible. The performances of Michael Rooker and Jamie Bell are easily highlights and deserve to be singled out for praise. In other words, I commend them for trying even when their scene partners didn't. Some of the action set pieces are well conceived, and one fight in particular near the end of the film featuring Jamie Bell's Griffin character and Sam Jackson's Roland is rather entertaining and at times suspenseful.

Ok, now for the fun part.

This movie is horse shit for a number of reasons, and I'd be more than happy to list them here. Let's start with bigger stuff, plot details, effects, acting, things that are painfully obvious upon a first viewing. I'll address my nitpicks afterwards. 

First thing is first, Hayden Christensen, Samuel L Jackson, and Diane Lane are completely phoning it in. And I mean COMPLETELY. As if his character's villainous motivations weren't underdeveloped enough already, Jackson has no conviction in his delivery, you don't feel at any point like this is a man devoted to a cause no matter how evil that cause may seem. The best villains are the ones that force you, the viewer, to concede on certain subjects of morality. The villains that make you question right and wrong, the villains who "have a point". Think Darth Vader, Wilson Fisk, Loki, Bane, The Joker, all villainous in their own rights, but each of those bad guys has some dimension to their character that urges the audience to see them as being real people, and for that reason, we find ourselves considering their points of view and in some cases agreeing with some or most of what they have to say. Roland is not one of those characters. 

Rachel Bilson as Millie Harris, the love interest. I identify her as such because she serves no other purpose in the story. She is weak, impressionable and above all, really really stupid. Granted, most of the people that populate this Jumper universe are pretty fucking dumb, but she's getting singled out here because she's a main character with a name and therefore easier to criticize. 

Consider this, if you will: David Rice falls through the ice in the beginning of the film and teleports away before he can be saved. He escapes his hometown without explaining his disappearance to anyone, leaving the residents of the town to presume that he's dead. Eight years later, David returns to his hometown, finds Millie (who reacts only as though she is seeing an old classmate after a few years) and promptly agrees to go to Rome with David after he tells her how rich he is. 10 hours later the two are in Rome banging away, AS THOUGH THIS WOMAN DIDN'T BELIEVE FOR EIGHT YEARS THAT SHE HAD WITNESSED HER CHILDHOOD FRIEND DROWN WHILE HE WAS TRYING TO GET HER A SNOW GLOBE. Think about that shit. We know David has been presumed dead for all those years because when he shows up at Millie's mom's house, her mother expresses very obvious shock at the realization that David is fucking alive. Yet, somehow, her daughter didn't seem to get the memo. 

Also I think it's worth mentioning that Annasophia Robb's performance as the young Millie and Rachel Bilson's performance as the adult Millie are entirely different characters. In that eight years, somehow, the character of Millie changes demeanor, changes her outlook, loses any sense of independence or wit, and changes faces because Robb and Bilson don't even kind of look alike. 

The rules of the Jumping mechanic are inconsistent, and/or explained so poorly I simply couldn't tell if they were changing every five seconds on purpose. Do you need pictures in order to teleport OR can you just use a mental image of the location? And how does the ability to picture the location inform your knowledge of where it is geographically? Also why are Paldins a threat at all, considering the fact that no Jumper technically HAS to fight them? As a Jumper, your superpower is literally the ability to ESCAPE SHIT. If you are ambushed by Paladins, or better yet, if a random sketchy dude with white hair and a turtle neck is waiting in your apartment for you when you get home, just jump the fuck away first and ask questions later. Sure, maybe David never considered that there existed people in the world capable of hurting him, and therefore did not expect Roland to attack, but I find it highly unlikely that a Jumper of above average intelligence would carry on a conversation with a dude as sketchy as Roland, especially considering that he has admitted he isn't a cop AND that he knows about your ability to jump, which are both things Roland says before making any attempt to attack David in that scene.   

The special effects are all over the goddamn map. One second, actors are standing in a real location or on a real set, and the next minute, they are inexplicably in front of a horribly obvious green screen. THIS SHIT CHANGES BETWEEN TAKES, TOO. In the same scene, actors will go from talking in the ruins of a Roman coliseum, to talking on a sound stage in the middle of WhoFuckingKnowsAScotia. I get that this is more than likely due to re-shoots, but for me personally, that's never been an excuse for inconsistent effects and choppy editing. 

Ok, here are some brief nitpicks, and to be honest, these aren't even reaches, these are pretty legitimate gripes.

David jumps constantly in plain view of civilians. As a teenager in the film's first few scenes, he actually practices using the skill in a public park. That, to me, is just plain negligent, especially for a character who has expressed a desire to keep his jumping secret considering it could link him to SEVERAL bank heists he has pulled off using the trick. If people had any sort of evidence that a human person was teleporting (which they should, considering the places this guys decides to jump) that shit would be all over every news outlet around. People would lose their goddamn minds.

And that brings me to my next nitpick. In the film's first moments, we a re introduced to a teenage David; a quiet, shy, sensitive kid with issues regarding his father and a crush on a girl he's known since he was a kid. This same teenager, only  a few days after running away from home, starts using his jumping ability (which he mastered in a strangely short amount of time) to rob banks and shit. Now up to this point we were given no indication that David may be capable of doing such a thing, but here he is, A DAY OR TWO after leaving home, and he is stealing millions in cash from banks all over New York City. Not only that, but as he grows older he extends his thievery to all sorts of items, and acquires enough in liquid assets to somehow secure a penthouse apartment in Manhattan, without raising any suspicion. Forget the fact that anyone that young paying for such an apartment with cash would immediately be suspected of doing something shady as fuck, and set aside the gaping hole in this film's plot that is this young man's mastery of economics and fraud without even completing his high school education, let's just look at the probability of a kid like David resorting to such exorbitant robbery so soon. Sure, he desperately needs money at that point in the story, and sure, we would all be tempted to start stealing shit were we to have these powers, but to steal MILLIONS? That's a crime, like a big one, and I have to believe that David understood that, and would probably have started a little smaller before perhaps escalating his operations to the bank robbing level of thievery.

Another David nitpick. Early in the film, and adult David turns on the news and sees a story about victims of a terrible tropical storm that cannot be rescued due to the immense challenge reaching them would pose. David watches this news story, scoffs, then goes off gallivanting around the world, ending his excursion on a surfing trip to Fiji where he, get this, SURFS ON WAVES CAUSED BY THE TROPICAL STORM. Look, if David is being set up to be the carefree Tony Stark type that eventually learns the importance of accountability and decides to use his powers for good, that's cool. But there is a fine line between carefree and sociopath. Like holy shit, what a weirdly heartless thing for your main character to do. Not to mention nothing happens over the course of the story to convince him to actually change and be more heroic, aside from his girlfriend of ten hours telling him that she's kind of creeped out by him and wants to be left alone. Only then, only when this girl he honestly doesn't know that well rejects him does he realize he should take responsibility to protect her from the Paladin threat.

Yeah Millie does some stupid shit. Not only does she go to Rome with David, a boy she assumed was dead for eight years, within twenty minutes of seeing him fro the first time in those eight years, but she also goes along with him when he decides to access the Roman coliseum illegally. Yeah he breaks in and she's totally cool with it, and even joins him. She also refuses to leave his side when he is arrested for that very same act, and gets arrested herself. She only agrees to go home when David pulls that "We can't be together" superhero bullshit. Goddamn it this movie is bad.

Kristen Stewart is in this movie for like thirty seconds at the very end and if I'm being honest, she was a welcome surprise. She wasn't good or anything, I was just so surprised to see her I fucking cackled and it was the most enjoyment the film actually delivered. 

I don't know, man. It's bad. Sort of in a good way though. You can throw it on and roast it with friends, or alone like me, and it's good for that purpose. 

I know what you're thinking.

"Malama, this movie is now seven years old. Nobody gives a fuck anymore. Anyone that wanted to see this movie already has. Why review it?"

Well I'll tell you why.

I was bored, and it was there.

And that is honestly the best way I can describe this fucking pablum.

Thanks for reading. 

Once Upon a Time in The Western

The Old West was pretty fucking terrible, guys. It was cold, or hot, depending on the season or the time of day. There were diseases everywhere, and wild animals, like snakes and coyotes and shit. Oh, and everybody was racist. Like, SO MANY PEOPLE. Just an astronomical amount of racism. 

But hey, westerns are fun, right? Well, they certainly used to be, back when they made money. Now I know what you're thinking, "Quentin Tarantino  makes westerns all the time! People love them, too!" Sure, they certainly do. But consider this. What if, when people pay to see Tarantino's latest foray into the fucked frontier, they aren't actually paying to see a western? What if they're paying to see a Tarantino film? 

If I told you Christopher Nolan was directing a western film, the vast majority of you would be leaping at the chance to see it. And you bet your ass I would be too, in fact I just got really excited at that prospect. A Nolan western??? Take all of my money, obviously. But why are we reacting that way? Our initial excitement at that statement is not indicative of anything other than the fact that we really like Christopher Nolan. That's it. To sell a western, independent of any other source of hype or credibility, is no easy task in this day and age, and I can't help but wonder why. Why has that particular genre fallen so far out of favor? What killed the western?

Westerns are fun, people! REALLY fun. Sergio Leone's Dollar Trilogy is my shit! I adore those movies, and so did most human beings alive at the time of their release. Just watch them again and you'll see why. The wild west we see in those films is vast and dangerous, the perfect backdrop for the story of our hero, a classic, stoic bad ass, intent on making it out of his ordeal alive, and maybe with a little more gold than he had when he started. People ate that shit up, westerns were the 20th century equivalent of YA adaptations, movie goers couldn't get enough of them, and studios had no problem pumping them out. The entries in that genre supported this fantastical view we seemed to have of our country, or what we thought our country was at the time those films take place, and for that reason, we couldn't get enough of them. 

Now earlier I'm sure you felt a little iffy about me comparing westerns to modern YA novel adaptations, but the more I think about it, the more apt that comparison becomes, so I'm going to roll with that for a hot sec.

I don't know about you, but for me personally, even when watching the YA films I hate, which is all of them, I still get a certain feeling in my tummy that I can't quite escape. I picture myself in the shoes of the hero, who, despite their more than likely grim situation, seems to have their entire life together. They have a devoted love interest, loyal sidekicks, wise and bad ass mentors, and above all, they really fucking matter. The fate of the world always seem to depend on these main characters, and as shitty as most of their movies are, I can't help but feel some deep down dumb wish in my heart being vicariously fulfilled when I see them. This, I have decided, has to be by design. It's just too perfect, and I refuse to believe that I'm the only person that feels that way when I watch those stories play out. The producers of those films know what game they're playing and they know that as long as they continue adapting those types of novels (which sell well for the same reason) people my age and younger will continue watching. Now, fortunately, I feel this trend will die out entirely, or at the very least lose any and all profitability at some point in the near future, much like westerns already have. 

I can only speak for myself and the millions of Americans who no doubt felt or feel the same way, but when I watch a western, I feel like I'm seeing one of my fantasies play out on screen. A wicked cool gunslinger, riding around on a horse and shooting bad guys with complete and total emotional detachment from the murders he commits, a hero who always seems to save the girl (sorry but westerns aren't the most progressive of movies) and beat the bad guys. That shit is so cool in a really simple, subconscious kind of way. And it just so happens that the genres and styles we see thriving now reflect the notions modern viewers want to see reinforced. 

Now, the argument could be made that superhero movies are actually the modern western, and that our market is being saturated with them, and we are continuing to pay to see them simply because they offer us escape into a world we wished we could be a part of. And you might be right about that. I have no counter argument, you could be entirely correct To be honest we really won't know until years have passed, and we can look back on this time in cinema and really discern what the fuck we were all thinking. 

Here's the conclusion I've chosen to come to for now. Fads in film are like fads in fashion. They change not only over the course of lives, but also with passing generations. We wear shit our parents never would, and our parents wear things they never would when they were kids. Tastes change because tastes are dependent on the people that have them, and people change. All the time, as it turns out. So, what killed the western? 

We did.

And that's ok. Because the wild west was pretty shitty anyways. Did you know that like everybody was racist? SO MANY PEOPLE.

Ok that's all for this one. As always, thanks for reading. 

From Here to Equality

What does it mean to be a "strong female character"? I'm sure you've heard the phrase, and I'm sure you have some opinion on seeing one or more of them in the movies you watch. So really think about it for a second. I'm not just calling on the misogynists of the world to reexamine the way they define the modern movie woman. I'm posing this question to everyone. Those of us who ask insistently for more strong women in film, those of us who complain there are too many, literally anyone, answer this one if you can. What does that word imply? "Strong"?

Do you mean physically strong? A Wonder Woman type perhaps. A woman capable of feats of strength impressive enough to rival those of the muscle-bound men of the film? A woman who refuses to be made the damsel in distress of the story?

What about emotionally? A woman who doesn't break down crying at the first sign of trouble. A woman who doesn't scream like a mad person or faint when her host reveals that the main course of the night will be monkey brain. Top marks if you feel me on that reference.

Or do we just mean strong in terms of quality? Think about what it means to say someone is a strong writer, or a strong actor. Strong, in many contexts, can just mean good, or of a high caliber. Maybe we just want our female characters to be better CHARACTERS.

Believe me, I'm not doing that thing where I ask you a question with the intention of seeming all cool and knowledgeable when it turns out I knew the answer all along. I'm asking this question because I really do want an answer, and I suspect there may be multiple correct ones.

I could get into a whole thing about representation in movies, whether it be increasing the number of races, gender identities, sexual orientations, religious beliefs, etc., that we see on screen. Trust me, I really want to get into all that here, and in future pieces I probably will, but for now, let's stick with women. Specifically, female movie characters.

I was pretty fortunate growing up. That is to say, the people I surrounded myself with as far as friends and family go were generally, how you say, not total dick licks. There was an understanding among us that girls and women were our equals, and when that wasn't reflected in the movies or shows we watched, that was addressed by the adults in our lives. All that considered, feminism wasn't something I concerned myself with until I started high school, and it just so happened that the majority of my beliefs aligned pretty closely with the feminist codex, which states quite clearly on its first pages:

"Be not a prick, for women are human, no matter how strange having babies may seem, or how many seasons of Blue Mountain State you have watched."

It's all in there. You know, in the feminist codex.

Until that point in my life, the term "feminism" was never really something I heard spoken, but once I became more involved in the good fight for a less shitty world, I naturally started to look at how perhaps film (which, in case you couldn't tell by now, is totally my jam) may be failing in the realm of promoting equal treatment. And over the years I've formulated this theory/opinion when it comes to this particular issue.

yeah "STRONG FEMALE CHARACTERS" is a bullshit phrase.

Let me explain.

Let's say you're writing a movie, your first to be exact, and you have a whole cast of characters all outlined. The vanilla male teen hero, the goofy comic relief sidekick, also male, the stoic villain, bent on world domination (yes your movie is filled with cliches but this is a hypothetical so calm yourself), and of course the strong female. She'll probably fight something at some point, maybe tell off our main hero to let the audience know she don't take nobody's shit. I mean that's equality, right? An attitude, a callousness, a disrespect for most property and any person with a penis, and a penchant for blowing shit up. No, that is not just a stereotypical male action hero sex-swapped in the hopes of subverting old cinema tropes, it is equal treatment.

right?

Right?

RIGHT???

AM I A FEMINIST YET????

Listen, the problem is in the pudding on this one. The second you singled out the female character as the one to make strong, you demonstrated a fundamental issue with the way filmmakers view women in film. Keep something in mind, I'm not saying we shouldn't take special care to make sure women are represented properly. There is an argument made, and it's the same argument you'll see against affirmative action; that argument being that the best path to equality is pretending that women are treated no differently, and that there are no past misgivings to undo. "Just treat em like one of the boys! Like there's no difference!" But...I mean...no. You know?

You MUST keep in mind that for hundreds and thousands of years, women have been treated like second class citizens, and for that reason, special care must be taken to ensure that we fix that shit. Yes that may entail sometimes treating women better than men if that's how you feel like thinking about it, but if any man tries to tell you it's sexist for women to get the right to congregate in clubs when males aren't allowed to do the same, tell them to check their privilege at the fucking door, because that's a crock of shit. Men have SO MANY "NO GIRLS ALLOWED CLUBS" AND STILL HAVE THE GALL TO CLAIM THEY NEED MORE??? GODDAMN IT THIS KIND OF SHIT IS SO ANNOYIKJEKFBOWAJRNBJAEBF

Ok I've made that point.

ALL that being said, to single out your female character (who is more than likely the ONLY character you intend to make "strong"...or female) and to decide you will use her as your strong woman is inherently lazy and a little sexist. Listen, anyone can take the classic male action hero archetype and slap a different skin on it, that's not a challenge and that isn't actual progress. That is a fighting game style palette swap disguised as making waves in the fight for promoting feminist ideals. And that shit is as lazy as a wandering eye.

In this day and age, where we are bogged down by SO many negative stereotypes regarding women, writing a decent female character, with complexity and layers and a real motivation that doesn't involve making sweet sweet love to your male lead, takes a lot of time and care, and that time and effort is not being put in when you attempt to silence the activists of the world with female characters that occasionally hit things.

A strong woman doesn't have to be a physical match for every man in your story, and she doesn't have to be a rebellious asshole either (not that all rebels are assholes, that's not what I'm saying, don't turn this on me, I'm a black feminist, I'm literally infallible). I don't demand that every woman I see onscreen be a fucking commando. In life there are weak women, scared women, mean women, brave women, damaged women, just like there are men who fall into all of those categories as well. I demand to see REAL women, and the way you provide that is by stepping outside of your own potential biases and recognizing that if you are a man trying to construct a convincing female character, you are writing from a place of significant privilege.

George Miller took the world by surprise in May of 2015 when he introduced the character of Furiosa to audiences in what might be the first perfect movie we've seen in decades, Mad Max: Fury Road. And although Miller deserves A LOT of credit for taking the time to develop such a complex woman for his movie, he did feel the need to bring in a woman and writer who specialized in feminist literature and history in order to read his script and make sure he had realized Furiosa the way he wanted men and women alike to see her. I MEAN THE FUCKING HUMILITY AND UNDERSTANDING IT MUST TAKE FOR A DIRECTOR TO DO THAT IS JUST STRAIGHT ADMIRABLE, MANE. I salute that kind of shit.

Writing women is hard, harder than writing men. Why? Because your audience is composed of members of what is ultimately and unfortunately a patriarchy, and to get them to not only sympathize, but empathize with a REAL woman is so goddamn difficult. Especially when you, a human person, are writing that movie, and that's because you are a part of the same patriarchy.

I am not saying that a strong woman can't exits in a movie, I AM saying that by labelling your female character strong and doing nothing to flesh out her character beyond that trope you are taking the coward's way out of doing actual writing.

Y'all know Ripley, right? Like, the one with them aliens and shit. Yeahhhhh her.

She's great.

Because SHE'S GOT MORE THAN ONE DIMENSION TO HER PERSONALITY, AND SHE ACTUALLY GROWS OVER THE COURSE OF THE ALIENS FRANCHISE.

Sure her arc comes to a weird end in the third film, and beyond that I don't even want to discuss what her character becomes, but in the first two films she is fascinating to watch because she is scared, and she is out of her element. She is fighting alien creatures on a space ship, alone. Of course she's not going to kick down the door with a shotgun in each hand, chomping on a cigar all like "IT'S XENOMORPH SEASON", because real people would never react to a situation like that in that way. When she's scared, you're scared because you're not certain she'll survive, BECAUSE SHE'S NOT CERTAIN SHE'LL SURVIVE AND THAT IS GOOD WRITING LOOK I'M A MAN AND I'M EMPATHIZING WITH A WOMAN SOMEONE DID THEIR JOB WOOT.

I probably come across like a pretentious douche when I write these.

Look I don't think I know better than anybody.

Unless you're bigoted in any way, or prejudiced towards any number of people. In that case yes I think I know better than you, and I know a lot of people that do too.

I'm just trying to be an ally to a cause, and I am trying to illustrate my frustration with a certain phenomenon. That's all.

I don't want you to feel bad for liking any characters that may fall into the category of "strong for the sake of being strong", I just hope that from now on you can look at those characters through a  different lens. Here's a list of a few movies you should watch if you haven't already if you want to see the kind of female characterization work we need more of:

Kill Bill (both volumes)
Inglorious Basterds (look out for Shoshana)
Star Wars: The Force Awakens (look out for Rey and also all of the other cool shit in this movie)
Ex Machina (like she's an android but still counts)
Frances Ha (see my Ben-Ha piece, which you can find on the blog that you're currently reading)
Her (masterpiece)
500 Days of Summer (look out for my analysis of this work of art, coming soon)
Tangled (better than Frozen, dude)
Toy Story 2 (Jessie! You know, like the toy but also the meth dealer)
Mad Max: Fury Road
Guardians of the Galaxy
Pulp Fiction
The One I Love


OH ALSO SOME TV SHOWS:

Luther
Community
Game of Thrones
Psych
Parks and Recreation
30 Rock
True Detective
Avatar: The Last Airbender
Justice League
Justice League: Unlimited

I hope I've made my point clear, and I hope I didn't scribble this shit so incompetently that no one can follow it. My apologies if I did. I just want you guys to know that I love movies, and like anyone who loves anything, I think there are ways to improve upon what's already there. Although I also love chocolate chip cookies, and those are pretty perfect. Bake em for like two minutes under the recommended time so they're still doughy when they come out. Damn. That's a good cookie...

Mmmmmm

Ok goodnight thanks for reading.

Ben-Ha

Frances Ha was co-written by director Noah Baumbach and actress Greta Gerwig, and stars Gerwig as a lively and somewhat socially inept single dancer trying to survive in New York City. Doesn't that just sound like the cutest little romantic comedy?

YEAH WELL YOU'RE WRONG SO SIT DOWN

Frances Ha is about the absurdity of conformity, and the lengths the individual will go to in order to fit in. Frances Ha is about the silly little moments that make us feel stupid, and embarrassed, and weird, and how those moments are what make up our lives. Frances Ha is about Frances Halladay, a uniquely spirited woman, who refuses to accept the notion that life is supposed to be sad and tedious.

This movie is somewhere around and hour and twenty-five minutes long, and it's worth every bit of time it'll take to watch. I didn't expect to feel the way I felt when the film was over. I was uplifted, I was optimistic, I was excited for the future, no matter what it would hold for me. I felt like for anyone who truly cares about me, for anyone who considers me a friend, that simply being me was enough.

People try so goddamn hard. Me included. Me especially if I'm being honest. The expectations we feel to be certain things shape our behaviors in such extreme ways, some people reach the ends of their lives feeling as though they were never allowed to be themselves, and that is a tragic thing. Frances Ha is about the importance of embracing the little things that make you yourself, and that's why I think it's so important. Important enough to rave about here, anyways.

I can't tell you how many times I've seen the classic single millennial living in New York who can never seem to catch a break. It is a story I've seen told many a time. Frances Ha is not that story. Sure, the character of Frances encounters a near constant barrage of personal hardships, and yes the movie deals with a lot of that. But the character of Frances is so positive, so resilient, and so real, you never for a second feel as though you're being preached to. This isn't that kind of uplifting tale.

As intelligent as this film is, it never talks down to its audience. It talks TO it's audience. Frances is no more talented or intelligent than any person watching this movie. She is just trying to live, and furthermore, she is trying live free of the burden of caring what other people think of her. And that's a struggle I think we can call put ourselves into a bit.

She feels like a character, for sure, and I don't mean that as a negative. Yes the dialogue is incredibly naturalistic, and yes Frances and her friends feel like people that could and probably do exist, but at the same time, Frances is memorable because she can be quoted, and her demeanor can be cited and recognized. She has such a unique personality, and her outlook is so strange and admirable, she feels like she could be a real figure of modern pop culture. Jules Winnfield, T.E Lawrence (yeah I know he was a real guy), Norman Bates, Tyler Durden, Buffalo Bill, these are characters. These are people who will stand the test of time because they exude notability. They are easy to remember. I think Frances shares that quality, or would if more people knew about her.

It's not for EVERYONE, but no movie is. This film knows the kind of audience it will attract, and rather than rehashing or recycling ideas from other more popular indie ventures, it delivers an experience unique enough to bring out the hopeless idealist in even the most jaded of hipsters.

Gerwig's performance is phenomenal, she injects a vitality into the character that I'm convinced not many other actresses could, and I have to believe that is in part owed to her co-writing of the script. Adam Driver plays a supporting role, and as always he's fantastic to watch. Mickey Summer, who plays the best friend and occasional reality checker to Frances' naive, Skywalker-ish protagonist, is quite amazing. Her character is the kind of friend who often finds herself playing the adult in the relationship, even when she doesn't want to. Grace Gummer brings a sharp wit and harsh quality to her character, who is hard to pin down as either friend or foe to Frances. And Baumbach's direction is sensitive and subtle, even when the camera is forced to keep up with the bouncy joy of the film's lead.

I'm writing about this movie because I want people to know it exists, and I realize most don't. It's on Netflix and it is so so short, I implore you to give it a try. I'd have to look back at the competition, but in my mind it's probably the best soundtrack of 2012, by the way.

I don't care what mood you're in, if you're happy, seeing Frances dance about like the free spirit that she is will only reaffirm you in your happiness, and if you're unhappy, you won't be for long, because it's impossible when watching this movie.

Watch it, tell your friends about it, and make sure to check out more of Baumbach's work, as well as Gerwig's.

Thanks for reading. Stay classy, my friends.

There's Something About Scary

I've always appreciated horror as a genre. To me, there will always be something satisfying about watching a well-executed scare go down on screen. Tension building is a remarkably difficult and frustrating thing to achieve in writing, so believe me when I say those truly terrifying films, the ones we all agree are scary, are to be appreciated. 

FUCK MAINSTREAM HORROR.

It is a mess, it is an abomination, it is complete and total trash. Notice I'm not talking about modern mainstream horror necessarily, since the dawn of time, shitty scary movies have existed. Sure a lot of them had fun, campy, B movie sensibilities, and some of those movies I can find enjoyment in. People seem to have convinced themselves that pumping out a garbage horror movie on a low budget in order to make a profit is a new phenomenon. Producers of film have been milking franchises for as long as franchises have been a thing, and horror franchises are no exception. You know what movies I'm talking about, Ouija, The Gallows, Paranormal Activity, Unfriended, The Lazarus Effect, As Above So Below, and these are just some of the films to be released in recent years. All made for next to nothing and released to the masses to serve as the white noise to awkward middle school first dates everywhere. 

A movie doesn't have to be scary to startle you. Startling somebody is like sucker punching them, all that is required is for the person you plan to scare/punch to have no idea what's coming. And like a punch, it will happen, and it will be over the second after it does. Think the random bird trapped in the closet that flies out when the unsuspecting character opens the door, or the asshole friend who jumps out from behind a wall to frighten the protagonist, these are moments you've seen before and they're ALL BULLSHIT. Because that isn't tension. That shit isn't carefully constructed, or sustained, it is written into the film to convince you that you are being scared by preying on your inborn physiological fight or flight response. 

Look at a movie like Insidious, a movie I really enjoyed. The movie's scares aren't one offs. When Rose Byrne hears footsteps, or creaking upstairs, it's not because Patrick Wilson is pulling a fucking prank. It's because there is actually something to be afraid of present in her home, and we all understand that. THAT is scary. Because the stakes are real, the danger exists, it's not a trick. 

Now look at a movie like Texas Chainsaw Massacre 3D...Or don't because it's really quite awful.

Mainstream horror is extremely lucrative. You drop $15 million max on a 90 minute movie, release it wide, market the crap out of it, and you end up with a relatively high return. I see why it's done, and I understand that the incentive to put any effort in at all is almost non-existent. And that is why I respect directors like James Wan so much.

James Wan loves horror movies. You can tell he does, without ever watching an interview with the man because you can see it in his work. I've never seen a film of his I didn't think was scary in some respect, and that is a very rare thing nowadays. The Conjuring isn't the scariest movie of all time, even if certain people will tell you that it is, but it is leagues ahead of any cheap cash-grab you'll find littering your theaters around Halloween time. Wan puts a painstaking amount of work into every frame, he works for the scares he delivers, and it is so apparent, even subconsciously to viewers who don't necessarily analyze every shot. Insidious is an incredible scary movie, and on top of delivering his own intriguing and tension filled story, Wan even finds ways to pay homage to the films that truly inspire him, like Poltergeist, a movie he clearly drew from heavily. IT'S SO NICE TO SEE SOMEONE WHO GIVES A HOOT.

And even if the mainstream movie market is saturated with unscary nonsense, the indie circuit is teaming with enough horror options to keep you scared for weeks on end. Movies like Goodnight Mommy, It Follows, The Babadook, and even films like The Guest, which isn't necessarily scary, but still takes largely from those classic 80's slasher flicks we love to hate (WATCH THE GUEST IT IS SO GOOD), are being produced and released more frequently. And that is really good to see.

Look, terrible scary movies are never going away. That's just how it works. However if we continue to encourage filmmakers to really put work into their scares, maybe we can balance out the market a little bit, as opposed to having shit horror flicks outnumber the good ones a hundred to one. 

I'm obviously not out and about in Hollywood making these movies, but I do like to think that if given the chance, I could generate scares. And here's how I think I'd do it.

MALAMA'S RECIPE FOR A SCARY MOVIE MOMENT

Ingredients:

Steadicam

Dolly

A Good Score

Capable Actor or Actress

Lighting Equipment of the "Good" Variety

Cinematographer That Cares

Director That Also Cares

Sound Equipment, Preferably Not Shit

Good Script

HERE WE GO

Let's use the classic empty house, young girl home alone trope. 

Establish that the girl is at ease, sitting on her couch perhaps, comfortable, under blankets. Maintain a slow and steady movement with every shot, pushes in and zooms out, careful and subtle. The music here is soft, if at all present. Not scary, not yet, and barely noticeable. If a phone rings, if a floorboard creaks, if a rock hits the window, cut to a reaction and hold the shot BEFORE cutting to the sound's origin. Linger on the face, let us guess what our actress is looking at. 

Now we hear the sounds are coming from inside the house. Our actress rises and investigates. She walks cautiously,and here we utilize longer takes, for the longer a shot lasts, the more we feel obligated to scan the frame. A longer take implies that we're missing something, and we are expected to find it. Here the score starts to change, the orchestrations sound more like noises than music. Still quiet, but constant.

Slow and steady wins the race when it comes to these moments, but if your actress walks too slowly, we'll lose interest. Think about how a scared person acts. Reluctant, sure, but also on edge, ready to run, "jumpy" so to speak. 

Our actress turns corners, the halls are dark, filled with a hazy, dim, blue light that seems to blink and flutter, emanated by the TV. The more practical lighting you do, the more real the situation will feel. The music starts to swell.

We come up on the door, from behind which the sound seems to be coming. She walks towards it, preparing herself mentally for whatever she might come across, perhaps convincing herself that she has nothing to worry about. Here we start to cut more frequently, but not jarringly so. The camera work becomes less steady, less secure. She extends a hand, ready to open the door.

The door handle jiggles by itself.

She recoils, moving her hand away. 

The door opens, ever so slightly. At first just a crack. The hinges creak as it swings.

Slowly it swings outwards, then stops.

She begins backing up, facing the door as she retreats. 

IT SWINGS OPEN COMPLETELY

WITH A LOUD BANG IT HITS THE WALL

THE MUSIC SWELLS TO A SUDDEN STOP, AND ALL SOUND CUTS OUT

HORRIFIED SHE STARES INTO THE VOID, THE EMPTY BLACK OF THE ROOM

WE LINGER ON HER FACE UNTIL FINALLY, HER EYES WIDEN

SHE SCREAMS AT THE TOP OF HER LUNGS

Cut to black.

Thanks for reading. 

The Anticipated Mr. Ripley

Ok back to business as usual. There's a whole bunch of shit coming out really really soon and I feel compelled to talk about it, so here we go. These are my top ten most anticipated movies of 2016.

10. X Men: Apocalypse

What's not to get excited for? This is going to be some crazy shit, and I cannot wait to see James McAvoy go full Stewart. We have not seen a lot of Fassbender's Magneto now that I think about it, from what I've seen he's definitely taking the backseat in the Villain Van while Oscar Isaac lets loose a little ancient mutant magic, but I'm sure we'll get come great moments between him and McAvoy's Xavier, like we always do.

9. Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice

The latest trailer did not end on a great note, but I think we can still expect some great visual spectacle and a lot of ass kickery when it comes time for our titular heroes to battle it out. My biggest concern at this point is really with focus. Can Snyder keep the spotlight on the battle we're all itching to see, as opposed to spending two thirds of the run time setting up future installments? We shall see.

8. Captain America: Civil War

I'm just a little bit more excited for this one. I mean, my boy Panther is getting his onscreen debut. Not only that, but they're bringing back SPIDER-MAN. Sure this is the second reboot we're getting of the character, third if you count that terrible 1970's TV Spider-Man movie you've never heard of. But we don't count that one. Because that'd be pretty fucking stupid, wouldn't it?

7. The Magnificent Seven

If this movie sucks, I will be very upset. Inconsolably so. It is being co-written by the guy who created True Detective, directed by the guy who directed Training Day, and it has one of the best casts this side of Ocean's Eleven. Look up all the details, it should be one hell of a time.

6. Hail! Caesar

The Coen brothers are back and I couldn't be more excited. Like seriously. Another stellar cast, another amazing creative team, and what looks to be a very intriguing premise. I'm hype. Too hype maybe, but hype nonetheless.

5. Triple 9

Did you see the trailer for this? Good golly this looks like the craziest cop drama we will see for a while. I'm ready for gritty visuals, scary characters, and thrilling action set pieces, as long as this movie is ready to deliver it all.

4. Deadpool

This shit looks SO GOOD. The trailers are fantastic, the marketing campaign is flawless, and the stars are strong comedic talents. Fox is doing what it can to sweep their past misgivings under the rug, and I couldn't be more ok with it. It's like when your parents fuck up really bad so they buy you that toy you always wanted. No harm, no foul. Jafeel?

3. Doctor Strange

No trailer yet, but I think we can look forward to one soon. At the present, I'm just excited to see something different. Casting a director like Scott Derrickson suggests this might be a darker, scarier Marvel tale than we're used to. And considering the hero it happens to star, I'm pretty excited about it.

2. Suicide Squad

WOOHOOOO LET'S GOOOO THIS WAS MY SECOND FAVORITE TRAILER OF 2015. Cast looks amazing, the director is pretty perfect for this kind of property, I cannot wait to see how Jared Leto plays his Joker, because if stories from the set are any indication, we're going to get a proper bat-shit clown prince of crime.

1. Rogue One

Yeah, I mean come on. There's a Star Wars movie coming out this year. Number one almost by default. Not only is this a Star Wars film, this is a WAR film set in the Star Wars universe. Remember when the opening crawl in A New Hope was all like "THESE PILOT DONE GONE AND STOLE THOSE DAMN PLANS AND BOO YAH NOW THE REBELS BOUT TO SLAY THIS BITCH LET'S GOOOOOO"? Yeah well this is the story of how that happened. Can I be honest? I'm high key convinced we're gonna see Darth Vader again. But that's just me.

HERE'S SOME HONORABLE MENTIONS FOR YO ASS

The Jungle Book

Sue me, this movie looks fantastic. I'm ready for a Jungle Book adaption that sticks closer to the source material while infusing more of that classic Disney adventure and perhaps some cute nods to the cartoon many of us grew up on. In the hands of capable director Jon Favreau, I don't see this going wrong.

The Nice Guys

This movie just looks like my kind of film. Elements of film noir and exploitation, buddy cop comedy, slapstick with a little dash of graphic violence, I'm into it. Can't wait for this one to hit theaters.

La La Land

A film about jazz, directed and written by the director of Whiplash, Damien Chazelle himself, and starring Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone (is it weird to anyone else how often these two get paired up? Like, it's weird). Yeah I'm on board for this one too.

If you liked my list, good for you, but it is just a list of movies that I haven't seen and hope will be good, and in that sense, nothing you just read matters. See the coat check lady on your way out to get the last ten minutes of your life back. Oh, she's on break? Forever? That's unfortunate. Bye now.

Poe Dameron's Avatar

I haven't written anything on Star Wars: The Force Awakens thus far, and I'm sure you've all read a whole litany of pieces regarding the film by now, so I'll keep this brief. This will not be an in depth review, and you will find NO SPOILERS HERE. Like, none, I promise. I give you my word.

I'm not going to talk about the story, or the characters, or the setting in any way. I'm actually going to use this time to talk about me a bit. And I know how that sounds, but trust me, it'll make sense in a second.

I don't want to talk about the movie because in a manner of speaking, the movie doesn't matter. I know, I know, chill with the pitch forks and the racist epithets I see you preparing to sling my way (I kid, I kid), I'm making a point here. Of course the movie matters to us, but it doesn't matter without us. You see what I mean?

Star Wars is a universe, not only that, it is a universe unlike any that exists. Sure it's unique in a lot of ways, but that's not what I mean. Star Wars is considered unique because of the effect it has on people. Think about fandoms for a moment. Reflect on what that word means to you, which ones you might belong to or identify with, or your own preconceptions about what it means to belong to one. Think about it. There is a very specific type of person that is allowed to love something so much, especially when it comes to sci fi, or fantasy, or anything of the like. Nerds, right? At least that's generally how we think of things. But Star Wars, for reasons I have to believe are of historical significance, is the ultimate exception. Everyone is allowed to love Star Wars. Everyone. I don't care who you are or what you do for a living, where you live or what you wear, it doesn't matter. I don't care if you're a casual fan, a die hard know it all, or a newbie who saw your first Star Wars movie yesterday, AND on top of it all that movie was a prequel. It doesn't matter. Not to me, and not to anyone else. What do you call that? How do you quantify that kind of love? Maybe you just don't.

I felt a lot of things when I left that theater. A lot of things. I can't really list them, not because there's too many, but rather because I'm not really sure what to call all of it. In all honesty I had a headache when I walked out. I don't mean that as a negative, it's just a fact, I left that theater with a headache and I couldn't tell you why. Maybe it was the two hour drive up to the cinema, or the craning of my neck upwards to see the screen seeing as the only seats we could get together were at the base of the auditorium. I don't know, I'm spit balling here. Maybe I just had a headache, I get them from time to time.

I felt warm. On the inside. I felt a little small. It was probably the screen, or the scope of the film itself, or the sheer number of people there to share in the experience. I felt included. Like I didn't have to prove that I loved Star Wars to anyone. I felt a little less alone.

I felt a really comforting lack of conern. I had a final exam the following morning, and a trip that I hadn't packed for the following day. I had emails to write and applications to send, I had my parents to please (like I always do) and I had friends to say goodbye to before the long break started. I had a laundry list of things I probably should've been nervous about, and before the movie started, I really was. But not during, and not for a while after.

I felt important. Like my generation was witnessing something special. I can wish and beg all I want but I'll never be old enough to have seen the first Star Wars movie in theaters all those years ago in 1977. And maybe that's ok. Because on December 17, 2015, I saw something new start, and something old start again, all in the same fell swoop.

I felt so goddamn happy, guys. Really, I did.

Look, this was a weird one. Not a lot of humor, not a lot of snark, and sometimes it's cool to stow that shit away, because I saw a movie, friends, and it moved me. Genuinely, and very deeply, and that's a rare thing, I'm sad to say. How else can I say it?

It's back. Star Wars is back. Like BACK back. And I got to see that happen. And from now until I die that will never not be true.

Star Wars doesn't matter without us, because it is the effect it has on us that is so special. That's what makes Star Wars...Star Wars.

I didn't want to review this movie, I mean a part of me did, but it wouldn't feel right. It would feel forced and impersonal for me to critique it right now because all I'm interested in doing is loving this movie. So that's what I'm gonna do. I invite you all to do the same.

Thanks.