Film Friday: Unstoppable (2010)

Directed by Ridley Scott’s brother Tony, Unstoppable stars Denzel Washington and Chris Pine as two guys who need to stop a runaway train. This film is based on a real life incident where a train got away from an engineer who hopped out of his cab to manually flip a switch. In some ways, this film is completely brilliant and I absolutely recommend it. Indeed, it’s an enjoyable, exciting film which will keep you on the edge of your seat. Unfortunately, it also pushes its brilliance too far and becomes a parody of itself.

** spoiler alert **

● The Challenge: Before we discuss what Tony Scott did so brilliantly (and so unbrilliantly), let me point out that making this film exciting was a much harder challenge than people may realize. At first blush, a runaway train seems exciting. Trains are ultra-powerful and can do immense damage when they derail. Add in an explosive cargo and you’ve got the makings of a real disaster. BUT don’t forget, trains are highly predictable. Even a runaway train will move at a constant rate of speed down a set path, meaning you know exactly where it will be, you can clear out the area of impact, and you can even knock it off the rails at a point of your choosing. Thus, in practice, a runaway train isn’t as exciting as it seems in the abstract.

So how do you make a runaway train more exciting? Scott found three ways to inject a lot of tension into the film. Unfortunately, he also pushed each solution too far.

● Solution 1: Frenetic Direction. Scott has an eye for color and scenery, and manages to get the most out of each shot by filling each scene with lots of action, e.g. people and cars running all over the place, and using quick edits and some shaky-cam moments to create a sense of frenetic motion which makes everything feel urgent.

Unfortunately, the shaky-cam annoys the heck out of people, me included. The problem with the shaky-cam is that it makes some people motion sick and will cause them to turn their eyes away from the screen and takes them out of the movie. And even if it doesn’t make you sick, it still wears you out because the shaky-cam is the visual equivalent of being blasted by high decibel music. This eventually makes you numb to the movie.

Further, there is a longer term problem with the shaky-cam: desensitization. As people get used to the shaky-cam, it will require ever increasing visual-stimulation to get the same level of excitement. Films that rely on this visual trickery to generate interest will soon seem boring and outdated. In effect, films shot like this are giving themselves a limited shelf-life, and I suspect this is one of those films.

● Solution No. 2: Aggressive Acting. Scott also added large amounts of tension into each scene by apparently telling his actors to fight with each other constantly. These characters don’t talk to each other, they shout at each other. They challenge each other and violate each other’s orders. He even has characters throw phones at each other. This gives the film a sense of tension and makes it feel like high stakes are being played out in each moment, even though they are all just waiting for the derailment.

But there’s a problem with this. Telling the actors to be as angry with each other as possible creates believability issues, which some of these actors aren’t able to overcome. Denzel Washington can. He’s angry about the way the company treats him and he’s angry at Chris Pine being an indifferent idiot. But Washington is a great actor, probably one of the best of our time. He’s got amazing screen presence and has never turned in a bad performance, and he absolutely has what it takes to carry off this character as angry, but not so angry that we doubt that he would do what he is doing in this film.

Chris Pine, however, lacks the skill to play the role. He’s not capable of convincing us that deep down this angry jerk would care enough to go on a suicide mission. Rosario Dawson also isn’t believable as the dispatcher because she’s so angry at her boss that she would have been fired long before, especially as her boss (Kevin Dunn, who plays a generic corporate villain) is equally angry in return and would never allow a dispatcher to be that disrespectful to him. Their relationship feels Hollywood-fake. And ultimately, all of this anger becomes too much and this constant fighting for the sake of fighting starts to feel like a parody of itself. And that brings me to the real issue in this film.

● Solution No. 3: Insane Writing. Dear God. As someone who loves good writing, this film appalls me. . . and I’m sort of laughing when I say that, but not really. The modern school of screenwriting says that each scene should involve conflict and should increase the stakes in some way. You should avoid scenes that don’t push the plot to a higher level of tension. Unstoppable takes that advice far too literally and becomes absurd.

To give you a sense of what I mean, here’s how this film comes across (assume each ellipse marks a new scene about a minute apart): we just learned there’s a runaway train! ...and it’s speeding up! ....and it’s heading for a populated area! ....and it’s packed with explosives! ....and uranium! ....and nerve gas! ....and it’s going to derail in the middle of town! ....and the phone lines are down so we can’t reach the town! ....and there’s a daycare center where it will derail! ....and every kid in town is at the daycare center today to receive an award from the mayor! ....and the Pope is a surprise guest! ....and the kids all brought puppies! ....one of the puppies holds the key to fighting cancer! ....and your wife just called, she’s pregnant! ....she’s calling from the daycare center! ....and there’s another identical train coming from the other direction! Ahhhh!

See the point? The first couple add to the tension nicely. But at some point, the writer goes too far and this takes on the feel of parody. The problem I had with Unstoppable was that every minute, they added some new complication and after a while this became a distraction. Rather than making the plot more interesting, it began to feel like the writer was showing off. Indeed, I found myself wondering whether the title, Unstoppable, wasn’t meant as a reference to the writer’s view of their ability to keep ratcheting up the drama rather than the train.

The best way to describe what happened here is that Tony Scott was absolutely brilliant at finding ways to make a rather dull story -- two guys chase down a train to apply the brakes -- into something exciting. But he lacked the feel his brother has for taking his foot off the throttle to reset the audience. It’s hard to keep the audience red-lined for 98 minutes no matter how many things you throw at them, and maybe it’s not a good idea to try?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Guest Review: In Time (2011)

By tryanmax

I am stunned to think that this movie came from the same mind as Gattica. I had mixed expectations when I sat down to watch. The premise—time has literally become money and if you run out, you die—sounded a little clunky to me. But I figured that maybe Andrew Niccol could pull it off. Besides, dystopian sci-fi is my favorite genre and I figured, if nothing else, I could expect some fast pacing, cool, futuristic visuals, and some clever one-liners.

** spoiler alert **

Never underestimate Hollywood’s ability to let you down.

Synopsis (Note: the names have been omitted because I don’t care.)

Scruffy Poor Guy (Justin Timberlake) lives in a future where humans have been genetically engineered to stop aging at 25. If they want to live longer, they must earn more time. Time is currency; one can earn it or spend it. To keep track of time, everyone has a timer embedded in their forearm. If it reaches zero, you die instantly. A side effect of the engineering is that everyone’s speech is riddled with wordplay about time.

In the ghetto, people live paycheck to paycheck. (ha!) So when a Stranger comes to town with a century on his clock, it attracts the attention of a gang of time thieves called the Minutemen. (ha!) Scruffy rescues him and in return the Stranger gives him his time (ha!), effectively committing suicide—but not before letting Scruffy in on the “vast conspiracy.” For the first time in his life, Scruffy has time on his hands (ha!), but the Timekeepers (a.k.a. cops, ha!) think he murdered the Stranger and the gang is now after him, too. Scruffy decides to skip town with his Hot Mom and go live the high-life. Before he can reach her, however, she runs out of time. (ha!) Now Scruffy is out for revenge and he plans to take it from, who else?, some rich dude he’s never met before.

Flawed Concept

One of the challenges facing any dystopian narrative is that, more so than other genres, it relies heavily on a gimmick. As far as that goes, the one here isn’t all that bad. The trouble is that this can lead to a weak script if the gimmick is made to carry too much. That is precisely the problem with In Time.

Most dystopian tales deal with the individual against a repressive society, but the “time is money” concept more easily pits the haves against the have-nots. This film dabbles with both as well as third concept involving the desirability of immortality, which might have paid off immensely if it weren’t so quickly abandoned. After a bit of waffling, the film finally takes off on a social justice screed that is itself a gimmick.

It is apparent that no real thought was given to how a society such as this one might actually work. For starters, in the film funds can be transferred—or stolen—with a simple handshake, so the fact that this society hasn’t crumpled into total anarchy is something of a miracle. Besides, given the life-or-death consequences of poor money management, one should expect the average person to have the financial acumen of a mutual fund manager. Plus, there is no logic that dictates only the affluent can live past 100 while the poor must die much younger.

It’s also impossible to get a sense of value within the movie. Prices seem assigned based on the needs of the plot rather than comparative worth. A point is made of shocking the audience early with the idea that a cup of coffee takes four minutes off of your life. But a “decent lunch” costs about 30 minutes while a five-mile bus ride costs two hours and a typical loan payment is two days. Things get even more out of whack when the action moves from the poorer “Time Zones” (ha!) to the more affluent ones. Suddenly, things move from being priced in minutes and hours to being valued in months and years. This is supposed to illustrate the grave disparity between rich and poor, but when a century makes one astonishingly rich, even the well-to-do can barely be making ends meet. Maybe I’m obsessing over the details. Or maybe it’s just lazy writing.

Heavy Handed Liberalism

This may not be the worst movie I’ve ever seen, but it is definitely vying for the most blatantly liberal. From the annoying electric whine of all the cars to the token black guy who “gets it” when no one else does, this film practically has an “Obama/Biden” sticker on the back.

The film is so chock full of tirades, I can’t recall a scene without one. Several times, Scruffy broadly labels the rich as thieves. Sheltered Rich Girl (Amanda Seyfried) laments her privileged station a few times. Evil Rich Guy (Vincent Kartheiser) delivers a canned speech about Darwinian capitalism and the next stage of evolution—you know? the one that comes after conquering disease, age and death. Timekeeper (Cillian Murphy) laments that Scruffy is hurting the very people he means to help because that sounds like something a cruel conservative might say.

And remember the “vast conspiracy” I mentioned earlier? Here it is: the rich live in luxury while the poor struggle to survive even though there’s plenty to go around! This is what liberals pat themselves on the back for sorting out? The only thing more juvenile is the plan Scruffy and Rich Girl hatch to bring “the system” down: steal lots of money and if that doesn’t work, steal more money. I hate to say it, but a plot like that makes “unobtanium” seem like pure genius.

Nothing else is good, either!

At the beginning I said I was hoping at least for a quick film with eye-candy and witty dialogue. This isn’t even that. At only 100 minutes, In Time feels interminable, and endless chase scenes aren’t to blame. Rather it belongs to a repetitive stream of leftist pontifications. The art direction seems to have been lifted from Gattaca minus several bucks, so the only eye-candy takes the form of the entirely twenty-something cast. Somebody must’ve told Niccol that a good script has a twist at the end, because there is one thrown in that contributes nothing to the story and isn’t all that surprising anyway. And the dialogue, well, I don’t need to waste your time. (ha!)

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Politics of Trek: “A Private Little War”

Would it surprise you to know Star Trek did a pro- Vietnam War episode? Prepare to be amazed as we continue our journey through the conservative world that is Star Trek the original series with Episode 48: “A Private Little War.”

The Plot

This week, the Enterprise visits the planet Neural in the Zeta Bootis System, a veritable treasure trove of medicinal plants and specimens. Kirk surveyed this planet thirteen years before when he was a lieutenant on the USS Farragut. What he found was a primitive but peaceful planet where villagers and Hill People lived happily side by side, hunting food with bows and arrows. But when he beams down this time, he discovers a group of villagers setting an ambush for a Hill People hunting party. Moreover, the villagers are carrying flintlock muskets, something they shouldn’t be able to manufacture at this phase of their development.

Kirk disrupts the ambush and reunites with a friend he made during his prior survey -- Tyree, who has risen to become leader of the Hill People. Kirk learns that the Klingons are arming the villagers with the flintlocks. Some of the Hill People want Kirk to give them superior weapons, but Kirk will only offer flintlocks to maintain the balance of power. Tyree resists even this offer because he’s a pacifist and thinks the villagers will return to their peaceful ways. But when the villagers kill Tyree’s wife, he finally accepts Kirk’s offer.

Why It’s Conservative

“A Private Little War” involves primitive people who find themselves in a nasty arms race as each is backed by a galactic superpower, i.e. the Klingons and the Federation. This is a metaphor for Vietnam, which was raging at the time. In fact, the original script referenced Vietnam and described the villagers as wearing “Ho Chi Mihn type” clothes. Even the revised script refers to “twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent.”

To call this story “pro-Vietnam War” is perhaps a bit of a stretch, because the story definitely laments the loss of innocence of the Hill People and the villagers, which can be seen as an anti-war statement. However, that interpretation doesn’t mesh with the deeper philosophical points made. To the contrary, the moral of this story is that you cannot back down in the face of aggression. And if the other side is arming their allies, then you need to arm yours. That is a very conservative point.

We see this moral in the argument between Kirk and McCoy over what to do about the Klingon Empire’s interference. McCoy, who is the show’s emotional factor and who often took on the role of advocating the liberal bleeding-heart position, was aghast that Kirk would even think about arming the Hill People. Presumably, he would have Kirk abandon the Hill People to the mercy of the villagers so they could live in peace as slaves under the villagers and by proxy the Klingon Empire. In this, McCoy is echoing the peace movement which rioted at the 1968 Democratic convention a few months after this episode was first shown (ironically, it was repeated 3 days before the convention began).

Kirk rejects this, noting that the only solution to aggression is to stand up to the aggressor. And if they fight through a proxy by arming that proxy, then you must provide your allies with identical weapons to maintain the balance of power. Here’s the script:

MCCOY: Do I have to say it? It's not bad enough there's one serpent in Eden teaching one side about gun powder. You want to make sure they all know about it!
KIRK: Exactly. Each side receives the same knowledge and the same type of firearm.
MCCOY: Have you gone out of your mind? Yes, maybe you have. Tyree's wife, she said there was something in that root. She said now you can refuse her nothing.
KIRK: Superstition.
MCCOY: Is it a coincidence this is exactly what she wants?
KIRK: Is it? She wants superior weapons. That's the one thing neither side can have. Bones. Bones, the normal development of this planet was the status quo between the hill people and the villagers. The Klingons changed that with the flintlocks. If this planet is to develop the way it should, we must equalize both sides again.
MCCOY: Jim, that means you're condemning this whole planet to a war that may never end. It could go on for year after year, massacre after massacre.
KIRK: All right, Doctor! All right. Say I'm wrong. Say I'm drugged. Say the woman drugged me. What is your sober, sensible solution to all this?
MCCOY: I don't have a solution. But furnishing them firearms is certainly not the answer.
KIRK: Bones, do you remember the twentieth century brush wars on the Asian continent? Two giant powers involved, much like the Klingons and ourselves. Neither side felt they could pull out.
MCCOY: Yes, I remember. It went on bloody year after bloody year.
KIRK: What would you have suggested, that one side arm its friends with an overpowering weapon? Mankind would never have lived to travel space if they had. No. The only solution is what happened back then. Balance of power.
MCCOY: And if the Klingons give their side even more?
KIRK: Then we arm our side with exactly that much more. A balance of power. The trickiest, most difficult, dirtiest game of them all, but the only one that preserves both sides.

This is solid conservatism. Liberalism believes aggression is the result of fear, by the aggressor, that others intend to do them harm. Thus, the aggressor turns to aggression as a means of self-defense. This was why liberalism advocated disarmament in the face of Soviet aggression, to show the Russians we meant them no harm. Conservatism knows better. Conservatives understand that aggression is the result of desire: a desire to take something which does not rightly belong to the aggressor, combined with the power to take it. Conservatives also understand that we cannot eliminate desire as a human trait. Thus, the only way to prevent aggression is by making it impossible for the would-be aggressor to achieve their goals through aggression, i.e. to stand up to them.

This episode encapsulates that. First, note that the villagers’ aggression is not the result of fear. The villagers have nothing to fear from the Hill People, as shown by their prior peaceful coexistence. And the only reason they are aggressors now is they now have the power to take what they want. This is confirmed when Tyree’s wife tries to cut a deal with the villagers. If they were aggressive because they were fearful, they would have listened to her when she came to them. But they don’t listen. Instead, they try to rape her the moment they see her, before killing her, because their power over the Hill People has corrupted them.

Secondly, Kirk correctly calculates the conservative position and arms his allies. He knows aggression can’t be stopped with words or hoping the villagers suddenly become pacifists. He knows it can only be stopped if the villagers realize they can’t achieve their goals through force. He also knows that giving the Hill People superior weapons would only shift the aggression. Hence, the only solution to the Klingons’ interference is to maintain the balance of power. (This was the initial Vietnam strategy.)

Finally, as a kicker, Tyree rejects pacifism and his belief the villagers will return to their peaceful ways when his wife is killed because he realizes the villagers will always be aggressive unless they have reason to fear the consequences -- that’s human nature and how it responds to an imbalance of power. Conservatives understand this, liberals don’t. Liberalism believes human nature can be changed and they would have hoped to find a way to change the villager’s “violent natures,” e.g. address the “root causes” of the violence. Conservatives understand that human nature can merely be contained.

That’s why this episode is conservative. Because it applies a conservative understanding of the nature of aggression.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 24

With the Super Bowl in sunny, beautify Indianapolis today, which oft appears on film, it brings to mind this question:

What if your favorite town to see on film? And was there any town that a film made you want to visit?

Panelist: ScottDS

I'm answering this in reverse. After watching films like Vertigo, Star Trek IV, and Basic Instinct, I'd like to visit San Francisco one day. Not only is there a thriving film industry there (most notably Francis Ford Coppola and Lucasfilm), it also appears to be quite scenic. I obviously don't know enough about the city in terms of local attractions (museums, theaters, etc.) but I regret not making it up there when I actually lived on the west coast. As far as a favorite town to see, I'm not entirely sure. I'm inclined to say New York City but we've seen it so many times - what is there left to shoot? I suppose I like seeing the suburbs in film, if only to compare it to the neighborhood I grew up (and currently reside) in. Think Spielberg in the 80s.

Panelist: AndrewPrice

Miami is a cool city to see on film, so is San Francisco, but I'm going with a surprise pick: Paris. And not just touristy Paris, but the old-part of Paris where films like Ronin took place.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

In true Commentarama-style, I will name the city I want least to see on film - New York City. It is pretty disturbing seeing the city in which you live blown up, flooded, pillaged, and flattened.

Panelist: T-Rav

After watching Home Alone, I always thought Chicago would be a nice place to visit, at least around Christmas. It may be a liberal craphole, and I'm sure it was nicer twenty years ago than it is now, but John Hughes made it seem like such a lovely bit of Americana. At the other end of the country, I like seeing New Orleans in the movies just because of how exotic and inviting they make the Creole culture out to be.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Philly. Not only does it bring back memories, but it is an incredibly interesting town in so many ways, particularly when you throw in the suburbs. Just think about M.Night Shyamalan's films from the standpoint of location shooting. Apart from Philly, anyplace that is not New York City, Washington, D.C., L.A. or San Francisco.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Unknown (2011)

I like Taken a good deal and Unknown feels similar to Taken in many ways. It has some interesting facets too, some good, some bad. On the good side, Unknown handles the “stolen identity” concept better than any other film that comes to mind, and Liam Neeson is excellent as always. On the downside, the film ultimately feels flat and its politics are to blame.

** spoiler alert **

The Plot

As the film open, Dr. Martin Harris (Liam Neeson) arrives in Berlin to participate in a biotechnology conference. But he mistakenly leaves his briefcase at the airport, and on his way back to the airport to pick it up, his taxi accidentally plunges into a river. He’s saved by his taxi driver (Diane Kruger). When he wakes up in the hospital, he learns another man has taken his place. This man has identification cards in his name, family photos showing him with Neeson’s wife, and everyone accepts him as Dr. Martin Harris. Even Neeson’s own wife Liz (January Jones, who is awful here) seems to treat this man as the real Martin Harris. Is Neeson insane or is something else going on here? And why are people trying to kill him?

The Stolen Identity Issue

Generally, stolen identity thrillers face an uphill battle. While it’s certainly believable one person would impersonate another, it’s just not believable that they could fool the people close to the person being impersonated. Indeed, how could your family and friends not know the difference? What about co-workers? Even if you’ve only dealt with people over the phone, it still seems unlikely that an imposter could fake the voice, the speech patterns, and the level of knowledge needed to pull that off. Also, once you flash your ID to the cops, the imposter’s web starts to unravel.

So when I hear the words “stolen identity,” I cringe because I know I’ll be subjected to unbelievable setups, inexplicable behaviors, and a host of moments where characters need to act stupidly to make the concept work. This is problematic at best because any scheme that relies on everyone on the planet getting movie-stupid is not a great premise for a film.

But that wasn’t the case here. In fact, I was really impressed. I hate to give too much away and there are several twists, so I will proceed cautiously. The issue starts with the question of whether or not Neeson might actually be insane. Indeed for some period of time, you do genuinely wonder if the other guy isn’t the real Dr. Martin Harris and Neeson isn’t just suffering from head trauma. Soon, all the pieces start being explained bit by bit, and in the process a political intrigue is revealed.

Where this film truly deserves recognition is in the execution of that explanation. For one thing, the entire explanation makes sense. Indeed, every last aspect of it is perfectly logical once you understand what happened. Moreover, it is highly unexpected. This is not a solution you’ll see coming, but at the same time, it’s not so far beyond the bounds of common sense or so impractical that you can’t believe it. Further, it’s woven tightly into the political intrigue, meaning it never feels like a gimmick added to the film just to liven it up.

But most importantly, it’s executed perfectly in that the characters never act stupidly to make this work. The authorities don’t inexplicably ignore Neeson’s claims or become blind to obvious clues or throw up their hands in plot-driven helplessness. And all the pitfalls identified above are overcome. For example, it’s Thanksgiving, thus there’s no way to check with the American consulate to look for passport photos. Neeson can’t produce an ID because his wallet was in his briefcase. His wife’s behavior, the presence of his friend (Frank Langella) in Europe, and other similar issues are all reasonably explained. And Neeson isn’t a fool. That makes this a solid, enjoyable story.

Bland Liberalism Masquerading As Depth

All that said, however, there is a problem with this film. Specifically, the film lacks depth, both in the political intrigue and in the characters Neeson meets.

Drama comes from hard decisions, but there are no hard decisions here because the political intrigue is so one-sided. The film takes place in Berlin and it involves a conference where an Arab prince will giving the world for free an environmentalist-fantasy grain which would feed the world’s poor without the usual beefs environmentalists have with farming. Essentially, the greatest guy on earth is about to offer utopia. Yawn. This film would have been much stronger if there was some doubt as to who the good guys and bad guys really are. Yet, as Neeson discovers what’s going on, his choice becomes patently obvious. There’s some irony in what he’s doing, which I won’t go into, but there’s never a single moment where he needs to ask himself if he’s doing the right thing. That robs the film of a ton of drama which would have made the film so much stronger.

Moreover, outside of Neeson, the characters are flat. The bad guys belong to some generic conspiracy that kills people on behalf of rich companies. Yawn. There is never a sense of why they are actually doing this other than bland profit. As we’ve said many times, it’s hard to care about a villain who doesn’t even care about his own schemes.

And the good guys are even more pointless. By and large, they are nothing more than idealized liberal tropes. For example, there is an illegal alien from Africa who tells Neeson where he can find Diane Kruger, an illegal alien from Russia who becomes Neeson’s sidekick. This character adds nothing else to the plot, yet we’re supposed to care about him because the film tells us that Germans mistreat African immigrants and force them to live in slums (a total falsehood). And when he gets killed we’re supposed to care that his poor family in Africa will never know what happened to him or why the money he sends each month suddenly stops. Boo frick’n hoo. This has nothing to do with the story. And the fact the writer hopes to use this to humanize the story is a prime example that the writer had no idea how to connect the characters to the plot or the plot to the audience. This is what happens when you use an indifferent, generic villain.

Similarly, we are introduced to an ex-Stasi officer. He really does nothing to further the plot except explain the nature of the political conspiracy to the audience -- which actually detracts from the film, as it would have been better to have Neeson learn it himself. But again we’re supposed to care about him and again the reason we’re supposed to care is his liberal beliefs. He is presented as a kindly old former military officer who laments that, “We Germans are good at forgetting things. We forgot we were Nazis and then we forgot we were communists.” Oh gee, what a wonderful guy. Only, it’s crap.

For one thing, the Germans have spent the past 60+ years trying to atone for being Nazis. They’ve made themselves pacifists, built museums to war crimes, outlawed denial of Nazi crimes, made it illegal to sell Nazi paraphernalia, and given money all over the world to try to make good. No one in Germany has forgotten they were Nazis. But they did forget they were communists, and this film is a great example of that. It is a total whitewash to present the Stasi as just another military institution. They were in fact one of the more brutal organizations in history, and that gets whitewashed here, especially when this Stasi character describes how peacefully he questioned “suspects” without ever mentioning the torture, the killing and the spying.

But the bigger issue, again, is that he doesn’t fit into the story. He’s a plot convenience. The information he provides could have been found by Neeson in a newspaper. Yet, the writer mistakenly thinks he can humanize the story by giving us another liberal lament through this character. This is poor writing. It’s like the writer spent all his energy solving the stolen-identity puzzle and he didn’t have any energy left to put into the conspiracy and the supporting characters, so he just grabbed some liberal tropes out of the liberal-idiocy bag and jammed them into the story.

This is a good film, but it’s flawed, and that’s rather sad. Indeed, for a film that takes the horrid concept of a stolen identity and handles it exceedingly well -- a rare accomplishment -- the rest of this film doesn’t do it justice.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

A Conservative Opportunity In Hollywood?

I’m wondering about the future of the film industry. In particular, I am wondering if there isn’t an opening developing for conservatives? I don’t mean that Hollywood is about to open its doors to conservatives. What I mean instead is that Hollywood failed to lock the door and its audience is escaping. Maybe conservatives should think about offering them a new home? Consider this.

The entertainment industry has become an oligopoly (though groupthink basically makes it a monopoly). Six companies control 90% of all viewing hours on television: Disney, News Corp, NBC Universal, Time Warner, CBS and Discovery. These companies decide what you get to watch. They also own either in whole or in part, the major studios, who dominate the theater chains. Thus, a handful of companies are responsible for all the films and television you see. Even independent companies like Netflix or Blockbuster rely on these companies to provide them with content.

Ok, so why is that important? Because these companies have fallen into the same trap that all monopoly/oligopoly companies have fallen into before them.

When a company has “market power,” i.e. the power to exclude competitors and dictate to consumers, they get lazy and greedy. Specifically, they realize that it makes no sense for them to innovate or embrace change because their current business model gets them much higher profits than they could otherwise obtain in a free market. Thus, they put their energy into maintaining their monopoly rather than improving their products. This results in: (1) high prices which consumers see as unfair, (2) lack of innovation in the product, (3) an unwillingness to embrace technology, and (4) poor customer service.

The entertainment industry is beset by this. Films are generic so they can be marketed to the broadest possible market. No risks are taken. To make foreign sales, the film companies now strip out anything from films that would harm the films in any region, rather than customizing them by region. Hollywood also forces theaters into a destructive business model. And they fight any technological change which would give consumers greater choice. This is the exact course the music industry charted to its near death.

All of this results in falling box office attendance, falling numbers for cable subscribers, and an increase in pirating.

But here’s the thing. This isn’t 1950. Technology is giving people a way around the entertainment monopoly. The web has made it ridiculously easy to self-publish a book, a record, or even a film. Indeed, you no longer need a distribution network or a chain of theaters to get your film shown. Similarly, modern technology has made it incredibly cheap to shoot movies as you no longer need million dollar cameras and miles of film or a multimillion dollar studio backing you. All you need is a solid digital camera, an eye for using it and editing software.

My point is this. Hollywood is pricing itself out of the market right now at the exact time that technology has opened up avenues for alternatives. Moreover, Hollywood has chosen this moment to start turning out corporate computer-generated crappola for product and is busy stripping out the great dialog (too complex for foreign audiences), the cool humor (too many people might not get it), and the cool patriotic and pro-human themes audiences love (won’t play in China or Berkley).

This creates an opportunity. If conservatives are smart, they can create a new Hollywood, picking up the opportunities Hollywood won’t touch and selling them to audience over the net, either through the creation of a new film site, eHollywood, or in partnerships with the likes of Blockbuster and Netflix. This is an historic opportunity to get ahead of the curve and conservatives should seize it.

Am I right or wrong? What would it take for you to start watching truly independent films?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Questionable Trek vol. 2

Let’s continue with our Questionable Trek series. Today’s question comes from Scott and it’s about Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khaaaaaaaan! (1982).

Question From Scott: “You ranked Star Trek II as your second favorite film in the last question. Give me five criticisms of the film.”


Andrew’s Answer: Tough question Scott, but I am all about criticism, so......

1. The dialog actually gets pretty sloppy and there are moments where it makes no sense if you think about it. For example, in the classic scene where they get the Reliant to lower her shields, why does Khan interrupt Kirk and Spock? He doesn’t want anything and then he acts like Kirk interrupted him.

2. Kirk’s son is a whiny, wussy, waste. I’d phaser him.

3. There is a sense throughout the film that the original crew is too old. I wish they would have dropped this. It adds an unneeded element of depression to a film that is about action and vengeance and other extreme emotions.

4. This film starts the disrespect for the Star Trek history. Why did they let Khan capture Chekov and then claim he “never forgets a face” when he never met Chekov? How hard would it have been to use Sulu instead and respect the history of the series? This, like point 3, set a bad precedent.

5. I don’t like the way they refer to THE Enterprise as “Enterprise” and Savick as “Mr. Saavik.” This strikes me as an attempt to sound more military but it’s wrong and it sounds jarring.

Scott’s Response:

1. Fair enough IF you really stop to think about it, but the film is so well done (overall) and quotable that the viewer rarely has time to contemplate this stuff. To use another example I’ve mentioned before, Back to the Future has its share of time travel plot holes but because it’s done so well, we don't have time to think about them. Only when a film starts to drag does the audience start thinking about what they’ve just seen.

2. I don’t think he’s as bad as you think. I recall someone asking Nicholas Meyer during a Q&A session, "Why did you cast such a bad actor to play Kirk’s son?" He didn't dignify the question with a response!

3. I believe the midlife crisis subplot was done to compensate for the lack of character development in the first film (Spock notwithstanding) and I suppose the filmmakers simply wanted the characters to start showing their age. At least in this film, it’s part of the overall tone - Kirk’s surrounded by young cadets, Spock has a young protégé, Kirk meets his son, the MacGuffin is a device that can transform old worlds into new ones - it’s all part of a tapestry. Generations handles this in a more awkward fashion during the Nexus scene when Kirk asks Picard about retirement and tells him about making a difference - nice sentiments but it kinda comes out of nowhere. Nemesis handles this even worse with Data’s death. There was a great post-wedding scene with Picard and Data discussing human celebrations and the passage of time, which would’ve done a better job informing the death scene... except it was cut!

4. I never had a problem with Khan recognizing Chekov - most fans suggest that perhaps Chekov had been serving on the Enterprise during that episode, but below decks, where Khan could’ve encountered him. The bigger problem I have is, why didn't the Reliant know what planet it was?!?! They think it’s Ceti Alpha VI but it’s actually Ceti Alpha V. Author Greg Cox explained this in one of the novels but I know you don’t count that stuff. [smile]

5. I think the military stuff in this film works just fine. Star Trek VI is where I feel Nick Meyer went overboard with it (“Right standard rudder”?). Meyer initially had trouble relating to the Trek universe until he made the Horatio Hornblower connection. Trek, in his view, was gunboat diplomacy. To this day, fans still debate the nature of Starfleet: is it a scientific organization or a military one? Thankfully, Star Trek has managed to walk that line relatively well over the years.

Andrew’s Reply: On point 1, what bothers me is that these things would have been very easy to fix, but they didn’t. On the Ceti Alpha problem, that actually doesn’t bother me because I accept the idea the planet’s orbit shifted and it is now where Ceti Alpha VI should have been.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 23

If someone who litigates is a litigator, then why isn’t someone who detects a detector? I don’t know, but for $25 a day plus expenses, I’ll look into that for you.

Who is your favorite detective on film?


Panelist: T-Rav

Character-wise, that would be Sherlock Holmes, of course. As for the actors who have played him, I think most have done a pretty good job (except for Roger Moore; really?), but I think you just about have to go with Basil Rathbone. It doesn't get more classic than that.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

I'm going with Bogart as Sam Spade in Maltese Falcon, probably only because I already voted for Dirty Harry as favorite anti-hero. Maybe I could cheat and do private vs. public sector. ;-)

Panelist: ScottDS

Sergeant Frank Drebin, Detective Lieutenant Police Squad (a special division of the police department). Drebin was portrayed by Leslie Nielsen in the three Naked Gun films which, in turn, were based on the short-lived ABC show Police Squad! The show (which was cancelled after six episodes) was a parody of police procedurals but, just as Airplane! is primarily based on Zero Hour!, Police Squad primarily resembles the 1950s cop show M Squad, which starred Lee Marvin as Lt. Frank Ballinger. Drebin is a bumbling fool, but he always gets his man. His boss is Captain Ed Hocken (George Kennedy in the films, Alan North on the show). The show and the films were filled with ridiculous sight gags, puns, and non sequiturs, and indeed, the reason why the show was cancelled was because the audience actually had to watch it - creators David & Jerry Zucker and Jim Abrahams learned the hard way that most people simply multi-task with the TV on. The films reprise the show's classic title sequence and theme music and feature Priscilla Presley as Drebin's love interest Jane Spencer and O.J. Simpson as the hapless Officer Nordberg. Drebin battles a variety of villains including assassins, evil industrialists, and mad bombers. Oh, and be on the lookout for "Weird Al" Yankovic's cameos in all three films! R.I.P. Leslie Nielsen. "Nice beaver!"

Panelist: AndrewPrice

So many good choices from Eddie Valiant in Roger Rabbit to Peter Hustenoff as Hercule Poirot in Death On the Nile to Sam Diamond in Murder By Death. But when it comes to film, there's only one man I trust to solve my murder: Dirty Harry Callahan. You may not know if you fired five rounds or six, be sure does. . . punk.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Nick and Nora Charles of the Thin Man series! They served a mean martini and wore great clothes and always figured out “who done it”. And Asta the wire-haired terrier was cute too!

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: Battle: Los Angeles (2011)

Battle: Los Angeles looked like a big blockbuster film designed to attract an audience for two weeks and then be forgotten. Imagine my surprise to find a truly inspired film. And do you know what makes this film stand out? An utter lack of cynicism and a strong sense of patriotism. This IS a conservative film!

** spoiler alert **

Battle: Los Angeles is the story of a platoon of Marines who are called in from Camp Pendleton to defend Santa Monica when aliens begin an invasion of the Earth. The squad’s initial orders are to rescue civilians who are trapped in a police station which was overrun. But things get complicated as the aliens grow in strength and numbers and the squad finds itself stuck behind enemy lines.

Everything works in this film, from the effects to the acting to the writing. For example, when they fly to the battle, you never once doubt they are in actual helicopters looking down on a burning city. Explosions are realistic. There is no wire fighting. The battles are believable as well. They don’t overdo the damage to the city or the power of the weapons, nor do they downplay it to give the characters an easy out. Indeed, the battles feel entirely real and the city looks like a city that’s been under attack -- the level of damage even increases as the film advances and the battle spreads. Even the use of the shaky cam (something I normally HATE) is done well here to add to the sense of motion rather than just annoy the audience.

The aliens are great too. They are original looking and yet also completely believable, and we are constantly given little moments of insight, such as when we learn their weapons are surgically attached to their bodies. The story also does an excellent job of ratcheting up their threat level as the film progresses, and neither side ever acts stupidly to create drama.

Moreover, the film does a very credible job of presenting a realistic portrayal of how the Marines would deal with these aliens. Too often, films like this pretend that none of the characters has ever heard of an alien, a zombie or a vampire and thus has no idea how to deal with them. Not here. These Marines know what aliens are, just as you and I know, they just haven’t seen a real one. And when they do, their reactions are realistic, particularly with regard to how the Marines gather the knowledge they need to fight them. There is one particularly brilliant scene where the lead character, Staff Sgt. Michael Nantz (Aaron Eckhart) tries to figure out where to shoot the aliens to kill them without wasting a lot of bullets. That’s the sort of thing Marines really would do.

Indeed, the military procedures throughout are highly accurate. The characters never ignore military protocol, rank, or the chain of command. They also use their weapons realistically, and not in cool “Hollywood” ways, e.g. standing out in the open machine gunning down dozens of aliens while firing two guns at once. In many ways, the procedures are so accurate this feels like it could have been a documentary about a real operation.

But where this film really hits it out of the park is in the writing. Modern war films have become cliché-ridden and are laced with noxious liberal messages: the military is power hungry, the military murders civilians, the military kills for oil and tortures prisoners, and our officer corps is full of stupid, arrogant racists. This film has none of that!

The platoon is made up mainly of minorities, which is the liberal myth that the poor and minorities do the fighting for America, but a funny thing happened after that starting point. Not one single character ever mentions race. . . not even in jest. These characters hang out with each other, care for each other and fight and die for each other and there isn’t one single hint in this film that they ever consider the race of their comrades. Moreover, the officer in charge of the platoon, Lt. William Martinez (Ramón Rodriquez), is an Hispanic character (several officers are minorities) -- something Hollywood rarely shows.

And while Martinez is fresh from Officer Training School, he’s not cowardly, stupid or unprepared as such officers are usually presented. And even though his veteran staff sergeant has to shake him out of his initial shock, he doesn’t fall apart or abandon his training. Indeed, unlike other movies that use this premise, the staff sergeant doesn’t ridicule him, doesn’t overstep him, and doesn’t try to take over the platoon to save everyone else. He does what he’s been trained to do: assist Martinez to be a better officer.

None of the other liberal clichés are here either. None of these soldiers is power hungry or bloodthirsty. They are instead proud professionals who do their job without complaint. No one whines about not knowing why they are fighting or tries to surrender or betray the unit. They don’t rape or loot or plunder or engage in an orgy of violence. Not one of them is shown to be a coward. The same is true of the civilians who prove to be heroic in their own right. In effect, everyone is shown acting their best at the moment of crisis.

The film also avoids all of the toxic geopolitics which pollute other films. There’s no politician or oil company trying to exploit the crisis. There’s no CIA operative who wants to sneak home an alien body to create a bioweapon. There’s no general who really, really wants to nuke American cities. And there are no gangs who suddenly appear to create apocalypse kingdoms. There are just good people doing their best.

I’m sure some would argue this film is actually a veiled metaphor for America as a resource plundering nation that exterminates indigenous people. But that’s just not the case. There’s never once a sense of irony that the aliens are now doing it to us and no one suggests this is turnabout. Moreover, the aliens attack the whole world, not just America. And the American military saves the day. That’s not anti-Americanism.

Reinforcing all of this are a handful of truly stirring speeches. Nantz was brought to the platoon because their regular sergeant was away. There is resistance to Nantz initially because it is believed he got some Marines killed in Afghanistan in a raid. . . he did not get them killed through cowardice or incompetence as is usually the case in recent war films. This issue gets resolved later in the film and when it does, Eckhart gives a deeply moving speech about the responsibility officers feel for their men. This is not a speech anyone who hates the military could ever have written. In fact, the film is strewn with excellent speech where the characters explain why they fight. None of these fit the cynical modern mold. Indeed, unlike Tom Hank’s horridly defeatist speech in Saving Private Ryan, these speeches are deeply patriotic, such as when Lt. Martinez tells his squad they are “fighting for our families, our homes, and our country God dammit!”

All of this is highly patriotic in the best sense of the word. These characters don’t wrap themselves in the flag and then dishonor it, instead they honor the spirit of our nation through their every action and their love of the country, its people and their sense of duty. This is a film about people who believe in America and who will never surrender or dump their duties on others.

That’s why this film is so fantastic. It’s populated by good people doing their best for all the right and noble reasons. There is no cynicism and no irony and none of the defeatist, disheartening hallmarks of modern Hollywood war films. It is thus no surprise that liberal reviewers hated this film, because it rejects their ideological expectations about how the military, patriotism and race should be presented and it is an affront to those who want to hate America, Americans and the American military. That’s why they trashed it.

I very much recommend this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Scott's Links January 2012

For those who don't know, Scott roams the internet far and wide. Because of this, he supplies interesting links to Big Hollywood every day. I've asked Scott to give us a list of the best links he finds each month and a quick synopsis of what's behind each one. Check these out. . . share your thoughts!

A look back at Last Action Hero

1993's ill-fated Last Action Hero starring Arnold Schwarzenegger is another guilty pleasure of mine. After reading this article, it's a miracle the filmmakers managed to get a frame of film shot. Egos, paranoia, money, and a release date against Jurassic Park all spelled certain doom for this tongue-in-cheek deconstruction of the (80s) action genre.

39 things we learned from the Dark City commentary

I haven't seen the film in years, though Andrew reviewed it back in 2009. I'm a fan of informative DVD/BR bonus features and while Roger Ebert recorded an excellent commentary track for the film, this article focuses on what director Alex Proyas has to say.

Why can't Hollywood get Washington D.C. right?

Try as they might, it's simply impossible for a film crew to get every single detail correct when they shoot one location for another. This article focuses on the Showtime series Homeland in which North Carolina doubles for our nation's capital.

The 100 greatest Simpsons movie references

I haven't watched a new episode of The Simpsons in years and I stopped collecting the DVDs after season 10 but as far as movie references go, it doesn't get any better than Troy McClure in Planet of the Apes: The Musical.

Out of print Blade Runner sketchbook available online for free

When this film was released 30 years ago, a book of artwork was published, featuring work by futurist Syd Mead, director Ridley Scott (an accomplished artist in his own right), and more. A kind soul has scanned every page and put it online for all to see.

Movie plots that technology killed

The author of this article is correct: Marion Crane would still be alive if she could check out the Bates Motel on her Trip Advisor app.

George Takei's greatest and weirdest moments

I'd say this one is pretty self-explanatory. Oooh myyy.

25 things you didn't know about Three Amigos!

This movie still makes me laugh after all these years. I recently bought the Blu-Ray release which has some deleted scenes, including a brief appearance by Fran Drescher as an actress (and the Amigos' studio rival). Sadly, the rest of the deleted footage - including a Sam Kinison cameo! - has been lost forever.

4 unexpected fanbases in popular culture

I'll never get over the idea of grown men who watch My Little Pony. I'm not kidding - they call themselves "bronies"!

The Zucker-Abrahams-Zucker comedy glossary

These guys have been responsible for much of what I watched during my childhood (and continue to watch today). This article explains the method to their madness. "Nice beaver!"

Last night's listening:

La-La Land Records recently released a 2-disc album of Elliot Goldenthal's score to Batman Forever. It's so nice to be able to hear music from the film that wasn't on the original score album from 1995. Yes, even as a 12-year old, I was aware of such things. The remastered music sounds great and, while many of the technical terms found in the liner notes go over my head (tritone?), it's interesting to get Mr. Goldenthal's take on the music and the superhero genre itself. I also love his inspiration for Batman's theme: when children play, they tend to make up their own theme music! So Goldenthal simply unleashed his inner-child and wrote!

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Politics of Trek: “The Way To Eden”

Today’s episode is Episode 75: “The Way To Eden.” Hippies. Dirty, smelly hippies. How can hippies be conservative? Observe.

The Plot

As our episode begins, the Enterprise captures a group of hippies who have stolen a space cruiser. Among them is the son of an ambassador, which means Kirk must treat these hippies as guests rather than criminals. There is an obvious culture clash here, but the Enterprise crew comes to see the hippies as harmless and accepts them. But the hippies aren’t harmless. They are led by a brilliant research engineer named Dr. Sevrin, who is a luddite and is leading the hippies to a planet he believes to be Eden. Sevrin is barred from traveling to primitive planets because he carries a disease which would wipe out the indigenous populations. When Kirk tells Sevrin he will not be allowed to continue to Eden, Sevrin plots to hijack the Enterprise. Catching the crew unaware, the hippies knock out the crew using acoustics. These acoustics are strong enough to kill if left on, and Sevrin leaves them on when the hippies leave the ship. Moreover, the hippies have risked intergalactic war with the Romulans by taking the Enterprise deeply into Romulan space. In the end, Eden turns out to be a poisonous, uninhabitable planet.

Why It’s Conservative

“The Way To Eden” is crawling with conservative themes. For example, there’s a self-help message when Spock suggests the hippies make their own Eden. There’s also the old favorite rule-of-law idea both when Kirk points out his frustration that he cannot put the hippies in the brig because one is an ambassador’s son and in this exchange where Kirk and Spock debate the merits of the hippies:

KIRK: Doctor Sevrin is their leader?
SPOCK: Yes. A brilliant research engineer in the fields of acoustics, communications and electronics on Tiburon. He was dismissed from his post when he started this movement. . .
KIRK: Well. But they've rejected all that and all that this technology provides. And they seek the primitive.
SPOCK: There are many who are uncomfortable with what we have created. It is almost a biological rebellion. A profound revulsion against the planned communities, the programming, the sterilized, artfully balanced atmospheres. They hunger for an Eden where spring comes.
KIRK: All do. The cave is deep in our memory.
SPOCK: Yes, that is true, Captain.
KIRK: But we don't steal space cruisers and act like irresponsible children.

There are two conservative principles here. First, Spock points out that seeking their own utopia is a worthwhile pursuit (imposing one would not be). This is conservative because the idea of the individual charting their own course rather than following the herd is the very underpinning of classical liberalism, which sought to give individuals the freedom to make their own decisions. It is modern liberalism which seeks to limit the risks people can take, the goals they may achieve and how far they may stray from the herd.

Kirk then counters Spock’s point by noting that a noble goal does not excuse criminal and selfish behavior. This is rule of law and respect for property rights, both of which are conservative positions. Conservatives do not riot, do not steal, and do not destroy the property of others when they are upset because conservatives understand the value of the labor and the sacrifice/risk the owner undertook to obtain the property and they respect others’ rights to be left in peace. Liberals, by comparison, see property crimes as harmless, and consider minor violations of society’s rules as excusable (unless it is a law they like).

But there’s something much bigger in this episode. Dr. Sevrin, who appears to be based on LSD/“turn on, tune in, drop out” advocate Dr. Timothy Leary, is using the hippies for his own evil purposes. He is a megalomaniac who wants to remake a planet of primitive people into his version of utopia despite the fact his body carries a disease which will kill those same primitives. Here’s the transcript:

SEVRIN: I have no influence over what [the hippies] do.
SPOCK: They respect you. They will listen to your reasoning. For their sake, you must stop them. . . . incitement to disaffection is criminal. The Federation will never allow the colonization of a planet by criminals. If they persist, they will be so charged and forever barred from Eden.
SEVRIN: As I have been barred.
SPOCK: Then you knew you were a carrier.
SEVRIN: Of course I knew. You've researched my life. You've read the orders restricting me to travel only in areas of advanced technology because of what my body carries.
SPOCK: What I fail to understand is why you disobey those orders.
SEVRIN: Because this is poison to me. This stuff you breathe, this stuff you live in, the shields of artificial atmosphere that we have layered about every planet. The programs in those computers that run your ship and your lives for you, they bred what my body carries. That's what your science has done to me. You've infected me. Only the primitives can cleanse me. I cannot purge myself until I am among them. Only their way of living is right. I must go to them.
SPOCK: Your very presence will destroy the people you seek. Surely you know that.
SEVRIN: I shall go to them and be One with them. And together we shall build a world such as this galaxy has never seen. A world. A life. A life.

There are three strong conservative messages here. First, this episode warns against charismatic leaders. Sevrin represents the danger of following a charismatic leader: there is no protection should the leader prove to be evil. If Sevrin gets his way, the Enterprise crew will be dead, a galactic war may start, and any indigenous population already on Eden will die. The hippies know this, but they wrongly trust Sevrin when he lies to them, as seen here:

IRINA: What will that do to them? What is it?
SEVRIN: Well, I'm using sound against them, beyond the ultrasonic. It will stun them and allow us time to leave. We'll go in one of their shuttlecraft.
IRINA: Sound pitched that high doesn't stun, it destroys. I remember when we read in the text that it--
SEVRIN: I've gone beyond those texts, Irina. It's correct for you to be concerned, but be assured also.
RAD: . . . It does destroy.
SEVRIN: We cannot allow them to come after us. It will not reach us in here. I can control it all. I have adjusted it so that it will suspend its effects after a few moments and allow us time to escape. Then, after we've gone, it will automatically reactivate. Rejoice, brethren. Soon we shall step together into Eden.

Note that Irina is a talented scientist who knows what Sevrin is saying is false, but she accepts his assurance because she has chosen to follow him blindly. This is how the Hitlers of the world come to power. This is also why conservatism subscribes to rule of law, rather than rule of man. Conservatism holds that the best society results when the rules apply equally to all and keep the country’s leaders in check. Liberalism, by comparison, is grounded in vague notions of fairness and it trusts charismatic leaders with extreme discretionary power with the intent that they will use it fairly. Sevrin shows the folly of that.

The second and related point is a direct warning regarding the hippie movement and similar movements. Mindless followers attract evil leaders. And by 1968, it had become obvious the American hippie movement was being overrun by radicals, terrorists, and communists, who sought to do harm. They used the hippies as a smokescreen. By not looking closely at the leaders of the movement, society let a dangerous, destructive element into their midsts. This point is driven home in this episode when the crew dismiss the hippies as harmless and when the hippies overcome a security guard as he is distracted by their music, giving us the conservative message to stay on guard and always find out who is pulling the strings and what they really want, i.e. trust but verify.

Finally, the episode raises an interesting question about tolerance. Throughout the episode, the Enterprise crew is told to tolerate the hippies: they may be different, but they are harmless. Yet, the crew is shown repeatedly that the hippies are abusing that tolerance, which eventually rises to the hippies trying to kill them. The message is clear, tolerance is fine, but blindness is not. You simply cannot tolerate someone who will not tolerate you. This issue lies at the heart of the multiculturalism debate, with liberals arguing that all foreign ideas must be tolerated and conservatives arguing that foreign ideas that seek to destroy Western ideas should not.

That is why this episode is conservative.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

The Great (film) Debates vol. 22

Where are my flying cars!! Science fiction may be visionary, but sometimes it’s annoyingly wrong too.

What do you think was the silliest guess about the future made in a science fiction film?


Panelist: T-Rav

I don't think there have been a lot of really stupid guesses about the future, considering how many things we have now that would have been totally outlandish a few decades ago. The one thing I've never understood, though, is the idea that we could press a button and food or other materials would automatically materialize. Not gonna happen. You can't make something out of pure nothing.

Panelist: Tennessee Jed

Planet of the Apes. Look, it is supposed to be science fiction, so I may have to revise this if I can think of a film that presents a dumb vision of the future and pretends to take itself seriously.

Panelist: ScottDS

1995's Johnny Mnemonic. It's obviously no classic and while I'm not exactly an expert on the work of William Gibson or the "cyberpunk" genre, this film gets quite silly at times. For starters, filmmakers in the 90s seemed to think that the Internet of the future would look like a Blade Runner-style theme park and we would all surf the Internet using virtual reality or some other kind of sensory input. We're not quite there and I don't see people wearing goggles just to read their e-mail. The filmmakers also failed to take Moore's Law into account. At one point, Keanu Reeves (the titular Johnny Mnemonic) complains that he has to store 320 GB in his head. I can go to Best Buy today and purchase a 2 TB drive the size of a paperback book. Oh, one more thing. . . the filmmakers failed to predict solid state memory and personal video recorders. Despite taking place in 2021, Ice-T's character tells people to fire up their VCRs. Whoops!

Panelist: AndrewPrice

I’m going with everything about the Star Wars prequels. Why? Three reasons. First, although these are prequels, somehow their technology got more advanced than the later films. Secondly, their world is incredibly sterile. It’s a world without personal effects, a world of soundstages. No one will live like that. And third and most importantly, none of their technology is useful. It’s a world with some cool stuff, but none of it is practical and none of it is stuff that would make people’s lives better or easier.

Panelist: BevfromNYC

Does The Jetsons count? If so, where did the land go? Why don’t they have any roads? I know the cars fly, but what happens to all the “antique” cars that would probably require rubber tires and garbage powered-nuclear reactor engines? And if you can fly in a car, why do they use the vacuum tubes to get places? I mean really, what happened to the purple mountains majesty? However I really hope that one day we have instant dressing tubes. It would save a lot of time.

Comments? Thoughts?

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...

Film Friday: The Adjustment Bureau (2011)

I see where The Adjustment Bureau looked like a brilliant concept. Random chance brings a man and woman together. They fall in love. But God’s plan for the world requires they be apart. Angels separate them, but the man fights against God’s plan to be with his true love. That’s an incredible amount of fascinating conflict. Sadly, Bureau mishandles every aspect of this and muddles all the conflict, which makes it feel as tired and indifferent as the last few weeks of a canceled television show.

** spoiler alert -- I will talk about the ending **

The Plot

Matt Damon is the idealized liberal politician destined to become President. Damon meets a woman (Emily Blunt) and falls in love. Damon is kidnapped by men who turn out to be angels, and told he cannot be with the woman because it violates “the Chairman’s” plan (i.e. God). If he tries to be with her, they will blank his personality and leave him insane. Damon still tries to find her because he’s fallen in true love. He finds her. Now the angels warn Damon he will ruin her life and his if he doesn’t leave her. He does, but then goes back to her. Surprise! They chase him. He tries to see God to get God’s plan changed. True love conquers all.

Where It All Went Wrong

Based on a Philip K. Dick story, Bureau is one of those films that feels wrong when you watch it because you have a hard time caring about the things they tell you to care about, the mystery doesn’t seem mysterious, and it all feels pointless. Here’s why. Films are about conflict, and conflict requires interesting stakes. If there’s nothing worth gaining or losing, then the conflicts won’t interest the audience and the story will be hard to care about. Bureau is packed with conflict, but it keeps undercutting every single stake it tries to establish.

For example, there are problems at the outset with the believability of the characters. Damon is running for Senate and dreams of becoming president. This desire to be president is a vital point to the story, as you’ll see in a moment. But Damon’s character seems indifferent to the prospect. In fact, the only reason we know he wants to be President is because other characters tell us this is what Damon wants. This is bad writing and it happens throughout the film -- we are constantly told things are true even though there’s no evidence to support them.

The love story suffers similarly. Instead of finding some way to show us how much Damon and this woman love each other, we get only good- natured, self-depreciating ribbing along with a couple kisses. To convince us this is love and not just acquaintanceship, the writer has the other characters tell us repeatedly that these two are in love. In fact, they don’t just tell us they are in love, they tell us they are in God’s plan-shattering destiny LOVE. Yet, there isn’t the slightest hint of this from Damon or the woman. This is mainly the fault of really poor writing, but Damon plays a role in this failure too. Matt Damon has become a nasty man, and I don’t just mean politically. The likable Matt Damon of Good Will Hunting and Ocean’s 11 has been replaced by the brooding Jason Bourne, and Damon seems angry throughout this film.

Even beyond the love story, Damon’s character is hard to believe. He’s presented as the ideal (liberal) politician -- a young good looking environmentalist outsider who isn’t like other politicians. . . he’s “authentic!” And what proves he’s authentic is a concession speech he gives where he exposes the sordid underbelly of candidate packaging. But here’s the problem. This speech is pedantic and pointless. We’re supposed to believe he’s exposing some big secret which makes the world fall in love with his authenticity, but all he’s really doing is confessing that he paid a consultant to pick his tie and scuff his shoes. There’s no substance in the speech which would make the public love him. So how do we know the public loves him? Because every character tells us so -- the writer even obnoxiously has random characters call out Damon’s name as he walks around town and tell him they voted for him and they love him.

As an aside, Damon is clearly a white version of Barack Obama and the script is laced with Obamaism, like when one of the angels says he doesn’t know God’s plan because “that’s above my pay grade.”

But all of that is just the beginning of the problem. The film really falls apart when it gets to the stakes. The angels tell Damon that if he doesn’t abandon the woman, then his dream of becoming president will be destroyed. Those are the stakes: true love versus fulfilling his dream. But these are problematic stakes, because wanting to be president isn’t a dream people consider realistic. And there’s no reason to think he needs to be president to cause something good or stop something bad. Nor will he end up homeless eating garbage if he fails, he’ll still be rich and famous. That’s not really a horrible loss, so it’s hard to get worked up over this. Also as mentioned above, he certainly doesn’t seem to care about this personally.

And it gets worse. As the story unfolds, the angels tell us the reason he wants to be president is the plan calls for it, hence the angels put the desire to be president into his head. But this kills the stakes. Now Damon is being asked to give up true love or he won’t be able to fulfill a dream that was never his. See the problem?

It gets worse yet. For one thing, a little earlier in the film, when they established what the angels can and cannot do, we were told the angels can’t change your desires. Suddenly, we have a story-rules breakdown. Also, this undercuts his greatness as a politician because the angels tell us this desire derives from a desperate need to be loved by crowds. In other words, he doesn’t want to be president because he’s a principled person with good ideas, he wants to be president because he craves the public’s love.

Further, Damon is looking to give up “his” dream because he has fallen in true love with this woman, right? That’s what we’re told. And it is God’s will that they never hook up. Thus, this film is about Damon’s free will challenging the God-created fate which the angels are trying to impose -- indeed, this free will v. fate point is made repeatedly throughout the film. Only, it turns out that God had a plan before the current plan and in that Plan A, Damon and the woman were to fall deeply in love. And the reason the angels are having a problem keeping them apart is that remnants of the original Plan A are still out there interfering with the new Plan B.

Now think about this.

● This means Damon isn’t acting according to free will. He is instead a victim of two contradictory versions of fate colliding. Ergo, the entire free will v. destiny conflict is phony and we no longer have any reason to care how it resolves.

● This means the whole “greatest love ever” bit is phony as well. They haven’t fallen in love against the very will of God, they fell in love because God told them to under Plan A and screwed up his math on his new Plan B. Their love is not real, it is forced upon them. Thus, it’s really not worthy of being a stake and this undercuts the entire love story.

● The whole movie is premised on the idea that God can’t change his plan. This is why the angels are so desperate to force Damon to surrender his (non-existent) free will. But now we’re told God changed his plan already once for Damon. In fact, we’re told of two other instances where God changed his plan. Further, there’s a whole division of angels who swoop in to erase people’s personalities when they don’t do as they’re told, and thereby completely re-write the plan again. In effect, we’re told Damon is going against an unchangeable plan, yet that plan gets changed all the time.

● In the end, Damon tries to get God to change his plan. To do this, Damon goes through a door by turning the doorknob left instead of right, something he’s been told never to do because “that’s only for angels.” He does it anyway, “risking everything” and thereby proving his love is so powerful that God sees it as worthy of changing the unchangeable plan. But he’s not really risking anything because the angels are chasing him to blank him out. Thus, he either does this or he dies. That’s not “risking everything.”

This is why this film fails. It promises some interesting ideas but has no clue how to handle them as it keeps undercutting everything it does, from the conflicts it establishes to the reasons we’re supposed to believe the characters. And despite the cool philosophical implications of this film, the writer basically just wrote a chase-movie. Not only are ideas like omniscience, omnipotence, faith, and even the mercy of God ignored, but the writer chickens out on his subversive idea of man v. God by making the angels fools who can’t stop Damon, by refusing to call God “God” and instead calling him “the Chairman,” and by studiously avoiding all of the philosophical and theological questions. “The Chairman” could just as easily have been some alien or a government conspiracy and little would have needed to change in this film.

[+] Read More...

[-] Collapse Post...