Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movies. Show all posts

Wednesday, February 27, 2008

The New Frontier: The Review



So I was bound to be disappointed after how much I was looking forward to this DVD, and I have to admit I am. As is quite apt to happen, the source material is far, far better. But this movie did not suck in the slightest. It was a very good time, only it was far too short, clocking in at only 70ish minutes.

This is the problem with this new series of direct to DVD releases from DC, they are far too short and lose the expansive, epic nature of the source material. The Superman: Doomsday film was whittled down from 3 extremely large TPBs which stared nearly every hero in the DC universe, to a quite boring 80ish minute version bereft of any other hero. It took Superman out of his world and inserted him into a fairly bad cartoon version of it. The Death of Superman is the best selling graphic novel of all time. There is/was certainly an audience for this movie, but the implementation of it was extraordinarily weak.

The New Frontier does not suffer the same fate. This is an extremely fun movie that captures the core essence of the book, it just does not feel complete. There are so many story lines going on here that any of them could have easily been expanded on without making this film lopsided. The Martian Manhunter is easily the soul of the book. His story of wanting to get home and giving it up to save earth highlights the true nature of heroism. And while the film does not short him as much as a few other characters, his story here just does not seem complete. It is as if his journey starts sputteringly then bang he is at his destination, almost as if Dorthy's house were to have fallen on the witch, some munchkins sang her a song and then she woke up in her bed. And really his journey fails as it was so contextual to the development of the history behind the the story in the book. His newspaper clippings, provided a window into the snowballing ills of the time. The ills that called for heroes and heroism. Not following this thread also forced the view to miss out on one of the most powerful pieces in the book, the story of John Henry Irons. And while there is a brief mention of his fate in the film, the power of his story is lost. That said, the changes they made to the storyline to pare down the story mostly work extremely well. Forgoing the tale of The Losers sadly made a lot of sense. And framing the story around the creation of a comic book was a spark of genius.

The voice actors were above competent and the art and design flawless. I can easily see watching it again, and really look forward to the extras on the DVD. I just really think it calls out to be longer. And to repeat a previous critique, why was this not released theaters?

Monday, February 25, 2008

Now if only the French Would Take Over in the Music World as Well

I am not one to really give a damn about the Oscars, But I was very happy to hear that Marion Cotillard won the best actress award for La Môme.

I had my serious doubts of anyone being able to pull off playing the great Edith Piaf. I even was hesitant to see the film at first. But damn if Cotillard did not blow me away.

I will also delude myself into thinking that this will help usher in a onslaught of French entertainment goodness on the unwashed American masses.....

Saturday, February 23, 2008

I am soooo Looking forward to this (the first in a series)


I can not tell you how much I am looking forward to this DVD:Justice League: The New Frontier. Really, my excitement level for this is sort of past the acceptable. And this is even after having watched DC Comics first foray into straight to DVD fare: Superman Doomsday, which was a travesty of epic proportions. And the less said about it the better. But while I enjoyed the subject matter of the Superman Doomsday comic (the death and rebirth of Superman), I simply adored story of The New Frontier. And the simple reason for this: Darwyn Cooke.

Darwyn Cooke is easily one of the most exciting artists in comics today. Rarely will I ever get a book just for an artist. Cooke is one, Ted Mckeever another, but after than I can not think of anyone else I would seek out strictly for the art. This is easily Cooke's masterwork and to see it translated into animation makes me nearly swoon with gleeful anticipation. And trust me, me swooning at all, let alone gleefully is fairly out of character for me, what with my normal grumpy disposition.

This is a classic retelling of DC Comics silver age years, well sort of. It is well entrenched in DC's line of Elseworlds stories, a hodge-podge of "what if..." propositions (ie. what would batman be like in a Victorian era Gotham, what would have happened if Superman landed in Russia rather than Kansas, etc...). In other words, this is not the Justice League of recent JLU cartoon vintage. And as much as I liked that series, and I really did, this should be so much better.

In the graphic novel, Cooke took all areas of DC's historic silver age and tossed them like a salad to create an amazing story that his rich palate of 50s and 60s style make explode off the page like a bold, spicy vinaigrette. I am sure they have cut and altered the story to fit the 80 minutes for the film, which really begs the question, why the very short limit, and why, oh why, is this only straight to DVD??? Cooke's version of post WW II America is begging to be seen on the big screen. The magic of his art is that it is amazingly hopeful. While the design of his characters hark back to the era of his story, they are emboldened with an almost urgent flare. His story views the future with a wistful optimistic eye, even while taking on American military imperialism, racism, McCarthyism, etc... Even as a global threat over the main story, the heroes are able to seek a better tomorrow.

Will I be disappointed? Yes, more than likely, as I have read about some parts that have been nixed from the film that overwhelmingly were some of the most powerful moments in the story. But from the clips I have seen, just witnessing Cooke's art in motion will be a treat that might make me even consider buying my 2nd DVD. And now that he has left The Spirit I will have to take his art anywhere I can get it.

So I can just tell you that at some point on this coming Tuesday I will be watching this Film, and I am sure a review will follow.

Tuesday, February 19, 2008

To Further my point on Juno

Not sure what it says about me but, the biggest single google search driver to my blog is "clothes from juno". It is responsible for more the 50% of my traffic. In other words, people are digging them on the character and her clothing choices. My guess is they would like to emulate her.

And once again I get angry once again about the lack of options presented in the film. As I mentioned previously, "Juno is an easy character to idolize. She is written in a way that many people wish they were." And the traffic here while not proving this, does seem to suggest there is something to this line of thinking.

My only hope is that those people hoping to emulate Juno, go above and beyond the films creators and open their mind to the options of birth control and see a healthier version of family life than the ideal presented within the film.

So dress like her, aspire to talk like her, but lord knows do not fuck like her. Birth control is your friend!

Saturday, February 16, 2008

The Knowing Wink of Nostalgia

Yesterday I was half tempted to put my head in the oven and be done with it. Okay, not really, but after watching this:



it did seem like a good idea. Go ahead and watch it if you have not yet seen it before you read yet another screed from me, calling out, no, begging for originality.

Now do not get me wrong, I am still looking forward to this film (though honestly, not close to the same degree), but the level of pandering in this preview is down right revolting. That Indy is first portrayed in silhouette, a shadow of his former self I am sure, should tell you everything about the intentions of this film. It is as much about the aged men who made the film as the characters that populate it. I guess this is what one should expect when the producers and director are stars, and demand that you remember it. They can not handle giving up the stage even for the good of the story.

Indiana Jones is an icon. The trailer even shows us this via use of the silhouette. Everyone knows who he is. Yet just as fast as Indy can crack his whip, the viewer is flung back to his earlier adventures (better times), as seen with clips from his earlier films. Do we really need this? Do they really think the viewers will have forgotten? Do they not remember the letters and outcry from the fans over many years demanding them to make another movie? And granted I am using this preview as a springboard, as this sappy pandering to the audience is not a crime perpetrated solely by the three headed monster that is Lucus/Spielberg/Ford. With that said.... that they feel nostalgia is the best (or is it easiest) way to market this film is disturbing at best.

This story has taken nearly 20 years to make it to screen since Indy's last adventure. With that much lead time I am under the impression that they worked out a script that truly captures the essence of the 1st and 3rd films (the less we talk about the second the better). Though this preview shows next to nothing about what we are to expect, it relies on our good natured memories of enjoying the past. It counts on the pulse of nostalgia to jolt the audiences' hearts to beat ever faster. My biggest problem with this is the trend that as we inch forward into the future, far too many commercial amusements are seeking to reinvigorate past products to recreate the past rather than plant seeds for the future. And the revival, or is it resuscitation, of this franchise is exactly that, looking backwards and discovering memory is a far larger harbinger of tickets sold than the creation of something new.

I guess what pisses me off the most is that this confirms everything I try and deny about much of the media I consume. They are all products and will be marched out in new dress any time a new audience can be identified. Another prime example of this is Transformers. As a kid they were fresh and new - and most importantly: totally exciting. Simply put they were cars and planes that could become robots. And really, robots are totally cool. So this was an earth shattering story telling device. I read the comics, watched the cartoons and played with the toys. Of course, over time the mold that was so successful had to be changed as new characters had to be introduced - one has to sell more toys! This only muddied the field, making sure that what was once special become commonplace. But rather than toss the damaged brand on the scrape heap for old media products, they were put in cold storage. Then when given enough time they re-incubated and birthed anew for a new generation to discover along with their parents to fondly remember, which i assume makes opening the pocket book a bit easier: nostalgia sells!

I am just so sick of this. Simply put this stagnation and looking backwards is a product of the current climate in America. I look to other areas of the world and their touchstones for awareness in everyday life often look like this, this, or this, etc. While the rest of the world looks ahead, we confined to look to the past. This is not a compelling sign that our influential status in the world will last. Compared to the rest of the world's creativity and what appears a boundless hope for the future, our backwards looking forecasts an ominous outlook. Our cultural output, in this crucial time of beckoning globalism, is staid and lackluster. We are pumping out cultural forms that resemble nothing more than Communist block rigid sterile architecture. And as those forms crumble under the steam shovels of progress, the culture from which they came long dead, what are we to think of the prospects of basing our one true global import on it directanalog, nostalgia?

The audience is not afraid to be challenged. If the stories are compelling, new pantheons and myths are welcome. Case in point: The Matrix. The first film was fresh and looked fantastic. The characters and action spoke to us, we shared their fears and dreams. The next two happened and style superseded substance and the the magic was gone. Outside the direct entertainment world we crave newness. Look at how we adapt to new products/services/platforms/wtfever in the cellular and/or computer world. Yet when it come to entertainment we get extremely stilted products that are forced into situations that recall a past that supposedly prompts desire. WTF, seriously WTF?

There is a product in Alan Moore's Watchmen called Nostalgia. It is a fragrance that is advertised with copy reading "where is the essence that was so divine?" and "oh how the ghost of you clings." I am not sure if this was the first time I started to notice the effects nostalgia had on buying patterns, but it certainly was the epiphany moment. It is extremely hard to compete with memory. One could say: "memory is all we are," and could easily make a strong case for it. So why do I find the practice of using it as the base for marketing so wrong? Well simply put, it is too easy. In the preview above, Indy is portrayed as a caricature of his past performances. He acknowledges his age and his long absence by complaining of his eye sight and that 'this used to be easier'. This is nothing more than slapping the back of the fan, placating him/her, lulling them to sleep -- lazy storytelling.

To subjugate one of the better characters ever created for film to an endless loop of self referential mirror games should be a criminal offense. The exact fans that are being pandered to are the ones that simply do not need it. They are the ones with the previous trilogy at home on VHS and DVD, and if they were early adaptors, LaserDisk. They are already excited about this film and will be in line to see it on opening day. So I ask how is this preview helpful. It speaks to the subset of the audience that does not need to be spoken to. Yet the ones who are not scheduling a day off on opening day are left a bit puzzled as the preview gave not an inkling of what maybe in store for them, if they even choose to see it. Again the limits of nostalgia are blatantly obvious.

One of the genius things about Moore's Watchmen is that while he was easily taking a shot at nostalgia in the story, he also scheduled his product to be replaced with a new line of fragrances called Millennium which is described as "projecting a vision of technological Utopia, a whole new universe of sensations and pleasures that is just within reach," and advertised with the phrase "this is the time, these are the feelings." He saw the power of new forms able to rise out of the bleak shadow of looking backwards for inspiration. Yet even today, twenty years later Hollywood is producing a film based on his book, helping to further their diet based on the regurgitation of the past and lack of creativity. Jolly good show that.....

So I ask, what is the reason behind the overuse of nostalgia? I say it is easier to reuse than to create, but am open to other suggestions. Go....

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Brazil

So a while back a group of friends and I were discussing movies and the topic veered towards Brazil. And one of my friends claimed it was his favorite movie of all time. I sort of hung my head in shame for him, as I always found it an extremely good case of why style should never reign over substance. And it is not like I did not give this film ample chances, I have seen it at least 4 times and watched both the uplifting American and regular versions of it. I saw it on the big screen and at home. I just never found it to be a good film. But after listening to him pontificate on how wonderful it was, I decided to try it again. So whilst in bed last week convalescing from a bout with the chicken pox, I slipped it in the media player and tried to give it a fair shake.

What I walked away with was that I figured out Terry Gilliam should stop making movies. It was far worse than I had remembered. Of the 15 films he has directed, well completed, I have seen 9 and only really liked one, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (I am sure having Hunter S. Thompson being the source of the material helped in more ways than I can imagine). And while 12 Monkeys has some good moments it feels like an incomplete film. The rest, holy crap.... I wish I had brushed my teeth with lye rather than sat through the dung he foists on unsuspecting audiences. They are horrible. And Brazil might just be the worst of the lot.

I suspect Gilliam considers himself to be cleaver. I also suspect he still laughs at the stilted, forced "humor" of Monty Python. I am sure there is medication he could take to help this delusional outlook. His outlook is amazingly juvenile, or adolescent at best. In Jr. high, I remember railing against the bureaucratic nonsense of my mega school, and feel I could have easily echoed many of the visions of bureaucracy nightmare gone wild he presents in Brazil back then. Hell, I still bristle when I encounter bureaucracy, but at least I can make critical comments/assessments about it now, without being reduced to surrealism and delusional fantasy. In fact I am pretty sure this might be the only way Gilliam can convey any "message". Hmmm, one trick pony much???

But watching Brazil again this time, I noticed how much the Cohen brothers modeled the beginning of the far superior The Hudsucker Proxy after the drones of paper shufflers seen throughout Gilliam's form of celluloid torture. I am sure both films sought to address the emptiness of corporate life, but The Cohen's were able to contextualize it around real people, rather, characters that seemed like real people, and not just abject abstract characters in a veil of prefabbed utter pomposity called set design. And yes, I understand that Gilliam tried taking the machinations of bureaucracy to the absolute most infinite degree, but what this fails to do is communicate the real horrors of the system. It tries to make it into a joke, or a slapdash of slapstick, rather than a concise critique on how the numerous wheels and gears of the bureaucratic machine grinds and spits out human emotion and leaves husks of us all. And while I can understand leaping out of bounds at specific times to make a valid point, but by having an entire movie exist so far outside reality causes the effect to wane and snuff out its own flame.

That surrealism is the only form of expression that Gilliam feels comfortable plucking from a directors' palate aptly shows why many of his works never get out of pre-production. His points have all been made and he is just reshuffling the deck. The overt over the topness squashed what were likely good performances from Bob Hoskins and Robert DeNiro. Where John Ford so rightly surmised that the eyes were (and i am paraphrasing here) 'the key to an actors soul', Gilliam is far more concerned with the way an actor can stand out, in crazed dress, from the mad surroundings he obviously is overly familiar or fascinated with. Gilliam's tone seems to be crank it up to level 10 on the dial and scream along till everyone is deaf and then nodding in agreement. How he has been as successful as he has with this formula is far beyond me.

I am not saying that everything about Brazil is useless, but I would harbor a guess that 95% is. I do love the soundtrack. There is also some very witty dialogue, and Jonathan Pryce's dreams of escape from the mad world of the film resonate quite well. I am just not sure he was really acting there, as the desire to get the hell out from under this abomination of a movie seems quite the intelligent choice.

This is to be my 1st post in a series I will Label Utterly Overrated, where I hope to pick apart totally misappropriated, time honored wonders/classics/perfect examples of group think/wtfever from the many realms of entertainment.

Monday, February 11, 2008

The Man who Fell to Earth and the Desire for Intelligent Sci Fi Films

I have been on a Sci FI kick lately. Some might say I have been on one since I saw Star Wars in 1977. But I say "BAH!!!" to that suggestion, as I am on a more cerebral kick than the ever pedestrian Star Wars. I think it was seeing Sunshine a few months back that really got me going on it. And kick might be the wrong word for it, as I mainly lean towards Sci FI style entertainment anyways. I mean Kurt Vonnegut is my favorite author and I read comic books with ever demanding fervour. So this past weekend I decided to sit down and watch a film I had never seen, but heard much about. I am not sure if it is considered a Sci FI Classic or not, but The Man who Fell to Earth was and interesting thing to watch.

I am not sure why but I have always associated it with The Brother from Another Planet. And as I watched David Bowie's oddity play a visitor from space so well, I also understood that this was in no way as good as John Sayles's Sci FI masterpiece. In fact on numerous times I found myself wishing I was watching Sayles's film rather than the oh so oddly edited The Man who Fell to Earth. The large gaps left in the story were just too disconcerting to really enjoy the film. And I have never read the book it was based on, so I felt at a loss. Though at its core, it was fun to watch the cast play with so many challenging ideas.

For those of you who have not seen it, Bowie plays a space alien, Thomas Newton, who travels to Earth to bring back water to his home planet. And to make it interesting rather than landing and trying to take what was needed by force or enslave the population, Newton creates a cooperation to gain the resources needed to build a return craft to take the water back with him. So we see Newton take on the recluse role of Howard Hughes as he uses the technology of his home world to create World Enterprises Corporation. Over time he amasses amazing wealth and turns it to creating a space craft. This premise is used to explore greed and alienation quite well. And while I was not over joyed by the film direction itself, it was far better than most of the Sci FI film Hollywood throws at us today.

Hollywood is content in pumping out summer block buster tripe dressed in Sci FI clothes and motifs. In fact the ever pleasant, non threatening Will Smith is almost always, for unknown reasons, the Sci Fi de rigor star of these movies, see I am Legend, I, Robot, and Men in Black among many others. And while any of these might be entertaining (I admit I surprisingly enjoyed I am Legend), they are far more in the vein of action movies than true cultural probing Sci Fi that the world knew prior to Star Warization of Sci Fi (yet another reason to be pissed off at George Lucus). For most studios, Sci Fi has become synonymous with inter-textual tie-ins at fast food locales and toy stores (see Star Wars and Star Trek for prime examples) and of course they have to appeal to children that will demand these simulacra. Where is the next Blade Runner or 2001 style critical Sci Fi films Hollywood used to be more than happy to produce?

While Sunshine fit more in the mold of 2001 or Tarkovsky's great Solaris, it was not produced by Hollywood. It was also promoted less than Bacon flavored Pepsi might be. And for the record I quite enjoyed Sunshine, but would have enjoyed it far more with a slightly personable cast. It dealt with alienation and the possibilities of hard science in entertaining ways. So why does it seem that Hollywood is more apt to release films like The Island where the main issue at hand is staring at the attractive visages of cloned beautiful people. I mean there was so much potential within to explore and bring up questions of what is life/reality/the ethics of cloning/etc, but these points were obstructed by beauty. The best Sci Fi deals with our fears and/or desires for our civilization. And for the past decade Hollywood has seemed to basically given up on addressing this on the big screen, almost as if they have given up on the future.

I would wager to say that the last great real Sci Fi movie Hollywood released was over ten years ago, when the criminally underrated Gattaca was released. I could also see an argument made for The Matrix here, but damn it, Gattaca is a far better Sci Fi film, as the fears it percolates and dissects are ones that we can actually hold in our hands; therefore, far scarier. As a quick aside: seriously, who could have guessed Uma Thurman could actually act? How is it possible that it has been ten years (eight if using The Matrix) since Hollywood created a serious thought provoking Sci Fi movie? Am I forgetting a great Sci Fi film during the time between then and now?

And yes, I know i am leaving out those current day episodic Sci Fi epics that occur over the course of weeks or seasons on television. I have another post in mind about them. It just strikes me as strange that a genre with such potential in these ever fluctuating, panic inducing times seems bereft of any serious treatment at the multiplex. Any thoughts on why?

Monday, January 21, 2008

Is Disco Trek Dead?

So they released the new Star Trek preview today.

All I have to say is this movie looks more and more like a bad idea all the time. JFK and Spock talking over the creation of The Enterprise. Wow, how original. Someone using JFK's magnificent oratory on space exploration to give us goosebumps... And really, how far into the future is Star Trek, in their world, no other president or leader has much to say about space travel, even though the cost to fund building Starfleet must have instilled much more rhetoric. But no, just like this franchise fans are constantly looking backwards so are its creators.

And just why does the ship building yard look so much like the set of blade runner, are the new de-aged Enterprise crew replicants?

How hard is it to let things die and remain so? I guess not nearly as hard to create new stories and mythologies. They might as well market this film in the same vein they used to market Oldsmobiles, "This is not your father's Star Trek." It worked so well for Oldmobiles....

So here is to hoping this film floppity flop flops, and the door to nostalgic space travel will close and new ideas can burst forth from elsewhere.

The well is dry, time to drill for water elsewhere.

Sunday, January 20, 2008

My Juno rant

Everything about me wanted to like Juno. And I left the theater a bit uplifted, and rather happy that I spent an hour and forty-five minutes at the movies, but I was not sure if I liked the overall tone movie. The acting was great and it showcased a side of humanity not normally seen on screen, the forgiving, quick witted non-smarmy kind. While Juno obviously held disdain for much life had to offer, she was not a single serving of angst plated over easy. While her despondent movie brethren often look down upon everything with equal sense of near entitlement, Juno seems to accept that which comes to her, not necessarily liking it, but accepting it. There is little fight in her towards the things she can not control. In this, she is not apathetic like the kids in River's Edge, but just has a better understanding of the world than most 16 year olds. And while the film seems to be about her unplanned pregnancy, it seems far more about the way she is able to plug in with that which surrounds her.

From the very start of the film we see her charting the territory that that surrounds her from "the most magnificent discarded living room set" she has ever seen to the animated environs that show her suburban town. At first it is a bit off putting to watch Juno step onto the 4 color palate of a comic book, but this is the first hint that while the following story seems real, it is as fake as any global disaster than only Superman can deflect. Yet at the same time it shows how Juno traverses the world on her own terms. The realms and facts of everyday life need not concern her, which we can see as she pops back into the real world and tries to deny the facts of two previous pregnancy tests. When asked why she needs a third test she replies: "I think the last one was defective. The plus sign looked more like a division sign. I remain unconvinced." So rather than accept the harsh reality of being another statistical teenage pregnancy, she tries to deflect away the facts with her wits and opens herself to a third possibility on her true/false baby exam. This is who Juno is, and she is presented in the most admirable way. And at this point I just knew I was going to love this film.

Yet, I sit here, after much thought, pretty much with only condemnation about it going though my head. Why? What about this film makes me so uneasy? Well for one thing, the whole film seems to be summed up in a montage of what Juno thinks a jock wants. It shows what the credits call 'Pretty-to-Goth Girl' morphing from preppy cheerleader to hot topic model extraordinaire. That is the whole movie, a pretty cheerleader film (read typical Hollywood popcorn movie) as "gothed out" (indie). The airs of the film all point to it being outside the mainstream, but it is just more of the norm masquerading in amazingly witty dialogue and longing for a more wholesome time of idealized family life, or "the way we never were."

This is nothing new, the co-opting of a genre to present the idealized status quo, but the marketing angle of this film makes this feel dirty beyond belief. The movie poster, with all its mismatched vertical stripes, is extremely bold and even uses a quote that calls the film "fresh". But again, this film is about as fresh as 3 day old popcorn at the modern multiplex. The marketing seems to try and recall the quirkiness of movies like Napoleon Dynamite. This points exactly to my first major issue with the film: its use of quirkiness as a substitute for real character or plot development. Yet the quirky, goofy look of the two main characters helps make them different enough to float out of the strata of a normative movie. And it is directly from the use of quirk as a point of reference rather than from direct character development that makes what was a promising premise fall to the depths Juno does.

And thus the my real loathing of this film begins. It dresses itself up in quirky colors and asserts its relevance to pre-packaged divergent culture with a classically indie rock soundtrack and Juno's acid tongued quips, but it exists really to embrace the idealized post WW II nuclear family structures. The script only pays lip service to family life outside the suburban norm. As Juno and her friend search through the penny saver to find adoptive parents, Juno longs to have her baby in a loving non-conventional home: "I was thinking I could give the baby to somebody who likes that kind of thing. You know, like a woman with a bum ovary or something. Or some nice lesbos." In fact this is the only time the movie even presents the idea of an alternative family. Everything else seems post war Eisenhowerian bliss in Juno's idealized suburban realm. In fact, the couple she decided to adopt out to lives an hour away, so not to distract with the lovely portraiture of the complacent suburbs Juno presents. And granted Juno still decides to give her child to the newly single Vanessa at the end of the movie, which I assume would have made Dan Quayle have an aneurysm if she was played by Candace Bergan, but this is the only time a family is allowed to be so ill defined in the film. And Vanessa is already damaged goods what with not being able to have a baby and all, though will likely be a loving mother.

How different is Juno from Cher from Clueless? Sure Cher is searching for clothes while Juno is seeking parents for her unborn child, but those are just plot conventions, they are both determining how to plug into their distinctive worlds. And while Juno does not demonstrate the obvious conspicuous consumptive power of Clueless, it does seem to be working towards a set of underground cool notes through Juno's cultural cache. From her arguments of 1977 being the best year for rock and roll to her off centered wardrobe, how many young women will begin to model themselves after her? In other words, Juno presents Juno as someone to emulate, and provides clues of what to buy to be more like her.

Juno is obviously a character to look up to, far better than the empty soulless teenagers portrayed on what was once the WB. But I have a major problem that not once throughout the entire film is she presented with a healthy response or option for birth control. While all characters seem to agree it would have been best for her to avoid the pregnancy from the start, the only time a condom is even mentioned is when Juno explores her options at the planned parenthood center clone. The abrasive desk clerk offers her a condom in a most uncouth manner:

Desk clerk: Would you like some free condoms? They're boysenberry.
Juno: No thank you. I'm off sex.
Desk clerk: My partner uses them every time we have intercourse. They make his balls smell like pie.

That is it. Condoms are treated as the entryway of a punch line. And while this could be interpreted as an astute commentary on abstinence only sex ed, there is far more at play here than just that. As aforementioned, Juno is an easy character to idolize. She is written in a way that many people wish they were, and I say the lack of any other mention of contraception is damn near criminal. The 16 year old girls that will look to her for inspiration should not have to look to her for sex ed, but that is the way of the world, and the creators behind this movie needed to address this issue. That they do not is as irresponsible as showing only angst driven complications Juno suffers from the pregnancy. They almost make pregnancy seem cool.

This brings me to another major theme that percolates under the surface throughout the movie, the issue of family structure. Juno's voice over at the beginning of the film really highlights this as she talks about how her mother left her and her father for New Mexico and had "three replacement children" and how she lives in a blended family with her father and step mom and their toddler, who says nothing the entire film. And this is a huge source of contention for me. From the film i know about four things about Juno's sister, she takes toddler ice skating lessons, over uses Ba-cos, is a scapegoat for Juno, and most importantly never speaks. She is much more a plot device than a person. Her presence is almost like a salve to prop up the fact that only families with children are real, that two married people, have to have at least a single child together to have any meaning. Just the thought of this convention drives me mad. That this hip script and film would seem to advocate for such a ill conceived notion of marriage boggles my mind. I expected far better of you Juno, far, far better.

Juno's main foil in this film is her Mother, who gave her up after knowing her, rather than right after she was born, never holding her in her arms. That we, the audience, never even see the mother, really shows how little actual drama is in the script. Sure there is the fact that Juno is pregnant and her navigating what that means to a 16 year old, but again this movie is far less about the pregnancy than about how quick Juno can spit out witty ephemera to polish the rusty rudder of her life. As the Pretty-to-Goth girl sequence really sums up the core essence of how this film presents it's self to the audience, Juno begins her decent back to a normal 16 year old, well non pregnant at least, by asking her father "I guess I wonder sometimes if people stay together for good... I just need to know that it is possible for two people to stay together happy forever. Or at least a few years." And so this takes us back to the moment of conception, as Juno figures out she loves Bleeker (and as much as I have harsh feelings towards much of this film, what a great name for this character), the father of her child. That even though a pregnancy has come between them, this is the real thing. And so we get the happy Hollywood ending to such an edgy film.

Wait, what? Every character seems to have what they crave at the end of the film, Juno and Bleeker are together, making music, Juno's step mother is loving on her dog, which up to this point was impossible due to Juno being allergic to dog saliva (did her pregnancy cure this allergy as well???), Vanessa has her child that she holds lovingly (it is a wonder that she was not shown walking off into the sunset pushing a stroller), her useless husband (soon to be ex) has his last chance at rock and roll fame and a loft downtown, Juno's dad is happy building model ships and that his daughter no longer resembles "a planet", as Juno once refers to herself. The only character that seem worse for the wear of the film is Bleeker's mom, who does not approve of Juno. How did a film with such a premise, that relied on such witty, tongue piercing dialogue reformat itself to a photo spread in Better Homes and Gardens or a Rockwell cover of the Saturday Evening Post? With the birth, even Juno's wit now seems to be absent. Love even conquers that? Color me unimpressed.

But I guess the major reason that I have major problems with this film is that even knowing all the above, I still quite liked parts of it. In other words, I took the bait and was hooked in like that first time someone puffs on a cigarette all the while reading the surgeon general's warning. Maybe it was not meant to be so vitriolic towards the culture it critiques behind veils. But the core of my emotional response to this film remains that I would like to think that my 16 year old self would be friends with Juno, or a reasonable facsimile of her. So rather than battle with my emotions (a never ending battle to be sure), I can say that I really enjoyed the notion of the film and felt a sort of kinship with Juno, but have a deep dislike for the puppet mastery behind the curtain trying to instill pre-packaged, pro-consumptive, normative values through a mural of self discovery. But I guess it is my fault to think that any romantic comedy could hold any sort of meaningful critique on society at large.

Saturday, May 5, 2007

spiderman 3 and free comic day

As you know, I went into Spiderman 3 with pretty low expectations. But as a good friend from CA was in town and really wanted to see it in NYC, who was I to begrudge. Plus, I knew I was going to see it soon.

So we met at the Union Square Theater at just after 9 this morning (just how much of masochists are we?). And as she finished her bagel and me my green tea, two other of her local (geek-type) friends showed up. And up to the balcony we went. This seriously was our coup of the day, as it did not get filled up like the bottom floor and next to no kids. What more could one ask for?

And after a tedious stream of movie/TV/wtfever promos the lights began to go down and bang a nearly endless stream of trailers. And let me take this time to state, does the world really need a surfing penguin movie or Shrek 3 (and really a Shrek 1 and 2 for that matter). The other previews were fairly unmemorable, but at least they did not leave the taste of manure in my mouth as the 2 above did.

Then it was time to see the opening credits and some awesome Alex Ross paintings. Oh wait, I guess Mr. Ross had the same opinion on the 2nd instalment as me, as we got clips from movie one and two and not wonderfully rendered paintings. I was instantly ready to throw my thumb down on the whole shebang due to this slight alone. But my green tea addled self helped me prevail over my utter dread. So I sat back and waited for the next bone crushing misplacement I was sure to see in the film.

But guess what, It was not nearly as bad as I figured. Sure there were a few scenes that made me roll my eyes - ie. i do not need man on the street, let alone kid on the street comments throughout, i never would have figured venom infused Peter Parker as a fan of Staying Alive, and the first time we see Flint Marko running from the police seemed more like a scene from Law & Order than a multi-multi-multi-million dollar picture. But for the most part the film captured many elements from the comic source while changing a few (undoubtedly causing fanboys around the world to cringe) to transfer the film from episodic pacing to a 2+ hour film. And while the notion of Marko slaying Ben Parker, all be it unintentionally, seemed a bit too much roll-my-eyes coincidence, I will not hold it against the film.

The end fight scene was obviously the coup d etat for the film, I think I enjoyed the 1st fight between Spiderman and Harry Osborn (even on his ultra strange flying snow board no less) quite a bit better. It packed far more emotional resonance for one, and maybe this was because you have 2 previous films to understand his motives. Yes, he is out for revenge, just like Eddie Brock jr, but Harry's motivation does not rely strictly on his douchebaggery (see Brock, Eddie above). Plus the scene was just more fun not having to share it with an audience of extras that foolishly put themselves in harms way to watch "Is this the end of Spiderman" as an overly heavy handed newscaster proclaimed during the last fight scene.

I also enjoyed how NYC went from the Disneyfied lighthearted Times Square in its jovial opening Act to a far darker, almost gothic, Venom black drenched if you will, panoramic as Peter's world seemed to fall apart. And yet in his darkest hour the yellow of the suspended cab, searchlights, and downright hopefulness of new building construction helped cut through Gotham and make it once again more real New York. For this you Mr. Raimi you get a jolly good show. And while i have seen plenty of other better films in my day, this one was fun and even had some great toasts to the geeks to warm my heart. Nuff said...

And how perfect was it that right across the street from the theater was a Forbidden Planet outpost. You know they are going to be thrilled with the spill over traffic that should help drive many sales over the next few weeks. But today was Free Comic Book Day, so rather than go straight to eat we geek 4 simply walked in and picked up a few free books - well after waiting in a long line and me salivating over the shelves upon shelves of graphic novels. I got a grab bag of 5 comics, your basic quarter books, though i seemed to score a Invisbles #1 (which i already have, but now i have a hankering to read the entire epic again), A spectacular looking First Second book (I have really been meaning to check them out) by Eddie Campbell The Train was Bang on Time, a real fun looking Drawn and Quarterly Lynda Barry Activity Book, and an Arvid Nelson, in house, no less, signed copy of Dark Horse's Zerokiller.

I really liked how I got some non-super hero stuff, which i normally pass up. I flipped through the Eddie Campbell book on the way home and I have to say I now want the entire "Fine picture novel" (as First Second - as in 0:01 and not 1st, 2nd, 3rd as I had previously figured - calls their graphic novels).

All and all a really nice way to spend a Saturday and after a Fantastic brunch @ Curly's it was time to enjoy the wondrous weather that NYC has been sorely lacking for too long. It is almost as if the city took a cue from the proper representation seen in the movie and made it a great day to celebrate. Ok, so maybe not, but synchronicity has happened before.