Calamity goes under the knife, and I go under the gun. . .

Calamity Anna had a bit of "minor" surgery on Friday, and I've been taking care of her since.  Simple procedure or not, I was a nervous pervous, in contrast to her complete, zen-like calm.  Everything went very well, and she should be back to her old self in a day or two.  She's pretty much the same as usual - just slightly more demanding.  :-)

Anna participated in National Novel Writing Month back in November, and managed to finish an entire novel (which still needs some editing work done.  Hint hint!).  Come April Fools Day, the screenwriting equivalent begins - Script Frenzy.  I've been pretty good with my writing of late, but this seems like a great excuse to have a fire lit under my butt.  I've talked to my buddy Godforce Achin about having him write a novella concurrently, and he seems enthused by the prospect.  With movies like Battle:LA and Fast Five coming out, the world needs me now, more than ever.  I mean, I can't be any WORSE, right?

Zack Snyder's opus, Sucker Punch, opened at number two last weekend, losing out to the Diary Of A Wimpy Kid sequel.  Ouch!  Even worse, the critics are taking a dump on it.  I mean, from a technical standpoint, the guy is an artist, and he does have his fans amongst the pretentious film nerd set.  That said. . .  Man, are his movies stupid!  I think he finally broke me with his "autistically recreated, but somehow completely missing the point" adaptation of Watchmen.  I like seeing some conservative voices in Hollywood, mostly just because they're so uncommon - but is it too much to ask that they be a bit smarter?!

Recent Oscar cherry picker Tom Hooper has finally picked his follow-up film to the universally loved King's Speech - a feature adaptation of the musical Les Misarables, itself an adaptation of the 19th century novel by Victor Hugo.  Good choice.  The only problem is finding actors can also sing, in this day and age.  Please don't put the cast of Glee in this!

Neil Gaiman lets slip that he just sold the film rights to American Gods, and the director is someone "who has many, many Oscars, and is, I think, a genius".  Hmmmm. . .  Let the speculation begin.  I just hope that they actually film in The House On The Rock.

Perceptions

I've been having a fairly lively, and fairly civil, debate with the readers and writers of the website Racebending over the last few days.  The website, which was formed initially in protest of what they viewed as the "whitewashing" of the cast of the Last Airbender movie, has gone on to function as a somewhat big time watchdog of Hollywood, with it's tendency to cast white actors in non-white roles (Prince Of Persia, etc).  Their latest target?  The American remake/adaptation of Akira, the Japanese Manga turned classic Anime Film, which is courting white actors for it's lead roles.

You may not initially find that to be odd, when I say that they moved the remake from a futuristic Neo-Tokyo to a futuristic Neo-Manhattan (doesn't quite have the same ring to it, I must say), except that the same report said that they were looking for caucasian actors to fill the lead roles of TETSUO and KANEDA.  Now - I don't actually think the lead characters are going to be named Tetsuo and Kenada, as they were in the original comic.  I think this was reported in error (in the last draft I saw, Tetsuo was called Travis).  But my question to the angry mob was simply this;  Why can't white people be named Tetsuo and Kaneda?  Especially in a cyberpunk future, which has, since the inception of the genre, been a mixture of Eastern and Western cultures?

The responses to this question were mostly negative, unsurprisingly, and varied from well-reasoned to blatantly wrong-headed.  Some responses were cultural ("Only someone with a Japanese father could have a Japanese name"), some idealist and thoughtful ("Sure, white people could play them.  But why can't we see Asians in those roles?"), and some just flat-out angry (In essence, "You don't know what you're talking about, white boy").  For the most part, I was seen as having an agenda of some nefarious nature, when, as I hope my friends would already realize, my only agenda is to logic.

I do think that Asian Americans are underrepresented in American cinema, and that is tragic.  But I can't bring myself to approve of the argument that in the remake of a Japanese work of art, the characters should remain Japanese.  That would be like me protesting against Zhang Yimou's recent remake of the Coen Bros Blood Simple, in which he cast Chinese actors in roles originally portrayed by white American actors.  I agree that whitewashing happens, and I understand why it's frustrating, but the logic breaks down at a certain point:  You're saying that you want to see yourself represented onscreen - Isn't that exactly what white America is doing, as well?  There just happen to be a higher percentage of us in this country.  In the same way that you don't see a large number of white actors starring in Japanese films.

Maybe it makes me a terrible person (in conjunction with everything else about me), but I just love logic more than I hate injustice, I guess.  Or, to put it a different way, I see irrationality as the greatest injustice. Racebending makes the argument that Katniss Everdeen, who is described in the novel The Hunger Games as being "Olive skinned and dark haired", should not be portrayed in the film by blond-haired actress Jennifer Lawrence.  Fair enough, and, to some degree, I concur.  As I've said many times in the past, adaptation is adaptation, and actors are actors, so I would have, for example, no problem with an adaptation of Hamlet that takes place in a sci-fi future with an all black cast.  That being said;  race is not just incidental in The Hunger Games, but pointed, so it is shitty that they've gone out of the way to "white her up" a bit.  But. . .  In a separate article, Racebending praises the producers of the show Pretty Little Liars for changing a character who was white in the book, to filipino in the TV version.

So, what is essentially being said, is that it's cool to stray from the source material if the characters are being changed FROM white, but if it's changed TO white, it's unacceptable?  That's a logical fallacy.  If you want to make the argument "There isn't a large enough percentage of people of color in Hollywood films", then that's fine, and I would completely agree with you.  But to say "You can't change the characters from Japanese to white Americans, because it wasn't that way in the source material", while completely disregarding the source material in another instance, I'm going to call out as horseshit.

Again, I think their hearts are in the right place, but the logic is flawed, as is often the case with any passionate issue.  Honestly, I think that instead of trying to insert Asian characters into Hollywood garbage directed by assclowns like M Night Shyamalan, they should be trying to foster and nurture independent talent.  Wayne Wang directed Chan Is Missing back in 1982 for pennies, and managed to increase visibility for the community, as well as making a really fun film.

I want to see the Asian American version of Sweet Sweetback's Baaadasssss Song.  Start sticking it to the man, man.

Cleaning House

In addition to thinking about the future (Wedding, Moving, etc), I've also been looking at the past, in a most tangible sense.  Comic books that I have not read in over a decade have been cluttering up my storage space for some time now.  With the help of my buddy A-Man, a sometimes comic book dealer, I was able to reduce the size of my collection from ten boxes to three.  I have no nostalgia for the individual comic issue as medium of storytelling;  I got rid of all my X-Men issues, except the first one I ever purchased (one for nostalgia, I suppose), and the rest I will recollect one day in either trade paperback form, or perhaps even on some iPad-like device.  I read them for the stories, not the vintage.

Another Chaplin film last Monday night at the Michigan Theater - Modern Times (1936), which was preceded by his two-reeler, Pay Day.  Modern Times has some highly iconic and brilliant moments, and Paulette Goddard is pretty easy on the eyes, but I wouldn't rank this film nearly as high in his repertoire as some critics do.  City Lights (1931) and The Gold Rush (1925) are laugh-a-minute affairs, and to me, Times is somewhat disjointed in parts - even more episodic than Chaplin usually is.  Still, watching the Tramp trying to wait tables through a mob, or getting jacked up on cocaine in prison (yep), made it well worth the price of admission.

Introduced Calamity to the Schwarzenneger classic Total Recall (1990), as part of her Pre-Wedding Duties;  she loved it, as I had anticipated (She even suggested a double-feature with Robocop, which, quite shockingly, I declined.  Damn my need for sleep!).  About halfway through Dr. Strangelove for the Kubrick-athon, and that's the first one of his films that she's been struggling with.  Not hating it, but not fully engaged.  I can't tell you how many people I've shown that particular film to who fell asleep on first viewing, only to fall in love with it later on.  Strangelove is the textbook example of the slow burn.

Since the online consensus on Paul seems to be "It was ok", I guess that's another potential temptation to avoid this year (To be honest, I'll probably watch it on video).  Like I said in my review, I thought Your Highness was a ton of fun, though I doubt it has much replay value.

Darren Aronofsky isn't doing The Wolverine anymore. . .  Shit.  That's all I have to say about that.  No director lined up to take his place yet.  God, I hope he doesn't make that ridiculous sounding Noah's Ark movie he's been talking about.  The man is a brilliant visual stylist - but as a writer. . .

World War Z and Dune adaptations falling apart - no surprise there.  You mean the Hollywood franchise factory is having trouble with a tension-free zombie book and a big-budget space epic with virtually no action?  Great books do not always make great films, unless you're willing to take some fairly large liberties with the adaptations.  That's something I really enjoy about old Hollywood:  They realize that Frankenstein the novel wouldn't really work on screen, so they change it to work better for the medium.  Stop being so goddamn protective of the material, fanboys and fangirls;  the books will still be on the shelf where you left them when you come home from the theater.

Oooo!!!  Found some old Rue Morgue issues, and my 100 Bullets trades.  See what cleaning out the closet can do for ya?  Time for some re-reading. . .

FREDERICK OPINES:

MODERN TIMES - GREAT
TOTAL RECALL - MASTERPIECE

Movie Review: Your Highness

YOUR HIGHNESS (2011)
Director:  David Gordon Green
Stars:  Danny McBride, James Franco, Justin Theroux, Natalie Portman

Earlier tonight, Michigan State University hosted a sneak screening of Your Highness; David Gordon Green's comedic tip of the hat to such 80's "classics" as Krull and The Sword And The Sorcerer.  With, y'know, pot jokes.  Director Green and star/writer McBride were in attendance, and gave a quick Q &A afterwords (Answering such brilliantly devised questions as "What was it like kissing Natalie Portman?" and "What was up with that wizard dude?").

Tone wise, this isn't too dissimilar from Pineapple Express - One part straightforward story, one part loving homage, and one part outright parody of a genre.  But while Express only took occasional dips into Mel Brooks land, Your Highness has tongue planted firmly in cheek for most of it's running time.  The only person playing their character completely straight is Natalie Portman, who's fearless warrior character acts as a great counterpoint to McBride's cowardly, bumbling prince.

It's a fun flick, and while the teen crowd I was with were laughing their asses off at all the dick and weed jokes (which were, for their pedigree, quite hilarious), I think the best audience to see this with would be a collection of thirty-something year old film nerds.  The use of all the standard 80's fantasy film beats - Tavern brawl, Spooky labyrinth, Climax in a dark tower - and direct references were lost on what, I can only assume, is the target audience.  "Why was there a mechanical bird?", etc.  The look and feel captured those films exactly, from garish costumes to hair-metal hairdos (Though a little stop-motion scene would've been nice.  Just sayin'!).

The projection in the little classroom I watched it in was bad, and the sound system was atrocious, but technical problems aside I could tell that the visuals, music, and sound fx were just as spot-on as the other elements.  The score at times reminded me of Lord Of The Rings or Willow.  Very nice use of Irish countryside to give it an epic scale.

Complaints?  It probably could have used one more legitimately rousing action scene.  Also, being so weightless, I didn't have any emotional investment in the quest, unlike the concern I had for Franco and Rogen's characters in Express.

But, these are minor quibbles.  It's lightweight, it's fun, and it's a great love letter to some goofy films from our youth.

FREDERICK OPINES:  GOOD

Context queues

The big internet debate right now is over a british film that was shown at SXSW (South By Southwest, y'all), entitled Attack The Block.  The film was a big hit with audiences, and very mainstream, but no studio picked it up for distribution.  The problem being that the punk british kids accents are too think for an American audience.  So, the question is - Should the film be subtitled, if it would at least allow the film to be released in theaters in some form?

Personally, I think the audience who would have difficulty with the accents is also the audience that doesn't want to "read" their films.  I have no strong objections, I suppose.  The movie is about punk kids vs aliens. . .  Doesn't sound particularly deep.  Is our education system so broken that we would find it impossible to piece this relatively simple-sounding film together through context cues?  It could be in Mandarin without subtitles and I think I'd get the general idea.

The excitement over this film, and another one at the fest called The FP (a satire of gang films, about a Dance Dance Revolution face-off), shows how distant I've grown from the beating heart of geekdom.  Punks vs Aliens?  Nah;  I'm good.  Who knows - Maybe it really is great.  I've just grown a bit tired of all the juvenile cliches.  I'm craving art that reflects life, not art that reflects other art, retreating up it's own asshole.

That said, let me completely contradict myself by saying that I'd like to see Paul.  Sure, Simon Pegg's scripts are as reference heavy as you can get, but at least they generally have something smart to say about what they're commenting on.

Actually, the BIG debate right now is over the casting of Academy Award nominee Jennifer Lawrence as Katniss Everdeen in the big screen adaptation of the book The Hunger Games.  Undeniably good actress, but many question if she's too old to play the teen (She's twenty) and too white (Katniss is described as dark haired and olive skinned).  The age thing;  I think she's fresh faced enough to pull off a teenager.  And the skin tone;  While this does seem like an obvious white-washing, and race actually plays a critical role in the novel, I'm not really that bothered by it.  My thoughts are, and always have been - an actor is an actor.  I don't mind Idris Elba playing Heimdall, nor do I mind Jake Gyllenhaal playing the prince of persia.  Also, an adaptation is an adaptation.  Maybe the film version has no interest in focusing on the racial aspects.  It's a critical part of the book, but isn't necessarily something that needs to be directly dealt with in the movie version.

Plus, it's being directed by the asshole who made Seabiscuit.  How good do you think this is actually going to be?

Spartacus (Movie Review)

SPARTACUS (1960)
Director:  Stanley Kubrick
Stars:  Kirk Douglas, Laurence Olivier, Jean Simmons, Charles Laughton, Peter Ustinov

The story, loosely adapted from real life, revolves around Thracian gladiator turned revolutionary leader Spartacus, who in the first century BC led an army of freed slaves against the Republic of Rome.  Producer/Star Kirk Douglas, having been shafted for the lead role in the previous year's Ben Hur, decided to make his own sword and sandals epic.  Originally to be directed by Anthony Mann (Winchester '73, The Naked Spur), but after only a week's worth of filming Mann was let go due to conflicts with Douglas.  Kirk then brought on young director Stanley Kubrick, with whom he'd previously made the war film Paths Of Glory, to take over at the eleventh hour.

Amongst Kubrick purists, this one is often pushed to the side.  Despite it's critical and financial success, the director was fairly dismissive of it, as he ended up having very little control over the script or the editing.  He considered it, rightly, to be pretty hokey.  But is it completely without merit?

I've seen the film a few times now, and have to finally admit to having a grudging fondness for it.  It's painful to think how good this could have been had they simply let Stanley have his way with it (He was, despite resistance, able to insert a battle scene into the film), but there is actually quite a bit to enjoy here.  The cast, as you can see, is superb.  Laurence Olivier brings an obvious menace, but also a subtle fragility, to the villainous Crassus.  Douglas is a ticking time-bomb as Spartacus, anger seething through his every pore.  Laughton is quite charming as benevolent Senator Gracchus, and Ustinov, in an Academy Award winning role, is delightfully slimy and hilarious as the scheming Batiatus.

The music by Alex North, a prolific composer best known today for his song "Unchained Melody"(A melody he wrote for a prison film entitled, you guessed it, "Unchained"), is appropriately rousing, incorporating snare drums (somewhat unusual for the time) with blaring horns and strings.  Other scenes, such as Crassus' attempted seduction of a servant played by Tony Curtis, feature a soothing drone offset by discordant notes, perfectly capturing the feeling of Roman decadence.

The photography, which features a grainy type of colorization that, frankly, I don't exactly love, was a huge point of contention during filming.  Director Stanley Kubrick is a photographer first and foremost, and is very exacting with the lighting and framing of his shots.  However, when he came on board, veteran photographer Russell Metty (All That Heaven Allows, Touch Of Evil) had already been hired as the DP, and didn't take kindly to this "kid" telling him what to do.  The studio intervined on Kubrick's behalf; he was able to shoot the movie his way.  Ironically, this film led to Metty's only win for Best Cinematography.

So yeah; it is a bit hokey.  But as a fairy tale, it works.  Spartacus is a paragon of virtue, showing us that a simple man, joined with his brothers, has the power rise up against his tyrannical oppressors (Spartacus was a favorite historical figure of Karl Marx, and it's no coincidence that both the author of the novel upon which the film was based, and the screenwriter, were registered members of the US Communist Party).  The action scenes are lively and, occasionally, quite brutal (Watch out for the arm severing!).  And the battle scenes - My god!  That ain't CGI.  It's just thousands of people marching in unison, and the effect, and scale, is staggering.

Major demerits are for the ridiculous overlength, cheesiness of the love story, and not living up to the potential of a Stanley Kubrick film.  All that aside;  yeah, it's pretty good.

FREDERICK OPINES:  GOOD

Kubrick-athon 2011

A couple years back, the Michigan Theater in Ann Arbor blessed me with the opportunity to see every one of Stanley Kubrick's films in the theater (minus Killer's Kiss and Fear And Desire, if you feel like counting those).  While I'd seen A Clockwork Orange and 2001: A Space Odyssey several times in theaters before, it was my first chance at seeing films like The Killing and Barry Lyndon on the big screen.

While the lady and I are enjoying the Chaplin-athon that the Michigan is currently running, we've decided to do our own Kubrick marathon at home.  I received the gigantic book "The Stanley Kubrick Archives" last year as a Christmas present, so we're reading all of the interviews and articles in that as we go.  Right now we're halfway through Spartacus, which is the only film of his that I find a bit of a chore (I think I'll be reviewing that one, in fact).

Interesting news bit today:  The long shelved film Red Dawn, a remake of the 80's actioner, is finally going to be released - but they're changing the villains from the Chinese, to North Koreans.  How is this possible, you might ask?  By digitally changing banners, and dubbing in new dialogue.  If the film is anything like the original, it focuses more on the rebels than the invaders, so I doubt there are many scenes dealing with political maneuverings and enemy strategy.  Obviously, this was done with the thought of not pissing off the fastest growing economic power in the world.  Is it a completely pussy move?  Yes.  Do I care?  Not really.  I'm not sure that China invading the US was really that much more plausible than North Korea doing it; this is pure, right-wing masturbation fantasy either way.  The original was goofy fun, and this could end up being goofy fun too.