The Ludicrous Nature of Brand Loyalty

Terminator 5 is being shopped around, with Fast Five director Justin Lin and the Governator himself, Arnold Schwarzenegger, attached.  Depending on the cost, this is a smart buy for any studio - the Terminator is a recognizable brand, and, much more importantly, so is Arnold.  People would come out to see this for curiosity's sake, even if it were the sequel to Jingle All The Way.

From the perspective of a discerning film fan, I don't really understand the audience excitement about this.  Ok - there's a new Terminator film being made.  But what does "terminator" mean to you, and why is there an instant, positive reaction?

Here's a list of my favorite elements of the Terminator franchise:

1.  James Cameron's groundbreaking action scenes, utilizing mostly practical effects, stunts and destruction.
2.  As a strong representative of the Cyberpunk wave in the 80's, and helping to usher in the era of CGI in the 90's (in an extremely tasteful manner, in comparison to many films since).
3.  As a time capsule, and a bit of nostalgia from my youth.
4.  A (somewhat) original premise, that effectively blended the thriller/action genre with robots, laser guns, and time travel paradoxes.
5.  Schwarzenegger in his prime.

Now, if this sequel were to be made (which seems fairly certain), which of those elements will transfer over?  Not Cameron - he's busy securing college money for his Great-Great-Great-Great-Grandkids by directing Avatar 2 and 3.  So we've got Lin - a solid, if fairly uninspiring, action director.  Is this part of a movement, or original in any way?  We have no plot synopsis as of yet, so its difficult to say - but the lack of creativity evidenced in the casting Arnold would lead me to answer "no" and "no" to those questions.  I'm guessing this will be the same-old, same-old.  And speaking of "old" - I think its fairly safe to say that Arnold is no longer in his prime.

So, in essence, since the new installment of the franchise will be deprived of everything that most people like about it in the first place, it seems fair to say that this might as well be a brand new movie about a cyborg, from a so-so director, starring a has-been action star.

It's the way in which we have to view things as either good or bad, black or white, which contributes to this blind fandom.  It's alright to love the TV show Firefly - but recognize that the show does have its flaws, no matter how hard you'd like to ignore them.  In the same manner, you can love The Terminator and T2 without blindly supporting any work that bears the same moniker.

I'm not saying that a fifth Terminator film will necessarily be bad - but I'm not assuming that it'll be good, either.

Frederick's Film Theories: Intention vs Expectation

One fairly common criticism that I saw of Quentin Tarantino's most recent film, Inglourious Basterds, is how it is so willfully inaccurate to history - the Basterds significantly altering the events of WWII in a very grandiose fashion.  I don't want this to smack of elitism, but this criticism came almost solely from blog commenters, and not from "legitimate" critics - ones who would be familiar with Tarantino's predilection towards cinema history, and not so much world history.  These are historical figures repurposed as archetypal characters, for the purposes of entertainment and art - not so much for education.  The discordance that the critical historians felt during their viewing experience was brought about entirely from their misperceptions of what the film was trying to be and say.

I don't believe in the existence of a truly objective measurement of artistic merit (see sidebar), but I think that from both a logical and fair point of view, you have to take a piece on its own terms.

I recently got into an online discussion about what summer films we're all looking forward to.  I mentioned the Vin Diesel action film Fast Five as a possible viewing experience, to which someone responded with something vaguely along the lines of "It looks like a piece of shit".  But by what criteria are we measuring it?  For a not-too-subtly homoerotic, car fetishizing, women objectifying, gratuitously explosive thrill ride, it looks fairly well put together.  Sometimes I enjoy stately period pieces, such as Barry Lyndon, and sometimes I want to see two muscle-bound dudes grunting at each other before knocking one another senseless.  I'm guessing that the person who is preemptively calling Fast Five "shit", or a piece thereof, simply isn't a fan of this type of film.

Even the films that I personally hate the most, such as The Boondock Saints, I have to recognize work for SOME audiences.  Troy Duffy made the movie that he wanted to make, and quite effectively - it just happens to be a movie that I don't particularly like.

One criticism levied at Inglourious Basterds, and this one I consider somewhat more legitimate, is that it wasn't the film that Tarantino said he was setting out to make.  For years, he'd been developing Basterds as his "men on a mission" film, in the tradition of such movies as The Dirty Dozen or Where Eagles Dare - and it simply ended up being very much NOT that kind of film.  There are men on a mission in it, yes, but the movie's focus is spread between a Nazi movie star, a British spy, and a Jewish theater owner.

I would agree that he failed at what he had originally set out to do, but it is again short-sighted to ignore the finished product for what it is.  The creative process is not always a straight shot from A to B, and we should recognize that anything we see before the final product is nothing more than a draft.

Sorry for the rambling, but I guess my point is this: When you watch a film (or, read a book, listen to a song, etc), try to figure out what the artist is saying, instead of simply judging the work based on what you think they should have said.  When a director claims that his film is full of exciting Kung Fu action, and the action turns out to be fairly anemic, then you can rightly decree his film a failure in that regard.  If, instead, he's making a western, it would be odd for you to bitch about its distinct lack of chopsocky.

Movie Review: A Clockwork Orange

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE (1971)
Director:  Stanley Kubrick
Stars:  Malcolm McDowell, Patrick Magee, Warren Clarke, Godfrey Quigley, Anthony Sharp

In the near future (or, perhaps, an alternate past/present), young Alex (McDowell) and his gang of "Droogs" raise hell in London; everything from property destruction, to rape. . .  even murder.  But the entrenched government has a solution to this criminality:  "The Ludovico Technique", designed to wipe away any ability for a degenerate man to sate his wanton, aberrant instincts.  At the mere thought of criminal behavior, he becomes sick.  But does exorcising the urge for evil truly make a "moral" man?  Is a man "good", if his only motivation to act so is due to fear of reprisal?

Despite A Clockwork Orange's enduring popularity, I doubt that the majority of its fans have spent a great deal of time dwelling on the subtleties and implications of the film.  Kubrick designed the film to be exuberant;  he wanted you to feel good, and then feel bad about feeling good, while watching Alex's wicked deeds.  Except the message has been lost - the majority of viewers don't feel bad.  Alex as the unleashed rapist Id has, in fact, been quite unironically embraced as the symbol of the atypical rape-cultural college male, recently unleashed (or, foisted) upon the world from his parent's nest.

Kubrick was quite disturbed by the misinterpretation of his film, and, in quite unusual fashion for a filmmaker, pulled his own movie from British theaters, following a series of crimes supposedly attributed to Clockwork's influence.

I see Clockwork as both the end of one trilogy, and the beginning of another.  The former I would describe as Kubrick's "Sex and the Modern Man" trilogy: Dr Strangelove, 2001 A Space Odyssey, and, finally, A Clockwork Orange.  In Strangelove, the titular character is representative of mankind in the post-nuclear age;  neither wholly man nor machine.  He speaks excitedly about sex, factory-like in nature, in the post-apocalyptic bomb shelters that mankind will need to survive (a "10 to 1" woman to man ratio - women being "selected for their physical characteristics, which will have to be of a highly stimulating nature").  But in the end, the only thing that can "get him up"(quite literally) is the absolute destruction of the world.  In 2001, we're treated to scene after scene of metal phallus entering metal orifice (often to the waltz "The Blue Danube"), until this lifeless imitation of procreative behavior spawns its eventual evolutionary offshoot - HAL, a being who sees itself as superior to all others, but is as soulless as it is intelligent.  And lastly, in Clockwork, with the thin veneer of civility stripped away, sex is merely seen as another extension, or application, of violence.

The other trilogy of which I speak was begun by Clockwork, and followed by Fight Club and The Dark Knight.  All three films involve a central character split into two (or, in Dark Knight's case, two characters who are halves of a whole), that provide the audience a catharsis through a dark mirror, or destructive Id - but whose themes are also mostly ignored, or misinterpreted.  The message of The Dark Knight is not "watch the world burn", nor is Fight Club's that we should be "stalking elk through the damp canyon forests around the ruins of Rockefeller Center", nor A Clockwork Orange's "Viddy well, little brother.  Viddy well".  Quite the opposite, in fact.  Dark Knight has an extremely simplistic, not very subtle climax that seeks to display how "mankind is inherently good" or some shit, when the boats decide not to blow each other up in the end (Not sure I concur with Nolan's faith in the human race, but to each their own).  Fight Club is, if you're paying attention, about how staring into the abyss causes it to stare back at you - by design, the cultish nature of the oppressed begins to unconsciously parallel the tribal nature of their oppressors.  Or, to look at Fight Club another way, it's analogous to the Buddhist parable of enlightenment, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, strike him down" - meaning that, in addition to freeing yourself from the shackles of convention, you must also free yourself of the one who helped you on your path.

One comes away from Clockwork with many themes, and many messages in mind.  It certainly doesn't help that there are almost no sympathetic characters (the closest thing to a "moral center" of the film is the church Chaplain - who is also heavily implied to be a pedophile).  But what I take away from it is this:  Man is not inherently good (I guess this is the Anti-Dark Knight, then).  Man (as in "mankind" - I'm not excluding you, ladies) is, at his core, a beast, and society and religion are both aspects of the Ludovico technique;  people are kept in line through a fear of punishment, not through a genuine love of their fellow man.  There are good men in the world, but they are few and far between.

A dark message to swallow - all the more reason to wrap it in a sugary topping.  But what most people end up doing with the film is sucking the sweetness off, and spitting the vitamins on the ground.

FREDERICK OPINES:

A CLOCKWORK ORANGE - MASTERPIECE
FIGHT CLUB - GREAT
THE DARK KNIGHT - GREAT

Dust

Doing some organizing and dusting after rifling through our DVD collection.  We don't need all this shit, so obviously it's time to sell some of it.  I love Fritz Lang's "M", but do I watch it often enough to warrant having it on my shelf? (Almost) everything must go!!!

I've been doing a good job of not watching crap this year, but haven't been too active in seeking out the classics.  This week, that was remedied.  I watched Wernor Herzog's "Aguirre, the Wrath of God" as research for the script I'm writing (How's that for cryptic?).  Fascinating, with a brilliant performance by lead actor Klaus Kinski (who, according to legend, attempted to walk off the set mid-production, before the director threatened to kill him if he did).  It feels random though, and unfocused; like a question mark.  Attempted to watch Carl Theodore Dryer's "The Passion of Joan of Arc"; no thanks.  A film that's been occasional ranked as "better than Citizen Kane" by film fans in dark alleys, in hushed tones, I found it to be an overwrought bore.  Didn't finish it, so it doesn't get a proper rating.  The close-ups lived up to their reputation as being beautifully rendered, but the overuse of close-ups felt like an assault on the senses.  I guess that's the point, and it's just not really my bag.

If Aguirre is a question mark, and Passion is a exclamation point, I suppose I've figured out the tone that I prefer - the period.  Artists - have a thought, and then express it.  Don't ask me what I think about it, or tell me how to feel about it - just say it.

I did see a French film that I really liked, directed by someone who's works I've never experienced.  "The Earrings of Madame De. . . ", from director Max Ophuls, was mind blowing.  Stanley Kubrick would often reference Ophuls as a favorite of his, and I can now see why.  On the surface, a simple, melodramatic love triangle story, but with extremely strong characters (all superbly acted) and assured direction.  I'll be checking out some more Ophuls soon enough.

The Dark Knight Rises is going to be shooting in Pittsburgh, as if to justify my eventual move.  They'll be gone long before I arrive, but as the film industry in Michigan begins to dry up, it's nice to see some big projects being filmed in my future home.  On top of the fact that Romero's Dead movies were filmed there.  Oh, better make sure those are in my "to keep" pile!

News from the other side of Pennsylvania - M. Night Shyamalan's making another film.  The Last Airbender was, oddly enough, quite profitable, so obviously there are some gluttons for punishment out there that would be excited about this.  This one's a sci-fi thriller starring Will Smith and son.  Hmmm. . .

Quentin Tarantino recently screened his long awaited combined version of Kill Bill, in all its unrated g(l)ory.  Blu Ray, por favor?

FREDERICK OPINES:

AGUIRRE, THE WRATH OF GOD - GOOD
THE EARRINGS OF MADAME DE. . . - MASTERPIECE

Wedding List: Taste Of Cherry

TASTE OF CHERRY (1997)
Director:  Abbas Kiarostami
Stars:  Homayoun Ershadi, Abdolrahman Bagheri, Afshin Khorshid Bakhtiari

After introducing Anna to Kathryn Bigelow's war drama The Hurt Locker (she dug it, and I continue to), she suggested that it might play well as an intro to one of the films that I'm required to watch before our wedding day - the Palme d'Or winning film Taste Of Cherry.

After the ever-increasing, bomb-defusing tension of Hurt Locker, it was certainly a nice cool-down.  Cherry, which takes place primarily in a car, deals with an Iranian man driving around Tehran in search of one, fairly-simple thing; he needs someone to bury him after he's killed himself.  As one might expect, this isn't an easy task - suicide is frowned upon in the States, but it's something that is simply not talked about in Iran.

It's a bit of a reverse Christmas Carol:  He picks up three different travelers, each representing either past, present or future, to some degree - but unlike Ebenezer Scrooge, the protagonist embraces the thought of an untimely death.  You don't end up learning much about the central character of the story, and he's a bit of a blank slate personality-wise - which is precisely the point.  He's a lost person, like all of us; merely a collection of fragmented memories.

If you find the synopsis interesting at all, I would say it's worth a watch.  It's most certainly not for all tastes, but I found it interesting enough.  The photography and direction are quite compelling, in a minimalist way.  Kiarostami is a renowned director worldwide, but this is my first exposure to him (Anna is the big Iranian film fan).

My only complaint is with the ending, which breaks the fourth wall in a way that I found jarring (which was probably intentional).  Apparently that's a staple of Kiarostami's works, to blend fact with fiction, so I might look back on this film more positively once I've absorbed more of his repertoire.

FREDERICK OPINES:  GOOD

Double Feature: Stalker & From Paris With Love

STALKER

At first glance, the two films I picked for my latest double feature have very little in common:  STALKER (1979), an artsy sci-fi allegory from the mind of revered Russian director Andrei Tarkovsky;  and FROM PARIS WITH LOVE (2010), a semi-mindless, politically backwards shoot-'em-up from French director Pierre Morel (Taken, District 13).  But, with a little digging, one can find little parallels.  Loud, brash, and destructive tourists, with little interest in, or understanding of, the place that they're visiting.  A constant threat of physical (and, quite possibly, spiritual) death.  A guide who distrusts his traveling companion(s).

Stalker, based on the novel "Roadside Picnic", is about a man whose profession is the title;  He is a guide, paid to bring adventurous travelers safely through a mysterious land known only as "The Zone".  No one knows exactly where it came from - some say an asteroid created it, others say that it simply appeared - but everyone agrees that the normal laws of physics don't apply there.  And somewhere in the center of The Zone lies The Room;  a place where a man's innermost wish will be granted.  Along for the journey on this trip are two characters known only as The Writer and The Professor.

Despite the vaguely sci-fi trappings, set aside all expectations of lazergun fights and giant robots;  the story revolves mostly around these three characters and their philosophical musings.  The Stalker, the Writer and the Professor each represent, respectively, the influence of Faith, Art, and Science in shaping our worldview.  The Zone remains mysterious;  most of its power is symbolized by the film switching to color, in contrast to the "real world"'s brown monocrome.  It's a nice, Oz-like touch.

It seems to touch upon many themes, but what I took out of the film was an analysis of how one can make a system out of chaos.  Or, if the universe itself is inherently chaotic, is any system a form of self-delusion?  The narrative as medium of philosophical musing reminded me quite a bit of the films of Ingmar Bergman, of whom Tarkovsky was a huge fan.  Takovsky was one of the few directors asking the big questions, and much like Bergman, not being afraid to admit to not having the answers.

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE

I followed this up with From Paris With Love, a film that was recommended to me as a "so bad, it's great" type pic.  To some degree, I understand that sentiment, though I might change "bad" to "stupid".  It's ridiculous in every imaginable way, but it does accomplish what it set out to do - entertain the masses through cathartic violence perpetrated by, as Tracy Jordan would refer to them, "metal penises".

Director Morel does nothing to dispel his reputation as a bigot, going out of his way to mock every downtrodden minority possible through the mouthpiece of Uber-Angry American Charlie Wax (John Travolta), a secret agent in Paris on a mission to do. . .  something.  Things are blown up, and people are kicked.  Jonathan Rhys Meyers provides backup, and a half-hearted stab at pathos, as Wax's straightman partner.  In the spirit of fairness, Morel makes sure to add some mockery of his home country into his Un-Politically Correct tirades.

Say what you will about From Paris (Ok!  The script makes no sense, the characters are paper thin, and the acting is universally atrocious), but it's got it where it counts, kid.  Travolta's performance is pitch-perfect for the proceedings, and no scenery is left unconsumed.  As in Taken, the violence is well designed to shock, numb, and then shock again, and never gets boring.  Not only do the bads die, but they die, um, hard.  And the wooden performances, silly dialogue, and complete lack of taste (in addition to a truly "classic" ending) actually blend quite well with several moments of adept direction.  I, for one, would see a sequel in the theater, if they brought the same team back.

FREDERICK OPINES:

STALKER - GREAT

FROM PARIS WITH LOVE - GOOD