The Reason Foundation, at the forefront of liberty application in modern society, is now hiring in various fields of work. Open positions range from reporters and writers, to film and creative opportunities at Reason.tv, to policy analysts. The Foundation would provide an avenue for liberty-minded professionals and creatives to work in an environment that champions and cherishes the value of liberty. Those interested should click here for more information about the opportunities offered.
Month: July 2014
The Rear View: Wives and Lovers (1963)
Part of the appeal of internet on-demand video services is that places like Netflix and Amazon Prime need scores of content in order to boast to consumers that they have tens of thousands of titles to choose from. Enter, the forgotten gems of Hollywood past. Unless you were alive and in tune with what movie studios were pumping out mid-20th century, the Paramount comedy Wives & Lovers most likely has never entered into one of your conversations about classic films. It’s too bad, because this is a smart, funny and entertaining film.
I recently heard of this film because a song of the same name, released in connection with the film in 1963, came up in conversation because of it’s perception as being misogynistic. Wait, a song from the sixties is considered by some to be misogynistic? Get outta here. Listen to it yourself if you like. “Wives and Lovers” by Jack Jones:
While the words of the song are aimed at young wives, the spirit of the song is meant to encourage both spouses to continue to be lovers to each other.
“Don’t think that just because there’s a ring on your finger, means you needn’t try anymore”
That equal charge is exactly the sentiment of the film Wives & Lovers starring Janet Leigh and Van Johnson.
Van Johnson plays Bill Austin, a struggling writer who stays at home to work and watch over his 8 year daughter Julie, while Bertie Austin (Leigh) works as a dental assistant. Did I mention this film was set in 1963 yet? The Austin family, struggling in a tiny 87th Street NYC apartment, is suddenly upgraded to the Connecticut suburbs – complete with the always fantastic Shelley Winters and Ray Walston as neighbors – when Bill’s novel sells, along with the rights for the play and movie.
Although the good life awaits, the pitfalls of the sudden influx of wealth brings all sorts of problems with it. Newly “retired” Bertie is at a loss for what to do with her time now, she can’t even fix dinner for her family because of their new housekeeper. Bill, under pressure to keep up appearances at parties and deliver rewrites of the play version of his book, is rarely home. All this makes their daughter Julie (played by scene stealer Claire Wilcox) yearn for the days when all three were crammed in their little kitchen on 87th street.
All of this misplaced attention pounds away at the foundation that keeps a good marriage together. Both Bill and Bertie eventually stray romantically. Bill gets caught up with his lit-agent, Lucinda. Although it’s clear it’s all superficial and not based in real love. Bertie is swept up by Hollywood’s handsome “It Boy”, Gar Aldrich. Both Austins have their doubts about going through with their infidelities, but both realize that neither is willing to fight for the affections of the other. While the men of the film, Bill and Gar, are the pursuers, both women push back only enough to make the pursuit exciting. Their objections are more about what these new men might offer than what effects their actions will have on their relationships.
Now aside from the plot, the script is smartly funny and honest. I’m certain the play it was adapted from served the screenwriters well. The strength of the film comes from the performances. Even daughter Julie has some excellent moments and her place in the plot isn’t simply for comedy or convenience, she is a wonderful character that adds to the complexity of the family’s struggles. But she also brings with her some laugh out loud character traits.
The highlight of the all the actor’s chemistry shines during a dinner party and Bill and Bertie’s home. Martha Hyer as Lucinda, shows up to the dinner party wearing a long coat. She’s is encouraged to take her coat off after lingering a little too with it on. I won’t spoil it, but it’s easily now one of my favorite brilliantly funny moments in film and sets up an entertainingly awkward party where jealous heads seemingly prevail. Add to all this the insider jokes on Hollywood culture (Winters plays a divorcee who’s ex is a big time actor and she’s filled with wise ‘ol observations on Hollywood’s upper crust.) and this easily becomes a film that should be lauded for it’s charm and wit.
I could easily see this film remade today, but unfortunately I fear some PC hack would try and progressive-ise it into garbage by inserting some gender role hysteria about how there is no difference in male and female nature – that men and women are the same. Generally speaking, male nature and female nature are not the same. This film is a good example of what society knows to be true but doesn’t want to accept. That men and women can be and are equal, but we are not the same. This should be celebrated.
There are a lot of hot topics that arise today from both the song and film. As someone who enjoys observing our species and a healthy down and dirty debate I look forward to reading your comments.
Tammy: 10 Takeaways
Melissa McCarthy needs no introduction. Nor do most of the other players in this latest iteration of aggressive summer comedies, save for maybe the indie darling Mark Duplass (but even he’s getting a lot of face-time these days…which is to say: Moms across America are totally Googling “Duplass married, age?”). So let’s get to 10 quick takeaways on the summer comed Tammy–and leave the pontificating to the pros.
In no particular order, some observations:
1. McCarthy plays by her own rules, and doesn’t hew to convention
2. Families, man.
3. Road trip movies can be fun, even when the final destination isn’t reached (perhaps especially.)
4. The average age of the cast is probably somewhere in the 45-50 range. What was the last summer studio movie you could say that about?
5. It’s refreshing to have a movie not set in NY, LA, Chicago or the South (but mostly NY / LA.)
6. (Spoiler Alert) Kathy Bates is really deft with a handmade car bomb.
7. Shorter comedies typically play stronger than longer comedies. Tammy has a run time of 97 minutes, and a feel time of 107.
8. Stay away from ice cream trucks.
9. If you’re going to rob someone, definitely ask for $50 above what you need.
10. Dan Aykroyd + Allison Janney = power couple; would love to see them do something more substantial together.
A Cappella Dynasty Shows A Fun New Side
of the University of Southern California are the only college a cappella group to win three International Championships of Collegiate A Cappella. The group of singers has become known for strong musicality, unabashed showmanship, and spectacular soloists. But yesterday, the VoCals showed off a quirky new side when they released their latest music video. The video is a cover of “ The VoCals show off all of their strengths, while demonstrating a fun, youthful side. Check out this video and give some love to a great a cappella group!
Trailer Tuesday: “Fifty Shades of Grey”
A wise man once said that we all briefly get to become a film critic when watching the trailers preceding a movie. Actually, that was a stand-up sketch by Dane Cook. But the statement remains true.
Trailers are designed to garner hype and provide a first glimpse of what an audience can expect from the film itself. Take Comic-Con for example. Fanboys and girls alike travel from all parts of the world just to see the panels of their favorite upcoming movies or tv shows in hopes of getting at least a little peak of some visuals to feast their eyes on…literally. It’s a smorgasbord for the corneas.
However, in recent times, trailers have become something even more, in that they can be seen as a standalone supplement to the “bigger picture”. In laymen’s terms, a trailer can be great (well-edited, enthralling music) but the film could easily turn into a snooze-fest. And vice versa.
Last Thursday, the first trailer for the “Fifty Shades of Grey” adaptation debuted online. Now, going back to that whole “trailers are standalone supplements” theory, I will refrain from making any judgments on the potential flop-ability of the actual film. I have not read the books (except the Wikipedia summaries just for the sake of finding out if there really was more to this story than the kinky S&M freak show everyone keeps referencing).
So, when I went to first view the trailer I had absolutely no idea what to expect. Much to my surprise, I was thoroughly intrigued (not in a creepy way). As you will see below, the trailer opens with a peculiar and innocent looking Anastasia Steele (Dakota Johnson) who is interviewing the intimidating and darkly charming Christian Grey (Jamie Dornan) for her college newspaper. The sparks and chemistry are instant. Some titillating dialogue is exchanged between the two in their silky, seductive tones, then the “beat drops” if you will. As Ana and Christian kiss (presumably for the first time) in Christian’s office elevator, the music piques with a uniquely altered version of “Crazy in Love” by Beyonce, which is undoubtedly being used as another marketing ploy for the film.
This trailer has great timing, hits the right marks on cue with the music and really adds some mystery to a situation that, on paper, reads like a pretty one-dimensional storyline. As we are first introduced to Christian’s “playroom” through Ana’s perspective, we get a realistic sense of what she is experiencing because of the set up. It doesn’t reveal too much, but reveals enough to maintain an intriguing level of curiosity.
What do you guys think? Will this trailer get you to drop $15 next Valentine’s Day?
Literature You Should Know: Lewis’ On Stories and Other Essays
People who think of C. S. Lewis only as the author of The Chronicles of Narnia or as a Christian apologist forget—if they ever knew—that he was a professor of English literature, first at Oxford, then at Cambridge. As such, he published a sizable number of critical essays and reviews and gave talks and interviews on the 
subject. Twenty of these appear in . Apart from specific reviews of and tributes to authors like J. R. R. Tolkien, H. Rider Haggard, and Dorothy L. Sayers, the collection examines what story is and what makes it work. It thus contains useful advice for any writer, regardless of religious or political persuasion, especially those who want to write works with any kind of message.
“On Stories” focuses on one of the most overlooked aspects of storytelling: why one would choose to tell (or read) one particular story and not another. Among his many examples, Lewis cites the 1937 adaptation of King Solomon’s Mines, in which he felt the screenwriter had ruined the story by replacing the original ending, involving the quiet horror of being trapped in a crypt, with an action-packed volcanic eruption and earthquake. He concedes that this ending might be more cinematic but argues, “There must be a pleasure in such stories distinct from mere excitement or I should not feel that I had been cheated in being given the earthquake instead of Haggard’s actual scene…. Different kinds of danger strike different chords from the imagination.” (Paging Peter Jackson!) By contrast, David Lindsey’s Voyage to Arcturus, which Lewis admits is lacking in style, nevertheless captures a spiritual element that most pulp “scientifiction” of the ’30s and ’40s missed. “On Science Fiction” similarly criticizes stories that are sci-fi only because they’re set in the future or in space but would otherwise fall into conventional genres like romance or thriller. Rather, Lewis argues, the futuristic setting “is a legitimate ‘machine’ if it enables the author to develop a story of real value which could not have been told (or not so economically) in any other way.”
The danger, as Lewis sees it in “On Stories,” is that the plot of any given story is a sequential series of events that has to serve as a net in which to catch some wholly non-sequential idea, and it’s very easy for the author to miss the target. Yet sometimes a given plot or genre is the only net that can catch a given idea. Lewis explores this point in more detail in “On Three Ways of Writing for Children” and “Sometimes Fairy Stories May Say Best What’s to Be Said,” both of which cite Tolkien’s “On Fairy-Stories.” In “Sometimes,” drawing on Tasso, Lewis posits a distinction between two writing impulses, one arising from the author as author and one from the author as human or citizen. The Author cares only about the story material, which carries with it implications about form. The Man, however, is concerned about everything else, including the story’s message. Only when the two work together can a good story result. Here Lewis cites his experience in writing the Narnia books, which began with pictures that coalesced into a story that needed the form of a fairy tale. Only after the Author had gotten that far did the Man assert himself by looking at the potential for fantasy to present a moral message in ways the audience would accept. Had he tried to reverse the process and start with the moral, he would have failed.
“On Three Ways” contrasts this method, in which a fantasy for children was the only form the story could take, with an approach that views children as a generic target audience who all like the same juvenile things. Not only is the latter method condescending, its proponents are usually wrong about what kids like, and “a children’s story which is enjoyed only by children is a bad children’s story.” Finally, to the argument that fairy tales are too scary, Lewis answers, “Since it is so likely that [children] will meet cruel enemies, let them at least have heard of brave knights and heroic courage…. Let there be wicked kings and beheadings, battles and dungeons, giants and dragons, and let the villains be soundly killed at the end of the book”—sound advice even when writing for adults!
Meeting the Doctors
Doctor Who fans are getting ready to meet the latest incarnation of the ancient alien who travels through all of space and time in a blue box that’s bigger on the inside.
A clever plot device has helped keep the BBC series on the air for so many years. Whenever the Doctor dies, he regenerates into a new body and picks up life right where he left off—with some new personality quirks and different taste in clothing, but his core characteristics and memory remain more or less intact.
That’s certainly one way to keep things fresh.
Unlike James Bond, Doctor Who has a valid in-story reason for why 11 (and now 12) different actors have taken on the title role over the past 50 years.
Peter Capaldi will star in his first full episode Aug. 23, and Whovians will get to meet the Doctor all over again. A season premiere is that much more exciting when it basically doubles as a series premiere of sorts, too.
So, let’s take a quick look back in time at the introductions of the previous three “modern” Doctors (since the series returned to television in 2005).
9 – Christopher Eccleston took over the role in the 2005 pilot “Rose.” So yes, he didn’t just take over the role—he resurrected it for a whole new generation. If he had flopped, Entertainment Weekly would have had significantly fewer Doctor Who articles over the past several years.
Just a little bit of pressure then.
“Rose” had a lot to do, and thankfully, it didn’t try to do everything. No talk of far-flung concepts like Time Lords or regenerations (though Eccleston’s Doctor takes a blink-and-you’ll-miss-it glance in a mirror to check out what his face looks like these days). This is a straightforward adventure told from the point of view of a normal 19-year-old Earth girl, Rose (Billie Piper). Through her, we gradually learn about this strange man and become intrigued by him.
It’s not perfect. The episode is rather cheesy in places. (How does Rose not notice her boyfriend isn’t quite himself?) But it’s fun and establishes Eccleston’s Doctor as a man you’d want protecting the world.
10 – Fans had grown accustomed to traveling with Christopher Eccelston for one whole season…and then he became David Tennant.
Longtime Who fans were used to their hero regenerating ever since the original Doctor, William Hartnell, morphed into Patrick Troughton into the 1960s. But the newcomers still needed someone to convince them that the Doctor was worth following no matter who was playing the role.
Tennant’s first full episode was “The Christmas Invasion” at the end of 2005. This new Who universe was already established, as was his companion Rose and her supporting cast. It just had to establish Tennant’s Doctor.
So, naturally, he spends much of the episode in a regeneration-induced coma, not fully emerging until the grand finale.
And it’s brilliant. We watch Rose wrestle with the idea of her dear friend suddenly becoming a new person, mirroring the concerns some viewers may have had. We’re left in suspense as mankind struggles to deal with a visit from not-so-benevolent aliens while the Doctor sleeps. When he finally does make his big entrance, it’s well worth the wait, and we’re assured that, yes, this is the Doctor, even though it’s not exactly the same Doctor.
11 – Tennant wound up being such a beloved Doctor that whoever came next would need to prove himself very quickly. And Matt Smith does just that in “The Eleventh Hour” in 2011.
This episode is basically a re-pilot. Not only do we have a new Doctor, but we have a new companion (Amy Pond, played by Karen Gillan), and a new showrunner (Steven Moffat, taking over for Russell T Davies).
A fast-paced adventure builds up to this moment, in which the new Doctor talks down an alien invader while figuring out his wardrobe.
His monologue and the flashing images show us that there’s continuity between what’s gone on before and where we’re going from here. We even get quick glimpses of the previous 10 Doctors in rapid succession, until Smith’s Doctor steps through, appearing in his soon-to-be-trademarked outfit for the first time, all while composer Murray Gold’s new “The Doctor is about to do something awesome” score plays.
And we’re sold. Matt Smith is the Doctor.
At least, he was until last Christmas.
Modern Who is three-for-three when it comes to successful introductions of new Doctors. Hopefully, Capaldi’s premiere will continue the trend.
Astronomical: How Sailor Moon’s Reboot Improves on the Original
Can I admit something to you?
I really didn’t care for Sailor Moon as a kid.
And being a girl who grew up in the ’90s, that’s a hard thing for me to admit. Most of my pals who had a fair share of animation adoration (and even those who didn’t) had a special place in their heart for the series.
I tried to like Sailor Moon, believe me. And looking back now, I can see why I kept on watching, and why all my friends loved it. The show about a troupe of magical teen girls, led by our main character Usagi (or Serena in the U.S. version), who can transform into the beautiful Sailor Scouts, all represented by a planet in the solar system. These Sailor Scouts, use their powers to save the world from the dark grasp of the villainous Queen Beryl. You have it all there: magic, secret powers, and girls near our own age. It had the makings to be something great. And in Japan, it was.
The original series in Japan, Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon, received lots of acclaim and was even said to have revitalized the magical girl genre in both the manga and animation world. The manga won the Kodansha Manga Award in 1993 for shōjo and the show was said to be popular with girls because our heroines were using their power to save people, not just to have fun or play tricks, which was popular in other similar shows at the time.
But then DiC picked it up and tried to air it in America. And if people my age remember anything of what the TV landscape looked like in the early 1990s, we remember that what sold was often boxed in ‘80s packaging, with bright neon colors, some shoddy fight scenes, and a moral at the end of every story. Basically, if it wasn’t “Saved by the Bell,” “Power Rangers,” or the like, it wasn’t selling.
So, though I don’t doubt them, it’s easy to see that DiC did their best to try to sell the Sailor Scouts — they added in gimmicky lessons at the end, awful Power Ranger-esque dialogue during fight scenes, and animation scenes more reused than a hipster’s mason jar collection.
The show also ran into some cultural barriers as well. Scenes of near nudity, an implied lesbian relationship, and that infamous transformation scene all caused major controversial edits to be made to make the show “suitable for younger viewers.” But I also felt like something else was edited out: the fact that these girls were supposed to be heroes. I felt like Serena cried a lot, whined, and generally made life hard for all of the other Sailor Scouts until she was saved by the mysterious male lead, Tuxedo Mask.
Basically, it just felt like a bit of a letdown when a big battle would be about to take place, and Serena would run away and leave Tuxedo Mask to take care of most of the dirty work. Don’t get me wrong, I wanted to like it so very badly, but at the end of the day I’d end up rotting my brains out to Cowboy Bebop instead.
And I finished the series, but after that, I left the Sailor Scouts behind. I saw that several other series followed it, Sailor Moon S and Sailor Moon SuperS (as well as some films), so it must’ve still been doing well. But when Hulu started streaming the unedited series back in June, I watched a few episodes, and it wasn’t awful. I still didn’t really care for Serena, but it was more tolerable.
But then, two weeks ago, Hulu also started streaming the brand new Pretty Guardian Sailor Moon Crystal. And I decided to give it a go. It was hands-down one of the best animation choices I made this year (next to buying a Wacom and watching “Attack on Titan”) and I could not be happier with it.
First of all, it looks gorgeous. From the opening scene of the first episode you can practically hear creator Naoko Takeuchi yelling, “I take this seriously and so should you!” The animation is nearly flawless and crafted with such a light, careful hand — I can’t help but just watch it to stare at the craftsmanship.
But I also noticed something in the opening credits, the new theme song includes the lines, “We are not helpless girls/Who need men’s protection.” Now those are some big claims. And as I continued to watch the first two episodes (the third will be up next week), I think they’re going to keep their promise. Now sure, the show does not come without its problems.
It follows the manga more closely, which is nice, though a little too narratively tight at times for my taste. And Serena (now back to her original name, Usagi) is definitely still a teenager who is pegged immediately as popular and ditzy — but she wants to fight, she just doesn’t know how to use her powers yet. And once the other guardians are located and join the team, I can only see character growth coming our way. And I keep thinking this might just be the show I longed for when I was a young girl watching anime shows where, most of the time, guys got the save the day.
So, if you are like me, if you gave up on Sailor Moon all those years ago — or maybe you didn’t, maybe you stuck it out and are a die-hard fan — you’ll love this new installment. Even if you aren’t particularly into animation, the artwork is definitely worth an episode or two of your time.
The episodes are available for streaming on both Hulu and Crunchyroll. So in the name of the Moon, get to watching!
Tree and Leaf: For Fiction and Non-Fiction
In my last post for Smash Cut Culture, I wrote about the importance of suspension of disbelief and the necessity of internal logic within a fictional narrative universe.
Picking up where I left off, Elizabeth Wolfe wrote another wonderful article, “Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s Tree and Leaf” elaborating on that idea with quotes and examples from J.R.R. Tolkien. While thinking about that piece, it occurred to me that everything that is true of great fiction story-telling is also true in non-fiction.
Consider my condensed view of Elizabeth’s piece on Tolkien.
I’m not the first person to notice this, but his whole approach to writing was rather Biblical. First, he created the world: Middle Earth. Then he created the seas, and the mountains, the forests and the grasslands – he drew maps, and charted geographies. Then he created the flora and the fauna, and filled his world with life – dragons, trolls, Balrogs, Nazgul, and giant spiders; but also pigs, horses, bears, and birds. Finally, he created the people – human and non-human characters with free will and individual agency, histories, genealogies, and languages – and then he wrote epic stories about those people.
There are plenty of things that I think Tolkien did wrong as a writer, and there are many instances in which he clearly took unnecessary shortcuts (cough-deux ex giant eagle-cough cough) in his books which stand in sharp contrast to realism of the world; but overall, I believe that his level of sophistication and care in building a believable world is what we should all strive for as story-tellers, regardless of the medium. Showcasing a rich, deep universe, filled with complex characters and interesting stories should not just be limited to fiction.
Recently, I also read an article at Slate describing the current time as a “golden age of documentaries”. As (primarily) a documentary producer myself, I have to agree.
There are more incredible stories being told through that medium than ever before, and thanks to a handful of our documentarian fore-bearers (Albert Maysles, Errol Morris, Werner Herzog, D.A. Pennebaker, etc.) and some up and coming greats, I think we’re finally starting to learn how to tell true stories in as creative and sophisticated ways as film-makers have more frequently told the made-up ones. The only real difference is that instead of inventing a universe and characters from scratch, it is the documentary producer’s job to carve away at the shallow outer layers of the subject, and expose the complexities underneath – to piece together a clearly structured story, centered on the actions and emotions of interesting characters who inhabit a believable world.
Whether fiction or non-fiction, the story-telling principles are fundamentally the same. Non-fiction just means you can’t cheat (with magic eagles, for example). I only really came to understand this through producing my last few documentaries, No Vans Land & Locked Out.
Documentary editing is ridiculously difficult. When you’re staring at 60-70 hours worth of raw material and no no script, knowing that you need to cut it all down to a half an hour of clear, yet emotionally moving, cinema; it’s easy to get a bit overwhelmed. But if you treat a documentary the same as you’d treat a narrative film that you were writing from scratch, things get a little easier to manage (only a little, though).
When I get stuck, I often find myself referring back to the lessons I’ve learned from writers like Tolkien, along with stuff like Joseph Campbell’s view of The Hero’s Journey which describes broad story structures and character archetypes common across multiple story-telling traditions, and also about Emma Coates’ set of Pixar Story Rules.
Her whole set is great, but even just the first four are simple and valuable:
#1: You admire a character for trying more than for their successes.
#2: You gotta keep in mind what’s interesting to you as an audience, not what’s fun to do as a writer. They can be v. different.
#3: Trying for theme is important, but you won’t see what the story is actually about til you’re at the end of it. Now rewrite.
#4: Once upon a time there was ___. Every day, ___. One day ___. Because of that, ___. Because of that, ___. Until finally ___.
Most people writing about drama specifically have narrative fiction in mind, but increasingly, I find that they’re every bit as good when you’re trying to figure out how to craft a solid story out of disparate documentary footage.
All the important elements remain the same.
Déjà Reboot: Evil Dead
The Old: If you haven’t seen “The Evil Dead” you’ve surely heard of it. Sam Raimi’s cult film from 1981 was not quite what you would call a box office success. Now, over 30 years later, it has gone down as one of the most classic independent horror films of that generation. Of course the dark humor from Bruce Campbell is what really makes this film stand out amongst the contenders of the same genre. It could also be the campy thrill ride that came as a result of the extremely low-budget quality.
The New: Last year saw the return of this horror classic in the form of a reboot (surprise, surprise) only this time, the reboot actually did the original justice. With a cast of relatively unknown actors, the reboot creates a dramatic story of a girl trying to kick a drug addiction with the help of her brother and their friends. What better place to do that than in a creepy, secluded cabin in the woods? Naturally, the “Book of the Dead” is discovered and the possession by proxy ensues.
The Verdict: With many strong homages to its’ source material, “Evil Dead” (dropping the “The” for modernity’s sake) surprisingly surpasses the original in the creepy atmosphere department. Although it does mostly abandon the dark humor and takes itself (maybe too) seriously, the remake deserves a bit more credit than most other recent horror reboots. Fede Alvarez stylishly directs a talented group of young up-and-coming talent and provides more than a couple of outrageously maniacal set pieces to leave you chilled to the bone. Of course, there’s no Bruce Campbell…but this trailer does should sufficiently creep you out!
It was the Rise of the Dawn of the Earth All Along
Apocalyptic movies have a certain undying appeal. We like to see ourselves ripped away from our technology and tools while keeping just enough knowledge intact to know that we had them. It’s a take on the old humans against nature trope where nature, in this case, exists in opposition to humanity because of some previous accident or mistake; the recent spate of zombie-centered entertainment in the last few years is the most obvious example. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes adopts this zombie aesthetic with an interesting twist. The threat of nature doesn’t come from former humans, it comes from, in a way, proto-humans: apes.
Like zombie movies, our supremacy is destroyed by a virus. Ten years after Caesar (Andy Serkis) led his ape-kin to freedom in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, the simian virus that gave apes their intelligence has wrecked human civilization. Most of humanity is dead; the survivors work to rebuild their cities. A colony of human survivors in former San Francisco, led by Dreyfus (Gary Oldman), desperately needs power. Salvation rests in a decrepit hydroelectric dam but Caesar’s hostile colony of apes stands in the way. Just as the two groups reach a tenuous peace, distrust on both sides splinters diplomatic solutions into the kindlings of a minor war. Presumably, whoever wins takes the throne of the dominant species.
This film could not exist without the use of visual effects. Rise of the Planet of the Apes suffered from inconsistent effects where the realism of the apes varied given the shot. This time around, the effects maintain an impressive level of quality. They have a weight and a history; they’ve cut the world we know down to a haunting shadow. When characters are effects as in the case of this series (no, Mr. Serkis, I’m not endorsing your comments on digital makeup), the caliber and quality of effects the film boasts are crucial. And the effort does pay off for the apes. But the human performances are stale and lackluster in comparison. None of the characters have compelling reasons for their choices. They tell us of course why they do what they do, but it’s obvious the actors (with the possible exception of Oldman) don’t believe what they’re saying. When the first half of the movie uses characters to set the stage for the second half, this is a problem.
Just as with the characters themselves, the human side of the story is not terribly complex: “humans are against apes in some form or another.” The conflict between Caesar and his lieutenant Koba (Toby Kebbell) provides a solid counterpoint to this homogeneity but it’s just not enough. Even if the characters were more dynamic, even if the conflict was more nuanced, the lingering questions about the nature of this post-apocalyptic world are never answered. In other words, the humans and the apes don’t feel like they’re part of the world revealed through the spectacular effects. They don’t really answer why war was inevitable. How the simians and humans diverged to be virtually unknown to each other in ten years is a mystery given their proximity. How the apes managed to build a city, to use guns, and to develop husbandry is equally confusing: after all, a capacity for intelligence isn’t a command of a given knowledge, especially when the undirected whims of curiosity haven’t realized that the knowledge exists to be discovered.
Now, for a movie dramatizing a struggle between humans and apes, you might say I’m being a bit picky. Maybe I am. But the accumulation of all these little cracks in the foundations of this silver screen universe is all the more necessary if such a fantastical situation is to be believed as fundamentally human. We can forgive errors in logic in our world because we rarely question the world’s premise; errors in an unfamiliar world’s premise source a much more acute pain. And this pain keeps Dawn of the Planet of the Apes from truly shining as anything more than a fun summer movie.
Conan and Dave Franco Take To Tinder
Conan O’Brian and Dave Franco investigated the new trend in “online dating” by signing up for Tinder. The popular app links singles with matches in their local area. However, Conan and Franco really pointed out the absurdity of the trend.
Literature You Should Know: Tolkien’s Tree and Leaf
I was already planning to write on this week before I read Sean 
Malone’s review of Snowpiercer, but Sean’s discussion of internal logic only confirmed my choice. If there’s one book every writer of science fiction and fantasy absolutely must read, it’s Tree and Leaf. Several different editions have been released over the years, but all contain two vitally important works: On Fairy-Stories and Leaf by Niggle.
“On Fairy-Stories” began as a keynote address Tolkien delivered in 1937, around the same time he published The Hobbit and began writing The Lord of the Rings. The first part of the essay addresses what fairy-stories are, though Tolkien gives no more precise definition than that they are stories about Faërie; misconceptions of the Fair Folk; the muddle critics make when discussing the origins of fairy tales; and the modern mistake of thinking that fairy tales are only for children. Tolkien moves beyond mere criticism, however, when he turns to the topics of how fairy tales are written and why they are worthwhile. He never cites Sidney’s Defense of Poesy, but his view of literary creativity is in a similar vein.
Tolkien defines human creativity as sub-creation. Only God can create something from nothing, and Tolkien calls the world God created the Primary World. Yet humans, made in God’s image, have the right to use our sub-creative powers, defined as Art, to form Secondary Worlds from the material we find in the Primary World. Here Tolkien quotes from his poem “Mythopoeia,” which appears in full in recent editions of Tree and Leaf. Written for C. S. Lewis shortly after the famous conversation on Addison’s Walk in 1931, “Mythopoeia” attacks Lewis’ assertion at the time that myths are “lies breathed through silver.” Tolkien counters not only that myth is a vehicle for truth but also that myth-making is a human right—“we make still by the law in which we’re made.” And “Leaf by Niggle,” Tolkien’s only deliberate allegory, celebrates the idea that God may someday grant us the great gift of seeing our Secondary Worlds given primary reality.
Yet Tolkien argues in “On Fairy-Stories” that the purpose of Art isn’t just the author’s own enjoyment. A well-made Secondary World is one into which author and audience alike can enter. The Secondary World therefore needs to have “the inner consistency of reality” that allows the audience to believe that what the author says is true within that world. If disbelief has to be suspended, the art has failed. Tolkien notes,
Anyone inheriting the fantastic device of human language can say the green sun. Many can then imagine or picture it. But that is not enough…. To make a Secondary World inside which the green sun will be credible, commanding Secondary Belief, will probably require labour and thought, and will certainly demand a special skill, a kind of elvish craft. Few attempt such difficult tasks. But when they are attempted and in any degree accomplished then we have a rare achievement of Art: indeed narrative art, story-making in its primary and most potent mode.
Fantasy is the most difficult genre, in Tolkien’s view, because it’s characterized by “arresting strangeness” and is vastly different from the Primary World. Yet that’s also what makes fantasy worthwhile and is a consolation in itself. It carries with it Recovery, not just renewed perspective but renewed mental and spiritual health from “regaining a clear view… ‘seeing things as we are (or were) meant to see them.’” Fantasy also allows Escape, not from reality as a whole, but from the elements that stifle our spiritual health and growth, and thus can offer the consolation of satisfied desire. Best of all is the Consolation of the Happy Ending, the good turn Tolkien calls eucatastrophe:
In its fairy-tale—or otherworld—setting, it is a sudden and miraculous grace: never to be counted on to recur. It does not deny the existence of dyscatastrophe, of sorrow and failure: the possibility of these is necessary to the joy of deliverance; it denies (in the face of much evidence, if you will) universal final defeat and in so far is evangelium, giving a fleeting glimpse of Joy, Joy beyond the walls of the world, poignant as grief.
Such elements, Tolkien argues, should not be scorned because they take us away from “real life”—for who is more hostile to escape than a jailer?
The Best Band You Might Not Be Listening To: dale
It’s been less than two years since the 5-person rock band was formed, and they’ve already begun to make a splash in the Los Angeles area. Formed on the campus of the University of Southern California, dale combines some hard rock roots with superb hooks and a conservatory education; a formula that churns out good tune after good tune. Your chance to say “I knew them when” may be running out quickly, so take the time to listen through these young guys’ electric stuff. Fans of Neon Trees and Jack White can find where the two meet when they take a shot at dale.
If you think you have a band that should be featured on Best Band, contact us and tell us why!
No Anarchy for the Emmys
If you felt cheated by Richard Mattox’s “5 Biggest Snubs” article last week when the Emmy nominations were revealed, I’ve got your fix. Or at least a taste.
Over on Nikki Finke’s recently unveiled website, nikkifinke.com, the Queen of Snark allowed Sons of Anarchy creator Kurt Sutter a soapbox to vent his conflicting feelings on his FX show being passed over once again for any nominations in the major Emmy awards categories (the show was nominated for Original Song.)
Sutter’s conflicts seem to stem from wanting to have his cake and eat it too. One of the appeals to the show by it’s fans (of which I am a former member) is that the series is so counter-culture and bad-ass that “we don’t need no stinking awards”. Sutter wears that badge with honor yet admits that it would be nice to be recognized by his peers.
Honestly – and I actually believe this – I think we’d drop viewers if ‘Sons of Anarchy‘ were ever nominated for an Emmy. My bombastic outlaw-asshole reputation would be tarnished.
…
That’s not to say that I don’t want to win an Emmy. I absolutely do. More than anything. Any artist who tells you they don’t want to be acknowledged and awarded by their peers is a fat fucking liar.
These are the same peers that he calls-out who vote more out of loyalty than objectivity. (This is so true by the way. During an Oscar season years ago, I asked a friend who she was voting for in the Best Actor category. She replied she’d vote for her friend. I asked if she saw his film, and she said she hadn’t yet, but he just “deserves one”. I mentioned that he already won one a few years prior and she just said. “Well, then he should get another one.” I had already stopped paying attention to award ceremonies a couple of years before that, but after that conversation, it really solidified for me that all these big award shows are crap.)
Kurt Sutter’s bigger issue is Hollywood. He has created a great show. His opinion about other nominated shows having lost their way after 3 season while his continues to flourish is debateable. Like I mentioned, I am a former fan. Sutter clearly wants to be a member of the popular kids club and still hold onto his bad boy image. But with Sons of Anarchy is overflowing with violence, sex, rape, drugs, guns plus enough testosterone to make Lena Dunham beg to be stay-at-home mom, it’s going to be a long time before the PC stooges of tinseltown give you an award. He posted his article on Nikki Finke’s website, which means he really should have had more guts to call-out these Hollywood cronies and name names other than a childhood nemesis. Instead, he just drops f-bombs and jokes about killing puppies. If he going to call himself an “outlaw-asshole” at least write like one.
Long live Opie.
Déjà Reboot: The Texas Chainsaw Massacre
The Old: In 1974, Tobe Hooper was responsible for a lot of deaths. Not literally (that anyone knows of), but he was definitely responsible for some faintings. The original The Texas Chainsaw Massacre was known for being one of the most terrifying films of its’ time, so much so that people passed out in the theatres. While it can be seen as being cheesy for modern audiences, the scares and tension absolutely stand the test of time.
The New: In 2003, we got an update on this horror classic with a hot, young cast lead by Jessica Biel. Naturally, in the vein of modern horror, the remake went for more of the gore and guts than actual tension and scares. However, the stylish and bleak cinematography and high-tension chase scenes made for what a basic horror fan could find entertaining.
The Verdict: Out of obligation, I must recommend the original TCM. It really is horrifying and it set the standard for 70s, 80s and 90s horror classics. However, the remake does add a bit more story for the sake of drama (as pointless as that drama may have turned out to be) and is worth a catch at least once, as it does have its’ fair share of scares. Plus… It’s bloody CREEPY!
Taking Care of Business
For years, comedy has hit hardest in poking fun at the workplace. From catching a case of “The Mondays” in “Office Space” to the Jell-O based antic of Jim Halpert in “The Office,” there’s just something about poking fun at when our workplace is at its worst.
But for Great Work Cultures, it’s no laughing matter. This non-profit company noticed a recent Gallup poll stated that 70 percent of employees feel disengaged and planed to change the corporate mindset. They aspire to put a positive spin on the workplace by injecting it with a new norm of respectful workplace cultures to help boost worker effectiveness and happiness. And they’ve gotten some serious response.
This month, The Morning Star Packing Company became the lead supporting champion for Great Work Cultures. Morning Star, a tomato packing company, made it a point to practice a deeply respectful management system that caused them to be selected as the Management Innovator of the Year.
“As a Champion of Great Work Cultures, I hope to see business philosophies based on a bedrock of mutual respect go mainstream and maximize harmony and prosperity in the workplace,” stated Chris Rufer, Morning Star’s founder.
And Morning Star’s efforts have paid off. Last year one of their processing plants had a 100 percent return of their seasonal workers.
Rufer also says that they’ve made a commitment to values that allow for a self-managed workplace environment, or each colleague manages their mission absent directives from others.
“These values set the stage for working with fellow colleagues, customers, suppliers, and industry participants within a framework of solid integrity and openness, in pursuit of voluntary and mutually beneficial transactions and relationships.,” he stated. “This is also something we encourage colleagues to adhere to in every other aspect of their lives. This pathway has been very rewarding for us as a company and as individuals.”
But Great Work Cultures also finds innovative ways to tackle the problem of the grueling work week. From utilizing work culture practices like Self-Management, High-Performance Work Places (HPWP), Results-Only Work Environment (ROWE), and Holacracy (which Great Work Cultures is using for their governance structure) to using documentaries to show the reality of workplace practices.
If you’re interested in learning more, check out their website at http://www.greatworkcultures.org. And they’ll also be making an appearance at the World Workplace 2014, an expo for all things synergy that’ll be taking place in September.
Literature You Should Know: Sidney’s Defense of Poesy
In the wake of the English Reformation, Puritan leaders began denouncing forms of entertainment they considered sinful, especially theater and poetry. When one former playwright addressed an anti-theater treatise to Sir Philip Sidney, Sidney responded with An Apologie for Poetrie (later retitled ), the first work of its kind in English literature. Sidney’s arguments about the purpose of poetry—by which he meant all forms of creative writing—still resonate for content creators who want to smash cut our postmodern culture toward a healthier direction.
Sidney applies the term poetry broadly because it derives from the Greek verb poiein, “to make.” He points out that many poets don’t write verse, and many people who write verse don’t deserve to be called poets. More modern forms of prose and scripted fiction would therefore also fall under the heading of poetry in Sidney’s view. For him, creativity is the hallmark of poetry, far more than any given medium or genre.
Throughout the Defense, Sidney presents the thesis that poetry’s purpose is to teach and delight, and especially to teach by delighting. Writing for a Renaissance audience, Sidney draws most heavily on classical literature, but he also hints at the Puritans’ hypocrisy with examples from Scripture. When it comes to virtue, he argues, philosophy can present dry rules and history can furnish plain examples, but only poetry can combine the rule with the example in a way most people will enjoy. And enjoyment is the key to convincing people to apply moral lessons to their own lives. Sidney notes that even cultures that don’t have historians or philosophers still learn from their poets and storytellers.
Yet the message isn’t the only reason creative writing is worthwhile. Sidney states that poetry’s the highest of the written arts because it’s the only one in which the author makes something new out of nature rather than recording what’s in nature. As such, he argues, it’s also the highest expression of the imago Dei, the image of God in which all humans are made. Because we’re created in the likeness of the Creator, the Author of history, what could be a more fitting human activity than making up our own stories?
Sidney then addresses the Puritan arguments against poetry, quickly dismissing those that are only mockery and agreeing to disagree with those who say that poetry’s a waste of time. To the charge that poetry consists of lies, he points out that a lie affirms a falsehood to be true; scientists and historians can’t always avoid getting their facts wrong, but a poet never claims to be writing anything but fiction. (And we all know how many documentaries and textbooks are riddled with errors and outright lies!) Then there’s the objection that Plato banished poets from his republic, to which Sidney replies that Plato was really talking about poets who misused poetry to present harmful opinions of the gods.
The one objection to which Sidney grants any credence is that poetry can be, and often is, abused to encourage the audience to embrace vice rather than rejecting it. This debate continues today, whether we’re discussing the sexual content of television or music, railing against pro-statist movies, or arguing whether violent video games encourage violent behavior. The problem, as Sidney sees it, is not “that poetry abuseth man’s wit, but that man’s wit abuseth poetry.” He distinguishes between two types of poetic imitation: eikastike, “figuring forth good things,” and phantastike, “which doth contrariwise infect the [imagination] with unworthy objects…. But what!” he adds, “shall the abuse of a thing make the right use odious?” Even what we call fantasy—The Lord of the Rings comes to mind—can be eicastic in Sidney’s sense in that it encourages virtue. Lines do need to be drawn; the trick is drawing them in the right places.
Later, Sidney notes that a large part of the problem with English poetry is that it’s badly written by classical standards, regardless of the content. Nor is the quality problem limited to verse; he gives examples from plays and even sermons. Conservatives, especially Christians, have been having this same discussion for years—since so much pop culture is dreck, is it enough to support good content, regardless of writing quality? The solution, I think Sidney would argue, is to create better works, good writing that teaches a good message… or, as Mary Poppins put it, the “spoonful of sugar [that] makes the medicine go down in a most delightful way.”
5 Biggest Snubs
The Primetime Emmy nominee list came out today and the annual turmoil over who was left unrecognized has begun. However, there is another set of fans who feel unrest over the mistreatment of their favorite celebrities.
I’m referring to the finalization of the MLB All-Star rosters. Today the Final Vote elected Chicago Cubs first baseman Anthony Rizzo and Chicago White Sox starting pitcher Chris Sale as the final members of the NL and AL teams, respectively. Both are extremely deserving (especially Sale, who is at the very least a top-5 starter in baseball right now), but there are several others for whom the politics of these “award ceremonies” proved unjust as ever.
5. Cincinnati Reds CF – Billy Hamilton
Now, he has missed his last few games with a hamstring injury, and he is on a team in the Reds that is one of the best represented teams with 4 All-Stars, but leaving the speedy Reds center fielder Billy Hamilton off the NL outfield reserves was an oversight. Coming into his rookie season, the 23-year old was expected to impress with his speed (and he has, with a spectacular 37 steals, good enough for 2nd in the NL), but the major concern was whether or not Billy would be able to hit enough to make his speed a factor. And he has! Hamilton has shown above-average contact abilities with a .280 avg, and has even demonstrated a little unexpected power with 5 bombs and 6 triples. Again, there are already 4 Reds on the NL roster (three of whom are extremely deserving; I’ll let you decipher who is the fourth) but in an outfield bench that features Pittsburgh utility man Josh Harrison (What?), we certainly could have made room for Hamilton.
4. Atlanta Braves LF – Justin Upton
Okay. If you don’t buy that Hamilton should take Harrison’s spot, you should at least agree that Atlanta Braves slugger Justin Upton should be headed to Minnesota for the mid-season festivities. Upton’s 17 HRs are good for fifth in the NL and he’s no scrub in any of his other categories. A .280 avg., 50 RBIs and 8 steals demonstrate his versatile role in the heart of the second-place Atlanta offense. Arguably the most dangerous guy in this lineup (that includes you, Freddie Freeman), Upton has very quietly put up numbers that are certainly All-Star caliber.
3. Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim SP – Garrett Richards
Like Upton, young Angels flamethrower Garrett Richards was a Final Vote candidate that lost out. The former reliever has had a breakout season in the starting rotation, playing a major role in the success in Anaheim. His 10 wins, 2.71 ERA, 14 quality starts, and 119 strikeouts are all good for Top-10 in the AL. Not to mention the fact that his average fastball sits at a sizzling 96.3. It would have been fun to see him throw at Target Field, but the AL pitching staff is admittedly crowded.
2. Houston Astros RF – George Springer
Another rookie outfielder that was overlooked, elite prospect George Springer has pulled the bottom-feeding Houston Astros out of obscurity. The phenom has knocked 19 HRs and 50 RBIs, despite spending his first two weeks in the minor leagues. In addition, he has already shown prowess defensively with a combination of speed, glove, and arm strength. Yes, his .238 avg is bad, but he has proven to be unexpectedly disciplined. Springer has gotten on base at an impressive .342 clip (only .006 behind mediocre All-Star honoree, Alex Gordon). He’s a future All-Star, without a doubt, but so far Springer has done enough to deserve a place on baseball’s biggest stage. I wouldn’t have minded watching him in the Home Run Derby either.
1. Detroit Tigers 2B – Ian Kinsler and Minnesota Twins 2B – Brian Dozier
Yes. It’s a tie for number 1. I simply could not choose, because both of these AL second basemen were denied a much-deserved roster spot. Veteran Ian Kinsler has been extremely productive all around in his first year in Detroit. Kinsler has hit .303 for the first-place Tigers, along with 11 bombs, 9 steals, and a whopping 62 runs that are good enough for second in the AL. Second to… ? That’s right. Minnesota Twins keystone Brian Dozier. The Minnesota favorite is on pace for a 30-30 season, matching 15 swipes with 16 longballs. And, as mentioned, his 65 runs are best in the AL, again, proving his .338 OBP to be more important than his lackluster .235 avg. Most importantly, he’s the hometown hero! It’s a shame he’ll miss a chance to represent in front of his city.
I was shocked to hear that Angels SS Erick Aybar got the nod to replace injured Alex Gordon while both of these middle infielders remained at home. Nothing against Robinson Cano, who was voted by the fans as the AL starter, but the only second baseman who has been better than these two is the Astros’ diminutive speedster Jose Altuve. I’m just thankful AL Home Run Derby captain Jose Bautista acknowledged Dozier’s snub by selecting him to the AL Derby squad.
That’s my list. Who did I forget?
Veronica Mars Lives On… In Books
Fans of the late Veronica Mars television series wanted a continuation so badly, they were willing to shell out money through Kickstarter to help fund a movie.
Given that it only made about $3.3 million at the box office, according to imdb.com, that’s probably the only Veronica Mars film anyone’s ever getting. (At least it was great fun.)
But that’s not the end of the franchise. Shortly after the movie came out, the story continued in a
Veronica Mars: The Thousand Dollar Tan Line was written by series creator Rob Thomas, along with Jennifer Graham, and it’s only the first of a new series of mystery novels. A second novel by the same authors, , is available for pre-order and will be released Oct. 28.
So how does a television series translate into a novel series? In this case, exceptionally well.
Sure, it lacks Kristen Bell and the rest of the exceptional cast, but the reader can easily hear all their voices in the dialogue and can picture them playing out the scenes as if this were the next movie that will never be.
The basic plot involves a couple of girls going missing during spring break in Neptune, and the local Chamber of Commerce hires Veronica to investigate.
That sounds like just a throwaway storyline, but, without giving away any details, it becomes rather personal for Veronica. Her character growth (or perhaps it’s regression to some extent) continues right where the movie left off, and we see her father Keith trying to get her to confront what it means to be an adult P.I.
The closest comparisons in the pop culture world might be the Buffy the Vampire Slayer comic books currently published by Dark Horse that picked up where that television series left off, beginning with “Season Eight,” and they’re up to “Season Ten” now.
The Buffy continuation also features direct involvement from its series creator, Joss Whedon, but the jump to comic books was initially used as an excuse to do all the special effects that would have ruined their television budgets, such as a giant Dawn and a flying Buffy. Plus, no matter how talented the artist, seeing the characters essentially turned into cartoons takes a little getting used to. I’ve read Season Eight, and it’s fun, but it’s definitely not the TV show.
Veronica Mars, however, doesn’t feel at all tainted. This book is the Veronica Mars fans have come to expect. The characters are all there acting in-character. The rules of the world remain the same, though circumstances reflect the passage of time (and adult language is now allowed, apparently). This very well could have been a storyline in Season Twelve.
The beloved first two seasons felt like televised novels, anyway, so it shouldn’t be surprising that prose is such an excellent fit.
Really, the only major flaw as a Veronica Mars story is that we don’t get to see Kristen Bell acting it out—though she does narrate the audiobook.
Works for this Veronica Mars fan.
A Cappella is Getting Younger!
A cappella, once regarded as the dorkiest of all music forms, reserved for old men and barbershop quartets, is seeing a renaissance. With the wild success of Pitch Perfect (which inspired the sequel, Pitch Perfect 2, now in production), NBC’s hit reality competition, “The Sing-Off,” and their season 3 godsend, Pentatonix, and the ever growing collegiate participation in the International Championships of Collegiate A Cappella, making weird noises in harmony is one of the fastest growing trends in music! And that’s why PTX member Avi Kaplan, along with Ben Bram (alumnus of 3-time ICCA winning ) and Rob Dietz have founded The A Cappella Academy. The Academy is a week-long summer program to teach and train young singers in the art of a cappella. From the looks of it, things are going well.
And they’re just in high school… These budding vocalists will be showcased this Saturday in Los Angeles. For tickets click here. And for anyone who has yet to discover Pentatonix, enjoy:
Another Take on “Snowpiercer” and the Logic in Cinema
Yesterday, at Smash Cut Culture, Patrick Lehe wrote a fairly positive teaser review of Snowpiercer in his post, “Snowpiercer” Penetrates, Provokes and Gets Political.
Like Patrick, I was intrigued by the trailer and the critical hype. A lot of people were talking about this movie as a great example of fresh and original sci-fi cinema and as a fan of the genre, I was excited.
After seeing the film, however, I was tremendously disappointed. My suspension of disbelief was thoroughly destroyed early in the film and simply never returned. Consequently, I spent the baffling majority of the film wondering why things were happening on screen. It’s really hard to enjoy a cinematic experience when you are shaking your head with incredulity the entire movie.
Snowpiercer ended up being a relatively unique concept for a film without being all that good or coherent. However, instead of listing my specific, spoiler-ridden, criticisms of Snowpiercer here, today I want to talk about the importance of internal logic in cinema.
More than anything, to create a believable world that really captures an audience’s imagination, a story needs to make sense. In science fiction and fantasy stories, this is especially true, because audiences begin totally unfamiliar with the worlds and characters that the stories require them to accept. The setting and characters must be accepted realistic before an audience can fully engage in the story itself.
To be clear, what I mean is not that the story needs to exist in the real world or conform to known physical laws.
Great stories can have the most fantastical spaceships, amazing technology, superhuman abilities and magical powers, impressive landscapes and strange alien beasts. They can – and perhaps should – completely abandon anything known to mankind.
But once the rules of the world, the characters, and their abilities are established, they have to be consistent and make sense throughout the rest of the story. Great writers establish a complex and rich universe: They give you the “rules”, and stick to them. And that consistency creates an opportunity to have a really character driven story that makes sense on its own terms.
So, believability really matters.
Science fiction and fantasy stories have the potential to talk about big ideas and create grand allegories for humanity and really say something about people in a way that few other genres can accomplish, but they can only do that if the audience buys into the universe as it’s presented.
The real beauty of the genre is that when it’s believable, it’s perfect for creating compelling stories about deep-rooted facets of human nature in a way that is totally outside the real-world human experience and frees an audience to look at an idea from a fresh perspective.
Brazil shows the absurdity of overwhelming bureaucracy. Blade Runner wrestles with the ethics of cloning and questions the nature of humanity. The Iron Giant shows us that violence is a choice, and xenophobia is often more dangerous than seemingly scary monsters. Pan’s Labyrinth uses fantasy and escapism to viscerally express the terror of living as a little girl under fascist Spain. Big Fish tackles the nature and significance of exaggeration vs. truth in creating distance in the relationship between a father and son.
Snowpiercer is a film that desperately wants to say something about class and economic inequality, but I found it to be so ridiculously unbelievable and silly as a story that the message can’t be taken seriously either.
Considering how many science fiction and fantasy genre films are written to be allegories about humanity and modern social issues, you’d think that writers presenting a social message would take believability a lot more seriously with their films.
Most science fiction and fantasy genre movies ignore this important point.
A few logic cheats are fine, of course, but the problem with writing that lacks coherence is that, as a viewer, it eventually becomes very hard to ignore major lapses in consistency. The more audiences question the veracity of a sequence of events given what they’re told of a character’s motivations, or the world those characters inhabit; the more audiences get taken out of the experience of the story itself.
For me, that’s exactly what happened when watching Snowpiercer, to the point where instead of thinking about social issues like class stratification, I was running a play-back in my mind of the several dozen sequences in the film that made absolutely no sense.
A science fiction movie especially lives or dies on the audience buying into the vision of the film. And once you’ve lost your audience, it’s very hard to regain their interest.
Maintaining believability and respecting an audience’s suspension of disbelief is crucial for any story-teller trying to build a world that feels real; and that kind of reality is absolutely essential for audiences to actually buy into the allegory as it’s presented.
Anyone who wants to use story-telling to present big ideas about society and human nature should probably keep this in mind.
Bong Joon-Ho, I’m looking at you.
#SixSeasons&A…Sometimes Good Guys Do Win
I stopped watching Community years ago. For many of you, that’s enough to question my bona fides and ability to comment on the revealed news that Yahoo!, informally recognized as Ask Jeeves’s hipper search engine cousin, has taken this problem child off of NBC’s hands and decided to produce the much agitated for #Six(th)Season(s)*. Regardless of where you stand on Community, or its endearingly enigmatic showrunner Dan Harmon, it’s a curious sight to behold that a show so incredibly devoid of any capitalistic stamp on our consumer-driven culture can somehow, like Lazarus, raise from the dead year after befuddling year.
Community was supposed to be DOA after season one. And season two. And season five. And everything in between. But it’s not.
Harmon, of the Joseph Campbell school of storytelling, is nothing if not an honest storyteller, and his die hard fans (of which there are, if not legion, sufficient enough to continually resuscitate a network television show) have rewarded him and his efforts in a way that has me wondering: how many other storytellers can boast the same? Think about it: how many other modern television creators have the undying (much to NBC’s chagrin, I am sure) support of complete strangers? Arrested Development (and Mitch Hurwitz) may claim similar stats, sure (and the two masters of the medium are not only friends, but have also been the beneficiaries of an adoring public that goes so far as to coordinate wildly popular art shows in Los Angeles), and yes, there have been multiple campaigns (what’s up, Chuck?) over the years to keep unique shows with unique points of view on the air. But perhaps none have experienced the emotional tolls as Community has. No other show has asked so much from its viewers–not as an audience, but as human beings–than this unorthodox story of unorthodox heroes doing unorthodox things for no one’s amusement but their own.
Why do people keep putting up with Harmon and Community? Should I have ended that sentence with an exclamation point?
First, there was Chevy (and before that, there was also Chevy). Then came the infamous season 3 (or was it 4? see…I should not be writing this) “benching” by NBC…which produced one of the finest incarnations of Harmontown that ever was (and at which I, your fair, incompetent writer, was present for); there was Harmon’s benching–i.e., firing–more general disgruntledness, a giant think-piece / cautious homage to Harmon in Grantland; and finally, Harmon’s unlikely return to the show a year after being canned. Good God, I am tired just typing it all. Imagine how gassed I’d be if I watched it.
Cute story: About two years ago got into a heated debate about sitcoms with a show runner of some success (this may be the single douchey-est sentence I’ve ever written, so my apologies; I am nothing, if not a self-aware douche). Having come from the multi-camera world of 18 shares and live studio audiences, he assured me that Community “is not a comedy” and that “Harmon is finished…he’ll never work again!” He was literally salivating over the thought of seeing Dan Harmon go down in professinoal flames. And I was angry. I was angry on behalf of Harmon and every other television creator who has ever cared to tell an actual story, and tell it well, ratings be damned. I was upset because an arrogant hack thought he knew what the masses wanted more than actual storytellers, and what they wanted was slop. Pure, set-up, punchline, slop.
I did not fare well in this discussion. I was lectured and patronized, and summarily dismissed.
But here’s the good news. Community lives. And in some small corners of the universe, whether it’s Harmon’s tumblr, or Reddit, or tiny art galleries in the middle of Hollywood, it matters. It matters more than a million no-name shows that made a million times more than Community ever did for Sony or NBC. It matters because it’s one of the few modern stories that dares to treat audiences like thinking, emotive organisms. It matters because it–and the creative minds behind it–understand fundamental human dilemmas, and the need for human connection for all of us–especially those of us on the margins.
As a writer, I have learned more from a distance from Dan Harmon than just about any other storyteller. I have learned that I probably shouldn’t always be an ass, but I have also learned that it’s important to fight for (y)our creative instinct. It is important to tell our stories. It is important to go to bat for them when no one else will. It is important to be so petulant about them at times, so exacting and unrelenting, that people eventually give in and allow themselves the opportunity see the beauty of someone else’s singular vision.
Love him, hate him, or have absolutely no idea who he is or have any interest in finding out, but Dan Harmon is not finished. And neither are people like him who continue to believe that there is space at the table for them in this medium largely controlled by multi-billion dollar corporations (whoops–I mean people) that just want to sell you baby formula and adult diapers.
And, the more I think about it, maybe it’s time I started watching again. Then I might actually have something educated to say.
*AndAMovie
“Snowpiercer” Penetrates, Provokes and Gets Political
If you are a fan of the science fiction genre, then you probably became elated at the sight of the first trailer for Snowpiercer. Although the trailer itself does not reveal too much, it tells us genre nerds just enough of what we need to know to become intrigued. The set up is rather simple.
In a post-apocalyptic world, this little known phenomenon called “global warming” has taken mass effect, actually doing the exact opposite of warming the globe. The entire planet has essentially been plunged into a new ice age, now covered in a freezing layer of snow and ice, making it uninhabitable. Almost the entire population of Earth has been wiped out, and the few remaining survivors live aboard a futuristic train called…you guessed it…Snowpiercer.
DISCLAIMER: Spoilers ahead. Real life, major spoilers. Read at your own risk!
So now we have a somewhat intriguing, if not slightly lopsided, set up of our world. Then comes the deep stuff. Inside the train (the exact length of which is never specified) the varying cars are divided up by social class, the lowest of which reside in the tail-end of the train. Naturally, the privileged live towards the front of the train. The train is said to run on a “perpetual engine” that can never die, and said engine was created by the mysterious Wilford, a God-like figure whom is worshipped by those on the front of the train, and utterly loathed by those on the back. Social allegories galore!
One determined young man named Curtis (Chris Evans), living in the tail-end under the mentorship of an old man named Gilliam (John Hurt), is sick of his life feeding on nothing but gelatin-like protein bars (revealed to be made of something rather unmentionable). He wants what the privileged have (Sushi). He dreams of forcing his way to the front. He initiates a rebellion with the help of some of the tail-enders, consisting of an excellent ensemble cast that includes Octavia Spencer, Jamie Bell and Ewen Bremner.
In order to make it through, they take into captivity Mason (Tilda Swinton), a bureaucratic cult-leader type who represents those from the front of the train and perhaps bows down the lowest to Wilford. As the biggest source of comic relief, she is by far one of the most dynamic and entertaining characters and Swinton’s performance made the film that much more watchable.
As the group of scrappy tail-enders force their way towards the front, we as the audience are immersed in some truly magnificent action sequences and cinematography. For such a contained setting, director Bong Joon-ho was able to get very creative with the camerawork. Not to mention the frozen world outside is very well done, creating a landscape that looks truly terrifying.
Upon reaching the very front of the train, where the perpetual engine presides, Curtis is finally able to confront Wilford (Ed Harris). Without spoiling too much, it is revealed that Curtis was essentially fooled into leading the rebellion, to be used as a sick way of population control for those in the tail-end. As stated by Wilford, natural selection doesn’t work quickly enough on the train.
I will force myself to stop at this point, as there are many more twists revealed within the final act. However, with all the aforementioned criticisms about a one-sided viewpoint being driven throughout the storyline of fairness and equality, the film is quite an experience in itself and it uses a lot of symbolism for life and redemption. As films go, it has a solid story and extremely well-written characters. Of course, the ensemble cast never ceases to entertain amidst the 2-hour-plus runtime. I never once found myself wondering when it would end.
All in all, “Snowpiercer” is definitely worth a view. Although it was only given a limited theatrical release, it will be available on as of this Friday, July 11th.
The Best Band You Might Not Be Listening To: Ra Ra Riot
Formed in Syracuse, New York, Ra Ra Riot features an upbeat dance-pop feel with several unexpected ingredients. Lead singer Wes Miles has elements reminiscent of Phoenix‘s Thomas Mars, while the band demonstrates surprising musicality for their fairly mainstream sound, and bouncy electronic tracks are matched with live strings in an interesting compliment. And while they’ve been at it awhile, fans of Vampire Weekend, Phoenix, and Broken Bells will find a fresh face in Ra Ra Riot’s mixture of youth and musical maturity.
If you think you have a band that should be featured on Best Band, contact us and tell us why!