Batman: The Dark Knight Rises

Review: The Dark Knight Rises

It's difficult to know what to say about the tragic loss of life in Colorado at this film's opening, other than my prayers are with the victims and their families.  It's not difficult to know what to say about the film itself: it lives up to the hype.

While there will not be much surprise for the attentive viewer who knows the Batman stories well, The Dark Knight Rises is very well done, and continues the trend of excellence in films based on comic books.  I enjoyed the final installment to The Dark Knight series even more than the much-lauded Heath Ledger/Joker one, and at this point would put it in my top ten of comic book movies of all time.

Great action, satisfying wrap-up of characters arcs.  While the effects are not as impressive as the Avengers, I think it is more successful in terms of plot. (I can't believe I didn't get an Avengers review up!  Well, I was out-of-town.)  Great casting and acting in the other parts along with directing and writing continue to save the less than stellar Bale Batman.

Have we entered the Golden Age of Comic Book Cinema?  Are we getting spoiled or lucky?  Sure seems like great days for geeks.  Long may we rule the market!
GRADE: A
Not to be missed

Review: Pixar's Brave

A Brave Addition to a Fine Summer of Cinema

While everybody else is seeing The Amazing Spiderman or getting fireworks ready, I finally got to go see Brave.  This is Pixar in fine form, and though I am proud of the English side of my heritage, and pity those who have to grasp at tenuous Celtic links to feel good about their heritage, I'm still a sucker for Celtic stuff.  There are nice touches of Celtic folklore in the story, but I'd put it at the level of flavor for the general audience, and not as strong as what you'd get, for example, in the Secret of Kells.

Brave is beautifully done.  The comic relief is almost all provided by male characters.  The film has not one, but two strong female characters in major roles, not to mention a rather delightful wit- I mean, wood carver.  Visually beautiful, good writing, some laughs, a good balance of action and characterization, a conflict between two sympathetic, strong, and different female characters, it's very enjoyable.  My only criticism has to do with the pulling off the plot's solution.  Somehow, it managed to be both too predictable and not formulaic enough.  An odd criticism without explanation, I know, but I think I will skip explanation for now so as not to spoil the show.  This plot defect (defects?) doesn't mar the movie, it just makes it imperfect.  The film had the potential to be more complex than it turned out, but I still recommend it to girls and to the general audience.

GRADE: A-

Postscript on Strange Criticism
So, I ran across a criticism of Brave online that struck me as simply strange.  I ran across it thanks to the lovely Once Upon a Blog's Fairy Tale News, and if that one post comes in for a share of the criticism below, you shouldn't take that as a detraction from enjoying what's on offer over there.  Mary Pols decries Brave in Time as a "failure of female empowerment."  Following the links (especially this NYTimes article) and doing some searches on my own turned up a good deal of criticism, good and bad, centering on Merida's mane of curly, flaming hair.  The idea that Merida's hair is a part of what's wrong with the film, frankly, makes me shake my head and laugh -- but the latter with bitter weariness. 

It seems to me that certain strands of feminist criticism, like many contemporary ideologies, are tempted by either the Scylla of materialism or the Charybdis of a disembodied Gnosticism.  You can tell what I think of both options with my analogy.  What I mean by it is, either Merida is her hair or she needs to be liberated from her hair.  On the whole, I guess that there are probably more feminists who want to turn gender into a cultural construction so that they can escape biology for some new cultural realm of the Mind (f.) which they construct in its place.  Never mind the fact that Gingers might be empowered by Brave (oh, how we picked on them during elementary school!), but I seriously doubt that there is a strong connection between folks who enjoy the aesthetic of her fiery locks or the technical and artistic accomplishment of portraying them on screen and the reduction of women to their hair (or the cultural values pertaining thereto).  The fact is, art lets us do something that life does not excel at as well: fit the outer embodiment to the inner person.  Just as art explodes our tendency to overplay the correspondence between appearances and the realities beneath them in destructive ways, so it also lets us enjoy a world where these correspond to a greater degree.  To reduce art to either one kind of art or the other, now that would be a failure of human empowerment.  Further, in a market where art is also business, these kind of physical manifestations of character are an important part of the art's success -- especially for art pitched to kids.

Who knows?  Maybe these are just Sassenach critics seeking to oppress my Celtic forebears and colonize their hair with some less ethnic coloring?  (Yes, sometimes it is very good to be a hybrid.)

Where I would agree with feminists, or just film critics of any stripe, is that we can do better than Brave.  But they should appreciate how hard it will be to do better in some areas, and that when better comes, it may have Brave to thank in part for doing so.  The ecology of art and criticism is necessarily red with tooth and claw, but Brave doesn't deserve a take-down, and the art of animated cinema will improve from its success and suffer if it is considered a failure.  But then, this is coming from someone who doesn't plan on seeing most Pixar films a second time and does plan on seeing Brave again.

Log Cabins sans Stakes

A Review of Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter

You can pretty much count on movie posters being misleading when it comes to plot these days.

Mrs. Obscure wanted to see Abraham Lincoln Vampire Hunter more than Brave, so we went to see it last night.  (I'm still hoping for Brave before the weekend is through.)  While the schtick of the Grahame-Smith industry has worn a little thin with me, I was curious.  After all, I'm a sucker for period pieces, it is alternate history and fantasy, and it's got vampires.

Positives:

• Visually well done in general
• Constant action (don't come if your in the mood for anything else)
• New actors do fine overall (exception below).  
• More Mary Elizabeth Winstead.  Yay!
• Rufus Sewell doesn't overpower the characters of new actors as injudicious use of him easily could have.  Makes a fine villain.
• Some nice details: new vampire killing tool and combining vampiric enslavement trope with Southern slavery (though rather imperfectly)

Negatives:

• Thin plot.  Only a series of hooks keep the thin line from disintegrating.  Don't breathe hard in the cinema, though.
• I hate exaggerated action without in-story verisimilitude.  (Did you forget to mention that they are superheroes or something?)  You've got to give me something to turn off my realistic-demanding switch.  Things vampires can do, humans shouldn't be able to.
• The farcical nature of the story comes out in the lines.The young actors are promising and I'm glad to see new folks get work, but I think the actors (and certainly the young actors) that could play this straight and make us believe it are in the minority.  Rufus Sewell, however, is (and was) in that number, but it is easier for the villains than the heroes, anyway.  Attempts to elevate the film to heroic moments struggle.
• Add another to the long line of 3D movies that do not capitalize on the medium as they should.  Why are we still getting so few (visually) great 3D pictures?
• Even though the screenplay is based on Seth Grahame-Smith's own book, the writing is not as good as his other recent vampire flick: Dark Shadows.  Or do the stable of expensive, more experienced actors fool me?

In sum, it's not a terrible picture.  It's not unwatchable.  The spectacle (visuals + action) kept my attention and moved me along to the end without too many interruptions to allow the brain to analyze the film's failings.   
GRADE: C

Bring Me the Heart of Snow White

Or better yet, Charlize Theron in a slinky evil queen gown.  Rawr.

What do you do in a world dangerously lacking in meaning because you are overworked and it will be nine months before Game of Thrones season 2 comes out on Bluray?  Go see Snow White and the Huntsman.  At least, that's what I would have done, if I hadn't promised Mrs. Obscure that I would wait until she was in town so we could see it together.  Finally, last night, I got to see it.

The story goes like this: Thor finally returns to earth and Natalie Portman is dead.  In his grief, he becomes an alcoholic. (Is that even possible when drinking only mead?)  The evil queen (she made it impossible for me to pretend she was just misunderstood.  And I REALLY wanted to.  And I prefer brunettes.  Such is the power of Charlize.) promised Thor she would bring Natalie Portman back, if only he'd bring her that chick from Twilight.  The one who is not a good actress, but is very good at doing things with her face.  To be fair, I think she could be a good actress and I might like her in a role that didn't annoy the bejeebers out of me, but she is not ready for the demands that this role strived for.  (The plot writing also failed these high ideals, so she's not alone to blame.)  Any way, Thor goes into the super creepy hallucinogenic woods after the Twilight chick, who, even when she's dirty, now has a much better wardrobe than she used to have.  They meet a troll.  Possibly the most awesome troll ever.

Troll. I think I love you.  (Still not as much as Charlize, though.  But close.)

Thanks, Hollywood.  This scene wasn't in the movie, but it's the biggest pic of the troll I can find.

After not enough time with the troll, Thor and TC go on to spend time with the Iraqi marsh people before they meet the dwarves and the fairies.  Dwarves, you never fail me.  Eventually, there will be the apple and the kiss (oh, I didn't spoil it for you, did I?) and the big battle.  Surely no one doubted that Snow White could be made better if you added a big battle scene.

I love a chick in armor.  Especially if she is leading dwarves.  I tolerate TC in armor -- though I love her armor. 
Thor also thought she looked good, but he was still drunk: we know this because he referred to plate as "mail".

The wife liked this movie better than Mirror, Mirror.  While I prefer it in terms of tone and spectacle, it is not tighter or better written.  The narration at the beginning lagged and took too long -- they needed to find other ways to set it up.  The story has moments of great potential it never capitalizes on, and so it disappointed me as a story, which is what a film should be first and foremost.  However, sets, costumes, effects, and Charlize Theron demand that it be seen.  Because of subject matter, great visuals, and some creative versions of fairy creatures, it manages to pull off a B+

Payoff: if you are working or playing with faerie or the Raven Queen, then I'd say this a must see.  If you are working or playing with vampires, Snow White, the Shadow Plane, or dwarves, then this is a probably should see.  If you saw Prometheus and need more Charlize Theron? Must see.  Chris Hemsworth fans?  Probably see, but after Thor and The Avengers.  Kristen Stewart fans?  Seek help.  I will say this: she made a better Snow White than I thought she would.  But can't they afford to get black hair die for her?  And the little girl Snow White, too, who's hair was way too light.  Seriously, movie makers, if you don't know your subject material, at least listen to your own prologues.

Dark Shadows and Prometheus

I have been ridiculously busy since my move: setting up my apartment, my office, and my classroom -- and then summer school started up right away.  I have had little time for anything else, though I have squeezed in two movies when I felt like my brain just had to do something else: Dark Shadows and Prometheus.  These were two movies that I had been looking forward to, and overall I was not disappointed in either.

I have a special place in my heart for the Dark Shadows franchise, partly because my mother and grandmother were fans.  (I wish I knew how they'd take this turn of the original story towards dark comedy.)  If you don't like the Tim Burton-Johnny Deep take on the macabre, skip it, because this is another addition to that duo's establishment.  However, it may be my favorite of their partnerings, and I enjoyed Burton's placing it in 1972 for all the little period touches -- like the mug that Michelle Pfeiffer's character drinks out of at breakfast, which is almost identical to the one I inherited above from the aforementioned grandmother.  The cast works together as a nice ensemble, keeping up with Mr. Depp, the show ends with the promise of a sequel.  As much as I generally decry sequels, yes, I will give you more money, Mr. Burton, if you bring it.

Prometheus has two annoying flaws in my opinion that both involve verisimilitude in action, but it is great in every other way and lives up to the hype and beyond the facile criticisms I've heard.  It's neck-in-neck between Noomi Rapace and Michael Fassbender for who takes the brass ring in the this one.  As far as the Alien franchise goes, this movie is second only to the original.  Aside from my spoilerific complaints which I'm keeping to myself for now, the film is brilliant.  While I guess I can stretch my imagination to understand those who don't like Burton, I can't quite do the same for those who don't like Sci-Fi of this quality.

One movie is good plain fun with some thoughtfulness about (gasp) outsiders injected, the other is grand visual sweeps and effects with reflection on what it means to be human threaded throughout.  Though very different kind of films, and likely to earn as much disparity in respect as in profit, I think I'd still give both the same grade.  Don't pass on either of these, is my advice, with the one caveat above.  Here's to 2012: a great year for films so far!

DARK SHADOWS: A-

PROMETHEUS: A-

Yay, more Giger!

Keeping Mythopoeic Monday at Bay

Finals week is hitting at the same time as preparation for my move and for teaching summer school.  Did I mention that I also have an out-of-town family reunion this month and that I had to take my car in for servicing?  Aarrgh!

In the interests of my sanity, let me point you at some cool things to distract you from noticing that I do not really have an article for this Mythopoeic Monday.

STEVEN BRUST.  You know I recently finished the first three books of the Vlad Taltos series (collected as The Book of Jhereg) and I mentioned there were rumors of something involving.  That something ended up being an interview of Brust by Rone and Ed on a special episode of Atomic Array.  You will want to get over there and give it a listen, then check back because Brust is posting in the comments section!  Very cool.

In podcast land, when I haven't been listening to AA, I've been catching up StarShipSofa.  There's a new feature in the series by David Raiklen on cinematic music that I highly recommend.  In the same vein, I caught something on TV about Thomas Golubic that looked interesting, but Google insists that his site is harmful.  Does anyone know how one can hear or see his work rescoring film soundtracks other than living in LA and going to a performance?

And man oh man, the reviewers are being harsh to The Raven.  I think this is a case where they are being overly harsh.  Critics might talk me into lowering my review to a B-, but I still had fun.  Yes, we could have wished for more imaginative drawing on Poe's oeuvre, yes the author-solving-crimes-he's-inspired-trick has been used before, no, Cusak is not the best actor money could have bought for this project, but I still think it has some things going for it, as I noted yesterday.  They'll probably tell me that I'm being a sucker for a period piece, but I stand by saying it's worth seeing and given a fair chance.

Quoth the Raven: "Reynolds"

This weekend, I took Mrs. Obscure to see The Raven.  I was more entertained than she, who did not like the ending.  Since this is a piece of fiction reinterpreting radically a few facts from Poe's life and disregarding others, but allowing Poe's life to end the same way, she really could not have expected a happy ending.  Not to mention the fact that, well, this is a film about Edgar Allan Poe, even if it is a fictional Poe.  Happiness was not exactly one of this themes.

Hollywood continues to do decent by period pieces: the film captures a grimy 18th century, and I enjoyed the costuming and sets.  John Cusak looks good as Poe and does a bit of scenery chewing that seems fitting for the popular figure, if not the historical one -- but even then, there would seem to be at least some historical basis for the popular notions.

If you can accept creative license in the fictionalization of a historical figure, then you may enjoy this somewhat gory thriller/mystery/period piece.  I did.  I'm planning on grading movies from now on as if they were academic assignments: A+ to F.  I'd give The Raven a B.  If you enjoy Gothic imagery, I recommend it.  Also, the mystery has the benefit of not being overly obvious, as many film mysteries are.

M is for MIRROR, MIRROR

I know it's Sunday off from A-Z, but I just got back from taking the wife to see Mirror, Mirror.  Not exactly opening week, I know, but it's hard to get to the movies during tax season.  Now, you know from my weekly watching of NBC's Grimm and ABC's Once Upon a Time (not to mention my review of the disappointing Red Riding Hood) that I am a sucker for fairy tale re-tellings.  Almost as much of a sucker as I am or beautiful brunettes and dwarfs.  Which this movie has.  Also, if you can't bear to not know, it's got two more things I'll put in the bottom as a spoiler in green font.

Now, while I much prefer a dark retelling to a comedic retelling, I still give a recommend to Mirror, Mirror.  It's fun, filled with the both the new twist to the familiar and the predictable.  It's also a feast for the eyes.   While it may not be the most brilliant comedy, it's not a painfully bad one (like most), but good enough to work a as whole.  If you love Bollywood, be sure and stick around through the credits.  If you hate Bollywood, get up and scoot at the beginning of the credits.

Spoiler: Dude! It has Sean Bean and a tatzelwurm!

M is for MACGUFFIN

It's my impression that the term MacGuffin is going through a period of increasingly inaccurate usage to mean: the object of the quest or really important object that drives the plot.  Originally, I take it, the term was invented to apply to such an object where the nature or identity of the object itself did not matter.  You could exchange the Maltese Falcon with the Siamese Cat and change the figure from black to pearl and the source from Templars to a Wuxia order and it wouldn't matter in the least. 

If the artifact itself matters a lot, then it seems inaccurate to call it a MacGuffin.  Reportedly, there is some disagreement on this score.  Hitchcock famously said the audience doesn't care what the thing is, but Lucas and Spielberg seem to think the audience should care.  I take the Sampo and the Golden Fleece to be MacGuffins.  But things like Sauron's One Ring and Holy Grail matter a great deal to the audience and the elements of the story itself beside simply the action of the plot, which would not make it more accurate to call them something else.  They are Plot Devices, but they are also important to setting and characterization in critical ways.  The term Meta-plot Device appeals to me, but it may resonate too strongly with the usage of metaplot to be useful.  What would you call such artifacts?

For quality time with Wikipedia and TVTropes, check these links:
MacGuffin: Wiki; TVT
Plot Device: Wiki, TVT

Mars Calls at your Local Cinema

I entered the cinema with hope, in spite of the fact that I had been fearful for weeks.  I discovered John Carter of Mars as an eighteen-year-old college freshman and had loved it, faithfully scooping up every Michael Whelan cover-illustrated volume and gobbling their contents.  The setting of the D&D campaign I regularly played in was a direct descendant from the Dray Prescott books which was a direct descendent from John Carter of Mars.  All those years of being a fan and seeing the great body of fantasy illustrations produced for the series went together with the stories to form my imagination of Mars.  The past months of trailers, however, caused me concern.  While I was happy with the Tharks, the other images I was seeing didn't match up with my mental images -- in the cases of the white apes and architecture, a little, in the cases of John, Dejah, and the airships, a lot.

In spite of these differences and how they magnified my fears of what often happens when someone tries to make a show out of books you love, Disney's John Carter of Mars comes out a winner for me.  The two main actors pulled off the characters on the screen in spite of the fact that they didn't match my images, and they were accompanied by an excellent supporting cast.  Together with the vistas and the action, they sweep you along.  My non-sci-fi fan wife, who'd never heard of John Carter, was swept right along with her trepidatious husband.  At this point, my biggest complaint is the way Thern technology looked -- the blue crystalline energy structures, in particular.  It's a look that is hard to related to.  Otherwise, the film won me over as one, very good, vision of Barsoom.  The story is mostly based on Princess of Mars, but works in some elements from later in the story as well.  I'll be very curious to see if this give rise to any further filming of John Carter stories.

A final note: while the 3D wasn't the most impressive use of the technology, I saw it in IMAX 3D and I enjoyed it in that format.

Tick-Tock

Ben Kingsley as the Clockwork Gnome?

I'm probably behind everyone else, but I finally saw Hugo today (for IMDb, see here). It deserves those five Oscars.  If you read this blog, chances are you'll love it, so go see it if like me, you are lagging behind.  Otherwise, feel free to enjoy it a second time at home!

In other news, Clockwork Gnome Publishing has released its first support for Labyrinth Lord: The Virtuous and the Vile: Morithal, Lord of Unceasing Hunger.  I've read through it once already, and am quite pleased.  I recommend you head over to RPGNOW and pick it up -- it's a perfect way to treat yourself in memory of Gary's birthday.  I'm already coming up with ideas for my Ygg campaign, in which Morithal would fit well.  Maybe that game will get off the ground one of these days.  :-)

Finally, if you like gnomes, come back early tomorrow morning for the next Mythopoeic Monday feature!

Review: The Woman in Black

James Watkins' The Woman in Black opened last weekend, coming in second in terms of sales, but the reviews do not seem to me as good as they should be.  This strengthens my impression that many movie goers, unfortunately, do not want genuine, classic horror.  I do, however, and I am relieved when a film I was hoping would not be the typical horror drek rises above the level of crap.  In this case, the film adaptation of  Susan Hills' novel that had gone on to an incredibly successful life on the stage and then a made-for-TV version, does far more than that.  As a period piece, as a ghost story, as a film, it succeeds on every level.  Acting, writing, sets, costumes, special effects, and cinematography -- all excellent.  I wish I could remember more about the sound, but the fact that it faded seamlessly into the experience is probably a good sign.  Scary, psychologically sophisticated and with a depth of thought that lingers after the viewing experience, this deserves to stand with the best ghost films made so far.

Now, to the Hammer in the middle of the room: Yes, Hammer Films came back in 2010 with Let Me In,  the English language remake of Let the Right One In.  It is heresy with many of my friends, but I liked Hammer's version better than the Swedish original.  Well, now with The Woman in Black, they are not just back, but they have outdone their historic legacy of horror and produced an atmospheric work of art, a tour-de-force of dread with moments of genuine fear -- not to be confused with mere shock or disgust.  Everyone involved is to be congratulated.

If you are the kind of film fan who is not bored by the pace it takes to build real horror, then reward yourself with this dark feast.  Yes, fans of the book, there are some changes so let the film stand on its own feet.  I, however, found the questions raised by the film's ending to provide the lingering pleasure due to reflections on human nature and the human condition.  Longing, grief, dread, fear, hate, revenge, and, yes, love.  The more I think about it, the more I suspect that there is an implied theology behind the film, the tension between two interpretations of the ending, and the interpretation that I think is most likely within the confines of the story, aside from a structural element that makes some viewers choose the other interpretation.  And the more likely interpretation also is, in my view, the strongest.  Very abstract, I know, but I'm not going to spoil here.  It's worth working it out on your own.

Far over the Misty Mountains cold...

Many of you have probably been listening to The Hobbit Trailer version of "Far over the Misty Mountains cold."  I like it, but it really drove me back to the Rankin/Bass The Hobbit soundtrack.  Am I the only person who thinks that is the best track from that soundtrack?  Or who actually prefers it to this new version?  I'd like to have the complete Tolkien lyric sung to the tune of the original soundtrack.  Heck, I'd like to get together with a group of guys and sing the whole song!

Review of Immortals

I saw Immortals last night with my stepson and my opposite-taste-continuum wife, and we all liked Immortals, so that bodes well for its reception by a general audience.  The main thing I can see going against it in this context is violence, and since I think most people these days seem to be pretty comfortable with their blood-thirsty side, I doubt that will hold it back.  If human-on-human violence bothers you, then I bet you'd already know not to go see Immortals, anyway.  I may come back to the issue of violence, but let me also note that if 300's thin storyline bothered you, there's a little more to 300. 

Now for the grousing.  The premise and the plot are still pretty thin in some places.  Why are the Heraklions such jerks?  Why do they want to follow a psychopath to wipe out the Hellenes?  Why would they put up with the stuff Hyperion does to them?  Who made him the boss of us?!

My wife couldn't understand the grousing.  Here I was having seen the kind of movie that I like, it was a good movie, and she was there with me and actually enjoyed it.  Beyond some complaints about story-telling, I think it is all goes back to our current zeitgeist, which prefers radical reinterpretations that have little to no relationship to traditional material beyond a bare minimum. I understand the desire to put your own spin on old material, and this become more important when material has gotten tired and overly familiar, but when it comes to anything demanding Classical knowledge, folks today are hyper-ignorant.  When you look a the picture of Poseidon from the movie above, you know (or guess) it is him from the trident (and this puts you in the top percentile of the population in terms of classical knowledge).  However, I chose to use the only Greek god in the entire film that is indicated by traditional symbology: Zeus has a fiery whip, Athena has either curved daggers or those Japanese one-handed scythes (I know, I'm not in the mood to look up the real name), Ares has a war hammer.  What the Tartarus?  Meanwhile {¡SPOILER ALERT!} the famous Greek hero Theseus, second only to Hercules, has one adventure and then dies?  {Here endeth the spoiler.}  Pffft.  I counter that the contemporary audience is so classics-poor that most of it will seem new to them anyway.  Reinterpretation should happen for reasons, not just for postmodern masturbatory buzz.  The radicalness of it in Immortals and cases like it goes beyond any real reason.  Why not just make up an original fantasy story?  It will be impossible to keep out some points of classical inspiration, anyway.

In addition to complaints about discontinuity with the source material for no particular reason, there is the extremities of its portrayal of combat.  Now, I know complaints about realism are going to be met with rejoinders about cinema and the style of this certain film, which is fair enough, but I still have some issues here.  I note that on the whole, we are moving to grander and grander spectacle with less realism, and my own counter-current desire for an increase in realism.  Sure, I want to be entertained and blown away, but I have two concerns: eroding our ability to visually and mentally detect the realistic and the threatening of suspension of belief for those of us who retain some measure of verisimil-detection.  Do I hope in vain that we would see more films that strike this balance a bit more satisfactorily?  Or is the zeitgeist so strong in the other direction?  I guess the one glaring example is when outnumbered idiots give up the advantage of standing spread out in the open to fight huge numbers constricted by a narrow tunnel.  No amount of style can excuse that for me.  (Hey, didn't you guys make 300?  What was the tactical point of that film again?)

Some of the blends are interesting.  Christian ideas and Byzantine iconography influence this recasting of Greek myth, which has a certain honesty about it, since Christianity has forever changed the way we think about divine matters.  And I loved that fact that they actually used Greek in the movie, and didn't use a pretend Germanic pronunciation of Greek.  But what alphabet is that used throughout the film?  Certainly not Greek.  Was it designed to look cool?  Why not just invent a new Greek script instead of what is obviously a modern typeface?  And using rebar in the film?  Surely that was another look choice and not a cost-cutting measure, but will people really not recognize rebar?  That with the architectural demands the sets would put on an ancient culture, I found myself fantasizing that this was a post-catastrophic Earth of the future that was replaying religious and mythological scripts of the past.

When it comes to ultimate questions, this movie reminded me more of the Clash of the Titans remake than of 300.  And here is where the real post-Christian nature of the film is evident: Exploration of the idea that the divine needs us. From my theological perspective, this is the ultimate in self-flattery from and for folks who have a terrible crisis in identity and worth.  Is the idea that the divine loves us and doesn't need us at all in any inherent way just way beyond the popular capacity to entertain?

To close, I turn to the miscellaneous: Freida Pinto is drop dead gorgeous.  I demand that she play the iconic oracle in any future Pathfinder film.  Mikey Rourke, I don't know if it is you or Hyperion or both equally, but it is hard not to enjoy seeing you beat up.  For pleasures of grand spectacle, genre, and venal indulgence, I recommend Immortals.  It's enough that these days I'm getting some of the kind of movies that I enjoy made and made well, even if they give me a lot to complain about.  And if anybody can find me more information on that typeface/alphabet used in the film, I would really appreciate it.  Yeah, sometimes I go for the eye-candy, too, Phaedra.

EDITED: For clarity.

Thoughts on the Demonic from Halloween Reading

 

Well, I didn't finish the October reading schedule I set for myself.  I made it through book three before the month ended, due to general busy-ness.  I think I will save the other books for next October, rather than extend the reading into this month.  The last book I finished was A Mortal Glamour by Chelsea Quinn Yabro.  Set in a Southern France during the papal schism between Avignon and Rome.  It had a rather glowing blurb from Stephen King.  I'm not going to give it any prizes, but it did end up being something I didn't expect: an exploration of the idea that demons are powerless apart from human desires.  This is an interesting idea for various reasons I will explore.

I caught Stephen King on AMC last night, talking about horror movies.  One thing he touched on was his strong disagreement with Stanley Kubrick about one of my favorite horror movies, The Shining.  For King, the ghosts tied to the hotel was the problem.  For Kubrick, the character flaws of Jack Nicholson's character caused him to be haunted: he was the problem.  Kubrick believed ghost stories are ultimately optimistic, to which King objected that ghosts reflected a belief in Hell.  This calls to mind FrDave's recent post, and a conversation I had over coffee with a friend of mine who is an episcopal priest.  I had recently seen Drag Me to Hell, and was more excited about it than I had thought I would be.  For one thing, it is loosely based on a ghost story by M. R. James, "Casting the Runes" (also the basis of The Night of the Demon).  My friend objected that modern demon movies play into a theology popular in the US, that the demonic is a supernatural reality on a par with the divine: a kind of gnostic dualism in which humans are subject to demons despite God, and apart from their own morality and their own relationship to God.  I think this may go to the heart of what FrDave and King were also concerned about: one with theology, the other with what makes horror stories work.  If humans who do not deserve demonic persecution are subject to it, then we live in an world in which God fails to protect his own.  But if we live in a world where only those who deserve demons get them, then most of us (rightly are wrongly) are not scared.  {SPOILER} Who can watch Drag Me to Hell and believe that the protagonist, for all that she has some character flaws, deserves to be dragged to Hell?  If anyone deserves to be dragged to Hell, is it not the gypsy who curses her?

Surprisingly, this is where A Mortal Glamour, a not particularly sophisticated novel, steps in.  It plays on the power of desire, which has a long history of daemonic identification.  Questions of justice aside for a moment, what about our competing desires?  While we desire the good, we also have other desires that conflict with that.  What if we desired to be overcome?  Demons feeding on our desire (in Yabro's book, set in a convent, these center almost exclusively on the sexual) would have the strength to overcome our desire from the good and drag us to Hell.  There is a possibility for justice here: we get what we secretly desire.  At the same time, there is something to be afraid of.  While the initial focus of our fears is external -- the devil who can assume a pleasing shape -- we ourselves are what we should fear.  Our own conflicted, desire-ridden nature, full of secrets not only that others do not see but that we ourselves may be blind to, may be the true cause of our destruction.  There is a psychological sophistication here that I didn't expect and that I will give some thought, and from an author that I am pretty sure is very antagonistic to Christianity there is a theological anthropology that would fit with certain Christian visions.  Not that it will satisfy theological questions proper by itself, but it makes room for both fear and the optimistic view that there may be some basic justice in the story world.

Thanks for dropping by for this week's Tomeful Tuesday.  I will continue with part II of Gygax on Game Design.

The Thing (2011)

Tonight, I took my wife on a movie date (yay!).  She agreed to go see the new The Thing, a prequel to John Carpenter's 1982 classic of the same name.  It was interesting to see it with someone who had seen the original film, but who was not a big fan and only dimly remembered it: about half way through the film, she remembered the original and thought she was watching a simple remake.  Afterwards, I had to jog her memory for her to see how it was a prequel.

I think that there is something telling about this, and it fits with my take on the film.  The Thing succeeds as both a meticulous prequel, providing explanations for everything in John Carpenter's film and, at the same time, it is The Thing for our time: for today's movie goers who are too young to have seen its forebear.  The effects are better, as we would expect them to be with superior technology, but at the same time I think this led to giving in to the temptation to show more of the Thing, which is not necessarily better story-telling for this genre of film.  In spite of this relative weakness, the look of the film is amazingly true to the original and the crafting of a detailed set-up to John Carpenter's narrative is thorough -- two aspects that go together to make the film as much a love letter to the original as a film in its own right.  But the acting is also very good, and attention to subtle clues such as facial expressions and eye directions will enhance your enjoyment of the film.  Amongst the run of good acting, Mary Elizabeth Winstead's and Ulrich Thomsen's stands out. Also, the film managed to misdirect me a couple of times, and as my sense for what a horror movie is going to do to try and surprise you is pretty good, so that was satisfying.

While most remakes send me into a murderous rant about the spiritual bankruptcy of Hollywood and how I wish cannibals would get hold of the jerks doing them and do to them what they do to the work of their forerunners and betters, I was happy overall with this remake-that-is-strictly-not-a-remake.  (I can't help but guess that some of the harsher reviews out there come from big fans of the original who are already filled with rage by the constant plague of Hollywood remakes and took it out on a film that didn't really deserve it.)  It works as a horror film in its own right, a prequel, and, as sad as it makes me to admit it, a competent substitute for those who will never see the original, or, if they do, get hung up on the difference in effects.  But I believe that the makers hoped it would send people back to the original, and I dare to hope they will have some success there, too.  And yes, they did open up a new avenue that could lead to a future sequel.  Hopefully, that will be left to tease viewers imaginations and they will move on to new stories.

Recommended for getting into that Halloween mood, for open-minded fans of the original, and for getting folks who haven't seen the original primed to fill that lame lacuna. 

Getting Ready for Halloween: The Biggest Horror Movies

Here's a cool graphic with some ideas for getting in that Halloween mood.  I found it thanks to Sir Timothy of Kent over at I'd Rather Be Killing Monsters.

Click here to expand
Source: CriminalJustice.net

And THAT is What Dwarves Look Like

There's been a lot of talk online lately about the look of the dwarves in Peter Jackson's up-coming adaptation of The Hobbit.  It seems like it has been heightening in the past weeks as every couple of days, the studio has leaked a dwarf or two, until the the above rendition of all of them was out.  Feelings are mixed, at the very least.

Sorry, but I'm now going to have to pull Old School rank on all y'all.

This is what dwarves look like, even in their non-Tolkien spelling:

Harry Potter: An Unsystematic Postscript

I'm still in the afterglow of the post-Harry Potter era -- or at least, the passing of the Golden Age of Potter (1997-2011), perhaps soon to be turned by J. K. Rowling into the dawn of the Silver Age of Potter.  Along with the new film, I watched the Larry King Special and listened to this NPR special.  I wrote my proposal last week about how I believe Harry Potter was the missed opportunity for the second coming of the tabletop fantasy RPG in our lifetime, which stirred a lot more people to message me than to comment publically, including lots of repeats of stories heard from big time people in the RPG industry who worked at leading places you have heard of.  There were divergences and common elements in people's reports, but apparently no one feels comfortable posting them so I won't.  I will mention that a number of them claimed that it was J. K. Rowling herself who put the kibosh on a Harry Potter role-playing game, which if true would seem to represent a misunderstanding of what an RPG is and does on her part, but moreover would just be sad.  Who wants to blame Joanne when we could blame some idiotic stuffed suit or some faceless corporate cabal?  If it's true, I'm going to try to blame people not properly explaining them to her.

For this Mythopoeic Monday, I want to close by offering my idiosyncratic comments on the movies of the franchise, taken together now as a whole.  They are good stuff.  Rarely am I so happy with the way books are turned into movies.  There are some great soundtracks for these films.  They had, as Risus well turned it, a "seriously satisfying finale."  Talking to fans on Friday, I was made aware once again of how personal both appreciations and criticisms of the film adaptations are.  One eloquent young lady lectured me on the fine points of what the excise of the sphinx does to the Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire film.  My chief complaints really are only two and the first one is picky:  The dumbing down of the title of the first book and film for the American audience from The Philosopher's Stone to The Sorcerer's Stone makes the intellectual and the mythopoet that I am cranky.  The second is my biggest complaint: if you have a 12-year old facing a huge basilisk, the fight needs to be staged so well that it is believable that he wins and isn't killed several times over.  It should go down as one of the worst fantasy fights in film history.

I'd love to hear your final thoughts, gentle readers.  What are your favorite moments from the Potter franchise?  Your bitterest complaints?  Finally, do you have some insightful links you'd share regarding the Potterverse?  I'll cheat in my closing by referring to two links I always have up.  I love following what Professor Amy H. Sturgis has to say about things Potter.  Check my linkography for her blog Redecorating Middle-Earth in Early Lovecraft.  She also is a regular feature on Starship Sofa (link at bottom of page).  A Google search will likely turn up some of her other papers and appearances (including ones on Potter-related podcasts).  I end with this: if someone before 1997 had told me that one could write a fantasy series that was as literary, widely-appealing and easy-to-read, and as steeped in the traditional source material as Rowling's works are, I would have said it was unlikely.  If I had been told that it would be pitched originally as children's literature I would have upped that to impossible, even before getting to the level of  success that she has achieved.  Dreaming all this up is one thing, but managing the story and its incarnations as she has through the theme park and the 8th film?  Well done, J.K.  Here's to your plans for the Silver Age.

EDIT: I enjoyed this essay over at Black Gate by Andrew Zimmerman Jones, and he points to a couple of articles over at TOR.com from their Potterpalooza.

Harry Potter: A Missed Opportunity

 

I ended an era last night, as many did.  For me, the Age of Potter began when my daughter was in the 6th grade and we read the first (then new) book together.  This cultural phenomenon that we shared in was kept up by six more books and eight movies, coming out a-pace, and even topped off with a family pilgrimage to the Magical Mecca in Orlando.  Living several states apart now, we were unable to see the last movie together, but we talked about it some before hand.  When we finally got our seats in the IMAX cinema last night, on my right hand was a red-headed proxy who must be about my daughter's age.  While she wasn't dressed as some fans were in Potter garb, she was very enthusiastic, quite knowledgeable about the story world, and wanting to talk.

All these ingredients tossed into the cauldron came to a simmer last night and this is the potion that came out:.  From the standpoint of a table top gamer, Harry Potter represents the greatest missed opportunity of the past generation.

Many people of my generation remember when D&D was everywhere.  Not only on shelves everywhere and widely played, but in commercials, movies, conversation, sermons, talk shows, and eventually with a cartoon series, and secondary lines of books, toys, a board game, and an electronic game.  It had a moment of culture-wide saturation.  It was perhaps the second closest thing we had to the of Pottermania today, surpassed only by Star Wars.  Gamers (and perhaps some executive at Hasbro) look back on this and in their nostalgia (or money lust) wonder why we couldn't have that same level of appeal today.  (Everyone could get together a game any time they wanted!  No gamer left behind!)  Here was a world and a story that appealed so much to so many, that it's credited with reinvigorating the book industry on a supra-Oprah level, whose fans play dress up and play a variety of games and with lots of toys, but no official HP RPG was made in the great merchandising explosion that followed.

First, I would like to know why this didn't happen.  Second, I propose that, if it had been made and promoted decently, it would have been the Second Coming of the table-top role-playing game.  Third, I have a proposal about how it should have been done.

The only options I can think of for this failure are it was a failure of imagination and no one thought of it or someone did think of it and by a failure of imagination, another blocked it.  Failures of the latter kind could have taken place if a person in power said no because TTRPGs don't make the kind of money they used to or because they didn't want it competing with another of their lines (is it a coincidence that of the two licensees, this is in Hasbro's line, not Mattel's?)

Finally, what shape should such an RPG, targeted at a new audience for RPGs that is so ready-made, focus on?  Hogwarts, of course.  The magical place that young new players would have wanted to go so they too could be wizards and witches, wide-eyed in the world that Rowling painted for them, doing things they dreamed of.  I can clearly see with my retrospective eye, each year after a new book or movie, another boxed set coming out.  Hogwarts: The Role-Playing Game, Year 1.  Mortellan of Greyhawkery is not so crazy, after all.  Did Mike McArtor have this in mind when he created the wizardly Acadamae of Korvosa (students pictured below) in Pathfinder's Golarion?  Well, I certainly ran a game set there that took his work and developed it in an explicitly Hogwartsian direction, and it seemed to appeal.  I think it would have made a lot of money for the world-wide Harry Potter franchise, and I think it would have brought a lot of new players into table-top role-playing that would have eventually tried out D&D, Pathfinder, the Harry Dresden RPG, and so on, bringing more customers to the industry and increasing the circle of players.  For the people who need more players or more customers, it's a shame the snitch was missed.