Star Wars: What's All the Hubbub, Bub?

We're Back!

I think it's fair to say that Star Wars is, without doubt, a "huge deal."  Uncountable geekdoms were spawned forty years ago from the moment the first interplanetary warship graced the silver screen, and few fictional characters in any medium can boast the devotion claimed by Luke, Leia, Solo, and the rest.  While I never fell deep into it, my sister has been a hardcore fan since the very beginning, and I've always appreciated its role in popularizing the Science Fantasy genre I've relished so much over the years.  So all that said, I confess I didn't think much of the announcement a few years back that Disney was releasing a new addition to the saga.  In fact, I'd say it left me down-right sour.  Between the 30-year gap from the last "beloved" trilogy, the relatively lackluster prequels, and the always-divisive presence of Disney in, well, everything, I hardly imagined there would be any room for longing from even the most devout Star Wars fan - and the relative apathy from my sister seemed to have confirm that.

I couldn't have been more wrong.  There's been mounting anticipation steaming from many quarters over the past year or so, but it was only on the trailer premiere and ticket sale opening this past Monday that I really felt the force of my errancy.  The full trailer has already broken 35 million views on YouTube, and even if most of the outrageous rumors of $700 ticket sales turn out to be just that, their existence speaks volumes about the excitement surrounding this upcoming blockbuster.

Naturally, such fevered expectation invites an analysis of some kind, and though I've toyed with dissecting the trailer to uncover its core, a number of other critics have already done just that, so instead I'll briefly examine just a few of the possible engines driving this surprising surge of Star Wars fanism, despite the setbacks of recent times.

1. The Eternal Return 
As implied by the trailers and the cinema rumor mill, this new iteration of the Star Wars franchise won't merely feature a brand new cast of fresh nobodies that plead us to care about them.  Instead, we've got Mark Hamil, Harrison Ford, and Carrie Fisher all making a return, stirring the pot of nostalgia for both long-term followers and those raised on their eulogizing memoirs of escapes into distant galaxies.  Part of the problem with the previous trilogy is that it felt disconnected from everything that imbued Star Wars with meaning, especially the original cast and their idiosyncrasies.  This new movie, therefore, must feel like a "coming home" of sorts for many long-time fans. 

2. Fresh promise
Still, we shouldn't skimp on the new characters entirely; Daisy Ridley and John Boyega will share the spotlight with the "old favs," and if the trailer is anything to go by, they'll breathe fresh life into the franchise, making their own mark in Star Wars history.  Ridley's apparent rendition of the Mysterious Lone Drifter archetype - so common in these epics, but so uncommonly played by a woman - may show her to be the next Luke Skywalker, and Boyega's prominence in the trailer all but cements his arc as one from darkness to redemption, and finally onto heroism.  We won't know for sure what role they play in the greater scheme of things until the final wire, but it's the mystery that's so engaging.  This isn't a fabricated origin story, the conclusion to which is already set in stone; we really don't know what destiny awaits for Ridley and Boyega or the characters they play.  But I'm sure we're all eager to find out.

3. The Hero's Journey
This last point culminates much of the appeal of the other two - and indeed, probably explains the popularity of Star Wars as a whole more than any other individual factor.  Let's face it: however much it's parodied or denied, however much it's criticized and discounted as meaningless through the lens of comparative mythology, Joseph Campbell's monomyth has left an undeniable mark on the human psyche since it was first formulated.  Who hasn't wanted to be part of a greater battle between Good and Evil?  Who hasn't wanted to rise from nothing, discover your fate and your place in the world, and make a difference?  While cynical or "mature" minds scorn these fantasies as infantile or even dangerous, their appeal is undeniable and timeless.  Star Wars is Campbell's chanting herald in the movie realm, and the star ensemble so far seems ripe to deliver the age-old goods: a few fresh-faced wanderers - both literal and metaphorical - called to adventure and guided by both Old Masters and old salts.  This is the nexus of Star Wars, the heart and soul of its power, and the trailer flows with all the pregnant possibilities that this new journey can offer.

While I admit that I'm not foaming at the mouth or tossing money at my screen on the return of the franchise after over a decade, I'm a good bit more excited than I was just a few months ago.  Only time will tell if Lucas and co. can deliver on their promise, but Star Wars is sure to be on everyone's minds come the holiday season.

Movie Review: Pan

Movie: Pan

Directed by: Joe Wright

Starring: Levi Miller, Hugh Jackman, Garrett Hedlund

Verdict:

Loud, hammy, and laughably anachronistic, Joe Wright’s unnecessary adaptation attempts to give a “fresh” origin story to J.M. Barrie’s well-known characters, but succeeds only in killing the magic of the original and throwing all charm and wonder to the crocodiles.

In depth:

When approaching an adaptation, one should always keep an open mind and analyze it on its own merits, apart from the original that inspired it.  This is risky, to be sure, as every adaptation carries the potential to be either a spectacular success or a momentous flop, but the fairest and most logical view should be that of neutrality, and a good-natured trust in the filmmaker’s own creative vision.  Unfortunately, this very openness leaves the resulting failure all the more painful, for Joe Wright, whatever his intent in crafting Pan, falls far short of the mark, getting lost in a murky fog of glaring CG and confounding action sequences, and drowned in a hum of overacting, stale deliveries, and bizarre anachronisms in musical choice.  The resulting concoction is a poison to Barrie’s legacy and the movie world as a whole, and though not the worst thing to blight the screen this century, has certainly left the worst kind of impression for both long-time Pan fans and newcomers alike.

The story kicks us off in the most conventional and cliched way possible; a baby left on the steps of an orphanage by his surprisingly nimble young mother, his only link to her, a letter, a piece of jewelry, and the inevitable promise to come back and see him “one day.”  Wright and his crew do away with all pretenses of subtlety and finesse right from the get go; the infant Peter - and by extension, the audience - are given the full “chosen one” shebang - even before the meat of the plot starts to pickle.  This is a lazy move full stop, and can make or break story progression based on the audience’s willingness to suspend disbelief.  Despite this major slip, the first few scenes of this movie were more or less the best in the entire flick, giving young Levi Miller a chance to flex his acting chops and paint a unique portrait of Peter as a vulnerable yet silently courageous child, sparkling with a surprising degree of charm.  I am sad to say that this is the best development we see of any actor of the film, and despite Miller’s tolerable effort, the overwrought brutishness and ridiculous outfits of the nuns running his orphanage blotted any light the young actor could generate.

Things only went south from there, for after the plot gained a bit of traction and finally sets off, we’re bereft of even the simple joy of Miller’s modest efforts and thrust head first into an unrecognizable Neverland.  Anyone expecting a magical romp through archetypes of boyhood wonder and whimsy are soon disillusioned by a dreary world of industrial mining and forced labor, all presided over by Hugh Jackman as Blackbeard, living it up in the hammiest performance I’ve seen him in to date.  I usually enjoy Jackman’s brand of tough-guy machismo blended with whatever is required of the script, but this time, he goes a little too far, wallowing in an overplayed corporate cynicism when he isn’t screaming his lines at the tops of his lungs over the blaring, anachronistic rifts of Nirvana’s “Smells Like Team Spirit,” courtesy of his collective mine slaves, as the pirate ship ferrying Peter docks to unload its latest human cargo.  

I want this image to sink in for a minute: a crowd of dirty slave miners, most of them children, all cheering as a flying pirate ship makes landfall, and the flamboyantly-dressed pirate king stands dramatically before them...with everyone chanting the lyrics for an alt rock anthem from the 90s.  Never before has a movie scene made me convulse with actual emotional pain, but that’s not even the worst of it.  Regardless of your status as an adaptation and your relationship to the source material, as a fantasy film, Wright’s main mission is to maintain his world’s fragile grasp on the audience’s wonder - and hence, their suspension of disbelief.  I can understand, on some level, why the filmmakers made the choices they had which resulted in the wide-as-a-mountain deviations from the books; the miners, and Blackbeard’s arbitrary rules on promotions and “demotions” (read: executions) are probably meant to mirror the adult world’s drudgery, and set up Peter’s refusal to grow up.  That much is clear, though still a poorly executed waste of potential that fails to factor into Peter’s predestination plot.  However, the Nirvana chorus line has no fricking place in the film whatsoever, and I can’t imagine what, if anything, it was supposed to coax out of me besides my bile.  All it shows is that Wright and company have no understanding of their genre or what it’s meant to convey - an assessment held up as the movie progresses.

After this early nosedive, the story never regains its balance, helped least of all by the introduction of new characters - Rooney Mara as a static Tiger Lily, and of course, Garrett Hedlund’s “rendition” of a young James Hook.  I don’t know what they were going for when they took the suave yet brutal buccaneer and morphed him into a bizarre Indian Jones expy, but even all that aside, it could have worked if Hedlund didn’t drive the Pan Acting School’s theme of shouting your lines in the most exaggerated way possible to the absolute limit.  He was devoid of any depth or pizzazz, as heroic or cowardly as the plot demanded him to be, and was generally unlikable through it all.  To top it off, Pan’s place as an origin story effectively removes any tension or concern over his fate by the end, so we’re stuck staring at him longer than most of us would care to. Catching a glimpse of how Peter and Hook - the archetypal nemeses of modern children’s literature - interacted before they became enemies was my main draw to this film.  However, the dearth of any meaningful interaction between the two, plus Hedlund’s abysmal failure as Hook in general, stripped me of my only real expectation, leaving me lost in Wright’s funhouse horror pit passed off as Neverland.

Beyond these massive stumbling points, Pan has little else to offer its audience.  The CGI was lame and unpleasant to look at, especially during the action sequences, which were all, bar the climactic battle, dull and plodding.   The whole thing left me scratching my head, wondering where the $150 million they apparently spent on this monstrosity actually went.  In fact, exact descriptives of any kind are hard for me to draw up, derivative and just plain boring as this film was.  The hamfisted lessons on childhood innocence and adult duplicity were simple-minded at best, and in either case got lost in the film's many other shortcomings.

This isn’t to say that everything in Pan was rage-inducing; a few of the gags worked, and the final battle was less objectionable than the ones preceding it.  But that’s all to it, really, and even then, some of the continuity-related asides -  like Hook’s fear of crocodiles, or his and Peter’s future as mortal enemies - are told with all the subtlety of a jack-knife to the skull, signalling the filmmakers’ poor grasp of humor, timing - or anything else, to be honest.  Pan isn’t just a “bad movie” - those can at least be enjoyable on some level.  It fails hard in multiple ways: as an engaging origin story for a collection of beloved characters; as a fantasy film, providing healthy escape through the element of wonder; and even, more broadly, as a lesson in storytelling, proving unable to even get the done-to-death hero’s journey right.  While I believe that few things are beyond redemption, Pan’s poor box office returns and total disservice to the very core of film makes the heavily hinted sequel unlikely this side of Neverland.

Grade: F

October Releases

October Releases

The first month of the Fall premieres has come and gone, giving us a general sense of how the rest of this season will play out.  There have been a few gems, a couple of duds, and many more I refrain from judging until I see more of what they got. On another note, theater season is back in swing, so between that, the movies, and the continual unfurling of the fall line up, October promises to be an interesting month.

Movies 

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/october/2015 

Television

http://www.tvguide.com/special/fall-preview/calendar/ 

Games

http://www.ign.com/games/upcoming?time=1m 

Music

http://www.allmusic.com/newreleases 

Books

http://www.bookreporter.com/coming-soon 

See you at the movies!

Criticism Concepts: Part 2: Critiquing on the right side of the brain

 

I made a post a few months back outlining what I see as the basic consideration every would-be critic should give when examining a work’s merit - namely, how it affects one on an emotional level.  While the details of our first impressions can get lost in the fog of our mind’s forgotten moments, the emotional impact they have on our thinking usually transcends plain old awareness, so long as the impression is sufficiently strong (and if it isn’t sufficiently strong, well, there you go).  But you’d be wise to ask what, exactly, you’re supposed to do with this new understanding.  You’ve sculpted your gut reactions into something coherent and, dare I say, intelligible; but how do you know what you’re saying is actually accurate in any way?

This is the second pitfall set up to entrap the would-be critic, and it can be the trickiest to avoid. Recognizing it for what it is requires not just a certain degree of work on your part, but also a different perspective than we’re accustomed to using in everyday life.  Let’s say that you’ve just watched the latest blockbuster this weekend, and after two brutal hours, it’s left you colder than a corpse on ice. So, heeding my advice from before, you decide to expand you’re chilly dislike into a solid critique; the film, you now say, is crippled by poor acting, terrible pacing, and a distinct lack of direction.  

So far, so good.  But what does that even mean?  What was it about the acting that made it so poor?  Was the movie paced too quickly, or too slowly?  And if it “lacked direction,” where, exactly, was it supposed to go?  These are legitimate questions, and any director or screenwriter serious about his or her own growth has a right to ask them.  Unfortunately, the answers, even from professional critics, are often vague and discourteous, leaving a sour taste in the mouths of ambitious creators and doing little to adjust the negative opinion most have of critics in general.

It’s not that critics necessarily mean to be tight on the constructive criticism; while there are a few jerks out there who thrive on negativity for its own sake, most critics, in their minds, are simply cutting the chaff to make room for the wheat.  But critics and creators (as well as consumers) see and interpret a work of art in completely different ways. The critic, more often than not, takes the approach of the analyst; their conclusions stem from a process of textual distillation, which can often read like an accountant’s business report.  By about how many degrees of plausibility does this character deviate from “the norm?”  Was this a “proper” setting for the story, or not?  

There’s nothing innately wrong with this, mind you, but the critic should always remember that doing this effectively splinters the work into discrete, measurable quantities that are then evaluated as if they had no connection to one another.  This is completely at odds with how the creator’s vision usually works.  While the creative process may vary among artists and their mediums, “holism” is the one constant through it all; the characters, setting, and other details all swirl together in a tangle that can be very hard to extricate.  The downsides of this are well know, as attested by anyone who’s tried to tell a writer about a pressing weakness in his story he’s just too close to notice.  However, embracing a work holistically enables you to see and measure each segment and each theme with a view towards the bigger picture.  By foregoing needle-point analysis, you gain clarity on how story elements interconnect and simply experience it in a way that touches something beyond the checklist of “proper” story elements.

This is the reason why critics, while often right in their play-by-play assessments, can also be spectacularly wrong on so many fronts.  Quick question: what do Moby Dick, Where the Wild Things Are, and The Big Lebowski all have in common?  They were all originally panned - or at least ambivalently received - by critics at the time of their creation.  If I may paraphrase the great Anton Ego, critics have a tremendous blind spot when it comes to anything new - in large part because “the new,” however it’s defined, cannot be easily analyzed.  Some things can only be experienced, which often involve time and an openness that borders on vulnerability.  It's hard, and takes practice, but your efforts will pave the way for more accurate - and more comprehending - reviews.

So where does the critic go from here?  Keep your analysis at hand, to be sure; but once you get your initial reactions in check, try to step back and piece them together into what you took away from the film as an experienced whole.  A second or third viewing may be desirable, but not necessary; even a first-time blush can offer a wealth of information and kaleidoscopic impressions.  Granted, the movie may still be an absolute stinker regardless of how you look at it, but in placing your analysis in the context of the intended experience, you now understand, at least, where the creator was coming from - and, more importantly, where they may need to go in order to get on the right track.  At the end of the day, the critic’s mission is to illuminate, not pontificate, and setting tentative creators straight should employ more than scornful smugness and a cold, unengaged analysis.

Indie Review: Wool 100%

 

 

Movie: Wool 100%

Directed by: Mai Tominaga.

Starring: Kazuko Yoshiyuki, Kyōko Kishida, Ayu Kitaura

Verdict:

Japanese animator Mai Tominaga’s psychedelic comedy-fantasy debut smacks of the type of incomprehensible “art” film scorned by so many casual moviegoers around the world.  But while the plot is unashamedly experimental and near impenetrable at times, this hidden gem of a modern fairy tale comes equipt with some innovative and beautifully-structured cinematography, as well as a cool soundtrack and a surprising dose of heart that will leave you feeling as warm as a wool sweater by the end.

In depth:

Mention “art film” to any random confection of movie buffs and you’re likely to be blown back by the shear force of every expressed opinion on the extreme "love it or hate it" scale.  As in any creative medium, movies leaning towards the experimental and the obtuse can open floodgates to introspection and existential musings...but are just as apt to illicit no greater thought than “Huh?” from its befuddled audience.  This always bothers me, for despite my personal sympathies towards the dense, the obtuse, and the philosophical, I usually lay the blame for any miscommunication between audience and creator at the feet of the latter.  Art is a forum of personal expression, true, but once exposed in the open, it transforms into a medium of communication, and a filmmaker’s failure to get his or her point across at conception can’t merely be hand waved with a snobbish “they just don’t understand…!”  But Wool 100% avoids this pitfall; as an experimental indie Japanese film, it occupies a convoluted set of nested doll niche markets to the Western viewer, but has a feel and vibrancy that transcends its seemingly avant-garde wrapping.

Summarizing this story is a Herculean task at the beginning, but becomes surprisingly easy once you understand the core message of the film.  Elderly twins Ume (Kishida) and Kame (Yoshiyuki) live alone in their little house surrounded by walls and walls of junk they’ve collected over the years through daily treks of dumpster diving in the local community.  This odd schedule continues on as “normal,” until the moment they discover a basket full of balls of red yarn laying out in the middle of nowhere.  Being the ever-compulsive pack rats, they took it home - unaware that in doing so, they unintentionally throw their front door wide open to the unusual owner of the skeins: a creepy, naked little girl -  played by talented newcomer Ayu Kitaura - who continuously knits the yarn into a lopsided sweater, which she always unravels in the end to start all over.  At first, Ume and Kame treat her as a nuisance who constantly disrupts their daily lives with her mindless knitting, destroys their scavenged property, and keeps them up at night with her random bellowing whenever she needs to knit her sweater again.  Over time, though, the twins get used to her, if nothing else, even naming her Aonamishi (“knit again,” after the despairing, house-quaking cry she emits whenever she “finishes” her project) and treating her more or less like the junk they collect.  Soon, Aonamishi proves to be much more than an unwanted house guest, breaking down the barriers the sisters have erected over the years between themselves, the outside world, and even their past.

If the above reads a lot like a fairy tale, that’s because it is; underneath the artsy exterior is a modern, Grimm-esque rendering of two lives unlived and the catalyst to shake them out of their decades-long stupor.  The brilliance of the film is that, with this singular objective in mind, it winds the entirety of the story around its chosen template.  From the opening narrative, with its misty, almost evanescent  exposition of the sisters’ lives that conceals more than reveals; to the inexplicable Aonamishi, who remains a cipher at the heart of the movie throughout its full run - the flow and direction are all completely airtight and under the control of director Tominaga, whose background as an animator clearly shows in the way she maneuvers the actors and props around the film screen in order to suit her vision.  The movie's fabulous pacing and keen timing of nearly every event is nothing short of laudable, and if nothing else, Wool 100% is a testament to a strongly structured, lock-step plot that doesn’t leave the viewer wanting for much, even as it avoids giving direct answers to it cryptic story.

Besides the dreamy plot and surreal characters, Wool 100% draws strength from a simple but effective soundtrack that enhances the overall experience to a remarkable degree.  Tominaga has appreciable respect for silence and white noise as a storytelling medium - a recognition all too uncommon beyond the arthouse label - and periodically punctuates the lull with a few upbeat, jazzy riffs that never feel out of place.  Aonamishi, for example, has a slick little leitmotif that roars in whenever she’s about to metaphorically kick in the teeth of her long-suffering housemates, and the poignant melody that lifts whenever Ume and Kame recall the shattered fragments in their past reminds you that, behind everything, this “artsy” film has a substantial amount of emotional weight. But Tominaga isn’t just an audio magician; as an animator, she doesn’t shy away from experimenting a bit with media genres as the film progresses - like presenting Ume and Kame’s past with their mother through an eerily upbeat dollhouse show, or using stark, line-heavy, flip book-like animation as Aonamishi wages her personal war on the twins' semi-sentient piles of junk, who protect them from the past just as surely as they guard against present intruders.  These sequences differ from the usual congratulatory self-indulgence of many an art film; they have a directed purpose and relevance to the plot, either to conceal as much information about Ume and Kame’s early lives while still providing exposition, or sparing the audience any overexposure of Aonamishi as she storms through the house fulfilling her private agenda with the sisters.  Future filmmakers would be wise to heed Tominaga’s attention to detail, and the efficient way she brings all elements of storytelling together.

No movie is perfect, of course, and Wool 100%’s one major flaw is ironically tied to its greatest strength: Tominaga’s tight rein on her story’s structure leaves little wiggle room for the characters themselves.  Aonamishi, of course, is fun to view, and the twins have enough quirks and curiosities to keep them mildly interesting; however, all three have little to show in the way of presence, and seem to be going through the motions at points.  This isn’t unique to Wool 100%, since most indie abstract films tend to skimp on the characters in favor of the filmmaker’s arc-wide “vision,” but as I’ve said time and again, characters - even shallow, “stocky” ones - are (or should be) the centerpiece of any narrative.  The three actresses instead feel more like pieces moved across a predefined board, with very little variation at all.  Again, this might tie back to Tominaga’s animation background; when you’re used to working with characters who are literally made for your story, getting a full grasp on how flesh and blood actors interact can be tricky to peg down.  That said, this minor gripe is just that - minor, and in no way really subtracts from the overall movie experience.  The characters are enjoyable enough, and having their personalities on the down beat permits us the full view of the plot’s unfolding charms and mysteries.

The key thing to always keep in mind when watching Wool 100% is that it is, at heart, a fairy tale - a rather dark and obtuse fairy tale, but one with a strong plot, interesting characters, and a surprisingly clear moral that’s told with heart and subtlety.  Despite Tominaga’s hazy and uncertain character direction, her three stars grow quietly closer over the course of the film, and as the climax approaches, the intention behind Aonamishi’s behavior - and what it ultimately means to the sisters - will leave you with a surprising amount of warmth after the end.  For the non-Japanese audience, an understanding of the implied but apparently unexamined cultural idiosyncrasies - like the sentient trash in the house, or the significance of certain colors - may pass over completely, but the dream-like story grants the necessary suspension of disbelief that Wool 100%, thankfully, never enforces among its audience as so many other movies do in need of faking coherence.  As a recommendation. catch it on DVD if at all possible.  It demands multiple viewings - not only to further understand the plot, but because it really is very hard to peg down, even if the movie gods bless you with full comprehension on the first go around.  Finding this little foreign jewel might be tough, but it truly is a diamond in the rough.

Grade: A

September Releases

September Releases

Hello, folks!  Sorry for the long absence; I've been working on a story that's commandeered my attention for the last month or so.  But rest assured that the reviews will be back on schedule real soon, but until then, have a look at Fall's early offerings:

Movies

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/september/2015 

Television

http://www.tvguide.com/special/fall-preview/calendar/ 

Games

http://www.ign.com/games/upcoming?time=1m 

Music

http://www.allmusic.com/newreleases

Books

http://www.bookreporter.com/coming-soon

See you at the movies!

August Releases

August Releases

I'm getting a head start on the premieres this month, since it's probably the most positive action I'll be seeing for a good while.  August is a notoriously slow time in the annals of popular culture, with few major headline draws save for the controversial Fantastic Four.  With the snooze fest extending across media boundaries, it's likely this month will retain its well-deserved reputation as the entertainment siesta of the year.  Still, a cool, cozy theater is a welcoming escape from the summer heat, and who knows?  There might be a few gems awaiting our discovery.  Truth be told, there are quite a few interesting debuts in the music and anime worlds this late summer, so we should keep an ear out:

Movies

http://www.movieinsider.com/movies/august/2015 

Television

http://www.tvguide.com/special/summer-tv/calendar/august/ 

Games

www.ign.com/games/upcoming?time=1m

Music

http://www.allmusic.com/newreleases

Anime

http://www.animenewsnetwork.com/encyclopedia/anime/upcoming/tv 

See you at the movies!