Thursday, December 5, 2019

December Releases

December Releases

'Tis the season for moviegoing, and the box office is dropping some serious bombs (probably in both senses of the word) in time for the holidays.  The biggest light in the theatrical Christmas Tree is undoubtedly the last installment of the Skywalker saga from Star Wars.  Though this trilogy has been mired in both unwarranted criticism and justified skepticism, it's still Star Wars, and fans no doubt will tune in to see Rey, Finn, and the rest of the cast execute this swan song for the Skywalker legacy.  Beside that behemoth, many other gems will debut this month, including The Aeronauts, a film about a pioneering balloon flight probably better known for its...controversial choice to replace real balloonist hero Henry Coxwell with movie-made character Amelia Wren; and the newest disturbing trend in modern psychological "smart horror," Daniel Isn't Real, where a troubled college freshman resurrects an imaginary childhood friend to cope with a recent trauma, but ends up with far more than he bargained for.

For the gamer in your family, the release of Star Ocean: First Departure R - an enhanced, remade title of the first of the long running, popular Star Ocean series - will surely please the RPG fan,  while the more cerebral player should check out Mosaic, a bleak, mysterious adventure game by Norwegian developers Killbite Studios which captures almost too perfectly the feeling of being a cog in the machinery of society.

For these and other stocking-stuffers for the family this holiday season, check out the links below as always: 



Movies

Games


Music 

Television

Happy holidays, everyone!

Tuesday, November 12, 2019

Criticism Concepts 4: Filmmaking calculus with the Director


 
(Here’s part two of the criticism concepts production. Click here for part 1.)


A few months back, I decided to launch a series examining the many hands which join together to create the film and television works that bring so much joy into our lives. We started with the screenplay, since it provides the blueprint with which to construct the film, even if the idea originated elsewhere. But for most movie goers and critics alike, the answer to “Who made this movie?” rests undoubtedly with one figure: the director. The screenwriter may produce the outline, but the film or series finds its form through the skillful eyes and nimble hands of the one parked in the director’s chair. Yet for all the attention thrown its way, few roles in the creative team are as murky or misunderstood, due largely to its all-encompassing nature. While we all “know” that Steven Spielberg was “responsible” for the success of Jurassic Park, few can draw a clear picture of what he actually did on the set, minus the caricature of a little man in a black beret with a megaphone yelling “Cut!” at appropriate moments.


Though I stand firmly against the errency of fingering one role as “the one” behind a movie or show’s impact, the director has an undeniably central part in transforming the screenplay's rough scaffolding into a grand creative monument. So with that in mind, let’s dive in and uncork the magic behind the megaphone.

 

Contributor 2: The Director

The director is the only person who knows what the film is about - Satyajit Ray


You might forgive the great Indian director Satyajit Ray for his seemingly self-serving observation; truthfully, he’s not far off the mark. Screenwriters, actors, and many others make essential contributions in any production, but the director hovers over the entire process from start to finish. They mind the producers' budget and modify the script as needed; through casting directors, they have a say in finding the right actors and actresses; and they steer what stays and what goes in the post-production chopping block. The director provides the crucial link among the creative, technical, and production arms of a project, and therefore makes the best claim for most crucial member in the whole shebang. 


Though the director's shadow looms large over the entirety of the film and television pipeline, we’re concerned only with its creative function right now. If the screenwriter provides the film’s fundamental structure, then the director’s main job involves injecting that structure with dynamism. Directors control the plot’s scope, set or modify the pacing, and create a sense of continuous narrative flow. If I could condense this to a simple analogy (a preemptive pardon to those who suffer from high school math PTSD) the screenplay is a lot like algebra: structured, relatively static, and concerned with how its pieces fit together. Film direction, meanwhile, is calculus, bringing the structure of the screenplay into an environment which requires dynamic, real-time application of the production’s narrative elements.


As such, tagging the specific nuts-and-bolts of screen direction can never be a point-for-point checklist as with the screenplay; the role fits the turbulent flow of the production process too closely. A basic starting point concerns film time. A director must lift the neatly structured segments of the screenplay and adjust them to the flow of time.This is not synonymous with pacing, that much-used but little-understood word. Pacing involves the rate of movement within a film narrative, while film time incorporates that, plus the general sense of temporal perception the work imposes upon the audience. The centrality of time as a narrative constraint, and how it’s preserved, presented, chopped, or concentrated, represents scripted media’s signature departure from the strictly printed word. Though “pacing,” loosely defined, counts in a novel or short story to some degree, those media can afford to unfurl their narratives in a leisurely manner; few readers, after all, attempt something like Infinite Jest in one sitting. But when you only have thirty minutes to two hours to capture and hold your audience’s attention, you can’t take their compliance for granted, especially if you take your sweet time getting to the point.


In addition, the director molds the narrative’s collective vision. As a film’s supposed primary author, the director must gather the contributions of disparate and often cantankerous creative types into a cohesive (if somewhat motley) crew, ready to set sail towards their ever-widening horizon. And as captain, directors forge vision as much by what they constrain as by what they allow. With a finger on financial and production as well as creative concerns, skilled directors must bring the static screenplay images to life within budgetary boundaries established by his or her producers (assuming, of course, that he/she isn’t also rolling the checkbook). Lastly, the director has primary control over the film’s tonal style. Genre, if applicable, can be outlined within the screenplay, but the director sorts through the various styles that genre may embody and converts it into a visual experience that rings true to the audience. Romantic comedies, for example, may flake from the great mountain of Hollywood like so many interchangeable pieces of flint, but subtle intonations of character direction, of lighting and music, peculiar to that genre add a degree of luster and variance. Though style carries a rather sour taste in the mouths of most directors thanks to over-eager critics applying the term to broad swaths of a creator's work in a fruitless exercise of pattern-seeking, I use "style" solely as it applies to an individual film or series. Spatial acuity also plays into tone, since building the sense of wide open space, or taking many small shots of actor closeups, creates or destroys a sense of intimacy, which has a major impact on how we experience what we watch. This relates to what's called the mise-en-scène, the arrangement of lighting, music, costume, and cinematography which together constructs the camera’s visual logic.


Film Direction: The Good and The Bad

Distinguishing good from bad directing presents the same challenges as writing: you may know it when you see it, but might struggle to put the "how" and "why" into any kind of analysis. The director’s ubiquity on the set compounds this, since the designated auteur will inevitably get blamed for any failing in the film’s narrative.


Good directing first and foremost gives the film a sense of being a cohesive whole, bringing together the myriad collective visions of a feature's contributors — writers, actors, composers — and creating a seamless entity as a result. This demands above all a sense of balance as well as a comprehension of both the genre and expected audience. Good directors make works which immerse the audience into the world as created, and fosters any willingness to suspend disbelief. Likewise, good directors have mastered the art of film time, including pacing and other conditioned temporal experiences imparted to the audience. Controlling the flow of time is perhaps the director’s prime creative raison d'etre, and films live and die by its mastery. Equally important is the competent utilization of space — like the much mangled term “cinematography,” which, stripped of all pretense, denotes the science of capturing light and motion for aesthetic appeal. By that same token, a competent director must pour his or her full attention into the art of casting. Good actors make or break one’s film, so choice casting goes a long way towards a successful production.


Bad directing is, quite bluntly, bad film making. While any number of factors may combine to lift bad acting, a bad screenplay, unfitting music, and a host of other snags from sinking a piece too far down the toilet drain, the director in the end has the final responsibility for how well or poorly the finished work turns out. The worst directors are too hands off with the medium’s numerous contributors, failing to properly synthesize the creative collective and leaving the end product a disjointed, ungainly mess. Poor directors fumble the fine-tuned calculus needed to maintain the film’s pacing and through extension, the audience's engagement. I may harp on the critical importance of film time like a broken record, but it really does demand attention as the most under appreciated yet essential element of good screen storytelling, and its execution lies solely in the hands of the director.

Analytical outline

The inherently dynamic nature of directing eschews any simple outline as built in the previous post about screenplays. Indeed, any movie failing can, legitimately, be placed on a director’s shoulders in some fashion, whether it be in the script, in the acting, or even the post-production. But where the director stands alone in his or her might or folly concerns those specific elements of time and unity; a film or television show could not exist without them, and here, the director truly lives up (or down) to the contentious “film author” label.


  • Film time: More than anything, the director controls the flow of time in a work, determines how the story unfolds, and shapes how the audience perceives the events as displayed. 
    • Pacing: Does the film seem to drag out or race ahead in certain spots, leaving you confused? Pacing is essential to any production, and if you can’t make heads or tales of where something is headed and why, then your director isn’t doing their job. 
    • Internal chronology: Do the events unfold in a time frame that doesn’t stretch the imagination too thin? Did your lead characters, say, plan a robbery, knock over an armored truck, and high-tail it across the country to Phoenix in the span of, oh, 5 hours? This punts suspension of disbelief way left of the goalpost by a good bit, and is a faux pas of a cardinal order. 
  • Integrating Visions: The director must bring together various narrative elements into one seamless whole — arguably the most difficult creative component of the job. Although screenwriters, actors, and cinematographers share an especially large slice of the creative pie when it comes to the quality of the final product, the director functions not only to bridge the writer’s vision with the cinematographer’s technical know-how to build a polished product, but to ensure the right actors match the roles they have been given. The rules for integrating this vision, as with so much in the director’s calculus, contain much flexibility and subtlety, so recognizing where and when something goes wrong is more art than science; but the director must always keep in mind the collaborative nature of the set, even with something as fundamentally solitary as writing. 

  • Style: As I touched on above, I propose style here to mean something more modest than the usual application: a set of elements which combine to reflect a film or television set's own internal logic.
    • Applicability: Does the tone and direction match what one would expect of a work in this particular genre? This skates a fine line, since you don't want to punish a director for attempting something different, and yet, you still want an end product recognizable as what you expected when you walked into the theater. If you came in looking for high fantasy and leave with something completely different, a disconnect between marketing and the director's vision likely bears the blame.
    • Spatial manipulation: Are there too many long, overhead shots for a seemingly light-hearted film? Does a film set in a wide-open or constructed world narrow in too closely to the characters' faces at the exclusion of the setting? These aren't cinematography errors; they reflect a wrong-headed commitment to injecting a particular stylistic mood into an environment which does not warrant it.
  • Cinematography: Though the director of photography arguably deserves his or her own moment in the spotlight, this vital link ultimately takes most cues from the big chair itself. As both a fine art and a technical science, nailing down what does and doesn't work unfortunately falls into the "know 'em when you see 'em" category, but poor application of cinematography usually involves using a particular angle or style of framing when it would not enhance the film, or using too little or too much lighting to the same effect.
Despite the critical importance of the screenwriter and screenplay, the director's chair constitutes the creative nexus on any set. Turning a static script into a dynamic screened medium remains to this day an art arcane in its methods, daunting in its challenges, and, flawlessly performed, almost divine in execution. But though a film's entire production staff remains beholden to the directors and their jazzy calculus, there remains one crew member who rivals the chair in the ability to make or brake audience engagement. These are the actors, and next time, I'll dive into their own contribution to the film making process.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

November Releases

November Releases
Holiday season is right around the corner, and with it brings a slew of new media goodies to keep you happy through all the shopping, plane rides, and other inconveniences of this jolly time of the year.  Probably the biggest story this month is the return of Disney's newest non-Pixar poster child feature, Frozen 2, where Elise sets out along with Anna, and the rest of the crew to discover the source of her mysterious powers.  Tom Hanks returns to the big screen with a feel good biopic about everyone's favorite neighbor, Fred Rogers.  Christmas comes early with Emilia Clarke and Henry Golding in tow with romantic comedy Last Christmas, followed by Anna Kendrick as Santa's daughter who's forced to take over the family business in Noelle.

There's so much coming out this month on all fronts, but you don't have to take my word for it; as always, follow the links below to check out the latest in entertainment releases. 


Movies

Games


Music 

Television

See you at the movies!

Friday, October 11, 2019

Joker is a brilliantly dark glipse of one man's descent into madness


Property of Warner Bros. Studio


Movie: Joker
Director: Todd Phillips
Starring: Joaquin Phoenix, Robert De Niro, Zazie Beetz

Verdict:
In a sharp break from established superhero franchises, Joker sinks indie sensibilities and a humanizing eye towards the collapse of a troubled man in a callous world on the brink, and despite the controversy its various commentary threads have generated since its release, the pieces of this vexing social puzzle combine into arguably the most insightful and disturbing comic-based movie to grace the silver screen in a long time.

In depth:
Failure is an inherent risk of experimentation, no less on the big screen than in the laboratory. So when director Todd Phillips of The Hangover fame approached Warner Bros. with the idea of creating a series of standalone films inspired by DC comics and molded in a distinctly indie style, starting with an origin story of everyone’s favorite Clown Prince of Crime, most onlookers weren’t sure what to make of it. Despite the recent release of a few flicks aimed at deconstructing the now ubiquitous strain of superhero cinema (think Brightburn) the phrase "superhero art film” sounds about as bloated and pretentious as any ivory tower flatulence, so skepticism understandably ran deep. But as Joker, the first fruit of Phillip’s ambitious vision, revealed more of the considerable care invested in its conception — roping such luminaries as Joaquin Phoenix and Robert De Niro and backed by a series of stark, galvanizing trailers — opinions swayed and reception to the project warmed up. The final test came at the 76th Venice International Film Festival, which it passed with flying colors, netting a Golden Lion Award and cementing its status as an unqualified success. Though the film has no need for my lone voice in the wilderness singing its praises, I’ll join the joyful chorus all the same. Joker is a gritty, unforgiving, and superbly executed take on the villain’s origins, and stands out as a unique vision of the "superhero movie."

Arthur Fleck (Joaquin Phoenix) has had a rough go at life. A poor party clown for hire living in Gotham City’s most abysmal underbelly, he wants to be a comedian, but remains chained by a host of mental conditions, the strain of caring for his sick mother (Frances Conroy) and a general existential malaise. Socially, he feels alone and unhappy, due in part to one among his many neurological conditions that forces him to laugh uncontrollably at the most inopportune moments. But life really takes a turn south after a group of thugs mug him for a sign, leading him down an ever-darkening spiral of unemployment, despair, and, ultimately, a shocking act of violence that takes a city mired in economic anxiety by storm. Though covertly elevated to the status of culture hero by Gotham's self-proclaimed 99%, Arthur wants only validation, and seeks solace from his world through his meager breaks as a comedian, a relationship with a cynical single mother (Zazie Beetz), and the hope of acknowledgement from his idol, late night show host Murray Franklin (Robert De Niro). But even his minor accomplishments soon slip away, and as Gotham sinks deeper into a class war fueled by the mayoral candidacy of billionaire Thomas Wayne (played by Brett Cullen) Arthur spirals further away from reality, threatening to pull an entire city into his madness.

Joker unfurls unlike any comic origin story, twisting expectations and breaking new ground even as it retreads familiar narrative territory. The plot admittedly caught me a bit off guard, as I expected a backstory reminiscent of The Killing Joke. Instead of a regular guy who had One Bad Day, here Arthur Fleck is a troubled, unwell man who gradually gets pushed closer and closer to his limit, his final snap seemingly the instrument of some fatalistic malevolent entity, both irresistible, and inevitable. But this works out even better, as Phoenix, already a maestro in the acting department, gives his all in a chilling, convincing portrait of a man on the edge. He captures vulnerability, rage, and the often futile means by which we cope with them in sharp, brutal relief, and not even the movie’s detractors can argue the point. Phoenix commits to doing as thorough a character study as he can, engendering some measure of sympathy before brutally shredding our misplaced pathos to bits, creating a complex character equal parts sympathetic and reprehensible. Out of his cast mates, Robert De Niro and Brett Cullen stand out, particularly the latter with his portrayal of Thomas Wayne as a disconnected elitist who nonetheless has good intentions for an angry city he doesn't fully understand. Giving a critique of Joker's acting chops puts us in a bind, since so much gets filtered through Arthur's disturbed, delusional psyche, and hence, many of the characters play towards particular "types" that ultimately serve him. Beetz as Sophie Dumond, the young mother who gets romantically tangled with the troubled Arthur, serves as a particularly unnerving example. Taken at face value, their affair looks repugnant under the eyes of every god, a noxious blend of every terrible romance trope, from the loving stalker, to shallow love interest who exists solely to validate Arthur's feelings and wishes. But as the film moves along, we suspect something strange afoot with this woman, and the eventual reveal, wrapped up in a haze of tense music and haunting uncertainty, hits viewers like a mad truck, even those who saw it coming around the corner.

And here, perhaps, strikes at the heart of Joker's brilliance. Phillips builds his narrative in a series of small steps that results in major shocks that completely change how we understand the film’s reality. As Arthur and those closest to him reveal the depths of his delusions, we the audience are left questioning whether anything we see on the screen is real, or part of an elaborate, self-maintaining illusion he upholds to keep some measure of his sanity intact. The revelations, like with Sophie above, are executed with skill and subtlety, and do wonders towards shoring up most of the film’s few shortcomings. I initially didn’t like the entry of the Waynes into the narrative, especially as it raised the possibility of a link between Arthur and the young Bruce Wayne that threatened to derail the story. But Phillips averts the potential plot tumor by tossing Arthur and this particular line into an elaborate, lifelong deception courtesy of his equally disturbed mother, with just enough uncertainty to leave all of us, main character included, wondering what is or isn’t true. Likewise, the uncanny way that a mentally unhinged ne’er-do-well can evade police and shake off car accidents borders on that dreaded and lazy “Joker Immunity” latched firmly in the comics. But seeing the events as the unveiling of a sweeping delusion of grandeur from a very sick man squares these inconsistencies without directly confirming or denying them. It is a grand postmodernist showing Phillips and co. have put together, teasing expectations and our sense of reality while leaving open whether the film reflects anything other than the warped filter of a nihilistic madman.

Complementing the powerful narrative and performance by Phoenix is the brilliant direction all the way through. Phillips knows where and when to point the camera, zooming in to Phoenix’s face for tense closeups, or panning out as he walks the broken streets of his rundown, dilapidated  neighborhood. Icelandic composer Hildur GuðnadĂłttir crafted a beautiful, mood-fitting score, shooting the tension through the roof in concert with Arthur’s unpredictable and disturbing behavior even as her trademark cello draws out his humanity. The film’s at its height when these elements coalesce, adding low, rumbling strings, flickering lights on a train, and Phoenix’s gaunt, haunted face as he cackles a shrill, nervous laugh in the face of an impending confrontation. These bubbling undercurrents serve to break our focus whenever a sudden surge of violence reaches from below the surface to scare the complacency out of us. In an age when stylistic hyper violence is a standard even in the PG-13 scene, Joker goes for quality over quantity, making the violent acts fewer and more sporadic, but also more jarring due to the nimble combination of realism, tension and sudden, disrupted equilibrium. There’s nothing “cool” about Arthur’s murderous impulses; they’re as random, visceral, and meaningless as real life violence usually is, and leave a greater impact as a result.

Joker swept into theaters on a tidal wave of controversy over its supposed social dimension, something I remained blissfully unaware of until after the fact. Though I may wade a bit later into the muck that has so many critics up in arms, as an artistic accomplishment I have little bad to say about it. It suffers from some ending fatigue, and a few plot contrivances which can't be explained away by appeal to deconstructive reality; but those hardly seem worth nitpicking. Although it threatens to play the tired "insane equals violent" hand, Arthur's gradual slip into violence despite his wishes softens that untrue and dangerous notion though Phillips wisely chose not to put a label to Arthur's psychosis — perhaps in an attempt to avoid unpleasant implications. While it pays homage to the gritty, nihilistic noir flicks of the 70s and 80s like Taxi Driver, it does not, as its critics claim, merely ape those films. It possesses an artistry all its own, born from a unique blend of stirring music, skillful acting, and an experienced director’s discerning eye for horror and humaneness. Above all, Joker stands as a remarkable character study, spinning an alternate view of such a well-known icon, and we can only hope Warner Bros. heeds its success and paves the way for similar films in the future.

Grade: A

Saturday, October 5, 2019

October Releases

October Releases
 

Better late than never.

October brings the heavy Halloween hitters to the box office brawl, not least of which is Warner Bros.'s foray into the dark side of the DC universe with the American premiere of Joker, an experimental first salvo into a proposed line of superhero films with indie sensibilities. If you're looking for monster clowns of a different shade, there's Wrinkle the Clown, an...odd, documentary about a Florida retiree who for a fee will don an unnervingly creepy clown mask and scare rambunctious rugrats straight - and no doubt, gift them with a good helping of life-long coulrophobia.  The animated film version of The Addams Family will debut later this month as well, bringing a Tim Burton-esque vibe to the classic monster family, while Breaking Bad fans dust off their beakers and snappy Heisenberg one-liners in preparation for El Camino: A Breaking Bad Movie, a continuation of the groundbreaking series following show deuteragonist Jesse Pinkman as he struggles to claw his way out from the muck of his past deeds.

The small screen sees the return of many TV favorites - like Riverdale, The Flash, and 'verse progenitor Arrow's much-anticipated swan song - along with a few newcomers.  Ruby Rose will reprise her role as the Arrowverse version of the controversial Batwoman in the CW's latest superhero addition, while HBO sets about the herculean task of adapting the legendary Alan Moore's magnum opus Watchmen into an extended series.

For these releases and more across mass media, follow the links below, as always: 


Saturday, September 28, 2019

Depression, Identity, and Fatherlessness in "Please Don’t Come Back from the Moon"




Book: Please Don’t Come Back from the Moon
Author: Dean Bakopoulos
Publisher information: Orlando, Fl: Harvest Books, 2005
Genre: Bildungsroman/Magical realism

Fatherlessness churns and bubbles in the fiction biz, rising to the surface every so often, but few meld the topic with brutal grit, economical prose, and an airy surrealism quite like Dean Bakopoulos in his 2005 debut novel, Please Don’t Come Back from the Moon. Bakopoulos weaves a tale of restlessness and abandonment through the eyes of Michael Smolij and his peers, young boys from a working-class Detroit suburb whose fathers vanish over the course of several weeks with but one hint to their destination: the Moon. As these men slither away from their families, their wives struggle to rebuild in the wreckage while their children, sons especially, try to make sense of the void that now breaks them open. Tailing Michael as he wanders dazedly through adolescence, stumbles into adulthood, and bumbles about the burdensome responsibilities of family and finances hooked readers and critics alike, netting the novelist a few accolades and enough momentum to launch a 2017 film based on the work starring James Franco. But the novel reveals much more than a standard bildungsroman with a few gritty swear words thrown in. In our current, politically charged environment saturated with #metoo agitation and rebellion against perceived gatekeepers to traditional power, it seems easy to dismiss Bakopoulos’s work as an edifice to young, white man-children who know nothing of “real” suffering. But behind the cursing, drinking, and sexual indiscretions lie a piercing examination of the many inescapable spirals that twist our lives on both personal and social scales

Michael, our narrative filter, surveys his increasingly hopeless surroundings with a more discerning eye and expressive vocabulary than most, but don’t think he’s some diamond in the rough. He, his violent cousin Nick, and their peers are ground from the same course flour as the rest of their blue-collar, Eastern European neighborhood, and our protagonist fell into the same pits of vice, vandalism, and compensatory machismo with but a modicum of literary talent and the support of his mother and her second husband to lift him a bit above the tide. Though Bakopoulos displays the rough edges and stilted speech expected of a debut wordsmith, he gives Michael a raw, unfiltered voice that avoids repelling the viewer, while using episodic vignettes of his life - an affair with an older woman, a confrontation with one of his mother’s temporary boyfriends - to explore the sense of loss born out of the fathers’ disappearance. With Michael and his friends caught in cycles of expensive education and low-wage service industry jobs, Bakopoulos captures the sense of listlessness and meaninglessness facing the post-industrial working-class, staring off at the accomplishments of unions past and bitter about their inability to obtain a measure of economic justice in the present. 

But the story’s hallmark lies not in its mocking of modern convention, nor in the exploration of fatherlessness. Dig deeper through the tracks of growing pains and hard drinking working-class youths, and you’ll find a sensitive treatment on male struggles with depression and identity, issues still sparse in our supposed cornucopia of literary diversity. This is where the magical realism elements of the story, subtle but artfully inserted, shine through. We never get a definitive answer on whether any of the town’s men actually went to the Moon, with plenty of evidence to the contrary. But Michael, in one of the most sensitive depictions of a man’s uncertain slide into depression I’ve ever read, suddenly finds himself elevated a few inches off the ground while walking the streets at night. Bakopoulos’s succinct prose and narrow focus on Michael’s point of view prevents us from knowing whether or not he’s imaging things, but as the other young men of his generation, all grown and with problems and families of their own, suddenly show up in one location to stare at the Moon, we feel locked under the same spell as they, unsure what will happen next, but anxious to find out. This skillful threading of the mildly fantastic with a visceral modern realism remains the novel’s pièce de rĂ©sistance, and mounts the suspense on whether Michael will continue to sink through the same muck of depression and meaninglessness that claimed his father.

If Bakopoulos falters anywhere, it’s with the disjointed blending of some elements of the main story arcs. Some of Michael’s misadventures fell neatly into the bildungsroman playbook, giving insight into how his father’s abandonment left his vulnerable to the dark ministrations of others and shaped who he is. But others meander into reckless youth territory, and could have been excised from the novel altogether. But maybe I’m just splitting hairs.  Please Don’t Come Back from the Moon weaves a sad, solid, slightly surreal narrative that not only squares with the hopelessness left over from Industrial America’s abandonment of their blue-collar rank and file, but also the subtle ways that depression and listlessness can bore holes into our lives.

Thursday, September 19, 2019

Why I'm looking forward to Joker



 
Character belongs to Warner Bros. Pictures

When our friends at Warner Bros. released the final trailer for Joker at the end of August, I admit that it left me a little chilly. Despite the star draw of a colossal talent like Joaquin Phoenix, the trailer looked like a bloated fluff-ball of artistic pretense to me. But upon burying my initial knee-jerk reaction, I opened my eyes to what Warner Bros. was trying to do. As the first in a series of standalones under the newly-minted DC Black label, Joker looks like a breath of fresh air a touch of indie-style creative freedom to flush the commercial muck clinging to the much maligned DCEU. Director Todd Phillips envisioned superhero 'verse climbing out of the MCU's long shadow, with creators committed to bringing strong stories to life unstained by the push to pound them into a multi-film behemoth like mismatched puzzle pieces. And for what it's worth, he looks like he's succeeding. Though the film’s already seen light in Venice, it won’t make stateside until the 4th next month, so in the meantime, I'll list a couple of reasons I think Joker will enrich our appreciation of this pivotal dark fulcrum in the Batman mythos. 

1. It Was Influenced by a Batman Comic Classic 
 Back in 1988, illustrator Brian Bollard teamed up with the incomparable Alan Moore to create Batman: The Killing Joke.  Moore and co. scrapped the criminal mastermind shtick from the 40s and 50s, opting instead to drape the villain’s tale in tragedy: he was now a chemical engineer and failed comedian driven to crime by desperation, culminating in the now quintessential “one bad day” which changed a struggling family man into one of the most notorious killers in comic book history. This solid story has been a guideline for most iterations of the character, directly or indirectly, ever since its inception. It has made headway into Batman animated adaptations, other comics, and even inspired the Nolanverse’s terrifying take on the character. The comic's basic plot works so well because of how it warps the Joker into a fun-house reflection of the Dark Knight himself. Batman remains an evergreen pop culture legend because of how he rose to become one of the most feared heroes in the world just by turning a terrible experience into a singular, obsessive drive. The Killing Joke runs a parallel tale with our demented clown; much as one senseless murder transformed Bruce Wayne from ordinary boy to God-like vigilante, the Joker was just an average Joe whose “one bad day” pushed him into a pitch-black shade of monstrosity that makes even the most eldritch of beings tremble in disgust. It speaks to a deep part of us, both hopeful and fearful, that all it takes to propel us to godhood or sink us to the Black Pit is a choice any normal person can make after just one, life-altering event.

2. It Completes Chritopher Nolan’s Image of the Joker
Though set in a different universe far removed from Nolan’s groundbreaking trilogy, Joker shares a peculiar darkness with Ledger’s take on him. The Dark Knight’s Joker remained a blank from start to finish, less a man than a destructive force of nature — without origin, identification, or particular reason for his insane, nihilistic march. The closest we get to a motivation is the variable backstory he doles out on his scars (another inheritance of The Killing Joke) and his exchange with Batman during the interrogation scene. Otherwise, the man swaddles himself in a fog of Machiavellian manipulation and flat-out sociopathy so thick you can't tell what, if any, truth lies beneath. But Joker offers to lift the veil, to see the man before the monster, and would be the first such major treatment of the character since the one-dimensional mobster portrayal in Tim Burton’s Batman back in 1989. But Joker may just as easily serve as antithesis to his Nolanverse counterpart. Again, Ledger’s Joker embodied a mysterious force of evil, almost tailor-made to sow discord and whisper millions of little devils into the ears of Gotham’s unsuspecting citizenry.  But in Joker, Arthur Fleck is merely a man, one forged by circumstance and bad luck into becoming one of DC’s most notorious monsters. None of that excuses his actions, but it speaks yet again to the wealth of relatability Killing Joke-like stories bring to the table. Ledger’s Joker inspired a combination of fear and awe over his marvelous displays of manipulation and cruelty; but Phoenix’s take on the character will no doubt bring him back down to earth.

3. It’ll Wash the Taste of Suicide Squad Out of Your Mouth
Okay, this one’s subjective, but bear with me. Though I wasn’t especially kind in my review of the movie, I didn’t hate it, either, but even Suicide Squad's most ardent supporters felt cheated with Leto’s minuscule screen time. He was more a prop, a device, than an actual character, and the hullabaloo drummed up about his presence in the film borders on false advertisement. This is a shame, since the little snippets that seeped out from the extensive post-editing left me a little curious for more. But with plans to revive his role for future DCEU films apparently shelved for the time being, we’ll have to rely on this standalone to sate our killer clown fix.

Without question, Joaquin Phoenix will add his own defining stamp to the iconic character, and with its heart-rending backstory and dark feel reminiscent of the celebrated Nolanverse, this may be the film to finally bring the character out of Ledger’s generous shadow.