I, at best, could be a described as a blissfully ignorant Home and Away fan:
I don't really watch it, and I generally have little idea what exactly is going on, which makes me happy. I'm not happy not because I don't know I don't know about it, I'm happy because I know that I don't know about it*
This ignorance is one of my rare victories over good taste, and a defeat for those evil forces that are obsessed with getting people to watch mildly attractive women cavorting about in mildly revealing outfits participating in mildly relevant plot lines about suicide and other pressing social issues**,
Anyway, what piqued my interest in writing about this little slice of wince worthy Australiana was the the whole Milco storyline.
From what I understand, Milco was an imaginary friend of character 'Sally' around two decades ago.
Or at least we thought so! But now he *gasp!* appears to be real. And he's in the Bay! And he's snooping about near Sally.**
All this I couldn't give two licks of a hard boiled egg about. What got me thinking was how this story came about. Am I the only one laughing at the prospect of some writer setting this up two decades ago? Don't answer that...
Writer: Hahahahaha. You think Lost (which won't exist for another two decades...) doesn't give you answers? You fuckers are gunna have to wait 20 years to get the reveal on this piece of resplendently unparalleled genius!
I wonder how pissed he/she'll be when the whole is wrapped up in a manner so stupid and typified by everything on Home and Away.
* Oh, how very Rumsfeldian on me. Whatever happened to that dude?
**Oddly enough, the number 2 cause of suicide in Australia is the realization that you watch Home and Away on a regular basis.
***Things Home and Away has taught me number 245: Writing your name in the sand is totally the best way to get the attention of a girl.
Closely followed by 246: If you have sex with someone, you will get pregnant, and there will be complications. You can wear a literal fucking tent on your wang, but that bitch is still gettin' pregnant, and it's coming out with two heads. Don't have sex!
Wednesday, January 30, 2008
Sunday, January 27, 2008
What videogames could (but won't) learn from No Country For Old Men
Seen No Country for Old Men? Of course you have, what a stupid rhetorical question (of course the word 'stupid' is kind of redundant, as it was followed by 'rhetorical question'.)
Now, I don't think it's controversial to say that No Country doesn't have the strongest characters. They were without doubt both memorable and enjoyable, but they where a placeholder; a necessity of achieving an end.
That's not some kind of belligerent knock against the film, because Shigur and compant weren't what drove the story. No Country wasn't even really about the characters so much as it was about the inevitability of a changing world, something so eloquently expressed in the title.
Granted, they were presented in a brilliantly evocative and beautiful manner, and the perceived lack of depth in characters is about the only fault I can find in the Coen brothers nostalgic and beautiful journey through Americana (or being Australian, what I assume Americana is).
However,their weaknesses did get me thinking about videogames, and they do have plenty of faults.
More specifically, how videogames, an industry plagued by bad characters could learn a thing or two from No Country.
The game most relevant to this discussion, at least from a positive standpoint would be Bioshock. Last years best journey through a steamy, dystopian bluelit world wasn't in a car through LA- it was through the crazy world of Rapture. Now, the world needs another glowing report on Bioshock like Katherine Heigl's teeth need another cigarette*/ the world needs another 'shocking expose' on Scientology/ I need reasons to cry myself to sleep at night, but I'm going to do it anyway, because it feels inexplicably linked to No Country, at least for the duration of this conversation.
But first, let me get an admission out of the way: I didn't like Bioshock that much. It was one of those games where I understood why people liked it, but I didn't get as much out of it.
I didn't really get the gameplay, and parts of the game where cut so closely to the game design cloth that you could have gotten the seam caught on something (clumsy analogy away!). I did eventually finish it, and ut turns out that final cutscene of the game was one of my favourite moments ever in a videogame. Sure, it was more Bioshtick than Bioshock, but it was unusually moving (and admittedly kind of character based, throwing an enormous spanner in my argument).
What was more interesting was the story, and what the story represented to game making (and storytelling in general). I'm no Ayn Rand fan, and I don't know too much philosophy, but I have a pretty good idea of what the story in Bioshock was trying to communicate, and it was interesting. Hell, it's as philosophical as a game gets, and it deserves points just for trying something so batshit insane.
Much like No Country, Bioshock, the premise of Bioshock lies on a conceit, and this conceit makes the entire story exponentially more interesting than it was predicated on the sum of the characters involved. Which then got me to thinking, why don't more games try this? Why is Ken Levine the only person that you justifiably liken to the Coen Brothers?
After all, videogames already have the weak characters down pat. In fact, weak protagonists are almost an institution in videogames, which is kind of ironic, since they've become so reliant on character recognotion. It's also kind of odd, considering that character strength should be a foregone conclusion in a industry so dominated by character driven games.
Even Bioshock, my golden calve for this ramble, had kind of archetypal videogame characters, but they were made endearing through the games strengths.
Maybe because we're so used to having shitty story lines that nobody really cares anymore. Nobody's really going to argue that this is because videogames aren't meant (or expected) to be based of a brilliant story, so why spend extra time on something that nobody really cares about?**
For a industry that has (generally) ordinary stories, basing a videogame around a theme and not a character would have to make the whole story development easier to some degree. Instead of building it around a character, build it around a theme, if anything resounding sticks then at least it'll look like it's clever, and it'll impress pseudo intellectual wankers like me.
One game that I feel did this tremendously well as Assassin's Creed (the theme bit, not the making me look a wanker bit) .
It's funny that I'm talking about last years most maligned with last years most loved game, but I'm a funny kind of guy. That and Assassin's feels like the kind of game that felt like it was built from the ground up with a specific theme in mind.
Granted, it's wasn't that brilliant and it's in danger of becoming convoluted to a Metal Gear esque degree, but Ubisoft deserves some light applause for
a) at least trying something different.
b) proving that basing it on something other than character doesn't immediately and irrecoverably destroy a franchise's strength. Ubisoft's greed and stupidity may eventually, but the idea doesn't.
I've said it before, but I thought that Assassin's constant pondering on killing was kind of interesting. What's more, it did it in a way that wasn't overexposed or over gratuitous (the thinking, not the killing). Call it a more subtle take on what Bioshock tried to do. Whilst Bioshock hit you over the head with Ayn Rand (something that does usually kill the intended target) Assassin's um...jiggled the coin purse (as John Davison might say) of our thinking nodes.
Maybe (although almost definitely not) this could signal Ubisoft trying something different
I'm not expecting the next Splinter Cell to be a discussion on the inevitability of one man trying to change the world (although that would be cool), because that would be like the next Eddie Murphy movie being a complex metaphor for race relations in the United States. Not every game has to be like this, every genre need their brainless action to their deep and meaningful.
What I'm saying it that the industry is either too set in it's ways to change, or that it doesn't need to change
I'm not sure which one is sadder.
*She still is kind of endearing, in a nicotine tainted kind of way
**How apt...
Now, I don't think it's controversial to say that No Country doesn't have the strongest characters. They were without doubt both memorable and enjoyable, but they where a placeholder; a necessity of achieving an end.
That's not some kind of belligerent knock against the film, because Shigur and compant weren't what drove the story. No Country wasn't even really about the characters so much as it was about the inevitability of a changing world, something so eloquently expressed in the title.
Granted, they were presented in a brilliantly evocative and beautiful manner, and the perceived lack of depth in characters is about the only fault I can find in the Coen brothers nostalgic and beautiful journey through Americana (or being Australian, what I assume Americana is).
However,their weaknesses did get me thinking about videogames, and they do have plenty of faults.
More specifically, how videogames, an industry plagued by bad characters could learn a thing or two from No Country.
The game most relevant to this discussion, at least from a positive standpoint would be Bioshock. Last years best journey through a steamy, dystopian bluelit world wasn't in a car through LA- it was through the crazy world of Rapture. Now, the world needs another glowing report on Bioshock like Katherine Heigl's teeth need another cigarette*/ the world needs another 'shocking expose' on Scientology/ I need reasons to cry myself to sleep at night, but I'm going to do it anyway, because it feels inexplicably linked to No Country, at least for the duration of this conversation.
But first, let me get an admission out of the way: I didn't like Bioshock that much. It was one of those games where I understood why people liked it, but I didn't get as much out of it.
I didn't really get the gameplay, and parts of the game where cut so closely to the game design cloth that you could have gotten the seam caught on something (clumsy analogy away!). I did eventually finish it, and ut turns out that final cutscene of the game was one of my favourite moments ever in a videogame. Sure, it was more Bioshtick than Bioshock, but it was unusually moving (and admittedly kind of character based, throwing an enormous spanner in my argument).
What was more interesting was the story, and what the story represented to game making (and storytelling in general). I'm no Ayn Rand fan, and I don't know too much philosophy, but I have a pretty good idea of what the story in Bioshock was trying to communicate, and it was interesting. Hell, it's as philosophical as a game gets, and it deserves points just for trying something so batshit insane.
Much like No Country, Bioshock, the premise of Bioshock lies on a conceit, and this conceit makes the entire story exponentially more interesting than it was predicated on the sum of the characters involved. Which then got me to thinking, why don't more games try this? Why is Ken Levine the only person that you justifiably liken to the Coen Brothers?
After all, videogames already have the weak characters down pat. In fact, weak protagonists are almost an institution in videogames, which is kind of ironic, since they've become so reliant on character recognotion. It's also kind of odd, considering that character strength should be a foregone conclusion in a industry so dominated by character driven games.
Even Bioshock, my golden calve for this ramble, had kind of archetypal videogame characters, but they were made endearing through the games strengths.
Maybe because we're so used to having shitty story lines that nobody really cares anymore. Nobody's really going to argue that this is because videogames aren't meant (or expected) to be based of a brilliant story, so why spend extra time on something that nobody really cares about?**
For a industry that has (generally) ordinary stories, basing a videogame around a theme and not a character would have to make the whole story development easier to some degree. Instead of building it around a character, build it around a theme, if anything resounding sticks then at least it'll look like it's clever, and it'll impress pseudo intellectual wankers like me.
One game that I feel did this tremendously well as Assassin's Creed (the theme bit, not the making me look a wanker bit) .
It's funny that I'm talking about last years most maligned with last years most loved game, but I'm a funny kind of guy. That and Assassin's feels like the kind of game that felt like it was built from the ground up with a specific theme in mind.
Granted, it's wasn't that brilliant and it's in danger of becoming convoluted to a Metal Gear esque degree, but Ubisoft deserves some light applause for
a) at least trying something different.
b) proving that basing it on something other than character doesn't immediately and irrecoverably destroy a franchise's strength. Ubisoft's greed and stupidity may eventually, but the idea doesn't.
I've said it before, but I thought that Assassin's constant pondering on killing was kind of interesting. What's more, it did it in a way that wasn't overexposed or over gratuitous (the thinking, not the killing). Call it a more subtle take on what Bioshock tried to do. Whilst Bioshock hit you over the head with Ayn Rand (something that does usually kill the intended target) Assassin's um...jiggled the coin purse (as John Davison might say) of our thinking nodes.
Maybe (although almost definitely not) this could signal Ubisoft trying something different
I'm not expecting the next Splinter Cell to be a discussion on the inevitability of one man trying to change the world (although that would be cool), because that would be like the next Eddie Murphy movie being a complex metaphor for race relations in the United States. Not every game has to be like this, every genre need their brainless action to their deep and meaningful.
What I'm saying it that the industry is either too set in it's ways to change, or that it doesn't need to change
I'm not sure which one is sadder.
*She still is kind of endearing, in a nicotine tainted kind of way
**How apt...
Friday, January 25, 2008
CDs I heard this week.
Black Mountain- In The Future
It would be unfair, although not entirely founded to say that Black Mountain's sophomore CD is a Riff-tinged love letter to 1974.
In fact, if you toughened up Matt Camirand's never ending falsetto and added some blues into the mix then his songs could be included on a decent, albeit less erudite Zeppellin Album. He does has more hits than misses, but you feel like the hits have been made before, and with more force.
Sharing the vocal duties (and love for heavy rock) is new addition Amber Webber who manages to make, surprisingly enough, Misty Mountain-esque songs with a feminine twist.
Ironically enough, In the Future's best moments are when they're doing sound like something other than the greatest Zepplein cover band: Stay Free is the best Band of Horses song that they never wrote, and Wucan takes an unannounced Psychadelic sojourn through the brief period when the Doors weren't the most overrated band in existence.
Call it a sad report on just how blatantly derivative music has always been, or just a comment on how well In the Future adeptly rephrases decade old statements, but Black Mountain manages to solidify their holding on a genial archetype
Juno OST
Faux-indie soundtracks, much like faux-indie films, tend to conform to a pretty narrow stereotype. Zach Braff and company can disagree until their faces are as blue as the music they love, but you can assume that anything they accompany a film with is going to be a whiskery/whiny/acoustic affair.
Juno pretty much covers this to perfection, although (gasp!) throws in some pre 90's tracks by the Kinks and Velvet Underground (with Nico sounding almost tolerable) as well as Mott the Hoople's classic All the Young Dudes. The highlight comes from unlikley source Barry Louis Polisar, whose All I Want Is You sounds like the most positive (and legible) Bob Dylan song ever.
Extra nerd points for including the 'cover' of 'Anyone Else But You' by Michael Cera and Ellen Page
I mean, it's not as if I edited out Michael Cera's part and replaced with my voice, but it's sure been on my mind.
It would be unfair, although not entirely founded to say that Black Mountain's sophomore CD is a Riff-tinged love letter to 1974.
In fact, if you toughened up Matt Camirand's never ending falsetto and added some blues into the mix then his songs could be included on a decent, albeit less erudite Zeppellin Album. He does has more hits than misses, but you feel like the hits have been made before, and with more force.
Sharing the vocal duties (and love for heavy rock) is new addition Amber Webber who manages to make, surprisingly enough, Misty Mountain-esque songs with a feminine twist.
Ironically enough, In the Future's best moments are when they're doing sound like something other than the greatest Zepplein cover band: Stay Free is the best Band of Horses song that they never wrote, and Wucan takes an unannounced Psychadelic sojourn through the brief period when the Doors weren't the most overrated band in existence.
Call it a sad report on just how blatantly derivative music has always been, or just a comment on how well In the Future adeptly rephrases decade old statements, but Black Mountain manages to solidify their holding on a genial archetype
Juno OST
Faux-indie soundtracks, much like faux-indie films, tend to conform to a pretty narrow stereotype. Zach Braff and company can disagree until their faces are as blue as the music they love, but you can assume that anything they accompany a film with is going to be a whiskery/whiny/acoustic affair.
Juno pretty much covers this to perfection, although (gasp!) throws in some pre 90's tracks by the Kinks and Velvet Underground (with Nico sounding almost tolerable) as well as Mott the Hoople's classic All the Young Dudes. The highlight comes from unlikley source Barry Louis Polisar, whose All I Want Is You sounds like the most positive (and legible) Bob Dylan song ever.
Extra nerd points for including the 'cover' of 'Anyone Else But You' by Michael Cera and Ellen Page
I mean, it's not as if I edited out Michael Cera's part and replaced with my voice, but it's sure been on my mind.
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Let me tell you something, I don't believe in soulmates: In fact, I don't believe in lots of things, but soulmates are the issue most relevant to this discussion.
Why ?
a) With the billions of people in the world, why would there only be one person who's right for me? Surely there's more than one person who
-Looks like a cross between Jenna Fischer and Ashley Tisdale
-Sounds like Jenny Lewis (in fact, add some of into the looks too)
-Acts like Pam Beelsey, but indier (is that a word?). Not too indie mind you. I don't want to be dragged to shitty concerts, going outside is already enough of a hassle
-Has a love for whiny pale white dudes.*
b) If there is one, then what are the odds of finding said soul-mate among said billions of people? And what makes you think they'd want to get within the same time-zone as me?
Although I am in fact buoyed by a friend saying that are 'probably' a 'few' girls that wouldn't find me totally crazy. I'm not sure if I should take that as a compliment or as an indication that his education and powers of deduction and reasoning have failed him.
I talk about this, not because it's interesting (it's not), but because it's such a relevant theme to Juno. Despite all it's posturing as a post Knocked Up indie comedy, is still more a coming of age movie than anything.
Or maybe it's me trying to have a Juno like epiphany.
Speaking of delusional, I'm not sure if it's official yet, but word is that Pregnancy Movies are the new Faux Indie movies. As such, I guess it was inevitable that enterprising genius, would decide to combine the two together into some kind of creative amalgamation. A bastard child, if you will (see what I did there!).
Firstly, from one side there's the whole pregnancy conceit. Juno, played by Ellen Page has a harsh welcome in adulthood when she's impregnated by friend/lover/George Michael wunderkid Michael Cera. Obviously** two sixteen olds aren't going to be good parents, hell, they're still kids themselves, thus, Juno unilaterally decides that the child, once expelled from her loins, will be adopted (in this case the parents are Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner. meaning that kid will grow up awesome).
Cera and Bateman where initially what attracted me to Juno, as I knew them from the wonderful Arrested Development,but the wonderfully cute*** Ellen Page steals the show, portraying the quirky Juno perfectly, managing to be both world weary and naive at the same time.
In addition to the literal smorgsboard of 'oh, it's that dude!' supporting actors, I have to mention Rainn Wilson's short turn as a convenience store clerk. Sure, his character was funny, but seeing him opening the movie was fucking brilliant.
If pregnancy was the father of Juno, then that would make the whole indie movie conceit the mother****. Aesthetics (particularly the brilliant opening credits), treatment of the plot, and the music, which is almost entirely an acoustic/whiskery kind of affair.
As I just mentioned, the plot is handled so well, and feels like the coming of age story that Napoleon Dynamite should have been/almost was. Whilst Dynamite centers around more outright lunacy, Juno is much fixated on the awkward moments that define a character, and how the character moves on from these events. Even roles that initially seem to be little more than comedic value evolve into something far from it.
Whilst it takes a while to get into it's rhythm, once it's there it's pretty consistent. Despite Dwights appearance, the first fifteen minutes are kind of painful. As the plot winds up, it just tries too damn hard to be cool, and you just feel you should like it out of pity. (In that sense, it's a little, actually a lot like me.)
Juno managed to get the best bits from both it's parents, and managed to warm this old cynics heart. Granted, 't was only for a few hours, but there where some definite signs of gold like heat emitting from it.
Perhaps it's simply because it's my kind of movie, and if said hypothetical soul mate existed in movie from then it would probably be something like Juno. It's the kind of movie that makes me smile on the inside. It's the movie that fed 1000 'Feel Good Movie' of the year quotes, and I agree with them.
And that my friends, is scary.
*That's samburnett [at] gmail (dot) com.
**Actually, after taking public transport today this fact may not be so obvious,
*** Shut up. I checked her age, she's 20.
****Sure, pregnancy should be the mother, but the term 'indie movie' should never, ever be given a masculine indicator.
Why ?
a) With the billions of people in the world, why would there only be one person who's right for me? Surely there's more than one person who
-Looks like a cross between Jenna Fischer and Ashley Tisdale
-Sounds like Jenny Lewis (in fact, add some of into the looks too)
-Acts like Pam Beelsey, but indier (is that a word?). Not too indie mind you. I don't want to be dragged to shitty concerts, going outside is already enough of a hassle
-Has a love for whiny pale white dudes.*
b) If there is one, then what are the odds of finding said soul-mate among said billions of people? And what makes you think they'd want to get within the same time-zone as me?
Although I am in fact buoyed by a friend saying that are 'probably' a 'few' girls that wouldn't find me totally crazy. I'm not sure if I should take that as a compliment or as an indication that his education and powers of deduction and reasoning have failed him.
I talk about this, not because it's interesting (it's not), but because it's such a relevant theme to Juno. Despite all it's posturing as a post Knocked Up indie comedy, is still more a coming of age movie than anything.
Or maybe it's me trying to have a Juno like epiphany.
Speaking of delusional, I'm not sure if it's official yet, but word is that Pregnancy Movies are the new Faux Indie movies. As such, I guess it was inevitable that enterprising genius, would decide to combine the two together into some kind of creative amalgamation. A bastard child, if you will (see what I did there!).
Firstly, from one side there's the whole pregnancy conceit. Juno, played by Ellen Page has a harsh welcome in adulthood when she's impregnated by friend/lover/George Michael wunderkid Michael Cera. Obviously** two sixteen olds aren't going to be good parents, hell, they're still kids themselves, thus, Juno unilaterally decides that the child, once expelled from her loins, will be adopted (in this case the parents are Jason Bateman and Jennifer Garner. meaning that kid will grow up awesome).
Cera and Bateman where initially what attracted me to Juno, as I knew them from the wonderful Arrested Development,but the wonderfully cute*** Ellen Page steals the show, portraying the quirky Juno perfectly, managing to be both world weary and naive at the same time.
In addition to the literal smorgsboard of 'oh, it's that dude!' supporting actors, I have to mention Rainn Wilson's short turn as a convenience store clerk. Sure, his character was funny, but seeing him opening the movie was fucking brilliant.
If pregnancy was the father of Juno, then that would make the whole indie movie conceit the mother****. Aesthetics (particularly the brilliant opening credits), treatment of the plot, and the music, which is almost entirely an acoustic/whiskery kind of affair.
As I just mentioned, the plot is handled so well, and feels like the coming of age story that Napoleon Dynamite should have been/almost was. Whilst Dynamite centers around more outright lunacy, Juno is much fixated on the awkward moments that define a character, and how the character moves on from these events. Even roles that initially seem to be little more than comedic value evolve into something far from it.
Whilst it takes a while to get into it's rhythm, once it's there it's pretty consistent. Despite Dwights appearance, the first fifteen minutes are kind of painful. As the plot winds up, it just tries too damn hard to be cool, and you just feel you should like it out of pity. (In that sense, it's a little, actually a lot like me.)
Juno managed to get the best bits from both it's parents, and managed to warm this old cynics heart. Granted, 't was only for a few hours, but there where some definite signs of gold like heat emitting from it.
Perhaps it's simply because it's my kind of movie, and if said hypothetical soul mate existed in movie from then it would probably be something like Juno. It's the kind of movie that makes me smile on the inside. It's the movie that fed 1000 'Feel Good Movie' of the year quotes, and I agree with them.
And that my friends, is scary.
*That's samburnett [at] gmail (dot) com.
**Actually, after taking public transport today this fact may not be so obvious,
*** Shut up. I checked her age, she's 20.
****Sure, pregnancy should be the mother, but the term 'indie movie' should never, ever be given a masculine indicator.
Tuesday, January 15, 2008
American Gangster Crap Review Time!
There is a scene, perhaps 40 minutes into American Gangster, where Denzel Washington's berates his younger brother for dressing too flashy (considering this was the 1970's, this was quite an achievement), as such an error in judgment is likely to get him noticed by the Police. 'Tis better, says Mr Washington, to fly under the radar by dressing in a more conservative fashion.
It's no coincidence that I open with this tidbit of largely irreverent trivia, as unlike dear younger brother, American Gangster seems to have taken this advice to heart, and as such is an example of drudgery and general failure to distinguish itself from the litany of other crime movies. American Gangster isn't bad, it just exists.
Such a concept is difficult to understand, as if any movie had the potential to be a 21st century Scarface, then this one did. Not only was director-extraordinare Ridley Scott at the helm, but it was based on a true story, and they always turn out well. Then there where the stars:
Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe serve as polar opposites in their roles: Washington as Frank Lucas, a somewhat good natured drug distributor, and Crowe as Richie Roberts, a detective who's so trustworthy that you have to wonder what his angle is. Both shine under Scott's direction, but Crowes portrayal in particular lends creedance to the Oscar kudos being thrown his way.
As you can probably gather from prior knowledge with this genre, it's inevitable that the two folks on opposite ends of the law are going to face off.
The thing is, these great moments that you expect from this rivalry never seem to come, or when they are, are rare and fleeting.
Funnily enough, in a film so lauded for a few central performances (something I just did!_, it's the moments set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War that lend themselves to some brilliant moments and enduring imagery.
If Scott, Washington and Crowe made the movie, then the script destroyed it, and when I say script, I mean hodge-dodge of cliches.
It's not that the true story of Frank Lucas isn't interesting, it's just that the way it's handled isn't in an engaging manner..
Since the two are already so closely intertwined, how about some more commentary on the morality of drugs and war? Or less time devoted to bad montages are more to the concept of drug dealing being nothing more than offering a service?
American Gangster, if anything, is an example that no matter how good you build the movie, the foundation better be solid, or you'll have nothing but a mess on your hands.
It's no coincidence that I open with this tidbit of largely irreverent trivia, as unlike dear younger brother, American Gangster seems to have taken this advice to heart, and as such is an example of drudgery and general failure to distinguish itself from the litany of other crime movies. American Gangster isn't bad, it just exists.
Such a concept is difficult to understand, as if any movie had the potential to be a 21st century Scarface, then this one did. Not only was director-extraordinare Ridley Scott at the helm, but it was based on a true story, and they always turn out well. Then there where the stars:
Denzel Washington and Russel Crowe serve as polar opposites in their roles: Washington as Frank Lucas, a somewhat good natured drug distributor, and Crowe as Richie Roberts, a detective who's so trustworthy that you have to wonder what his angle is. Both shine under Scott's direction, but Crowes portrayal in particular lends creedance to the Oscar kudos being thrown his way.
As you can probably gather from prior knowledge with this genre, it's inevitable that the two folks on opposite ends of the law are going to face off.
The thing is, these great moments that you expect from this rivalry never seem to come, or when they are, are rare and fleeting.
Funnily enough, in a film so lauded for a few central performances (something I just did!_, it's the moments set against the backdrop of the Vietnam War that lend themselves to some brilliant moments and enduring imagery.
If Scott, Washington and Crowe made the movie, then the script destroyed it, and when I say script, I mean hodge-dodge of cliches.
It's not that the true story of Frank Lucas isn't interesting, it's just that the way it's handled isn't in an engaging manner..
Since the two are already so closely intertwined, how about some more commentary on the morality of drugs and war? Or less time devoted to bad montages are more to the concept of drug dealing being nothing more than offering a service?
American Gangster, if anything, is an example that no matter how good you build the movie, the foundation better be solid, or you'll have nothing but a mess on your hands.
Saturday, January 12, 2008
Trust is a weird thing.
*Note, the topic is not relevent. It's only based on the song that I'm listening to right now.
Kids scare the bejesus out of me. Well, that came out wrong, so let me enunciate: Kids piss me off, it's the concept of kids scares me.
The commitment of having to look after something for the rest of their life years terrifies me to no end (even after 18 years, there are no gurantees that the child will leave. Take me for instance.). Then there's the whole facet of actually looking after the child, who after your years of parenting may not even turn into a productive member of society (again, look at me...).
Even then, all this would depend on my rather lax ability at finding someone who'd actually want to have a kid with me, and even then there's a better than half chance that I'm gunna be one long road to bozo divorcee town (which is still preferential to mid life crisis esplanade. But only just.)
In fact, I can only find one positive to having a kid: The incredible sense of superiority you get out of saying how inept other people are at raising their children. Oh, it must be sweet feeling to admonish someone else' sparenting style, feeding habits or crude methods of punishment.
Thing is, maybe you don't even need kids to get this sense of superiority. All you need to do is open an issue of New Weekly/Any other Low Culture Celebrity magazine. Maybe it's me again, but is there an indelible link between the medias (and our own treatment) of celebrities and the way that parents treat their seemingly inept peers? Are celebrities assuming a new role in our culture? One where they're viewed with ineptitude rather than admiration?
You could call it Tall Poppy syndrome, but you'd be wrong. Why? Because:
a)Tall Poppy Syndrome is class based. i.e: People looking down on other classes.
b) It's not a lack of respect being shown toward celebrities. If anything it's excessive respect being shown to them, in the form of reporting on totally benign and pointless things***. We still want to be informed of what celebrities do, it's just want the image to be skewed towards a different angle. We're resigned to the fact that they're famous, it's just we're seeing them in a new light.
c)Tall Poppy syndrome would say that these people, and the concept of putting them on a pedatsool are stupid. Instead, yeah, we're saying that they may be stupid, but's wonderfully entertaining.
The best example of this new trend manages to use three of the worst examples of humanity in recent history: The recent report on the Britney Spears/Dr Phil situation by Today Tonight. Let's for a minute put aside that Today Tonight is the most lambasted journalistic device in Australia (Haha, those zany Chaser guys!) and that the whole Dr Phil situation is one of the most fucking insane instances of shameless publicity since the Dreyfus Affair*.
The whole story was the personification (well, Teleifcation) of the media in general (and by proxy our) treatment of Britney Spears over the last couple years: Feigned sympathy and thinly veiled distain.In essence, the only thing more annoying than the constant reporting on Britney was the way in the reports where conducted, and in turn the way that we perceive her. We've become the parents that shit on the parenting skills of other parents because we feel it's justified. Admiration has been forced aside by, dare I say it, laughter.
Riddle me this: When was the last that anything Britney Spears did was portrayed in a positive manner? Or, to be more specific, when was the last you heard someone comment on Britney without there being a lethal dose of negative vitriol? Or failing that, feigned apthy?
Does anyone even admire Britney Spears anymore? Is she notable for just being someone to make fun of? Does someone, say 10 years younger than me know why she is being reported on so much? Or why she is famous?
Spears is only the most recently visible, and easily recognizable example of this trend. Negative reporting on celebrities seem to be as endemic as negative behavior by said celebrities. Whilst mainstream articles are almost uniformly negative, others outlets such as Dolly seem to be torn between loving and hating Paris Hilton**, between including a copious of picture, then implying that her history of sexual partners is less than stellar.
Now, I'm not for one second decrying the media's reliance on celebrities for news (hell, I probably admire thesuperficial more than anyone should). What I'm interested in the way that the message has shifted. It's now longer expected that celebrities are someone to be just reported on and admired. Now we need to almost constantly laugh at them, we have to admonish them for screwing up their surreal lives to an unprecedented degree. It feels like we're moving to a paradigm (!ARGH!) where celebrities are people who ought to be disliked, not admired for their success, or at least for what they are doing whilst successful.
Maybe it's because we're just picking the wrong people to star in movies, maybe we love controversy or maybe we're turning into a misanthropic bunch of assholes.
*There's that History degree paying for itself Ma!
**I cannot stress enough the fact that I do not actually buy Dolly. I may casually read my Brother's Girlfriends copy, but there is no law against that!
***Okay, so pictures of Hayden Pantetterie shopping for clothes is never pointless. But you get my drift right?
Kids scare the bejesus out of me. Well, that came out wrong, so let me enunciate: Kids piss me off, it's the concept of kids scares me.
The commitment of having to look after something for the rest of their life years terrifies me to no end (even after 18 years, there are no gurantees that the child will leave. Take me for instance.). Then there's the whole facet of actually looking after the child, who after your years of parenting may not even turn into a productive member of society (again, look at me...).
Even then, all this would depend on my rather lax ability at finding someone who'd actually want to have a kid with me, and even then there's a better than half chance that I'm gunna be one long road to bozo divorcee town (which is still preferential to mid life crisis esplanade. But only just.)
In fact, I can only find one positive to having a kid: The incredible sense of superiority you get out of saying how inept other people are at raising their children. Oh, it must be sweet feeling to admonish someone else' sparenting style, feeding habits or crude methods of punishment.
Thing is, maybe you don't even need kids to get this sense of superiority. All you need to do is open an issue of New Weekly/Any other Low Culture Celebrity magazine. Maybe it's me again, but is there an indelible link between the medias (and our own treatment) of celebrities and the way that parents treat their seemingly inept peers? Are celebrities assuming a new role in our culture? One where they're viewed with ineptitude rather than admiration?
You could call it Tall Poppy syndrome, but you'd be wrong. Why? Because:
a)Tall Poppy Syndrome is class based. i.e: People looking down on other classes.
b) It's not a lack of respect being shown toward celebrities. If anything it's excessive respect being shown to them, in the form of reporting on totally benign and pointless things***. We still want to be informed of what celebrities do, it's just want the image to be skewed towards a different angle. We're resigned to the fact that they're famous, it's just we're seeing them in a new light.
c)Tall Poppy syndrome would say that these people, and the concept of putting them on a pedatsool are stupid. Instead, yeah, we're saying that they may be stupid, but's wonderfully entertaining.
The best example of this new trend manages to use three of the worst examples of humanity in recent history: The recent report on the Britney Spears/Dr Phil situation by Today Tonight. Let's for a minute put aside that Today Tonight is the most lambasted journalistic device in Australia (Haha, those zany Chaser guys!) and that the whole Dr Phil situation is one of the most fucking insane instances of shameless publicity since the Dreyfus Affair*.
The whole story was the personification (well, Teleifcation) of the media in general (and by proxy our) treatment of Britney Spears over the last couple years: Feigned sympathy and thinly veiled distain.In essence, the only thing more annoying than the constant reporting on Britney was the way in the reports where conducted, and in turn the way that we perceive her. We've become the parents that shit on the parenting skills of other parents because we feel it's justified. Admiration has been forced aside by, dare I say it, laughter.
Riddle me this: When was the last that anything Britney Spears did was portrayed in a positive manner? Or, to be more specific, when was the last you heard someone comment on Britney without there being a lethal dose of negative vitriol? Or failing that, feigned apthy?
Does anyone even admire Britney Spears anymore? Is she notable for just being someone to make fun of? Does someone, say 10 years younger than me know why she is being reported on so much? Or why she is famous?
Spears is only the most recently visible, and easily recognizable example of this trend. Negative reporting on celebrities seem to be as endemic as negative behavior by said celebrities. Whilst mainstream articles are almost uniformly negative, others outlets such as Dolly seem to be torn between loving and hating Paris Hilton**, between including a copious of picture, then implying that her history of sexual partners is less than stellar.
Now, I'm not for one second decrying the media's reliance on celebrities for news (hell, I probably admire thesuperficial more than anyone should). What I'm interested in the way that the message has shifted. It's now longer expected that celebrities are someone to be just reported on and admired. Now we need to almost constantly laugh at them, we have to admonish them for screwing up their surreal lives to an unprecedented degree. It feels like we're moving to a paradigm (!ARGH!) where celebrities are people who ought to be disliked, not admired for their success, or at least for what they are doing whilst successful.
Maybe it's because we're just picking the wrong people to star in movies, maybe we love controversy or maybe we're turning into a misanthropic bunch of assholes.
*There's that History degree paying for itself Ma!
**I cannot stress enough the fact that I do not actually buy Dolly. I may casually read my Brother's Girlfriends copy, but there is no law against that!
***Okay, so pictures of Hayden Pantetterie shopping for clothes is never pointless. But you get my drift right?
Monday, January 7, 2008
Thought processes that inhabited my brain. New Year Edition!
However, I do think I'll like Gump's soundtrack more...
I think that Gladiator has become my new Forrest Gump, the brilliant movie that I never quite all off in one sitting. This time, I am not going to let it last, I am renting Gladiator this week (maybe..)
Celebrity Surgery update
Stephen Stills:
You were my least favourite member of CNSY, although that's kind of like saying that you're the ugliest actress on Gossip Girl.
I hope you get well soon, as that whole area is kind of sketchy, and I don't think anyone likes being poked there (well..maybe some people..)
Ashley Tisdale:
I don't like to whine, but destroying a nose like that is an affront to the entire Jewish Race/Religion. It's like Christians losing their sense of superiority, or Muslims losing their ability to somehow denigrate everything they touch.
BigStar, Yes Alex Chilton is a Big Star...
I am not lying when I say that I have listened to one of their CDs every day for this year. True, whilst that's only a week or so, but it's still quite an achievment.
Nothing can describe how wonderful this CD, barring the word wonderful, which shouldn't really be used.
Dexter! I love it!
Dexter Sieata, noun: The Practice of sleeping in the afternoon, in preparation of watching Dexter.
Dexter Fiesta, noun: The Practice of using said sleep to stay up all night watching Dexter. Generally accompanied by Whisky and Chocolate.
Sayings that I need to remember.
"Knee High to a Grasshopper."
"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse"
Note the second one, whilst brilliant, makes no sense at all. Even if the horse isn't blind, then who the fuck is winking at it? I get what it means, but it's downright odd.
I think that Gladiator has become my new Forrest Gump, the brilliant movie that I never quite all off in one sitting. This time, I am not going to let it last, I am renting Gladiator this week (maybe..)
Celebrity Surgery update
Stephen Stills:
You were my least favourite member of CNSY, although that's kind of like saying that you're the ugliest actress on Gossip Girl.
I hope you get well soon, as that whole area is kind of sketchy, and I don't think anyone likes being poked there (well..maybe some people..)
Ashley Tisdale:
I don't like to whine, but destroying a nose like that is an affront to the entire Jewish Race/Religion. It's like Christians losing their sense of superiority, or Muslims losing their ability to somehow denigrate everything they touch.
BigStar, Yes Alex Chilton is a Big Star...
I am not lying when I say that I have listened to one of their CDs every day for this year. True, whilst that's only a week or so, but it's still quite an achievment.
Nothing can describe how wonderful this CD, barring the word wonderful, which shouldn't really be used.
Dexter! I love it!
Dexter Sieata, noun: The Practice of sleeping in the afternoon, in preparation of watching Dexter.
Dexter Fiesta, noun: The Practice of using said sleep to stay up all night watching Dexter. Generally accompanied by Whisky and Chocolate.
Sayings that I need to remember.
"Knee High to a Grasshopper."
"A nod is as good as a wink to a blind horse"
Note the second one, whilst brilliant, makes no sense at all. Even if the horse isn't blind, then who the fuck is winking at it? I get what it means, but it's downright odd.
Friday, January 4, 2008
Schizophrenia Time 1#
Warning: Spoilers for a certain show about a serial killer who just can't help himself.
Season 1- Hey
Season 2- Oh hey, what's up
S1- Oh you know, nothing much. Just wondering what the fuck was up with you?
S2- I'm sorry?
S1- You heard. I'm asking what went wrong with you. I mean, look at the groundwork I laid for you, and you just decide to mess it up?
S2- Again, I'm confused, what exactly do you mean?
S1- You're confused, how the fuck do you think everyone else feels? I mean, you were lazy. You where like a Sloth who just had Valium prescribed after his legs where amputated.
S2- Me lazy? Please, half of your closing montages sounded like they were from a Scrubs episode.
S1- Alright sure, sometimes I strayed into corny country, but you ignored anything that even approached emotional resonance. Harrys suicide? Dokes, which, by the way was the biggest case of Deus Ex Machima since Moses inexplicably walked out of a desert after four decades? How do you throw away a character like that? Or, rather, how do you dig your plotline into such a hole that the only way out is total nonsense? Doakes was a cop-out, plain and simple.
S2- Emotional Resonance? Please, did you watch Dexter struggle with turning himself in? That's some A grade nail biting right there. If season one examined the concept of a post 9/11 super/anti hero, then I looked at how deeply such a precieved responsibility can affecct relationships with loved ones. Doakes? Well, I know that the Writers Strike is becoming the Jew of 2008 television, but maybe that's to blame? Or hey, sometimes shit just happens.
S1- Hey, you don't need to tell me, I watched the whole Lyla soap opera. Now that was painful. It's cool that she was introduced, as someone that understands Dester was a much needed development, but did she have to be so...British?
S2- What, you don't like Boobies? I knew there was something wrong with you!
S1- Oh great, now you're Doakes?
S2- Hey, I'd would rather burn than get burned.
S1- What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense.
S2- Yeah, you're right. Hey, I got a question...
S1- Shoot...
S2- Is Dexter's sister hot?
S1- Yeah sure, in a less cute version of Olivia Wilde kind of way.
S2- Fuck you dude. Fuck you.
Season 3- Hey guys, what's happening?
S1-S2- Damnit, you're gunna have Maria find the truth right? I hate to see a good man made otherwise.
S3- The fuck should I know? I don't actually exist yet...
Season 1- Hey
Season 2- Oh hey, what's up
S1- Oh you know, nothing much. Just wondering what the fuck was up with you?
S2- I'm sorry?
S1- You heard. I'm asking what went wrong with you. I mean, look at the groundwork I laid for you, and you just decide to mess it up?
S2- Again, I'm confused, what exactly do you mean?
S1- You're confused, how the fuck do you think everyone else feels? I mean, you were lazy. You where like a Sloth who just had Valium prescribed after his legs where amputated.
S2- Me lazy? Please, half of your closing montages sounded like they were from a Scrubs episode.
S1- Alright sure, sometimes I strayed into corny country, but you ignored anything that even approached emotional resonance. Harrys suicide? Dokes, which, by the way was the biggest case of Deus Ex Machima since Moses inexplicably walked out of a desert after four decades? How do you throw away a character like that? Or, rather, how do you dig your plotline into such a hole that the only way out is total nonsense? Doakes was a cop-out, plain and simple.
S2- Emotional Resonance? Please, did you watch Dexter struggle with turning himself in? That's some A grade nail biting right there. If season one examined the concept of a post 9/11 super/anti hero, then I looked at how deeply such a precieved responsibility can affecct relationships with loved ones. Doakes? Well, I know that the Writers Strike is becoming the Jew of 2008 television, but maybe that's to blame? Or hey, sometimes shit just happens.
S1- Hey, you don't need to tell me, I watched the whole Lyla soap opera. Now that was painful. It's cool that she was introduced, as someone that understands Dester was a much needed development, but did she have to be so...British?
S2- What, you don't like Boobies? I knew there was something wrong with you!
S1- Oh great, now you're Doakes?
S2- Hey, I'd would rather burn than get burned.
S1- What the fuck? That doesn't even make sense.
S2- Yeah, you're right. Hey, I got a question...
S1- Shoot...
S2- Is Dexter's sister hot?
S1- Yeah sure, in a less cute version of Olivia Wilde kind of way.
S2- Fuck you dude. Fuck you.
Season 3- Hey guys, what's happening?
S1-S2- Damnit, you're gunna have Maria find the truth right? I hate to see a good man made otherwise.
S3- The fuck should I know? I don't actually exist yet...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)