Screw it. This movie has been out for awhile, you've probably seen it, you can go to RottenTomatoes.com and see the critical consensus (which is, of course, "briiiilliant"), etc.
So I'll just make five observations:
1. The main story is unashamedly a classic fairy tale. Happily-ever-after and all that. Don't think so? Explain to me what the end credit sequence is all about, then.
2. The setting and music, particularly near the beginning of the film, are very interesting - something that strikes me as an earnest attempt to depict the "real" modern urban India: slums next to skyscrapers, hi-tech companies and rickety pay-outhouses, youth from all walks immersed in a frenetic pace of life supplemented by the infusion of driving techno music.
3. The coupling of the above observations is...weird. Fairy tale + reality = ...? The two certainly don't reinforce each other. Either the elements of reality in the backdrop are severely undercut, or the elements of the storyline are unnecessarily weighted down.
4. Example of #3: the host of "Who Wants to be a Millanaire" gets the kid interrogated by torture? In a fairy tale: "Sure, whatever." In a realism-minded piece: "Wow, does that actually happen?" In this movie: "Uh...seriously?"
5. Slumdog Millionaire was more fun to watch than Watchmen. This has to get at least a 3.5, then. Should have probably gone with 3.0 for the former. Ah well...
***1/2 (a higher 3.5 than Watchmen - how about that)
Tuesday, March 17, 2009
Tuesday, March 10, 2009
What is real and what is not #2 - violence in the movies
Watchmen, anyone must agree, is a relatively "violent" movie. Viewers are subjected to far more blood and general on-screen bodily harm than in any of the other recent superhero film adaptations, like Batman and Spider-Man (hyphenation protocols?).
Given the "meta" nature of Watchmen - stuff like Dr. Manhattan's god-like abilities, the duality of characters like the Comedian, the non-embrace of a clear right/wrong position - it only makes sense that we should be given a glimpse of what ACTUALLY might happen if a super-strong individual decided to deliver unto a regular individual a powerful blow to the back of the elbow (you know what I'm talking about: the blood-shootin' open fracture scene).
And it shocks us, and we cringe, and we may even be offended at the gratuity of it. But we have no problem with a good old-fashioned 1-on-20 superhero beatdown where the bad guys all end up motionless but intact.
This is an interesting phenomenon: the disconnect between the portrayed violent ACT and its portrayed RESULT. A good example is this 2009 Super Bowl commercial:
There are two components to what happens:
1. The act: the guy is thrown through a 3rd-story window
2. The result: the guy gets up and walks away
There's a lot to be said on the topic, but all I have today is this: in my observation, we (as a society? As human beings?) are much more put-off by extreme results of violence than extreme violent acts. Intuitively it makes sense, given the visceral impact of blood and gore. But still: could it be problematic that we (as a society, this time) are so ubiquitously exposed to on-screen violence in which the nature of the result is not in line with the nature of the act? Hmm...stuff to think about.
In the specific case of Watchmen, the implication (keeping in mind the "meta" approach of story's themes) seems to be this: superhero stories are by nature constructed on violence that displays an act-result disconnect. And this idea is very smartly explored: notice how more uncomfortable explicit finger-breaking is to witness than implied death!
And, if you have not already seen the movie: notice that bit of relief you feel as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre engage in a traditionally bloodless bad-guy massacre during the prison break. Interesting, isn't it?
Given the "meta" nature of Watchmen - stuff like Dr. Manhattan's god-like abilities, the duality of characters like the Comedian, the non-embrace of a clear right/wrong position - it only makes sense that we should be given a glimpse of what ACTUALLY might happen if a super-strong individual decided to deliver unto a regular individual a powerful blow to the back of the elbow (you know what I'm talking about: the blood-shootin' open fracture scene).
And it shocks us, and we cringe, and we may even be offended at the gratuity of it. But we have no problem with a good old-fashioned 1-on-20 superhero beatdown where the bad guys all end up motionless but intact.
This is an interesting phenomenon: the disconnect between the portrayed violent ACT and its portrayed RESULT. A good example is this 2009 Super Bowl commercial:
There are two components to what happens:
1. The act: the guy is thrown through a 3rd-story window
2. The result: the guy gets up and walks away
There's a lot to be said on the topic, but all I have today is this: in my observation, we (as a society? As human beings?) are much more put-off by extreme results of violence than extreme violent acts. Intuitively it makes sense, given the visceral impact of blood and gore. But still: could it be problematic that we (as a society, this time) are so ubiquitously exposed to on-screen violence in which the nature of the result is not in line with the nature of the act? Hmm...stuff to think about.
In the specific case of Watchmen, the implication (keeping in mind the "meta" approach of story's themes) seems to be this: superhero stories are by nature constructed on violence that displays an act-result disconnect. And this idea is very smartly explored: notice how more uncomfortable explicit finger-breaking is to witness than implied death!
And, if you have not already seen the movie: notice that bit of relief you feel as Nite Owl and Silk Spectre engage in a traditionally bloodless bad-guy massacre during the prison break. Interesting, isn't it?
Saturday, March 7, 2009
Movie Review: Watchmen
First off - dig the STYLE! Stripped of all the extra stuff like plot/characters/themes/etc., this film is, well, really fantastic. The visuals are fantastic. The camera work is fantastic. The soundtrack (and the way it's handled) is fantastic. Yes, the whole superhero-graphic novel film infusion has been underway for some time, but in Watchmen you get a sense that the creators have put that little bit of extra thought into the production, pushed the bar just a little bit higher.
The soundtrack, for example: usually, little snippets of familiar pop songs get inserted into movies for the purpose of evoking some emotional/nostalgic response to fit with a scene - and then they're gone. So when in the opening montage it gradually became apparent that ALL of "The Times They Are A-Changin'" was going to be granted to us, I was pretty darn excited for the rest of the show. And it did not disappoint - the visuals, spectacular in themselves, were greatly enhanced throughout by thoughtfully extended song selections.
That introductory montage, by the way, may very well be the coolest part of the whole proceedings - it's essentially an alternate American history in which the Watchmen have...well, affected certain outcomes.
So, a four-star presentation. But how about the rest?
(See Wikipedia for plot/character info)
Here's what occured to me as I watched: Watchmen was either an incredibly ambitious attempt to smash down cliches, step outside of the typical superhero movie storytelling techniques, present a deliciously ambiguous set of themes, and essentially go where no film of its type has ever gone before; or, the source material was plain brilliant.
After a bit of research, I can confidently say that the latter is true. What that means: as far as plot and themes go, all credit must go to the director's efforts to maintain fidelity to the source. Responsibility for the great meta-superhero story construction lies solely with the creator of the original graphic novel series.
It also explains the major "issues" I have with the film. First, the scope is so huge and the style so mesmerizing that there is very little empathetic emotion expected from the audience. There is no one to feel sorry for, no character whose demise could seem truly tragic. The grandness of the story swallows everything up. This leads to the second issue: the acting is nothing to speak of, not really. (See, so I won't. ha ha)
I put the quotation marks around "issues" because these things are really not big problems - they are simply weak links I run up against when trying to consider Watchmen's standing in relation to the best films I have seen. When the production and ambience are so stunning, I must have some reason to avoid calling this one of the greatest screen marvels ever, right?
And in the final analysis, I think this sums it up: there's a prominent sex scene - I would not exactly call it gratuitous, since there is definitely a little thematic superhero/sex undercurrent going on throughout the movie - and, well, the scene is clearly meant to resonate as something triumphant (song playing: "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen). I have seen but one truly non-gratuitous triumphant sex scene, and in that case the reason is because we CARE about the characters. (That whole movie's on youtube? Wow - it is highly recommended). In Watchmen, we don't really care too deeply about the characters, and so the sex scene is...well, the kind where you raise your eyebrows and remember all those little kids you saw jumping around the theater before the lights went down.
Yeah, so on that basis, I go with 3.5 stars
....well, then there was the over-featured Dr. Manhattan Junior....alright, 3 stars.
Nah, 3.5 it is. This was no Ironman. They really did try.
*** 1/2
The soundtrack, for example: usually, little snippets of familiar pop songs get inserted into movies for the purpose of evoking some emotional/nostalgic response to fit with a scene - and then they're gone. So when in the opening montage it gradually became apparent that ALL of "The Times They Are A-Changin'" was going to be granted to us, I was pretty darn excited for the rest of the show. And it did not disappoint - the visuals, spectacular in themselves, were greatly enhanced throughout by thoughtfully extended song selections.
That introductory montage, by the way, may very well be the coolest part of the whole proceedings - it's essentially an alternate American history in which the Watchmen have...well, affected certain outcomes.
So, a four-star presentation. But how about the rest?
(See Wikipedia for plot/character info)
Here's what occured to me as I watched: Watchmen was either an incredibly ambitious attempt to smash down cliches, step outside of the typical superhero movie storytelling techniques, present a deliciously ambiguous set of themes, and essentially go where no film of its type has ever gone before; or, the source material was plain brilliant.
After a bit of research, I can confidently say that the latter is true. What that means: as far as plot and themes go, all credit must go to the director's efforts to maintain fidelity to the source. Responsibility for the great meta-superhero story construction lies solely with the creator of the original graphic novel series.
It also explains the major "issues" I have with the film. First, the scope is so huge and the style so mesmerizing that there is very little empathetic emotion expected from the audience. There is no one to feel sorry for, no character whose demise could seem truly tragic. The grandness of the story swallows everything up. This leads to the second issue: the acting is nothing to speak of, not really. (See, so I won't. ha ha)
I put the quotation marks around "issues" because these things are really not big problems - they are simply weak links I run up against when trying to consider Watchmen's standing in relation to the best films I have seen. When the production and ambience are so stunning, I must have some reason to avoid calling this one of the greatest screen marvels ever, right?
And in the final analysis, I think this sums it up: there's a prominent sex scene - I would not exactly call it gratuitous, since there is definitely a little thematic superhero/sex undercurrent going on throughout the movie - and, well, the scene is clearly meant to resonate as something triumphant (song playing: "Hallelujah" by Leonard Cohen). I have seen but one truly non-gratuitous triumphant sex scene, and in that case the reason is because we CARE about the characters. (That whole movie's on youtube? Wow - it is highly recommended). In Watchmen, we don't really care too deeply about the characters, and so the sex scene is...well, the kind where you raise your eyebrows and remember all those little kids you saw jumping around the theater before the lights went down.
Yeah, so on that basis, I go with 3.5 stars
....well, then there was the over-featured Dr. Manhattan Junior....alright, 3 stars.
Nah, 3.5 it is. This was no Ironman. They really did try.
*** 1/2
Thursday, March 5, 2009
What should I eat?
Oh, I like food, yes. In fact, at some point I was (am?) planning on putting up a post called "The argument for connoisseurship" or some such nonsense. Because you gotta eat, so why not make it interesting?
But today I wasn't sure what to have for dinner, so I went off into internet land and started typing searches like "what to eat" - and whoa. Turns out I've got it all wrong! And you've got it all wrong, too! And so does everybody else!
Because DID YOU KNOW: humans only evolved into smart things after they added fruits and animals to their diet. Naturally, this is way we were "designed" to eat: fruits, nuts, and raw animal protein.
So that's it, it's time to start eating the things we humans were meant too...oh, wait - wait, that's not right! HERE'S the answer: mostly vegetables and fiber. After all, some of the healthiest cultures on the planet eat this way. Oh, and that fiber! Fiber's very important, you see. Great for digestion; fighting constipation and irritable bowel syndrome - 8 to 10 glasses of water a day and a lot of fiber, and you're good to go.
...Oh boy. I guess I'm gonna need a re-do on that last bit. Turns out, fiber's not the way to go at all. It actually CAUSES stuff like constipation and IBS. Darn.
So I'm officially scared off of fiber. Wait, how can I eat the vegetables, now? I guess it's
....? What's this? Aw, yeah - now we're talking! I like this site. It's settled, then: animal for dinner! Nice marbled steak, maybe? Lamb, pig? Mmm...time to go shopping.
(The point being: this concept of the ideal diet is, even if not completely ridiculous, an absolute mess of an approach to making one's own food choices. But there must be some more reasonable approach, right? Stay tuned; I think we're comin' back to this one.)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)