America’s Violence Problem

I think for many people it feels like our country has a lot of problems currently. Recent events have shown we are more divided than we thought. We are divided by race, religion, political persuasion, and a whole host of other things. Sometimes these divisions feel insurmountable and unreal. I feel that we have a long ways to go to before we become the country we want to be. Nearly all minorities in this country feel marginalized by the authorities above them and are working toward change, most in productive and peaceful way. Yet, as I look at the events of the past few days, weeks, months, and years I see that America has another problem I rarely see addressed, we have a violence problem.

WHO defines violence as “the intentional use of physical force or power, threatened or actual, against oneself, another person, or against a group or community, which either results in or has a high likelihood of resulting in injury, death, psychological harm, maldevelopment, or deprivation.” I feel that in America today violence is remarkably present, both in speech and deed, in fiction and reality.

Our media is densely saturated with violence. Of the top 10 films of 2015 I would argue that six are overtly violent, of the top 10 films of 2014 I would say eight are overtly violent. When I say overtly violent I mean that violence is used as means to solve the problems presented in the film. That the protagonist and the villain both use violence to achieve their goals. In our media we are reaffirmed often that violence is a valid way to solve our problems. We also have a plethora of violent television series, violent music, and violent literature.

I am not opposed to violent art. Of those “violent movies” that came out last year I think I saw all of them, but it cannot be ignored that we, as a culture, crave violence. We are entertained by it and we want more. I am not saying violent media the cause of all our violent problems, but whether it is a symptom or a cause it is bound to leak into our broader culture and mentality.

In American culture preparing for violence is encouraged. We have copious amounts of weapons, more than any other country. We have laws to protect our right to use violent force, whether it is a conceal-and-carry permit or a “Stand Your Ground” castle law. Whether you agree or disagree with these laws or our surplus of weapons, one thing is clear, they are ingrained into our culture, our collective identity.

But why is this important? Why does it matter that our collective identity has a crucial, violent component? I would argue that many of the tragedies you see happening today are happening as a direct cause of our violent mentality. What does a Muslim man, frustrated with the culture around him of homosexuality and possibly unwilling to confront his own sexuality, do with that frustration? He resorts to mass violence. What do two teenage boys who have been bullied and beat down do with their frustration? They resort to mass violence. What does a black man and former veteran do with his frustration at the marginalize of his people and their lives? He resorts to violence against those who he perceives are a threat to his life. What does a Christian, frustrated with the state of abortion in the United States do with that frustration? He resorts to violence against those places where abortion happens.  Violence transcends race and religion.

To me its clear that violence in our country is viewed in some respects as a valid means to trying to solve your problems. Every mass shooting begins with someone who is frustrated with the current state of affairs. Yet, I would say the violence goes far beyond mass shootings. Look at the recent police shootings that have occurred in Louisiana and Minnesota. Those police officers were scared, they were frightened. Perhaps they were that way because they were racist and felt they were threatened by the “otherness” of the black man in front of them. Perhaps they had legitimate reason to be scared. Regardless, their reaction to fear was the same. Put their hand on their gun, pull it out, and try to use it as a deterrent.  When they felt that wasn’t achieved, they pulled the trigger. They saw violence as a valid solution to the problem facing them.

My father-in-law told me an interesting story the other day. He was driving to see some Christmas lights with his family. The area with the lights was filled with so many cars there were policemen directing traffic. One car wasn’t paying attention and did the opposite of what the police officer directed and the police officers response was to put his hand on his gun. Why did this police officer, at the first hint of danger, think that threatening the use of his weapon was a valid response to the problem? Because in his mind it has be reinforced that violence is the solution to problems we face.

And if our fictional media embrace violence, our news media glorify it. The 24 hours news cycle is set up waiting for mass causality events. They glorify the killers and make them famous. They plaster their names in headlines and talk about them for days on end. Sure, to some the killers are demonized but none-the-less mass killings intersect with our celebrity culture in a crude and unnecessary way. We turn murder into profit and beg for more.

I am not trying to say “Oh no, race isn’t the problem, violence is!” We have a race problem in the United States that needs to be addressed, but it goes hand in hand with our violence problem that makes officers and murderers feel like their actions are justified or even morally good. I hope next time you see violence you can consider the role it has in our culture and if it should have such prominence.

Review: Kung Fu Panda 3

Kung Fu Panda 3 is the third movie in the Kung Fu Panda series. The series is a lighthearted and enjoyable saga about a Panda becoming a Kung Fu master and along the way saving the people in his life who need his help. This was the first film I’ve ever seen in IMAX and the IMAX experience was definitely enjoyable.

What it Does Well:

The art direction in Kung Fu Panda 3 is fantastic. There is a constant blending of two dimensional and three dimensional graphics on the screen. A continual combining of bright, stark, and simple images in the background with rich animation in the foreground. As someone who has lived in Asia for quite some time I felt like the images were handcrafted to appeal to that culture, but I think anyone could enjoy them. A lot of animation movies don’t always use the full capabilities the animated genre provides (the camera can be anywhere, you can artistically do things you couldn’t possibly do with traditional film), but Kung Fu Panda keeps pushing forward to give the audience absolutely beautiful visuals.

The sound design is wonderful. It is unabashedly Asian but also dense and simple. At multiple points throughout the movie I sat in awe of the effort to create a wonderful soundtrack beautiful sound effects. This was certainly helped by the IMAX theater’s wonderful and expensive sound equipment.

The voice acting was good, there are many big names, both returning and having their first go in the franchise. While occasionally I would get distracted with the voice acting because I recognized the actors beyond the screen, I thought they did a great job making the film come to life. If an animated film has poor voice acting it can often stunt the physical enjoyment of the film and make it feel off.

Lastly, Kung Fu Panda 3 is a very funny movie. I laughed out loud what felt like countless times. The jokes are clean and the movie isn’t afraid to poke fun at itself. Jack Black in particular was born for the role of Po, the main character. His mannerisms as a voice actor are exactly what you would want in an Animated Action-Comedy like Kung Fu Panda. Overall the movie is just well written from a dialogue perspective, never failing to put in a laugh in the script. The two fathers in the film and their constant jostling over their son (Po) is also the source of a lot of great humor.

What it Doesn’t Do Well

Exposition, exposition, exposition! Exposition is when a movie tells you what is happening, or what has happened, rather than showing you it. It’s the easy way to tell a story but it is the absolute worst way, as it isn’t engaging. It’s the difference between me listing a timeline of events rather than showing you with my words the story. Exposition is often used to shorten a film or give some back story. There are multiple long scenes of exposition in Kung Fu Panda 3 despite the fact that it is the third movie in this series. You would think by this point the writers would have gotten all the exposition they needed. Alas, the large amount of exposition drags this movie down and makes it worse for quite a few reasons, chiefly messing with pacing by just being boring.

Another problem for me with this movie is how simple its message and plot are and how similar they are to the other Kung Fu Panda movies. I feel like many of the characters didn’t have fleshed out lives or stories, only Po, the main character did. I feel like the message, while innocent and nice, was so mind numbingly squeezed into the movie despite the fact that it is basically the same lesson Po learned the other two times that it isn’t worth remarking much upon.

Perhaps the worst offender though is the fact that it basically follows the exact same trope of all action-comedies. While sometimes formulas are good to get you on the right track, they can be strong hindrances to a story because a predictable film loses interest quickly. In this case there is a “big bad guy” who is “stronger than anything the main character has ever faced before” and the main character is not strong enough to defeat him initially and whether through a mundane training montage or a dull epiphany is able to take out the bad guy. This kind of plot writes itself, but is quite literally the plot of every single action movie. I’m pretty sure I complained about the same in the latest Mission Impossible movie.

Now I’m not saying no movies should use this formula, it can be good to clear your narrative focus so that other parts of the movie can shine. But if you do, you should still try to make it your own. Kung Fu Panda 3 does not do this and thus the plot is almost to the point of being a parody of a Kung Fu Panda movie.
Overall, the movie is physically a sensation to watch, with your eyes, ears, or in your lungs as you laugh, but if you start to really think about what is going on mentally behind those things you may leave the theater feeling a little disappointed.

7.3/10

 

Review: Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens

 

Warning: This review contains minor(not major) spoilers for the new Star Wars movie.

Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens is the latest film in the Star Wars space opera saga. While the series has had its highs and lows, it has often captured the collective imagination of America and is considered a modern classic. Does the newest film fall short to the series fantastic beginning or does it have more in common with the contentious prequels?

What it Does Well:

The acting in The Force Awakens is top notch, whether from newcomers like John Boyega or veterans like Harrison Ford. Almost immediately the characters are likable. Oscar Isaac as Poe made a particularly good impression on me from the first scene. He’s witty and likable as the “best pilot in the resistance,” Isaac definitely channels Ford’s Solo for some bad boy charm. Ford’s character is the central “old” character in the film and he sells a lot of scenes well, especially in terms of comedy.

Daisy Ridley plays the heroine Rey very well and in numerous scenes she displays good range. Overall, I enjoyed her character a lot. She consistently bucks the idea of “damsel in distress.” When Boyega’s character (Fin) first sees her he rushes to her aid, but before he can arrive she defeats all her would be assaulters with as little a scratch on her. She is competent, confident, and daring. While her character has room to grow, Ridley takes over when she’s in a scene.

My favorite actor in this film though is John Boyega who plays Fin. Not only is Boyega able to spar with veteran actors like Ford but he brings magic to his scenes in the same way Mark Hamill brought magic to his scenes in A New Hope. His bravery and sincerity makes him an instantly lovable character. I’m very excited to see Boyega’s character progress in the next few films.

The score is fantastic and undoubtedly Star Wars. The worlds visited are interesting and unique. The various side characters are cute, intimidating, and everything in between but never dull. The pacing of the film works very well though there is a slight lull near the halfway point. The introductory scenes are especially on point and work very well to establish everything non-verbally.

For instance, in the first scene we meet “The First Order” and witness them massacre a village. There is no doubt in our mind as an audience that they are “evil.” We also meet three new characters. In the very next scene we meet Rey and the opening shots display her physical capabilities. The film holds off on giving us Han Solo, Luke Skywalker, Chewbacca, R2D2 or any other characters we love for quite some time. I think this is good, because when those characters do enter the film they suck up our attention for nostalgia purposes.

The writing is superb. The dialogue is filled with comedic lines and characters don’t often overstate themselves. It feels like lines were chosen carefully not to be cheesy, overly sentimental, or over the top which was a huge problem with the prequel trilogy.
The film is also just beautiful overall with the cinematography often wowing the viewer. A lot of effort was put into the images put before the audience and it comes through exceptionally well. Overall the film feels like a labor of love, which is a good thing.

What it Doesn’t Do Well:

The largest problem with The Force Awakens is that it probably borrows too heavily from its predecessors. In a lot of ways one could argue that The Force Awakens is “A New Hope Part 2.” It shares a lot similar features with its predecessor. The main characters (Rey and Luke) are very similar, a lot of the locations are similar (desert planet, space tavern, “death star”), the main threat is virtually the exact same thing as the death star, there is a rescue mission, and some other things that I don’t want to spoil too heavily. One might argue that these things “rhyme” with A New Hope but sometimes it feels like the movie was made by fans wanting to capture the same lightning in a bottle rather than filmmakers trying to make something new for their generation.

But whats the big deal? If it worked before it will work again! Well that may be true, but The Force Awakens lacks a certain amount of freshness I would hope to expect. How many times can I see the death star blow up a planet before the event becomes trivial? How many times can I see tie fighters fighting X-Wings before it grows boring? How many times will I watch the Millennium Falcon just narrowly escape the clutches of the enemy? By recycling the same content a little too much, The Force Awakens can occasionally feel stale, or out of new ideas. Which is not an enviable thing.

Also, the film struggles to make up its mind on who or what Kylo Ren, the main villain is. Is he a troubled youth misusing great power? Is he a masochistic Nazi-like overlord willing to commit murder and genocide? Is he a child throwing temper tantrums? Is he a pawn in somebody elses scheme? I see that this trilogy will almost certainly revolve around him and his battle with dark side and light side in some capacity, but he is a poorly defined character. I think the writers spread themselves too thin writing him and as a result his character feels a little half baked. Adam Driver does the best he can with the material though.

Overall, I loved The Force Awakens. While there were obvious issues, it was significantly better than the prequel trilogy and every scene is enjoyable. The pacing is superb and it is a good to great action movie. JJ Abrams should be proud, because this may just be his best directorial effort yet.

9.2/10

A Retrospective on the First Six Star Wars Films

A Retrospective on the First Six Star Wars films

Over the past month I’ve had the pleasure of watching all six Star Wars films outside of The Force Awakens (which will be coming to theaters here in Asia soon). While I don’t feel like giving a “long” review of each one, I thought I would comment on each film starting with The Phantom Menace. Enjoy!

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace

This movie has a reputation for being the worst Star Wars film and I would have to agree, but maybe not for the reasons most people would think. The chief problem with The Phantom Menace is not Jar Jar Binks or the fact that one of the central plots revolves around a little kid. Rather it is the atrocious writing that leads to this film being underwhelming. Both good dialogue and narrative are sorely lacking as one watches The Phantom Menace.

The main narrative problem with The Phantom Menace is the lack of a central goal the characters are pursuing. In A New Hope we always know exactly what is going on and the characters two chief goals: rescue Princess Leia and destroy the Death Star. In Phantom Menace the characters have reasons for doing what they do, but it is often convoluted and not straightforward. It often seems like Lucas was writing from a “I want this, then this, then this to happen” rather than writing “The characters do this, therefore they do this, therefore they do this” which is a chief rule of screenwriting.

Another example of poor writing is the character Darth Maul, who, while visually intimidating is a complete bore as a character, only serving to provide a lightsaber fight and move the plot along. Darth Maul has seriously no characteristics whatsoever one could point to other than he wields a cool lightsaber.

Ultimately the poor writing brings down the film and even makes it incomprehensible at times. The main positive thing about The Phantom Menace is that it has some of the most visually interesting costume, sets, and characters of the entire Star Wars saga. Also, the score is fantastic. Sadly a well written film with boring visuals is significantly better than a poorly written film with great visual effects.

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

While Attack of the Clones is a slightly better film than The Phantom Menace it is far less memorable. A theme with the prequel films is that they are poorly written and Attack of the Clones is no exception. Once again there is a very underdeveloped Sith Lord (Count Dooku), he is more fleshed out than Maul but still nowhere near as interesting as Vader (perhaps having the same Sith Lord throughout the prequels would have helped rather than recycling a new one every movie). The love plot between Anakin and Padme is boring at best, cheesy at worst. Obi-Wan’s detective side plot is mildly interesting but doesn’t do enough to bring the film up.

While Anakin slaughtering a bunch of sand people was interesting, it seemed like it was more important to Lucas to show a bunch of Jedi fighting droids and then storm troopers in a massive fight than to write a compelling story. Ultimately Attack of the Clones flows much better than The Phantom Menace and has slightly more developed characters, but it really isn’t much better than its predecessor.

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

I will come out and say it, Revenge of the Sith is the best of the prequels and quite a bit better than the other two. Sadly, I don’t think it is nearly as a good as the praise it receives. Yes it is “dark” and it has the longest lightsaber battle between two characters in the entire saga, but ultimately its very poorly written like its brothers. What makes this film better in my opinion is the better acting and more focused plot.

Once again we are introduced to a new “Big Bad Guy” (General G) but he’s just another boring bad guy for Obi-Wan to dispose of in a spectacular way. The fight with General G has almost no narrative bearing. Anakin turning to the dark side is contrived and there is no tension in the audience because we already know he is going to do it. “Dark” doesn’t make a movie good and all the action scenes don’t have the rest of the saga emotionally backing them up. Think about when Luke and Vader face off in Return of the Jedi. Luke is overwhelmed and frustrated, when he gets Vader on the ground he hacks away at him with no finesse, just raw emotion. He is giving into his feeling, but just when it seems he has he given into his emotions, he pulls away and saves his father. That fight is informed by everything that has come before it.

The fight with General G or even between Anakin and Obi-Wan seem drawn out and boring in comparison, that’s because they are drawn out and boring. There isn’t much emotional payoff in the prequels because as an audience we are not invested in the characters, we don’t really care about them because they aren’t interesting. To me the most interesting character of the prequels is Emperor Palpatine who actually seems to know what he wants and pursues his goals in a logical way.

Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope

There is such a sharp change in quality between the original trilogy and the prequels. A New Hope is my personal favorite Star Wars film and it never disappoints. While ultimately I wouldn’t call it a triumph of film as an art form like I would Chungking Express, 2001: A Space Odyssey, or Blue Velvet it is a fantastic adventure that is well acted and introduces the audience to a unique world they will grow to love.

A New Hope’s primary strengths are its straightforward plot, memorable characters, and sheer inventiveness. Most concepts Lucas seems to pick out of air are incredibly unique and interesting: lightsabers, the Death Star, the Millenium Falcon, etc all feel like labors of love with tons of effort put into them to make then interesting and endearing. A New Hope is a modern classic.

The characters in A New Hope are all well developed. Luke is a lonesome farmer boy seeking adventure, Han is a prideful, world wearied smuggler, Leia is an idealistic, hot headed resistance leader, Vader is a ruthless, fear inducing machine monster, Obi-Wan is a wise old master of mysticism. Somehow even R2D2, who has no speaking lines and is basically just a hunk of metal seems more developed as a character than most action film stars.

The plot is extremely linear, but that is a good thing. Outside of the opening scene we are mostly in hands of Luke as he starts in Tatooine and ends destroying the Death Star. The characters goals are always clear, Luke wants to save Leia, escape the Death Star, then destroy the Death Star. Vader wants to destroy the resistance. Han mainly wants money and to survive, but we sense good in him. Leia wants the rebellion to succeed, etc.

When characters goals and their characteristics are well defined you can start putting them in interesting places just to see how they react. One of the best scenes in the entire saga is the trash compactor scene where we see all our main characters stressed about dying and stuck in a trash compactor. They never give up, even though their feeble attempts at stopping the compactor are fruitless. They argue with one another and fight, yet they rejoice together when R2D2 saves their skins. To me the trash compactor scene is not only one of the most memorable moments in all action films, but it is also emblematic of everything the original trilogy does right.

Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back

Most would consider this film to be the best in the entire saga. It is a significantly darker second act to A New Hope’s mostly optimistic introduction to the story. By the end of this movie Han is in carbonite and Luke has lost his hand. We see the rebels lose an outpost and we see the empire flex their muscles, showing that some rebels aren’t so easily going to beat them.

The great reveal that Darth Vader is Luke’s father is one of the most memorable moments in all of film. Yoda, one of the few new characters introduced in this movie is also an incredibly memorable character both in his reveal as a Jedi master and his unique personality as a bizarre, but wise old alien.

What Empire does poorly is for the most part our characters are aimless. Leia and Han spend the entire movie running from their problems. Luke goes to study to become a Jedi but the entire time he is lost in thoughts about Vader, Leia, and Han. Vader seems to be the only decisive main character. This is the exact same problem with the prequels as well. Without action oriented characters an action movie can suffer from stagnation. The middle section of Empire does and to me that is the biggest problem with the film. Though overall I would say Empire is very good and worth watching many times.

Star Wars Episode VI: Return of the Jedi

Return of the Jedi is, in my opinion, the weakest of the original trilogy, but still better than any of the prequels. While there are some great scenes, like the aforementioned throne room confrontation between Luke, Vader, and the Emperor, mostly this film suffers from just being boring. The introduction at Jabba’s palace lacks tension for the most part and the battle of Endor is far too comedic to feel like something important is happening. Despite more significant events in theory happening in Return of the Jedi they pale in emotional reality to A New Hope or Empire.

Vader turning good and the Emperor’s attempts to convert Luke to the dark side are the finest parts of Return of the Jedi and they seem to be the most fully thought out sections. Sadly, the rest of the film feels more like “set pieces” (aka: Wouldn’t it be cool if our characters were here doing this?) rather than fully thought out narrative decisions.

While Return of the Jedi could be a stronger film, it is still an enjoyable finale to the original trilogy. My ranking (without having seen The Force Awakens) would be as follows: A New Hope, Empire, Return of the Jedi, Revenge of the Sith, Attack of the Clones, The Phantom Menace.

If you’ve never seen the Star Wars films do yourself a favor and rent them or something. They are well worth watching even if it isn’t a genre you aren’t normally interested in.

Quick Hits: The Four Movies I Watched on the Plane

On long plane rides to Asia life moves rather slow. Luckily the airlines provide an ample amount of entertainment for their passengers. Here are some quick thoughts on movies I watched on the plane. Because I watched them without the intent to really grade them I’m just going to give them a grade out of 5. Also note: When I’m in a situation where I’m stuck watching movies with headphones in on a tiny screen I generally try to pick movies I’m not very interested in seeing, because the experience on a plane isn’t very enjoyable on the whole.

War Games (1983)

Oh Matthew Broderick, how good you were in the 80s. This movie is kind of dull but I hadn’t seen it in a long time so I thought I’d check it out. The acting is very stale and the plot is a little confusing. The first scene, which features two men having to launch nuclear missles and one failing to do so, was a fantastic and intense way to represent the cold war. Sadly the rest of the movie really lacks vision, pacing, and direction. It is telling that a movie may not be very good if the biggest change to any character from beginning to end was a computer realizing that tic-tac-toe(and “Global Thermonuclear War) are games where there is no winner. There isn’t much meaning to discuss besides the obvious cold war tensions and the extremely obvious message of “THE ONLY WINNING MOVE IS NOT TO PLAY.” I would only recommend you watch this movie out of nostalgia.

2/5

Mission: Impossible (1996)

Another star driven film about government conflict, but this time heading by a much more competent actor and clearer purpose. Spoiler Alert! I think the “plot twist” of the mentor betraying his team was so obvious I don’t know how anyone in the theater at the time didn’t see it. This is not as good as Rogue Nation or Ghost Protocol. To me it is very obvious that Tom Cruise has grown as an actor over time. He characters in the 80s and 90s aren’t bad, and he carries the films he is in but he isn’t as comfortable as he is in later roles. Anyway, Mission: Impossible is a very enjoyable film to watch though for a modern action palette it lacks finesse and the computer oriented special effects are not that good. The iconic centerpiece of the film where Cruise comes down from the ceiling to steal some data is absolutely fantastic and has amazing sound editing(something I praised Rogue Nation for). Overall, it’s not a game changer but it is enjoyable.

3/5

Quantum of Solace (2008)

You may be seeing a theme emerge here (three movies which have the word “spy” all over the place). Anywho, I had never seen this film before but I was interested in seeing why people thought it wasn’t very good. It did not disappoint (in being bad, that is). This film is a convoluted mess and nothing is firmly established. Two lesser characters die and we are supposed to be sad but we aren’t, we barely understand why they were there in the first place. The main villains plot is to steal water in Bolivia and sell it for twice the price? That is hardly interesting. The introduction firmly sets us as chasing a big bad spy organization with “people everywhere” but we keep forgetting about it and are nowhere closer by the end of the film? Even the action scenes make little sense, the plane sequence is a little boring but more importantly doesn’t make a ton of logical sense. Why don’t the fighter jets just back off a little instead of kamikazing into the mountains like amateurs. In fact, many of the action scenes in this feel more about Bond’s foes incompetence than Bond’s amazing spy abilities. The opening scenes are okay, the acting and writing is servicable, but this film feels very underwhelming in comparing to Skyfall or Casino Royale. Then again, the Bond series has always been very hit or miss.

2/5

Heaven Adores You (2014)

This documentary on the life and afterlife of singer-songwriter Elliott Smith (of whom I am a big fan) is nothing special. It’s mostly just Smith’s real life friends talking about him. I don’t think the film captures what made Smith so special which is too bad. There are also a lot of long cuts where we just look at Portland/LA/New York with some of his music playing. I feel like more effort could have been put into this film, both by the friends/family and the filmmaker himself. Overall this is nothing special, decidedly average.

2.5/5

On Memories

I don’t know how most people look into the past, but my gut instinct is that for a lot of folks the past is a collection of stories and events that are, for the most part, easily recalled. A story is ultimately intangible, just like the past is. Sometimes it can take you by surprise. The past is often loaded with emotions, thoughts, and desires so forgotten and buried that upon unearthing they have changed. They mean something different today than they did then, and sometime in the future, they will mean something different than they do now. There is no telling what the past will become to you until you are there.

Life is filled with keys to yesteryear, but they are easily disguised. The easiest key to the past is the persons with whom the past was experienced. Just seeing or thinking of an old friend or acquaintance can bring back memories long forgot. I think our minds work in such a way that most events are tethered to the people who were there. It’s hard to remember times when you were alone, and perhaps even more strangely, the ones I do remember being alone I remember specifically because of other people. I remember crying in my room after a bad break up in high school, I remember driving away alone from Milwaukee after dropping off one of my closest friends at his home, I remember sitting in the car not wanting to leave after dropping Deborah off at the airport only days after asking her out. I remember these times because of the people who weren’t there, not because of what was happening in that time or place.

For me a huge “key” is music. Crying in my room at the aforementioned breakup, I was listening to “High and Dry” by Radiohead, I can’t hear that song without at least somewhat feeling the emotions I felt that day, even though I am completely over that relationship, in fact it has almost been a decade. I’m extraordinarily grateful that I have shapeshifting musical tastes. When I hear a song I used to listen to often, but haven’t heard in years, like “Soul Meets Body” by Death Cab for Cutie, my thought train steps into a time machine. Sometimes for better or sometimes for worse. In a decade will I hear “On GP” by Death Grips and be transported to 2015, remembering how everything felt for me? I hope so.

Sometimes a “key” becomes degraded. From the first time I watched Wall-E until the day I got married I did not cry once, I’m not bragging or anything, it is just fact, it doesn’t mean anything about who I am or my “manliness.” I cried during the scene in which Wall-E sacrifices himself by putting his body in the machine to stop it from going down. I always thought this was an incredibly emotional scene because of how I reacted to it, but upon rewatching the film a few months ago, I found that the scene did barely anything to me emotionally. I was surprised by this, but maybe I shouldn’t have been.

I’m sure you have keys to your past, maybe they are photographs, places, or objects. While they are ordinary to everyone but you, that doesn’t mean they aren’t special. The things that tether us to the past are also the things that tether us to ourselves. When we disregard the past or try to destroy it we only end up disregarding or destroying part of ourselves. I’m not advocating for you to let your past rule your life, but rather that your past will always inform who you are, whether you want it to or not. I think acknowledging this actually gives you more control than otherwise.

The False Distinction Between Pro-Life and Pro-Birth

Recently I’ve seen a few comics and articles criticizing “Pro-Life” individuals as not being Pro-Life but rather Pro-Birth. Their meaning, of course, is that people who are against abortion are not really affirming life, but rather, are affirming birth, but nothing more. Since most Pro-Life individuals are also fiscally conservative and align with the Republican Party, they are generally opposed to social welfare programs that would help a newborn child in a bad situation. Thus, they are not truly “for” the child’s life, only its birth.

While I think part of this distinction is more for a sort of comedic, poking fun at, purpose than a truly logical argument, it is still a troubling piece of rhetoric. It is definitely a piece of oppositional rebranding, which is commonplace in today’s political landscape.. For instance, I would rather say my opponent is “Anti-Troops” when he is trying to reduce the military budget, while he might say he is trying to create a “leaner, more effective” military. The way an argument is framed can go a long ways to how people react to it.

Abortion is framed completely differently based on who is telling it. If you talk to someone who is Pro-Choice, they will frame the issue nearly entirely from the woman’s perspective, as an issue of women’s rights. The fetus inside a woman is not so dissimilar from removing a tumor, and ultimately a woman has the autonomy to decide whether or not she can remove it and no one else.

But the Pro-Life side frames the argument from the perspective of the fetus, who they would call a child for rhetorical effect(the word fetus is used by Pro-Choicers for the same reason). For them, this child is basically going to be murdered before it is even born. There is nothing in our society we consider more innocent than a child, so for a Pro-Life individual abortion is a deeply tragic injustice. I think their emotional response to abortion is even greater than a normal emotional response to murder.

I’m not here to tell you which side of the argument to be on, but I think both sides of this debate are often very unempathetic and don’t understand their opponent’s reasoning, a large part of this is framing. Context and framing are important, but to completely buy into one frame of mind or context is dangerous in almost any circumstance. For instance, most Pro-Life people do not fully comprehend that there is really no one who is truly “pro abortion” and by that I mean that no one thinks abortion is in itself a good thing. No one gets pregnant with the purpose of getting an abortion. Rather Pro-Choice people view abortion as an necessary evil. Remember, they too know that abortion is unhealthy for the body.

Now that I’ve laid all that context out, it is very disingenuous to call Pro-Life people “Pro-Birth” as if they do not care about the child after it has been born. First of all, it is completely unequivocal to compare what Pro-Life individuals consider murder with a low quality of life. If that logic held up, it would be completely okay to murder homeless people. A person living a poor life still has infinitely more value than a person not living any life at all.

Second of all, people who are fiscally conservative are not that way because they are in some way “anti-life.” Rather, they think that the best way to live life is with less taxes and more money for individuals to improve their lives. Whether or not you agree with them(I often don’t), they feel like people have a higher quality of life when they are better able to spend the money they earn. Thus they want a leaner, smaller government that does more of the “bare minimum” than gets involved in people’s personal affairs. To call these people “anti-life” is to assume that because their personal policies don’t align with your own, they must be malicious in their intent. I would argue that a good rule of thumb is that most people do not have malicious intent in almost anything they do. Obviously maliciousness does exist, but most people are genuinely trying to do what they think is the right thing.

So I guess what I’m trying to say is that we should be careful when we start making broad accusations about somebody else and their beliefs. Just because someone does not agree with you does not mean they are wrong. People often see the same facts and come to a different conclusion in this complicated, gray world we live in. Don’t demonize or ostracize them for that, or else you may find yourself the villain upon reflection.

Review: Batman Begins (2005)

Christopher Nolan’s Batman Begins kicked off one of the better superhero trilogies I’ve seen. Recently, I convinced Deborah to rewatch Batman kick crime in the face in spectacular fashion. So soon there will also be reviews for The Dark Knight and The Dark Knight Returns. Overall, a thing to focus on for the duration of the series the question Nolan keeps going back to “What does it mean to be a hero?” While for some people, this question may feel easy to answer, Nolan dives into the nuances of heroes and hero worship, which is perhaps the most interesting theme that goes through all these movies. Now, onto Batman Begins.

What It Does Well:

I think overall one thing that this film does very well is convey Batman/Bruce Wayne’s back story without getting montage manic or predictable. While the way Nolan jumps from childhood Bruce to Ra’s al Ghul training, to college Bruce can feel a little disorienting, it is a good way to edit his background because it conveys urgency and allows Nolan to overlay themes that will be important to the film. The most important theme in this section, that will continue throughout the trilogy, is the complicated idea of justice. Ra’s al Ghul is an extremist, who pushes a kind of black and white way to view the world and justice and takes morally drastic measures to mete out this justice. Batman rebels against this mode of thought, even though it limits his ability to combat evil throughout all three films.

Once the story really gets rolling, it’s pretty easy to follow the action. Batman is trying to clean up crime, starting at the top with the notorious Falconi family and their drug trade. Through them he gets mixed up with Scarecrow and finds a great plot to destroy Gotham, and must save the day. Batman is, first and foremost, a detective and this movie displays that very well. The audience are always on the tail of figuring out what exactly is going on, but nothing is given away too early to make us feel as if Batman is incompetent.

The theme of fear works its way into this film in several different ways, Bruce turns his fear of bats into a strength by becoming Batman, Scarecrow uses fear to induce panic, and Ra’s al Ghul teaches how to live without fear. The climax of the movie involves an entire section of Gotham becoming entrenched in fear inducing steam. I think this works very well as it ebbs and flows within the film, though it is a little obvious, and fits in with the themes of Batman very well. I love Scarecrow in this film, especially the clinical way Cillian Murphy approaches the role. His presence on the screen always feels as if something is awry, creepy, or wrong, but not in an easily identifiable way.

I like the cinematography, especially in the early Asia scenes. Nolan captures the vastness of these areas well, making Bruce Wayne seem small. Wayne realizing his smallness, and how to utilize it, is a part of Batman on display. Nolan generally shoots things very well and he doesn’t opt for the easiest way to shoot a scene. He is no Fincher or PTA but I feel Nolan finds a nice balance between doing things the easy, effective way, and experimenting with finding new ways to bring out the world.

What It Doesn’t Do Well:

While I think Batman Begins’ flaws are numerous, none are particularly huge drains on the film. For instance, the intro feels a little long, but not so long as to drag the entire film down. There is a lot to go over, so lets break it down a little bit.

First of all, the acting throughout this film is way too static unless a character has been fear gassed. Katie Holmes is particularly boring when she is on screen. I don’t know what is up with her timing(when she says her lines) but it always feels late and off to me. But outside of her, Christian Bale, while a terrific actor in other films, barely has any range as Batman, it’s as if he has no emotion. Hell, Ra’s al Ghul comments on his rage and anger that fills him, but that is never seen in acting, only in action and discussion. I can understand why Bruce Wayne would be filled with anger, but that doesn’t mean Bale communicates this well.

Liam Neeson, Michael Caine, and Gary Oldman are all great actors as well, but in this movie, none of them have many lines or scenes where they are allowed to express themselves. Overall, the characters themselves are interesting, but these performances don’t contribute much to that at all. The reason why this is dangerous in terms of the quality of the film is that instead of drawing the audience in emotionally to this cool story with pathos, Nolan expects that because it’s “Batman” people will automatically be emotionally invested in what happens to him. I want to empathize with these characters, not just see them do cool things. Note: This problem is actually much less severe in the next two movies, but we will get to them later.

Another problem I have with this film is the use of the score. In almost every scene there is a sweeping orchestral soundtrack pushing the film along. This is a cheap trick to make the film seem like it is moving along quickly but it is so overused that it can almost feel like parody of emotional films. I feel like the score actually tries to cover up the acting by giving the audience subtle emotional musical cues, while this kind of “hot fix” may work to fill in the gap left by poor writing or acting, it should never be the case in a great film. This is a complaint I generally have about Nolan, instead of relying on his story and characters, which are genuinely interesting, to pull the audience in, he relies far too much on the things that support a film, but are not center to them, like cinematography, soundtrack, themes, or unique ideas to keep the audience interested.

One complaint I have is the general lighting and color palette used to bring Gotham to life. It’s over saturated with yellows and is overly dreary. While Gotham may not be the best place to live, no place in the world really looks like this, so it feels inauthentic. Luckily, Nolan fixes this to a large extent in the sequels, but here it is sometimes a distraction and having the same color palette(black and orange/yellow) through an entire movie becomes boring for the eyes.

Overall, Batman Begins is an enjoyable movie with some good qualities, but it’s just not very memorable. If The Dark Knight never came out Batman Begins would probably be easily forgotten by most people. That doesn’t mean it is bad, it just means it isn’t great.

7.8/10

Review: Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation (2015)

Tom Cruise and Simon Pegg reunite as spies against the world in Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation(henceforth known as MI:RN). I am not overly familiar with the Mission Impossible series, but I have seen Ghost Protocol and MI:3 so I generally knew what I was getting into when we went to watch this film. Ghost Protocol was a surprisingly good film and Deborah and I both were at least a little excited to see its sequel. Lets see how it stacks up. There will be light spoilers for the film below.

What It Does Well:

The thing that jumped out to me as great in this film was kind of surprising to me, but the sound editing was fantastic! Sound editing is one of those things that can subtly make or break a scene or a film. Bad sound editing can take the viewer out of a film while good sound editing can pull them further in. A lot of the things a film does are subconscious, but sound editing has to be one of the more difficult things to notice out of the blue. So what does good sound editing look (or rather sound) like?

There is a scene that takes place almost entirely underwater near the midway point of MI:RN. Now people have been doing underwater scenes for decades and generally have the same tricks to make the audience feel as if this is all occurring underwater. While MI:RN mostly follows the playbook, the way the sounds in the scene work feels just perfect to accent the tone of the scene. They oscillate between quiet and loud, which creates a natural rhythm to the scene that really drew me in. The vehicle scenes were also fantastically done, specifically the ones on the motorcycles, where the sound of the engines eclipsed everything else, bringing a sense of thrill to these scenes. I loved the way these scenes were pushed to their limits in terms of sound and I kind of hope to see this film get a nominations for sound editing. I may be wrong about this editing being great but I really liked it!

The other sound component, the soundtrack, is used to good effect here as well. The MI theme is instantly recognizable and brings a playful enjoyment to any scene it is in but is not overplayed. The film also knows when to cut back the soundtrack and become silent. Silence is an underrated tool that can really make a scene. I love it when silence is used in films correctly and in at least a few scenes it is done well here. Lastly, I wanted to reference the Opera scene which beautiful blends music with sound effects and silence. If you do watch this film, key your ear in to what’s going on, it’s really wonderful.

The cold open (or the first scene which jumps right into the action) is fantastic, and made all the better by knowing what Tom Cruise went through to perform the stunt. The shot of Cruise hanging onto to the side of the plane is iconic in its own right and sets the tone of the movie right away. Cruise’s performance is standard Cruise, but that’s a good thing. I feel like he is a good action star and brings his all into every movie he is in.

I like the spy thriller genre and I think this movie balances being overly action oriented and overly drama oriented well Or in other words the flow of the film is good, there is no nonstop action but there is also no tedious exposition weighing down the plot. Also, the comedy of Simon Pegg, Jeremy Renner, and Alec Baldwin is pretty fun and enjoyable as a relief throughout the film.

What it Doesn’t Do Well:

The biggest problem of this film for me is the ultimate meaninglessness of it. While it is all good fun to see Cruise running around with a beautiful woman and his nerdy best friend saving the world from an underground organization of spies, the characters go virtually nowhere in terms of maturity or understanding of the world from beginning to end. The biggest growth we see in Cruise’s chracter is that he now can “beat” the big bad guy who he couldn’t before. He did not grow at all to do this, rather he just finally got the upper hand by allowing himself to be used. There is no lesson to be gained from watching this film. I’m not looking for the meaning of life in a Mission Impossible movie, but when a whole film occurs with nothing to really show for it from its main characters, I have to question why the film was even made. What is MI:RN trying to communicate about the human experience? Besides possibly “overcome your obstacles by out maneuvering them”, I can’t really see anything being communicated here on that level.

I also think overall the villain of the story could have been more fleshed out. While I get where he is coming from, knowing his beef with the world and why he wants to change it in an unethical way, that doesn’t mean I’m able to empathize with him. Ultimately this character is a pretty shallow bad guy, mostly feeling like just an obstacle for Ethan Hunt to overcome rather than a fleshed out character in his own right.

Lastly, I feel like the cathartic ending could have been spruced up a little bit more, it’s actually a little anti-climatic for me. I feel there are at least four scenes in MI:RN I would say are more intense than its climax and that really shouldn’t be the case in an action film. I feel like maybe the writer lost steam when trying to figure out exactly where they were trying to go to finish it all. Compared to the interesting locations used throughout the film, the final locale is a letdown and even worse, the location doesn’t add to the scene in the same way location added to the Opera scene or the underwater scene or the airplane scene. I would have liked to see a bigger ending for Ethan Hunt to finally catch his man.

Overall, MI:RN is at its best when it is dazzling us with its amazing set pieces, whether we’re swimming underwater, flying through the air, in a daring motorcycle chase, or just running through the streets of London. These scenes are pitch perfect in terms of tone and intensity, especially combined with the fantastic score, sound editing, and cinematography. But the well paced, story-oriented, scenes in between these set pieces leave much to be desired. Those well shot and well edited scenes would be so much more powerful if only I truly felt connected to who was in them and why they were there.

7/10

Review: Robin Hood (1973)

Once again, this review is a little late so my memory of this film is a little hazy but Robin Hood(1973) is part of the post-Walt Disney Disney animations, many of which are not classics in the way Walt, or the 1990s Disney movies are. I read an article praising this film, particularly for its characters, so I decided to check it out.

What It Does Well:

As predicted by the article I read, which almost surely informed my opinion, the characters of Robin Hood are its most enduring asset, so I’m going to focus on them. Our protagonist is the sly fox, Robin Hood, who is daring, clever, and filled with a sense of economic social justice. He is an icon for the people around him. One great thing done with his character is showing how the extremes of his personality, like his courageous nature, can also be negative things. When he disguises himself to take part in the archery competition, even though Prince John is actively looking for him, we the audience know its a bad idea. Even Little John, Robin Hood’s sidekick, knows it is a bad idea, but Robin Hood can’t be stopped. We see the dangers of excessive bravado when he is caught and almost killed. We again see these dangers when he has to steal ALL of Prince John’s money, not even able to spare a few bags under the lion’s arms, and again it almost costs Robin Hood his life.

Little John himself is a good character too. Instead of just being a “bumbling sidekick” to the clever Robin Hood, Little John is a smart and active character. His role acting as the Duke of Chutney adds a cool dimension to his character that isn’t usually present in a sidekick. While the rest of the film feels like it takes place in medieval times, Little John speaks modernly and his suit as the “Duke” is modern. He’s cool and he knows it, or at least he’s playing at it.

A lot of what the characterization does well is in how no character is dull. Every character has a few unique traits, which are often contrasted with one another. Friar Tuck for instance is a good meaning badger but has a temper. Maid Marion is a soft spoken fox but has a thirst for adventure. Sir Hiss is a cunning snake but has to constantly flatter Prince John to maintain his power. Prince John himself acts authoritatively, easily yelling commands, but is deeply insecure about his power.

These extra dimensions are what bring this characters to life and make them memorable. Many children’s movies have simple characters that have little to no nuance, but Robin Hood is not one of them. Overall these characters are the strongest aspect of the film. Other aspects of the film that I enjoyed were its humor, specifically in its verbal jokes, and the overall tone which was very playful.

What It Doesn’t Do Well:

There are a few things about this film that don’t work very well. First of all, it often feels as if this film is just a string of animated set pieces that the writer thought entertain the audience. It starts with a robbery, jumps to an archery competition, and then a prison break. Ideally a movie should not function as a series of “and thens” but rather “therefores.” While this is technically true of Robin Hood, as they make up reasons to get from one set piece to another, those logical threads are thin at best. It is a little sad to see such memorable characters forced into situations based on off screen decrees by Prince John rather than seeing them develop over time together.

Another thing that is painfully bad about this movie is its animation. I know it is an older film and cannot be held to the standards of animation today, but the animation here does not even hold up to films decades younger like Cinderella, Snow White, or The Lady and the Tramp. Part of this is that after Walt Disney passed away, Disney Animations stopped devoting as much resources to the animation itself. The problem is, if you take away from the animation it can affect the entire tone and energy of a film.

Many of the sequences within Robin Hood that are supposed to be exciting are filled with dull and glib colors and static, scarcely filled backgrounds. These scenes, which are supposed to be exciting, are mostly a bore to watch now. Compared, for instance, to the original Fantasia which still has memorable animation and lush scenery, Robin Hood does not look like a movie thirty-three years older. In fact, much of the animation in the film is borrowed from The Aristocats, which goes to show how little the producers wanted to finance this film and make it great.

Overall, Robin Hood is a memorable film with memorable characters, but it is not timeless due to limitations on its animation and narrative. I would recommend someone check it out if they are interested in story writing and creating lush, interesting characters. If you have nostalgia from watching this movie as a kid, it will probably still entertain, but not for the same reasons you may have enjoyed it years ago.

6/10