Revamp

After much consideration and a long period of inactivity, it's time to reboot this string of musing from the beginning. The first time I started this, it was merely a space to toss around writings about an array of topics. I wanted it to have the open feel of a random conversation sparked with a stranger about a common interest or observation. Over time though I've come to the realization that this has become somewhat of a deserted one way street and when that happens you have to take a sharp turn. In the words of words of Kurt Vonnegut, "Another flaw in the human character is that everybody wants to build and nobody wants to do maintenance." So it's time to do some renovations, don't worry though, nothing too George Lucas-esque. Think more Apocalypse Now Redux. 

The Social Network

The concept of taking Ben Mezrich’s book Accidental Billionaires (2009) and turning it into a feature length film came with mass skepticism from many, including myself. There never seemed like there was an audience clamoring to know the story behind Facebook. However, once Aaron Sorkin wrote the screenplay and David Fincher decided to direct, it slowly became clear that this was not going to be the one note film it could’ve have been.

If anything, The Social Network (2010) is a prime example of taking a marginalized concept and associating it with the right creative minds to formulate an intricately entertaining result. Sorkin’s script is filled with wittingly scathing dialogue and fully developed main characters, when you mix that with Fincher’s visual style it becomes the concise consolidation of all the right components. The Social Network (2010) is more than just a film about the foundation of Facebook, it’s about alienation, greed, and the silicon daydreams of the 21st century.

Mark Zukerburg’s character (Jesse Eisenberg) goes from eating dinner with his girlfriend Erica at a crowded bar to being alone in a deposition room clicking the refresh button on his computer. This beginning and end fully encapsulate the disparity that exists between online social networking and reality. All the notoriety in the world is never going to get him back the girl and the best friend he has lost along the way. It’s not all misfortune though, Sorkin knows how to get humor from each situation that he can and Fincher keeps the non-linear storyline moving at a balanced pace.

Another factor that adds to the film is the soundtrack. Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross lend the heartbeat to all the proceedings. The ominous tones and electronic beats are calculatingly cold, adding another layer to the themes of the plot.

How much of The Social Network (2010) is non-fiction is irrelevant. It does not set out to be a true life account of an event or the lives of others. Instead it is more interested in the underlying notions of the virtual world we visit from day to day and the greed of a new grassroots digital industry. Are you logged in yet?

Inception Review

There are certain stories that have the ability to divide personal tastes and opinions. Sometimes a plot has many layers and points of perspective, which make it difficult for an audience member to fully grasp all the intrinsic ideas inherit within. Usually, Hollywood stays away from story structures like these, because they are afraid of what I like to call the “bewilderment effect,” since it seems their target demographics do not like ambiguity. Mostly, mainstream exigent films sneak by in the awards season and the summer is left barren. So, when something like Inception comes around during this time, it gives me hope that maybe not everything is being made for the lowest denominator. Now, it is very evident, after walking out of this film, that it will divide people. Some will be completely confused by it, others will recognize it as a complex engaging piece and others will dismiss it because of their inability to fully grasp all the subtleties.

I don’t think once is enough with Inception, there are too many little details that might just pass us by as we try to keep up with the maze-like narrative. Actually, if you pay enough attention, it’s not complex at all; every character explains all the rules and it doesn’t attempt to confound. Instead, what is complex are the ideas and the implications of said notions. Dreams folding into other dreams, characters sharing the same subconscious, memories and self-denial, are just some of the topics grazing the surface. The more you dig deeper into this film, the more you will find the second or third time around. The ambiguity of the ending just adds an extra incentive to give it another go. Consequently, it stimulates conversation and debate amongst different crowds and that is where it excels. It’s not the type of thing you just passively walk out of and just forget. No matter what you're preference might be, Inception works as a platform for discussion and this is the true function every medium of artistic expression.

Prelude to Inception

There is one day left until Inception (2010) reaches theaters. Usually the summer is when production companies shelf out their known commodities to audiences. Reboots, remakes, and other brand names saturate theaters. Most filmgoers leave the summer season with a saccharine induced headache of generalized proportions. So it is surprising that a mind warp feature like Inception would have the stamina to make it through all the shallow fare. Not only is it a new commodity, it is also almost indefinable in terms of plot mechanics. It is the black sheep of the summer season and I have utmost respect for Christopher Nolan for releasing what seems to be a cerebral story that mixes genres and ideas at a time when not many chances are taken. I will have my final verdict on Inception after its opening weekend, but in the mean time I thought I would do a small retrospective on some of Nolan’s work.

1. Memento (2000). Nolan is the kind of director who enjoys playing with time and structure. This film has the pleasure of moving the opposite direction most viewers are used to. It starts at the ending and moves its way to the begginning. It’s not about how it ends; it’s about how we got there. Memento addresses ideas about illusion and memory in a jigsaw puzzle like structure. Everything is from the perspective of a fractured mind, an unreliable narrator, whose perspective of reality is manufactured from Polaroids and written clues. In the end though I think this bittersweet line summarizes the film best, “We all lie to ourselves to be happy.



2. The Prestige (2006). Now, I haven’t checked out The Following (1998), maybe that would be in second place if I had and Insomnia (2002) is solid, but personally it is one of Nolan’s weakest efforts. So, The Prestige will just have to be my second choice. Now this is another one where time and perception is deconstructed. It moves in a non-linear fashion, but is carried by a very linear sense of obsession, revenge and mystery. The plot structure is the key here; it is built around the process of an illusionary trick: the pledge, the trick and the prestige. Nevertheless, the reason I placed The Prestige in second place is firmly based on the ambiguity of the ending. What at first seems like an obvious reveal is actually hidden with a haunting meaning.

3. The Dark Knight (2008) and Batman Begins (2005). I placed both of these in the same category because I think they are connected by the chronology presented in them, but also because they are an extension of themselves. Begins is the set up for Dark Knight and the context presented in both makes each one a better film. Now, of course, Dark Knight is far more superior when it's compared to Begins, but that is mostly because of the characters of Joker and Harvey Dent. Without these two characters, it would not be the pinnacle of superhero entertainment many make it out to be. Actually I would go so far as to say that Batman Begins is Batman’s story and The Dark Knight belongs to Joker and Harvey Dent. However, both  films are prime examples of the comic book genre done right.

The Closing Statements on Lost

Lost was always an easy show to get pulled into. There were so many different mysteries, character archs and mythology to shift through. What started as a two part pilot for ABC became a fan favorite and launched six seasons of back and forth story telling. Of course from its very inception, Lost always seemed like the type of story with a twist ending. Fans were always speculating about the varied ways the show could end. So no matter what the writers were going to come up with for last night’s final episode, it would never have come close to anyone’s high expectations. However, after six seasons of stringing their audience along for the ride, it seems like Jeffery Lieber and Damon Lindelof gave up on most of the elements that made Lost so intriguing. Instead they opted out for a dramatic character driven ending that rang full of eager sentimentality. Not to say that is a bad thing, but not the right way to go for a show like this. Especially since, they kind of decide to finish everything in a way contrary to their stated promises. The “It is all a dream” or “They are all dead” theories weren’t far off. The writers kind of subtly switched it around and ordered up the typical expected ending with a means of plausible deniability. Basically, yeah, the whole sideways universe was purgatory, but everything that happened on the island is real. Now this is where the final episode goes off the tracks. It spends too much time resolving the sideways universe and not enough time on the island. Sure, certain events are resolved in reality, but none of it culminates into a satisfying ending. The most memorable moment was the final scene of Jack slowly dying in the same bamboo forest he woke up in at the beginning of the pilot. There a few other moments like that throughout the episode, but none of them culminate into anything impressive. Most of the concern was put on the characters and their reunion. Now there are two camps of Lost fans: those who like more of the character driven aspect and others who like more of the sci-fi/mythology/ fantasy adventure side. I have always been part of the latter camp. If I wanted a true character driven drama then there are many other shows that could satisfy my needs just fine. Nevertheless, with Lost it was the adventure and the sci-fi fantasy elements that kept me coming back. The characters were always important within the context of it all, but I never thought of them as the prime focus. The ideas were always more interesting than the people. Every one of the character’s different flashbacks and back-story are mostly same old character drama that could be developed elsewhere. What was really important was how the island influenced and affected each one of the characters. There was always a fate versus free will theme running though the issues of each season. None of this is tackled in the last episode, the characters are given a somewhat proper closure, but the island is never given that benefit. Nevertheless, the final episode does end the series on a positive note and there was always a religious undertone to most of the proceedings on the show. So the idea of most of the characters meeting in purgatory before they go to heaven is an optimistic conclusion to it all. It’s almost too bad that I could care less about anything that occurs in the sideways universe, since it was just all a set up for communion. Why would they throw out six years of mythology for this? Maybe it’s because the writers basically pinned themselves in a corner and had no idea how to write themselves out of it. Hence, they probably decided in their minds, we will just use the excuse of proper character send offs and to hell with everything else. Therefore, as it stands it seems Lost is the kind of show that sets up ambitious and intriguing ideas, but never fully develops or executes any of them.

To Release or not Release the Kraken?

There are certain artifacts that are a product of their era. They have a certain analogous relationship with a place and time that can never be replaced. Imagine Huey Lewis and the News and Back to the Future and you’re automatically in a 1980’s mindset. Remade vintage pieces of nostalgia can not survive in the self-important digitized world of today. Listening to Huey Lewis and the News via an MP3 download or the time-traveling DeLorean getting the CGI treatment just do not comply with each other. One has already happened and one will hopefully never happen (with so many remakes being made it is only a matter of time before Back to the Future is desecrated for a marginal profit.)

Now, think Clash of the Titans (1981): “Release the Kraken”, Bilbo, Ray Harryhausen stop motion puppetry, epic yet sloppy storyline, etc. Ok, now that you have taken a swim down the river Styx of your memory, savor it, and then take out a few of those elements you enjoyed as a kid and replace it with empty pompous spectacle.

Point of the matter is that I have not yet had the chance to check out the remake for Clash of the Titans (2010), so I don’t know if Louis Leterrier is aimed to pleasantly prove me wrong or disappointingly prove me right. Either way, from the trailers and the word of mouth, it only seems like another failure at recapturing nostalgia. If it is a failure, then the question is why? I mean the story elements are there, the technology is superior, and the characters seem to stem faithfully from their Greek mythological ancestors. Also, if you go back to the 1980’s version you eventually find that it is isn’t as great as you remember. Even though it isn’t as particularly remarkable as before, it still reminds you of that one night you stayed up late to find out if Peruses would ever defeat Medusa and save the foxy Andromeda from the Kraken.

Maybe, it is because Clash of the Titans (1981) is a captive to its era. We can’t dissociate the time period from the work. Therefore, when you take something like this out of its time and try to update it with a sense of self-important story telling, it kind of leaves a shallow hole where the magic used to be. It’s like the difference between listening to the The Who on a vinyl for the first time and then, years later, listening to them on your IPod. It’s just not the same, some of the technical quality might be better, but the feeling just isn’t there.

Shutter Island Review

Martin Scorsese is known for being a skilled director. Taxi Driver (1976), After Hours (1985), Goodfellas (1990) and even his lesser works like Bringing out the Dead (1990) are substantial. Shutter Island (2010) might be in the category of lesser works, but it is still a film that harbors both an aesthetic and emotional punch. Though, I am sure that many audience members will be able to figure out the plot twist once the pieces start to fall into place. Nonetheless, the journey getting there is impressively twisted and visceral. It begins as a noir detective story, eventually becomes a thriller and then a tragic psychological drama.

Most will be fooled with the promise of a stylish thriller and instead get enveloped into a trip inside the mind of a tormented individual. This was the best trick that the Dennis Lehane novel had going for it, despite the obvious twist ending and the lengthy explanations, it always had the psychological drama hiding underneath all the regular trappings of a thriller. The film faithfully follows the same route that the novel does. However, Scorsese amplifies the right aspects of the adapted written work, but he also keeps some of its flaws. The main problem that runs through Shutter Island is the lengthy expositions. For some reason, each character has to abundantly and awkwardly explain everything. This slows down the pace of the film and brings certain suspenseful buildups to a complete halt.

Now it is true that the novel takes about 50 pages to explain the ending, but that does not mean that the film should take the same time. The twist is clear by the time Teddy gets to the lighthouse and there is no need to explain it all out. Nevertheless, the sequence that follows this lengthy explanation is masterful. It is intense and draining, every emotion the film has been building up to is packed into this one sequence; so it makes the explanation worthwhile. If only the exposition was cut down a considerable amount, it would make the whole ordeal much more impacting. The place where Shutter Island excels the most is the set pieces and the detailed cinematography. The memories and dreams have a brightly colored palette that contrast the grainy colors of Teddy’s reality. There are small details crammed into each frame. References are hidden in every corner.

Shutter Island has its moments, despite its faults. Surely, it is a divisive work that some will like and others will not. In the end, it is completely up to your perspective.