We live in a world submerged in technology. Every year it seems our phones get smarter, homes more connected, and information easier to access than ever. With this comes the promise of greater avenues for learning and prosperity. Bright times for bright eyes.
Yet, one would be remiss to simply dismiss the one greatest pieces of adversity to humanity's success: ourselves. For it can surely be certain that for every new success, someone finds a new way to fail. This is where the series "Black Mirror" comes in. An anthology series, much like "The Twilight Zone", each episode revolves around a theme related tp technology. For example, the first episode deals with the danger and power of online anonymity, and even a touch of our obsession with technology.
I personally favor the second episode, "15 Million Credits." It deals with gamification and its possible dangers. It, much like all the other episodes, found a way straight to my heart...then proceeded to rip it out and consume it right in front of me. At the same time, each impressed me as an interesting examination into our relationship with technology. Sort of an Aldous Huxley to our H.G. Wells.
The one other thing I should say is that the show is rather rough, at times. It most certainly earns its TV-MA rating, but due to its depth, I'd say it's better for it.
Check this show out on Netflix and possibly on YouTube as well.
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
Monday, December 1, 2014
MOVIE REVIEW: The Fault in Our Stars
UNPACKING "THE FAULTS" in "THE FAULT IN OUR STARS"
********DISCLAIMER*********DISCLAIMER************
There are definite spoilers in this, as I will be discussing various sections of the film.
Turn back now if you want to know nothing of the film before viewing it. Otherwise, I apologize in advance if the structure of this is a bit wonky, as I am typing this on Pages, so the format might not transfer as well as I'd like.
You're still reading? You're either brave or stupid. Let's hope it's the former.
As I sat, musing quietly to myself over the trailers that had just been shown, I came to a realization: I was the only male in the entire theater. Out of nearly sixty to seventy people, I was the only male. This was both humorous and curious as the trailers seemed to make this a film targeted towards the 15 to 21-year-old demographic, and lo and behold, that seemed to be the ages on display in the crowd. The sea (really puddle) of faces was made of mothers and daughters, many of whom I assume read the novel of the same name by John Green. This lead me to really wonder if the film would give me the unparalleled "joy" of another in a flood of movies that take from the Big Bag of Stock YA Fiction Components. The answer proved more interesting than not.
This is a film of dualities. With that comes my opinion that I had both great admiration and great disdain for it. The components within play themselves in different shapes and shades in my mind, so I was honestly left more confused and conflicted than not. So, I thought best to look at these elements in some sense of an orderly fashion.
Augustus Waters, love interest to Hazel Grace Lancaster, felt as though he was pulled from that aforementioned Big Bag of Stock YA Fiction Components. They meet on her way to a cancer support and from the first second he plays as the smirking, charming, affable "bad boy" that many YA novels seem insistent on thinking girls want. I'm going to go so far as to say that it is his role, along with the film's affectations with music that contribute the most to one side of my feelings for this film. I couldn't help but feel that this film felt insincere, as it was swinging for the fences, or at least seemed to be. Oh, OF COURSE Hazel meets Augustus in the support group. Oh, OF COURSE they fall in love. Oh, OF COURSE he takes her to Amsterdam to meet the author of her favorite book. Oh, OF COURSE his cancer reemerges and kills him. Even more, the music seemed to fit the stereotype of what's commonly held to be "indie" music within an "Indie" film. All of these things seemed to be working to MAKE me feel rather than ALLOWING me to feel.
Honestly, that sort of sentiment seems designed for the lowest common denominator, as a means to get butts in seats and to use basic emotional manipulation to pull emotion out of the viewer. It gives the sense of importance but does nothing to facilitate the examination and introspection typically needed to examine "great" films. Yet, at the same time, this doesn't seem to be the case at all. Despite all of the negativity, I believe there is another reading of this film that starkly contrasts the preceding one.
This reading begins with Hazel and Augustus's meeting with Peter Van Houten, the author of "An Imperial Affliction," her favorite book. They go there expecting him to tell them what happens to the protagonist's family after the book ends. Instead, what they receive is a series of runarounds, are made to listen to Swedish hip-hop, and are verbally assaulted about their supposed naïveté about true state of things and over the importance of what happens to the characters in a book after the book ends. They find that the brilliant and thoughtful man they THOUGHT wrote the book turned out to be a spiteful drunk. I feel there is great importance to this.
This moment and the character Perter Van Houten elevates an otherwise sickeningly, forcefully sweet film into a deeply philosophical one. It's here, when once again faced with the harsh realities of their conditions, that we learn of the depth of the internal mechanisms sustaining them. Of course they are more than aware of the depths of sorrow in which they may possibly exist, but they seek to live despite that. All that "emotional manipulation" may have really been a reflection of their resolve. This point is further solidified by where they go after meeting Van Houten.
They arrive at the Anne Frank museum, and while some may see it as a monument to pain, I believe this film wanted us to see it as a monument to hope. Contained within are a collection of quotes from Anne and quotes of hers are relayed over speakers that play the whole time. These quotes serve to highlight Anne's resolve to be positive and try to live and thrive, despite her circumstances.
In order to reach the apex of the museum, Hazel must ascend a series of flights of stairs, which proves difficult due to the cancer affecting her lungs thus her ability to breathe. She carries her oxygen tank up each flight, struggling along the way. Anne's quotes play as she does this, and the whole event almost seems to parallel Hazel's struggle up to this point. Though the adversity is more than obvious, she chooses to persist. Perhaps that may mean a sort of willful naïveté must come about, but that's a normal human coping mechanism. Much like Anne, Hazel chose not to revel and wallow in the pain, but to keep moving. The greatest victory in this lies, ironically enough, with Augustus.
Upon reexamination, Augustus may represent the best of that mentality. He is positive, hopeful, and energetic. Despite his loss of a leg due to cancer, he seems endlessly bound to the path of bringing joy to those he cares about. Even more, between the two of them, Hazel and Augustus share the joys and passions of young, new love. Contained within that are all the feelings and excitement I feel lie within every person: the desire for adventure, for comfort, and for love.
Yet, even after all of this, I'm still left conflicted. While there's all of the positive sentiments I've listed, I'm still left wondering if it's hopeful examination on my part. Am I just seeking to make sense out of what I feel is actually a series of insincere sentiments, or is it really as it seems? Even more, the conflicted feeling may be the point. Sure, you could say that the optimism on display is false and naive, but it pays to consider the possibility that the people going through the hardships are more than aware of the pain and hopelessness. They are more than aware of the creeping Specter known as Death. They know it approaches, yet they stare into Oblivion and smile. Why? It's because, quite simply, they're human.
While Humanity is capable of great evils, we are also capable of great good. This is something that transcends all creeds and colors. It is a uniquely human thing for, unlike other inhabitants of this Blue Marble in the infinite vastness of the cold of space, we can change our perspectives and thusly our whole interpretation of the universe. So, the question to ask yourself is where you feel the sentiment of the film lies: among true examination of the human condition, or in the cesspools of vacuous eye candy that pollutes the minds of people on a daily basis?
Perhaps the PR behind the marketing of the film wanted this to sell with the appeal of a YA novels and their film counterparts, but what the film actually is may be one of the more sophisticated and philosophical films I've seen in a while.
Tuesday, November 25, 2014
MOVIE REVIEW: A Million Ways to Die in the West
If I can say one thing about "A Million Ways to Die in the West" it's that I think that Seth Macfarlane is beginning to get a grasp on live-action filmmaking. His previous live-action outing was 2012's "Ted", a film that seemed to amount to little more than a series of mildly interconnected sketches and cut away gags, a la "Family Guy", "American Dad", and "The Cleveland Show". The result was a film with a curious amount of dead air between moderately funny jokes.
This brings us to 2014's "A Million Ways to Die in the West." I have to say, this film serves as a bit of a curiosity to me. On one hand, it certainly seems a bit more coherent than "Ted". The focus seems to be more on keeping the jokes internal and organic, rather than relying upon the cut-away. Even more, there seems to be an actual rhythm to the film as it moves from plot point to plot point, and act to act. There is a steady progression as we see Macfarlane's Albert Stark progress from a sad sack sheep herder into a sharp shooter. Unfortunately, this welcome functionality doesn't save the majority of the film.
I'd be lying if I said that I didn't compare this to Mel Brooks's comedy/western "Blazing Saddles." They certainly share similar DNA, what with their self awareness and use of sight gags, but the similarities stop there. Where "Blazing Saddles" had meaningful economy with its story and writing, "AMWDW" seems more intent on reusing the same jokes with deminishing returns. Whether it be the constant reminders that life in the West was indeed deadly, or the constant reminders that Stark is a horrible farmer, or jokes that go on for far too long past the point of no longer being funny, "AMWDW" really wants us to see how funny it is. Unfortunately, it feel closer to someone laughing at their own jokes far harder than the audience.
This is further compounded by a sort-of subplot involving Giovanni Ribisi's Edward, and Sarah Silverman's Ruth. You see, Ruth is a prostitute in a brothel and is in a relationship with Edward, a church-going cobbler. They've never engaged in sexual intercourse due to Ruth wanting to "save herself for marriage" as the "good Christian thing to do." That's it. That's the entire joke. Nearly a third of this movie is devoted to this ONE joke, in one capacity or another. Needless to say, it lost it's luster very quickly.
Thankfully, a few performances in this film rise above the half-heartedness of Edward and Sarah. Charlize Theron's Anna Barnes serves as Stark's love interest/marksman coach, and Liam Neeson plays Clinch Leatherwood, Anna's more-than-a-little-possessive boyfriend/superior marksman/antagonist. The A-List quality of acting from the two of them completely eclipses everyone else within the ensemble. I dare say Neeson's performance is my favorite out of the film, as his feels as though he wants to adequately chew up every frame, his Irish accent coloring his every line with just the verbal hint of a smirk. Easily, this ranks along with "Darkman" and "The Lego Movie" as some of my favorite of his performances.
Theron and Macfarlane actually seem to have some onscreen chemistry, with their dialogue feeling easy and natural, but this presents another problem: their scenes, along with a few others, feel as though they belong in better movies. Whether it be the dramatic chase between Stark and Leatherwood's gang, or the well-choreographed dance sequence at the Dance, Macfarlane obviously has an eye for composition in some cases. It yet seems that he is still constrained to many of the methods employed on his animated works. I, for one, would like to see him write and direct a musical, as that seems to be where his greatest affinity is.
Among both the pantheon of great westerns and great comedies, this film ranks pretty low. At the same time, it is evidence of Macfarlane's progression as a filmmaker. Unfortunately, that's about the only great thing I can say about this film.
This brings us to 2014's "A Million Ways to Die in the West." I have to say, this film serves as a bit of a curiosity to me. On one hand, it certainly seems a bit more coherent than "Ted". The focus seems to be more on keeping the jokes internal and organic, rather than relying upon the cut-away. Even more, there seems to be an actual rhythm to the film as it moves from plot point to plot point, and act to act. There is a steady progression as we see Macfarlane's Albert Stark progress from a sad sack sheep herder into a sharp shooter. Unfortunately, this welcome functionality doesn't save the majority of the film.
I'd be lying if I said that I didn't compare this to Mel Brooks's comedy/western "Blazing Saddles." They certainly share similar DNA, what with their self awareness and use of sight gags, but the similarities stop there. Where "Blazing Saddles" had meaningful economy with its story and writing, "AMWDW" seems more intent on reusing the same jokes with deminishing returns. Whether it be the constant reminders that life in the West was indeed deadly, or the constant reminders that Stark is a horrible farmer, or jokes that go on for far too long past the point of no longer being funny, "AMWDW" really wants us to see how funny it is. Unfortunately, it feel closer to someone laughing at their own jokes far harder than the audience.
This is further compounded by a sort-of subplot involving Giovanni Ribisi's Edward, and Sarah Silverman's Ruth. You see, Ruth is a prostitute in a brothel and is in a relationship with Edward, a church-going cobbler. They've never engaged in sexual intercourse due to Ruth wanting to "save herself for marriage" as the "good Christian thing to do." That's it. That's the entire joke. Nearly a third of this movie is devoted to this ONE joke, in one capacity or another. Needless to say, it lost it's luster very quickly.
Thankfully, a few performances in this film rise above the half-heartedness of Edward and Sarah. Charlize Theron's Anna Barnes serves as Stark's love interest/marksman coach, and Liam Neeson plays Clinch Leatherwood, Anna's more-than-a-little-possessive boyfriend/superior marksman/antagonist. The A-List quality of acting from the two of them completely eclipses everyone else within the ensemble. I dare say Neeson's performance is my favorite out of the film, as his feels as though he wants to adequately chew up every frame, his Irish accent coloring his every line with just the verbal hint of a smirk. Easily, this ranks along with "Darkman" and "The Lego Movie" as some of my favorite of his performances.
Theron and Macfarlane actually seem to have some onscreen chemistry, with their dialogue feeling easy and natural, but this presents another problem: their scenes, along with a few others, feel as though they belong in better movies. Whether it be the dramatic chase between Stark and Leatherwood's gang, or the well-choreographed dance sequence at the Dance, Macfarlane obviously has an eye for composition in some cases. It yet seems that he is still constrained to many of the methods employed on his animated works. I, for one, would like to see him write and direct a musical, as that seems to be where his greatest affinity is.
Among both the pantheon of great westerns and great comedies, this film ranks pretty low. At the same time, it is evidence of Macfarlane's progression as a filmmaker. Unfortunately, that's about the only great thing I can say about this film.
Sunday, November 23, 2014
IT'S COMPLICATED: Women Against Feminism (a few thoughts)
I find "Women Against Feminism" to be horribly misguided. The methods used to express the points said were paved by Feminists. It seems that "misandrist" and "feminist" have become interchangeable terms in the eyes of some, and I can't help but find that disheartening.
I think Misandry and Misogyny are terrible things. I think that there are issues that affect everyone, regardless of gender and that stem from difficulties caused by what's perceived as some gender norms. I would also say I'm a Feminist, but in the broad sense. I hope to take things from a broad place, hoping to get the big picture, because if there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's this: things are always more complicated than they appear.
We may seek those simple answers, or even the most streamlined routes to solutions, but the depth of human experience is incalculable. With people it's never simple. Every issue relating to some aspect of the human condition has a near infinite number of angles to them, so it's a bit harmful to approach them as though they have anything but.
Something to concider is this: there are no simple things, only simple thoughts. We tend to willfully obfuscate complexity for simplicity. We obfuscate the complexity of both the internal and external systems at play.
It's completely within reason that those alligned with "Women Against Feminism" make make some points that address some of the things that slip through the cracks of the majority of Feminist talk, but they then participate in the same discrediting of every aspect of Feminism that Feminists are accused of doing.
So is there any solution? What new maxim should we rally behind to solve this? If you've been paying attention you'll know that there isn't one. It comes from the conscious search for the core of arguments and of people. Hearing what they have to say and learning of their experiences. It takes openess and humility, whether (like me) fueled by the thought that God desires us to know each other better and to know Him by understanding our connectedness, or by the underlying thought that people should just be decent to each other, or from any other place, this is what I see as a solution. Do not obfuscate it's complexity, because it's something that will take your whole life to do. There is no mastery, only exponential growth.
I think Misandry and Misogyny are terrible things. I think that there are issues that affect everyone, regardless of gender and that stem from difficulties caused by what's perceived as some gender norms. I would also say I'm a Feminist, but in the broad sense. I hope to take things from a broad place, hoping to get the big picture, because if there's one thing I've learned in this life, it's this: things are always more complicated than they appear.
We may seek those simple answers, or even the most streamlined routes to solutions, but the depth of human experience is incalculable. With people it's never simple. Every issue relating to some aspect of the human condition has a near infinite number of angles to them, so it's a bit harmful to approach them as though they have anything but.
Something to concider is this: there are no simple things, only simple thoughts. We tend to willfully obfuscate complexity for simplicity. We obfuscate the complexity of both the internal and external systems at play.
It's completely within reason that those alligned with "Women Against Feminism" make make some points that address some of the things that slip through the cracks of the majority of Feminist talk, but they then participate in the same discrediting of every aspect of Feminism that Feminists are accused of doing.
So is there any solution? What new maxim should we rally behind to solve this? If you've been paying attention you'll know that there isn't one. It comes from the conscious search for the core of arguments and of people. Hearing what they have to say and learning of their experiences. It takes openess and humility, whether (like me) fueled by the thought that God desires us to know each other better and to know Him by understanding our connectedness, or by the underlying thought that people should just be decent to each other, or from any other place, this is what I see as a solution. Do not obfuscate it's complexity, because it's something that will take your whole life to do. There is no mastery, only exponential growth.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
A Look At Things To Come
Hello, readers. Apparently there's more of you than I thought. This is both pleasing and surprising ,as I'm little more than a hack who thinks too much. So, either you've made a terrible choice in considering a single word I have to say, or you actually like it.
Over the next few weeks, I'll be unveiling some new features to the blog:
Over the next few weeks, I'll be unveiling some new features to the blog:
- IT'S COMPLICATED - A series of essays on topics widely discussed, but possessing many angles
- A FEW OF MY FAVORITE THINGS - a look a some of my favorite games, movies, television shows, and albums
Over time I hope to have more features of increasing quality.
I'm terrible at ending these.
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Avengers: Age of Overused Trailer Tactics
The "Avengers: Age of Ultron" teaser (leak...spill..) just further strengthened my resolve in not being a fan of trailers.
Not only did i already know what would be in it, but it pretty much adhered to the all-too-common "appeal to the lowest common denominator" style of trailer. Throw as many shinies on the screen as possible and that's it. Add in a little bit of some ominous music. Throw in a hook that's memorable.
The whole thing rubs me the wrong way. I mean, yes, i understand the nature of the business and the need to advertise the product (which, let's be honest, is all many studios see their films as), but too often I've been sold on a film only to discover the thing is nothing like I've been told. Certain scenes are picked based on how they tested and on their marketability. The thing is edited in such a way as to seem to elevate those scenes.
If it all seems cynical, it's because they seem to have a pretty cynical view of the audience...but to be honest, can you blame them? These trailers test well and many of the movies attached to them do well commercially, both domestically and internationally. Obviously, the critical response is a totally different matter. So, basically, we're telling them that we want their pandering, bombastic trailers. We want to see most of the main plot in the trailer. No, we're not smart enough to see that you're using the same cheap tactics over and over.
Or at least, that what many of them may see. So, i don't watch trailers. I may read a review or two from sources whose writing I enjoy, but i try to avoid trailers. For me, it preserves the sense of discovery, and allows me to get the real McCoy, not just an imitation of it.
Not only did i already know what would be in it, but it pretty much adhered to the all-too-common "appeal to the lowest common denominator" style of trailer. Throw as many shinies on the screen as possible and that's it. Add in a little bit of some ominous music. Throw in a hook that's memorable.
The whole thing rubs me the wrong way. I mean, yes, i understand the nature of the business and the need to advertise the product (which, let's be honest, is all many studios see their films as), but too often I've been sold on a film only to discover the thing is nothing like I've been told. Certain scenes are picked based on how they tested and on their marketability. The thing is edited in such a way as to seem to elevate those scenes.
If it all seems cynical, it's because they seem to have a pretty cynical view of the audience...but to be honest, can you blame them? These trailers test well and many of the movies attached to them do well commercially, both domestically and internationally. Obviously, the critical response is a totally different matter. So, basically, we're telling them that we want their pandering, bombastic trailers. We want to see most of the main plot in the trailer. No, we're not smart enough to see that you're using the same cheap tactics over and over.
Or at least, that what many of them may see. So, i don't watch trailers. I may read a review or two from sources whose writing I enjoy, but i try to avoid trailers. For me, it preserves the sense of discovery, and allows me to get the real McCoy, not just an imitation of it.
Wednesday, October 22, 2014
A Beginning
I'm the kind of person that has too many thoughts. It's as though there's a mass of competing voices, all trying to take prominence over the other. They pile one on top of the other until I lose possible motivation to even express the points in question. It's immensely disheartening.
That being said, it's my hope that this blog will alleviate some of the anxiety that comes along with having a head full of thoughts with no way out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Well, that was dour.
Hello! Welcome to my introductory post on my blog "A Mind for Media." On this blog I'll be discussing a variety topics pertaining to different aspects of media. This includes movies, music, television, comics, books, and video games.
For the sake of full disclosure I should mention some things:
- I have no professional background in art critique
- I have no affiliation with any company or studio
- I am an advocate for gay rights and am a pretty pronounced feminist
- I am a Christian
Knowing all of this, I hope this properly informs you and provides some context going forward. One thing I hope my posts do is inspire conversation. I most certainly know that everyone who reads this won't always agree with what I say, but I welcome the conversation. Art doesn't exist in a vacuum, and it's conversations and thoughts on how we interact with it that affects how we deal with it as society. It's important, so I hope this blog is at least a drop in the bucket with regards to that.
I'm of the feeling that humanity's ability to create is a massive element of God in all of us. Considering that, the ability of art to connect people of various cultures and beliefs makes me treat it as practically holy. So, I certainly hope to bring people together via this blog, as well.
I end this first post here. Also, I'll end it with a quote that, sadly, I don't know the source of . It succinctly describes my mentality regarding art.
"Art is the attempt to bridge the gaps between ourselves."
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)