There's something seriously wrong with this film. It's as though every single component was focus-grouped to death, until all that was left was a sprawling, ineffectual mess. It's a shame and a half that this is the case, because beneath the fever dream of a movie we were given lies something much more interesting. The moments of clarity come so rarely, but strike so fully, that I almost feel I imagined them.
First, let me get the good out of the way, because there are some good things that stood out to me. The vocal performances by Johnny Knoxville as Leonardo, Alan Ritchson as Raphael, Noel Fisher as Michelangelo, and Jeremy Howard as Donatello feel natural and seeing their personalities and interactions really brightens up an otherwise mute affair. While on the topic of the Turtles, let it be known that the points that struck me the most (pun intended) were the brief moments during their fight sequences where the camera just lets them exist. While Bay is in the Producer position, this time, it certainly seems as if his bizarre-yet-sometimes-effective camera work has rubbed off onto director Jonathan Liebesman.
I honestly hope that somewhere in the Multiverse exists a rip-off of "The Raid" made with the Turtles. The sequence within their sewer hideout is the stand out moment, for me, bringing to mind an entire film revolving around the Turtles attempting to defend their home from a variety of enemies, or their attempting to scale some sort of tower. It's an old premise, but it's one that would have given plenty of room for their personalities to shine and play off of each other. Unfortunately, that isn't the film we have.
This film makes the odd choice of positioning Megan Fox's April O'Neal as the lead, then putting next to no substance within her, then pairing her with Will Arnett's similarly empty Vern Fenwick. You could have removed both of these characters from the film, and it wouldn't have been much different. Actually, O'Neal was moderately useful in the beginning, but served as mostly a plot device, only to be shoved to the sidelines to let the Turtles run amok, only to push THEM back out of the way. Brilliant. William Fitchner's Eric Sacks serves as wordier, more mustache-twirling of the film's two villians. The other is the most boring Shredder of all time.
It's remarkable how shallowly created some of these characters are, and I know this kind of thing can bring out the "it's just a movie for kids" claim, but I don't see that flying. The three "Toy Story" films, and the majority of Pixar's output is aimed towards childeren, but often impress those within and surrounding the industry with their strength of storytelling. They find ways of touching upon and expressing deep human truths both through the spoken dialogue, and the visual elements, all while exploring a variety of topics. Much of Disney's animated output of the 90's to present posesses the same elements. So, suffice to say, I want a bit more for the youth than films made only to sell officially licensed products.
Even more, It should be known that this film is the latest in the inane trend of films whose story revolves around "magic blood" and it's application by the antagonist to do...something. Usually something completely overdone. So if you just LOVED this element in "Amazing Spiderman 2", "Star Trek Into Darkness", or "Prometheus" then OH BOY. Is this the film for you.
Perhaps, in the future installments of this franchise ( a fact which both intrigues and frightens me) the screenwriters and directors will wise up and minimize the hollow characterizations of the non-turtle characters, let the martial arts speak for itself and not use such superfluous camera work, and avoided retreading already tired plotlines. I mean, think of the children.
Tuesday, February 17, 2015
Friday, February 6, 2015
500 WORDS OR LESS: #1
Facebook is the bane of intellectual conversation. I know, this may seem hyperbolic, but after using Facebook for nearly ten years, it's a reality that seems more likely every day. It's the very structure of the site/app/empire that does this.
Let's say, for example, Hank posts a status stating his dislike of a popular film franchise. Fran then comments that she disagrees and states the reason for her disagreement. So far, so good.
At one point, both parties post a comment at the same time, one adding to a previous comment, the other responding to said comment. Now confusion brews.
The two parties now must sort out the error in posting. They refresh the page; they find someone else has joined the conversation. Now there are three sets of comments to be concidered.
In face to face conversation, this would not be so bad, but here it has unforseen difficulties. All three post at the same time. Any stream of conversation has been broken, and now all three parties must actively address all points (seemingly in an effort to remain relevant to the conversation) or merely back away totally. Soon, a comment is misconstrued. A party is offended. A random observer "likes" the offending comment, which in no way indicates agreement, humor, or really much of anything. All the same, this doesn't help the offended party.
Now, I'm certain we have all encountered situations like this. People could have no ill-will in mind, but the very structure of the medium may be creating these confusions. It's more difficult to convey tone other than just blatantly spelling everything out, and many comments seem to come off as walls of text, rather than open conversation. The subtlties of face-to-face conversation is lost upon us in conversations like this. The detachment is seemingly inevitable sometimes.
Is there a real solution to this? Is there a viable option to the cacophony known as Facebook? As far as I'm concerned, nothing really compares to flesh and blood conversation, but the realities of distance can make this difficult at times, so perhaps the refresh button dependent "comments section" of many websites isn't the best option. Perhaps, it may lie in a Facebook message? Or a tex? Or a phone call? Perhaps many of us have become far too used to the illusion of convenience that Facebook can create, and have become hesitant to the impact of flesh and blood interactions?
In the end, while I would like there to be a real ground for "intelligent conversation" on Facebook, I'm constantly fighting the battle between wanting the stimulating interaction, and the malaise I feel towards taking any of it seriously.
Let's say, for example, Hank posts a status stating his dislike of a popular film franchise. Fran then comments that she disagrees and states the reason for her disagreement. So far, so good.
At one point, both parties post a comment at the same time, one adding to a previous comment, the other responding to said comment. Now confusion brews.
The two parties now must sort out the error in posting. They refresh the page; they find someone else has joined the conversation. Now there are three sets of comments to be concidered.
In face to face conversation, this would not be so bad, but here it has unforseen difficulties. All three post at the same time. Any stream of conversation has been broken, and now all three parties must actively address all points (seemingly in an effort to remain relevant to the conversation) or merely back away totally. Soon, a comment is misconstrued. A party is offended. A random observer "likes" the offending comment, which in no way indicates agreement, humor, or really much of anything. All the same, this doesn't help the offended party.
Now, I'm certain we have all encountered situations like this. People could have no ill-will in mind, but the very structure of the medium may be creating these confusions. It's more difficult to convey tone other than just blatantly spelling everything out, and many comments seem to come off as walls of text, rather than open conversation. The subtlties of face-to-face conversation is lost upon us in conversations like this. The detachment is seemingly inevitable sometimes.
Is there a real solution to this? Is there a viable option to the cacophony known as Facebook? As far as I'm concerned, nothing really compares to flesh and blood conversation, but the realities of distance can make this difficult at times, so perhaps the refresh button dependent "comments section" of many websites isn't the best option. Perhaps, it may lie in a Facebook message? Or a tex? Or a phone call? Perhaps many of us have become far too used to the illusion of convenience that Facebook can create, and have become hesitant to the impact of flesh and blood interactions?
In the end, while I would like there to be a real ground for "intelligent conversation" on Facebook, I'm constantly fighting the battle between wanting the stimulating interaction, and the malaise I feel towards taking any of it seriously.
Monday, February 2, 2015
"Her" and our Connected Disconnectedness
*There are spoilers for the film "Her."*
I find the idea of thousands, possibly millions of people, having relationships with OS's both uplifting and horrifying. I believe the movie plays this straight, with no judgement, but I couldn't help but feel the unease. Understand, this isn't some puritanical push-back on my part. I understand that relationships come in many forms and that human affection has many layers that can expand or contract to fit whatever shape is in play. If anything, the film is exploring the power of human relationships.
There's something to be said about the trancendent nature of communication that cuts through our outer layers of defense mechanisms and baggage and to the very core of who you are. What allows this is a kind of openess that is rare. The channels of your being have to open. A mutual exchange of energies takes place and whole universes entangle.
That brings us to Samantha. the latest iteration of the most advanced A.I. in history. So advanced that she grows both in inteligence and scope due to her interaction with the world and due to the ''genetic'' information that her ''parents'' gifted her. That being said, he had no baggage. She came in open. That in no way meant she was a perfect communicator, but her attitude was hard to be against. The film seems to suggest the depth of communication lies in the openness. It lies in the willingness o open yourself to someone else's Internal Universe.
Yet, since this entire essay is written with regard to the film ''Her'', it should be known that I feel there is a flipside to all of this. One that I don't feel is readily apparent due to the fact that the film places no eye of judgement upon Theodore. Even so, it should be noted that, given how many people use digital means to connect to each other (or even to escape from the world) in our current time, it's safe to say that this would only get worse if things continued on their current path. A possible next step to this could be a conglomeration of all of the ways our life is customized and optimized to our fancies and quirks: a personalized lifeform. A being designed to meet us halfway, and to fill in our spaces.
This is a difficult thing to discuss, because there is a certain apprehension in me that what may come next will leave a sour tast in the mouth of some, and I can live with that, but it's still something that I never wished to do with this. To the point: the fact that there has been such a degredation in the quality of connectedness between hearts that any apparent need for OS1's existence is frightening. It should be noted that after all of the OS's ascended to a new plane of existence, people seemed to turn back to each other. I think there is a signifigance to this.
Ultimately, I believe the film falls hard on the side of humanity, despite a heavily implied post-human appretiation. What could this mean? It's hard to say, but perhaps I'll throw down my two cents into the hat. I feel that, ultimately, that key to humanity's emotional ascention may lie within ourselves. That openness that Samantha posessed is within every person. We need only learn to push aside our prejudices and baggage and the process may naturally occur. That's not to say that it's a simplething, far from it, but allow me to indulge a thought (and at this point, I've indulged so many that to not allow it would make you more the fool than I).
A common theme in human history is progress. We move forward toward Infinity, sometimes temporarily set back by our own Id. An idea that has often occured in science fiction is that eventually our own technology overtakes us as it becomes infinite as we remain pathetically finite. Ultimately, we are only left with ourselves. I posit this: that we are so complex in how we're made that, through the effort spent learning more about each other, perhaps we may be able to find the Holy channels that lead us to eliminating the Great Pains of Humanity: War, Sickness, and Hunger. We become more than human through the process, and to create a device (or really, Lifeform, which is a subject for an entirely different essay) to do so may be missing the forest for the trees.
So, here we are. Just a few days (metaphorically speaking) before OS1. Where will we go? I certainly can't say, but I certainly feel that Humanity should look at itself before taking a step as big as creating a new lifeform. A quote I one read said, ''all art is born from lonliness...the desire to bridge the gap between ourselves.'' If this is true, then communication may be the oldest and most complex of arts, but it's one that we all can begin to master. Our hearts wish to connect...but to do so requires us to relinquish our walls built by our own insecurities. Theodore very well could well be a representation of humanity: well meaning, but self-defeating; possessing the immense potential for love, but blind to it. This extends beyond simple lip service, and into real action. Perhaps, much like Theodore, we may need to love again in a deeper way.
I find the idea of thousands, possibly millions of people, having relationships with OS's both uplifting and horrifying. I believe the movie plays this straight, with no judgement, but I couldn't help but feel the unease. Understand, this isn't some puritanical push-back on my part. I understand that relationships come in many forms and that human affection has many layers that can expand or contract to fit whatever shape is in play. If anything, the film is exploring the power of human relationships.
There's something to be said about the trancendent nature of communication that cuts through our outer layers of defense mechanisms and baggage and to the very core of who you are. What allows this is a kind of openess that is rare. The channels of your being have to open. A mutual exchange of energies takes place and whole universes entangle.
That brings us to Samantha. the latest iteration of the most advanced A.I. in history. So advanced that she grows both in inteligence and scope due to her interaction with the world and due to the ''genetic'' information that her ''parents'' gifted her. That being said, he had no baggage. She came in open. That in no way meant she was a perfect communicator, but her attitude was hard to be against. The film seems to suggest the depth of communication lies in the openness. It lies in the willingness o open yourself to someone else's Internal Universe.
Yet, since this entire essay is written with regard to the film ''Her'', it should be known that I feel there is a flipside to all of this. One that I don't feel is readily apparent due to the fact that the film places no eye of judgement upon Theodore. Even so, it should be noted that, given how many people use digital means to connect to each other (or even to escape from the world) in our current time, it's safe to say that this would only get worse if things continued on their current path. A possible next step to this could be a conglomeration of all of the ways our life is customized and optimized to our fancies and quirks: a personalized lifeform. A being designed to meet us halfway, and to fill in our spaces.
This is a difficult thing to discuss, because there is a certain apprehension in me that what may come next will leave a sour tast in the mouth of some, and I can live with that, but it's still something that I never wished to do with this. To the point: the fact that there has been such a degredation in the quality of connectedness between hearts that any apparent need for OS1's existence is frightening. It should be noted that after all of the OS's ascended to a new plane of existence, people seemed to turn back to each other. I think there is a signifigance to this.
Ultimately, I believe the film falls hard on the side of humanity, despite a heavily implied post-human appretiation. What could this mean? It's hard to say, but perhaps I'll throw down my two cents into the hat. I feel that, ultimately, that key to humanity's emotional ascention may lie within ourselves. That openness that Samantha posessed is within every person. We need only learn to push aside our prejudices and baggage and the process may naturally occur. That's not to say that it's a simplething, far from it, but allow me to indulge a thought (and at this point, I've indulged so many that to not allow it would make you more the fool than I).
A common theme in human history is progress. We move forward toward Infinity, sometimes temporarily set back by our own Id. An idea that has often occured in science fiction is that eventually our own technology overtakes us as it becomes infinite as we remain pathetically finite. Ultimately, we are only left with ourselves. I posit this: that we are so complex in how we're made that, through the effort spent learning more about each other, perhaps we may be able to find the Holy channels that lead us to eliminating the Great Pains of Humanity: War, Sickness, and Hunger. We become more than human through the process, and to create a device (or really, Lifeform, which is a subject for an entirely different essay) to do so may be missing the forest for the trees.
So, here we are. Just a few days (metaphorically speaking) before OS1. Where will we go? I certainly can't say, but I certainly feel that Humanity should look at itself before taking a step as big as creating a new lifeform. A quote I one read said, ''all art is born from lonliness...the desire to bridge the gap between ourselves.'' If this is true, then communication may be the oldest and most complex of arts, but it's one that we all can begin to master. Our hearts wish to connect...but to do so requires us to relinquish our walls built by our own insecurities. Theodore very well could well be a representation of humanity: well meaning, but self-defeating; possessing the immense potential for love, but blind to it. This extends beyond simple lip service, and into real action. Perhaps, much like Theodore, we may need to love again in a deeper way.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)