Despite the show's success, I don't envy showrunners David Benioff and D.B. Weiss. They were tasked with taking the mass of interweaving character arcs and plot threads of A Game of Thrones, George R.R. Martin's tale of medieval-esque mishaps in Westeros, and somehow adapt it into a television series. While the source material is somewhat lengthy (694 pages), though not as lengthy as some later volumes in the series (A Feast for Crows is 1521 pages), Benioff and Weiss manage to craft a rather propulsive season of television. This may have been aided by the fact that they didn't pull only from the first book, but used bits and piece of character information from later in the series. This enabled them to have a great deal more freedom in crafting the best series they could.
As far as picking a favorite performance out of the season, who could I possibly pick? Would it be Sean Bean's Ned Stark, a man attempting some sense of honor in a dishonorable world? Or, would I pick Lena Headly's Cersei Lannister, who is both parts lizard-brained psychopath and tragic figure? Or what of Peter Dinklage's Tyrion Lannister, who is small in stature but large in intellect? I tell you, I couldn't pick one.
I'm fairly amazed that they were able to produce such a film-like quality, essentially raising the bar for all television production values. If I had to guess, I'd say that each episode must cost as much as a small film to produce, which is no small feat. All in all, it may have been one of my favorite seasons of television, ever.
Monday, January 25, 2016
Sunday, January 24, 2016
Album Review: UP ALL NIGHT (One Direction)
Artist: One Direction
So, I find myself in a bit of an odd position when it comes to voicing my opinion of One Direction's debut album, Up All Night. On the one hand, at this point Niall Horan, Liam Payne, Harry Styles, Louis Tomlinson, and Zayn Malik are, without argument, guys with wonderful voices. There's not once on the album where I could say that they did not sound lovely. On the other hand, it's an immensely uninspired series of songs that they happen to be singing.
One can suppose the reason for this: since this is their first album since forming out of The X-Factor in 2010, the producers and managers/handlers wanted them to create something that was easily accessible for many. That would explain the "sampler plate" quality of Up All Night. It's as though it's an assortment of bits and pieces of other songs or artists. Sometimes, this quality leads to interesting things.
The Beatles-esque anthem "I Want" works as the strongest song on the album, with what seems to be a full band and a melody that nearly bounces around from side to side. It would be a wonder if that song didn't conjure up an on-tempo clap from the audience. The song "Taken" could be considered one I enjoy, if not for the fact that the instrumentation behind the vocals seems to think It's playing Tom Petty's "Free Falling." It leaves me to wonder, how much of One Direction is actually on One Direction's debut album? There seems to be this preoccupation with aping other styles (no pun intended), and perhaps this sort of thing got by the youth this was targeted towards. It's as though they were afraid to let the group display more of themselves, and to note, the actual members only have writing credits on two songs ( "Everything About You" "Same Mistakes").
It's all kind of a shame. These are five guys with fantastic voices who are given music that seems to want to continue in the tradition of the Boy Bands of past glories (your N'SYNC's or your Backstreet Boys) but lacks some of the personality. In fact, I can't tell you why there are even five members of this group. Not once on the album do they warrant that as so many of their voices are so similar that they became nearly indistinguishable. The one truly good thing about this album is that the producers and songwriters were able to craft some rather catchy melodies that have yet to leave me.
So, I find myself in a bit of an odd position when it comes to voicing my opinion of One Direction's debut album, Up All Night. On the one hand, at this point Niall Horan, Liam Payne, Harry Styles, Louis Tomlinson, and Zayn Malik are, without argument, guys with wonderful voices. There's not once on the album where I could say that they did not sound lovely. On the other hand, it's an immensely uninspired series of songs that they happen to be singing.
One can suppose the reason for this: since this is their first album since forming out of The X-Factor in 2010, the producers and managers/handlers wanted them to create something that was easily accessible for many. That would explain the "sampler plate" quality of Up All Night. It's as though it's an assortment of bits and pieces of other songs or artists. Sometimes, this quality leads to interesting things.
The Beatles-esque anthem "I Want" works as the strongest song on the album, with what seems to be a full band and a melody that nearly bounces around from side to side. It would be a wonder if that song didn't conjure up an on-tempo clap from the audience. The song "Taken" could be considered one I enjoy, if not for the fact that the instrumentation behind the vocals seems to think It's playing Tom Petty's "Free Falling." It leaves me to wonder, how much of One Direction is actually on One Direction's debut album? There seems to be this preoccupation with aping other styles (no pun intended), and perhaps this sort of thing got by the youth this was targeted towards. It's as though they were afraid to let the group display more of themselves, and to note, the actual members only have writing credits on two songs ( "Everything About You" "Same Mistakes").
It's all kind of a shame. These are five guys with fantastic voices who are given music that seems to want to continue in the tradition of the Boy Bands of past glories (your N'SYNC's or your Backstreet Boys) but lacks some of the personality. In fact, I can't tell you why there are even five members of this group. Not once on the album do they warrant that as so many of their voices are so similar that they became nearly indistinguishable. The one truly good thing about this album is that the producers and songwriters were able to craft some rather catchy melodies that have yet to leave me.
Monday, January 18, 2016
My Favorite Concerts: Daikaiju at the Thirsty Hippo in Hattiesburg, MS
(RECOMMENDED LISTENING WHILE READING THIS: "Phase Two" by Daikaiju)
So, I didn't expect the night to go as it did. I mean, clearly this band was bound to be... interesting. Their photo on the concert's Facebook page, a motley collection of shirtless lads with kabuki masks who were giving the camera a good bit of face-time and a small mass of people all collectively losing their minds, certainly peaked my interest. Also, I couldn't help but see a bit of a resemblance to the Psychos from the BORDERLANDS video game franchise, a favorite of mine. Needless to say, my interest was plenty piqued.
So, I didn't expect the night to go as it did. I mean, clearly this band was bound to be... interesting. Their photo on the concert's Facebook page, a motley collection of shirtless lads with kabuki masks who were giving the camera a good bit of face-time and a small mass of people all collectively losing their minds, certainly peaked my interest. Also, I couldn't help but see a bit of a resemblance to the Psychos from the BORDERLANDS video game franchise, a favorite of mine. Needless to say, my interest was plenty piqued.
For those of you unfortunate enough to not live near The Thirsty Hippo, it's a place made of two spaces. The front area is a cozy area adorned with several places to sit and enjoy their fantastic burgers, sandwiches, salads, and deserts. Along with this comes a good assortment of beers, liquors, and cocktails. Nestled in the corner is a somewhat small stage, though I should say "small", as this is when compared to the stage in the larger area in the back. This larger area is much like the front...except there are no tables and there's a massive mural on the wall of different aspects of the state of Mississippi. So, basically nothing like it, save for the dim lighting in both areas. Now, Daikaiju played in the front area. This will become readily apparent as to why this location choice made for a much more interesting show.
I have an unfortunate confession to make: I don't remember who opened for the band or even if there even was an opener. I would wager a guess, but I don't want to unintentionally offend any number of bands who may stumble upon this. So, we'll mention the headliners in question.
As I hoped, they appeared just as their picture suggested. Five shirtless, Kabuki-masked fellas got onstage, not saying a word. The crowd gathered closer and had grown to a pretty decent size, filling much of the small-ish room. People were clearly excited, some apparently following the band around on tour. Elbow to elbow, we all awaited their first notes. When they began, they hit the ground running (and how else would a band like this begin?). Their sound a sort-of "surf punk" filtered through a touch of "post rock" affectations, with all of the energy of a "hardcore" show. So, essentially, everything I could want and more, with a circle-pit and everything.
They grew more animated over time, with the two guitarists eventually beginning to prowl through the audience, all the while their guitar chords dragging behind them. I suppose they just assumed the audience would trip over them, or maybe they just didn't care. I saw the wilder looking one occasionally take a beer bottle from some people, sling around what little beer was left in said bottle in the air (raining beer on everyone in the area), then handing back said bottle. Then he came to me, letting me get a good look at (and smell of) him: he had a long salt-and-pepper colored beard, and hair that followed suit...except for on the top of his head; he had apparently stripped down to a sort of loin-cloth; he smelled fairly rancid. Rock-Man (that's his name, I later discovered) looked at my empty bottle, then at me, and we both shrugged. A few minutes later, he came back by, looked at my still empty bottle, then took it from me and threw it to the floor.
Not long after this, a sort of tribal beat began on the drums as they were both crowdsurfed, piece by piece, to the middle of the floor. The guitarists and bassist followed suit. So, in this new configuration, the two drummers were set up in front of me, Rock-Man was standing in a chair to my right, Secret-Man (the other guitarist) was standing on the bar on the other side of the drummers, and Pulse-Man (the bassist) was standing on a chair to my forward left. The concert had taken on a new intensity. Secret-Man began a solo, then jumped into the audience while playing. He was crowd surfing and continuing his solo when the owner of the Thirsty Hippo jumped in (literally) as well, also surfing the crowd.
All at once, Blast-Man (the drummer) apperated a bottle of lighter fluid and doused both drumsets in a rather healthy amount. Then, flames. Both drummers (I don't know what the other drummer was called, so I'll call him Other-Man) were now playing flaming kits. Rock-Man apparently liked this idea so much that he also decided to light his guitar on fire, then proceeded to hand said flaming guitar to one of the audience members beside me, then danced around for a bit.
Then, using a series of head gestures and lots of pointing, Blast-Man instructed people to lift up each part of his drum set into the air. So we did, a different person holding a different part, all while some of us held up the chair in which Blast-Man stood. He played like this for a bit, managing to stay on tempo and maintaining that energy, before he decided that this clearly wasn't interesting enough. So, he grabbed hold of one of the rafters over his head, swung up onto it, then hung off it like a monkey and started playing while upside down. By this point, the audience had become a bit frenzied, both energized and amazed by what we were all seeing. A couple of smaller mosh pits had sprung up.
Not long after this, the concert reached its endpoint. After a rather furious closer, there was one massive disharmonious chord that rang out. Each band member then handed off a different instrument to different audience members, apparently letting them play as the band just walked away, presumably out of the building and around to the back. The chord rang and rang, then the plain-clothes version of the band came out and packed everything up. The lights brightened and we all sort of collectively came to. Each and every person got leagues more than there money's worth that night, with people laughing and embracing, and being so absurdly alive in the couple of hours we had all just spent together. This was definitely one of my favorite concerts.
Mini Reviews: FANTASTIC FOUR (2015) and THE FINAL GIRLS
I want to think that the troubles FANTASTIC FOUR had behind the scenes are to blame for the film that we ended up with. Ultimately, I don't think the film is all bad, just the last act. It seems that that three-fourths of the film wants to be straight-forward sci-fi involving the joy of scientific discovery, while also having complex relationships interwoven with the main players. Then, these relationships would be further complicated when the inevitable accident occurs which bestows fantastic abilities upon said characters. So, within the resolution, the different threads are resolved while the undercurrent of the joy of scientific discovery remained.
At least, that's where I thought it may have been going (and, to be honest, that suggestion was fairly unpolished). Instead, all of these different points were set up with no real resolution. The movies stumbles into a "superhero" ending that is completely unearned by what came before. Every major character point is buried under this, seemingly in an attempt to give the fans who were vocal about their resentment with the film the ending they wanted. What that ended up accomplishing was making a film with all the possibility of being an interesting piece of "gee-wiz" sci-fi adventure cinema into a slog of a film with superheroics tacked on the end. It's all a bit depressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, horror has seen a sort of resurgence with an eye for appreciation for the aesthetics and craft of what came before. THE FINAL GIRLS continues that trend, and manages to make a larger comment on the power of cinema. It even leans itself into the same space as CABIN IN THE WOODS and SCREAM with its awareness and deconstructions of the tropes of the "slasher" sub-genre of horror as well as thoughtful gags involving the very structure of cinema.
This is accompanied by some outstandingly dynamic camera work that seems to come from the Sam Rami school of cinematography, but isn't a mere imitation. It takes the elements he worked with and expands on them, the camera sometimes whipping side to side with a blur, or twisting and looping over itself and moving through a room on each character and their reactions. Overall, though the beginning is a bit clumsy as it never really finds its footing until about fifteen to twenty minutes in, this film is something I can recognize as yet another brilliant work out of this new breed of horror directors.
At least, that's where I thought it may have been going (and, to be honest, that suggestion was fairly unpolished). Instead, all of these different points were set up with no real resolution. The movies stumbles into a "superhero" ending that is completely unearned by what came before. Every major character point is buried under this, seemingly in an attempt to give the fans who were vocal about their resentment with the film the ending they wanted. What that ended up accomplishing was making a film with all the possibility of being an interesting piece of "gee-wiz" sci-fi adventure cinema into a slog of a film with superheroics tacked on the end. It's all a bit depressing.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
In recent years, horror has seen a sort of resurgence with an eye for appreciation for the aesthetics and craft of what came before. THE FINAL GIRLS continues that trend, and manages to make a larger comment on the power of cinema. It even leans itself into the same space as CABIN IN THE WOODS and SCREAM with its awareness and deconstructions of the tropes of the "slasher" sub-genre of horror as well as thoughtful gags involving the very structure of cinema.
This is accompanied by some outstandingly dynamic camera work that seems to come from the Sam Rami school of cinematography, but isn't a mere imitation. It takes the elements he worked with and expands on them, the camera sometimes whipping side to side with a blur, or twisting and looping over itself and moving through a room on each character and their reactions. Overall, though the beginning is a bit clumsy as it never really finds its footing until about fifteen to twenty minutes in, this film is something I can recognize as yet another brilliant work out of this new breed of horror directors.
Thursday, January 14, 2016
On the Starkiller Base and the Emulation of Iconography
Spoilers for THE FORCE AWAKENS lie ahead
All art, ultimately, contains some aspect of emulation. We seek to create new forms of things we've already seen, whether it be musical call backs to songs we've heard, or interpretive dance referencing animal movement. Film also contains much of this, with many filmmakers creating homages to films that impacted them over their lives or just appealed to them aesthetically. With regards to STAR WARS, this points outwards towards other films, as well as inwards towards itself. George Lucas has often stated his influences for STAR WARS and explained his implementation of those things. While they make direct references to their original works, ultimately he re-contextualizes those things so that they work organically with the story he wanted to tell. With regards to pointing to itself, he had various elements present in all of the films ("I've got a bad feeling about this", "May the Force be with you") , and even those things work well in the moments they exist, not merely serving as call-backs to earlier films, but wholly organic lines.
In my review of THE FORCE AWAKENS, I mention that the weakest part of the film was its insistence on calling back without finding an organic way to integrate those older elements into the whole. The largest instance of this, in every sense of the word, was the Starkiller base. The more obvious reason for its existence in the film is as a call-back to the Death Star from the OT. Then one could factor in that it serves to suggest that the First Order has such incredible arrogance (or such a short memory) that they are willing to build something that has, essentially, been destroyed twice before by a (comparatively) ragtag bunch of rebels. I don't think these reasons really tread water, though.
Now, I will begrudgingly concede that the destruction to the small village could be seen as a sort of character motivation for destroying the Starkiller Base, but I mostly lean away from that due to the fact that, besides the basic empathy one would feel at seeing the horror of people being killed, there wasn't much motivation built from that. It's not as though we followed Poe Dameron's character throughout the majority of the film, seeing his character develop and experience the events of the film. He's in, then out for most of it, then back for a bit before disappearing again, only to strike the final blow at the end. Oscar Isaac does a great job with the character, but there isn't much on the page for him.
"Well, what of Finn?" you may ask. "He was there and he certainly had motivations for wanting to stop the Empire." Again, I know he was present at the massacre at the beginning of the film, but how does his character ultimately resolve? He engages Kylo Ren at the end of the film and is seriously wounded and then knocked unconscious. That doesn't necessitate the Starkiller's existence.It doesn't hinder his journey in any way. Again, John Boyega does a killer job as Finn, and his performance is all sorts of silly, endearing, and somewhat poignant, but what's on the page is a bit flat.
The point here is that there is no major character reason for destroying the Starkiller. Luke had all the reason in the world to do so with the Death Star, though. For one, it was the major symbol of the Empire's power. Not only could they oppress you, but if you stepped out of line they would simply destroy your planet (which they demonstrated by destroying the planet of Alderaan). Secondly, this same Empire killed all the family he knew. Aunt Beru, Uncle Owen, and Obi Wan Kenobi were all killed by these people, arguably destroying Luke's life. Even more, while on route to Alderaan, Luke saw the debris from its destruction, and he knew that millions upon millions of people were killed. So, for him, destroying the Death Star carried all sorts of weight. It was ultimately a powerfully cathartic moment for him, and was a through-line for the whole film. This goes further, though. The Death Star was a major motivator for Leia, as Alderaan was her home.
"Wait just a moment. Starkiller was going to destroy the base of the Resistance. So, that's a pretty important reason to run off and destroy it!" you may exclaim. Yes, well, there's a problem there. See, by that point the movie had already told us that the First Order wanted the map to Luke that was contained inside of BB-8. Even more, they knew BB-8 was with the Resistance. So, they were going to destroy the planet that held the thing they were looking for. They would end up destroying the very thing needed to prevent the return of Luke, one of the few people who could really do something to the First Order. That certainly seems extraordinarily stupid.
Literally every event that occurs on the Starkiller base didn't need to happen on the Starkiller. The fact that the Starkiller looks surprisingly Hoth-like meant that it could have been any random snowy planet or area with a large military instillation. The star system that is destroyed isn't even a destination any of the characters travel to. Yes, it's important to the Resistance, but by not tying any character motivations to it (as in they have to travel there for some information important to the story) it is stripped of any major dramatic impact it may have.
When it comes right down to it, the Starkiller base is like a tumor for THE FORCE AWAKENS. It points to the cancer that lies within the heart of the film's story: over-reliance on iconography rather than effectively using character motivations for drama. There's nothing wrong with looking back and giving thematic nods to what came before, but when it seems that the film is relying upon ONLY that, there's a big problem.
All art, ultimately, contains some aspect of emulation. We seek to create new forms of things we've already seen, whether it be musical call backs to songs we've heard, or interpretive dance referencing animal movement. Film also contains much of this, with many filmmakers creating homages to films that impacted them over their lives or just appealed to them aesthetically. With regards to STAR WARS, this points outwards towards other films, as well as inwards towards itself. George Lucas has often stated his influences for STAR WARS and explained his implementation of those things. While they make direct references to their original works, ultimately he re-contextualizes those things so that they work organically with the story he wanted to tell. With regards to pointing to itself, he had various elements present in all of the films ("I've got a bad feeling about this", "May the Force be with you") , and even those things work well in the moments they exist, not merely serving as call-backs to earlier films, but wholly organic lines.
In my review of THE FORCE AWAKENS, I mention that the weakest part of the film was its insistence on calling back without finding an organic way to integrate those older elements into the whole. The largest instance of this, in every sense of the word, was the Starkiller base. The more obvious reason for its existence in the film is as a call-back to the Death Star from the OT. Then one could factor in that it serves to suggest that the First Order has such incredible arrogance (or such a short memory) that they are willing to build something that has, essentially, been destroyed twice before by a (comparatively) ragtag bunch of rebels. I don't think these reasons really tread water, though.
Now, I will begrudgingly concede that the destruction to the small village could be seen as a sort of character motivation for destroying the Starkiller Base, but I mostly lean away from that due to the fact that, besides the basic empathy one would feel at seeing the horror of people being killed, there wasn't much motivation built from that. It's not as though we followed Poe Dameron's character throughout the majority of the film, seeing his character develop and experience the events of the film. He's in, then out for most of it, then back for a bit before disappearing again, only to strike the final blow at the end. Oscar Isaac does a great job with the character, but there isn't much on the page for him.
"Well, what of Finn?" you may ask. "He was there and he certainly had motivations for wanting to stop the Empire." Again, I know he was present at the massacre at the beginning of the film, but how does his character ultimately resolve? He engages Kylo Ren at the end of the film and is seriously wounded and then knocked unconscious. That doesn't necessitate the Starkiller's existence.It doesn't hinder his journey in any way. Again, John Boyega does a killer job as Finn, and his performance is all sorts of silly, endearing, and somewhat poignant, but what's on the page is a bit flat.
The point here is that there is no major character reason for destroying the Starkiller. Luke had all the reason in the world to do so with the Death Star, though. For one, it was the major symbol of the Empire's power. Not only could they oppress you, but if you stepped out of line they would simply destroy your planet (which they demonstrated by destroying the planet of Alderaan). Secondly, this same Empire killed all the family he knew. Aunt Beru, Uncle Owen, and Obi Wan Kenobi were all killed by these people, arguably destroying Luke's life. Even more, while on route to Alderaan, Luke saw the debris from its destruction, and he knew that millions upon millions of people were killed. So, for him, destroying the Death Star carried all sorts of weight. It was ultimately a powerfully cathartic moment for him, and was a through-line for the whole film. This goes further, though. The Death Star was a major motivator for Leia, as Alderaan was her home.
"Wait just a moment. Starkiller was going to destroy the base of the Resistance. So, that's a pretty important reason to run off and destroy it!" you may exclaim. Yes, well, there's a problem there. See, by that point the movie had already told us that the First Order wanted the map to Luke that was contained inside of BB-8. Even more, they knew BB-8 was with the Resistance. So, they were going to destroy the planet that held the thing they were looking for. They would end up destroying the very thing needed to prevent the return of Luke, one of the few people who could really do something to the First Order. That certainly seems extraordinarily stupid.
Literally every event that occurs on the Starkiller base didn't need to happen on the Starkiller. The fact that the Starkiller looks surprisingly Hoth-like meant that it could have been any random snowy planet or area with a large military instillation. The star system that is destroyed isn't even a destination any of the characters travel to. Yes, it's important to the Resistance, but by not tying any character motivations to it (as in they have to travel there for some information important to the story) it is stripped of any major dramatic impact it may have.
When it comes right down to it, the Starkiller base is like a tumor for THE FORCE AWAKENS. It points to the cancer that lies within the heart of the film's story: over-reliance on iconography rather than effectively using character motivations for drama. There's nothing wrong with looking back and giving thematic nods to what came before, but when it seems that the film is relying upon ONLY that, there's a big problem.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)