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.

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.

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:

• 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.

      

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.

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."