Suicide Squad and Behavioral Animation

draft

Behavioral animation in Suicide Squad.  Go rats, go!  Save the world!

Suicide Squad and Little Birdies

draft

If you look carefully, you will find little animated birdies in the scenes with Harley Quinn exterminating the soldiers of the presidential palace.

Its attention to the details that can make a film great.

Nomadland and Other Films

draft

Excerpted from a conversation with [REDACTED]

"Nomadland" was a big disappointment for me. I had been led to believe that it was a movie about zombies that attack a trailer park. Well! Fuck me! No such luck. I did appreciate that whats her name shat (past tense of shit) in a bucket but that one element, as appealing as it is on the surface, could not carry the film.

Regarding influencing public opinion, I did not explain myself well. In my obsessive doom scrolling, I read review/analysis articles by annointed pundits (did you know that this word came via the British adventure in india and refers to a "pandit" who is a type of Hindu scholar knowledgeable about the Vedic scriptures among other topics?) who purport to tell me what I and any reasonable person should like and hate. In particular, this pundit pointed out that The Joker was an abomination and no sensible person would like that yucky film. Well, you know what? Although I resisted seeing yet another film anywhere at all related to "The Batman" I have to admit that this was an interesting film, at least in part, with some very strong performances. So fuck him. Fuck all of them, if you see where I am going with this.

I want to say something nice about "Tenet" which as you know is not a terribly well regarded film. Well, although the concept is "just OK", I think it gets a bad rap for reasons that are not actually part of the film itself. If Nolan was an unknown, and made this movie (in a somewhat reduced form) for ... (making this up) ... maybe 1/3 to 1/4 the budget, then I think it would be regarded as a somewhat entertaining action adventure film. This is the well understood problem of giving a filmmaker too much money and of course people having expectations.

Setting expectations is so important.

It is very clear to me that visual effects has lost its way. The best visual effects film of the year might be one without time travel or space craft it may be a film with 30 shots, not 3000 shots, although I dont know what this film is. I think the vfx section suffers from the problems that accrue from self-important people whose very small dick, metaphorically speaking, has gone to their head... wait that image needs work. I need to think about this.

 

 

Meta Textual Issues with Thor Ragnorak

draft

I think very highly of Thor Ragnorak (2017) and would never in a million years say anything negative about it. But there are some notes I have after watching it maybe 50 times.  For those of you who perhaps may say that I am taking this a little too seriously, well, sure, of course I am.

And so a few things that felt a little wrong to me:

1. Why are Hela's warriors evil, demonic looking bastards?  These are the ancient warriors of Asgard!  They should be handsome if a little scarred and maybe worse for wear.   Why would the predecessors of Vikings be ashamed of killing people and stealing gold?  They did that all the time.  That was their raison d'etre by all accounts.  Well, of course there is an answer to this and it is straightforward.  We are looking at Norse culture through our own, and if we are ashamed of our violent past (stealing the land and murdering the native Americans / first peoples, for example), then they should be as well.  Simple enough.
 
2. From what I know of this period, I would expect a lot more drinking, a lot more hosting people in big halls with drinking, bragging and toasts, and a lot more riddles.   They really liked their riddles, it seems to be a major part of their culture. Depending on who you believe it is even possible that riddles were a part of their religious beliefs (as we would call them, I doubt they would see them that way).  See (1) for some entertaining theories on that whole topic.

3. As for Valkyrie being gay and Loki bisexual, well that is possible but with stern restrictions.  One was expected to get married and have children, more or less, without exception.  If you were male, it was OK to be bisexual as long as (a) you were married and had kids, and (b) you were on top.  Seems a little weird, doesnt it, since if you are going to have a top, you pretty much are required to have a bottom, but whatever.  I will let you read what Hallakarva says on these topics (2).  The evidence on lesbians is far less substantial, presumably for all the usual reasons involving historical survival of sources (generally speaking, women and poor people are not well documented).

So what is our conclusion?  Not much.  Maybe it is foolish to look for such things in the Marvel Cinematic Universe?  But they did such a great job with historical accuracy with Captain America!

_______________________________

1. The White Goddess by Robert Graves

2. See The Vikings and Homosexuality by Hallakarva
https://sourcebooks.fordham.edu/pwh/gayvik.asp

Escape From LA (1996): Some Good, Some Bad

draft

Just viewing Escape from LA (1996) for the first time.  There is good and bad here.  Generally stream of consciousness below, more or less in order.

On the positive side, the president's daugher in pink is nice.  Some of the military women are hot.  Some of the matte paintings, while stupid, are kind of fun.  I always enjoy bad women who are tall and wear latex.  I like the Western theme music.  Some of the motorcycles are nice.  Always great to see people take care of their ride.  I like the "bolas".  I like the Island of Lost Souls / Twilight Zone aesthetic of the hospital.  I like the computer geek / nerd characterization.  Definitely a type.  I think thats the real Colliseum.  Looks good even with all the trash on it.

But there are a few flaws.  Off the top of my head ... The virus should be designed to take longer to take effect.  Come on guys, people need time to get stuff sorted out.  He doesnt know where he is going, he is probably going to have to walk.  Nuclear turbines take time to warm up.  No submarine could take abuse like that.  Wear your seatbelt, Plissken!  You are not going to hold back a multi-ton submarine with your hands.  If its falling, it is going to go.  Back to those women in latex, you know, latex is really hard to maintain.  And that looks like a rough environment.  Other than the previously mentioned Western theme music, I hate the music. When escaping from the hospital, he should have definitely killed the doctor.  I hate it when morons shoot in a circle towards the center.  Dont they know thats how people get hurt?  Access tunnels that are not being used are not well lit and are generally full of sh*t.  The EMP by satellite idea is pretty stupid.  Oh No, not another gladiator fight.  Oh God, no. 

Thank God!  Its just a basketball game.  I cant watch anymore.

Finally Saw Last Jedi

draft

Finally saw Last Jedi. The art direction & visual effects are certainly very good. Lots of good things to say about Snoke. I could see Luke going mad on that island and being apostate, maybe. But ultimately, no, it felt cynical. I did not believe that their heart was pure, I think it was all about making a buck. I look at the marketing in which the stooge, I mean the director,talked about what a fan he was. Yeah, well, maybe, whatever. I dont buy it. The diversity stuff felt cynical to me. If they donated the money to charity, I would go with it. otherwise forget about it. The dream is dead and died long ago.

In contrast, I felt Black Panther was far more sincere. What is the point of doing movies of this type if their heart isnt into it? I mean, why bother?

John Wick and the Internet Movie Firearms Database

draft

For those of you who have not seen them, the John Wick movies are very spiritually evolved movies about a retired assassin whose wife dies and leaves him a dog. Some idiot Russian mobsters steal his car and kill his dog, so John goes on a killing spree.

Its a very gentle movie, one with a lot of value on many levels. I doubt that more than 200 or so people are killed, although I could be wrong. I do lose count.

I am pointing you to a particular sequence listed below. The guy Wick (Keanu Reeves) is after is in the hot tub protected by maybe 30 or 40 Russian bodyguards.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-HSoOFdJ3s

But that is not the point.

Reload.... fire.

The point is to introduce you to an extraordinary resource: the Internet Movie Firearms Database. In which most movies are analysed by someone very knowledgable.

So please watch this sequence and then read about it here, and you will be impressed and enlightened, I think.

http://www.imfdb.org/wiki/John_Wick

What is this New IMAX?

draft

[Apparently many of the digital IMAX if not all project at 4K.  That is good news!]

Once upon a time, IMAX (tm) used to stand for something. It stood for a presentation format that had extraordinary resolution, clarity and presence. The format was only available at a few theatres, usually associated with Science Theatres, such as planetariums or aquariums.

The experience that came from seeing an IMAX film came from a very specific technical quality, which was its film and sound format, as well as the size of the screen in relation to the audience. The most important of these was the film format as IMAX was originated on 15-perf 65 mm negative and presented on 15-perf 70 mm print stock (the other 5 mm being the audio track).

As is so often the case in this world, IMAX the company wanted more. They did not want to be relegated to the fabulous ghetto of science theatres and wanted to be fully within the glamourous and rewarding motion picture industry.

So when the digital era came, and film was gone, they created some sort of Digital IMAX and achieved their goal, now major motion pictures would be released in IMAX as a premium format and at a premium price.

And I saw this new exciting format in the context of the premiere of Thor: Ragnarok and I can tell you that it is not only a complete yawn, but that I would not want to repeat the experience again. The whole time I was watching I felt like I was seeing some sort of cheesy uprez with a sharpening filter thrown on top. Combined with an overloud sound system and some very amateurish self-promotion videos.

It made me want to go back and see Thor: Ragnarok in normal old digital to see what it was really like.

The new IMAX is a classic example where digital is far inferior to the film original.

<insert images of 15 perf 65 vs 4 perf 35>

<insert link to a more complete discussion of the original IMAX format>

Thor: Ragnarok on IMDB
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3501632/

Watchmen Porn

draft

For years I avoided seeing the Watchmen superhero movie, because I hated the graphic novel in the 1980s. A friend made me see it as part of our remedial superhero study group and guess what, I really hated the movie. But I was surprised that she would appreciate the rape scenes so much and the sexist representation of women if that is indeed what it is.

For me, it is the latex garter belt that really sells this outfit.  

Maybe there is hope after all.

Feminism and the Wonder Woman Armpit Issue

draft

A great moment in cinematic history and criticism is taking place. This moment demonstrates the stupidity and the shallowness of the American civilization in all its glory.

In the middle of our little consitutional crisis, when the lives of millions, possibly hundreds of millions, of people in the world is at stake, with the end of the American republic all but certain, the failure of our elected representatives and governmental insitutions there for all to see, what do these shallow children worry about? What is at the very top of their list of things to complain about? What could motivate them to outrage?

Is it the destruction of the National Endowment for the Arts? No. Is it that the head of the Environmental Protection Agency has disavowed science? No. Is it the defunding of Planned Parenthood that is likely to result in the death of or the destruction of the life of thousands of poor women? No.

What then?

It is the burning question about whether or not Wonder Woman shaves her armpits in the third trailer for the Wonder Woman movie coming out in a few months. Were her armpits shaved in Photoshop, they wonder.

Perhaps the right is correct and we are raising a generation of stupid and shallow snowflakes after all. No one who lived through the 70s Feminist movement could help but shudder at this throwback to an earlier period of American radicalism.

I only hope that Wonder Woman's girdle squeezes these children until their heads pop with shame.

You may see this trailer here.

For a previous discussion of the Feminist issue of shaving, please see here.

The Superiority of the Marvel Universe over the DC Universe Explained

Any all-encompassing theory that attempts to explain why the Marvel CInematic Universe is in fact a valid metaphor and framework for expressing the nuances of our civilization must also explain why the MCU appears to be so much better than the DC Extended Universe. I believe that there are three fundamental reasons why this is so and will expound on this today.

But first lets discuss where the differences do not lie. Films in both universes have to contend with world-threatening villains who plan to destroy all humanity, that goes without saying. Films in both universes also have to balance these terrifying cataclysms with threats that are closer to home, thus we see cruel intergalactic forces threatening school buses filled with innocent children or civilians in both movies, in which the occupants are saved in the nick of time. No cheap exploitation of the emotions of the audience here.

Nor does the difference lie in a sometimes bewildering network of plotlines of various meta-human, mutated and/or intergalactic good or bad guys or gals. This sort of thing naturally comes with the territory and both of these universes deal with the narrative implications in an adequate fashion.

And it is not in the quantity or quality of the visual effects per se that we see our major differences. Both of these universes have their share of chair gripping, physics defying, perfectly conceived and choreographed disasters that involve entire cities and thousands of innocents in a narrative of alien hatred or world dominating conspiracy.

Wherein lies the differences between the two cinematic universes?

1. The DC Universe is grim and the Marvel Universe is not.

In the latest Superman and Superman vs Batman films, I counted exactly two jokes in both films. Let me go over that again in case I was vague. There were only two jokes in the entire second film and none in the first, although it is possible that there was a 1/2 joke in the first film. Whereas in the Marvel films, there actually is some humor in the dialogue, and some of it is actually quite funny. For example, doing this from memory.

Dr. Banner: (referring to Loki) You can smell crazy on him.

Thor: Be careful how you speak, he is my brother.

Natasha: He killed 80 people in two days.

Thor: He is adopted.

2. The sheer mayhem of the visual effects in the Marvel Universe is without equal.

Sure DC has a huge quantity of stupid visual effects, like everyone does today. But I felt that these effects, although well designed, and sometimes even innovative (see for example the krypton / machine interface in the first Superman movie) they lacked the sheer exuberant madness of the visual effects of the Marvel films, or at least some of them. Consider these frames from one of the fight climaxes of the Age of Ultron monstrosity. I bet you can not even figure out how many good or bad characters are fighting, let alone who is decapitating whom. I think that it is this out of control mayhem combined with the humor mentioned above that lends a certain quality to the Marvel films.

3. We have seen the DC films before and we will see them again.

The greed obsessed studios behind the DC films have made it clear that sequels and reboots of previously examined properties will continue into the future over and over again. How many times will we see a reboot of Batman and Superman? They will be endless, they will be infinite. We will see Superman's father explain to Superman that he is not from Earth again. We will see the young Bruce Wayne witness his parents getting murdered and be horrified, again.

Whereas the Marvel films give the impression that they are actually going somewhere with their different phases and do not plan to revisit the same old material repeatedly.  At least not yet.

_____________________________________

Notes

1. In Batman v Superman: The Dawn of Justice (2016) there may be two jokes.  One, when Batman rescues "Martha", Superman's mom, he says "I'm a friend of your son".  She says: "I could tell by the cape.". Not too bad. Better still is when Batman, Superman and Wonder Woman are preparing to take on the horrible monster at the end, there is some references to this critter being from another world. Wonder Woman says, "I have killed creatures from other worlds". Batman looks at Superman and says, "Is she with you?" Superman says, "I thought she was with you." I may have this backwards, I am doing this from memory.  These are both pretty reasonable moments of humor but that is it, that is all there is.  Its not enough, IMHO, to alleviate the endless grimness. Yes, comic book superhero movies are important, God knows, but important does not have to mean unrelieved grimness. We are not talking about genocide here, you know.

Oh wait, in the first movie, Man of Steel (2013), we are talking about genocide.  Ok, maybe they should be grim.

Is the DC Extended Universe Also a Metaphor for our Civilization?

draft

This essay began life as an inquiry into whether the movies of the DC Extended Universe have the depth, integrity and metaphorical richness of their main competitor in the world of cinematic graphic novels and super heroes, the Marvel Cinematic Universe.

I used two films as an entry point into the DC Universe, the Zack Synder Superman movie Man of Steel (2013) and his wildly disliked Badman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016).  But after viewing these two very strange films, I now realize that whatever is going on here is going to require more thought.

But lets start at the beginning.

It has been proposed that our cinema has moved beyond the "giant robot" to the comic book superhero as a metaphor for our civilization. Certainly a more nuanced metaphor would be hard to imagine than the classic American comic book with its superheroes, supervillains, women in spandex, alien menaces, and so forth. But not all superhero universes are created equal, and they are certainly not all translated to the big digital screen in the same way and with the same sureness of purpose. No doubt the Marvel Cinematic Universe has achieved a certain level of excellence, but can the same be said about the DC Extended Universe? On paper, the DCEU is every bit as good, if not better, than the Marvel one. Has it also self-consciously aspired to this metaphorical and cultural transcendence, or has it foundered on the jagged rocks of mediocrity in pursuit of commerce?

This were my organizing questions for my first analysis of this important, critical area..

But the two movies that I reviewed defy an easy analysis.  The first, Man of Steel (2013) is a very unpleasant movie about genocide from the point of view of the person who has it in his hands the power to either save his civilization or condemn it to a final and gruesome death.  And he chooses death for the civilization that created him.  In retrospect, it is a very grim movie with a horrible conclusion. Light hearted would not be the term used to describe this movie. It also completely ignores and dismisses all the unconscious themes of America from the 1930s through the 1950s that made the original Superman so interesting to a student of American history and culture.  It ignores the colorful villains of the Superman canon, retaining only one, General Zod, but it transforms Zod from a villain to a tragic hero, defeated at last by the criminal, mass murderer, Superman.

Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) was the most hated movie of this year.  And I can certainly see why as it turns its back on most of what made the two title characters entertaining to watch. Superman is a weirdo who murdered his people and is now a borderline psycho do-gooder who is hated for his mysterious powers and the collateral damage that he leaves at every turn. And Batman is a psycho, a vigilante, and by all definitions, a criminal who uses his vast wealth for his own purposes outside the law. Both see themselves as noble and doing good, but a lot of criminals and murderers in history also thought that.

Of the three leading psychopaths in our movie: Superman, Batman and Lex Luther, it is the latter who is by far the most interesting.

Lex Luther, Our Villain

Everyone hated this movie but me.  I liked it a lot.  It is a really sick film with a very interesting main villain and everyone's favorite lesbian/femdom popular culture icon, Wonder Woman.

Wonder Woman from 1918

Any woman who dresses up in an outfit like that, or looks like Linda Carter or our modern version, the gender ambiguous Gal Gadot, immediately gets my respect and I am interested in anything she has to say whether its about fighting the Nazis or any other subject she may care to discuss.

Since this blog and other things I write often discuss the semiotics and mechanics of visual effects, these two movies are excellent examples of how irrelevant visual effects are to the filmmaking art in so many cases. The visual effects of both movies are very good, possibly even exceptional.  There is some very good design in parts of these two films and they are to be congratulated. They are not even completely excessive as they are in so many movies.  But that said, and I will go over some design elements to highlight them in another post, that while these two movies are helped by their visual effects, the effects are not decisive.  It is the casting, the story and the direction that sets the tone and everything else is in a supporting role.

Whatever these two movies are, they are not trivial, shallow comic book superhero films.  Whether they are a metaphor of our civilization like the more diverse and generally somewhat more pleasant Marvel films are, remains to be seen. But it is interesting that these two tentpole projects for the DC Extended Universe are so very and unrelentingly dark, violent, and without hope.

I think that we should also note that two of the main characters of the second movie, Batman and Lex Luther, are able to do what they do, whether we approve or not, because they are rich.  They may be talented as well, but at the very least these movies touch on the that great American theme, that wealth is required to participate in our society.  If you are without wealth, then I would not count on being permitted to do anything of value.

Eisenberg as Luthor, hamming it up

Although no reviewer or fan has mentioned this, so far as I know, it is the women of Batman vs Superman who steal this movie.  Even when they do not have a speaking part, they are by far the most interesting characters.  And let there be no doubt why I think so, and please don't hate me, its because they pretty much are all desirable, in one way or another.

Our Israeli socialite looking demure.  He has no idea what he is in for.

So what do we have here?  Superman is a stuck up, maladjusted, genocidal piece of unemotional beefcake, and I could not care less about his character.  Batman is a psychopath and a rich kid who looks nice in a suit.  Lex Luthor is at least interesting if a spoiled self-indulgent rich kid. Wonder Woman is fabulous and is what a superhero comic book movie should be about.  Alfred, the loyal butler is an accessory to the crimes of the Batman and always looks like he just came off a long weekend at the bars or being dissolute in some excessive way.

Check out the expression our Wonder Gal as she wields her mighty sword

Whatever else can be said about these movies, they are not light hearted.  Whether they amount to more than the sum of their parts remains to be seen.

Man of Steel (2013) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0770828/

Batman vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2975590/?ref_=nm_flmg_dr_3

Is Captain America Gay or Just From Another Time?

[I wrote this post in complete innocence, not realizing that the gender preference of Captain America was a real issue heating up social media from here to Russia and beyond.  Apparently there is some discussion about whether Captain America and Bucky Barnes (aka The Winter Soldier) might not have a thing for each other.]

In America, it is very important to know about the sex lives of our celebrities both on the screen and off. Who does what to whom and how many times is central to our feelings about ourselves, who we are, and who we want to be. Some might think that childish, but I prefer to think that it is merely adolescent, and most adolescents have a healthy interest in sex, don't you agree?

I have recently watched all 12 (well maybe 14) of the movies in the Marvel Cinematic Universe. And to my astonishment, I have come across circumstantial evidence that Steve Rogers, Captain America, may not be the all-American boy so many right-thinking Americans think he is. True, the evidence is circumstantial but I also think it is compelling.

In Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014), in one of the brief respites between action sequences, Captain America is in a pickup truck driving in New Jersey with his new partner in crime, the Black Widow, aka Natasha Romanoff aka Scarlet Johannson. Ms. Johannson is wearing her regulation spandex-latex-polyethylene jumpsuit required for femme fatales in comicbook narrative.

They have a discussion about relationships, and I quote:

BW: Allright, I have a question for you. But you do not have to answer.

BW: But if you dont answer it is sortof answering though.

CA: What?

BW: Am I your first kiss since 1945?

CA: That bad, huh.

BW: I didn't say that.

CA: Well it kindof sounds like thats what you said.

BW: No I didnt, I just wondered how much practice you had?

CA: You don't need practice.

BW: Everybody needs practice.

CA: It was not my first kiss since 1945. I am 95, I am not dead.

BW: Nobody special then?

CA: Ha. Believe it or not it is kindof hard to find someone with shared life experience.

BW: Oh that is all right, you just make something up.

CA: What, like you?

BW: Truth is a matter of circumstances, not all things <indecipherable> all the time. Neither am I.

CA: Its a tough way to live.

BW: Its a good way not to die though.

CA: You know, its kindof hard to trust someone when you dont know who that someone really is.

BW: Yeah. Who do you want me to be?

CA: How about a friend?

BW: (laughs)

Is this really believable? You mean that for the first time in the history of the world, not to mention the cinema, we have a reversal of roles where it is the guy telling the gal that they should be friends? As if that is not enough, we have the unmarried, healthy, all-American boy telling Scarlet Johannson to get out of bed (figuratively speaking). True, she might not be the innocent all-American girl that a nice boy like Steve Rogers would want to marry and bring home to mother, if mother had not been dead for 70 or so years, but even so, everyone needs practice.

This gets at the fundamental dialectic so well reviewed in When Harry Met Sally (1989).  Is it possible for a heterosexual man and woman to be "friends", that is, without one of them desiring sex?  The answer in that movie and in most examples we have from life is an unambiguous "no".

No one, not even Captain America, would push Scarlet Johannson away. Maybe he is very shy? Not a chance, no way. Sorry. Unless, of course... Well you see where this is going. Even Natasha Romanoff would have to wonder what kind of man refuse her generous offer.

Is Captain America gay?

In this case, probably not. What we probably have here is a man who came of age in roughly 1944 being somewhat intimidated by the overt sexuality of the definitely non-chaste, modern Black Widow.  An excellent reminder of how hard it is to really understand the past. Things were different then.

Captain America: The Winter Soldier (2014) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1843866/

When Harry Met Sally (1989) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0098635/

The TransPacific Partnership and the Inalienable Rights of the Corporation

draft

When will American's wake up and realize that it is the noble corporation, the keeper of all that is right and just, that must be the focus of all our laws and institutions? By enabling and encouraging the large corporation, mere freedom and liberty is transcended by providing greater profits to the shareholders. America is based on this fundamental principle in spite of the whining of little groups of failed so-called upholders of liberty. They should realize that the only liberty that matters is the liberty of the large corporation.  It is from these corporations that all the good in our world originates.  Our entire political system is dedicated to empowering the large corporation.

As the movie, Network (1976), so presciently puts it, in putting words into the mouth of the Chairman of the Board of the eponymous network,

A lecture on Globalization

"You have meddled with the primal forces of nature, Mr. Beale, and I won't have it! Is that clear? You think you've merely stopped a business deal. That is not the case! The Arabs have taken billions of dollars out of this country, and now they must put it back! It is ebb and flow, tidal gravity! It is ecological balance! You are an old man who thinks in terms of nations and peoples. There are no nations. There are no peoples. There are no Russians. There are no Arabs. There are no third worlds. There is no West. There is only one holistic system of systems, one vast and immane, interwoven, interacting, multivariate, multinational dominion of dollars. Petro-dollars, electro-dollars, multi-dollars, reichmarks, rins, rubles, pounds, and shekels. It is the international system of currency which determines the totality of life on this planet. That is the natural order of things today."

And so, with this so clearly expressed back in 1976, why do we have to listen to mere Noble prize winning economists like this Joseph Stiglitz who is running down the Trans Pacific Partnership? Who is he to say that this is the "worst treaty every negotiated"?  President Obama had the interests of all Americans at heart when he tried to steamroller this treaty through congress without discussion.  Sure this treaty was negotiated in secret without the input of the citizens of the various nations but so what?  Look at what Globalization has brought to all the citizens of this great nation: poverty, the destruction of organized labor, the exploitation of enslaved people around the world.  Shouldn't that be enough to establish a little trust here?

Joseph Stiglitz going on and on about economic inequity again

In America, our entire political system is dedicated to empowering the large corporation. As it has always been. As it will always be.

Its for our own good.

You can read about Dr. Stiglitz's rant here:

http://www.cbc.ca/beta/news/business/joseph-stiglitz-tpp-1.3515452

The IMDB page for Network (1976) is here:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0074958/?ref_=ttqt_qt_tt

Is "The Force Awakens" A Film About White People?

draft

This film contains a very modest spoiler for The Force Awakens.

You could hardly not notice the John Boyega character in the first trailer of Star Wars. His Black skin was set against the white of storm trooper uniform, the sand and the sky. The implication was that this was the first time a Black man would be a leading character of the Star Wars films and not merely a token character chosen to appeal to a Black audience (i.e. the Billy Dee Williams and Samuel Jackson characters).

The character played by Mr. Boyega is certainly one of the main characters of the film, or so someone as naive about race relations such as myself might have thought.  But maybe not.

Hey I'm in a Star Wars movie!

In this editorial by Andre Seewood of the “Shadow and Act” blog of Indiewire, “Hyper-Tokenism: The “Force Awakens” While the Black Man Sleeps”, see here, he makes the argument that the Finn character is just a new style of token Black character and that in reality nothing has changed.

He makes the following points. First, that because Finn is knocked unconscious near the end of the movie, he does not actually participate in the climax of the film. Second, that Finn is a second class character in that he does not have the Force, does not speak Droid, and so forth. Third, that he fits the model of the “Hyper Token” Black person which amounts to giving the Black character much more screen time but depriving him or her of the dramatic potential of how the film is resolved: that ultimately the film is by White people about White people. And fourth, that he finds some sort of connection between this type of character and the final year of the Obama Administration.

He goes on to further describe how annoyed he is at the Black community for supporting a film like this that so crassly exploits Black people.  

I was a little surprised by this discussion, I had not really thought about it.  I did interpret the casting of Boyega in a cynical manner, assuming that the filmmakers had cast him as a way of marketing the film.  As a person who often passes as White it is easy for me to overlook the racial implications.  

It is implicit to Seewood's argument that nothing about such a character would be accidental and that therefore it is fair to look for motive and, being a little sensitive to the larger issues, to be looking for limitations in the range of the character, as Mr. Seewood certainly is.  

I think his editorial is worth reading and thinking about.

My knee jerk opinion is that probably, and in the absence of any other evidence, that any racism is accidental.  A fair rejoinder to that argument might be that by 2015 nothing on the topic could possibly be accidental.

Two final points that are far less interesting. I did not understand his Obama argument at all. President Obama seems about as White as a Black person could be. And second, apparently the correct way to spell Black is to capitalize it.

Fan Service in Space Movies: An Evolving Artform

In his work on Smut, the American poet and philosopher Tom Lehrer once said

    All books can be indecent books

    Though recent books are bolder

    For filth, I'm glad to say, is in

    The mind of the beholder

                  (Lehrer, 1-4)

The sexual exploitation of women in film is a much misunderstood tradition that goes back to the very origins of the filmmaking craft.  What is not normally acknowledged however is the rich variety and subtle nuance of sexist exploitation, from mere "fan service" to plot-motivated actresses in skimpy outfits.  In this post we propose to review some of the details of the myriad forms that cheesy exploitation of women can assume, in particular with reference to movies that take place in what we used to call Outer Space.

One important distinction between the greater and lesser uses of exploitation is whether having scantily clad women (and in a very few cases, men) is whether there is even the most shallow excuse for the exploitation in the story.  Just like in American musical theatre any song is supposed to advance the story, the same should be true for the exploitation of women.  The lowest form of exploitation is that which has no possible reason or justification.

The Japanese term-of-art for the gratuitous insertion of scantily clad women, or men, or aliens, in order to stimulate the viewer is "fan service" which simply provides without reason whatever viewer stimulation the intended audience prefers.

On the higher and more refined part of town, though, one can work elements consisting of women in spandex into the raison d'etre of the film and thus reinforce the important ideas that underlie the film experience.  One film in particular that did this well was Roger Vadim's Barbarella (1968) in which the sexually active lead, a woman ahead of her time, played by Jane Fonda, causes the Orgasmatron-like Excessive machine to expire after a sex marathon with Ms. Fonda thus demonstrating her superior capacity for pleasure.  No cheap exploitation of women here.

And certainly we can say that the casting and costuming of Ms. Jovavitch in Luc Besson's Fifth Element (1997) was motivated by the highest ideals of the motion picture industry.

Milo Jovovitch from the Fifth Element (1997), above, and an unknown actress from Planet of the Vampires (1965).  

The cinema must move on from these brilliant yet analog expressions of cheesy exploitation and find new ways to demean themselves.  Directors and producers struggle to find appropriate and stylistically valid ways to exploit women of both genders in order to increase the appeal and the box office of their creative works.

We are less than a month away from the release of The Martian (2015) and the material released so far seems to give very little opportunity to exploit women.   This has left many scholars and fans of the cinematic arts worried that Ridley Scott may let down the side.

This film has unusual conventions for a space movie.  Most movies set in space will generally make use of a giant robot or a superhero or two, perhaps an alien race of Amazon Women, or other sophisticated plot elements that naturally provide opportunities for the filmmaker in collaboration with their costume designer. 

But things are not so easy in The Martian as the various female leads are supposed to be serious working professionals, and thus diving into the gutter to pander to the adolescent male of all ages requires some sophistication and sophistication has never been known as a motion-picture industry strong point.  If this were a James Bond movie, it would be straightforward to simply introduce one of the female leads in a scuba outfit, but this is space, the final frontier, sans superheroes, or even Uhura, or other Star Trek rebooted characters, so what is a filmmaker to do?

As you can see from several of the recent Star Treks, the role of women in space cinema has come a long way

Not only is the The Martian a hardcore, mostly scientific man-vs-nature adventure film about an astronaut marooned on Mars, but it is a Mars very explicitly without any Martian Princesses lounging around. At first glance its hard to see where exactly the sexist exploitation of women can be derived.

Nevertheless, a few stills from a viral marketing promo about this upcoming film gives us hope. Its subtle, true, but it makes us optimistic for the future.

Good posture, don't you think?

I want to encourage Ridley Scott and his filmmaking team to grasp this opportunity with both hands and supply the fan service for which he is known.  It is small things like this that can cheer up the otherwise pointless and dreary lives of their audience.

_________________________________________

Notes:

1. Tom Lehrer. Smut can be found at
http://www.guntheranderson.com/v/data/smut.htm

2. Those interested in reading further should check out the Wikipedia page on
Catsuits and Jumpsuits in Popular Media.

3. The Martian(2015) on IMDB  
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3659388/

4. Barbarella (1968) on IMDB  

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062711/

5. Planet of the Vampires (1965) on IMDB

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0059792/

Should We Abandon the "Rational Actor Model of Filmmaking"?

Is there too much bad computer animation in today's movies?  Is that even possible?

I continue to see people out in the world, on Internet forums and blogs, complaining piteously about the alleged overuse of bad computer animation in film. Here is a recent example pointed out to me by the people at www.io9.com.

Six Reasons Modern Movie CGI Looks Surprisingly Crappy

http://www.cracked.com/blog/6-reasons-expensive-films-end-up-with-crappy-special-effects/

Is it possible that there is too much CGI, particularly bad CGI, in modern filmmaking?

No, of course not. Everything done with computer graphics in visual effects is exactly as it should be and the audience should agree if they know what is good for them. But sadly, some among the audience, a pathetic few, have not gotten the message. Two messages in fact.

The first message that these whiners have missed is that the modern art of filmmaking is all about the bad use of computer graphics: that is its very raison d'etre. That is its highest goal, second only to maximizing shareholder value, of course. When the audience sees computer generated garbage, that so-called garbage is nothing less than the manifestation of the new art which demands new artists and perhaps new audiences as well. Some of these filmmakers, like Michael Bey, may be far ahead of their time. But it is the duty of the real artist to lead and society will follow along eventually.

The second thing to realize about the tsunami of shit that we see in computer-generated visual effects is that it is not merely a lack of skill on the part of the effects providers, although that is often true as well.

Those who kvetch must look further into the heart of the madness itself and realize that it is almost certainly the filmmaker's vision that is up on the screen. If it is ugly, it is the ugliness that the client wanted. Bad computer animation has been incorporated into the filmmakers body of work and sensibility: it is an element of their style made manifest.  Admittedly, sometimes unconvincing or sub-par work is the result of a lack of skill on the part of the VFX supervisor or facility, but even then it may be that this apparent lack of skill is why these specialists in the computer arts were chosen. Their aesthetic matched that of the filmmaker's and a perfect harmony was found in stupid visual effects. It is not accident that things look the way they do.

To paraphrase a gem of wisdom from our friends in Communist China, “The fish stinks from the head”. In other words, when something smells bad to understand why it smells bad, you must look at who is running things because what you are seeing (or smelling) is probably what they asked for or represents who they are in some manner.

Yes, there are details in this vision that we can be critical of. It does seem that many do not realize that a camera must act like a real camera or it will cause the failure of the suspension of disbelief. The failure to embody the characters with appropriate gravity or weight is often cited, although that is but one example of the bad animation which we are regularly exposed to. The failure to realize that visual effects is about sleight-of-hand, it is about making the audience see what you want them to see and not about number of pixels or “photorealism”. The failure to realize that too much of anything is counterproductive.

But in our new Globalized and virtual Hollywood, nothing succeeds like excess. There is something about visual effects done with computers that can cause a producer and/or director to lose all sense of proportion and just throw 3D computer generated shots at their movie in lieu of thinking.  Perhaps this is a way to compensate for their own sexual inadequacy?  Perhaps the filmmakers have developed an anxiety disorder associated with working with a writer?  In the future, will 3D animation be classified as some sort of dangerous drug that causes the victims to peck without restraint at the lever that releases a 3D CGI pellet to the drug-crazed pigeon-filmmakers?

Should we now abandon the "rational actor" model of filmmaking, which says that those who are making this expensive entertainment product are reasonable and talented human beings doing what they think is best for the kind of entertainment they are trying to make?  Have our artists been driven mad by the opportunities which 3D animation have revealed?

Or is it something else.  Could it be that our overly-critical audience swine, who the Germans refer to as negativenpublikumschweine,  must look within themselves to find the real problem?   Perhaps it is not "bad" computer animation per se that they are reacting to, but their own provincial point of view that is not sophisticated enough to understand the director's vision?

The Anomaly of Enjoying Jupiter Ascendant

George Lucas has famously said that movies are binary: they either work for you or they don't. If they do, then you ignore any little flaw. But if they do not, then every flaw or potential flaw is noticed and used against it. I do not know if Mr. Lucas was original in this observation, I doubt it, but ever since I read that I have noticed that he seems to be correct. All movies have flaws of course, but when you are caught up in a film, one is happy to ignore the problems and issues that in other circumstances would be seen as deadly.

The question then becomes, what leads a member of the audience to lean one way or the other? From acceptance and enjoyment to rejection and boredom or worse? One aspect of this choice may be what is called the “cockroach in the salad” effect. Lets say you are eating out at a fancy restaurant and you have ordered a salad and when it arrives the first thing you see is a disgusting cockroach on top wiggling its antennae at you. You call the waiter over and he removes the offending cockroach and salad but the damage has already been done. It will be hard to get beyond that terrible first impression. On the other hand, let us say you are at a restaurant and see nothing that you particularly want, but you order something and to your amazement, it is really good. From that point on, everything works for you.

So my argument here is that the basis of cultivating a positive impression of a creative work is a mashup of “first impressions” with “low expectations”. If you did not expect much, then getting something really good is likely to push you over the edge to a positive impression. And vice versa. Until you get that push, whether positive or negative, then you are in a state of uncertainty. Is this film any good or not?  

I don't have any other way of explaining the apparent anomaly of enjoying “Jupiter Ascendant” (JA) a film I was born to hate. What could have caused this odd reversal of expectations such that I actually enjoyed watching this film? Can Science explain this or must it always remain a mystery?

Consider the following:

First, we have a dinner sequence in which our plain jane heroine introduces us to her Russian extended family in America. Its actually very funny. You mean the Wachowski brothers actually have a sense of humor? How would we have known?

 Jupiter's sister before and after a special bath.  Ah, refreshing !

Second, we have a classic theme in fantasy fiction, the “person of noble birth who does not realize that she is of royal blood and possibly the heir to the throne”. In this sub-genre, the kids are separated from the adults by the manner in which it is revealed that our average neighborhood girl is actually “her majesty”. In JA this is actually done quite well and unexpectedly. A fight sequence between two alpha males upsets a hive or three of bees which scares the shit out of our female lead, but no need to worry, the bees have been genetically programmed to treat “royals” differently and so our two fighting alpha males break off their sparring to recognize that something quite odd has happened. The babe has been revealed as a member of a royal family of some sort.

Bees show the way

Third, after our plain jane babe has had her butt saved by our hero, she tries to encourage him to ignore her royal birth and kiss her. He refuses, revealing that he is not really a man, but closer to a dog, or a wolf. She comes back with a splendidly stupid response: she has always gotten along well with dogs. Its does not persuade. This is funny.   It occurs to me that in certain ways this incident is itself a flaw in the movie. If our hero was really descended from a dog, then he would have no trouble taking advantage of the situation.  But I digress.

Fourth, the sequence with the candles and certain aspects of the wedding sequence are lush and clearly represent the director's desire to have a big wedding one day.

Fifth, the two brothers of this royal family are monumentally fucked up.   Parents, take note, do not name your child "Titus", it never seems to work out.

What a creepy asshole this guy is.

But most of all, who could not like a movie where the lead babe keeps having to remind people that "I am not your damn mother"?

So what we have here is an overdone, weird movie in the same genre of, for example, the original Dune novel: a space opera with exotic economies, insane royal familes and fight scenes between things bred to be good at fighting.

Overblown, a misfire, there is no doubt that it is a miscalculation on a galactic scale, truly a stupid movie.

Nevertheless, as a 12 year old, emotionally and psychologically, I found it often to be an entertaining movie and was willing to overlook its tragic flaws.   I also have a tendency to hunt and peck at my movies.  I am not bound, like so many are, to watch a film from beginning to end.  I prefer to "sample", sometimes with the sound off, in order to better appreciate its higher values.   When properly used, this technique can improve most movies.

Postscript

It did not hurt that the uber-schmuck, John Gaeta, was somehow deposed from his role as visual effects supervisor on this semi-epic. I shudder to think what manner of ego-swine must have replaced him/it. I am sure that Mr. Gaeta will enjoy a new career in the food service industry or some other profession worthy of his talents.