5th Monday Ugh: Kickin It Old Skool (Movie)

What does it say about a film made in 2007
when there isn't a high resolution image
of its cover easily available online?

What can I say about 2007's "Kickin It Old Skool" that isn't said by its 2% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes?  This movie is basically a "Hot Rod" knock-off with everything good replaced by something soulless.  I'm not just saying the film is bad, it's also horribly dark, offensive, and bad-natured.  What is supposed to be a wacky, high-energy comedy leaves the viewer feeling not only bored but strangely soiled.

In "Kickin It" Justin Schumacher (Jamie Kennedy) is a child break-dancer in the 80's who hits his head while dancing and falls into a twenty-year-long coma (as one does).  As his parents are about to pull the plug he hears the song "Rockit" by Herbie Hancock, and this somehow revives him.

When he entered this coma he was twelve; when he wakes he is thirty-two.  Why then, does he act like a disturbed six-year-old?  At what point did this seem like it would be funny to anyone?  He meets up with his old dance crew, and we enter into the abyss: a mind-numbing parade of failed joke after failed joke, poking fun at everything from pornography addiction to individuals with mental disabilities.  The feeling of the film is best encapsulated in one memorable deleted scene in which a young girl misunderstands adult Justin's hand motions describing how he squeezes lemons for his lemonade stand after inexplicably asking him, "How do you squeeze the lemons?" (which has to be the worst joke set-up in history).  She calls him a perv, flips him off, and says venomously, "F*** you!" before storming off.  Now we're having fun.

If you have a desire to abuse yourself--in fact, maybe if you kind of hate yourself a little--might I recommend this movie without hesitation.  For the rest of you I would just stick with reading the (very entertaining) critic reviews.

This promo wallpaper of Kickin It's "Chilly Chill"
may perhaps be the least used desktop image of all time.

I find myself in agreement with one reviewer, who refers to the film as "laugh-proof".

-MA 12.31.2012

Unaccompanied Sonata - Card (Short Story)

You may or may not have noticed I didn't have a blog post on Monday.  I am currently far from home for the holidays and have not had ready access to a computer.  I tell you this because it is the reason I am reviewing this work in particular.  I have a list--somewhere--of potential future works to be reviewed, and when I can't find it I can always peruse either of my loaded bookshelves, but here I find myself limited to what I have on hand, and this has turned out to be quite the blessing...for you!  *winky face*  I say this because I would probably never have thought to review this short story otherwise, and that would have been a shame.

First, a word about Orson Scott Card.  You are probably at least familiar with his most famous book "Ender's Game".  He has had a long and varied career as an author, writing mostly (but not exclusively) science fiction novels.  When a young reader is first introduced to Card (usually through the "Ender" series or his excellent sci-fi/religious "Homecoming" novels) he or she is typically floored.  The reader has never read anything like it, and yearns for more.  Unfortunately, not all Card novels are created equal.  He has admitted that he has, at times, written a book simply because that is his job and he needs to make money.  Now, I'm not trying to say he should not do this--obviously that is his choice--but it has produced a few hollow, disappointing novels I would never recommend to anyone ("Homebody" being the quintessential example of this).

I have long believed that his finest medium is not the one for which he is best known.  He excels in the short story.  He is a master of it.  And one in particular he refers to as, "The most powerful thing I have ever written."  If you have not read it, it's time you did.

If you read the title of this entry you know I am referring to "Unaccompanied Sonata."  This is indeed short, clocking in at twenty-three pages (if you are reading it in the small-paged paperback form), yet the story it tells is in no way small.  I have read it twice, the last time probably more than seven years ago, and yet as I was thumbing through it this morning I was shocked by how much of it I remembered.  I knew the premise, the main character's name, his nick-name later on, each important event and side-character, and the ending.  In short: I remembered everything.  This is a testament to this work, it proves that after reading it I thought through the story over and over.

Strictly speaking it is a science fiction story, but like the best sci-fi, it reads like literature, pandering to emotion and relatability rather than high-headed conceptualism.  On the first couple of pages you will learn that at a very young age our hero, Christian Haroldsen, has been tested by the government and has been found to be a musical prodigy.  He is removed from his parents, taken to an isolated house in the woods, given an instrument that can produce any sound he can think of, and allowed to make music.  This is all he does.  He is not allowed to hear any other musician's work, nor is he allowed to meet the people who listen to his music.  From there on things get interesting.  Perhaps the most impressive aspect of this work is it's tone.  It's clear that Card feels strongly about the story's moral, but the tone itself never reveals this.  Everything is told clearly, cleanly, and surgically.

By the time you finish you may find yourself sitting quietly, staring at a wall.  

-MA 12.26.2012

Note:  This story was originally published in Omni Magazine in 1979, it can now be found in a number of collections of Card's short stories; I recommend "Maps in the Mirror", as it is the most complete of these collections.

A History of the Ancient Southwest - Lekson (Non-Fiction)

I've never really been big into non-fiction.  Not because I don't see it as good art, not even because I don't find it interesting, but because I love fiction so much.  Reading takes time, and every book you read is a billion books you didn't.

How then, you might foolishly ask, did this particular non-fiction work end up on this blog?  Once upon a time I had to choose a class last-minute when I realize something I had already registered for wasn't going to work with my schedule.  My choices were very, very limited.  I ended up taking a 5000 level archeology class that--for whatever reason--had no prerequisites.  (This is equivalent to a 500 level class at most universities.)  I could probably write several pages on what a trip it was for me, a non-archeology major, to take this class and how hard it kicked my butt, but I'll spare you.  The important thing here is that I read a book called "A History of the Ancient Southwest", which, as it turned out, was one of the most fascinating and illuminating books I have ever laid my hands on.

Stephen Lekson is a wonderful writer, with a natural story-teller's finesse and an infectious sense of humor.  You might find it hard to believe that a book with such a dry-sounding title could be funny, or even engaging, but he makes it work.  The text reveals that even the title is a kind of tongue-in-cheek joke about archeologists.   It doesn't read like a textbook, but like a very informative narrative, or rather, set of narratives.

If you are into paradigm shifts--and who isn't?--this book will interest you.  It is written in such a way as to be accessible to the non-scholar as well as to Lekson's colleagues.  Your understanding of the Native American populations in ancient northern Mexico and the south-western United States will be shaken, expanded, and turned on its head.  Both from that class and from this book I learned very interesting things about this time period and area, as well as about all of the pre-Columbian Americas.

Some of the ruins in Chaco Canyon, an integral city in the book's narrative.

Perhaps you are not convinced that you, too, will be interested, but I'll bet you're wrong.  Allow me to posit just a few of the tidbits gleaned from the material.  We often hear of the genocide that took place when "the white man" came to the Americas--and certainly no one is trying to overlook the inhumanity involved in the treatment of Native Americans--but did you know that the vast majority of these deaths were inevitable?

Archeological evidence now (very strongly) suggests that the Native American population was much, much larger than has been widely believed in the past.  There may have been as many as twelve million people living in America at the time of European contact.  The diseases that the white man unknowingly brought then swept through the American continents much faster than any explorer could, taking out somewhere in the vicinity of 80-90% of the population long before any white man set foot into the inner-land areas.

This means that for later (more western) contact, seventy years or more may have passed between the epidemic and European contact with specific "tribes" (a term which is becoming increasingly nebulous in regards to ancient peoples).  What the white man saw when they got further into the continent were not the very advanced societies that preceded contact, but the tattered, shredded remains of those societies.

I could go on, but really, Lekson says it better.  Go on and discover some of the beautiful mystery that is the ancient Southwest, including the Chaco Meridian!  Tally-ho!

 

Lekson

- MA 12.18.2012

Gentleman Broncos - Hess (Movie)

"I hope everyone likes our movie, Venonka."

So, you liked "Napoleon Dynamite", but you didn't feel that cool about it because most everyone else did too, huh?  Well then, here is the film for you: "Gentleman Broncos" (2009) from Dynamite director Jared Hess!  Both films were written by Hess and his wife Jerusa.  Don't worry, this film is not well known and loved by millions; if fact, so few people thought the film would be well received that instead of being shown in theaters across the country (as was originally planned) it went straight to DVD!  This film is not loved, it has a %19 rating on Rotten Tomatoes and it doesn't fare much better anywhere else.  So you can see why--although I love this movie--I cannot recommend it without hesitation.  If you choose to see the film, you may very well be left with the unsettling feeling that you have just watched one of the weirdest movies of all time.

"Gentleman Broncos" is--at its heart--about what happens to art as it is changed or adapted.  Motivations for doing so are also explored.  Lead character, Benjamin Purvis, has written a bizarre sci-fi novel (which the movie tells us it actually quite good) in honor of his deceased father.  Throughout "Gentleman Broncos" we get to see it as it is, as it is once adapted to the "big screen", and as it is once it has been plagiarized.  I'm not delve deeply into plot points, but there's the basic premise.

"Benji Boy"

Let's start with what is perceived as being so bad about "Gentleman Broncos" that makes it so hated by so many.  In part, it's gross and it's weird.  This is one of the few PG-13 movies out there that has no sex, no swearing, and almost no violence.  What then, could earn this rating?  If you watch it, you'll know.  At points the film is almost dark in its merciless portrayal of how awkward the characters are and how strange their lives are.  I'll be the first to admit it's not an easy film to watch for this reason.  Some moments stumble over the line between comedy and horror; in one scene Benji's mom, Judith (Jennifer Coolidge) is screaming from an unexpected wound, she screams and screams as the camera zooms in disconcertingly.  Ebert complains that the plot "mystifies" the characters.  Another aspect of the film some people don't care for is how bounces around between the the real world and depictions of Benji's story.  All I have to say to that is if you'll simply pay attention you'll be fine.  Some people also think it's boring and pointless and blah blah blah.

Okay cool, now that we have that crap out of the way let us move on to a much more accurate review: mine.  From this point on I'm going to be pretending like everyone would love this movie.  "Gentleman Broncos" has it all!  Humor!  Originality!  Superb acting!  And lest we forget, quotability!  This is the kind of movie you can watch over and over again because you definitely missed something the first, second, and third times through.  Like Napoleon, it has a lot of short scenes.

 I could easily write about this movie for hours, enumerating what I feel is artful scene after artful scene, but I'll spare you.  It suffices me to say it is well written and well directed.  I would actually like to focus on just one aspect of the movie, one which I feel those who gave negative reviews all but completely ignore: the acting.  I can think of few movies with more consistently good acting then this one.  "Flight of the Conchords" co-star Jermaine Clements plays esteemed sci-fi novelist Ronald Chevalier, whose dualistically styled name is a window into the nature of his character.  He plays Chevalier with such effortlessness you would swear he wasn't acting, but we know from his other work that he is nothing like the pompous and arrogant (not to mention deep-voiced) writer we see on-screen.  Sam Rockwell pulls off his twin roll of Bronco/Brutus with about as much ease.  I didn't even realize my first few times viewing the movie that it was the same actor; the characters seem to exist in different galaxies.  Although Coolidge is a well-known Hollywood actress, she takes on a level of believability in the admittedly difficult role of Benji's mom that again makes us think she is just a woman who acts that way all the time, more-or-less playing herself.  This is not the case.  And finally we come to Benji himself, the "star."  Rarely do we see a protagonist with so few lines, though he is in the majority of the movie's scenes.  He doesn't have much to say, but that's alright because his face tells us all we need to know.  Pay special attention to his eyes, which seem to have a life of their own.  Other notable performances include Mike White as Benji's "guardian angel" from church and "Nacho Libre" co-star Hector Jimenez who plays a bizarre native-American high school student who makes films; "mostly trailers," he explains.  Critics complain that while there are Big Names on the screen, nothing is happening.  I feel this is akin to complaining that your nature walk was boring; while you wait around in vain for the movie to push you through one tired comedic plot-point to another, you are missing the art of the film, the execution of each moment.

Bronco triumphantly rides a battle stag.

The director and the actors know that the material is over-the-top, the characters are wacky, their motivations and the results are wacky, so they handle it the right way.  In a word: understated.  There's not a lot of crazy screaming or goofy faces.  The movie is even beautifully absent of that almost undetectable comic inflection seen in so many movies that let's you know the actors are "just kidding."  They are sincere, which I think is a turn-off for some.  For me however, I can't get enough.  All throughout the movie we hear some of the finest line deliveries in memory, but these gems are too quickly discounted because someone threw up in the last scene.  People sometimes throw up; get over it.

Who can forget such memorable quotes as, "How about this?  Moon Fetus... A fetus is found on a moon base...that's the premise."  And, "Circle of life, man."  And, "My dad, kind of, died when I was young."  And, "I couldn't find any tampons so I just bought some treats for Lonnie and me."  And so many more I can't even begin to write them all.  Well I guess I did begin, but you know.

I leave you with the following promotional video that is actually not in the movie (it actually is kind of relaxing to image a planet with life forming on it): 

-MA 12.10.12

Bone - Jeff Smith (Graphic Novel)

First, a note on comic book terminology, because I know it can get a little confusing.

Comic Book - A publication in sequential comic form that is not comic strips.  If it is a collection of comic strips, i.e. "Calvin and Hobbes" then it's just called a collection of strips.  (Interesting side note: some of the things we refer to as comics actually aren't since they are not sequential.  Anything that's just one panel isn't technically a comic, it's just a cartoon.  Sorry, "Far Side!"  Not really that sorry, "Family Circus!") 

Issue - One "chapter" of an ongoing or multi-issue story, such as "The Amazing Spider-Man" #586.  This is the most common form of comic book.  Unlike novels, the number of pages is not a factor for definition.  However, a typical issue is between 15 and 30 pages.

Trade Paperback - A collection of issues that have already been published.  This might include the republication of the first four "Batman" comics or issues #200-250 of "Iron Man" all in one book. 

Mini-Series - A mini-series is made up of issues.  The difference between a normal comic book series and a mini-series is that the number of issues is decided before the first issue is published.  "Watchmen" is one example of a mini-series.  There are only twelve issues and they tell a complete story.  Most comic book series are not mini-series'; like many TV shows, they will continue to produce them until they stop making money.

Graphic Novel - Many things which we refer to as graphic novels are actually mini-series', since they were published in a number of issues.  A true graphic novel is a one volume comic where the beginning and the end are included in the same book in the first printing.  "Goodbye, Chunky Rice" is a graphic novel.  That being said, language and terminology is constantly changing, and over the past decade or so the term "graphic novel" has been used more and more to describe collected trade paperback's of a completed mini-series.

Look, over there, it's a review blog!  Let's share it with our friends!

So it is with "Bone."  Yes, yes, it is not technically a graphic novel, it is a mini-series.  But now-a-days it is not common to see anything but the massive 1300 pg trade paperback for sale.  So I'm just going to cave and refer to it as a graphic novel along with everybody else.

From 1991 to 2004 Jeff Smith released 55 issues of "Bone".  Taken together, these issues are a stand-alone, complete story.  I was thinking about listing all the awards this book has won, but I decided against it for the simple reason that I knew about it long before I knew of its fame, and it would be on this blog regardless of its success. 

You might be thinking, "1300 pages?  Yeash!  No thanks, I don't have that kind of time."*  But it is actually a very short read.  This is partly because Jeff Smith was an accomplished animator before he wrote and drew "Bone", so the book reads wonderfully like a storyboard with dialog.  The art is beautiful, neat, thoughtful.  At times scarce, at times intricately detailed.  If you're not blown away by the locust swarm in the first issue there is something wrong with you.

The story is a delicate balance of Disney/Chuck Jones cartoon humor and style, and Tolkien-esque epic.  If you don't like dragons and swords, don't read "Bone."  But if you don't mind a little fantasy, and if you love a great story, "Bone" is the book for you.  As is the case with many of the story-based artworks showcased here, the story of "Bone" is one that will stay with you long after you read it.  It is pretty PG, but it's about as dark as something that's supposed family friendly can get, and I love that.

The basic premise--obviously, skip this paragraph if you don't want to know--is that three cartoony beings (The "Bones") get evicted from their hometown of Boneville because one of them made a greedy mistake.  We never actually see Boneville, but we are to assume it is full of other creatures that are just like our heroes.  Boneville is not a magical place; as near as we can tell it is basically identical to our modern world, except instead of humans there are bones.  They then stumble around in the desert for a while until they are bombarded by a huge swarm of locusts, through which they can see nothing.  When the locusts finally disappear they realize they are in unfamiliar territory.  Not only are they no longer in the desert, they are now in a verdant forest.  They run across little talking bugs, naughty squirrels, monsters called rat creatures, and of course--humans. A beautiful young girl named Thorn takes them in and from there...well, let's just say things get complicated.

It is imaginative, epic, exciting, and consistently funny.  Yes, it has some faults: Smith seems to think we are all as interested as he is in "Moby Dick" and it gets old pretty fast, some of the jokes may be a little too High School Cheese** for mature tastes, and not everyone is happy with the ending.  But we forgive these minor infractions because we love the characters, the story, and not least, the art.  

The biggest hindrance of Bone is probably its price.  A lot of work and time went into this massive work, and since graphic novel sales are never as high as top-selling novels they are always more expensive.  Try $40 for the collected work.  Maybe a friend has a copy, or perhaps you could find it for cheap online. Also, many libraries have the smaller trade paperbacks, just make sure you are reading them in order (there's 9 books when it's divided this way).  There is also a full-color version that's a bit more expensive, but honestly the b/w art is so beautiful as it is that I'm not sold on the color idea.

Okay well, assuming you find a copy sometime, happy reading!  Enjoy the quiche!

-MA 12.3.2012


*You also might be thinking, "Where does my stuff go when I lose it?  Honestly!  It's like one minute it's there, the next, *poof*, gone.  It might as well be in another dimension.  It would be cool to be able to see exactly where everything I ever lost is RIGHT NOW."  Really, you could be thinking any number of things; I have no way of knowing.

**The sense of humor the kids in your high school had who thought the peak of comedy was randomness, and then labored under the delusion that words like "cheese" are somehow exorbitantly random.

Easter Morning - William Stafford (Poem)

First, a quick refresher for those of us who haven't read poetry in a while and may have forgotten the basic process when discovering a new poem.  Step 1 - Read the title.  It is easy to skip this step, but don't.  Step 2 - Read the poem out loud, pausing only when punctuation dictates, not at the end of each line, i.e.:

Two roads diverged in a yellow wood,

And sorry I could not travel both

And be one traveler, long I stood... 

Should be read as, "Two roads diverged in a yellow wood [pause] and sorry I could not travel both and be one traveler [pause] long I stood..." with no pause between "both" and "And".  It is not always necessary to pause for commas followed by quotation marks.  Do not try to add emotion to the poem; the words will do that themselves.  Step 3 - Reflect on the general impression the poem gave you.  This could include identifying the tone.  Step 4 - Reread the poem to determine what is literally happening or being described.  For example, here we would say that a man is literally in a wood trying to chose a path.  Step 5 - Look for deeper meaning; this should include both what you believe the author is trying to communicate as well as your personal interpretation.  It is entirely possible that you will see something of worth in the poem the author never intended; do not panic, this is normal.  This is where with Frost's poem we would say the roads symbolize life decisions, but also ask ourselves what else they could be interpreted as.  Step 6 - Fail to get your friends as excited about the poem as you are.  Step 7 - Have the thought, "Poetry doesn't seem too hard."  Step 8 - Write your own poetry.  Step 9 - Rereading your poetry and feel whatever pride you may have in it dissolve as you realize you are simply copying the poem you most recently fell in love with.  Step 10 - Forget you like reading poetry for a few years, stumble across a fantastic new poem, then promptly begin again at Step 1.

Well, that got a little...autobiographical.  No matter, without further ado I present this week's great work:  (Don't forget the poem process!)

Easter Morning

Maybe someone comes to the door and says,

"Repent," and you say, "Come on in," and it's

Jesus.  That's when all you ever did, or said,

or even thought, suddenly wakes up again and

sings out, "I'm still here," and you know it's true.

You just shiver alive and are left standing

there suddenly brought to account: saved.

Except, maybe that someone says, "I've got a deal

for you."  And you listen, because that's how

you're trained--they told you, "Always hear both sides."

So then the slick voice can sell you anything, even

Hell, which is what you're getting by listening.

Well, what should you do?  I'd say always go to

the door, yes, but keep the screen locked.  Then,

while you hold the Bible in one hand, lean forward

and say carefully, "Jesus?"

This is William Stafford.  Who else would it be??

Notice the language here; it is not flowery, it's not even what most of us would consider "poetic".  Why?  I consider it a masterpiece of the simplistic.  It is not only an entertaining and accessible read, it is also useful.  How do we navigate through competing religious voices in our lives?  Are these things even important?  This poem not only explores these ideas, but it gives advise which is a pragmatic without being didactic.  Not an easy feat, especially in poetry.  For me, personally, I can feel my mind expanding as I read this poem.  My favorite line is, "they told you, 'Always hear both sides.'" because it's so true.  I have been trained to do that--which is probably a good thing overall--but I have never really considered the possible danger in doing so.  Also note that in a poem of just a few hundred words the word, "suddenly" is used twice.  Don't think for a moment that wasn't intentional.  What about the described encounters here could be seen as "sudden?"  There's a lot more I could say about this poem, but by following Steps 1-5 of the guide, you will be able to learn much more than anyone other than yourself could possibly tell you about the poem.  I leave further interpretation in your capable hands.

-MA 11.26.2012

Technically Not a Review: Determining the Value of Art for Ourselves

Note: As the title suggests, this is not technically a review.  But it is enough like one that I can present it here.  It is a paper I just finished for my persuasive writing class.  Enjoy!

Determining the Value of Art for Ourselves

The quality and value of various art pieces has been debated for thousands of years.  Everyone has different expectations of what art should be and from what sources good art can be found.  However, people generally agree that the search for such art is noble and important for both individuals and society as a whole.  The question of what makes art “good” or “bad” is a complicated one and (much to the chagrin of opinionated individuals such as myself) probably has no definite answer.  Instead of making arbitrary value judgments, examining which works of art are more or less enriching to an individual is a more pragmatic and achievable goal.  Through careful self-reflection a person can discover what art will be better or worse for them personally.  Too often people pre-judge art based on its genesis and their expectations; this causes them to spend their time—and often their money—on art that is not as enriching as other art would be, as well as causing them to miss opportunities to be enriched by art which they have judged to be of no value.

Consider this evocative monologue, which has been deliberately removed from context: “The question that once haunted my being has been answered.  The future is not fixed, and my choices are my own.  Destiny has one great test in store for us all.  Has mine already come, and have I failed it?.... A deed once done cannot be undone, but it may yet be mitigated.”  This quote poses interesting philosophical questions, leading one to consider his own past actions and experiences.  Reflection on this may lead a person to ask if there is a “great test” lying in wait at some point in his life, or if he has already faced it.  If he feels he is still preparing for such a test, this may even stand as a wake-up call, helping him understand that he will want to be ready when that time comes.  When I first heard these words I was a child, too young to fully understand their significance, and certainly too young to know what the word “mitigated” meant; but still, they had a profound impact on me.  At the very least I gathered that my decisions were important, and that I would have to live with the choices I had made after the fact.  It may be surprising to those unfamiliar with this monologue to know it was delivered by an introspective, gravely-voiced, fifteen-foot tall, half-raptor/half-robot transformer named Dinobot, a character in the Canadian children’s cartoon series Transformers: Beast Wars.  

I wonder if this thing has an RSS feed.

In 1995, two cartoon scriptwriters—Bob Forward and Larry DiTillio—where asked by Hasbro and the animation company Mainframe to create a television show loosely based on the 1980’s Transformers cartoon.  Transformers was a dying franchise at the time, so Forward and DiTillio were chosen for their acclaimed work on similar shows and given free-reign to do whatever they wanted with the series within reason.  They created new characters and set the show in another time period in order to give themselves room for their ideas and creativity.  In the first episode, an exploring team is shot down by an enemy war vessel, each travel back in time during the accident and crash-land on a prehistoric world.  They then go on to wage the Beast Wars, named such because on this planet they must transform into animals instead of the usual cars and planes.  This may sound like typical sci-fi fanfare—and in many ways it is—but infused within are layers of careful thought and more than a few memorable characters.  Forward and DiTillio worked within the framework of a small budget and very limited resources, but by focusing on what they could do rather than what they couldn’t, they created a show that would go on to be a cult classic with a strong following.  In the Beast Wars featurette “Remembering the Spark”, Forward and DiTillio explain how they wanted to deal with complex issues like military intrigue and treason, philosophical questions such as the need to fight against tyrants despite a desire for passivism, and of course, as Dinobot’s earlier quote explains, the place of fate and destiny in the lives of the characters.  They gave the robots souls (called sparks), conflicting desires, and individual ideas about warfare and honor.  They effectively created a many-layered world in which to explore different situations and concepts. 

Even though DiTillio and Forward knew they were trying to make something new and interesting, they admit they didn’t realize how special many fans felt Beast Wars was until later on.  Years after its final season, DiTillio said of the show, “It all came together in Beast Wars.  That was the thing I got many, many letters on…. [about] episodes that had touched people’s hearts.”  And Bob Forward remarked: “When I meet fans [now], and they just tell me how much… [Beast Wars] meant to them, I almost want to cry.  I almost want to apologize.  I almost want to say, ‘I’m sorry! A lot of the time I was just jamming something out [against a deadline].  If I’d known it was going to affect you this much I would have tried harder at it.’  But still, I think the sort of free-swinging, swashbuckling spirit that Beast Wars had made it…. [That] gave it part of its charm.”  The two worked on the show for the entirety of its run, and fifteen years after it’s release, DVD sets of its three seasons are still being printed and purchased (quite a feat for such a small-budget endeavor), the characters and plot lines are still actively discussed on web-forums, and some of the voice actors are still attending animation conventions to meet fans, sign memorabilia, and speak on public panels where—in addition to dialoguing and answering questions—they re-enact scenes or improvise as favorite characters from the show.  

I am not ashamed to say (nor am I alone in saying) that it is one of the most personally important pieces of art I’ve encountered in my life.  It changed how I see the world and how I see art.  There is an ethereal, ineffable quality to some of the finest episodes that is at once unmistakable to the astute viewer and very difficult to describe.  I am by no means sounding the battle-call to encourage the reader to seek out and experience Beast Wars for himself; more simply, I would like to elucidate how something of great artistic value to me came from a source as improbable as a children’s cartoon about transforming robots.  Because of what it is—a computer animated TV show for children—many people might never take the time to consider it, judging it as not for them or not of worth.  Even more likely, they will never hear of it, for the following is large, but by no means to the point of being pervasive.  Even if a person does happen to start the series based on a favorable review or the recommendation of a friend, he might turn it off after the first cheesy voice-over, dated rock guitar riff, or awkwardly animated fight scene, never revealing what is to be found beyond the superficial glance because he had simply not expected to find anything of worth.

Conversely, many millions of people have spent the time and the money to see director Michael Bay’s 2007-2009 Transformers movie franchise despite over-whelmingly negative reviews by professional critics.  The second film in the series, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, received a rating of 3.5/10 from the media review website Metacritic and only 21/100 from Rotten Tomatoes, both sites give an average score based on dozens of professional reviews.  Regarding the quality of the film, respected film critic Roger Ebert said:  “Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen” is a horrible experience of unbearable length…. To save yourself the ticket price, go into the kitchen, cue up a male choir singing the music of hell, and get a kid to start banging pots and pans together.  Then close your eyes and use your imagination.  The plot is incomprehensible.  The dialog of the Autobots®, Decepticons® and Otherbots® is meaningless word flap…. The human actors are in a witless sitcom part of the time, and a lot of the rest of their time is spent running in slo-mo away from explosions.”  I could include hundreds of similar reviews and statistics from other critics and websites about all three films, but the point is clear: despite record-breaking viewership and undeniable financial success, the films were not well received by professionals. 

The creation of Bay’s Transformers films was very different from that of Beast Wars.  The project began as a live-action film about G.I. Joe, but after the war in Afghanistan began Hasbro and Dreamworks Pictures decided a Transformers film would be more timely.   One man wrote the first draft based on ideas by Steven Spielberg and Don Murphy, then two other screen-writers were asked to re-write it including ideas by Spielberg, Murphy, Tom DeSanto and a number of others involved in the project.  Spielberg felt the focus should be a responsibility motif about a boy and his car, Murphy was interested in the films mirroring some of the disaster films that had been popular around that time, and DeSanto explained that he wanted to produce the movie because he believed a truck transforming into a robot had not yet been captured on film, and that people would like to see it.  At this point Spielberg asked Michael Bay to direct.  Bay admitted he was not excited about the project, dismissing it as a “stupid toy movie,” but agreed because he had always wanted to work with Spielberg.  Once Bay came on he explained that he was interested in making a movie with a lot of military action and asked for the script to be re-written again.  He also expressed interest in the novelty of watching cars transform in live action, stating, “By adding more doo-dads and stuff on the robots, more car parts, you can just make it more real.”  In counterpoint to the two-man team who had a clear vision of the concepts they wanted to include, dozens of individuals had their fingers in the Transformers pie.  This is not inherently negative, but it’s easy to see how such a development might lend hand to the incoherency many critics have complained about, and how it could decrease the probability of the viewer finding something truly enriching.

Interestingly, all three of the recent Transformers films are on the list of the fifty highest-grossing films of all time.  The third installment alone generated over a billion dollars at the box-office, not including DVD and associated merchandise sales.  A strong case could be made that the films are not as bad as the reviewers say, that the public has voted with their money and declared the films to be the kind of art they want, or even that “good” and “bad” are irrelevant in what people choose to watch.  But please keep in mind I am not suggesting these films should not be enjoyed, or that anyone who likes them is wrong to do so.  What I am suggesting is that because these were high-budget Hollywood films staring attractive and recognizable actors, many of the general public assumed before ever seeing them that they were worth the money and time required and never fully considered the potential benefit of seeking out something better for themselves.

           

The question of how much art affects us is central to my claim that seeking out more enriching art is important and worth the time and effort; if it does have a considerable effect, then of course people would want to intake more enriching art, but if it does not, than anything that entertains will suffice for artistic needs.  Serial rapist and murder Ted Bundy claimed that pornography played a serious role in his interest in murder, and many other convicted criminals have expressed similar sentiments.  In their point of view, what they took in had a serious impact on them.  Certainly not everyone who has viewed pornographic material has gone on to become a serial killer, but it is striking evidence that we should carefully decide what art to focus on.  In the 2009 documentary Kimjongillia, which documents the real-life stories of North Korean prison camp survivors, one young man relates the emotional account of his escape at the age of twenty-four.  He was born in the camp and lived there his entire life until he was assigned a new duty in one of the more secluded areas.  It was during this time he had the following experience:  “There were smuggled books circulating in our camp.  The Count of Monte Cristo.  Anna Karenina.  Resurrection.  I think The Count of Monte Cristo touched me the most.  Reading Monte Cristo gave me the idea to escape North Korea.  [And] if I ever got out, I would take revenge like him.”  For this young man, art had a very dramatic impact; it opened up new possibilities to him, and indeed, went on to change nearly every aspect of his life.  He escaped in the early 2000’s and is still alive today, consider how his life might be different if instead of thought-provoking and enriching books circulating the camp, there were only base thrillers, formula romances, or—Heaven forbid—a 90-page Scholastic novelization of the second Transformers movie.  These are extreme examples, of course, dealing with situations and actions the vast majority of us will never face or be in, but the concept is sound.  If art has such an ability to change us, and if each of us will react differently to different art pieces, then we should take great care to intake the kinds of art that will be most personally enriching, and not through laziness or ignorance take the course of least resistance by seeking out only the art that is most popular and easily accessible.

           

It is my firm opinion that many of the people who have enjoyed the Transformers films may not be fully analyzing their worth, or, potentially, lack thereof.  Not everyone will gain as much as I have from the Beast Wars series, but it is important to ask ourselves—outside the framework of popularity and funding—where we will find value in art.  And if anyone feels that they have wasted time and money on art of lesser worth, they need not despair.  There is still time; it may yet be mitigated.

- MA 11.19.2012

Something Special

No, no.  I'm not getting lazy about posting.  I have something kind of a special in store for today's entry, but it won't be ready until late this evening.  Check back tomorrow!  In the meantime, here is a humorous gif:

I admire how unfazed she seems.  Perhaps this has happened before.

-MA 11.19.12 

The Face That Must Die - Ramsey Campbell (Novel)

Before getting down to the book itself, allow me to introduce the author.  That he even needs to be introduced is a shame.  I am not the first to sing the song of Campbell's unmatched ability.   Ramsey Campbell is widely considered to be one of the best (if not the best) horror writer currently active.  Normally, I stay away from what other reviewers have said about the work I'm examining, and I'm going to keep that tradition up, I will, however, include some quotes about the writer himself:

"Britain's most respected horror writer."
-Oxford Companion

"Campbell writes the most terrifying horror tales of anyone now alive." -Twilight Zone Magazine 

"Campbell is literature in a field which has attracted too many comic-book intellects, cool in a field where too many writers--myself included--tend toward painting melodrama.  Good horror writers are quite rare, and Campbell is better than just good." -Steven King 

"Ramsey Campbell is one of the modern masters of horror...He has a genius for infusing horror into the everyday, piling up small moments of dread and confusion and fear until they become insurmountable." -Tim Pratt, Locus

"The greatest living writer of horror fiction." -Vector

"Ramsey Campbell is the best of us all." - Poppy Z. Brite*

"The best horror writer alive, period." - Thomas Tessier

"The most sophisticated and highly regarded of British horror writers." - Financial Times

I could go on, and believe me, I'm tempted to.  But I think you get the idea.  Of his multitude of books, there are thousands upon thousands of positive reviews.  Most of them go beyond the average, "So scary I had to leave the lights on!" or "Skin-crawling terror!"  (Whatever that means.)  You get the sense in reading these reviews that there is something not being expressed.  Absolute phrases like "greatest" and "most" are rarely used in the world of review, for they can sound extreme or ignorant.  And yet here we have dozens--if not hundreds--of individuals proclaiming "he is the scariest", "he is the most sophisticated", and of course "he is the best."  Of all the reviews I have read of Campbell, the one has come closest to my personal feelings, and it seems, to those who have tried to express their awe for Campbell's work is this:

"It doesn't seem enough to say that Ramsey Campbell is a master of the horror genre." - Publishers Weekly

What is it about Campbell's work that makes it so great?  First off: it's scary.  He takes his time to set the stage; he tells you all about the world the story takes place in usually long before things get truly weird.  He transforms everyday objects and scenarios into items and encounters dripping with implicate menace.  The protagonists are real; in fact, they are just like you.  For you, too, would be slow to see the danger around you in the same situations these characters are in.  You, too, would not want to believe that such horrors were even possible.  Campbell is about as far away from buckets-of-blood shock-o horror as you can get.  The books are not thrillers or spectacles.  They are private moments of sinister confusion.  They are deliberately slow.  They manipulate you more than you would like to allow.  Once, I read a line in a book of his which was innocuous at first, but when I understood the double meaning several lines later it literally took my breath away.  I was terrified by what had almost happened.  In that moment, it was not a story or a book, it was the very real possibility of a gruesome death, or worse.  I was surprised (to say the least) to find two or three tears has leaked out of my eyes.  Not tears of sadness or joy; tears of fear.  His implications alone are terrifying.

But there's a lot more than "scary" going on here.  Campbell fills his books with many different view-points.  He has a strange knack for putting you in the mind of a disturbed or insane character and making their view of the world make perfect sense; or on the other hand, in the mind of an average person in the midst of devastating horror who is blind to what is happening.  He loves to offer uncomfortable and interesting ideas and question, such as, What if you had an out-of-body experience you didn't ask for, and you couldn't control?  How might you react? Or, What if the whole world is just the dream an unimaginable being the size of the universe?  What might happen if that being woke up? And one of my personal favorites, What if God put all the dinosaur bones on the earth to test Christian faith?  Because, you know, maybe He did.

I have some complaints with Campbell.  He re-uses motifs.  He seems to have an indelible distrust of authority and policemen which I feel is unfair to many of the decent and honest individuals who serve in such positions.  His plots are not always as intricately crafted as we might want.  His books can be, at times, dense and confusing in unintended ways.  But all of this is easily forgiven in the face of his truly remarkable prose-work.  He is a master in the truest sense.  And as far as some of his less-than-impressive plots go, I simply think of Shakespeare; anyone who has studied the bard knows this is notoriously his weakest suit.  The plot sometimes doesn't matter, it's just there so we can examine the characters and marvel at the command of language.

This is as good a segue as any to the actual book I'm reviewing: The Face That Must Die.  This is considered to be one of his finest novels.  He himself believes it to be his best.  While it is not my personal favorite of his books, it is probably the second or third on my list.  Also, it is definitely not the scariest of his works.  It is, however, the one I would first recommend to a new reader of Campbell.  It's plot is immaculate, as are the characters, the language, the terror; it's all there.

It is one of his most tame books in terms of language or sexuality, but there's a little more blood than usual for Campbell.  It might be disturbing to some readers because it is quite dark, and also, it's supposed to be a comedy as well as a horror novel, which might be a turn-off for some.  This is black comedy in its highest form.

I don't think it will be a big problem to state the basic idea of the book, but I'll let you decide for yourself if you want to know what its about.  It you're not opposed to knowing the premise of the book and reading a few funny quotes, click here.  It's a very short novel.  Scarcely over 300 pages long, with pretty big font.  A person could conceivably read it in a day or two.  But the story will stay with you for a long time afterward.

Beyond the sheer skill of language and the creation of terror, one of my favorite things about this book is the plot.  It doesn't feel like a plot that someone sat down and figured out or outlined.  It reads almost like a true story.  There are not shocking twists or turns, and things tie together by the deliberate actions of an individual, not through convenient coincidences. 

So go forth, read, be horrified with a little mirth, and enjoy!

- MA 11.12.12

 *Weirdest name for a horror writer imaginable?

"Would You" - Poema (Song)

The cover of their recent album.

I recommend reading this review before seeking out the song.  You can listen to it on Spotify or similar programs, or check out the YouTube posting here.  Today's great work is "great" in a different way than the others I've posted so far.  It's basically your standard sort-of country/sort-of pop relationship song.  You might be asking yourself, "Why is this great again?" and I think a pretty solid case could be made that it isn't.  But I'm going to go ahead and say that I think it is.

Most of us, in addition to whatever else we may be, are "art-seekers", meaning we are open to new art in our lives.  Now, how open we are is a matter of degree, but for the most part people want more art that they will enjoy.  Sometimes, however, I feel that a lot of us (myself included) are less open-minded than is beneficial for us as art-seekers.  We think that if a song is a certain genre (some examples I've heard are rap, country, ska, and heavy metal, but really it could be anything) then we will not like it.  We are essentially pre-judging the piece based on how it is labeled.  This is not as assumptive as judging a person by their name, I would say it's more akin to judging them by how they are dressed.  I think (within reason) we should not just assume that an art piece will be good or bad based on genre or other label.  We not only miss out on art that we might really enjoy, but also on dynamics and points-of-view we otherwise wouldn't experience.  I really feel like there's something different to take from this than the kind of music I've been listening to for the last ten years, which has mostly been harder 90's rock.  I'm not saying this is better by any means, but that it's good to expand artistic horizons.

That said, I present to you this song by Poema, a sister duo of singer-songwriters who even play their own instruments!  I love the song "Would You" off of their new album.  I think it is sweet and interesting and honest.  Yes, it has some flaws, not the least of which being the garish grass-is-greener cliche in the first verse.  (My advice?  Pretend it isn't there.)

The song is not so complex that it needs an in-depth exploration by me, but not everything needs to be complex in order to be effective.  I do think the young woman presented in the song sounds a little more self-aware than in a lot of other pop songs like this I've heard, and the chorus is pretty catchy.  Lyrics-wise, the one part that I would like to draw your attention to is the refrain, "If you knew what to do, would you?"  This reminds me of some of the emo/pop-punk stuff I got into in high school.  Some of the earlier Brand New and Bright Eyes songs that try to layer sadness; they takes something bad and then putting something else bad on top of it.  I might be dumbing down what I'm trying to say too much here, but maybe you know what I'm talking about.  I've always thought that was an interesting lyrical effect.  Not only does the kid she's singing to not know the "right" way to behave in a relationship, she isn't even sure he would want to.  You get the feeling she could almost take his shortcomings--which admittedly seem a little innocuous for the tone of the song--if he can't help but be that way.

Live in Kansas City

Here are the lyrics, which I transcribed myself after a fruitless internet search:     

I've been looking for a confirmation.
I've been searching for a way to leave this time.
Cause I hear the grass is greener on the other side.
I've been looking for a consolation.
To give me some direction, showing me a sign.
But lately, leaving has been on my mind.
I like the way you see me, and make my bad days easy.
No one likes your singing.  But I do.

I want dinner made for two and you to make a move, but you never do.
Hold my hand in front of your friends.  
It's not a lot to ask and I shouldn't have to.
Oh darling, if you knew what to do, would you?

You've been down on love, talking about your situation.
You've been out of touch and almost out of time.
Cause I doubt we are gonna make the finish line.
I like the way you don't do things the way they most do,
except for when I need you, and you don't come through.

I want dinner made for two and you to make a move, but you never do.
Hold my hand in front of your friends.  
It's not a lot to ask and I shouldn't have to.
Oh darling, if you knew what to do, would you?

You may or may not like the song, but please judge it on its own merit and not by what genre it is.

-MA 11.5.2012


P.S.  I really like the line about holding hands, couldn't really tell you why!

5th Monday Ugh: Spider-Man 3 (Movie)

This promo photo just screams "coolness."

As promised, on fifth Mondays I will be "reviewing" artworks which I consider "terrible".  This is the first installment.  I understand that most of the people reading this blog already consider Spider-Man 3 (2007) to be a terrible film, but maybe some of you don't fully realize just how bad it is.  I'm not going to dwell on the fact that the acting is bad, the dialog is bad, or that the action scenes have an inexplicable Three-Stoogesque quality; you already know those things.  My focus is on the level of coincidence involved with the plot.  I'm going to go ahead make an unsubstantiated claim here which I wouldn't be surprised if it's true: Spider-Man 3 is the most coincidental non-farce ever created.  It probably goes without saying, but if you want to avoid spoilers for the movie don't read on.

It would be too complex to try to list the coincidences in a logical order--such as chronological or stupidilogical--so I'm just going to state some of them and let you sort them out yourselves.  First off, let's set the stage.  All of the coincidences in the film are compounded by the fact that the events take place in one of the most populous cities on Earth.  New York has over eight million residents.  Keep that in mind.

Disclaimer:  I understand that every specific situation (even in real life) is made up of unlikelihoods, such as a train that might arrive between 12:15 to 12:20 is less likely to arrive at 12:17 then from 12:15-12:16.  But I doubt the filmmakers are going to claim that this list of coincidences (which I lovingly call "coince-ables") was created in the spirit of life's unpredictability.

1.  The meteorite that carried Venom to the earth landed about thirty yards from Peter (one of only two super-people in the city at that time), hopped on to his moped and followed him home.  It could have landed next to anyone, it could have gone home with Mary-Jane, but it didn't.  It followed Peter.  Then, it didn't do anything until the plot required further action.

2.  The man that (apparently) killed Peter's uncle landed in an unexplained atomic sand-pit during his escape, becoming the third super-person in the city.  What are the odds that someone so intimately connected to one of the two super-people in the city becomes the third?  The sand-pit operators heard the warning sound alerting them of foreign matter in their pit, but assumed it was a bird that would fly away when the experiment started.  It seemed there were no cameras to allow them to monitor whatever the heck it was they were doing in that pit, and none of their super high-tech sensors could differentiate between a large human male and a bird that would fly away.

3.  Peter's almost-flame, Gwen Stacy, knows Peter from school, but she is also the almost-girlfriend of Eddie Brock, Peter's number-one work rival.  She does not know Peter through her almost-boyfriend, nor does Eddie know Peter through her.

"The greatest battle lies within" is another way of saying, "This film's greatest enemy is it's script."

4.  Gwen's father, Captain Stacy, is the investigator in charge of Uncle Ben's murder investigation.  How unlikely is it that the man in charge of your uncle's murder investigation is the father of a girl you know from school?  How unlikely is it that the man in charge of your uncle's murder investigation knows your number-one rival?  How unlikely is it that both are true?

5.  Just as the problems with Venom and Sandman are ramping-up, Harry remembers that he hates Peter and wants revenge on him.  Why this moment?

6.  When things get really bad for Spidey, Harry's butler tells Harry that Peter didn't kill his father.  He's known this for years, but has never said anything until just that moment.  Why?

*7.  On Peter's first date with Gwen Stacey they unknowingly go to the same bar where Mary Jane has just started working.  Perhaps you are starting to see a pattern here; this is not likely.

8.  The moment before Peter proposes to Mary Jane, Gwen walks up to their table.  Not only is it coincidental that she would even be in the same restaurant as them, but she could have approached the two and any point during their date.  Instead, she just happens to walk up at the exact point of almost-proposal.

9.  Eddie Brock is in the same church that Peter is on top of when he removes Venom from his body.  He is the only person in the building who responds to Peter's loud grunting and stands directly below him as venom drips down, becoming the forth super-person in the city.  Also coincidentally, he had just been praying for Spider-Man's death.

I'm sure there's more to add to this list; post any others you notice in the comments!

Lastly, I know it has been claimed that one of the biggest failings of this film is the fact that it had three villians, but this is simply not true.  One of the biggest failings of this film is the fact that it had four: Green Goblin, Sandman, Venom, and Eddie Brock, who wanted Peter dead before Venom even touched him.  Four.  Get it right.

-MA 10.29.2012

*Contested, see comments

Son of the Endless Night - John Farris (Novel)

Just in time for Halloween, here's a review of one of my favorite horror novels, Son of the Endless Night by John Farris (1984).  At it's heart Endless Night is a tale of demonic possession, which the Liberty Journal refers to as, "The first really worthy successor to Blatty's The Exorcist".  Having read and enjoyed both books, I can tell you which is more in-depth and truly haunting, and it's Endless Night.

Farris is unlike other horror novelists whose work I've read in that he begins by creating a world of deep basic humanity before getting down to the real horror.  His characters are not flat walls of opinions and identifiable quirks; they are complex and changeable.  They are not simply hand puppets used to present two sides of an argument; many of them seek to understand the world around them, and be just to others  These characters have motives and desires and interact fully with their counterparts.  Above all he creates characters we feel we understand; even when we don't agree with them, we sympathize with them.  We want them to succeed.  In other works, the ability to create such engaging characters is often used to cover inadequacies in plot, pacing, and structure, but not here.  This is a meticulously researched and carefully executed novel, always sensitive to the religious nature of exorcism even in its darkest and most disturbing moments.  I'm not saying it will effect you so dramatically, but while I was reading it late one night I woke my wife when I went to use the restroom, so I wouldn't be totally alone walking around the house.

An excerpt from the book with important character names removed.

The plot is unpredictable, but never random.  (With a few forgivable exceptions of fantastic indulgences in the name of excitement and interest.)  While the book starts as a terrifying horror story, it eventually culminates to including another genre entirely, although I won't spoil it by saying which.  This shift is unexpected and satisfying, very little is sacrificed artistically along the way.

The included excerpt is, admittedly, a little melodramatic, but it gives the distinct impression that Farris knows exactly what he's going for, knows how to make it happen, and isn't embarrassed about it.  These are qualities I find lacking in a lot of art, especially from the last fifteen years or so.  Of course artists should be able to view their artwork objectively, but I feel they are sometimes too self-aware, too afraid of scrutiny.

I would also like to mention that Farris has a strange ability I've never run across before, with any writer or genre: he tells or shows the reader something important, something vital to the story, then (and I have no idea how he can do this) he makes the reader forget what he just told them or showed them, only to have it resurface in their mind at the most intense possible moment.

He also takes the time and effort to make the ideas of possession and exorcism both credible and plausible, as if the people in the world who are really in-the-know all accept the reality of possession and the recognized modes of treatment.  He adds even more reality to the tale by showing that an exorcism is almost as bureaucratic as it is spiritual.

It's hard to tell here, but that demon has a very lumpy head.

The book is fun, but quite dark and often disturbing.  It's a long, but fairly easy read, carrying the reader from one tense and fascinating scene to another.  There are a lot of ideas in the book, but also a lot of action, perfect for a long plane ride.  It is also the kind of book that stays with the reader long after finishing it as it is interesting to rethink the events and their meaning.  It is an adult work, with adult language and situations, so keep that in mind if your interest is piqued.  Personally, I edited mine as I went, but I know a lot of people are against that.  Pshh.

-MA 10.22.2012