I'm a young writer, occasional singer-songwriter, doodler, feminist, selfie taker, nerd, film enthusiast and optimistic cynic. Herein lie my thoughts on films, books, music and life in general. I'm sorry about the inconsistency, I really am. Embrace the madness
Hello peoples! So, the other day I watched this movie, dunno if you've heard of it, it was called "The Breakfast Club"? Super 80's? John Hughes? Doesn't actually have any breakfast in it? Ring any bells?
It's iconic pose time!
Okay, okay, I know it's some sort of crime to not have seen this movie but there has to be a first time, mine just happens to have been this week. Don't get up in arms about it, geez. It's a good movie. It's well written, it's well paced, it has memorable characters. I'm not the first nor will I be the last to say that I enjoyed this movie. It gets it. As a teenage movie watcher, it gets me. I like that. It's clever without constantly assailing you with cries of "Look at how clever I am!" like some other movies. Bits are clichéd but that's generally because they're making a point. That, or the clichés exist because of this movie. It comments on the human condition, the baggage we inherit from our parents, the idea of social status, barriers, prejudices. And it does it well.
Which is why I absolutely despise the second last scene of this film. Hate hate hate, haaaaaate. For those of you who haven't seen this in a while (or, like myself up until very recently, at all) here's the specific section to which I'm referring:
I had to cut little bits but, in clarification, I have a problem with the end to Allison's plot thread. A BIG problem. I mentioned in a previous post that I don't like the movie Grease. This hasn't changed. A large portion of the reason I dislike Grease is down to the deus ex makeover at the very end, which was stupid and childish and bad writing. This film's deus ex makeover is so much worse because, unlike in the case of Grease, it was a well written, thought provoking film up to that point.
It's probably obvious by now that I personally loathe makeover narratives in general. However, I have an infinitely greater problem with taking a well developed, interesting, relateable (usually female, just sayin') character and solving their problems with something as superficial and irrelevant as a makeover.
The Breakfast Club introduces us to Allison, a social outcast, self-proclaimed pathological liar, kleptomaniac, occasionally defensive, perpetually insensitive, attention seeking, immature, surprisingly insightful, apathetic, creative, guarded, isolated, complex. Human. While watching this movie, Allison was next to Brian as the character I could most relate to and by far my favourite out of the five. Which is why it's the ultimate insult that the movie deigns it appropriate to solve her problems with a makeover and a man.
THIS IS MISSING THE POINT OF THE ENTIRE MOVIE, NEVER MIND THE CHARACTER.
What is "The Breakfast Club" about? The human condition. Growing up. Society. But primarily, it's about change. Organic change. Over the course of the film, each character learns and grows and changes through the bond newly forged between them. Each comes to the realisation that everyone has problems and none can truly be classed as worse than others. Everyone has parent problems. Everyone has social pressures placed upon them. Everyone has been in dark places at some point. Everyone has vulnerabilities. Basically, everyone is human. This change of mind, shift of viewpoint is not forced. It happens gradually and no one is pressing for it to happen, it just does. And this is good. By the end of the film, each character has a greater understanding of life, the universe and everything (even Mr. Vernon). Each comes out more confident in themselves, wiser, better. There's a sort of acceptance that some problems can't be solved, that life sucks but we keep on truckin' anyway. It's a satisfying ending..... except for the romantic elements.
"I barely noticed you before but now that you're pretty..."
For the record, I don't particularly like Claire and Bender being paired in the end either but I'll at least accept that it was built up. Andy and Allison never seemed to have anything but a platonic connection for me. They helped serve as catalysts for the growth of the other, yes, but it never seemed romantic. And I'd probably be fine with it if the film didn't feel the need to change Allison in the least organic way possible. When I brought up this issue while talking to my boyfriend he said that he didn't think it was a problem because it was symbolic of her change in self confidence. I disagree (and I told him that, this isn't just me being passive-aggressive).
If this was the intent of the film-makers (which I feel it was) then they're contradicting their own message. Instead of promoting the idea that self confidence comes from being who you are, complete with flaws and baggage, they're saying that in order for (female) social outcasts to be accepted and have self confidence, they need to be conventionally attractive (and get themselves a man).
Basically this.
I say female because Brian (the unconventionally attractive male character) gets no makeover save for a jacket (which is never commented on) and still gets a self confidence boost. You may argue that since the movie was made in the 80's I should cut it some slack, which would be a valid point were it not for the rest of the film, which treats gender as a pretty inconsequential factor and even touches on some feminist ideas, such as the double standards regarding women and sex (the slut vs tease concept).
I feel like I should explain why this makeover trope annoys me so much on a personal level. You see, I've been this girl far too often. Not conventionally attractive. A little too smart for her own good. Resistant to social expectations. Isolated because of it. Too many times have I been in situations where the conventionally attractive people think a coating of powder is going to suddenly make me realise the error of my past behaviour, the error in challenging the status quo when all I ever had to do to fit in was to be pretty. Because they can change you. Poor naive girl, she doesn't understand that all she needs to do is dress properly, make herself up properly, speak properly, act properly, eat properly. Like the right music, have the right friends, like the right shows. Don't play video games. Don't read so much. Don't concern yourself with philosophical questions or deep rooted societal problems. Don't "cut yourself off". They think that once they change you, you'll suddenly start conforming. You'll suddenly be less strange, less difficult. And the worst part is, you start believing it. If you let them, you start feeling like you should act differently. Because they're only trying to help. Because it's easier. Because you're tired of being alone.
It all comes from this trope. Because at the end of this film, we're led to believe that Allison has done these things. We expect that she'll show up to school on Monday and be accepted. People won't recognise her, people will smile and treat her like a normal human being. All because she's stopped being so damn difficult. She's stopped creating trouble for herself.
It is for these reasons that "Wicked" continues to be one of my favourite pieces of art in the whole world, while this movie, despite all it's strengths, will always be tainted with superficiality and bad memories.
"I can change you"
"Fuck that, I'ma go fight tyranny and oppression and stuff"
To conclude, I really have a problem with the "I can change you" mentality (could you tell?). Change is not a thing that can be forced. It won't happen. There are reams of people right now, convinced they can change they're respective other into what they want them to be, and it's not working. Change doesn't work like that. Change is, ironically, constant. If a person is alive, they will change. The conscious effort is unnecessary, so knock it off, people!
Hey guys. Today I'm gonna start a two part movie review comparison... thing. I'm going to look at two movies, remakes at that, that people seem to really dislike. Both were made by Tim Burton. I plan on arguing for them. This should be interesting.
The first in the two-parter is about, as the title suggests, Charlie and the Chocolate factory: a film based on the book by Roald Dahl and a remake of the much beloved 1971 film directed by Mel Stuart and starring Gene Wilder. That version (the 1971 one, which is, for the record, actually called "Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory") is what most people remember from their childhoods. It is still generally what people think of when anyone mentions the tale, one might even say more so that the book. It has some great songs, really iconic scenes and memorable characters. But is it really as great as people make it out to be? Or is that the nostalgia goggles and "first is better" mentality? How does Burton's adaptation hold up? Why do people have such hatred for it? Let's take a look, shall we?
Ladies and gentlemen, we have ourselves a showdown!
Now, I'm going to come straight out and say it: I never liked the original film growing up. I'm not sure if that was down to the fact that I read the book first, or that I was a bit older when I first saw it. I never saw what the big fuss was about. To prove my point, I'm going to look at the different factions of the two films (and the book on which they are both based) and critique.
1. Before the factory
Here I'm going to examine the openings of the two films and compare a little with the book. The opening of the original film was honestly a large factor in why I didn't like it growing up. One word: BORING. Yes, I understand they're setting the scene but, man, does it drag! The first FORTY TWO minutes of this thing is the lead up to actually entering the factory (y'know that part we actually care about). It's only 99 minutes long in total! As a writer I understand the benefit of making your audience wait for something, I really do, but nearly half the running time is just a weensy bit excessive, don't you think? In that time, there are three songs ("The Candyman", "Cheer up Charlie" and "I've Got a Golden Ticket" all of which I feel are slightly pointless. I'll get back to that) but the rest of it is mostly talking.
"I'm a colossal waste of time. Pay up, moviegoers."
Don't get me wrong, there are some good scenes in the opening. I really like the interaction we see between Veruca Salt and her father in the nut factory , which sets up the character well, I just wish the scenes featuring the other kids were as memorable. And some of the clips of the worldwide hysteria over the competition are priceless, especially the one featuring the man who's built a machine to find the winning ticket. That was some great comedy and to good use. However, any momentum and intrigue built up by the good scenes is buried beneath layers of Charlie going to school, focus on the wrong vendor of sweet things and the whole hullabaloo with Slugworth (which I'll get back to later). To contrast, In Burton's version we already have a good idea of Willy Wonka himself through showing not telling (which is what they do in the original FYI. Visual medium, people.) while keeping him shrouded in the necessary mystery. The use of eye-catching colours and incredible sets make sure we remember the other contestants. While it could be said that in this version the other contestants are much more caricature-like in comparison to the realer examples in the original. However, I argue that making them more exaggerated is more in keeping with the ideas of Dahl himself, who made them hyperbolic examples of the traits he wanted to emphasize as bad (this applies to the parents too). That's my view on it thought. I also really like that the Burton version shows more cutaways of the worldwide rush for the Wonka bars where the original mostly shows America (with that one Peruvian dude).
The Characters:
The main differences character-wise between the two movies are Wonka and Charlie's characters but I'll briefly looks at the others too. As I've said before, I thought that the hyperbole used with the characters in Burton's version was more true to the book. As far as charlie's family is concerned (and I'm just being honest here) they're both pretty dull. C'mon, you know it's true. However, the character injections given to Grandpa George and Grandma Josephine in Burton's was welcome and boosts that version up a notch. Grandpa Joe is, as a character, kinda meh. He's moral support, the magical old mentor figure who encourages the protagonist to follow his dreams, yadda yadda yadda. I believed David Kelly (from Burton's version) more in terms of the feeble, bedridden for years grandfather, where Jack Albertson (from the original) always seemed a little too able bodied. They both have charisma, I'll grand them both that, but I felt that Charlie from the original and Albertson had better on-screen chemistry. Also, gotta love that one supremely dated scene where Charlie berates Joe for buying chocolate when "That money was for tobacco!".
Die for your sins?
Sure, I'd do that.
Now to the mains. Firstly, Ima throw you a curve-ball and say that I haaaaate the Charlie in Burton's movie. Holy shit, is he boring! Out of all the things this movie does right, it screws up with the MAIN CHARACTER. I'm not sure if it was the script, or the direction, or the performance by Freddie Highmore but they take this normal, fun loving, intelligent kid from the book and warp him into mini-Jesus for some reason! Why? The protagonist is the character we're supposed to identify with, making him perfect defeats the purpose entirely. The original Charlie, on the other hand, has normal human emotions. For example, there's one scene where he's in school and the teacher is asking how many Wonka bars the kids had bought so he can use them as examples for maths class. Charlie, having only bought one bar, is laughed and condescended to by his classmates and teacher, and he understandably is upset. This is valuable character development, people! We sympathise with and understand him better for this. Now, I know that the character is meant to be free of the fatal flaws that the other ticket finders possess (such as greed, pride, sloth, wrath, etc... why to they sound familiar?) but he's still meant to be human. Yes, he's caring, yes, he's selfless but he's still a child! Dahl understood that and so did the makers of the original film (Dahl actually wrote the original script for the movie but an man named David Seltzer rewrote much of it before filming. Dahl hated the end product.) The scene that almost undoes my liking for the original's Charlie is the added "Fizzy Lifting Drink scene". For the record, Dahl despised this scene too. It completely goes against the message that the story is trying to convey about the value of humility and being grateful for what you have.
Now to the man himself: Willy Wonka. Another fun fact here, Dahl originally pushed for Spike Milligan to play this character. You know, the guy who wrote "On the Ning Nang Nong"? He was one of the founders of The Goon Show, one of the inspirations for Monty Python's Flying Circus? Okay, follow this link and TELL me this man would not make a great Wonka. I dare you. Now that's out of the way, I honestly feel that Depp's Wonka is fifty times better than Wilder's. It's odd though, you'd think that Wilder would be phenomenal in this role. He's a fantastic character actor and can be incredibly funny. Yeah, so is Depp, but if you'd told me beforehand that Edward Scissor-hands would do this role justice I'd probably laugh you out of the building. Yet... Depp does it better, in my opinion. I'm not sure if it's the direction or the writing (I think it was the writing) but Wilder's Wonka comes off as far too... mild.
In the book, Willy Wonka is a little like Sherlock Holmes: He knows exactly what's what and revels in being cryptic and often downright rude. He makes next to no sense most of the time but in a fun-loving way. That's important. Y'see, Wonka is effectively a manchild. A kid in a candy store if you will (see what I did there?). He's living the life we all thought we'd be living (when we were about five and thought buying a chocolate factory would be within our means once we grew up). He loves his work intensely, more than he loves people, quite possibly more than he loves himself. Burton's Wonka capture's this. He's weird, a little unnerving at times but he always seems like he's genuinely having fun. Wilder's Wonka is too restrained for that. He's too softly spoken, too matter of fact. When he does something kooky it doesn't seem like it's because he wants to or because he wants to see how people will react, it comes off as someone with a genuine problem. And for all his craziness, Wonka as a character is not clinically insane, just a bit odd.
The Songs:
Finally, the songs. No surprises here: I prefer Burtons' songs personally (composed by Danny Elfman, credit where credit is due). Both films have a great deal of songs in them. Technically speaking, the original has nine songs (ten if you count the creepy tunnel one), many of which are iconic and fondly remembered to this day. "The Candy Man", "Pure Imagination" and who could forget "The Oompa-Loompa Song(s)". However, the original movie has plenty of dudds. Does anyone remember "Cheer Up Charlie"? That one song near the start that lasts about a year and furthers nothing? Or "Give it to Me Now", Veruca's arbitrary "I'm a spoiled brat"song? Now, in comparison, Burton's version has only five lyrical songs (with a really awesome opening theme though, amiright?). None are as fondly remembered but neither is the rest of the movie. Take off your nostalgia goggles and hear me out.
When I was growing up, having read the book, I was always supremely disappointed with the original's chorus of Oompa-Loompa. Those of you familiar with the book will know that therein, after each child's misfortune, was a cautionary and funny, usually anecdotal song from the Oompa-Loompas, to highlight each child's individual hamartia (fatal flaw). They were clever and when I was reading, I'd always look forward to the next one. What did the original film give us? This thudding, unimaginative tune with little variation from child to child and boring lyrics to suit rhyme. Bad show. Also, if you take into account the fact that these songs are all effectively the same, the original's song count drops to six. In Burton's film, each child's send off was unique and suited that particular child. They took inspiration from Dahl's original poems and each song came from a different decade, which I thought was clever. While we're talking about the Oompa-Loompas, I really don't like the design of either. I always pictured them like pixies or sprites when reading the book (though I know the illustrations are more resembling little tribes-people). I guess having them all look the same in Burton's version is a little weird but the orange skin and green hair is no less stupid. Neither wins out in my book but the improved songs in Burton's give them the edge.
Ooh, no she did-n't!
Other stuff:
I couldn't come up with a connecting thread for these last issues. Oh well! Firstly, SLUGWORTH. Totally redundant. This story was perfectly fine without this completely pointless subplot you added, movie! The only purpose it serves is to give Wonka a reason to blow up in everyone's face at the end of the movie, something out of character in the first place! Just... why?!? Then there's that tunnel scene. I don't even... I get that they're establishing mood, the factory's slightly more sinister than it seems yadda yadda yadda, but that idea is there anyway as soon as children start disappearing. No one was arguing that it seemed too innocent right after a boy's almost died! It's also worth mentioning that the original factory seemed, like Wonka, a little tame. However, that may be at least partly down to the times, CGI wasn't an option then. I let it slide. I've already voiced my distaste for the fizzy lifting drink scene. Another "Why would you think this was necessary?!" moment. In Burton's version, of course, we have the added Daddy issues. Mr. Burton, we get it. Someone didn't get the attention or acceptance they felt they needed from their Papa. We've all been there. Do you need to write it into every one of your movies? It's bad enough with Spielberg, dude. you're better than this.
There may also be a certain level of natural
sympathy on my part regarding offspring of dentists.
No idea why...
That said, I actually don't mind the added back story to Wonka in this version. It helps us understand him as a character, we see his growth and his struggles and that makes him more sympathetic, despite his regular jerkishness. However, it could easily be argued that this defeats the point of Wonka being shrouded in mystery from the beginning. It could be said that you're not supposed to know this much about Wonka. He's a kook, a call to adventure, not the adventurer himself. Eh, I thought it worked.
Finally, a few words on a great injustice: Why has no-one considered making a Great Glass Elevator film?
There have been two films made of the first book in the Charlie series but everyone seems to overlook the second book (yes, there's a second book, shame on you for not knowing that!) Personally, I prefer Charlie and the Great Glass Elevator (probably my inner hipster). It has space travel, the president of the United States (and his former nanny/vice president), Vermicious Knids (who are both terrifying and literate), and a journey into the fabric of time. Oh, and it contains 400% less (plausible) child murder! It is awesome (and makes one wonder if Willy Wonka is a Time Lord, considering that his elevator can travel through space and time...) but would, admittedly, be difficult to adapt into a movie. Still, it's a little disheartening that, in order for us to have even the possibility of a GGE film we'd need another Chocolate Factory reboot as the cast of the original is too old and/or dead and Burton's version left no opening for a sequel. I am disappoint. Small concerns, life goes on.
Overall, I prefer the new version. That's my opinion, if you wish to share all the reasons you think I'm wrong and deserve to be disemboweled for such treason/heresy/general incorrectness, please feel free to leave a comment below. This has been my relatively nostalgia-goggles free view. Next entry should be up next Wednesday (I have things, sorry for the lapse in regularity) um, tune in? Dial up? I dunno what terms the kids are using these days. I leave you with a house remix featuring that song that gave us all unnecessary nightmares for weeks. Enjooooy!:
Hello friends, Romans, countrymen. Lend me your ears. Today, Ima talk about the recently aired (online anyway) finale to the second season of "The Legend of Korra" TV show. Yes, I know I'm late again. I have stuff to do, I'm sorry. Anyways, I'm going to be talking about the 40 minute finale as a whole. Yarr, thar shall be spoilers. Let us proceed.
For the sake of ease, I'm going to assume you've been keeping up with the series thus far (also, I marathoned the final four episodes and they blur a little). Brief recap: Varrick, blah blah, Tenzen spirit fail, blah blah, Unalaq evil, blah blah, Korra bitchy then nice, blah blah, more love triangle bullcrap, blah blah, "we must restore the balance". Everyone up to speed? Good.
Now overall I felt that this finale had the same problems as the finale to season 1: It tried to do too much too quickly for the sake of closure and ended up feeling rushed towards the end. There's also a bit of a deus ex machina (that I'll get back to later). Overall, I felt it was apt for the season that was in it, as in it dragged for the first bit then rapidly picked up speed and felt ultimately unsatisfying (keep your mind out of the gutter). The plot is basically that Unalaq has fused with Vatu and become a dark avatar and he and Korra fight. He extracts Rava from Korra's body and smashes it against a rock until it's dead, resulting in Korra losing her connection to the past avatars, then turns into a giant dark spirit and sets off to terrorise Republic City. Meanwhile, Tenzen gets some closure on his Daddy issues in the fog of lost souls and rescues Jinora, Kya and Bumi. They go back to the convergence spot and learn of Korra's predicament. It just so happens that the tree Vatu was trapped in was the tree of time and Korra meditates there and turns into a giant blue Korra spirit and goes to fight giant Unalaq, Power Rangers style. They fight and *loophole!* Korra remembers that in avatar Wan's memories she heard that if Vatu ever defeated Rava or vice versa, the other would grow inside them until they both existed again. Jinora appears and glows, distracting Unalaq for enough time that Korra can make a move. She plucks Rava from Unalaq's chest and fuses with her, they fight and Korra wins. Yay. She then decides not to close the spirit portals and should let the spirits coexist with humans once more. The End. (Also, Korra and Mako talk and decide they don't work as a couple, Eska and Bolin kiss but Eska doesn't want to be tied down by him. Has anyone else noticed that those two are basically just Andy and April from Parks and Rec?)
Embodiments of Good and Evil? Wrestling kites, definitely. That makes sense.
I had some major issues with the message this season was sending. After such a great villain and conflict (though badly resolved) in the last season, I was eager to see what this season would follow with. I was intrigued by the idea of embodying good and evil in Rava and Vatu and had decent hopes for the talk of restoring balance as I thought they might be going a route that is often overlooked. However, they went with the safe choice and for that the season fell drastically in my opinions.
Here's the thing: The whole "restore the balance of good and evil" thing has been done to death. It tends to be the driving force behind "chosen one" narratives (AKA the monomyth) and anything that follows similar tropes, such as Avatar. However, one very important factor in this idea of balance is often overlooked: The idea that for balance to occur, there needs to be both good and evil in equal proportion. This is what Yin and Yang represent, the ever present balance and struggle between good and bad. One cannot eradicate the other because they are present in each other. Most of these narratives focus on restoring the balance by defeating evil. That's fine, if evil has grown to such strength that it is smothering the good (as in the "Avatar, Legend of Aang") however, here evil was trapped in a tree. That hardly seems balanced.
I think the reason I had such high hopes for this was down to the emphasis on balance in both the imagery and dialogue of this season. Unalaq said repeatedly that he was working for Vatu to restore balance and I began to think that someone had finally gotten the hint as to what the word balance means. Nope! He's just evil and wants 1,000 years of darkness (not unlike the new Thor film, actually). Iroh's fan service reappearance, talking of balance, the constant Yin-Yang motif, good and bad spirits, I thought they were all leading up to something clever. Nope! Big battle, they smash the bad guy, happy ending. They also overlooked that, having destroyed Vatu, he should have started to grow again from within Rava. Nope! Let's ignore our own logic (though that could potentially come back if they have a third season, so fingers crossed).
When they started talk of a Dark avatar I was grinning my face off because IT MAKES SENSE! You have Rava and Vatu wrestling in Avatar Wan's memory, symbolic of good and bad's struggle against each other. Wan disrupts that, wouldn't it have been great if, to bring everything full circle, The dark and light avatars end up perpetually grappling with each other, as it had been in the beginning? Ugh. It was simply disappointing that a clever enough show would ignore such an obvious issue, especially considering the stress they put on it.
A dictionary, motherfucker! Do you own one?!
Anyway, what else was in the finale? Jinora suddenly becoming a pseudo-Jesus was weird but otherwise inconsequential. I really liked that Korra and Mako didn't restart dating, that was getting tired and stupid, plus it can't hurt to have a hero without a love interest every once in a while. Asami seems to have gotten sidelined in the finale, I didn't really see why she would have to go back when she knows how to work the machinery that the Northern tribe were using, could've been useful. I liked that Varrick escaped, leaving that open for the next season (I love this guy's phrasing: "Zhu Lee, do the thing!").
Then there's the issue of Korra. I get the feeling that the writers of the reboot didn't like her very much because they keep making her screw up. Fatally. In season one she loses her Avatar powers (deus ex Aang restores them but there's a definite moment of "What the fuck, Korra? Be more careful with the fate of humanity and stuff!") Then in this season she loses Jinora and later her connection to the past avatars. Like, dude! Honestly, Korra as a character has always struck me as somewhat ungrateful compared to Aang. I know this is just her personality and the writers were trying to make her distinct from her predecessor but did they have to make her so... bratty? Because that's what she tends to come across as. I cared much more about Asami (who is awesome but gets a criminally sparse level of screen time and development) than Korra at the end of this. When Korra lost the connection to Aang and the others (irreversibly, might I add) all I could think of was "Oh great, now you've screwed everything up for the future avatars!" I just don't understand what went wrong with her character, especially considering how other characters with similar flaws come across better. Varrick almost sparks a war between the two water tribes because he's greedy but I still liked him. Mako can be cold and overly serious but I still liked him. Bolin could be cocky and makes some bad decisions but I liked him. Why was the protagonist the one exception?
Honestly, does anyone know? I found it so hard to empathise with her this season. Oh well, I guess we'll see what season three: "Changes" has in store. This has been my review of the season 2 finale for "Avatar: Legend of Korra".
Hello again, friendship people. Today I finally complete my three part doohicky discussing, questioning and lightly insulting (the definition of "lightly" being changeable and flimsy) religion and all that fun stuff. Don't worry, friends, it'll all be over soon and I'll get back to poking holes in (other) easy targets. Like bad to mediocre movies! So, if you haven't read my previous two sections there are here (part one) and here (part two). If you're easily offended by the discussion of something you believe in... well, stick around because in this section I am going to be discussing YOU! Yes you, entirely hypothetical easily offended reader! You, with your presumably sheltered background and unchallenging circle of friends. You, with your probable unfamiliarity with the internet's intolerance and controlling parents. Am I getting close? If yes, I'm a psychic! If not, that's exactly what I wanted to happen. I'm hyper today.
Joking aside, this informo-pinion-rant is probably going to be the least related to religion specifically out of the three segments. That's not to say I won't be using religion as an example, ooh no, it just happens to be the most extreme example of something that really, really annoys me. Now that's out of the way, let us begin.
I would like to tell you a little story, friends. Once upon a time there was a girl. Spoiler, that girl is me. She was on the internet one day and found an entertaining image that she decided to share with Facebook. The image was this:
I guess comic is more of an accurate description. Oh well. Anyways, I put this on my facebook wall because I thought it was funny. I found it funny and wanted to share it with my friends, some of whom may also find it funny. They did. It got likes and shiz. End of story, right?
Wrong. About a week after posting this I got a text from a friend asking me to remove the picture from my feed because it had offended her. She was fairly religious and insisted that just because I thought it was funny did not mean it would be taken as a joke by all, it had quite annoyed her. I honestly had to recheck the post to see if the picture was in fact the one above, thinking maybe I'd accidentally posted my support of puppy drowning or the like. I refused to take the picture down because, in my defense, the picture was in no way aimed at this friend and was intended as a joke. I then, in a possible misjudgment, went on to question why my friend had had such a reaction to the picture. I asked if, perhaps, it was evidence of an insecurity in her own faith and had nothing to do with me whatsoever.
She didn't talk to me for a week. Maths class was awkward as hell. I moved class the next week (that was gonna happen anyway but it was aptly timed).
This, dear readers, is one example of my experience with the easily offended. I've come across many such people while inching my way along this here mortal coil, not all of them religious but all of them equally taken aback at their precious whatever being questioned. I am far from the most tactful of people. I try, I really do, but only when the situation deserves it. Religion (or anything similarly trivial) does not deserve it.
Here's the thing, readers: Nothing is above jokes. Not religion, not death, not bad people. Nothing. If something believes itself above jokes it is clearly not secure in itself that it can withstand being laughed at. If we collectively refuse to make jokes about something, it gains power over us. And that's generally not good. They say that humour is the enemy of authority and I wholeheartedly believe that. People were executed for making jokes at the expense of Nazis and communists and tyrants. Why? Because even those with the most control are insecure. And jokes niggle away at that insecurity. Satire has power, political cartoons in the Sunday paper have power, Youtubers who make fun of Kim Jong Un have power. Because humour is power. I'm losing the run of myself, back to my point.
So, why do normal people get so offended when I insult something like religion? They're not the pope, or a rabbi or preacher. Why the knee jerk offence? This is due to a phenomenon which has seen a significant rise in the boom of the internet: attaching your personality to the things you like. This is what I want to talk about.
There's a concept called BIRGing. Basking In Reflected Glory. This is the phenomenon that a sports fan feels when their team wins, or a fan of a TV show feels when their favourite two characters finally get together. The individuals themselves have nothing to do with the outcome, yet feel pride and happiness for their success. It's a little bit like national pride (which is a topic for another day, friends). BIRGing is usually accompanied by CORFing. Cutting Off Reflected Failure. This is when the sports fan's team doesn't win, or that perfect couple doesn't end up together (*ahem* Katara and Zuko *ahem ahem*). The fans can disengage themselves because, after all, they have no personal input to the result so it shouldn't affect them.
However, and this is a big however, that is not how human nature works. People can't disengage that easily. If they could there would be far fewer riots at football games and much, much less non-canon shipping fanfiction on the internet. We are social creatures and we get invested in things we like. That's our nature and it's normal. But we need to keep it in check.
It's important for people to understand that, should someone insult or dislike something you like, they are not insulting you. For example, if someone (let's call them Bob, for the sake of ease) really liked the film "Grease", I have every right to say that I think it's overrated (which I do. Rant for another day). If I were to say this, Bob may see it as my insulting the movie. Fair enough. If Bob personally took offence at my insulting this movie, there we have a problem. If he were to not talk to me for a week for not liking the same movie as him, people would think he was being unreasonable. Substitute in religion and I get people saying "Well, you shouldn't've insulted the thing".
It all comes down to self esteem. Organised religion's more "wolf in sheep's clothing" aspect is taking advantage of people in dark places by promising them something better. What's that thing, you ask? Attaching their personalities to religion of course! And the worst thing (or "worst" depending on how you see it) is that it does help people. No, that's not a bad thing (I'm really digging a hole here, aren't I?) but the fact that they've now invested so much of their self esteem and their happiness in one organisation is a little worrying. I'll go back to my Dumbo analogy from the last installment. Dumbo thought he needed the magic feather to fly. But what would happen if he never learned to fly without the feather? He's quite possibly worse off that before because he's so heavily dependent on that one, small, incredibly flimsy thing. Commitment to an organisation similar to this or its more extreme cousin: drug addiction. Alcoholics feel like they can't be fun or interesting without drink. Caffeine addicts feel they can't wake up without their morning boost. Those dependent on religion feel they can't be confident in themselves without their God and church behind them. It's not healthy.
To quote the book of Beuller:
While I know it's not as easy as all that, it's a good place to start. Try not to attach your personality to Justin Bieber, or Arsenal, or The Church of Reformed Baptist Lamb Chops. Your personality is yours. Try and have faith in yourself.
And with that, friends, I conclude my three part segment on Religion! I hope you've gleaned some insight from it, of what an awful and blasphemous person I am if nothing else. Final thoughts to leave you with: Try not to accept things blindly. We have critical facilities for a reason and we need to see through our own bullshit from time to time. Question everything. Question me, if you want to, the comments are just below. I'll probably answer, we can have a nice chat. Try not to be super easily offended. If your friends have to pussyfoot around everything they want to say to you, they're not going to be comfortable around you. That ain't good.
Hello friends. Yes, I know I have broken my flimsy rule of "I'll try and get something out once a week". Apologies, I've had rehearsals for my school play (I'm Mama Morton, it is Chicago), my one year anniversary was last Friday and that involved effort, there have been tests and Halloween things and school and blergh. Also, Pokémon X and Y came out. Nuff said.
I also saw a movie and, in a break from somewhat halloweeny subjects such as witches and devils (daring ones) which were totally planned and not just things I wanted to talk about, I'm going to review the latest Marvel superhero film, "Thor: The Dark World".
I will try and keep this review as spoiler free as possible but I'm not entirely sure as to what can and cannot be considered a spoiler, be warned. I'll also be talking a little about the other Marvel superhero movies (namely Thor and Avengers Assemble) so if you haven't seen them you may feel slightly alienated. Apologies.
Now, to the movie. I was very much looking forward to this movie. I thought that Thor was one of the better "lead up to the Avengers" movies in terms of plot, humour and characters. Y'see, Captain America was decent in terms of plot but fell down in terms of characters (the villain was incredibly meh) and the humour was fleeting (thought did enjoy cap punching Hitler in the face). Also, Cap is a wee bit boring, but I'll get back to that. Iron man was better in terms of characters because Tony Stark is charisma on a stick but the plot, oh the plot. How it did meander. The humour was good but, holy shit, if I had a euro for every time I wondered "where the hell are they going with this?"... I would have more money than I have now. Thor was good because they knew where their strengths lay. They could be dramatic when they needed to be but they weren't afraid to make jokes. It had a good grasp of what it wanted to do and set up things that needed to be done. It wasn't perfect but out of the three, I felt it was the strongest.
Back to this movie. Basic plot summary: There are some evil elves (don't laugh) who want this evil dark scary red weapon dust called the "aether" to bring the universe back into darkness. They don't like the Asgardians very much cos they almost wiped them out a long time ago. Now they're back and they want their evil scary dust. Also, Thor misses his earth girlfriend. Discuss.
Yeeeeeah, the plot is average but it knows what it's doing. It's no Iron Man "well, Ima just fly around and break international laws until the plot shows up". There is a Maguffin, a countdown and a clear villain. There are stakes. Mmmmm steaks..... Shh, Rachel, focus. So, let's talk about what's good.
Firstly, I absolutely LOVE the design for Asgard. Remember way back when, when I as talking about the design for Krypton in Man of Steel? It's a little like that but it's there for keepsies. I don't know if it's my Celtic blood but I'm a sucker for the twisty, quasi-"book-of-kells" stuff. It's just so cool. Throw in Chris Hemsworth in some stylised armour and some modern technology-ish stuff and I am one happy movie goer. And it's only five minutes in.
Another good point to mention: Loki's back. Loki is another reason I really liked the first Thor over the other lead up movies: Loki is a strong villain. Red Skull and random "I like money and power" guy have nothing on Loki. Loki is relateable. Watching his struggle in the first film, you can understand the choices he makes and ask yourself if you would do the same, given the circumstances (though realistically, it's unlikely you'd ever be torn between your Frost Giant parents and your Norse Gods ones. You'd choose the Norse Gods, duh.). He is, ironically, very human. But he's still threatening, there's still the necessary malice because his loyalty is never certain and you're never sure what's going on in his head. He is complex and an all round great character. And in this film (this isn't a spoiler because it's in all the trailers) he is working with the good guys.
Now, I can't tell you why because that is a spoiler but you really do get to see more of Loki's vulnerability in this film. And not a "hulk smashing him around a bit, puny god" physical vulnerability but true, emotional fragility. It's very well done on the part of Tom Hiddleston. Actually, all of the acting is great here, props to everyone. Not only do we see that layer of weakness to Loki but we get more of the Trickster God element that was lacking slightly in the previous two films we was in. Loki has some fun with his snark and his illusion powers (the line, "God bless America" factors in. It's hilarious. But you need to be there) One small qualm was the lack of funny awesome hat but I survived.
Join me, and together we shall wear all of the silly hats. And maybe rule the world or something.
More on the characters, Kat Dennings' makes a return as the ever hilarious and generally awesome Darcy, Jane Foster's intern and friend. There is a shoe motif. Again, you have to see it. Also very funny are Chris O'Dowd, in a relatively small but memorable role, Stellan Skarsgard returning as Dr. Eric Selvig (he helps forward the shoe theme) and Johnathan Howard as Ian the intern.
Then of course there are Thor and Jane, played by Chris Hemsworth and Natalie Portman. They... exist. I said that the first Thor movie knew its strengths, as does this one. So it leaves the two leads off sreen as much as possible. It's probably not a good sign when Thor needs to be sidelined for the good of his own movie, but that's kind of the case here. It's not the fault of the writing or the actors, it's really just the fact that the character is not that interesting. In a lineup of interesting, intelligent, charismatic characters, Thor ends up the lesser. He's mostly confined to action and punchlines (ie. he's a Norse God and he has to take the tube, har har har) much in the same way Cap was. It's not to the film's detriment but it does make one wonder what could have been done were the protagonist not so... constricting to the writers. Oh, and they do try. There is character development and we see him grow it's just not the part of the movie one remembers. i remember the shoes being mentioned four times better than I remember half of the soul searching scenes and the "I have slight daddy issues" scenes. It's not bad, just a smidge boring. But they try, points for effort. You get a gold star, writers.
Then there's Jane. Here's the thing with Jane... in the first movie she had a reason for being there. She was the eyes through which we, the audience, saw Thor change and become better. She helped him along his journey. Here... that's gone. Here all she serves for is a Maguffin related source of tension (no spoilers, shh) and as "something to pine for". She doesn't feel like a proper character because she has no goals of her own in this film. In the former she wanted to get her research back from shield and she wanted to figure out what was going on with this guy who fell from the sky (must... not make... raining men reference). Here, she starts out doing research on stuff (spoilers do not allow me to elaborate) but fairly promptly drops it for reasons and Eric and Darcy do all the science from there on. She's a plot device, essentially and that's no fun, especially considering that I liked the character in the first Thor.
What else was in this movie? Oh yeah, Christopher Eccleston!
I'm sorry, he has nothing on David
See? Looka dat face
Well, he doesn't look like that. Chris #2 here plays Malakith, the evil elf leader dude. He wants to destroy the world... for reasons. Remember how I was praising Loki for being a layered, sympathetic villain. Yeah, Malakith is the opposite of that. And as if it wasn't enough, for half of the film he's speaking another language. Yes movie, because we needed another barrier to making him relateable. We really learn very little about him other than: he is ruthless and wants to plunge the universe into darkness. I'd much prefer if we knew what his favourite colour was, that would at least give us something else to go on. Besides, next to "evil is fun", "I want to destroy the world" is one of the laziest villain motivations out there. They try to get across that he wants revenge as well but that really doesn't factor much into his plan, so I ignore it (hey, so does the movie). Going back to a good villain, Loki wants to rule. That's simple and could be seen as lazy, yes, but we also understand why he wants to rule. He's had this promised to him, he's incredibly arrogant and believes he deserves power, and he resents his brother. We understand him. I have a feeling understanding Malakith would just open up plot holes. Ones other than the ones Malakith is trying to open (spoilers, you have to see it).
That, and his minions look like power ranger minions with teletubbie masks on. Very silly. Not very impressive.
Shh, not here you're not.
Overall, while this movie had some big 'ol flaws, it had a strong core, a well handled balance between humour and seriousness and some great characters to cover for the mediocre. I would definitely recommend going to see it, be you a comic book fan, a sci-fi fan, an action fan or just a straight up fan of movies. It will not be a waste of your time, you will probably enjoy yourself at least a little. Happy belated Halloween.
Hello friends. So, I was sitting at home, doing a bit of "stare at your textbook hoping the facts will somehow burrow into your brain" and I got to thinking: I wonder how Ben Affleck's gonna do as the new Batman. Y'know, normal thought progressions. I know there was a lot of "WHAT?! Nooooooo!" when it was revealed who would be playing Batman in the upcoming Batman-Superman crossover (colloquially known as "Batman vs Superman" for the time being) but I really didn't see a huge issue with it. Sure, I thought it was funny, but more because of people's reactions to the news than anything else. Also, there's this:
.....yeah. I'm not very familiar with Ben Affleck's body of work, so I'm not really one to judge. I've seen him in Dogma, where he plays a fallen angel, and I think he gave a good performance. I saw Surviving Christmas and wanted to stab something but that's most Christmas movies for me. I've heard terrible things about Pearl Harbour but they're more aimed at Michael Bay than Affleck, and he's won oscars for Argo.
(Sidenote: Researching him now, I've just found out he directed a short film called "I Killed My Lesbian Wife, Hung Her on a Meathook, and Now I Have a Three Picture Deal at Disney" which I feel obligated to see based on the title alone).
Basically he seems like a talented guy, who's made some bad calls, like all of us. Now, I don't know him, he might be a raging douche-bag (though participation is the above video suggests some degree of soundness), but I try to judge actors on their work because I can't know them unless I know them in person.
Then I was informed of a film Affleck starred in in 2003. A superhero movie. A superhero movie from the cinematic-comic-adaptation Dark Ages, before the Dark Knight trilogy and the Avengers came to restore order to that realm. After Joel Schumacher's "Batman and Robin" gave the world's Batman fans PTSD but just after the success of Sam Raimi's "Spiderman" movie and the first "X-Men" movie, Marvel decided to send out some of their lesser known heroes: Daredevil and Elektra, to try and secure their popularity over DC on the silver screen (even though, technically, Spiderman's rights belong to Sony and X-Mens' to Fox, so I guess the wanted to cash in on the heroes they still had).
Starting with Daredevil. Which I watched. And will now review.
Firstly, as I seem to be doing with all my reviews, I'd like to say that I didn't hate this movie. I found it entertaining. It is not, however, a good movie. It's not terrible, but it's not good either. And, it paved the way for films like Halle Berry's Catwoman (It's DC, I know, but still), The Fantastic Four and Elektra. I hadn't heard great things but I kept a fairly open mind. Here goes.
The basic concept is this (I'll try and avoid spoilers, promise): Matt Murdoch's father is a boxer, Jack "The Devil" Murdoch (I hope that's not foreshadowing anything...) rigging games for underground bosses. One day Matt sees one of the shady deals being organised and, running away, has an accident involving radioactive waste (as you do). He is permanently blinded but his other senses are heightened, primarily his hearing which allows him to see via sound-waves bouncing off of things.
Hmm, I'm sure there's an animal that does that... agh, tip of my tongue, it'll come to me.
After his son's accident, Jack decides to clean up his act but after he wins a fight he said he'd throw, the gangsters murder him in the streets. He just misses the gangsters leaving but vows revenge and trains himself to be a crime fighting vigilante
Parent murdered, vowing revenge, vigilante justice... y'know, that sounds familiar too... I just can't put my finger on it...
By day, Matt Murdoch is a blind lawyer, bringing criminals to justice through conventional means. By night, he is Daredevil, taking the law into his own hands. He is the night, he's the hero this city needs but not what it deserves, he is wanted by the police but he's adamantly not the bad guy.
Damn, why is this all so familiar?!
I'm so close, I know it...
The plot of the movie is pretty weak to be honest. The mobsters who killed Matt's dad as well as the rest of the criminals are controlled by one man, the Kingpin. However, the press is beginning to catch on to the conspiracy so the Kingpin decides to frame this one dude, who happens to be the father of the girl Daredevil just met, Elektra Nachiose (played by Jennifer Garner). When Daredevil gets in the Kingpin's way during the assassination of Mr. Nachiose, he sends Bullseye, a master marksman who can turn anything that can be thrown into a weapon (played by Collin Farrell) after him and Elektra. Aaaaand that's pretty much the plot. There isn't a huge amount of pushing force behind this movie, it's mostly a game of cat and mice with the heroes and the one villain who actually does stuff (as opposed to the Kingpin who is awesome but does nothing).
They play up a good few main themes (and by play up, I of course mean hammer in) like the idea of faith. Daredevil's pretty religious (geddit? It's ironic!). There's a lot of talk of fear as well, Daredevil is the man without fear. Wasn't there some other superhero movie that mentioned fear every few minutes? Pretty sure that one had an Irish actor too... I get the feeling they're trying to make some other comparison but it's so subtle, I can't quite make it out:
That imagery... so familiar...
Anyway, lets talk about the movie as a whole. I think the main factors that bring it down are the special effects, some of the handling of the concept and the plot. The characterisation is good, and the acting is much better than I expected. Actually there's one scene towards the start of the film that made me dread what was to come acting-wise but thankfully it's just this one actor (who is only in this one scene, and in voice form):
Clearly this girl wanted to make the most of her twelve second read (despite the fact that twelve seconds of her in the film is faaar too generous). But other than this one incredibly wooden, primary-school-play standard performance, the acting is pretty good. Some of the dialogue is a little stilted and overly dramatic but it's a superhero movie, I can make allowances for that.
The main failing here are the effects. The CGI is unnecessary and simply awful. I mean, seriously guys, if The Matrix could do it in 1999, you can do it in 2003. Now, they're not Catwoman bad but they're close. And half the time I was sitting thinking "Could you not have a stuntman in the costume for that shot? Or there? Or- OH SERIOUSLY GUYS!"
Then there's the fight choreography. Oh boy. I'm gonna make another Matrix comparison, bear with me. The Matrix had some good fight choreography: It was fast paced, it kept you guessing as to what would happen next, it got the adrenaline pumping and it moved the scene along. Now imagine if you took similar fight choreography but slowed it down by about two seconds. Completely different effect. Suddenly you can see what's coming (because you know the actors do) you are bored because your adrenaline is sitting rather complacently in your blood stream, in no hurry to pump into action any time soon. And half of the tension is gone because it feels fake. It's like a dance, each actor trusts the other to move in time so that they can react. But in a real fight, you don't trust your opponent. Quite the opposite, usually. So it shouldn't look like you know they're about to go for a left hook. In conjunction with this failure is the truly appalling wire-work. I'm talking, more obvious wire-work than Thunderbirds bad. Not the movie, the TV show. Yeah, that bad. Turn your attention to exhibit A:
Y'see? It's too slow and it looks like they're constantly getting into position for the next shot. There're also the plot implications of this scene. Surely a blind man doing all these advanced flips and dodging blows like he could see them would attract some attention. This is a common thread throughout the film, Matt is highly inconsistent with how much of a secret he wants to keep his powers. Then there's the fact that Daredevil is somewhat of an enigma to the public, nothing but an urban legend to most, yet at the start of the film he leaves a calling card! WHY? There's also a lot of inconsistency as to exactly how much Matt can see with his radar sense. Sometimes he can see fine and other times he needs to make noise to do so. (Sidenote: I can't be the only one to think that Ben Affleck with that hair looks like Jason Bateman... Bateman... hmmm)
Finally, I have some problems with the treatment of Jennifer Garner's character. Don't get me wrong, she's a decent character, there's a little of the "strong independent woman" thing to her and being snarky and hurt for no apparent reason, but otherwise she's not a badly developed character and as the audience, I cared about her. However, there's a running thing that Matt wants to see her face (because the sound waves coming from his own mouth don't bounce off her face, apparently) and when it rains he can. Now watching the film this was something that really irked me because, why should he care what she looks like. Yes, I know they wouldn't choose an ugly actor to play Elektra, that's Hollywood but here you have a man who's been blind since he was twelve years old. Even if he did have any idea of physical attraction at the time, it's been, what? At least ten years since then. Living in near total darkness, only seeing faces when it rains, would he really remember what a traditionally attractive face looked like? And, my main problem, would he really care? This bugged me because it's a theme, a running idea that Matt still gives a shit about hot women when he hasn't seen one in years and can't see them on a day to day basis. Hollywood, I know you're not great at cutting back on the objectification of women in media, male gaze yadda yadda. But seriously? Here it makes the least sense to objectify your female lead, and stress beauty as a reason Matt is interested in her romantically. I can believe the banter, there's chemistry, there really is, but man, why make a big deal of it? There's one scene where they go to this big gala dinner thing and Elektra's all dressed up and GOES OUT OF HER WAY to tell him that she dressed up for him. Dude! He can't see you! You could be wearing tracksuit bottoms and a hoodie and he'd still think you were amazing, inner beauty and all that. And I understand that it is convention to dress up for fancy dinners. But telling him you dressed up for him? WHY?
Sorry for ranting, just... ugh, stupid, stupid writing.
And there you have it folks, Ben Affleck's first attempt at a superhero film. Overall, it's not unbearable. There are some bad decisions made but most aren't deal-breakers as far as enjoying the film goes. I guess we'll have to wait until 2015 to see how Affleck fares as Gotham's protector...
BATS! Thaaaaaaat's the animal I was trying to remember!
Okay, all sarcasm aside, this superhero concept is pretty much what one thinks of if asked to come up with a bat themed hero. This is the true "Bat-man", only the name was taken. So, will Batfleck be any good? Well, he has the brooding down, the double life, even the voice (and it's nowhere near as ridiculous as Bale's). But my hopes have been significantly raised for his portrayal of the caped crusader. Why? Because he's pretty much already played him.
Hello friends. Now, some of you might remember that a while ago I reviewed "Monsters University" and had a big ol' rant on prequels and why they usually do not work. Well, shortly after I saw MU, I saw "Oz the Great and Powerful", the latest story set in everyone's favourite public domain fantasy world, Oz. I've been wanting to review it for a while now but quickly realised that it maybe wasn't the best suited for review, for two reasons. Firstly, I didn't find it offensive or particularly childhood desecrate-y because I had no (positive) expectations for it, so I couldn't take that angle. Secondly, I'd already read and watched reviews of it saying most of the things I would have said, including the feminist angle because it's more intellectual that picking holes in a movie that is clearly flawed (See that one here, It's pretty awesome) so I figured, eh, I'll leave this super easy target alone.
However, about a week ago I found the file for "Wicked"'s soundtrack (I'd had it on my laptop but then iTunes lost it and I couldn't find it but it reappeared inexplicably and I was like "holy crap, yay!") and I began to listen to it. Small details you should know: When I originally had the soundtrack on my iPod I hadn't seen the musical or read the book. After I'd lost it, I went and did both those things. I was listening to the soundtrack with newly educated ears. And it was then that I realised (or remembered) how very, very clever Wicked is, both as a story, an adaptation and as a prequel. You see where this is going, right? Of course you do, It's in the freakin' title.
FACE OFF TIIIIIME!
That's right, I'ma do a comparison. I'd just like to get out of the way quickly that I did give this movie a chance, I'm not one of those people who will slam something just for trying to expand a universe or story. I'll slam it for doing so terribly. I genuinely hate people going on about how the new Charlie and the Chocolate Factory or the new Pokemon generations will never be as good as the originals. Grow up, guys. You can leave a little space in your heart for your childhood memories but if you truly love the universe you'll at least give it a chance before starting a hate group.
That said, this movie is BAD. As a stand-alone story it sucks, the characters and their motivations are flimsy as hell and the entire thing somehow feels simultaneously rushed and far too long. It's a mess. But any reviewer can tell you that. I'm going to look at Wicked because it is basically the same thing done right.
But first (Oh geez, get to the point already! I will, this is the last one. Promise) A little bit of clarification and background. For the sake of ease, I'm going to be comparing "Wicked" (the Musical) to the film "Oz the Great and Powerful", using the 1930's film "The Wizard of Oz" as a fixed reference point. I've made this decision because these are the most well known versions of the texts. The musical "Wicked" is based on the book "Wicked: The Life and Times of the Wicked Witch of the West" by Gregory Maguire but, having read the book, they are quite different and, again, the musical is better known. I'll be comparing the two to the 1930's film in part as well, partly because it's better known than L. Frank Baum's book (which I have yet to read) and also because the screenplay for "OtGaP" is based on the movie, not the book. Phew, now that's out of the way, TO THE REVIEW! (This review will contain spoilers for the musical and both movies)
Now, I'm not sure if you know this, but I like to write things (That's a joke, I never freakin shut up about writing). I would like to write as a profession, if anyone will have me. This is mostly because I like stories and always have (probably always will). So, dear readers, it frustrates me somewhat to see people who have much more experience and expertise than I making rookie mistakes when it comes to storytelling. I will acknowledge that prequels are difficult to do well. I've already spoken on this but, again, as someone who may or may not currently be writing a novel that is somewhat prequel-esque, I care about this in particular. I know that it's a struggle but that's why you need to put extra effort in. So, speaking of effort, lets take a look at OtGaP in terms of prequels and general storytelling.
It's probably already obvious to you that this movie didn't do this very well. However, allow me to elaborate. In OtGaP, we follow Oscar AKA Oz (played by James Franco) as he is transported to Oz where he finds out that there's some prophecy saying a great and powerful wizard will come and save the day or something. Along the way, we meet Theodora (played by Mila Kunis and our not-green Elphaba/Wicked Witch equivalent), Evanora (played by Rachel Weisz and the Nessa/Wicked Witch of the East equivalent, though it's not really made clear) and Glinda (played by Michelle Williams). The story in a nutshell: There's a whole big kerfuffle over who's good and who's evil despite the fact that it's pretty damn obvious, there's a Zach Braff monkey and a talking china doll for some reason, Oscar is a jackass and tries it on with all three witches, Mila Kunis eats and apple that makes her green and evil because Oscar fucked her then didn't commit, there's a war, Oscar's a floating head and the bad witches run screaming into the night. The End.
Can you see what I'm getting at when I say it's a bit of a mess? Here's a trailer to help you visualise things.
Where to begin. Most of the problems with the plot of the movie lie with where it tries to create stakes. It tries to create stakes by saying that Glinda is a bad witch, which fails because anyone familiar with the 1930's movie (ie. everyone in the movie watching universe) knows that she's not. It tries to create stakes in the battle between the witches and the good guys, when everyone knows that the wizard must gain control of the city by the beginning of the original timeline, as well as knowing that both the bad witches must survive this one, as they're alive when Dorothy shows up. They try to create romantic stakes but there's no build up so we don't care, as well as that fact that the wizard from the original is pretty decidedly romantically uninvolved (and, not to sound mean, but for clear reasons). They try to create drama with Theodora's apple eating antics but the motivation behind it is so flimsy and has such a lack of build up that it is effectively impossibly to care. There are no stakes, as is the case with most prequels.
"But Rachel," I hear you say, "How can they have a prequel without dulling the stakes a little? Surely the audience can suspend the part of their brain that knows the original in order to enjoy this work. Your expectations are far too high for them to be practical."
I'm so glad you said that, hypothetical reader. It CAN be done! And we have a prime example of this in "Wicked". Instead of shying away from the blatant fact that people are familiar with the original story, Wicked uses it to its advantage. Throughout the entirety of the play, there are little references to the original story and to things that will happen in the musical itself. Relistening to the soundtrack, all the references are increasingly noticeable, it's essentially "foreshadowing and dramatic irony the musical" and it works so very well. For example, in one of Elphaba's early scenes she claims to have had a vision that "...someday there'll be a celebration throughout Oz that's all to do with [her]". This little reference to the whole "Ding dong the witch is dead" idea from the original (as well as the musical beginning with the news of her death, benefiting unfamiliar viewers) is simultaneously funny and intriguing to the audience. The fact that we know Elphaba will one day be known as a Wicked Witch piques our interest because she seems so reasonable at the beginning. We want to know how the original story comes to be and that keeps us invested. That, and the fact that the characters are interesting and well developed.
Speaking of, let's compare the two Wicked Witches of the West(s?). Elphaba, Wicked's WWW has been green all her life, for reasons unexplained (in the musical anyway, though Maguire's reason it is hinted at in the first scene. For those of you who want to know: Elphaba is the wizard's daughter, born of a one night affair between the wizard and her mother (this is depicted at the beginning of the musical). The potion he gave Elphaba's mother on the night of her conception caused some kind of anomaly, making her green and the fact that she is of both the regular world and Oz is the reason for her magical powers.)
Elphaba has been shunned and reviled her whole life for being different and has become introverted and cautious because of it. She has to mind her wheelchair-bound sister Nessarose and desperately seeks the approval of her father, who treats her like a disappointment. When she discovers that she has some natural magical powers, she begins to dream about one day working with the wizard and being respected by the people of Oz who previously despised her. All this is shown to us within the first fifteen minutes of meeting Elphaba.
In contrast, the first fifteen minutes of meeting Theodora consist of:
1. She serves as exposition for Oscar about a (generally badly explained and inconsequential) prophecy doohicky
2. We find out she's a witch (though not much about what this means).
3. She and Oscar get chased by a flying baboon, dance, presumably screw (I must assume, given the framing) and then they go off to the Emerald City.
4. On the journey, she is full of talk about how he'll be king and she his queen (and he feels uneasy at her pressure to commit)
There is a serious difference here between the two characters, in the worst possible way. Like, the difference between a well developed, useful character and a two dimensional plot convenience. Which, don't get me wrong, is fine. Sometimes characters can't be fully fleshed out because there simply isn't time. And as a writer, I understand that you need to inform your audience of the world laws somehow, "exposition fairies" can be a good method of doing so in a more or less natural way. However, this is THE Wicked Witch of the West, whether the audience knows it yet or not. She is the primary antagonist of the traditional Wizard of Oz story, surely she deserves more character than "naive with no reason to be, exposition spouting, instant love interest girl".
Let us compare. Both Elphaba and Theodora are framed as sheltered; naive and idealistic in their own way. Elphaba is this way because she has never truly fit in, so some social customs are odd to her. However, she is still intelligent. She reads and looks after her sister, so she is not unfamiliar with people and how they operate. She is somewhat naive in her faith in the wizard, but no more so than the other citizens of Oz. And if your life had been as crappy as Elphaba's up til that point you would probably have some kind of underlying hope that one day you'd be accepted and appreciated by your cold shouldered peers and father. This help to make Elphaba a realistic character and one that we can relate to.
She seems to have more hat than character.
Stupid bad screenwriting. There's
this crazy concept called "build up and payoff".
Here? Whole lotta nuthin'.
Theodora also seems to have been sheltered (and much of this extrapolation is perhaps giving the film too much credit, but I'll do what I can). She and her sister, Evanora, do not seem to have any living parents, so it can be assumed that they are dead or... gone off somewhere, I guess. Probably dead, knowing these stories. Anyway, judging by the level of trust Theodora has in her older sister (but somehow very little knowledge of her actions and everyday doings... sorry, sorry, must not pick holes. Focus on the bigger holes- the characters. Bad-um tss!) Theodora has been raised by her sister; and her sister, being the wicked one (a label which is thrown meaninglessly around waaay too much, by the way) has kept her in the dark about the true goings on in Oz and filling her head with lies. Honestly, though, Theodora's behaviour does not at all add up. The levels of stupid and generally unaware that she displays at times, in comparison to her competence and intelligence in other scenes? Does not compute! She seems more like a child than a grown-ass woman and her sheltered-ness cannot be wholly blamed. Then, halfway through the movie, it decides they need to (to use Wicked's term) "greenify" her. This is the total character turnaround that was not in any way being built up to (I mean that in all honestly, it's totally out of left field). Evanora gives her a green apple that will make her evil... or something. It's really stupid. She eats it because it will apparently make the pain of a dude she's known for less than 24 hours not wanting to marry her, go away. I swear, she did at one point seem like a normal, rational thinking human. Blink and you might've missed it, but it was definitely there. So yeah, Theodora goes Anakin because she sees Oz trying it on with Glinda (who is very clearly not evil) and her tears burn her (why? This is not a plot point. Never is the water thing mentioned, ever) and she wants the pain to stop. So you obviously trust the sister offering you the biblical reference and telling you how your hear will shrivel up. I also love how they try to do the "tree of knowledge thing" because the moment she takes a bite Theodora's all "Wait a second, you're the evil one!". Like, dude! Was that not obvious? Like, at all? After that though, all her anger at her sister (you know, the one who's been lying to you pretty much your whole life?) is forgotten and that rage is aimed at the MAN. She's instantly the Wicked Witch from the 1930's film. Just like that, boom, total 180 degree character turn around.
Now, because I said I was being fair I will do some more comparison. One might argue that the original wicked witch was not particularly well developed in terms of motivation or her reason for being evil either. Honestly, I have to disagree. Part of the reason she's perhaps under-explored in terms of character, is because the film follows Dorothy, who knows very little about the witch and doesn't exactly have an opportunity to get to know her. Also, at the time it wasn't hugely common to show moral ambiguity in films, especially those aimed at younger audiences (which is still mostly true today). Villains were painted as irredeemable and thoroughly evil because it was easier for the heroes to kill them that way. And death is the easiest way to remove a threat. Killing a morally ambiguous character is questionable but if that character is truly, drowning puppies evil then it's perfectly okay. All this is aside from the notion that the entire thing might be a figment of Dorothy's imagination and the witch is based on her mean neighbour, who she also doesn't know much about (other than the puppy stealing)
There's still the motivation qualm but that's easier still to understand. You've just had a sister brutally crushed by a house and the bitch who dropped it is struttin' around in your dead sister's shoes. Not only are they now presumably your property (again, no apparent parents or relatives to mention) but this bitch has insulted your sister's memory by taking them. There's some sentimental value there. Don't tell me you wouldn't be pissed.
Compare this (anger at theft, manslaughter and added insult to memory of a loved one) to Theodora's primary motive (he doesn't like me like that) and we have a little bit of disconnect. Yeah, you might be a wee bit annoyed if the dude you slept with (I assume) hightailed it but c'mon now woman, selling your soul is a little extreme, don't you think? To complete the witch trio, Elphaba's motives are much similar to those of the 1930's witch- those shoes have a sentimental value to her and she'd rather not have them flaunted like a trophy. On top of that, she's been falsely labeled as a terrorist for her activism against animal cruelty and against the oppressive regime the wizard has in place. No, really. It's actually pretty fucking awesome.
Speaking of, let's talk about the protagonist of "Oz the Great and Powerful", Oz himself. Believe me, I'd much rather ignore the man behind the curtain, but in this rare case he's the protagonist, so I guess I have to take a look at him. But first, here's what I knew about the wizard going into OtGaP: In The Wizard of Oz he was a bumbling magician, scared out of his wits by the wicked witch of the west (quite possibly because she can see he's not really a wizard) and tricking people into adoring him and pretending to help with their problems (dude, da fuq is a lion gonna do with a diploma?). In Wicked, he's a very similar character, only slightly more cunning politically with his spin doctor Madame Morrible at his side. This wizard is somewhat of an idealist but he's not about to stand for threats to his power (such as a real wizard or witch) and he knows he can use people's fears to his advantage. I'm going to break my own rule briefly to discuss the wizard in the book version of wicked. That guy is a shrewd and cruel dictator, crushing any opposition with his secret police the Gale Force and Madame Morrible, serving a pseudo-Goebbels/Himmler figure. He's the real villain, but at least the book recognises that.
This wizard is, in this work, possibly the worst. Not solely because of his deeds but because of his framing.
Indeed
Oscar (because they felt the need to name him Oz, possibly in some strange tie in to the dream theory, despite the fact that he never leaves Oz in the film so it makes no sense) is a conman and a charlatan in a travelling fair, tricking random girls into being his assistants and presumably sleeping with them before moving on. He mistreats his assistant and is a general prick to everyone until the universe decides "Y'know what, asshole, have a tornado sandwich" and drops him in Oz...where everyone adores him and trusts him and he gets a happy ending despite still being the same terrible person by the end. Dammit tornado, why'd you have to drop him in the ONE place with a prophecy about a dude called Oz saving them all? That's just bad planning, tornado, shame on you.
Whilst I have my problems with Theodora's "arc" in this movie, Oz's is so much worse, because IT'S NONEXISTENT! There is a HUGE amount of set up for him to change his ways, showing how he's a misogynist, a compulsive liar, manipulative, borderline abusive, unappreciative... then it has him use all these things to save the day! I'm not even joking, Glinda actually tells him to keep lying when she realises he's not an real wizard and she's meant to be the voice of reason! And while usually I hate the "liar revealed to create drama" plot device, this doesn't even have that comeuppance because the 1930's film dictates that the Ozians have to think he's a wizard. I cannot understand the baffling moral standpoint this film takes. When compared with the sweeping moral and social commentary of its rivaling prequel, which questions the nature of good and evil, explores the idea of standing up for what you believe in despite persecution, shows us the willingness of people to create black and white villains and heroes for the sake of ease... compared to that "lying is okay for the right reasons" looks puny and incredibly misguided, especially when the "right reasons" include getting a room full of gold to roll around in like Scrooge MacDuck.
♪ We're off to see the Aslan, the wonderful
Christ allegory of Narnia! ♪
Come to think of it, it should be obvious why no one had thought to make a movie centred on Oz before: Because Oz is not a hero. Hell, in the original movie he's shown as fairly pathetic, a trembling coward who sends little girls to do his dirty work for him and has to cheat and deceive the citizens of Oz for his own selfish gain. He's not a morally strong character, and there's no way you can make him one in a prequel because he'd have to revert somehow at the end. There's also a bit of disconnect in the timeline because for some reason Hollywood decided to get a young, attractive actor to play the bumbling , pathetic wizard. Hmm, I wonder why. There seemed to be a huge contrast in the timelines as well. At the beginning of this film, Oscar is in a travelling circus in the year 1905. This is where things get timeline crossover-y. While the original film was made in 1939, L Frank Baum's book was first published in 1900, set in that time, roundabouts. So, according to the book and therefore the canon (as the movie doesn't state) Dorothy left Kansas before Oz? Or, giving a little leeway, even if the wizard arrived in Oz a few years before her, he'd need to age at five times the normal speed to get to the age he was in the original texts! What, is Oz like Narnia? You age while your there but no real world time passes? This was never mentioned! Also, if some twenty years had passed, why had no progress been made? Surely people wouldn't put up with all the terrorism from the witches for that long. At the end of OtGaP it wasn't like they made a truce or anything, Theodora was still pretty damn pissed. Ugh, my guess is they completely ignored the old man aspect present in the other versions so they could have the sex appeal and write in the crappy romance plotline. The fact that in Wicked he's Elphaba's oblivious father then here he and Theodora screw? Just... *shudder*. Bad feelings, man. Not cool.
There're also references to the end of the 1930's film by having characters from the start of the film voice or play other characters. Glinda is played by the same woman as the "not-love-interest" in the real world and the put-upon assistant is played by Zack Braff who later voices the put-upon flying monkey assistant. However, this makes no sense as there's no pay-off. Oz doesn't return to Kansas so there is no scene explaining this with a dream and an "and you were there, and you, and you." I guess I'm nit-picking a little here but it just felt pointless, like they wasted time here where they could've been making the dialogue sound like things real people would say. Oh yeah, let's talk about the script. It's suuuuuper melodramatic. Nothing sounds like something from a normal conversation. I understand that it's a magical world and everything, and some explanation is needed but even the conversations between two sisters feel incredibly forced. You just can't remove yourself from the idea that they're actors reciting a script at each other.
Then there are the messages trying to be put forward. Both Wicked and OtGaP mention the term "Wicked" and "Good" a lot. The musical uses this well, to highlight the idea that both are subjective and not necessarily part of who you are but equal parts the choices you make and the way people see you for them. It strays from the black and white and asks the question "What is wicked?". It shows the hypocrisy in people who want the worst for those they see as wicked or wrong. Two songs that highlight this in particular are "No Good Deed" and "Thank Goodness"sung by Elphaba and Glinda (with the chorus) respectively. No Good Deed talks about how Elphaba is persecuted no matter what she does so she decided to do what she believes in and throw all regard to the wind. Thank goodness is Glinda talking about how well everything is going for her and how being "good" will always result in happiness, all the while not sure she believes what she is saying. Both are well thought out songs and interesting points to make, especially considering that they don't answer the questions posed (well, not definitively). Is it better to be seen as that bad guy for doing what you believe in? Or better to betray your beliefs to follow the rules and succeed? Oz the Great and Powerful, on the other hand, throws the words "Wicked" and "Good" around like simply using the words is clever. Pose deep and thought-provoking questions?
Even in Theodora's introduction, she refers to herself as "Theodora the good" like that means something. Then she and Evanora talk about being wicked and how Theodora is susceptible to wickedness, ignoring completely what the idea of wickedness entails. I suppose I shouldn't expect intelligent commentary from a movie that goes "Oh, you're evil now" to one of their main characters and never questions it. *Sigh*
Finally, I'll talk briefly about the side characters (then you can all go home, yaaay!) In OtGaP,they introduced other characters which actually worked quite well. There's a little China girl (as in made of porcelain, I'm not just being racist) and the aforementioned Zach Braff flying monkey. These characters are decent additions if not merely vessels for showing Oz's "growth". The China girl serves as someone for Oz to use to look good in front of Glinda and the Braff monkey is bullied by Oz throughout. There's also a scene near the beginning where a lion attacks the Braff monkey and Oz scares it away with a cheap magic trick, yelling "coward!" at it for running away. That's it. That is our only lazy link to three of the most memorable characters from the original movie. Really movie? Really?
In contrast, Wicked also features the lion, plus the Tin-man and the Scarecrow. SPOILERS ahead. Wicked cleverly integrates these three into the story about animal rights and the nature of good and evil. The lion is introduced in a classroom where Dr. Dillamond (a teacher who's also a goat, slowly losing the power of speech thanks to the wizard's oppression) is teaching. The lion has been rescued from the wild because he was injured and probably wouldn't survive. Elphaba and Fiyero (Glinda's (and later Elphaba's) love interest) set the cub free when his leg has healed. Later in the musical, during the song "march of the witch-hunters", the Tin-man speculates that if Elphaba had let the lion fight his own battles when he was young, he wouldn't have grown up to be a coward. This works very well as a wink to those familiar with the source material (as well as bringing up an interesting moral argument about animals being released back into the wild), and doesn't feel shoehorned in like OtGaP's version. The Tin-man in Wicked, not mentioned at all in OtGaP, is the way he is after literally losing his heart when Nessarose (the "wicked witch of the east") miscast a spell to make him stay with her. Elphaba cast another spell, turning him to tin so that he would not die, but he misunderstands and resents this, causing him to chase down the witch later in the play.
Finally, the Scarecrow. I'm going to use this as an example of how one can make a prequel work. Fiyero, a Winkie prince, is introduced early in the play as the dashing but somewhat ditsy near instant love interest for Glinda. He sings a song about "dancing through life" with lines like "life's painless, for the brainless" and "why thing too hard, when it's so soothing dancing through life". The character is likable but shallow. However, as we get to know him better (as does Elphaba) we learn that there is more beneath the surface, and puts on the shallow act because it's what's expected of a handsome prince like him. He has a kind heart and strong moral convictions, much like Elphaba. As the play progresses, Elphaba shunned, he and Glinda married, the two old friends (Elphaba and Fiyero, that is) run into each other and have a brief affair, as Fiyero realises that keeping up appearances isn't worth denying his true connection with Elphaba. They sing the song "As long as you're mine" featuring a line "maybe I'm brainless, maybe I'm wise" from Fiyero. Shortly after, they're discovered by Oz's soldiers and Fiyero captured and beaten. Elphaba frantically casts the first spell she finds, to prevent harm coming to him, saying "may his bones never break... may he feel no pain... let him never die".
And he becomes the Straw-man.
He then works with Elphaba to make the people of Oz believe she is dead, be spreading rumours that water can melt her, and making sure that Dorothy makes that her weapon of choice. Ok, the story doesn't fit perfectly but holy shit is it a good way of making a prequel interesting. When he's introduced, we assume he's a disposable love interest, because he's not in the original. We miss all the signs because we're not looking for them and then... it all comes rushing back with that final twist. Like I said, "Foreshadowing: the musical". THIS is what prequels should strive to do. Take advantage of the fact that we've seen the original, play with those expectations instead of trying to push them away. They could have done this with OtGaP, making Theodora normal looking at the start was a decent start. But it's all in the delivery, and that's where Oz the Great and Powerful utterly fails.
I think I'ma finish up here, this review has gone on waaay longer than I thought it would.
The Breakfast Club introduces us to Allison, a social outcast, self-proclaimed pathological liar, kleptomaniac, occasionally defensive, perpetually insensitive, attention seeking, immature, surprisingly insightful, apathetic, creative, guarded, isolated, complex. Human. While watching this movie, Allison was next to Brian as the character I could most relate to and by far my favourite out of the five. Which is why it's the ultimate insult that the movie deigns it appropriate to solve her problems with a makeover and a man.
Here's the thing, readers: Nothing is above jokes. Not religion, not death, not bad people. Nothing. If something believes itself above jokes it is clearly not secure in itself that it can withstand being laughed at. If we collectively refuse to make jokes about something, it gains power over us. And that's generally not good. They say that humour is the enemy of authority and I wholeheartedly believe that. People were executed for making jokes at the expense of Nazis and communists and tyrants. Why? Because even those with the most control are insecure. And jokes niggle away at that insecurity. Satire has power, political cartoons in the Sunday paper have power, Youtubers who make fun of Kim Jong Un have power. Because humour is power. I'm losing the run of myself, back to my point.
It all comes down to self esteem. Organised religion's more "wolf in sheep's clothing" aspect is taking advantage of people in dark places by promising them something better. What's that thing, you ask? Attaching their personalities to religion of course! And the worst thing (or "worst" depending on how you see it) is that it does help people. No, that's not a bad thing (I'm really digging a hole here, aren't I?) but the fact that they've now invested so much of their self esteem and their happiness in one organisation is a little worrying. I'll go back to my Dumbo analogy from the last installment. Dumbo thought he needed the magic feather to fly. But what would happen if he never learned to fly without the feather? He's quite possibly worse off that before because he's so heavily dependent on that one, small, incredibly flimsy thing. Commitment to an organisation similar to this or its more extreme cousin: drug addiction. Alcoholics feel like they can't be fun or interesting without drink. Caffeine addicts feel they can't wake up without their morning boost. Those dependent on religion feel they can't be confident in themselves without their God and church behind them. It's not healthy.
There's still the motivation qualm but that's easier still to understand. You've just had a sister brutally crushed by a house and the bitch who dropped it is struttin' around in your dead sister's shoes. Not only are they now presumably your property (again, no apparent parents or relatives to mention) but this bitch has insulted your sister's memory by taking them. There's some sentimental value there. Don't tell me you wouldn't be pissed.
