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
This demographic are those who grew up with the early internet. They watched the birth of Facebook, Youtube and Twitter, the subsequent deaths of MySpace, Bebo and, um, Google+? (seriously, has it ever been alive?) Chances are you, dear reader, fall into at least three of these categories. If not what are you, demon? Leave this place, for you are not wanted here!
I fall into all, bar two. Now back to the nineties.
As someone why was only alive for half of the nineties (and who spent most of that time crying, being adorable and learning to walk, talk and read) I am a member of the "almost 90's kids". I thought for a while that I was a 90's kid, having been born in them but it seems I'm only a halfling, trueblooded 90's kids were born in the 80's and lived all the way through them. Me? I hover somewhere between the then and now:
Seriously, internet? I know nostalgia goggles cloud the judgement and all that but you can't expect me to believe that 90's kids never acted like the same little shits we know today? More advanced gadgetry do not a more spoiled brat make, you guys. Tell me you never threw a tantrum because your parents taped over your favourite film recorded straight from the tv via VCR, or complained about being bored even though your Gameboy and Nintendo 64 are sitting right there in the living room. That's right, I know 90's things.
Then today I read this: http://www.buzzfeed.com/daves4/32-extremely-upsetting-facts-about-the-class-of-2017 and it sparked this mini-rant. I think number 16 is my personal favourite in terms of blatant "everyone who is slightly younger than me is an idiot and is completely out of touch with everything that's over 13 years old"- ness. I read it like, "Um, whut?".
Internet nostalgia-ites, you realise that things going out of use does not mean they disappear entirely from public memory, right? In today's society we might have no way of playing a cassette tape but that doesn't mean we treat it like some kind of historical artifact. That's like saying that children of the 21st century will have no idea what a gramophone, a chariot or The Beatles are.
Internet, I think you may have some separation issues.You need to let go. The nineties are over, and have been for over thirteen years. I know you long for your childhood/college years, internet.You are deathly afraid of turning thirty because that's when you've to properly start acting like an adult (probably). You don't want to become your parents, or your grandparents so you cling to the things you loved as a youngling. However, your immature "I'm older than you and therefore better than you" attitude is turning you into one of those old people, yelling "In my day...!" at random kids who kick their football slightly too close to your yard. This wasn't what you wanted. You want to be forever young and in a sense you are but you are also becoming all that you hated as a child.
You are cynical (you call it realistic) but you also want to love the things you've always loved unconditionally. You have two choices: Become disillusioned with your childhood or be an unabashed hypocrite. Most people go with the latter. And there's nothing wrong with that, nostalgia goggles will do that. But seriously internet, try, all I'm asking is that you try to shut up with the patronising "only 90's kids" shit. It's, like, so 2009. I don't know why this annoys me as much as it does, maybe it's because I myself am not all that nostalgic for my childhood/early teenage years. It's probably that. Aaaaaand on that depressing note, I'm out bitchezzz.
Hello internetters. I come to you today with a hope paired with a fear, a double sided coin of expectation if you will. This, in a question:
What can we expect from the upcoming "Artemis Fowl" movie?
This is something I'm currently incredibly torn on. For several reasons. I shall address the main three below. But first, some background. The Artemis Fowl series is a series of books by Irish bestselling author Eoin (pronounced Owen) Colfer. There are a total of eight books in the now completed set. To give you an idea of the premise, the first book follows Artemis, a criminal mastermind, as he kidnaps a faerie in order to steal gold from The People to fund the search for his missing father. He's twelve years old. The books also follow Captain Holly Short, an elf in LEPrecon (Lower Elements Police, Reconnaissance division) and the secondary protagonist of the series. Correction, she's the first and only female captain in the otherwise male orientated world of lower elements law enforcement. She's sarcastic and clever and resourceful, kind of a badass, as well as being in my top three favourite female characters of all time list (next to Katara and Hermione). There are also such characters as Butler, Artemis' loyal bodyguard, Commander Root the beetroot faced head of the LEP, Foaly the paranoid centaur genius and Mulch Diggums the kleptomaniac dwarf. The world created is thoroughly engaging, the characters all well rounded and interesting, the situations inventive, the dialogue witty. Basically, these books are awesome. You should read them. Right now. Seriously, I'll wait, go read them.
With so many amazing things that I love about this series, you can imagine that I had some mixed feelings when it was finally announced that the Artemis Fowl movie, which was sold to Marimax in 2001 and has sat on a shelf somewhere since, was finally going ahead. Harvey Weinstein, the man who helped put the LOTR films into production, is on board to produce in conjunction with Disney. The screenplay is being written by Michael Goldenberg, screenwriter of Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix. Robert de Niro is one of the executive producers. When I heard this, one part of me was fangirling out, like; "OMGWANTWANTWANT,IT'SGONNABEAWESOME,CAN'TWAIT,CAN'TWAIT,CAN'TWAIT!"
and the more newly formed part of me that actually thinks about movies critically and was considering past failures with other beloved books of mine, bringing us to point number one.
Ahem, ahem
1. I've been hurt before...
I'm not saying it's not
ripping off HP even
a little...
Ok, so in the recent years (and by that I mean in my recent memory) there have been three incidents of desecrating my childhood through a shitty movie adaptation. The most recent is Percy Jackson. I couldn't watch all of this movie. It's so bad, even as a standalone move, but knowing the source material made watching it so much harder (hence my inability to endure all of it). The books, while by no means masterpieces, have a completely different tone to the movie. Yes, there is a certain amount of "harry potter with greek gods" about it but the premise is still clever and the situations are inventive, especially if you're familiar with the original Greek myths. The books were written with love and wit, the movie was made to cling to the coat tails of the HP franchise and cash in on that. Ugh, and they mangled the characters, they drained any fun in favour of the dark tone of the later HP movies, completely defeating the point of a lot of the sentiment in the books. And, oh my god, the casting was so wrong. People, why do we keep putting Logan Lerman in action roles? The only thing I've seen him in where he was right for the part was in "Perks of Being a Wallflower". Why? Because he always looks sad! His face... it's just a depressed face, his eyes are the most washed out I've ever seen. He just looks like he doesn't want to be there, and that worked for Perks because that's the character. In anything else? No. Just... no.
He looks like he's either high, just been arrested
or sleep deprived. Or all three!
So there's that, another betrayal was the film version of Eragon. Again, Eragon is a taaad cash-in-on-LOTR-y but, like PJ it did so with love and brought some great new stuff to the table. But the movie was so bad. Like, they kind of got the tone but it felt super rushed and they castrated Arya's character, making her little more than a damsel in distress and they just chucked a load of Galbatorix in there (you don't see him for like the entire book series and that works really well. In the film it's like, heeeere's Galbatorix!) Ugh, I don't even...
Thirdly, I'll touch upon a movie that many felt was a betrayal (which it kinda was, in many ways) but I still enjoyed. The movie adaptation of "A Series of Unfortunate Events". Why didn't I hate this movie as much as I could have? Jim Fucking Carrey. He is perfect in this film, I couldn't picture anyone more suited to the role than this man. But that's pretty much where the movie's good features end. They did sorta get the tone but the pacing was terrible, the characters felt incredibly flat (aside from Carrey's Olaf, Connolly and Streep's casting were also decent) and the entire thing feels confused. And they added a scenario with a car and a train where it was totally unnecessary. What, were there not enough scenes to choose from in the other thirteen books?! Also, by squashing the first three books together, so much time is lost for Snicket's witty word definitions and anecdotes. The heart is gone in the movie. If you want a good version, read the books. I'll give it some credit for the tone and some semblance of effort.
But the other two suck. And I've heard terrible things about the "Avatar: The Last Airbender" film. I haven't mustered up the courage to see that. I've been hurt too much by shitty adaptations of things I love. I don't even want to go into my opinions on the film adaptations of Inkheart, The Spiderwick Chronicles or the Vampire's Assistant. *Shudder*. Be gentle, Artemis Fowl, I don't know if I can take much more disappointment.
2. It's Irish
I don't know if I've mentioned this much but I'm Irish. I live in Dublin (none of that "I'm Irish-American" stuff here, I've lived here since I was four. My accent is rather confused though). For a country with a population of 6 million, we have an extremely prominent presence in film and literature. And that's not counting Irish-Americans (of which there are more than actual Irish people. Seriously like 15 mil) We have a reputation to uphold here! Because of late, there haven't been many good films set in Ireland. "The Guard" (which I have yet to see) was our last success, Grabbers did alright review wise but I haven't heard anyone yelling about how amazing it is. And, um, did you see Leap Year?
On top of this, when it comes to children's/YA fiction, Irish authors know what's what. Three series in particular come to my mind, all explicitly set in Dublin's fair city: our friend Artemis Fowl, Skullduggery Pleasant, a series by Derek Landy a kind of supernatural detective story with a wisecracking skeleton and The Rover Adventures by Roddy Doyle, a three book series featuring creatures called gigglers who give people their comeuppance by strategically placing dog poo in their paths, a character called Mister Mack (Mister being his first name), snails plotting world domination and talking cactuses. All three series are fantastically written, never talking down to their generally younger audience. Also, in the Rover Adventures there are fourth wall jokes. I like fourth wall jokes.
All this begs the question: Why have no movies been made of these works? Ireland has a decent film industry and the aforementioned series are all fairly successful, you'd think someone would try it. The Skullduggery books were actually being adapted into a film with Warner Brothers but Landy stopped it, on account of the script being "dreadful". I can see why someone would be apprehensive about adapting these specific books to film: they're all fantasy and would take a fair bit of either CGI or lots of prosthetics. But even then, the books are successful. If you make a movie you will have an audience. Even if they end up hating it for forever tainting their childhood, they will still see it. That's at least some motivation to spend some money. That said, I don't know if I should be encouraging this too much. The rule of crappy movie adaptations still exists.
Speaking of, let's take a look at a similar project that went terribly; the Saga of Darren Shan series by Irish author Darren Shan. I know I said I wouldn't above but it's relevant, I'm allowed to be inconsistent. Now, I really liked these books, there are twelve of them, all fairly short, you can go through one or two in a couple of nights. They had an original take on vampires and vampire society, the characters were interesting and creative and the story was well paced over the course of the twelve short installations. The story follows Darren Shan, a twelve year old boy with a spider obsession who becomes a Vampire's apprentice to save his best friend's life after he inadvertently put him in the hospital . He fakes his own death, becomes a half vampire and travels around with his master, eventually becoming entangled in the politics of Vampire society. The books explored some heavy enough topics of death, responsibility, free will and loyalty all the while being aimed at children and adolescents. They were very well done and I'd definitely recommend them.
In 2009, a film was made, "based" (I use that in the lightest way possible) on the first book in the series. I hated it. They made terrible decisions with the story, changed half the cannon, stuck stuff in that didn't happen until the tenth book and somehow managed to drain all character from the protagonist. I don't know if it was the acting (it was pretty abysmal on Darren's part) or just the script but oh dear god was it bad. They also made Darren sixteen and added an arbitrary love interest. This added nothing to the story except a shoehorned in "believe in yourself" side message. Allow me to illustrate. In the book and movie, Darren has issues with drinking human blood because he doesn't want to be a monster. Now, in this universe, vampires can survive on only small amounts of human blood but Darren still resists. In the books, the first time he drinks blood is when his friend has been mortally injured and drinking from him will preserve part of his personality and memories in Darren. It's a very touching moment in the books, it's well built up and the preservation idea is a poignant concept. To contrast this, in the movie the first time Darren drinks is from arbitrary love interest (who is a monkey girl for some reason) because he needs strength for this battle that goes nowhere and resolves nothing. The message is: It's consensual so it's ok. Seriously movie? You have a touching, emotional scenario right there in the books and you discard it for what? A cheap action scene and obligatory romance? I- it's not even worth it. This is a prime example of the adapters not understanding the source material and is generally a huge problem with adaptation. I hope to fuck they do better with Artemis Fowl.
3. Feminism and stuff
We need a Holly Short out there, you guys. Holly is awesome. She's a female cop in a man's world (um, male faeries' world?) She has real emotions and ambitions, she's a little irresponsible and rash at times but she makes up for it in her resourcefulness and drive. She's not afraid to stand up to her superiors for better or worse when she feels she can save someone or prevent catastrophe. She's not always right, either, but she'll be damned if she doesn't work to cover for her past failings. She can fight, but she's not totally out of touch with her compassionate side. And she's not a love interest. Did I mention she gets some really awesome one liners?
A small extract from the graphic novel.
If de Niro doesn't cast himself as Commander "Beetroot" Root,
I will hurt somebody
Basically, she's fifty times more human and real than the likes of Bella Swan and Anastasia Steele, despite being neither human nor real (at least in our world). We need strong role models like Holly for girls growing up in this post Harry Potter world, especially those who aren't into typical girly stuff. We have Katniss Everdeen, I guess, but her situation is so far removed from our world that it can be difficult to relate to her at times, given how much she's been through. Who else do we really have in popular modern fiction? I mentioned Katara and Hermione but their time in the public eye is pretty much over now, so their influence is more restricted. The Skullduggery Pleasant series also has a well developed, badass female character in Stephanie Edgly (AKA Valkyrie Cain) the main protagonist, as well as in Tanith Low and China Sorrows, supporting characters who are equally as engaging and well rounded. Depending on how the Artemis Fowl movie goes, Skullduggery may be given a much deserved chance on the silver screen. Please don't fail, Artemis Fowl movie. I beg this of you.
So yeah, I'm really, reeeeally hoping that they do a good job on this. The team they've got working on it have worked on proficient book to film adaptations in the past, that should be a good sign. And given the great dialogue contained in the books, they can't go too far wrong with that, right? Thems some famous last words right there. I'm gonna shut up now, lest I jinx it.
Go check out the books I've mentioned if you're into this sort of thing (or if you're not, might open your world up a little, never know) I can guarantee you won't be disappointed.
Hey guys, just finished my most recent youtube video. As tthe title suggests, I'm covering Les Mis's phenomenal "On my own", one of my favourite songs of all time. Here, check it out:
I hope you liked it. I'll just address the issue that any fans of the musical will instantly pick up on and that is the changes in certain phrases and the lack of key change. I honestly didn't want to leave it as is because I love the song so much but, as you can probably tell from some of the notes in this video, I don't have the greatest range. It's a BIG song, the original spans at least two octaves (I'm not certain of that but I think it's correct) and I was tempted to stand up for the video because it makes the higher notes easier. I didn't, thee video be better or worse for it. Another reason for the changes is the fact that I worked our the notes from scratch and couldn't for the life of me get the key change right. I'll probably pass the changes off as "I put my own spin on it". This'll be our little secret, shhh!
This song in particular does resonate with me because, like all girls who sit in their bedrooms playing acoustic guitar, I've been on the receiving end of plenty of unrequited love in my day. One of my songs, "The Message I'll Never Send" (which is long overdue for an unnecessary song explanation) is veeeeery Eponine-y so the song speaks to me on a writing level as well as emotional. Face it, we've all been there. that's what makes it great.
Hello friends. I make my triumphant return to blogging today from sunny Spain (I wasn't on the plain so it didn't really rain, which was almost inhumane, all that heat fried my brain, don't know why I've been sprayin' all these rhyming complaints, it's just dull, quite inane but right now, its insane, I can't stop this refrain, someone please halt this train of my thoughts, I'm derailed. Have I broken the chain? That there rhyme was not great, left a stain on the grain of reputation I'd obtained with this rambling, mundane poetic drain on your time and your patience.) Phew. Sorry, got a little carried away there. Anyway, in my return to the English language I think it appropriate that I talk a little bit about communication.
We are constantly communicating. We communicate with our expressions, our body language, our words. We communicate emotions, needs, thoughts and have done since the very moment of our birth. One of our first statements (however incoherent) is generally "I'm cold and wet and confused and I want food and/or something familiar, NOW". Said in a single, high pitched yell. No language is used to get across this first message yet it is universally understood.
And that brings me to the primary focus of this bog entry: Understanding. Communication is all well and good but if you can't be understood then there really isn't much point. And this has been a problem for me personally in the past. Now, any of you who read this blog (or are currently reading this blog, which I must assume is true, unless you've somehow found a way around that by bending the fabric of space-time) know that I have no problem expressing myself through the medium of the written word at least half cohesively. It could even be said I do so too much, rambling and addressing things that really no one has any interest in except perhaps myself. However, and I'm by no means suggesting that this is an isolated thing, I occasionally have trouble communicating in person. Not in general, mind you. No, I tend to have trouble talking to a certain type of person. To make myself seem less awful by phrasing this badly, allow me to paint a picture of me so that you can imagine the type of person I have trouble communicating with. Like a game. A really, really easy game.
I don't really care much about physical appearance. I don't wear make-up. Like, at all. I do not enjoy shopping. As a "hobby" it baffles me. I don't keep up religiously with fashion trends (I don't really follow anything religiously for that matter but that's beside the point) or celebrities or reality TV. As a kid, I had mostly male friends. But my Catholic primary school only had boys in it for the first three years, then they left. And eight year old me was left wondering "Shit, what do girls do?" I don't think I ever properly developed that set of social skills. (Yeah, I'm going all "tell me about your childhood" here. I've psychoanalysed myself waaay too much. I have this image of me one day showing up for therapy and basically writing a report for my shrink. Like, "Step back, I got this.")
Basically, I think I missed the workshop where you learn how to socialize with females and bond over cosmetics and clothes and such. I was probably climbing a tree somewhere. I think I also missed the brainwashing session where they make you care about this shit. So, as one might imagine, I have slight problems in communicating with people for whom these things hold importance. And, while it's a stereotype and I hate using it to prove a point as there are many amazing people out there to whom this does not apply, a large chunk of the female population fall into this materialistic category. I am, at this moment in time, a seventeen year old girl. I went to an all girls school for eight years. I was miserable. Trust me on this one.
Disclaimer: Not all bitches. Just many. Personal experience
So that in mind, I find myself in Spain with the intention of improving my espanol. A country quite different to my own culturally, geographically, temperaturally (that's a word, right? I think my brain melted over there, apologies)
Must... resist... all pulp fiction references... Must not... offend locals.
I'm nervous as hell because I'm afraid I won't be able to communicate with people in much the same way I've had trouble in the past. I try to make friends. And here's the funny thing. It's about as difficult. I found speaking in a different language on par to speaking in my own language to someone with whom I have nothing in common. Because to me, speaking to the latter, for me, is like trying to speak a language I am not fluent in. It's forced and I come off as either stupid or really quiet and awkward. And I'm not quiet and awkward. Not at heart. At heart I'm a person who can speak at length about the things I care about. Those things just don't happen to be things you care about.
I'm not going to directly address my attitudes towards many of the girls who fall into the "bitches be cray" category, I'll cover that at length very soon. Trust me. Because I have words to say and goddammit, I'm gonna yell them into the abyss of the internet until I die, regardless of who may hear them. I'm sorry if I came off as a terribly person here, I'm only mostly awful. Cling to the spec of good, it's all I have.
Hey guys, I'm making an entry from Valencia where it is so swelteringly hot that my body decided there must be something wrong with me and has given me a lovely blocked nose, scratchy throat and generally stuffed up head to rationalise this rise in body temperature. Thanks so much, meat-shell, I appreciate that.
Anyway, to keep my somewhat regular readership interested I've decided to do another song explanation. This was sorta foreshadowed in the last one (yeah, I totally thought ahead that far) and I will be giving prizes to anyone who can guess where.
Too slow! This is the other song I wrote with a purpose, the one that I never put to it's original use. "Why?", I hear you ask? I shall get to that, young ones, be patient. First off, here's the song in question:
Wow, I really don't look happy for half of these videos. This is probably because the version that goes online is the fifth or sixth take, whether that be due to me screwing up in the last few seconds or my family barging in halfway through, I'm usually pretty tired by the end. Apologies.
Anyway, that's "This Won't End Well". It's another "not love song", a song about the topic but maybe not so traditional in it's angle. I consider it one of my better songs as far as tune and lyrics go (particularly proud of the line, "and her little finger's never cold, she's got too many people wrapped around it". I don't know if that's been done before, it probably has but merp) It's also next to "I'm Sorry" as one of the songs it took me the least time to write. I didn't rush it or anything, it just got written quickly. I'm Sorry took one evening (I had a lot of feelings), this took me one weekend. I have a short attention span when it comes to these things, I need to get all the words out before I forget. Without further ado, to the story!
Riiight after this (sorry). To understand this song a little better you need to know a little about my musical influences. When I was 12, I got an ipod nano from my godfather for xmas. This was when I properly started listening to music that wasn't my dad's old CDs in the car and crappy pop on the radio. I listened to a lot of James Morrison. I think his stuff shaped how I write and how I sing a great deal. There was also a bit of Train in there, some Maroon 5, The Script and some (I really shouldn't be admitting this online) Miley Cyrus and Jonas Brothers. The last two were short lived, I swear! I'm not talking about them though. I'm talking about probably my second biggest musical influence during this time of formation.
Why am I telling you all this, you may be asking yourself? Because my song, "This Won't End Well" is what I consider to be my Taylor Swiftiest song. Not because it's about fairytales, not because it's idealistic to the point of ridiculousness, not because of the language used. I draw parallels with Taylor Swift because of the intentions I had when writing this song. I wrote this song because I was angry as hell and wanted to be bitchy. Many people don't associate Swift with this kind of sentiment specifically and I honestly think this is an injustice to the gleeful spite in a lot of her songs. "Forever and Always", a seemingly innocent enough break up song was intended as a "fuck you" to Joe Jonas for being a dick to her. "You belong with me", (the song most like my own in message, I think, though mine is slightly less involved on the part of the narrator) is basically her telling some guy to break up with his girlfriend. "Speak Now" is more or less the same, but up a degree. "Better than Revenge" (which I have decided to write a blog entry on at some point, I have feelings about this) comes off as a straight up threat. Taylor Swift gon fuck you up, bitches.
So yeah, this particular song was intended as an inner monologue style "fuck you" to some bitch I knew who was messing some guy around and being really obvious about it to boot. I had all the angers. I think I'm probably going to dedicate a blog entry to my feelings about this kind of girl at some point as well. you have been warned.
There honestly isn't much to tell about this song other that what I've just said, I was angry so I wrote a song. But I feel like writing more so I'll give an account. Let us call the girl Tina and the guy Fred. Some of this information may be fabricated to cover my ass. The key message will remain the same.
Fred is this all round nice guy. I was new to my school and so had only known him for a while but I could tell that he was a good guy, and he wasn't terrible looking either. I'd be lying if I said I didn't crush briefly but I got over that after realising we had little in common on some areas I value when it comes to relationships. Tina had a bit of a reputation. She wasn't a "slut"but she seemed to have a record when it came to guys. She also wasn't a bad person, I just had a little trouble relating to her. Not for lack of trying, I just felt I already knew her, you know the feeling. Anyway, Tina started to show an interest in Fred while simultaneously (and openly, she was hiding nothing) regularly flirting with two other guys (we'll call them Bill and John). Not only this but it was fairly obvious that Fred was picking up on her interest and reciprocating. Watching this unfold, I overheard a conversation in which Tina boasted that she could make Fred like her to the point of asking her out, dispite the fact that she was not actually interested in him. Sounds like crappy romcom stuff, right? I shit you not.
After hearing this and witnessing yet more flirting between the two (with intervals for flirting with Bill and John on Tina's part, of course) I got home kinda pissed. I hate this kind of thinking. Hate. It. I was annoyed as hell so I swiftly wrote the song you have listened to. I fully intended on playing it for Fred, which is the primary reason for the cautionary, somewhat impersonal tone used. I didn't get a chance. He asked her out, as per the plan. They broke up a while later. No, it didn't end well.
So that's my second song explanation, I hope you liked it and don't think I'm a terrible, terrible person. There will be more song explanations, if you hate them, comment below. If you like them you can also comment below. You can subscribe to my stuff on Youtube. I'll probably write one of the two (or maybe it was three) blogs I "foreshadowed" here in the next week or so. I have school come September so the frequency of blogs may decrease. It also may not, I'm not great with the focusing, or keeping flimsy promises.
Hey guys! So today I'm gonna do something a wee bit different by reviewing a film I actually liked. By that I don't mean that I didn't enjoy some of the other films that have featured on this site but that this film didn't disappoint me are have anywhere near as many annoying problems as something like Man of Steel, which I did enjoy while I was in the theatre.
No caption can aptly describe the pure, unadulterated wonder this film inspires
I love this film so much. And I'm putting that straight out there because it's gonna be pretty damn obvious anyway. The word I would use to describe it is magnificent or spectacular (I'd use epic for it's actual meaning: a story of grand size, scope and significance, but the word has lost meaning because of its overuse, which I'll openly admit contributing to) I found and watched this movie because a film reviewer I very much respect and take a lot of inspiration from said it was her favourite film of 2012 so I decided to check it out. Damn, am I glad.
I'd like to specify quickly, while I have so much love (and in some respects, loyalty) towards this movie, I am going to be looking at the good and bad points of it. No film is perfect, I'm not the type of person to let my enjoyment of a piece block any flaw from sight or critical analysis. This is going to be a discussion of the film as a whole, occasional warts and all. I'm not going to try and be objective in this review, because that would be impossible for me, but I'm not going to skip any failings because of my own fangirling. One final note before I begin analysis, this film was a critic devider. Any reviews I've seen or read of this are very mixed and usually polarised. Not to seem patronising or overly artsy but I get the sense that people who found this film "unnecessarily confusing" or "trying too hard" or even offensive have missed a lot of the point of this film. That sounds incredibly douchey of me but I'll stand by it.
Right, now that's dealt with, what is this movie about? Well, at the increased risk of sounding pretentious and artsy, it's kind of difficult to explain. It's based on a really long book by David Mitchell and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski and Tom Tykwer. To give people who haven't seen it a little insight, here's a trailer:
There are six different storylines, set in different places, times and following very different characters. The cast features eight main actors who play varying different roles from story to story in the ultimate ensemble piece; Tom Hanks, Halle Berry, Jim Sturgess, Hugh Grant, Jim Broadbent, Hugo Weaving, Bae Doona and Ben Whishaw, with other repeating characters in more supporting roles.
The first of these storylines is led by Adam Ewing, a sick lawyer helping with a slave trade in 1849s, sailing to San Francisco.
The second focuses on a young musician, Robert Frobisher, who becomes apprentice to a famed composer in 1936.
The next is a journalist, Louisa Ray investigating a conspiracy involving a new nuclear reactor in 1973.
Fourth is a book publisher and writer, Timothy Cavendish who accidentally ends up trapped in a nursing home, in 2012.
Then there's a "fabricant" worker, Sonmi-451 in a fast food restaurant in new Seoul in 22nd Century.
Finally, Zachary a tribe member, who guides a "prescient" visitor called Meronym to the top of a mountain in return for saving his niece. This final takes place a post apocalyptic 2321 according to the book.
It primarily explores the idea of interconnected fates, how everything and everyone are connected to each other and make up the intricate tapestry of the universe. It also looks at some more tangible issues such as corruption, betrayal, human nature and prejudice. Prejudice in particular is dealt with cleverly in this film. Each story deals with one form of prejudice, one flaw in human thinking as it were:
1. Racism (there's a black slave stowaway in Ewing's cabin, who befriends him)
2. Homophobia (Frobisher is bisexual)
3. Sexism (Louisa Ray is met with sexist attitudes as she works for a feminist magazine)
4. Agism (Cavendish is in his 70s)
5. Elitism (or keeping down of the working class, the whole slavery idea)
6. Xenophobia (the tribe is wary, sometimes hostile towards the prescients because they're foreign)
It's interesting because the anti-prejudice message is not all that stressed and some people who I've spoken to about the movie missed the prejudice motif. I see this as a good thing. It means that the message is there but the most important part is the character's journey. I think the fact that we're so used to having anti prejudice messages waved in the air and bludgeoned into is in popular media is why it comes across as subtle, because when you think about it, it's not really that subtle it just goes a little under the radar.
Each story is connected to the last with something, usually a telling of that previous story. For example, Robert Frobisher is reading Adam Ewing's diaries of the voyage, Sonmi-451 watches a film about the "Ghastly ordeal of Timothy Cavendish", a screenplay which he was writing in his story. Something that kind of threw me the first time I watched this film was that there's a distinctive stone in Zachary's story that is reprised in Adam's story. This led me to believe that the time in this movie was more cyclic than a straight line, as it was probably intended. It still works with the message of interconnected lives and the stories that are told in different incarnations over and over. From a storytelling standpoint this movie is also interesting because of the patterns (highlighted by the repeated character pairings) which are a visual reminder of how little human nature has changed and is likely to change over time.
Anyway, that's what the movie's about. There is much more to come, folks, it's a long-ass movie so this is gonna be a long-ass review. Don't worry, I'm going to try and keep some of the psychobabblic, English essay material to a low from now on and talk about more accessible things. I will be speaking as if you've seen the movie so this is a cautionary, POSSIBLE SPOILERS warning here.
A little thing you need to know about me to understand why I loved this movie so intensely. The way my mind works is quite... manic. As a kid I always liked fast things, fun things, running around for no reason, you know the sort. A lot of this, while it has been naturally watered down for sociability reasons, is still true today, especially in what attracts me to a film. I also consider myself a smart person (IQ averaging 125: above average) so I like things that engage my powers of deduction, things that I can "get" that other people maybe won't and things that make me feel smart. Why did I enjoy this movie so much?
Thanks Doctor, you always know what to say. All jokes aside, I liked this movie for many of the same reasons that I like movies such as Memento and Sherlock (that's BBC tv show, but each episode is effectively a movie). It's why I liked "Q and A", the book on which Slumdog Millionaire is based on, a truly fabulous read if you like this sort of thing, better than the film in my opinion, though that was good too. I digress. I like films that are somewhat interactive. I'm that one kid in English class who's constantly voicing theories and notes to the teacher because she's over-thought things and has to participate (seriously, ask anyone). When it comes to movies there's a slight downgrade in interactivity from books, you can just sit on your ass and let the movie wash over you without much thought on your part. This has become the appeal of film for many of the, um, (how do I put this without sounding like a terrible person?) less academic members of the public. Movies are more fun than reading books. Because reading takes effort. And literacy (Dammit, I was so close!).
Now I'm all for laziness but with something I'm as passionate about as stories and storytelling, I like being involved. I can't sit at the back of the classroom with my hand down the whole time, that's boring. I need to get engrossed in the story and if there's something that I need to focus on or a mystery I've to try and figure out before the protagonist, all the better. This movie had that by the bucketload. You literally couldn't look away because then you might miss something. Not even something vital, something as simple as a waistcoat that was in another facet of the story or a sliver of thought that was repeated. Little things like that totally suck me in, I need to collect them all, connect all the dots.
This seems to be a common theme with nerd culture. Nerds are attracted to the same things because they engage them. Shows like Star Trek, Doctor Who and a lot of anime have such huge nerd followings because so many of the plot points are so contrived and out there. People who don't want to participate don't bother to try and put these things together but people who are smart enough and committed enough do, and that's rewarding so they come back. They form loyalties, they theorise, they expand on what they know to figure out what they don't. It's story maths, you're given X and Y, find Z (I also really like maths). This is why I
enjoyed this movie so, and why I get the feeling that people who didn't like it are maybe not trying so hard.
(Last point on this, I also have a thing for stories within stories, I love that meta stuff. I even wrote a short play indulging my love for dual and triple parallel plot lines)
Anyway, wasn't I reviewing a movie? Oh, yeah, Cloud Atlas. What else made this film awesome? The characters were incredibly engaging and well fleshed out, ten minutes into each separate story and you feel as if you know them. Considering that there are six this is quite a feat, especially when so many films can't even make their one protagonist interesting. This film has such an epic feel to it (I know I've said this before but it's so true it warrants repeating). The music is fabulous, the one "Cloud Atlas Sextet" in all its different forms stretching and winding itself into every storyline so well. The use of the same characters worked really well for the narrative and it's nice looking back when you realise that in the case of the two main couples (Halle Berry and Tom Hanks' characters have two love storylines, as do Jim Sturgess and Doona Bae) for the one tragic ending they get a happy ending in another life. It's difficult to say whether or not the end of this film is a happy one, many of the characters lead tragic and short lives, others have the pain eased by passing the years away with a loved one. I think it's a commentary on life as a whole; life has high points and low points, endings and beginnings, when one story ends sadly there is always another happy ending. Going back to the music, this encapsulates this emotion and these ideas phenomenally with quite subdued stretches and great orchestral surges.
There's really always going to be something to like in this film. Timothy Cavendish's story is light hearted and funny, Louisa Ray's story has suspense and mystery, you have futuristic action scenes, an inventive, fantastical and dangerous would in which Zachary's tribe lives.
Now, I promised I was going to look at this critically so here are some potential bad points about this film. The first is probably that it's so long. The running time is almost three hours and while I personally enjoyed every moment I can see how one might find it tiring, especially keeping up with all the stories. There's that as well, I mentioned earlier that I like the constant motion and intrigue and all the little things to watch out for. It you aren't like me it's plausible that you'd need to sleep this movie off from the strain. If you're anything like my Mum and Sister (ie. constantly asking questions because you can't wait for the film to tell you who or what something is) this maybe isn't the film for you.
There are some slight issues with accents:
(Disclaimer: I apologise for the god awful quality of everything in this video, I had this one idea and it took much longer to film than anticipated, especially considering I was doing all the camerawork myself (can you tell?) Then I couldn't edit it because my laptop is slow as hell, but I couldn't just not put it up at that point. Technology, why do you hate me?)
Another little qualm is that, because different people are different, they're likely to favour one or two of the storylines over others. This is great when the focus is on those storylines but one might find themselves waiting for a storyline they like less to finish because they want to get back to their favourite one. I found this a wee bit with the Adam Ewing sections, I just wanted to get back to the Sonmi parts. It also felt like Robert Frobisher's bits were shorter than others'. That's the nature of variety though, you're probably going to like something but that may make it worse for the things you don't like as much.
One issue that more negative critics touched upon was the race-changing roles in this. As I mentioned in my vloggy bit, there are some interchangeable nationalities and genders featured. Most of the characters are in "Asia-face" for some part of the Sonmi storyline and some viewers thought this to be racist. I get the feeling that these people are clutching at straws with their nitpickiness. The message of the over arcing story is stressing that things such as race, age, sexuality, gender and nationality are arbitrary in the grand scheme of things and on top of that it's quite obviously against prejudice, as I've previously mentioned. You can go ahead and think that it's racist, that's your opinion, but I ask you to examine the actual definition of the word. Racism is hatred or hostility towards people of different race to yourself. The way that the future Koreans are portrayed in the film is not in any way negative, not any more than any other race in the movie, that is. I'm not going to be persnickety and defend the idea that "technically it's not racist because future Koreans aren't a race yet", they're still recognisable. There was no uproar at Hugo Weaving playing a female character (or indeed most of the man playing wonem at some point) or Halle Berry playing an old Asian man (that's all the issues in one little, really difficult to spot bundle). Is the cross dressing more acceptable because the Pythons did it? Like, a lot? Are we really so insecure in the multiracial society of today that we can't make observations and replicate things? Maybe it's like the whole "white people can't say nigger" thing (I can because I'm Irish. Our oppressive history is less to do with race and more to do with the British fucking with our shit. Also, we had Phil Lynott) Speaking of, they do actually say the "n-word" in the Adam Ewing section, and that appears to have received much less negativity, I suppose because the time period in which it's set means that it was a normal thing. I feel this particular criticism to be a stretching things a tad but I guess it counts as something against this movie, that one factor might make certain people uncomfortable.
Overall, I thought this was an incredibly engaging, creative and enjoyable film. The settings were great, the costumes intricate, the characters believable, the message profound. It is , in my eyes, everything a film should aspire to be. I loved every moment and I highly recommend that you watch it, if even to disagree with me. And to get a look at Jim Sturgess' Asia-face. I think it's pretty cool. Doona Bae makes a kickass mexican woman.
Hey guys, here's my cover of Imagine Dragons' "Radioactive! It's such a great song, I hope you like it.
Also, this is gonna be my last upload to youtube in a while, I'm going to Spain for two weeks to improve my espanol so while I might send out a blog or two (though don't count on it) I won't be recording any music videos. Sorry! Depending on factors, I might fish out an old recording from the laptop video stores but again, I'll probably be doing things in the real world.
Hey there blog readers! Today I am finally getting round to that thing I've been saying I'll do since the setting up of this blog (it was one of the original reasons for doing so, oops). I am going to write a song backstory explanation thing. Hold your fanfare, I know how avidly you've been waiting for this moment, please, my good people, no tears of joy (no one was waiting for this). The first song I'm going to shed light on is "I'm Sorry", the video I uploaded today in fact. I'm starting with this one, not because I think it's my best song or that it has the best lines or message or anything. I'm choosing this because I think it has the most interesting story behind it. It also had a big influence on my life for the proceeding month or so after writing it. I'm putting my best song forward story-wise, it's all downhill after this. Here, give it a listen, then we'll chat:
I'm just going to start with a disclaimer; I don't think you're stupid. I'm not trying to be patronising, it is my incredibly biased opinion that this song may be a little confusing to outside ears. I may be totally wrong but I'm going to operate on the assumptions that I've made.
This song is not a conventional love song. It is a song about love, or confusion in love, but not strictly a love song. I wrote this song almost a year ago, for a purpose. It's one of the two I've done so with and the only one that I actually used for said purpose. I wrote this song to tell my best friend that I had developed feelings for their ex. Their recent ex. Who they had dated for over a year. Those feelings may or may not have been developing subconsciously while they were dating. Also, it may not have been intended as a permanent break up, more of a "Ross and Rachel" dealy (is it ironic that my name is Rachel?).
This was my dilemma: Do I tell my friend about this and risk our friendship over a relationship? Or do I ignore it, while love interest is still (in effect) single and I pass up this rare chance at a functioning relationship?
I decided, as I often do, to gamble. I chose a time when my friend had been talking a lot about a potential new relationship, so I felt it was as good a time as any to confess my feelings. I wasn't totally sure how to go about it. I was certain that if I tried to do it in a conversational way that I would either screw it up completely or chicken out.
So I wrote a song.
Any time I recount this story to people (which isn't often) their reaction to this is "That's kinda weird". I know. My thought process was thus:
1.If I put the effort into writing a song, with rhyme and everything, I'm much less likely to back down, purely for time and effort lost.
2. I am much more eloquent when I've had a chance to write down my thoughts and learning a song is less tenuous than writing and learning off a script.
3. A song gives me about three minutes of uninterrupted speech to get everything across, which could be useful.
What you have already heard is the result. I was going for a "determined but apologetic" tone. Bear in mind, the object of my affections knew nothing of this. The song is basically, "Look, I know there's history but this is what I'm doing, try to be okay with that." It sounds bitchy put that way. Maybe it is bitchy. I was torn. I'm seventeen, I was sixteen at the time. Life is trial and error in these in between stages, I took a chance.
Anyway, I sang this song to my friend. What followed was rough for me. The friend took it well at first but then not so well. We didn't have a normal conversation for nearly a month. 28 days, to be exact. Like I said, It wasn't a good time for me. I can't assume it was better for them but in that time I pretty much lost my only friend, they had others. I gravitated towards the only things I had left (also the people who had started this) myself and the person after whom I was pining. We started dating 23 days after the bombshell was dropped.
So yeah. I don't mean that to sound as melodramatic, this is mostly a relay of my feelings at the time. Looking back, I don't know if I should have handled it differently. This did work out in the end but I don't know if I would have saved myself a lot of pain in keeping my stupid mouth shut. My friend and I are back to more or less normal, though I'd be lying if I said nothing had changed because of this whole thing. They are currently with the person whose mention triggered my decision to go through with it, seven months I think it is. They are happy. Myself and love interest have been going out for almost nine months and we're both really happy. I guess that's the thing that would sway me had I to make the decision again. My gambling paid off. And hey, I got a song out of it.
