Serenity: Sometimes the lady is right . . . .

•March 26, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Good day all,

It’s been a few days and I’ve been basking in the bright light of freedom. I know it’s a psychological play: leave him the things he likes, let him feel free within the confines of the bunker, disorient him to the point his will breaks and then cut his legs out; truthfully, I don’t care. I know it’s just the Stockholm setting in, but I must admit the lady is right from time to time. You see she is a big fan of the Whedon. Back in the day, when we were dating and she was earning my trust, she introduced me to Buffy the Vampire Slayer and Angel. I enjoyed them a great deal, but could always find elements to find fault in (see the speechiness in season seven of Buffy or the whole Connor/Cordelia thing in Angel). I never really thought these minor criticisms detracted from the shows’ overall quality, I just didn’t want her to be right. Then she showed me Firefly. I couldn’t find anything wrong with the show, even picky things to make her less right. I’ve heard told that Mr. Whedon sold the show by describing it as Han Solo never meeting Luke and continuing to fly and smuggle and live. Enter the Fox network to put the show on Friday, air the episodes out of order and, essentially, kill a wonderful thing (Mr. Murdoch’s mission in life apparently). Fortunately, there was a movie that kept the story going without answering the questions we really wanted (which is the definition of great writing). Seeing Mal try to really enjoy the diminishing freedom left struck a chord with me, especially since my recent Shanghai-edness. It seems fitting to watch a film about striking back at an oppressive force, even if it means admitting that your own oppressive force was right.

Now before I jump into this I want to say one thing, I am not a true believer. I am a fan of the Whedon and enjoy all of his projects I have seen, but I am not all knowing of all things the man creates, and his fans have a tendency to take things pretty seriously. This is just a simple guy, drunk on freedom, commenting on a movie. I may be a little off on the characters you love and my take on the message, but it’s just one guy’s opinion. Recognize that I am an admirer in the world of zealots, but recognize the quality that fuels your Whedonlove.

The first thing I have to say about Serenity is a characteristic of all Whedon projects; strong women. I work in an industry, as I’ve mentioned to regular viewers, that is a little behind the times on social issues (like full of guys that are intimidated by gays and powerful women and anything that doesn’t fit the man as god of the house thing). The oilfield is full of guys that know the world entirely, they simply attack anything that does not fit into their notion of how shit works. I’ve been the target of these attacks for defending crazy, left-wing ideas like equality and now take pride in pissing them off. I see this in Mr. Whedon’s work. The women are usually the central power, and the men that work with them have to accept that the woman is boss (or at least important) in order to help the greater good. Men are not lesser or weaker or subordinate, they just have to realize that women have the same, or in some cases better, capabilities. I have endured a special lesson about underestimating the female and find myself having to respect my captor. This lesson has helped me to appreciate Whedon’s women.

All right, now that I’ve placated the rabid fans I can get to a great flick. First of all you have bogeymen, and the Reavers are effective bogeymen. Any race of men relentlessly bent on rape, cannibalism and general nastiness is scary (especially if they eat you as they rape you). You have a group of small-time brigands pulled into big-time political affairs, you have a merciless killer on the hunt, you have your throat sore from cheering and your heart broken by losses (the fans know what I mean by that one). You are forced to love the crew because of their flaws rather than in spite of them, and you have believable characters in a believable world fighting a believable fight. It lacks the melodrama that I could find a way to criticize the other Whedon projects for and undercuts the serious moments with well-timed, well-written comedy (I accept all fan-hate for the criticism). But I think the most engaging quality, for me, is that the characters care about one another and are willing to make a stand (or suicidal pass through Reaver territory) because it’s the right thing to do. It’s hard to create a world full of gray and still define some lines of right and wrong, but this flick does it. I won’t get into the plot, or how the bogeymen tie to the larger, political story, because you need to see this movie if you haven’t, and to ruin anything would be like punting an infant (firmly). Just trust me, it’s worth a watch.

Finally, the fighting. I grew up on kung-fu movies, good and bad, and have come to appreciate well choreographed violence. The fighting, and action sequence in general, are great. Each of the prominent fighters has a distinctive style that speaks to the character. When River fights it’s like she’s dancing her fists and feet into the faces of the opponent. The agent is controlled in every movement, mechanical in everything he does. Every word, punch and strategic play is controlled and measured; the complete opposite of Mal. The showdown, you’ll see it when you see it, finally gives Mal the credit he deserves as a recognized BAMF (I apologize for quoting Dane Cook, or whomever he stole that from, but it is a fitting term). His fighting is rough, his movements uncontrolled, but his will is unbeatable. The sheer strength of belief and perseverance carry his actions and establish him as a true hero (or as close as believable reality can give). There are specific scenes early that set-up the later events – like my old English teacher said, I should have read Lord of the Flies (something about Roger throwing rocks at the start of the book) – which make the resolution a lot more meaningful. Basically the action, like everything else, is spectacular.

Well that’s the that. Jayne is great for comic relief and doubt among the crew, Zoe is the woman that should have kidnapped me, and Wash (oh Wash) is the Zen force at the helm. Kaylee is the mechanic and heart of the film and the Tams, well, are the start and end of it all (cryptic, eh?). It is a world you will fall in love with full of people you will care about and you will hate FOX forever for not letting the show become what it should have (which is a good thing, to hell with FOX).

Until I get back to you, keep the boat in the air and make a stand when you have to, because it’s the only freedom you have,

The Hostage

P.S. The lady was all in a tizzy about the whole Book story. I thought it was pretty clear; his identity got rid of the alliance in the series, he knows how the agent will come at them and, obviously, he has a checkered past. I think the agent is the new Book, seeing beyond the definition of his role for the cause and questioning, for the first time ever, that the Alliance isn’t perfect. I look forward to the true Whedonites telling me how wrong I am.

P.P.S. Dollhouse was just finding itself, and exploring some really cool ideas. FOX sucks.

P.P.P.S. I just watched the end and had to throw this on for the fans; “We’re finished” after giving the do-not-fire order. Booyah!

Posted in Action, Comedy, Drama
Tags: , , , , , ,

Hostage Week Episode One: An Introduction to the Marx Brothers

•March 23, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Good day all,

It’s nice to be free and have a chance to throw my two cents into the mix, and working through the P.T.S.D. from that Ang Lee movie she made me watch. I wondered why she would resort to a movie about the clash between traditional Chinese family values and homosexuality (with just a pinch of abortion chatter thrown in for good measure) and they have the idiopidity (new word, booyah!) to call it a comedy. It turns out the lady has gone on a little vacation. You see, she darted me, which is pretty standard, and when I woke up there was a 24-pack of pizza pops, three cases of beer, nudie mags, and there were some frozen green things in freezer. I’m thinking “trap” right, but no, she used zip ties to secure me, loosely (like I’m free as a guy  in an escape proof, underground bunker can be). I’m thinking, based on the numbers, I’ve got ten days, maybe two weeks, in control of the viewing and commentary (you will see the rules get broken when Ilsa the grammar Nazi is around to give “suggestions”). I’ve decided to let you all know what real comedy is, even better than Hot to Trot, and introduce those of you that don’t know to the Marx Brothers. They were a Vaudeville crew that nobody wanted to follow; the funniest of the circuit that brought Johnny Carson, George Burns, Buster Keaton and countless other gods of comedy that I am too drunk with freedom to remember. I’ll give you a brother by brother breakdown. Dig it.

Groucho: The most famous of the crew and perhaps the most unhappy in real life. Best known for a 50s game-show called You Bet Your Life, which was basically him using his improv gifts to talk shit to everyday folk with hilarious results and prizes. In the movies Groucho is always an incompetent individual that has conned his way into the most ridiculous position of power (like running a country or a university). He does this by hitting on wealthy women, awesomely. Basically he talks circles around his social and moral “betters” while solving the problem at hand. He talks shit to everybody, and they all fawn over him for it. For god’s sake they based Bugs f-ing Bunny on the guy. In real life he had troubles with women (stage-mom issues), but tried to be a loving father. He was ruined by the 1929 crash (and had the huge brass balls to mock it for a laugh in Animal Crackers) only to cash in later through films and Zeppo’s investment schemes. The key is that you have to listen to every word and try not to laugh so you can hear the next one.

Harpo: My favourite, and probably the happiest in real life. Harpo is mute, speaking only through horn-honks, gestures, whistles and props (think the exact opposite of Carrottop on the suck-meter). He lives in his own world, that world makes sense to him and only him and, somehow, he always finds a way to beat you. He’ll give you a battle or two, but by the end he will be silently enjoying your destruction at his hands. He will stop anything, anything, to chase a random woman he has never met. You may ask “hostage, how does he not get arrested for assault?” and I would respond “It’s like dogs and cars, I don’t think he would have any interest; he just likes seeing them run away and he’s into horses anyway.” You’d pause and say “Like beastiality?” and I would say “they make that suggestion on at least four different occasions.” But it isn’t weird or gross, it’s Harpo. Also, he’s a virtuoso on the harp (yeah, the big stringy thing angels play) and does a performance in almost every movie. In real life he was a husband, father, world-class croquet player, first comic to play Soviet Russia, had a Commie bigwig steal a bit and worked as a spy (all in one week). He is one of the most interesting human beings in the world and a true gentleman by all accounts, who got famous playing a maniac.

Chico: It’s pronounced Chick-o by his brothers and friends (I’ll explain why soon) but everyone in the world pronounces it Cheeko. His character in the movies is always a small-time con-artist with a bad Italian accent (they were all Jewish by the by) and is working his way into the big fish. He can talk his way around anyone (even Groucho once in A Day at the Races) and often works in tandem with Harpo. The best thing ever is Chico trying to keep Harpo quiet while pulling a caper; glorious! His loyalty is always for sale and he will try and steal your lady, but deep down there is a sentimental streak and he helps the young lovers (more on the young lovers, they suck and you should ignore them, and all music but the brothers). Chico is a virtuoso pianist and like Harpo, does a performance in almost every film. In real life he lived to the fullest. He was a gambling addict, a sex addict and, in the end, had to live on an allowance from his brothers before dying young. This guy banged everything, like to the extent that directors fired showgirls they caught him banging (and then he would threaten not to perform and save the girl’s job before moving to the next one).  His life is the life I hope to lead if I ever escape (sigh).

Zeppo: I feel sorry for Zeppo. He was a somewhat talented guy, his mom forced him to perform and he left after a few movies (and had to be talked into the last couple). Later in life he became a bajillionaire through a ton of different schemes and I didn’t think to do much more reading on him. He had a funny joke in Monkey Business.

Finally, there are two eras in the story. The early movies for Paramount are the best, and the first two MGM movies are great. They did some more movies later on, and there’s some great stuff, but they’re really sentimental and lack the edge that make the great ones great. Also, audiences in the 20s and 30s expected musical numbers and love stories so you should just fast forward through that stuff. The plots are there just so the brothers can con the squares. You haven’t seen funny until you’ve seen these guys, so dive in and enjoy.

Until I write again, which will be soon, enjoy those little bits of freedom in life (and Harpo’s entrance in Animal Crackers, the best ever),

The Hostage

Posted in Classic, Comedy
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

Goodbye Solo (2008): Everybody Wanna Save My Soul, Nobody Wanna Save My Life

•March 21, 2011 • Leave a Comment

In 91 minutes Ramin Bahrani convinced me of the uniqueness and importance of his voice in the film industry, with his stunning film Goodbye Solo (2008). Someone give this man recognition. And money to make more movies. Please.

Synopsis: A cabbie takes it upon himself to save the life of a regular fare who plans to commit suicide at the end of the week.

When we sat down to watch this, I was not in the mood for heavy, thought-provoking drama. However, within 2 minutes, this movie had completely grabbed me with the simplest of scenarios. We open on Solo, a Senegalese immigrant cab driver, and his fare William, alone in a cab. With no action at all, merely dialogue and remarkable acting, the stage is set and the audience is hooked; as Solo drives William to his destination, cheerfully chatting along, he slowly begin to realize what William plans and we share Solo’s panicked reaction of “what should I do”?

What would most of us do? Drop William off and head home, likely. After all, it’s not our business. William has the right to make his own decisions. Now what’s on TV? I don’t mean to be glib (and I’m not here to judge – would I do any differently?), but in Western society, we’re so individualized that the idea of helping others directly is foreign. Isn’t there just a charity I can donate to? Goodbye Solo reminded me of Nick Hornby’s novel How to be Good, in which we’re challenged to ask ourselves what really makes a person “good”. Is it the job we do, the things we have, or how we treat others, particularly the less fortunate and the desperate? For whatever reason (his more collectivist culture, his own good nature, a desire to keep a regular fare), Solo decides that he will save William, whatever it takes. And despite the fact that William does not want to be saved.

And so begins their unusual and charming friendship (although William might never overtly refer to it as such). Despite the heavy subject matter, there are moments of delightful levity. Much of such humour is mined from the stark contrast between sunny, smiling Solo and the cantankerous old coot William; for example, William cramped in the back seat with a pot-smoking friend of Solo, while rap music blares on the radio. Similarly, the absurdity of nicknaming William “Big Dawg” cannot be appreciated without observing the physical countenance of William. Other humorous moments come from their shared traits, such as confusion over cell phone technology. And while I rarely say this about children in movies, Solo’s step-daughter is a true joy. She is just sassy enough (“I understand more than you!”) without being cutesy or manufactured, and manages to crumble even William’s defenses. And my own. Grumble grumble, stupid charming kid.

However, just as we see William slowly warm to Solo’s endless optimism and cheer, we also witness how William’s death wish weighs on Solo’s heart and mind. As the end of the week approaches, Solo becomes more desperate and afraid as he grapples with how to help his friend. And here is where I believe Bahrani excels: the film refuses to take the expected route, constantly challenging our easy answers to such problems. There are no simplistic resolutions here; as deeply emotional matters are complex by nature, solutions must be complex. Bahrani doesn’t pretend otherwise to let his audience off the hook – he forces you to question your beliefs about suicide, the right to die, and how far friendship can and should extend.

The presentation of the film is stark. Bahrani is an unobtrusive director merely observing the action, giving the sense that one is directly involved in the action. Likewise, he uses no score. When well done, I find this technique to be especially powerful; music is so often used in film to manipulate the audience into feeling a certain way, regardless of whether or not that emotion is earned. Without score, the director must rely on the narrative and characters to elicit a genuine emotional response to what is happening on-screen. Film score can also give the audience a place to hide from uncomfortable feelings, reminding us that it’s only a movie. Without that refuge, the realism of the action hits us harder than it otherwise would.

[SPOILER ALERT!] I thought I had this movie nailed. I knew it was about Solo saving William. Perhaps the most elegant and beautiful part of Goodbye Solo is the end; we learn that the movie is not about Solo saving William, it is about Solo letting him go. Der, it’s right there in the title! When Solo releases the stick into the updraft, we can see that he has made peace with William’s decision. Despite the fact that he befriended William with altruistic motives, Solo has gained from their friendship as well (including confidence for his own dreams), and his family emerges stronger than before. While the ending could be looked upon as depressing, I instead found it incredibly hopeful and uplifting. Now, where else can you find a feel-good movie about suicide?

Favourite Scene: The ending was so powerful, I don’t want to give anything more away.

Key Quote: “Do you know if you throw a stick off Blowing Rock, it comes right back to you?”

Fun Fact: Goodbye Solo won the International Critic’s Film Critic’s Award for Best Film at the Venice Film Festival.

I cannot recommend this film highly enough. Until the next,

K

Posted in Drama
Tags: , , , ,

The Wedding Banquet: The Worst Episode of “Three’s Company” Ever . . .

•March 15, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Good day all,

Well I am extremely glad to be writing you all again, as last week I gave you a bit of a cliffhanger as to whether the lady had gotten bored and was ready to dispatch me (like, shoot me and drop me in a ditch). Regular viewers will remember that I was worried about all of the great movies she had been forcing me to watch and knew she was setting me up for some bad movies to come or ready to kill me. This movie proves she ain’t killing me, because holy shit did I hate it. Now I know a lot of you will start yapping about how brilliant Ang Lee is, and I would calmly respond Hulk (sorry Mr. Lee, that’s unfair to keep bringing up). For realsies, I think the only way I can explain my feelings on this flick are through a meditation on Lady Gaga (camera 3) :

Hey all. When a person makes a statement about something, they can give an opinion (that movie sucks, that kid is ugly) or they can make a statement about quality (That movie sucks because Michael Bay confuses explosions with character development, that kid is ugly because his parents are ugly). When I first saw Lady Gaga I thought she was funny looking and that her music sounded weirdly interesting. The more I heard and saw of her the less interest I had, and the more I came to realize that her music was not to my taste (opinion). Then I saw her on SNL, doing “Butter Face” to the piano and had to admit the woman has a spectacular voice and some musical talent. I listened to her music with a new ear an came to the conclusion that I still hated it, but it was more interesting than most of the crap on the radio, then I realized how old that made me sound, then I died a bit, then I concluded that I was still awesome and “with it.” So while I recognize the woman’s talent and her attempt to bring theatricality back to pop music (quality) I can confidently say I hate her music (opinion). Also, shock should say something. I can take a dump on a duck and call it a statement on Egyptian freedom (big ups), but a muppet dress is still a muppet dress. That’s how I feel about this movie; I recognize its quality while wanting to stab it in the face (repeatedly).

Thanks for that. I think I needed to work through some Gaga related trauma. Sometimes the lady hums her songs while bike-locking a cracker to the radiator. Regardless, this movie is well acted, shot and edited, but I wasn’t intrigued by the story. I know you’re all jumping to the “he’s a homophobe” thing, and to you I say “hey, shut up!” I just wouldn’t care about what my parents thought, or keep the lie going after choosing to start it. I’m sure there is some history of homosexuality in China, and some kind of accepted means of letting the folks know you like your own team, so the whole premise felt like Three’s Company, without Mr. Roper avoiding sex and Jack Falling down (and Larry looking like a pedophile, seriously). You can see the big shocker coming from a mile away (and it’s pretty unbelievable) and it gets pretty dark. The last thing I expected was to get into the life/choice debate in a coming-out-of-the-closet story (for my opinion, see George Carlin in his “Back in Town” special). I will say that I like the resolution, and that the whole maintaining appearances and loving each other, flaws and all, is what ties family together. I like the moral even though I didn’t really care about the story or characters.

There is one other topic I have to tackle. Sorry for telling you to shut up earlier, but I hate homophobia. I work in an industry where everyone is “fag” this and “queer” that and it is pure and simple ignorance. Most guys hate gays without ever knowing them, and I catch a lot of flack for the opinion I’m about to give from these yahoos (or did until “she” Shanghaied me). I have tried some freaky stuff in my day and try to imagine some else having any right judging or hating me for it. The second I feel that way I can’t hate on anybody else for their freaky stuff, even if it seems gross to me. My stance is who cares? I was not made uncomfortable by gay guys being gay, and this movie is full of gay guys being gay; it’s just that the humour was kind of sitcommy and some complex emotions fell into place pretty easily (in an interesting way). It just bothers me how easily the guys at work toss the words around, and they are hate terms. Imagine throwing jokes around with the n-bomb or denying the Holocaust with the ease you hear gay bashing (or jokes that slag women for that fact); disturbing. Like Lady Gaga, it is a lifestyle and culture I don’t get, but I can respect what it has to offer and recognize its rights.

So, all in all, we’ve learned and grown together. This is a good movie if you like that sort of thing, but I hated it. Take it home for your wife, come across as sensitive and reap the rewards; use it to do some good. Certainly worth a watch, knowing what you’re getting into, but watch Brokeback Mountain instead (far fewer laughs but an incredible love story). Until the next time I wreck a wrist to get loose from the bike lock, keep it rocking.

The Hostage

Posted in Comedy, Drama, Foreign
Tags: , , , , , , , , ,

The Wedding Banquet (1993): The Ideal Family is One that Loves Each Other

•March 14, 2011 • Leave a Comment

Ang Lee and I have a somewhat turbulent relationship. His Taiwan-based movies, like Eat Drink Man Woman (1994) and Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon (2000), I find hugely entertaining and poignant. The more traditional Hollywood fare such as The Ice Storm (1997) and Hulk (2003), not so much – in fact, can I have my time back? Given that The Wedding Banquet (1993) was early on in his career (it’s his second film) and deals largely with Taiwanese culture, I was hoping for the former category and I was not disappointed.

Synopsis: A gay Taiwanese-American (Wai-Tung) agrees to marry a woman in need of a green card in order to placate his traditional parents still living in Taiwan, who are unaware of his lifestyle and are growing impatient with the lack of grandchildren. At the news, his parents fly to New York to help plan the wedding, and everyone must keep up the ruse.

A complicated and emotional comedy, The Wedding Banquet represents Ang Lee at his best. He expertly mines two cultures (gay and Taiwan) for humour that points out absurdities while maintaining respect for the beliefs and lifestyle. At the same time, he explores the consequences, both positive and negative, that occur when such contrary cultures overlap. There are some hilarious scenes in which the conflict is obvious, such as Wai-Tung and his partner Simon de-gaying their apartment prior to Wai-Tung’s parent’s arrival (I’ve heard traditional Taiwanese culture frowns on giant photos of sweaty, writhing men… at least when on full display). Lee also brilliantly demonstrates that American and Taiwanese culture are not so different as we would imagine; Simon and several homosexual friends intentionally disturbing the stiff, conservative, WASPy couple on their street, for instance. Clearly, bigotry is not a cultural phenomenon.

I come from one culture: I am Canadian. Sure, I have my mutt-esque heritage, but it’s far enough removed that I only have to navigate the one set of beliefs/principles (not to suggest that being Canadian means the same thing to everyone). Love is complicated enough when working with the one set of conventions. Marriage is complicated enough. Joining two families is complicated enough! Lee is remarkable at highlighting the extra confusions of blending not only two cultures, but three: the additional difficulties, the slight offenses, the funny (and not so funny) misunderstandings, and the heightened joy.

More than anything, The Wedding Banquet is about family. Lee explores the unusual and unconventional path this group of people follow as they evolve from interconnected individuals to a unit. The initial ruse begins to wear on Wai-Tung and Wei-Wei (his betrothed) as the significance of the marriage for his parents becomes clear – the lie is harder to live once they understand the impact of their deceit. But is it marriage that defines our love for one another? [SPOILER] Lee doesn’t seem to think so. Marriage does not guarantee happiness, nor does it make a family in itself. It is love that binds family together, love that transcends blood lines and cultural tradition. When Mr. Gao tells Simon, “you are my son too,” it is a powerful moment; we understand the cultural taboo of homosexuality does not compare to his paternal love for his son or his desire for his child’s happiness. There is no one right way to make a family, and The Wedding Banquet celebrates the uniqueness of family structure. Ultimately, Lee’s message is one of inclusion, hope and acceptance.

Favourite Scene: Wei-Wei’s limited English skills make for an entertaining set of marriage vows

Key Quote: Wai-Tung: “We’re not getting married for them!”      Mrs. Gao: “Well if not them, whom?!”

Fun Fact: The Wedding Banquet was the most financially profitable film of 1993, despite going up against heavy-weights like Jurassic Park (1993), due to its modest budget and international success.

Till the next,

K

Posted in Comedy, Drama, Foreign
Tags: , , , , , , , , , , ,

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »