Category Archives: Movies

over analysis

A little suspension of disbelief would be nice.  Just an iota.

Why can’t things just exist for the sake of existing?  Just for the joy of being?  Why do they have to have deep meanings and always be nutritive, always be purposeful?  Sometimes we need to unplug and enjoy life and do or take part in those things that serve no real purpose.

I of course mean the movie Godzilla.

Not high art by any means, not a deep philosophical subject, nothing there that’s really original thinking or even a fresh reinterpretation.  Eye candy really.  But I can see that you need something.

 

fine…

 

Standard spoiler warning here.

 

The original movie, Gojira, produced in 1954 reflected the contemporary mood of the Japanese populace to a wide variety of issues.  Chief among these issues was the concern over atomic power in all its constructive and destructive guises.  Japan at the time was a society in transition.  They were not only in the process of physically rebuilding from a devastating war but of changing their mindset in a radical new direction.  The Japanese people had first hand experience with nuclear weapons and according to the film’s producer, Tomoyuki Tanaka:

“In those days, Japanese had a real horror of radiation, and that horror is what made Godzilla so huge. From the beginning he has symbolized nature’s revenge on mankind.”

The feeling of the film conveyed some of the first doubts that the mainstream media had about unfettered progress and whether just because mankind could do something if it was a good idea to do it.  This movie also took issue with the idea that all progress came without a price and that industrial activity was totally benign.  This by the way was 8 years before Rachel Carson’s Silent Spring came out and caused quite a stir in America.

Take that, notion that all pop culture is totally useless as meaningful social commentary!

Godzilla was nature’s reaction to mankind’s nuclear tests in the Pacific.  The themes of war and environmental degradation were intertwined in a horrific form.  The vast scale of mindless destruction not only resonated with kids looking for an action movie but with their parents that had seen real mindless horror unfold before their eyes during the war.

In the movies, Godzilla takes on the symbols of authority and progress in the guise of the military and industry. Not a single weapon in the military’s arsenal can stop him and Godzilla seems to take particular delight in laying waste to factories and nuclear power plants.

The environmental themes were expanded upon in the 1970s with Godzilla vs Hedorah (or as it was known in the US, Godzilla vs. the Smog Monster), a film in which Godzilla takes on a literal representation of pollution by using pollution.  As a mutant created by mankind, he uses mankind’s own nuclear waste to make himself more powerful.  He literally eats nuclear waste.  We as a civilization feed the means of our own destruction.  Quite relevant in today’s debate over climate change.

Yes, I know.  Silly.  Reading way too much into this.

But as a means of communicating the concerns over environmental problems to a mass audience I think it does a much better job than a dais full of scientists wringing their hands in front of a room full of bored reporters.

Now we come to the 2014 film.  This in a way was an attempt to restore the reputation of the “king of all monsters” in the eyes of American audiences.  The 1998 Godzilla movie was widely panned by critics and fans alike.  The plot was bad (even for a monster movie), the effects were terrible, and worst of all, the classic look of the monster was radically revamped making Godzilla almost unrecognizable.  For a long time no one would even talk about Godzilla in Hollywood.

So when they decided to tackle this project they went back to the original and they leaned heavily on the source material.  The exploitation of nature had re-awakened prehistoric monsters (other than Godzilla) and they thrive on nuclear power.  In this movie Godzilla isn’t just a mindless beast but is in fact a leveling force of nature come to re-establish equilibrium.  All humans can do is stand by and watch in horror.

Ken Watanabe’s character, Dr Serizama, states this eloquently:

“The arrogance of men is thinking nature is in their control and not the other way around.  Let them fight”

Indeed that is what finally happens in the end.  Godzilla finishes off the other monsters and returns to the sea although he had devastated the city that they fought in.

Godzilla is neither hero nor villain.  Just as with any other force of nature he just is.  He exists to do what he has to do and we really cannot do anything to change that.  All we can hope to do is get out of the way as best as possible.

Or we could just sit back and enjoy it as a guy in a rubber suit stomping around a movie set stepping on little movie props.  Your choice.

 

movies as complex social commentary

A couple of weeks ago I saw a very good biopic about Alejandro Jodorowski, an avant-garde director, that tried to bring out a version of the science fiction novel, Dune, to the big screen back in the 1970s.  Apart from directing he has been known to star, produce, and screenwrite his movies.  One of the things that he said in the movie struck me as very revealing.

“The challenge of creating a movie is to take what is essentially the auditory experience of reading and turning it into a visual experience”

This is a problem that I have seen in various attempts to adapt very good books into movies.  For example the stories of H.P. Lovecraft are notorious for being nearly impossible to capture on the screen.  The few times they have been adapted they were not only box office flops but dramatic flops.

Part of the problem is that the elements found in some books such as the setting descriptions, character descriptions, even the general tone of a novel are hard to represent on the screen.

That’s why for me it’s a pleasure to find those screen writers that are consummate professionals and can turn something that would normally reside in the pages of a book and capture not just the basic elements of the story but the essence of the tale.  I think it’s a special skill.

I’ve been wanting to write a post about a book I read a couple of months ago but I haven’t quite known how to approach it.  David Itzkoff from the New York Times wrote a book about the movie Network.  The book is mainly about the making of the movie but for me the most important part was about the writer, Paddy Chayefsky.  A truly brilliant writer, the term prophetic is usually used to describe his work.  He takes complex subjects that he could probably have put down on paper but his preferred medium was visual (movies and TV).

His works pretty accurately summarized the post war change of the nuclear family in the 1950s (Marty), the coming institutionalization of modern health care (The Hospital), and the turn towards “reality programming” in TV (Network).

If you haven’t caught any of these movies I would urge you to catch-all of them but Network is the jewel in the crown.  The movie centers around a failing TV network that exploits a mentally disturbed man, Howard Beale, for ratings and follows it up with covertly supporting and filming a criminal group of revolutionaries for a TV show and then having them execute Beale on live television for more ratings.

Along the way Chayefsky pens a truly disturbing scene about the corporate view of the world and nature.

The movie delves deeply into what we might expect in the future (back in the 70s) of television programming and considers just how ruthless corporations can be about getting their way.

Chayefsky creates complicated supporting characters, each with their own fears and desires and all striving to control Howard.  The movie has mini subplots revolving around the marriage of one of the supporting characters and the unspoken machinations of the corporation in charge trying to make as much money as possible.

But Chayefsky isn’t alone in creating works that would have a lot to say about the future that we would live in.  Other luminaries would tackle a wide range of issues and let us look at the possible dystopian worlds that could occur if we were not vigilant and that have partly occurred anyways.   Most of these are only found in movie form.  I could write entire articles about each (and still may one day), but briefly:

  • Harry Harrison tackled global warming, overpopulation, and resource shortages in Soylent Green.
  • George Lucas took a page from Aldous Huxley and explored social engineering and drug escapism in THX1138
  • Ray Bradbury delved into the degradation of culture and literacy in Fahrenheit 451
  • Phillip K Dick explored the thin line between man and machine in Blade Runner
  • Andrew Niccol considered the social ramifications of genetic engineering in Gattaca
  • John Carpenter did a brilliant send up of runaway capitalism in They Live

These movies provide me as much satisfaction to me as would a well written book.  They provide all the elements that I would find in other media and to me at they have a lot to consider and think about long after the image fades from the screen.

The Wind Rises – Movie review

Standard spoiler alert here.  This post will go into details about the movie “The Wind Rises“.  If you don’t want to know what happens in this movie you better stop reading now.

This is the last movie from world-renowned animator Hayao Miyazaki.  I first discovered Miyazaki in college in 1989 when a friend shared his bootleg copy of “The Castle of Cagliostro“.  Since that time I have marveled at how well he can draw out even the most minute details in nature and highlight them in a media that is too often derided as childish and sloppy.

For those that don’t know, anime is far removed from the Saturday morning cartoons that you and I grew up on.  The subjects and story lines are far more complex and the intention is to make a live action movie without relying on actual live action.

Miyazaki himself stated that since this was going to be the last film that he directed that he wanted to tackle a story line that would include some of his long time interests.    He chose to do a fictionalized biography of Jiro Horikoshi, the chief designer of the famous Japanese A6M Zero fighter.  Miyazaki’s interest in flight may derive in part due to his family’s involvement in producing aircraft parts for the Zero during the war.  He has incorporated many flight related themes into his previous works (Most significantly in Porco Rosso and Castle in the Sky) so it is not a huge surprise that he would tackle this subject.

The story title comes from a French poem by Paul Valery (Le vent se lève ! … Il faut tenter de vivre or The wind is rising… we must try to live).  This can be interpreted in several ways.  It could be taken as life advice to seize life for what it’s worth and live it no matter what the circumstances.  It could also be flight advice.  In the early days of flight pilots would prefer to have some wind to assist their aircraft into the air.  Lastly and less probable the wind may refer to the fact that the Japanese term ‘kamikaze‘ refers to the divine wind and that the Zero was the aircraft mainly associated with this tactic.

The story follows Jiro as a child and his ambitions to design planes.  He reads western flight magazines and becomes obsessed with the Italian aircraft designer Giovanni Caproni, who at the time was the best aircraft designer in the world.  One night he seems to share a dream with Caproni and Caproni encourages Jiro to follow his passion.  The next morning when he wakes he tells his mother that he will design planes.

The movie fast forwards to 1923. Jiro is going off to college.  On the train to Tokyo he meets a young girl and they start to connect when suddenly the whole world seems to ripple.  A massive earthquake has struck the area and  Tokyo is devastated.  Jiro shepherds the girl and her nanny to her home but before she learns his name he runs off to help fight the fires breaking out in the city.

The 1923 earthquake is a defining moment in modern Japanese history.  Something akin to 9-11 in our country.  You can see a distinct difference in attitudes before and after the event.

Tokyo is razed by the ensuing fires and the government begins rebuilding the city along more modern western lines.  It also uses the event to erase the last vestiges of the old traditional forms of government and a new militaristic government begins to exercise more power over the nation and reshape it to their views.

Jiro returns to the girl’s home but finds it has burned to the ground and there is no sign of her.  He returns to the university to continue his studies.  He pores over books from America and Germany and develops an almost instinctive feel for aircraft design that his fellow engineers lack.

He graduates in 1929 and begins to look for a job but the country is wracked by the great depression.  Although he is bursting with good ideas, nobody has the money to implement them.  He eventually lands a job with Mitsubishi but is disappointed to see that while the rest of the world is building planes from metal, that the best Japanese designs are still made from wood and canvas.

Mitsubishi is forced to take on government fighter contracts to survive.  Their first effort is a failure.  This leads the company to send Jiro and some other engineers to Germany to learn from Hugo Junkers about modern aircraft design.  The team is astonished at the advancements in aircraft design and Jiro’s friends despair that they may never catch up but Jiro has faith that they will not only catch up but surpass them.  That night he and a friend take a walk.  They come across a young boy being chased by secret policemen.  They have unknowingly come across the beginnings of the holocaust.  This triggers another dream for Jiro.

He meets Caproni again.  They fly in his last design.  Caproni declares that he is retiring.  His time has passed and now it is Jiro’s time.  But he warns Jiro that greatness comes at a cost.  He may design great planes but inevitably they will be used for war.  Jiro has to decide if he is willing to bear that cost and the responsibility for designing something that will be used to kill people.  Jiro declares that he just wants to create beautiful planes and decides that he is willing to embrace greatness.

He returns home and is made chief designer for a new navy fighter.  He puts in all the lessons he has learned from his trip abroad but the design crashes.  Jiro becomes depressed by the failure.  He takes a month long vacation at a mountain hotel.

While there he runs into the girl from the earthquake.  Her name is Naoko and she has been searching for Jiro since that day.  They soon fall in love.  In the meantime he runs into a German man who is critical of Hitler and his policies and warns that any future war will result in the destruction of Germany and Japan.

The vacation ends and Jiro asks to marry Naoko but she confesses that she is afflicted with tuberculosis and won’t marry him until she feels better.

Now engaged, Jiro returns to work feeling invigorated and with new ideas.  He starts to work again but suddenly has to flee.  The secret police are after him for his contact with the strange German man.

He hides out at his boss’ house and continues work on the plane design until he receives a telegram from Naoko’s father that she has had a lung infection.  He rushes to her side and they decide that they can’t wait to be married.  They must seize what life has given them and be happy.

They return to live with his boss and work on the new plane.  Naoko’s health deteriorates slowly but she bravely continues to support her husband’s work.  The day of the first test flight arrives.  Jiro goes off to work.  Naoko declares that she feels better and goes off for a walk.  The boss’ wife finds that Naoko has actually left for good.  She leaves three letters explaining her decision.  She wants to spare her husband the pain of her final days.

At work the new plane takes off and is a success.  It is the A5M the direct forerunner of the Zero fighter.  As everyone congratulates Jiro he feels a gust of wind and he knows that his wife has passed away.

The story moves forward to 1945.  Overhead giant American bombers are laying waste to Japan.  The factory has been obliterated and all Jiro can do is look on helplessly.  He slips into a dream again and meets Caproni for the last time.

Caproni asks him how he feels now that his dreams have been realized and Jiro reflects that he succeeded in making beautiful planes despite the costs.  He sees Naoko in the dream and she promises that she is waiting for him.

The film encapsulates many themes in Miyazaki’s works over time.  Not only the flying motif but elements of magic, of living life just for the joy of living, and his disdain for war.  Some might argue that a movie about designing a war plane glorifies war but in fact it is seen as doing the opposite.

For me personally, the film touched a chord from my childhood.  I was also fascinated by aircraft as a child and spent hours reading technical specifications and looking at pictures and doodling designs for wings and other parts.  Alas I was never able to make a go of it but still I do understand the passion to make something beautiful.

 

 

Decision trees in our lives

I was going through my newsfeed the other day and a link came up for Huffpost live.  It was a discussion with Crispin Glover on the message that media puts out in some movies.

Interview

First of all I never realized that Crispin Glover was that deep a thinker honestly.  He’s apparently quite perceptive and insightful.  This discussion got me thinking on a different tack about how decisions affect our lives.

(by the way, this is one of the reasons that I love cinema.  You can derive so many themes, ideas, and visions from a movie that it’s astonishing)

In the above movie that Glover references (“Back to the future”) his character, George, makes a bad decision at a young age that affects the rest of his life.  He has been making bad decisions based on fear all of his life but this one really affect him and his future wife.

Basically he allows his future wife to be raped by the neighborhood bully.  This event victimizes both of them and they live in a spiral of hopelessness and shame leading them downwards on a dark path of despair. George takes a menial job and allows his tormentor to continue to harass him.  George and his wife end up trapped living a life that is neither satisfactory nor fulfilling.

George’s son goes back in time and intervenes causing George to make the right decision and this in turn affects the rest of his life.

When the son returns to the altered future he finds that his parents have been emboldened by the correct choice that George made and their life is a success in every way.  The same two people, the same town, but totally altered by one seemingly tiny change in the past.

Plugging all this back into the real world, how have the decisions in our past affected our current life situation?  You make that initial bad decision back in kindergarten and twenty years later you’re working in McDonald’s rather than going to Harvard.

A gross overstatement to be sure but I don’t think that the average young person gives enough weight to these seemingly innocuous life choices.  Go out and party on a Friday night or study, burn through your weekly paycheck or save it, stand up for yourself or let someone else walk over you.

One or two decisions you can probably bounce back from.  But it’s when you make bad decision after bad decision and they pile up on you and suddenly you find that your options aren’t that open anymore.  Suddenly you no longer have a good or bad option, suddenly it’s bad option or even worse option.  What’s more, the more you make these bad decisions the more you become accustomed to the penalties attached to them and even grow to expect them as a part of your daily life.

How do we break this downward trend?  Is it even breakable?

Well yes of course it is.  We can hope for an outside agency to intervene (like someone with a time machine or a crazy millionaire philanthropist willing to invest in you) but that rarely happens.

Most of the time it’s going to happen by making a hard “right” choice some time and following it up with even more hard “right” choices until you climb back to where you want to be in your life.

That’s what makes these early choices on your decision tree so vitally important.  Once you bend that stalk in the wrong direction it takes a mighty effort to turn it back the way it should be going.

finding the good

Is trying to find the good in anything just some lame justification for bad movies, books, and pop culture or is there something to this?

I hate the “Harry Potter” series of books.  I’ve made no secret about it as I find them poorly executed and extremely warmed over fiction that I’ve previously read.  All that being said, most people would agree that as far as encouraging young people to read or to expand their minds to greater concepts that they serve a useful purpose.

Similarly on television we have the “edutainment” phenomena.  Basically trying to mix the qualities of education and learning with the appeal of entertainment to try to engage a wider audience, spread knowledge, and hopefully spark some curiosity about the wider world.

The problem with these efforts is that they have largely become focused on providing the lowest common denominator of entertainment and really have little to nothing to do with engaging curiosity of the public or the more analytical part of the mind.  They are really nothing more than distractions for the population as a whole than anything worthwhile.

Now, I have faced similar arguments in my life with regards to some things that I like such as “Star wars”, “Star trek”, all the writings of Tolkien and Heinlein.  I’ve heard all these same arguments applied to these.  But the thing is that these people may have been derivative in some of their work but they derived straight from the source material.

Tolkien and Lucas drew from most of the world;s mythologies to create their works.  They retell old stories in new ways and spread the original messages told in those stories in ways that the modern mind can comprehend.

Heinlein and Roddenberry’s works are more modern social commentaries disguised as science fiction stories than they are works of entertainment.  They draw heavily from the progressive and modernism movements of the early to mid 20th century.

These works are much closer to the idea of edutainment than anything we have that’s being produced today.  They provide something for the mind to chew over and don’t just distract.

So is there something redeeming in these new works?  They can at least be said to be keeping literature and film going for another generation.  Hopefully time enough for the next crop of great writers and directors to come along and create something worthwhile.

What I see in movies

“The book’s better than the movie.” is something I hear all the time and often say myself.  I sometimes wonder if scriptwriters even read some of the properties that they are asked to transcribe to the big screen.  I can’t blame them though.  Some concepts, descriptions, or character personalities are impossible to describe adequately in a script.

But sometimes actors, directors, and writers create something special, something memorable.  I can’t say that they’re better than the book but they are in their own way special.

“Gone with the wind”, “The Shining”, “The Godfather”, and one of my favorites “Blade Runner” are all good examples.  In the case of “The shining”, Stephen King hated the movie but most fans acclaim it as one of the greatest horror movies ever.  I would like to take a look at a scene from one of these in particular.

“Blade Runner” became the standard for sci-fi movies in the 80s and 90s.  Some consider this to be the most beautiful scenes in science fiction movies.  I think it displays very well what I mean about actors contributing significantly to a work.  In the scene below, Roy Batty, an android, is dying as Rick Deckard looks on.  Both of them are sitting on a building roof in a pouring rain storm.  Roy briefly explains his life to Deckard and accepts his imminent death.

Roy gets a dreamy expression on his face as he describes “C-beams gleaming in the darkness”  As the audience you don’t really have to know what C-beams are to get an impression that they are impressive looking.

Roy continues on and gets a mournful, regretful expression as he concludes “all those moments will be lost in time, like tears in the rain”.  Rutger Hauer, the actor that played Roy Batty, actually came up with this line right on the set.

Finally comes the coup de grace as Roy dies and releases a dove that he was holding to fly away into a blue sky.  A seeming allegory of his soul leaving his body and ascending to heaven affirming that the android really was human in his own way.  Deckard clenches his eyes shut finally realizing that his job deactivating these droids for all these years has been tantamount to murder.

Many people consider the film to be superior to the book, “Do androids dream of electric sheep”, that it was based upon.  Most of this can be attributed to the director, Ridley Scott, however as can be seen above actors can also make these movies and even add value to the material.