What makes a classic, according to a 13 year old

Standard

On Thursday afternoon, I was working with my son on his homeschool reading. He’d just finished Fahrenheit 451, and he explained that he liked the chase scenes at the end more than the setup at the beginning and middle.

“It seems to me,” he explained, “that in books that are considered classics, they’re more concerned with the… psychology of the characters than in the chase stuff.”

I agreed with him.

That night was family movie night. we picked MARATHON MAN, which was on Netflix Streaming. Spy thrillers are a big hit with the kid, because he’s a big fan of, as he puts it, “smart people being smart.” That’s why he prefers Mission Impossible to James Bond, and why he had an allergic reaction to Dumb and Dumber.

Anyway, Marathon Man’s dental stuff went by without much comment, but the movie was slow (compared to the stuff we make the time to see in the theater) and it was low-key, and it was concerned with the relationship between the characters. When it was over, I asked him what he thought.

“I liked some parts.”

That’s his answer when he finds long stretches of a film kinda dull.

“It’s a classic seventies thriller. Remember what we said earlier about classics? The long shots of people’s faces, or the awkward conversations they have, are their to show the psychology, like you said. Maybe the greatest story ever would combine the character and the exciting event, but we can’t all be Shakespeare.”

Then he nodded and pointed at me, and retreated to his bedroom to draw or read his latest light novel. Anything to avoid a longer conversation about a movie or book.

My wife squeezed my hand and said “Very good. Very good.” She’s happy when we can explicitly tie movie night into his schooling. “But it was pretty slow.”

REALITI Available on VOD

Standard

My friend Jonathan just released a movie to VOD: Here’s the trailer:

I watched it last night, after some shenanigans on Vimeo’s part that made it difficult to log in. It’s meditative, mysterious, and a little mind-blowing. The blurb is:

“REALITi plays like the bastard love child of Rod Serling and George Orwell as filtered through the classic New Wave.” – Todd Brown, Fantastic Fest

Which is not a bad description at all. I had a little problem with it because I sometimes have a hard time recognizing faces, so when the same actress appears in several roles, I wasn’t sure what I was seeing. It was mostly the response of the lead that made me work out that he was, in fact, seeing the same woman in different places.

Also, it’s not exactly what you’d call an action-packed thrill ride. It’s a low-budget indie with a lot of silence and thoughtful moments. If that sounds like your thing, check it out.

Masterminds without Muscle: The Man from UNCLE and Soft Antagonists

Standard

I saw The Man From U.N.C.L.E. last week, and I’m still thinking about it, mainly because it was such an amazing misfire. There are so many good things in it, but the flaws wreck it. This is true of a lot of modern movies, I find: there will always be enjoyable bits, but the real question is whether they add up to a good movie or not.

TMfU had quite a few problems, especially a director who didn’t understand how a con artist-flashback works, who undercut any power the movie could have gotten from the final conflict with the main antagonist. However, the problem I want to talk about here is the lack of a Top Muscle-type character (what TV Tropes calls, unfortunately, a dragon).

If you have a mastermind-type villain who’s in charge of a large organization, the Top Muscle is their number one fighter. They’re the meanest badass on hand, usually tougher than the protagonist(s) themselves. Often, they are only beaten by the protag and his friends teaming up, or by trickery.

Top Muscle appears in Bond movies all the time; Oddjob and Jaws are probably the most famous of them. Wez from The Road Warrior fits, as does Ramrowan from The Man From Nowhere and two different characters named Mad Dog from Hardboiled and The Raid: Redemption. That TV Tropes page above features a picture of Darth Vader. Sometimes the Top Muscle ends up turning against the Mastermind boss. Sometimes they’re just looking for a worthy opponent to test themselves against. In every case, they represent a huge physical challenge to the protagonist(s).

TMfU could have had a Top Muscle character. The villain’s husband had almost nothing to do except smirk at the sole female protagonist and drive a car. He might have been recast as an expert marksman and Olympic boxing champion, or an SS Commando military trainer, or anything. But nope. He was just an ineffectual romantic rival.

But Harry, you’re wondering, why does it matter? Two reasons: When properly implemented, a Top Muscle character brings competence to the antagonists and focus to the story.

Competence: A mastermind-type villain usually has three things going for them: resources, cool clothes, a scheme of some sort. All of these things are provided by the plot (as in: the villain is rich enough to hire mooks and arm them well, and they’ve gotten their hands on a macguffin and have a plan for WORLD DOMINATION). However, much of that is established by plot fiat, and it doesn’t necessarily establish the villain as a particularly scary guy.

However, having an underling who is a kick ass fighter lends an air of competence to all the antagonists. Instead of being a psychopath with a bunch of hirelings that the protagonist outwits/outguns/outfights with ease, they become a psychopath with a world-class killer as a subordinate. When the Top Muscle fights the protagonist to a stand still (or even beats the hell out of them) that extraordinary competence is transferred to the boss above.

Focus: Most spy/adventure movies have a lot of physical trials. There are fights, maybe some macguffins to steal, maybe someone to rescue. Are the protagonists facing off against a bunch of faceless stormtroopers, who only present a real danger in their numbers, or are they facing a single threat that could undo everything?

Extended scenes where the protagonists mows down mooks, then has to face the Top Muscle, can be incredibly effective. TMfU, with its aimless fight against a young Italian count and his two buddies, not to mention that endless boat sequence, needed that focus.

Randomness for 8/15

Standard

1) How One Misunderstanding in the 1870s Created an Entire Sci-Fi Subgenre

2) Every state flag is wrong, and here is why.

3) Someone is setting hipster traps in New York.

4) An “accomplished writer” takes James Patterson’s “Masterclass.”

5) What if Werner Hertzog directed Ant-Man?

6) Architects crowdfund to build £1.85 billion Minas Tirith in England.

7) I read NPR’s 100 best sff novels and they were shockingly offensive. Nothing to argue with here.

“He is a man with a metal face”

Standard

I haven’t seen the new FF movie and I’m not going to–at least, not until it turns up on Netflix Instant or as a dvd on my library shelves–so I’m not going to comment on the film itself. There’s been some commentary on the film that’s more than fair game, though, because they’re making general statements about storytelling.

For example, this: The ‘Fantastic Four’ Reboot Proves There’s No Way to Make a Good ‘Fantastic Four’ Movie from Screencrush.

I’m going to state right up front that I think this premise is stupid. First, just because something hasn’t been done doesn’t mean it can’t be done. Second, if a film sucks, it’s not because you can’t make a good film with those characters. It’s the people who create the stories who have failed. You can make a great (or at least a solid) story from pretty much any character; it’s all in the execution.

There’s currently an ongoing discussion about a Christian inspirational romance set during a concentration camp during the Holocaust, with many people saying the book is deeply, deeply terrible. But does that mean there’s no way to tell a story about a relationship between a woman in a concentration camp and a high-ranking Nazi officer? Absolutely not. It could be done, but you’d probably not want the “Jewess” drawing so much of her faith from the New Testament.

Execution is important.

Let me quote briefly from that FF review:

He is a man with a metal face obscuring his mouth and rendering him incapable of facial expressions — particularly unfortunate given Toby Kebbell’s incredible acting range. But this is Doctor Doom’s costume, and reimagined or no, his face will always be covered with metal.

Would covering it with plastic have been better? Because Darth Vader was a perfectly excellent villain. Indeed, his mask has become iconic. Lord Humungous from The Road Warrior was as successful, but it would anyone really say he wasn’t an effective villain? I’m sure everyone will be shocked to hear that The Phantom of the Opera sucks, too.

Frankly, yes, the best and cheapest special effect a movie can have is an actor’s face, but masks have been an effective part of performance for centuries. Asserting otherwise is just ignorant.

Next:

Similarly, the powers of the Four are inherently silly — Reed Richards becomes Mr. Fantastic, with Stretch Armstrong-like abilities; Sue Storm becomes the Invisible Woman, able to render herself and other objects invisible and create force fields; Johnny Storm becomes the Human Torch, capable of flaming on and off at will and using his ability to fly very fast; Ben Grimm becomes the Thing, a hulking pile of rocks.

Each of the Fantastic Four films have been unable to avoid how utterly comical these powers are.

First of all, the FF’s powers are based on the four elements: stone, fire, air, water. Sue’s “invisible force fields” are basically barriers made from solid air, and Reed’s body is like a very thick fluid. Compared to most comic book characters, that’s almost thematically coherent.

Second of all, FF is no more absurd than a space viking with a magic hammer or a billionaire who dresses like Dracula and throws sharp pieces of metal at mentally ill people.

Still, there are people who do not respond well to fantasy elements in a story; it’s fairly common and I’m not sure why I should care about their opinions. Yes, a man made out of rocks is absurd. Dog fights in outer space are absurd. Killer ghosts are absurd. Kung fu fighting in a virtual reality world are absurd. All these elements can still be effective cinema.

The real problem here is that the author of the piece can’t think of a way to do it well, therefore she assumes it can’t be done.

Anyway, I’m not even sure why I’m weighing in on this: I’ve never really liked the Fantastic Four. They’re okay, but they’re not the sort of characters I like simply because of the characters. They need a great creative team behind them or the whole thing feels sort of dull and/or annoying.

And you didn’t ask for my advice, but: Set it in the 60’s, skip the origin story, make Dr. Doom a tyrant with his own country, and make them fight a giant monster/Doombot army at the end, to avoid the whole four-against-one thing in the final fight.

Randomness for 8/7

Standard

1. How many of the “world’s strangest delicacies” would you eat? I consider myself an adventurous eater, but: five-ish, depending on the moment.

2. Video series compares the changes made to the Star Wars movies.

3. The Ten Best Tales of Online Drama from Ten Years of Fandom_Wank.

4) Academics unlock Agatha Christie’s “whodunnit” code.

5) Five Bizarre Board Games.

6) The amazing high technology behind the NYC subway system.

7) A skateboard sidecar for toddlers: Video.

A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Ant-Man

Standard

ANT-MAN is funny.

It’s not the most hilarious movie ever made, but it does rise above the typical poo-faces portentousness of most superhero films. Contrasted with the BATMAN V SUPERMAN trailer before it, it looks surprisingly friendly and human.

It helps that they include cameos from the most charismatic actors in other shows, but it’s not overloaded with them, the way AGE OF ULTRON was. It also helps that the show takes its absurd premise and has a good time with it.

Still, it’s missing much of Edgar Wright’s visual style, even if he is co-credited with the script. The sight gags are great, but the film also has a bit of that “Best Lines Improvised On Set” feel that modern comedies have. Unfortunately.

I’d compare it to WRECK-IT RALPH, a terrific movie that cam late in a trend of other terrific movies, when the genre wasn’t so shiny and new any more. It’s still a good movie, even if it doesn’t feel revelatory.

Important: There are *two* post-credit sequences.

The Hero-Free Zone: revisiting Conan the Barbarian (1982)

Standard

Having just enjoyed a birthday re-watch of the LOTR movies on July 2nd, I saw the original John Milius Conan had appeared on Netflix and turned it on. What the hell, right? Why not?

I first saw it in the theater when I was a teenager, and liked it a lot, although I didn’t love it. I think the problem was that I just wasn’t that impressed by the villains.

However, decades later, I was struck by something else: at no point in this movie does Conan act like a hero.

Spoilers, obviously. Continue reading

My Birthday, redux

Standard

Today, I’m celebrating my birthday.

I had to postpone it a bit for the best of reasons, but still: YAY! I get to take the day off. No homeschooling. No cleaning. No working on the new book (although I’ll have a notepad handy for unexpected ideas).

Instead, I’ll be kicking back to watch all three extended editions of the Lord of the Rings movies, along with delivery Indian food for dinner, along with a not-birthday cake for my not-birthday (I don’t much like cake, so I’ll be having fruit salad with no nasty cantalopes), along with fancy beer. The movies are about eleven and a half hours, not including various bathroom, meal, and birthday song breaks, so I’m planning to start early.

I’m also planning to be offline most of the day.

Last year, I celebrated my birthday this same way, and I found it incredibly rejuvenating. And I don’t just mean emotionally. It refilled the well creatively in a way I hadn’t expected, and I spent weeks and weeks aching to binge on the movies again. With luck, I can satisfy that ache with the Tom Shippey Tolkien book I’m reading, and an upcoming re-read of the trilogy.

Have a great day, you guys. That’s what I’m planning to do.

Massive Failures of Copyright and Capitalism

Standard

One of the supposed benefits of the copyright system we have is that people with a monopoly over intellectual property will have a market incentive to keep that IP going. There’s money to be made selling copies, they’re the only ones with the right to make copies, so copies will be available.

Obviously, this doesn’t really work. We have numerous examples of IP that have fallen out of print, which can not be legally acquired without paying ruinous prices for used goods.

And if you though THE FUTURE would change all of that with digital distribution, nope. FOR EXAMPLE:

ONE:

TWO:

Hopefully, those images show up, but if they don’t, the links take you to the Amazon page for the film soundtrack pages for THE FELLOWSHIP OF THE RING/THE TWO TOWERS – THE COMPLETE RECORDINGS, respectively. If you want to buy either one you have to pay (at the time I’m writing this) $250/$800 used, or $500/$1300 new.

Of course, if you want to buy The Complete Recordings of Howard Shores’s Return of the King soundtrack, that’s on iTunes.

Why is the third one available for digital download but the first two are not? Good question! You’d think they would be leaving money on the table. So I emailed Warner music about it. The message I sent was lost in the contact form, but it basically reiterated what I said above, along with a request that someone put digital copies on sale. The response:

Hello Harry,

Thank you for contacting us! We do not have current plans for this release, but thank you for your email and your input. We will forward your message to our suggestion box.

Okay. I’m in the suggestion box. For whatever that’s worth.

So, here is some art work–and not obscure art work, either, it’s the complete record of an Oscar- and Grammy-winning musical score–that can only be legally acquired at ridiculous prices.

It’s ridiculous.

Look, I’m in favor of copyright. I pay my bills with the money I earn because of copyright law. And when I see something I can’t afford, I don’t try to get hold of it another way. That’s how I choose to live.

But this is a ludicrous situation to be in.