Filed under: 2000's, Cameron James, Paramount / Scotia Bank, USA, Weaver Sigourney
James Cameron – Writer, Director, Producer
2009
Sigourney Weaver, Sam Worthington, and a bunch of digital people
Also starring the general from Starship Troopers (playing the general from Starship Troopers) and that guy who was Phoebe’s boyfriend on Friends.
The reviews for this movie, at first glance, are very strong. However, it is slight of hand, a technological magic trick. The film is awful. The plot is a series of borrowed components from other films sandwiched in a giant, sad cliché.
What is basically comes down to is this (do not read if you have not seen film):
1st world industrialized men seek to relentlessly exploit perfect bio world and – here it comes – build an open pit mine directly under the ‘world tree’ that has a mystical ‘Gaia’ relationship to the chanting, singing, bow-and-arrow wielding indigenous people. Oh my goodness. But wait, you ask: where are the unicorns and the Chinese pandas? And it is true – Cameron did leave out these two essential components of a puerile bio-fantasy. There are no digital rainbows. There is however the obligatory white ‘rebel’ who becomes an aboriginal person and leads the battle against the evil colonial industrialized society. At the last minute, he drops his bow and arrow and switches back to machine guns and grenades, to make sure that the whole point of the ‘magical oneness of the Gaia planet being superior to destructive technology’ is completely undermined. It’s embarrassing to watch.
The digital effects look good. The forest scenes are beautiful , and the soft lighting effects are very nice. This is what has fooled our gullible movie-reviewing public. It’s easy to ignore the horrifically juvenile plot and concentrate on the advances in synthetic scene making. In part, this is negative praise. We’ve been inundated for so long with very poor looking CGI that good CGI is like a breathe of fresh air. However it is still just an effect. The visual appearance of The Fantastic Mr. Fox is at least as appealing, but Mr. Fox is wonderfully written, and could carry itself in any mode of representation. Avatar dies without the computer tricks. The film therefore leaves a strong visual impression, and this is its strength. It is unfortunate that it is insulting poor in so many other areas.
Avatar also tends to borrow pieces from other films (not necessarily good films or good pieces) and cobbles them together within the 3rd rate narrative. The military commander – a poorly exaggerated drill sergeant character – is lifted absolutely intact from Starship Troopers. It is the same actor, in the same roll. Starship troopers found some of it’s appeal in the fact that it was clearly intended as a sort of plastic parody of itself – it was supposed to be a bit corny. But Avatar is supposed to be a kind of mystical moral tale. This ridiculously one dimensional character shows the absolute banality of Cameron’s ‘moral’ position. Stealing a character from Starship Troopers and giving it less depth – now that is a cinematic achievement.
The robot exoskeleton that said military people use is a direct copy of the loading bay exoskeleton that Sigourney Weaver used in Aliens (which Cameron also directed). The Helicopter/airplanes are also a direct copy – I believe from the ‘thopers in Dune. One gets the impression that the hackneyed plot is well paired with a theatrical landscape that lacks an internal consistency of it’s own, and so is left to borrow components from previous films and graft them onto the Avatar plot, to help support it in it’s weakness.
It’s strange that the film allows itself to so easily far into such awful stereotypes. The Aliens are called ‘aboriginals’ instead of ‘inhabitants’ like any other star trek film would describe them. It must be because they are non-industrialized – like Africans, or Mayans, or Native North Americans prior to the white man’s invasion. It is, like all the individual characters, a one-dimensional typecast. Making them aliens just allowed Cameron to bundle up all aboriginal earth people into one giant one-with-nature stereotype, complete with a ‘tree of life’ and a mystical connective force joining all aboriginal people to their natural environment. The bad earth people have no such connection, but a few of the scientists are allowed to join the ‘good’ aboriginals’ when all the ‘bad’ earth people are sent packing. It’s a juvenile fantasy: the military men are bad and stupid, and send un-armoured infantrymen in against natives who are armed basically with poisoned arrows (great plan!). The political people are stupid and narrow-minded, interested only in profit. It makes George W Bush look like a master of international diplomacy, and 1990’s GM look like a environmentally conscious not-for-profit. The scientists give you a few moments of peace as there is some early indication that their work will provide a bridge between the Earths technocrats and the Alien Gaia life-force, but this too is obliterated as Cameron chooses the quicker, simpler-minded path of an invented mystical force of nature to compete with the already dead stereotype of the industrialized planet destroyer.
In his final scene, Cameron has our converted earth hero give up his earth body forever and actually become an aboriginal in body. Before, he was ‘good’ only in spirit. Science gave him the simulacrum of aboriginality (that is the Avatar), but the mystical lifer force makes it happen for real. The story of biological determinism is complete.
—————————————————————–
The short take is as follows:
It’s a story of biological determinism: the aboriginals are environmental and good, the white earth people destroy the environment and are bad. A bridge is attempted by the ‘good’ earth scientists, but that quickly is revealed as futile. The true solution is a magical force of nature which overcomes the evil white man. Oddly enough, it does this by reverting at the last minute to machine guns and grenades. It is helped when the aboriginals make a plea (in English) to the tree, which mystically sends all the forest animals to help in the counter-attack against the 23rd century armed fighting force. And – this is your 19th century colonial clincher – the good aboriginals defeat the bad white men when lead by a white man who has switched sides. The continuity flaw of the aboriginals allowing a representative of their known enemy to lead them against this enemy is solved by the film’s re-occurring crutch – mysticism (in this case, the seeds from the tree of life gravitate towards our hero as they fall from tree). The ‘Avatar’ itself is highest form of the ‘evil’ industrialized anti-environmental society: he looks like a member of the ‘good’ environmental pre-industrialized society, and through this comes to understand their moral and spiritual superiority. After a twenty minute moral struggle, he reverts to his spiritual pre-industrialized roots and turns against his forefathers. With the help of mystical world forces and some well placed explosives, he defeats his technocrat father and embraces his (alien) earth mother. Jean-Jacques Rousseau wins! The noble savage is victorious! Rasputin wins! Mysticism over technology! Science is given credit for good intention, even though it too is futile! The planet will save us, mankind, from the terrible evil of our enemy – ourselves!
Yes Mr. Cameron – your Academy Award awaits.
1975
documentary
cousin and aunt of Jacqueline Kennedy – Edith Beale Jr. Sr.
A disturbing collection of film showing 2 elderly women in a house in a decrepid state. Filmed in 1975, at the grand old (and decaying) seaside house (‘grey gardens’) where the two women live together. Jackie O. had been fairly recentkly before, to pay for basic repairs (plumbing and the removal of huge amounts of garbage) after the poor stste of the house was publicised. The 1975 state is stioll wretched. The younger Edith leaves wonderbread in teh attic rooms for racoons, and teh absic living areas are filthy. The younger Edith is clearly unstable. She is certainly over-dramatic, but one would suspect there is a more significant imbalance here, as her unfulfilled dreams have come to inturrupt too much her ability to cope competemntly with the present.
It is therefore very sad to see, as the ‘documentary’ style simpley shows these two poor women as they are, in need of assistance, but somehow treats them as if they were normal, and intereresting esoterics. Several of the online reviews suggest the same – that people find the disturbed state to be entertaining and somehow of artistic mertit, when clearly it is more a case of misfortune being turned into a sort of vague voyeurism. For that reason, I would credit teh filmm-makers themslves with very little to be proud – there is something wroing with their presentation. However, this failure on the part of the production does lend to it’s status as absolute deadpan observance of their poor lives. Not enjoyable to watch, not instructive, but interesting to discuss later, and to reflect on how their disaaranged lives are in ways eggerations of conditions we see in everyday society.
Viewed at the ICC (Institute for Contemporary Culture) at the ROM.
Filed under: 2000's, Anderson Wes, Clooney George, Murray Bill, Schwartzman Jason, Streep Meryl, USA, wilson Owen
Dir Wes Anderson
2009
voices – George Clooney, Meryl Streep, Jason Schwartzman, Owen Wilson, Bill Murray
It is, as the name suggests, a fantastic film. The animation looks great, and the style of the animals is charming and alluring. The plot is great as well – although the ending is unsatisfactory. Anderson apparently worked on the last scenes to achieve the right balance between optimistic and pessimistic, but he missed the mark. However, the film is so very good that we will deign to forgive him.
Mr. Fox has all of George Clooney’s mature charm, in a younger body. And Meryl Streep, as Ms. Fox, gives you the maturity and clever dialogue of a Helen Mirran, again in a younger form. The boys – Anderson’s younger brother, and Schwartzman, are type-case, very well.
The plot, from a children’s story, is simple and made of visual mapping, which is Anderson’s forte. All the usual tricks of sectional diagram shots and front-elevation dialogue shots work of course perfectly with small animated puppets. The twist of human-voice-versus -animal-body makes for a few ferociously entertaining moments, like when fox and his lawyer, badger (Bill Murray) have a disagreement in the office which becomes heated. And the eating scenes are great. And none of that has anything to do with the plot, the writing, the direction (well shot, of course), or anything ’substantial’ having to do with the film. So it is a well executed Anderson film, meaning that there are a thousand free extra goodies thrown in across the film, a smorgasbord of visual tricks and clever dialogue. The foxes look wonderful. LN and I knew we would very much like this film, and we were not disappointed.
2009
Dir. Jason Reitman
St. George Clooney and Vera Farmiga
Now I don’t see a lot of first runs, but the review section in the ‘New Yorker’ magazine are so good that I feel I can rely on them to steer me away from inflicting too much pain on myself. Like I did when I said that ‘Krull’ was going to be an enjoyable film to watch (It was a Robert E. Howard story, for those who know who that is).
Up in the Air is very good. Clooney is perfect for the role, as it is low-key and direct. Vera Farmiga reminds me of a friend of mine. She is beautiful, 40ish, sharp as a whip and gets things done. She and Clooney are admirable. It is a film of three central characters who are high-performers. One assumes that the director or writer are high-performer types themselves, to know the type so well in the portrayals. It’s also an absurdly timely film – Clooney’s character travels around the country (USA) downsizing people on behalf of the firms they work for. However it would be am equally good movie at any time, regardless of this ‘temporal opportunism’.
It’s beautifully shot. There are a couple very good simple camera scenes, and with the number of airports and planes, there is ample opportunity. The soundtrack is sparse and very well done. The dialogue is far above normal, in terms of quality and pace. It really is clever, but does not suffer from the disease of people producing enormously clever statements that do not suit their character or age. It’s really well done. The people being fired give the film an added dynamic – the coolness of our engaging protagonists is offset very well by the sad warmth of the moments we see of people losing their jobs. A great script, well shot, and superbly cast.
Gentleman’s Agreement
1949, Elia Kazan (dir)
Gregory Peck
This film was pretty good, which is saying something when one considers the horrifically stilted opening scene with Peck and his son. “How are you son?” “just swell dad”. One felt, right from that opening moment, that this film concerning anti-Semitism was going to attack the problem with all the same levels of subtlety and trite condescension that Hollywood has managed to maintain for many generations.
However things did improve. Anne Revere, as Peck’s mother, is stern and magnetic, and Peck’s brash friend played by Celeste Holm left many a viewer (if the viewers are anything like me) feeling that in the end, he certainly made the wrong choice. His wife is the supposed pivot-point of the film, as she progresses to ‘show through action’ how she has converted from a passive country club anti-Semite to an active supporter in the cause to crush the anti-Semites through vocal public action! Yes, the ending is served with a generous helping of cheese.
That is perhaps what makes the film so pathetic. It is working, ostensibly, to show the latent anti-Semitism of the more sophisticated elements of society (rather than just the most vocal and obvious advocates of prejudice). It is intended to be subtle, and works to justify it’s re-hashing of a familiar topic by going beyond the obvious. But the final scene is as unconvincing and transparently shallow as the opening interaction between father and son. Kazan’s ‘solution’ is clearly artifice, designed for mass consumption (and academy awards, which it won for best picture). It is not genuine. It is a moral film, which presents itself as deep and studied, but is, in the end, plastic and cheap. So in terms of message, it is a poor film. If one reads up on Kazan, one sees that he himself was not settled in his fundamental ideas (he says so himself), and so could be considered as one who ‘runs with the tides’. And that is the only way the contrived ending of this film could be considered a success – if one were preaching to the already converted. Therefore, it may be considered in some ways a groundbreaking film, but in terms of simple quality, it is a film with some very good character depth, well filmed, but with a poorly executed plot.
Still, a fair film. Three excellent performances. The girlfriend (soon to be wife), played by Kathy Lacy, is one would presume exactly as written and directed. We are supposed, I think, to be hoping for her – she is the ‘incumbent’ love interest. The final triumph (over casual anti-Semitism) is tied to her final victory of the love interest. But it is a dangerous game. If the viewer should happen to feel that Holm was the far better choice, than where does that leave our blatant moral choice? It is as if – and this hurts to say – her ‘victory’ over her own anti-Semitism became in the end a tool for a staid Hollywood 1949 advocacy of conservatism in the choice of one’s spouse. Not so good. But still, an all right film to see.
Dir Delmer Daves, 1947, B&W, USA
Bogart and Bacall
Viewed at Cinmatheque June 2004
Tremendous plot, very clever camera work. Figure, whose face we are not allowed to see (using in some cases some ‘first person’ camera work, seeing through the man’s eyes), escapes from prison and is picked up mysteriously by the beautiful and stern L. Bacall.
She has been watching his case, and has a personal interest – he is an accussed murderer. He gets, on a tip from a taxi cab driver, an ‘underground’ plastic surgeury facelift – and low and behold, when the bandages come off, it is Bogart. The final scene is ridiculously and artlessly sentimental; however a supurbe and in several ways innovative film. Five Stars.
Chaplin
1940
2 Hours
Not bad, funny, with sound. The moralizing speech at the end shows the quixotic frailty of Chaplin himself; an odd, beautifully simple-minded idealist; one in great erst.
four stars, but no more.
Filed under: 1980's, Boorman, John, Download, Mirran, Helen, Stewart, Patrick, TV, USA
Dir John Boorman
1981, USA
Nigel Terry, Helen Mirran, Patrick Stewart, Liam Neeson
“Any man, who would be a knight, and follow a king, follow me.”
This film is very close to perfect. The plot we know is good, if done properly. The casting is excellent, in particular Terry as Arthur, who goes from being a boy who talks with a mouth full of marbles to king, in the transition of a few scenes. The entire production is lush, like an opera, as it should be. There is also a particular mix of fact and fantasy that gives the film a texture and depth. The moments are gritty, with dirt, and muscle, but the plot than allows horses that run on mists, and swords that rise from the lake in the arms of a beautiful woman.
Looking at the cake’s like looking at the future
until you’ve tasted it, what do you really know?
And then of course, it’s to late.
Merlin to Arthur
45:30
I am the stuff of future memory – Arthur 1.56
A dream to some. I nightmare to others!
-Merlin
2.01
Filed under: 1960's, Cinematheque, Cukor, George, Loren, Sophia, Quinn, Anthony, USA
Dir George Cukor
1960, USA
Sophia Loren and Anthony Quinn
Costumes Edith Head, Producer Carlo Ponti
Novel by Louis L’Amour
A technicolour pseudo-Western. It is the story of Quinn, an itinerant producer of theatrical productions, and his wayward, headstrong and beautiful young star, Loren. Quinn’s character is 43. It is the free-ranging, rambunctious west from the point of view of non-ranchers, of non-gun slingers. And it’s good. The productions are florid, and the characters are over-drawn, as one would expect from L’Amour, but it also has all of that theatrical charm. nd there is a real story, as the troop runs into trouble but also manages to find a home, and become ’settled’. For is that not the goal of all westward bound homesteaders?
In particular, Quinn is very good, and Loren has a few very good moments. It’s very entertaining, which is clearly what it was intended to be. The opening titles give you a clue – they are cleverly drawn, a giant scroll as from an old western movie marquee sign. They let know that the filmmaker a good story to tell, are going to do it with style, and everyone is going to enjoy themselves. Myself and the 30 or so old people in the Cinematheque did enjoy ourselves.
IMDB gives it a 5.6, but it’s much better than that. Liek the L’Amour books,dower souls will overlook their historical quality because of the simplified dramaticism and the typecast characters, but that in part is the strength of the narrative – it is very unaffected. And the Anothony Quinn fist fight is one of the best I have ever seen.
Dir. Michael Anderson
USA
1976
IMDB 6.7
Novel by William Nolan and George Clayton Johnson and TS Eliot ‘Old Possum’s Book of Practical Cats’
Star Michael York
Borrowed DVD from Eric Barkey
Knox, 2008
In the future you are have a mark which shows at age thirty, at which point you are ’sent up’ in a ritual ceremony. There are police (Logan) there to stop – the runners, who try and escape. But Logan becomes a runner. Is it true that the ritual renews us for a better life, that it is for our protection – or is there a more sinister answer?
It is a utopian ideal story. The society has been constructed in a controlled way for maximum productivity, efficiency and happiness, at the cost of old age. Logan, of course, represents the human striving for freedom against models of society (and humanity) which are incomplete, and harmful, but which are enforced in the situation where individual egoism (for creating a new ideal world) overtakes the purported concern for the greater good.
It’s not a very good film, really, but it captures the imagination. The tagline is good, the actors and actresses are beautiful, and the concept is sound. It’s a little flat – the acting, the execution of the plot, everything. But it still stands as the prime example of a type.
One could judge it by the white-washed image above, and say it would be a beautiful film, or by the movie poster, and say, well, it’s not exactly art, is it? Clearly an ideology film, with a stiff but admirably clear approach.
