The end of a good film is always the start of an interesting conversation.

Where it goes after that is up to us.

Any era or genre, it's all accepted here. Let the Detour begin...

Friday, June 22, 2012

Prometheus (2012) - The Day the Fire Died.

Hey, Übermensch, where are the dinosaurs?


Hello again... again. By now I really intended to have a good five or so posts up, but the last month has been somewhat hectic. Rather than dwell on my own little personal disasters (ahhh, the joys of moving), let's talk about a film disaster I recently witnessed.

OK film fans... for several months now I've been eagerly awaiting the arrival of Ridley Scott's Prometheus (2012). Early trailers showed glorious snippets of new spaceships, worlds, and implied terrors. It also flashed images of the Space Jockey (SJ), the SJ's ship and other ominous icons of Scott's Alien (1979), an amazing sci-fi/horror genre mash-up initiating summer films to the wonders of haunted houses in space (a formula since repeated countless times). I couldn't wait to see how Scott would incorporate and build on the ideas of Alien. Then, as the months went by, something bad happened. The trailers begin to show more and more of the film, until they begin to reveal so much I would turn the channel or leave the room, not wanting to spoil film. In retrospect, I should have paid attention. Usually getting that much information out of commercials is a bad sign... someone in Marketing was worried about the film's prospects.


Shot in 3D, rather than being transferred to it later and thereby creating a darkened mess, with a budget estimated anywhere from $130 to $200 million, its crystal clear and wondrous visuals should be no surprise. Especially from the man who brought Blade Runner to the silver screen. However, that's all Scott provides. The script, primarily attributed to Damon Lindelof, the scribe of the painfully predictable western/sci-fi mash-up Cowboys & Aliens (2011) and the slow, nonsensical unraveling that was Lost, seems to have lost (see what I did there) what made the source material a classic. In the words of NPR's Howie Movshovitz (and a professor of mine at UCD) "it's one of the most soulless movies I've ever seen."

Unlike most critics, Howie notes Prometheus follows the tenets of a genre film as noted by film theorist and professor, Thomas Schatz (he also nails Hollywood's continual gay coding of non-human characters like Prometheus' David (Michael Fassbender) - who probably should have been coded based on this). Those connections are the least of its problems, though, as it's paint by numbers approach omits joy, excitement and, most surprisingly, tension. Prometheus is all narrative and iconographic cues, rehashed plot devices and cheap haunted house scares. The imagery is shiny, but the assembly provides nothing as original as Alien.

Spoilers Ahead!!!


The biggest problem I have with Prometheus, beyond those mentioned in the video, is the very theme of the film. Numerous critics (including my guru) have gushed about how smart a film it is for asking big, important questions about the search for the origins of humanity, who made us, what's our purpose and on and on and on. Fail. This film is the cinematic equivalent of drunken sophomore philosophy majors arguing evolution vs. creationism, science vs. religion. It's about as deep as a Fox News report. Interesting questions are broached, but nothing of value comes from it. The film is almost completely devoid of any logical thoughts or actions, which eventually kill any hope for the suspended disbelief required for any sci-fi film. Even worse, many of the most important actions that drive much of the plot come from David, whose motives are at best simply attributed to programming based on the ulterior motives of the Weyland-Yutani Corporation. Ultimately, they don't make any sense. It's a cop-out, enabling the screenwriters to link big ideas without having to actually provide something to connect the dots.


It's hard to make an interesting film that's been populated with characters that are either unimportant or lacking clear, reasonable motives and most of the characters in Prometheus are both. The intent of the story is vague, as if they had no idea of what they wanted or where they were going with the film. I have no problem with open-ended questions and ambivalent endings, which are typically antithetical to the Hollywood Blockbuster Summer Machine. But by the time I got to the end of Prometheus, the staggering amount of unanswered questions and things that make you say, "WTF was THAT?" seems only to serve the next installment of the series. Which, because I have a screw loose, I'm already eagerly awaiting.

Friday, May 11, 2012

How you doin'? Not bad for a vagabond...

Don't call it a comeback
I been here for years...

Well, technically, I haven't, but whatever...

The good news is since my last post, lo so many moons ago, I've taken a big step and gone back to school to study film. Yeah, I know, it's quite a shocker. Anyway, not only have I gone back to school, I'm already done. Yea me! Of course, now that I’m done with this degree I’ve realized that I want more. More films that explore the culture of a era, American or International, and its social-ideological values. More theories that explore gender, race, and class. More genre, auteur and psychoanalytical film theory. I want more. 

And that my friends means Grad school. With a capital “G", that rhymes with “C” and that stands for cash! (Yes, I did just quote Robert Preston from the Music Man, I played trombone in Jr. High. Uh, let's just keep going.) Originally, I wanted to start this fall, to keep the ball rolling so to speak, but that hasn’t quite played out the way I expected. Instead, I'm going to apply to schools in the fall for entry in 2013...

In the meantime, I plan on learning Italian (well, probably just some of it), watching a ton of films, reading a ton of books, and writing a ton on this blog.  Sometimes it'll be reviews, sometimes more scholarly academic pursuits, and sometimes it'll just be me bouncing random thoughts off the walls. First though, let me give you an idea of what I've been up to.This is one of my favorite papers from my Film Theory and Criticism class. It's short, to the point and it's a film that cuts to the heart of the social-ideological questions that fascinate me. And in my book, you can't go wrong with a little Agnès Varda.

OK film fans, here we go... 
 
In VisualPleasure and Narrative Cinema, Laura Mulvey quotes film director Budd Boetticher regarding the role of women in film. “What counts is what the heroine provokes, or rather what she represents… the love or fear she inspires… In herself the woman has not the slightest importance.”[i] As we witness the final weeks in the life of Mona Bergeron (Sandrine Bonnaire), primarily through the recollections and perceptions of others, the question of her importance, her value, is asked throughout Agnès Varda’s Vagabond.
Before her death, Mona, as the French title Sans toit ni loi describes, was homeless and lawless. She lived without regard for the norms of society. In flashback, we see her wander out of the sea, naked, with the sun shining on her back like Botticelli’s Birth of Venus. The image seems to establish Mona as an unfettered, force of nature; however, it is contrasted with a sequence of immature boys ogling postcards of naked sunbathers and remarking, “A girl all alone is easy.” With this statement still in mind, the score turns ominous and in dread we watch as Mona begins to hitchhike. Director Varda’s message is clear: Mona’s life, as a ‘girl all alone’ will always be in peril, marginalized and of a lesser value than those with the protection of a man and society.
In TheTerror of Pleasure Tania Modleski notes, “in many of the films the female is attacked not only because, as has often been claimed, she embodies sexual pleasure, but also because she represents a great many aspects of the specious good…”[ii] Both of these representations are established in Vagabond. The first ‘witnesses’ of Mona’s life are two men, a truck driver who picked her up and a construction worker who saw her sleeping in an abandoned house. Both view her as a sexual object, the latter referring to her as a ‘prize’. The first woman ‘witness’, a teenager who gives her water, envies Mona’s freedom, noting “She goes where she likes... I’d like to be free.” However, this freedom is depicted as hollow throughout the film.  Mona is free to wander, but the majority of society, as seen primarily through the eyes of the male witnesses, views her as free with a different definition: without value.
We learn little of Mona’s past, only that she was a secretary who hated bosses; most of what we glean about her is through the eyes of people with whom she shared brief encounters. Her rootless wandering may seem to embody freedom, but without having anyone who truly knows her, the character can only be what she provokes in others. Conversely, as a woman, Mona is of great value, reflecting how societal norms and paternal mindsets have stripped women of their ability to live carelessly free.


[i] Braudy, Leo and Cohen, Marshall (2009). Film Theory and Criticism, 7th ed. USA: Oxford University Press. Pg. 715.
[ii] Ibid. Pg. 625.