The White Album

It's often been heard that context is important. That current readers can't really understand the experiences of bygone times. The White Album proves that wrong in a strange way. When we looked up that list of terms, that was to provide context to the different essays in the album, but that context really doesn't seem as necessary as one would think. The context helps in a case specific way, but my reading of this collection may be wrong in this thinking, but to me this was all too familiar. I ended up reading these as more of a current reader than when it was published and that colored my perspective. Sure style's change and trends die, but fundamentally the world stays the same. The black panthers, Charles Manson and the people writing about them. It's just specifics of things we still have today. In a way that kin of makes these essays timeless. Except for the style, but whose complaining.

As for her writing, I take away more from the author than from the reading. We discussed several times about how knowledge of the author can color the reader's perspective of the work and with Joan Didion that seems very true. Unlike the rest of the readings, I personally got more out of researching her and her methods than I did the essays. I found it interesting becuase her perspective is very different from my own.

“I write entirely to find out what I'm thinking, what I'm looking at, what I see and what it means. What I want and what I fear.” - Joan Didion


I don't write like that, at least at face value. I write because I love stories, and I want to share them. I've never really attempted anything using her method, because before I never saw the benefit of that. Having read The White Album, now I think I may, and experimenting with this methodology will be interesting.


“We tell ourselves stories in order to live.” -  Joan Didion

Maus

Maus is heralded as one of, if not the greatest comic book ever written and it's hard not to see why. In a time where comics were snubbed and ridiculed, Maus turned snobs on their heads.

In terms of holocaust literature, I find this to be one of the best. So many holocaust works are from the camp out, or from an observer looking in. While both of these narratives are fine, Maus takes a more expansive look at the horror of the holocaust by taking more time for what happened before the camps. Vladek and his wife experience many troubles before they even arrive at the camp and this helps to paint a very broad picture of the times.

I also think that this is one of the best duel narrative stories I've ever seen. So many times, the dual narrative is just distracting, but in this story, I though it built a very nice contrast between a normal life, and a life during the worst atrocity in mankind's history. We as the reader are placed in Art's position asking about Vladek's experiences. It makes a very good window to peer into the story.

The novel also benefits from not holding any punches. Sure it isn't the most graphic depiction of the camps I've seen, but the violence is still there. Images of people being hung and gunned down in rows is no less disturbing than in any other work.

This is also helped out by Spiegleman's choice in making this story in the format of a graphic novel. Though often snubbed, visual mediums have a set of tools that can drive emotion into the viewer so much harder. Expressions and silences and implications can all carry so much emotions,  but subtly is perhaps its greatest tool. In a novel, things have to be declared and attention has to be grabbed. The chimney billowing smoke in the background is so much more powerful, when it is just simply there, whereas in a novel a line of text would have to be devoted to telling the reader it's there making the implication obvious.

I also think the use of animal metaphor was absolutely necessary. While a realistic depiction of this story could have been made, it would make the book a much harder read and could even deter people from reading outright. This is a dark subject and should be talked about and remembered, but Maus made a good choice in trying to be accessible. This is especially helped because in my opinion, the animal metaphor is a good one. People may criticize it for enforcing stereotypes, but in reality that's kind of the point. To show that people were murdered on the basis of stereotypes, and it forces you to recognize how completely bizarre  it is to profile people this way. Spiegleman even said that the animal metaphor is meant to self destruct.

In closing, I've seen recently some criticism against Maus, saying that to tell this story in this way is disrespectful, and in some cases it has been said that this story shouldn't be told. I strongly disagree. Stories like this have to be told, once as a record, and once as a reminder. All have stories to tell and its good that this story has been marked down for all time, and once again it was good to do it in this format. It widens the audience for something that should be read and should always be remembered.

The Left Hand of Darkness: Thought Experiments

When The Left Hand of Darkness made its debut in 1969, it came out in a environment which looked down upon science fiction. Though this book cleared significant headway in gaining the genre respect, these attitudes still exist today and are more prevalent than a fan of the Genre would hope.

The arguments are that science fiction is nothing but childish escapism. The more pretentious critics seeing it as nothing more than a collection of work made to appeal to the lowest common denominator while holding no worthwhile merit. We live in a world were everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and it is perfectly acceptable to allow these people to be wrong.

In the introduction of The Left Hand of Darkness  added in 1976, the novel's author Ursula K Le Guin examines the concept of science fiction in it's basest form. She posits that the best science fiction, and indeed a great many other genres, are thought experiments.

This idea of thought experiments is why sci fi can be so fascinating, and more importantly why it can resonate with people so strongly. Science fiction can take the reader places they've never been and show them things they've never seen sure, but it can also provoke, and intrigue the reader. Good science fiction, does not cater to the lowest common denominator, but instead invites the reader to think.

The left Hand of Darkness does this. It forces us to consider things we would never have conceived of before, bringing up Gender issues through a setting where gender in the way we perceive doesn't exist. In a society where they're are no gender roles, we can look into this hypothetical situation and imagine what that society would look like. As we do, we compare it to our own society and experiences, perhaps re-evaluating our preconceived notions. That is powerful writing, all brought on by a thought experiment.

Science Fiction can be summed up well with the term, "what if?" What would things be life if this was different? How would people function, how would this reality look? Science fiction can show us truths, through lies which is what good fiction is. An examination of truths told through stories.

Sure it's escapist, but it's far from worthless fantasy.  It forces us to ask questions, to imagine new worlds and sometimes even challenge and provoke. In many ways, it is no different from any other story told since the dawn of time.  For what is storytelling if not a collection of thought experiments?

Spotlight: Dredd

Did you see this movie? No. No you didn't. Nobody did. That's why it bombed hard at the box office. That's why it may not get a sequel, and to put this in simplest terms... It desperately needs a sequel. Right now.

Batman eat your heart out.

Judge Dredd is a longer running comic book series in the UK and it's supposedly really good. It was made into a movie of the same name in the 90's starring the Italian Stallion himself; Sylvester Stallone. It was cheesy and had some major flaws, but it was a fun in a overblown kitchy action movie kind of way. Then this glorious beast was made.

They are coming for all the fools what didn't see this movie.

 It's the future, of course, and America is an irradiated wasteland. Though only inhabitable area? A massive city, stretching from New York to Boston. Inhabited by humans and mutants alike. Who keeps the peace in this Mega City? Judges. They are judge, jury, and executioner, and they're word is the law. Among them, stand Judge Dredd. The most respected and feared of the Judges. Cross his path, and you're going to need a new face.

Permanent scowl... Engage 

Director Pete Travis creates a great feel for this movie. The atmosphere of this post apocalyptic world is seeps out of every frame. It feels like a action movie straight out of the 80's as well it should. The writers do an equally excellent job with a simple yet effective story. The sound design is techno and futuristic and very brutal, which fits the tone perfectly. The visuals are beautiful which is impressive considering this movies low budget. Things are done practically where possible and cg is used sparingly yet effectively.

3-D was the most well done I've ever seen. Fat lot a good it does now eh?

The acting and characters are brutally well done. Karl Urban's Dredd is a stone cold killer with very little to smile about. Unlike most movies where the action hero ducks and dodges bullets and survives explosions due to main character status, in this movie the audience is given the impression that he's just that damned good and we as the audience believe it. Playing the mutant psychic recruit is Olivia Thirlby's Anderson. The movie introduces the idea of mutant's through her and explains it in a matter than fits along with everything else. Plus she actually gets a character arc. Dredd is set in his ways but Anderson is a Judge in training and her conflict is the heart of this story. Last but not least is Lena Headey's Ma-Ma. This is an awesome villain. Whacked out of her mind and completely psychotic. It takes talent to make an audience to feel uncomfortable as well as fill your pants terrified and she does a great job at both.

Oh ****! Cersei has a machine gun!

Why it was judged-This movie's marketing was fairly poor. There weren't many trailers for it and hardly any TV spots. Some theaters didn't even have a poster for it upon its release. Another reason could be the 90's Stallone movie. It wasn't a huge hit but it has been remembered. Perhaps audiences thought this would be another cheesy action movie? Whatever the reason, Dredd bombed to such an extent that it was announced a sequel was nigh on impossible.

Takes them all singlehandedly. That was a pun. Watch the movie, you'll get it.

Why you should see it...Now-We live in an age of R rated comedies and PG-13 action and horror. That's not the way things should be. Rants about the MPAA rating system and how utterly awful it is aside, there can be no question that there has been an influx of neutered movies in recent years. This is a brutal and very welcome return to form. One critic, who shall remain nameless said that if you wanted to see "new and interesting ways of shooting someone in the face" this was the movie for you. He said this in contempt. New and interesting ways of face mutilation is a point in this movies favor thank you very much! This movie held nothing back and was better for it. Just saying, sometime you need to see a homeless man crushed by a two ton metal door. This is an action movie of old, where people are shot and they bleed as a result. Why on earth is that not a given anymore? The movie is a rocking good time beginning to end with a concise story, interesting characters and action set pieces that blow away anything we've recently seen. It's a bloody good time all around and we need more of that.

The flames in the visor, yeah those are people.

Now as it stands, the movie made a killing when it came to DVD. Thankfully, it has found it's audience. A recent press release from the actors and filmmakers has said that a sequel is no longer off the table. There is so much left to explore in this world of Dredd that it would be a crime if it all ended up being a one off. So go, go and see it. Rent it buy it whatever just support this movie, and if what's been said hasn't swayed you, and if you think an R rated action movie is reprehensible then here's a goodbye from Dredd to you.

Dredd and all related images are owned by Lionsgate
Review is subject to Fair use

First Look: Kiki's Delivery Service

Kiki's Delivery Service is owned by Ghibli...I think.

Star Trek: Into Darkness

J.J. Abrams-Hey guys. Hey. Hey Audience. I got a secret. There's a secret dude in into darkness, but I'm not gonna tell you who, cause it's a secret. Even though there is only one character in all of original star trek it could be and hiding his identity only serves to make it really obvious who it it as its the only one reason you would hide him. Because it's a secret, and you audiences love secrets.

No not a fan of Abrams. I find his secret box concept annoying and trite. If you don't know what that is google it. So how was the movie?

Don't blame me, the poster spoils it.

So Star Trek. Oh what a tangled web we weave. It is one of if not the largest sci fi franchise of all time sprawling over decades with a very... VERY loyal fanbase. Than the dark seed Abrams got his hands on it and decided to make a reboot/alt universe and it was a hit. This is it's sequel. 

So yet again we hit a snag in terms of reviewing. The meat of this movie, and the most glaring flaws of it come from it's spoilers. I will give a non spoiler review and preface the spoilers with warnings, but in this case they have to be discussed to do the film any justice. So if you're averse to spoilers, watch for the warnings.

Who could it be? Said no one ever.

These are the voyages of the starship into darkness. A terrorist has attacked a starfleet archive for unknown reasons and a meeting of the top brass is commenced. However when that too is attacked, Captain Kirk and his loyal crew are sent after the mad terrorist. When it becomes clear that there is a larger game afoot, Kirk will have to learn that not everyone can be saved, and that the needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few.

3D was pretty good btw

So as for the directing, it's actually fairly decent. I may have a grudge against the JJ but i can admit when a scene is shot well. That being said, if i was to make a gripe about the direction it would be that we get way to intimate with the characters faces far too often. Yes close ups are nice and can be used effectively but not all the damn time. The score is brilliant as par for the course for a Star Trek movie. The effects are great and are really able to be showcased in several spectacular ship based set pieces. The acting from everyone is superb with special shoutout to Benedict who owns every scene he's in. Chris Pine is sometimes a little lacking but it's not bothersome.

So, non spoiler review. It's enjoyable. As an action movie, it fills the time. The action and acting are good enough to make it worthwhile. The biggest problem with this movie is plot. There are a dozen plot threads going throughout the run time and almost all of them are ignored or abandoned by the ending. If pacing is something that bothers you, then the last act of the movie will not be fun for you as it rushes through to the end. While this is not a good movie, it has several admirable qualities that make it worth your time. No, the real problems come at the end, so here there be spoilers. SPOILERS. I'm even giving you a picture in between to give you one last chance. SPOILERS

Spoilers I say!

Spoilers. So everyone who got to here knows spoilers right? We good? Ok. It's Khan. It's Wrath of Khan. Sherlock is playing Khan. Worst kept secret in the biz but there you go. The most major flaw of this movie comes from this fact as there was in fact, no reason for it to be Khan. In this not original star trek universe, we know nothing about him, his crew, or the Eugenics war. Therefore, we are given no ties or connection to his character or motives. There's no impact from his identity, he just announces "he is Khan" and then we move on. We are not given a reason to care and he is here solely to satiate Abrams fanboyism as newcomers won't get it and long time fans will be annoyed. Coupled with the fact that his motivations make no sense when coupled with his actions and the plot between him and the Admiral. Here is a point by point plothole list of this movie.

If Khan needed the Admiral to further his plans then why did he launch an attack on a starfleet command meeting that could have ended with the admiral dead.

If the Admiral didn't want Kirk to find out what the missiles were then why did he send him after Khan when clearly he could have gone himself.

Why is such a big deal made about the hostilities with the Klingons if nothing ever came from it? They kill a patrol of Klingons and then never mention it again. What was that subplots point?

If the Admiral's plan was to start a war between the Alliance and the Klingon Empire than again, why didn't he go himself.

Why did Khan direct Kirk onto the ship when his HUD went offline when at this point Khan clearly doesn't need him anymore.

Why didn't Khan do what he threatened immediately and destroy the enterprise and collect the cryo pods later rather than negotiate?

How did Bones undo 72 missiles in what was clearly less than an hour?

Who and how disabled the Enterprises warp core?

So Khan who has been frozen for 300 years can give the admiral a starship design that is significantly more advance than anything we have now? Why didn't he and his crew do that before they were frozen.

This isn't a plothole but just to reiterate, the Klingon plotline, the Admiral plotline go absolutely nowhere.

Now at this point,  I was still enjoying the movie. Then the last twenty minutes rolled by and we have some major issues. Up to this point they did their own thing and despite the issues, it worked. Then they decide to go somewhere and invite comparisons that they really should not have dealt with. The movie redoes the radioactive core scene from Wrath of Khan beet for beet only with the roles reversed. This was not earned by the movie and only serves as fanservice. It has no place in this film and is rendered doubly pointless when not five minutes later, it is clumsily resolved with no repercussions. Everyone get's away Scott free and nothing is learned. Again, you don't want to invite comparisons from Wrath of Khan. You will lose. It's like redoing the "here's looking at you kid" scene from Casablanca. Yeah you may do it well and the actors might to a good job but your still just copying what has already been done.

Though I disagree with the use of his character, his performance saves this movie

I fear for Star Wars VII now more than I ever have before now. Abrams is not the right choice as this movie is evidence to. You should not be given reign over a franchise if you are infatuated with it. That only leads to trying to do what has already been done rather than taking a new angle on the series. There are several good elements of this movie and I repeat that it is worth watching, but there are too many issues pervading the film to be called good.

Check it out if you're in this for the action

Rent if your a long time Trek fan

Skip if you hate movies with more holes in it than the enterprise does.

Notes:

The Klingon redesign is awful and makes them look like orcs. 

The crash of the enterprise was awesome.

I'm getting tired of the 'villain let's himself get captured' plotpoint.

The core scene reversal is unnecessary.

Thinking back, the plot was useless. Nothing advanced in a logical way and little was resolved. 

Iron Man 3

Wasn't what Marvel did awesome? With their movies I mean. Doing movies centered around the individual characters was really the only way that you could bring comic book continuity onto the big screen Then tying it all together in a crossover movie. So, can the series work in a post Avenger's setting?

Robert Downey Junior is two inches taller than Tony Stark. Boo, zero stars

This is a first to my knowledge. This movie is a sequel to two different stories. It continues off of Iron man 2 and has to show what life is like for Tony after the New York incident. If your late to the comic party, Avenger's was universally praised, everybody loved Iron Man and everyone tolerated Iron Man 2. Myself? Iron man was OK, Iron Man 2 was serviceable and Avenger's made it all worth it.

War Machine does sound better than Iron Patriot

Tony Stark aka Iron Man is busy tinkering and playing with his suits. His reasoning, ever since the events of Avenger's, he has been going stir crazy due to sleepless nights spurred on by apparent PTSD. tensions between he and Pepper rise and soon a new threat makes himself known. The Mandarin begins to take credit for several bombings. The oddity? No bombs are ever used. Tony must get back in the game and discover what the true danger is before it's too late.

Lot of super hero movies advertising the whole broken mask thing

Shane Black is one of my favorite directors and one of the greatest action comedy director in recent memory. He previous effort with Robert in Kiss Kiss Bang Bang is one of my favorite movies and when the news broke that Shane would direct this, my expectations soared. Justifiably so. The directing was top notch throughout with better action scenes than we've ever had before. The Writing is crisp and flowing and fricking hilarious. The effects were great and the actors all brought their A game with Robert stealing the show as always followed closely by Sir Ben Kingsley's scenery chewing Mandarin. The only technical gripe is that the 3D was worthless. Whenever there is a 3D movie and stuff fly's away from the camera, your doing it wrong. It doesn't enhance the atmosphere and it doesn't have any fun.

Aviators, you know he's bad

This one is my personal favorite of the Marvel movies. Avenger's notwithstanding. Everything as it should be. The stakes are high but not avenger's scale high and this gives a good reason for why the other heroes don't assist. I have always been in the view that when you adapt something, you should do your own thing especially when that thing is unique. I'll take creativity over accuracy to the source any day and this movie does a great job at both paying homage to it's comic book roots, while also doing it's own spin on things. The action is better than it has ever been with a particularly awesome mid air rescue scene, the comedy is funnier with my personal favorite joke of the series, the character's at their peak and the story is tight and clean as a superhero movie can be. I especially liked the villains who aren't just other guys with suits this time. Now they actually have powers and for the first time in the Iron Man movies, it felt like his opponents were a match for him. They also give the movie more of a comic book feel than the other two possessed. The twist halfway through is unexpected and hilarious. Almost everything about this movie works and if it's the final stand alone iron man movie, than it was a great send off.

what up guy?

My biggest problem is it does tie into Avengers and I can buy that Thor couldn't help, Hulk, Widow and Hawkeye, but as for cap? What was he doing? The events of this movie seem to be in his wheelhouse but oh well. Also there are a few plot holes. If you don't want to know skip to the next paragraph. Spoilers follow: When the helicopters attack his home, why didn't the military shoot them out of the sky within two minutes? The botanists plan didn't make much sense and if Tony could have had doctors remove the shrapnel from his chest, why didn't he do that before. End spoilers.

I'm calling it. Right now. Everyone will still claim the first one was the best, but really what was so good about that one? It was a decent origin story but what really sold it was Robert Downey Jr. as Tony Stark. It was the role he was born to play and i agree, but He's perfected the role by this movie which is better in every area. Just saying. But you can keep on about how awesome the first one was and how this one's just trying to capture the magic of the first. You bunch of critics.

If your a comic book purest, this movie will not please you as several liberties are taken, but speaking as someone who has read those comics i found the changes to be minor as well as serve the same purpose as the original story so take that as you will. However if you enjoyed the first two you'll love this one. Check it out.

All materials owned by Marvel Studios
Review subject to fair use