After Aliens in the Attic, I was very much looking forward the second of my one-my-own-in-Memphis Friday night double feature. My plan was head about half mile down the road to the Malco Summer Drive-in (so called because it's on Summer Road out by the Interstate). Drive-ins are always a treat in my book, even if the viewing experience is less than ideal (which it usually is). There is just something so goofy and compelling about the whole idea, and moreover I like to support the remaining drive-ins that exist
The Summer was a little bit different than other drive-ins I've been to, however, because unlike the shabby and barely-holding-on independents I'd been to recently, the Summer is run by the giant Malco chain. The differences were immediately apparent on arriving, in that the approach drive had thematic decor that was either original from the 1960s or nostalgic from a renovation. I liked very much that was it was only six bucks for adult admission.
There were four screens, and you could see all four of them from any parking spot. I parked near Screen 2 to see the 7:30 showing of Sorority Row. Unlike other drive-ins, there were actually three showings per night on each screen, in an A-B-A sequence, with the first movie beeing repeated at 11:00 o'clock. This meant you could arrive for the 9 pm showing and still see both movies.
The enormous car plaza was entirely paved, and thus felt like an undulating parking lot. I arrived right as the gate opened and positioned my car front and center. Most of the dozen or so cars that arrived later for this particular show parked within a few spots from me. As I expected there were a few that kept their cars running the entire time, for the air conditioning, but thankfully, unlike the case in Maine, I was forced to be right next to them with my windows open.
Perhaps because it was the south, and also because the lot was paved, there was definitely not the casual culture I found in New England where people basically set up an outdoor picnic around their truck or other vehicle, with everyone sitting out in lawn chairs. It felt much more conventional.
Greg and the kids were having corn dogs that night, and I fulfilled a vow by bying one at the concessions, which were in the projection building in the center of the enormous plaza. They were nicely cheap--only three dollars. Later I went and bought a cheeseburger there for the same low price.
The movie itself was not quite what I thought it would be. As you probably have seen from the trailers, it is about a group of sorority girls who accidently participate in the death of one of their sorority sisters. They ditch her body and hide the crime. A year later, someone goes on a killing rampage, seemingly with knowledge of their crime.
I expeted the narrative to follow a trajectory in which one-by-one, the particpants in the coverup are murdered, and we have to figure out who is doing it, and why. There must be a few good juicy red herrings.
What surprised me was that the movie did not all follow this trajectory. Instead most of the characters who get killed are minor characters who had nothing to do with the original crime, but just seem to show up in order to get whacked in a bloody fashion. To me, this aused the narrative to lose most of its coherence by the Third Act. I went from "oooh, I wonder who the real killer is, and ho is posing as the dead girl," to not giving a damn. In the end, the identity of the real killer turned out to be a huge let down that barely even made sense, and was very unsatisfying. It's as the movie makers were afraid of following any kind of precedent in narrative, and instead just sort of made it up as they went along.
It was a cool concept, all in all, that was destroyed by an inferior script. This could have been a decent slasher horror movie, but it wasn't. It had decent acting and directing, but when the story is sub-par (as this one was), it just can't be saved.
As for the drive-in, there were the usual trials, such as having a dirty windshield, and also having to endure a patron who refused to turn off his headlights (!) while watching the last part of the movie. WTF!?
Nevertheless I was glad I had gone. One of the best parts was after the movie, when I stayed through the intermission, even though I wasn't going to see the second show (it was District 9, which I'd already seen). During the break, they showed a classic and highly scratched up drive-in intermission countdown from the early 1970s, with copious shots of the then-recent moon landing. I sat on the picnic tables outside the concession house and watched it while I ate my cheeseburgers, the sound wafting from the many cars in the nearby lot. It was a warm late summer night in the Mid-South. The air was perfect and pleasant. That alone was worth the price of admission.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Aliens in the Attic
On Friday evening, my host Greg had to take his kids to a birthday party, so I was on my own. I used the opportunity to visit a few more movie venues in the Memphis area. My first choice, for the last afternoon show, was Aliens in the Attic, which had been out since August when I was in Maine, but which had left the theaters in Maryland before I got a chance to see it there. I was resigned to having to see it on DVD, but it was still playing in Memphis when I arrived here.
The nearest place where it was showing was at the Ajay Palace cineplex, a non-Malco theater that turned out to be located on a utility road flush up against the freeway. It looked like a huge brick warehouse. Out in front was a goofy gorilla statue. The parking lot was shabby. Not surprisingly for Memphis, the clientelle was entirely African-American, except for yours truly.
At first I was thrilled, because the prices were so cheap. It turns out that the regular matinee is five bucks, but between five and six p.m, they charge only four bucks (Malco matinees were hardly cheap in Memphis). Moreover, during this happy hour, you could get a popcorn and soda combo for only a dollar! Too bad I had just eaten a big bar-b-que sandwich for lunch.
I was psyched about being there until I actually went into the auditorium. It was stadium seating, but with a twist, namely between each row there was a small wooden wall that served as a long table upon which one could put concessions. Not only was this a little cramping in terms of being able to fold my legs, but I discovered that one had to sit with one's head smack against the barrier in the previous row. It was like sitting in a chair right up against the wall---hardly the wall most people feel comfortable sitting for two hours. If had been any more than four bucks, it would have been a ripoff, but I wasn't complaining. Thankfully I was one of the only people in the theater, so there was no claustrophobia.
When the movie started, things got worse. The print was all worn, and moreover the sound seemed to come from a single tinny speaker overhead that had all the quality of a portable radio from the 1960s. Well, you get what you pay for...
Appropriately the movie itself was dreadful, among the worst of the year that I have seen so far. I had not been psyched about seeing it, after seeing the trailers with Doris Roberts (the mother-in-law in "Everybody Loves Raymond") doing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon-style kung fu twirls in mid air. Everything about the movie lived up to this expectation.
The story is fairly self-explanatory---a group of goofy CGI aliens invade a house in rural Michigan and terrorize a family on vacation. The kids of the family must fight off the aliens to save the earth from invasion.
The character interactions spring from a highly dysfunctional portrait of the American family. All the characters seem to dislike each other and treat each other like crap. Oh, boy. How funny! Not surprisingly, the aliens (mirroring the human interactions) treat each other like crap too, which thankfully allows the children to overpower them and save humanity.
The alien plot was handled so clumsily at its opening that I felt like I was watching a skit rather than a movie. It seemed to have the attitude, "and as you have seen before a thousand times, a bunch of aliens show up to invade the Earth." Yikes. This was awful. It reinforced all my notions of how goofy looking aliens in movie are a narrative cheat.
For so many reasons, I was very glad when this movie ended and I could escape out into the parking lot.
The nearest place where it was showing was at the Ajay Palace cineplex, a non-Malco theater that turned out to be located on a utility road flush up against the freeway. It looked like a huge brick warehouse. Out in front was a goofy gorilla statue. The parking lot was shabby. Not surprisingly for Memphis, the clientelle was entirely African-American, except for yours truly.
At first I was thrilled, because the prices were so cheap. It turns out that the regular matinee is five bucks, but between five and six p.m, they charge only four bucks (Malco matinees were hardly cheap in Memphis). Moreover, during this happy hour, you could get a popcorn and soda combo for only a dollar! Too bad I had just eaten a big bar-b-que sandwich for lunch.
I was psyched about being there until I actually went into the auditorium. It was stadium seating, but with a twist, namely between each row there was a small wooden wall that served as a long table upon which one could put concessions. Not only was this a little cramping in terms of being able to fold my legs, but I discovered that one had to sit with one's head smack against the barrier in the previous row. It was like sitting in a chair right up against the wall---hardly the wall most people feel comfortable sitting for two hours. If had been any more than four bucks, it would have been a ripoff, but I wasn't complaining. Thankfully I was one of the only people in the theater, so there was no claustrophobia.
When the movie started, things got worse. The print was all worn, and moreover the sound seemed to come from a single tinny speaker overhead that had all the quality of a portable radio from the 1960s. Well, you get what you pay for...
Appropriately the movie itself was dreadful, among the worst of the year that I have seen so far. I had not been psyched about seeing it, after seeing the trailers with Doris Roberts (the mother-in-law in "Everybody Loves Raymond") doing Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon-style kung fu twirls in mid air. Everything about the movie lived up to this expectation.
The story is fairly self-explanatory---a group of goofy CGI aliens invade a house in rural Michigan and terrorize a family on vacation. The kids of the family must fight off the aliens to save the earth from invasion.
The character interactions spring from a highly dysfunctional portrait of the American family. All the characters seem to dislike each other and treat each other like crap. Oh, boy. How funny! Not surprisingly, the aliens (mirroring the human interactions) treat each other like crap too, which thankfully allows the children to overpower them and save humanity.
The alien plot was handled so clumsily at its opening that I felt like I was watching a skit rather than a movie. It seemed to have the attitude, "and as you have seen before a thousand times, a bunch of aliens show up to invade the Earth." Yikes. This was awful. It reinforced all my notions of how goofy looking aliens in movie are a narrative cheat.
For so many reasons, I was very glad when this movie ended and I could escape out into the parking lot.
The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard.
Usually by the time a movie shows up theaters, I've seen the trailer enough times to know much of the plot outline and theme. Lately, however, there have been a couple releases that have arrived without my having seen a single trailer, either in the theater or on television. The Goods: Live Hard, Sell Hard fell into that category. I barely knew anything about the movie when I went to see it last week.
It had been out for about a month, and I had missed seeing it in Maryland. By last week, it was showing only in a single theater in the Memphis area, at the Malco multiplex in the Wolfchase Galleria mall, far out in the eastern suburb of Bartlett, Tennessee.
It took me about an hour to get there, since I chose to drive on the city streets all the way until I got almost out in the countryside, where the highway grew wide and lined with big box retailers and fast food outlets.
The Wolfchase Galleria is a nice mall, two stories. The theater was right next to the food court, and beside a children's carousel. It had a huge old-style marquee that made it the most interesting feature in the mall itself. The interior, however, was very conventional and felt a little careworn and musty. There weren't even stadium seating. It seemed at odds with the niceness of the rest of the mall.
I was one of the three people that afternoon to see the matinee of The Goods. It was one of those movies that really defied my expectations.
As it opens, we are in the California desert, at a used car dealership run, the owner of which is played by James Brolin. The dealership has fallen on hard times and the salesmen are incompetent. In order to save his business, the owner reluctantly calls upon the services of a hired gun, an intinerant top-notch dealmaker played by Jeremy Piven, who is actually the leader of a four-person team.
At this point, I figure that Piven's character is going to be the villain, and we are going to see how he and his slimeball teammates take advantge of situation to sam Brolin's character. But this turned out to be all wrong. Piven's character is actually the hero. Indeed, he is a uber-driven salesguy, but what's wrong with that, really? The narrative centers around his redemption in the wake of a tragic incident in Albuquerque in which he caused the death of his best friend during one of his sell-a-thons.
This deceased best friend turns out to be played by Will Ferrell, who was one of the producers of this film. Ferrell wisely limited himself to a minor character role in this case, one that is farcical, but in just the right way towards the end of the movie, after the farce has been built up to the appropriate level.
I liked this movie a lot. It was funny and original, keeping me interested in all the characters right up to the end. It didn't get much publicity in the theaters, but I suspect it be a hit on DVD in the long run. Piven was perfect casting for it, as was Brolin and the other supporting characters.
My only beef with the story was at the end, there was a crummy Animal House-style epilogue in which we get to hear what happens to the characters in the following years. It was overly cynical, pointless and actually sort of spoiled the story a little bit for me. The movie would have been a lot better without it. I've arrived at the opinion that in almost every case, movies should be without such epilogues unless there is an overriding reason to have them. The narrative should speak for itself, and we should not need afterwords. It was almost as the film makers were afraid that people might like the story too much, so they pissed on their own characters to ensure that the audience knew that they weren't being serious. Boo! But like I said, it was a minor part of this movie, thankfully.
It had been out for about a month, and I had missed seeing it in Maryland. By last week, it was showing only in a single theater in the Memphis area, at the Malco multiplex in the Wolfchase Galleria mall, far out in the eastern suburb of Bartlett, Tennessee.
It took me about an hour to get there, since I chose to drive on the city streets all the way until I got almost out in the countryside, where the highway grew wide and lined with big box retailers and fast food outlets.
The Wolfchase Galleria is a nice mall, two stories. The theater was right next to the food court, and beside a children's carousel. It had a huge old-style marquee that made it the most interesting feature in the mall itself. The interior, however, was very conventional and felt a little careworn and musty. There weren't even stadium seating. It seemed at odds with the niceness of the rest of the mall.
I was one of the three people that afternoon to see the matinee of The Goods. It was one of those movies that really defied my expectations.
As it opens, we are in the California desert, at a used car dealership run, the owner of which is played by James Brolin. The dealership has fallen on hard times and the salesmen are incompetent. In order to save his business, the owner reluctantly calls upon the services of a hired gun, an intinerant top-notch dealmaker played by Jeremy Piven, who is actually the leader of a four-person team.
At this point, I figure that Piven's character is going to be the villain, and we are going to see how he and his slimeball teammates take advantge of situation to sam Brolin's character. But this turned out to be all wrong. Piven's character is actually the hero. Indeed, he is a uber-driven salesguy, but what's wrong with that, really? The narrative centers around his redemption in the wake of a tragic incident in Albuquerque in which he caused the death of his best friend during one of his sell-a-thons.
This deceased best friend turns out to be played by Will Ferrell, who was one of the producers of this film. Ferrell wisely limited himself to a minor character role in this case, one that is farcical, but in just the right way towards the end of the movie, after the farce has been built up to the appropriate level.
I liked this movie a lot. It was funny and original, keeping me interested in all the characters right up to the end. It didn't get much publicity in the theaters, but I suspect it be a hit on DVD in the long run. Piven was perfect casting for it, as was Brolin and the other supporting characters.
My only beef with the story was at the end, there was a crummy Animal House-style epilogue in which we get to hear what happens to the characters in the following years. It was overly cynical, pointless and actually sort of spoiled the story a little bit for me. The movie would have been a lot better without it. I've arrived at the opinion that in almost every case, movies should be without such epilogues unless there is an overriding reason to have them. The narrative should speak for itself, and we should not need afterwords. It was almost as the film makers were afraid that people might like the story too much, so they pissed on their own characters to ensure that the audience knew that they weren't being serious. Boo! But like I said, it was a minor part of this movie, thankfully.
Adam
A couple days after seeing The Hurt Locker, I was back out at the Ridgway 4 in one of their "down and up" auditoriums to see another independent feature. This time it was Adam, a romance set in New York about a 29-year old electronics engineer with severe Asperger's Syndrome and a "normal" young woman, who movies into his building as his neighbor.
After I got back from seeing it, I told Greg about it and he said, "sounds like Forrest Gump," which is pretty funny because in the movie, the title character says at one point, "I'm not Forrest Gump, you know," which of course just points out the fact that he is indeed like Forrest Gump.
Well, it mostly worked and was sort of interesting. There is a strong subplot involving the young woman's father, played by Peter Gallagher as a very extraverted and less-than-honest financier.
The theme of the movie centers on the dilemma of modern women in choosing between the two types of men that are available: honest but socially dysfunctionally, versus lying scum-bag but socially acceptable and approved. It's a duality that you see a lot in movies lately, as I've often discussed. In Hollywood's view, the only honest men who are not socially dysfunctional in some horrible way are usually homosexual.
The movie is lightehearted and indeed romantic, but it's also a tear-jerker. Greg (who is currently getting a divorce) is a meat and potatoes kind of guy, and I told him he probably wouldn't like this movie, but it would make a great date movie on DVD.
After I got back from seeing it, I told Greg about it and he said, "sounds like Forrest Gump," which is pretty funny because in the movie, the title character says at one point, "I'm not Forrest Gump, you know," which of course just points out the fact that he is indeed like Forrest Gump.
Well, it mostly worked and was sort of interesting. There is a strong subplot involving the young woman's father, played by Peter Gallagher as a very extraverted and less-than-honest financier.
The theme of the movie centers on the dilemma of modern women in choosing between the two types of men that are available: honest but socially dysfunctionally, versus lying scum-bag but socially acceptable and approved. It's a duality that you see a lot in movies lately, as I've often discussed. In Hollywood's view, the only honest men who are not socially dysfunctional in some horrible way are usually homosexual.
The movie is lightehearted and indeed romantic, but it's also a tear-jerker. Greg (who is currently getting a divorce) is a meat and potatoes kind of guy, and I told him he probably wouldn't like this movie, but it would make a great date movie on DVD.
The Hurt Locker
During my stay in Memphis, Greg suggested I visit the Malco Ridgway 4 on the east side of the city. He compared it to the old Campus West theater back in Fort Collins where we went to high school. I hardly needed the encouragement, because it was showing a movie I had been wanting to see for a while, The Hurt Locker, which a lot of people had been saying was really good.
As a story about the Iraq Ar, it reminded me of the screenplay project that Thor and I attempted back in 2005. But unlike our project, The Hurt Locker is a deep movie with a lot of narrative heft. It follows a U.S. Army bomb detonation squad around Baghdad during its tour of duty.
The concept is fresh and powerful. The narrative works very well, constricted to just a few major characters, following them in a style that blends neorealism and reality television.
I liked it a lot. It lived up to my expectations and beyond. I put it right up there next to Stop-Loss as my favorite movies about the war.
As for the theater, it lived up to my expectations too. It was out in the office park area of Memphis. The rounded brown brick exterior had a very fun and dated feel. The lobby had a huge high ceiling and the auditorium was long and thin, going down, then up again, in a way I haven't seen in a long time.
As a story about the Iraq Ar, it reminded me of the screenplay project that Thor and I attempted back in 2005. But unlike our project, The Hurt Locker is a deep movie with a lot of narrative heft. It follows a U.S. Army bomb detonation squad around Baghdad during its tour of duty.
The concept is fresh and powerful. The narrative works very well, constricted to just a few major characters, following them in a style that blends neorealism and reality television.
I liked it a lot. It lived up to my expectations and beyond. I put it right up there next to Stop-Loss as my favorite movies about the war.
As for the theater, it lived up to my expectations too. It was out in the office park area of Memphis. The rounded brown brick exterior had a very fun and dated feel. The lobby had a huge high ceiling and the auditorium was long and thin, going down, then up again, in a way I haven't seen in a long time.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Gamer
For the second movie of our Saturday night double feature, Greg and I headed over to the Malco Paradiso on the eastern edge of Memphis by the freeway. The Paradiso is probably the premiere multiplex in the city. The parking lot was crammed.
The interior lobby was a two-story adaptation of a Mexican hacienda. It reminded me of Casa Bonita in Denver in its heyday.
I didn't have much hope for the Gamer, the movie we were seeing. I hadn't even seen a trailer, but the theme: about controlling people inside a live-action shooter game set in the near future, seemed ripe for absurdity on screen.
The first couple lines of dialogue in the movie seemed to verify my suspicions. They were crammed with disgusting obscenities yelled at a fast pace. This was going to be a very crude movie, I thought to myself.
But it turns out I had misjudged it. The obscenities of the first few lines were not throwaways, but mostly just to set the tone for the future sci-fi world.
In fact, after about ten minutes I really began to like this movie. By the end, I was totally hooked. For sci-fi, it seemed to have original concept, based on a mutation of trends from such movies as Running Man, Freejack, Barbarella and Logan's Run, among others. This kind of derivative borrowing didn't bother me, because it felt like a fresh spin on these themes, updated for the latest develoments of technology in our society.
The story worked very well as narrative, leading up to the appropriate climax between the good guy and the bad guy. The correct good characters were "sacrificed." The resolution worked just as one would need it to. There was a tiny little Blade Runner (original version) epilogue that I probably didn't need, but that's a very minor complaint, given how well the rest of the story worked.
I couldn't help think that not only was this one of my secret favorites of the year so far, but that this was one of those movies that would come and go fairly quietly from the theaters, but which would in future years remain a closet cult favorite, referenced in blog posts ten years from now as various now-outrageous aspects of it come "true."
"Wow, that's just like in the movie Gamer," people will be saying ten years from now.
But unfortunately it won't be a good thing, when they say this. But that's how things have been going lately.
The interior lobby was a two-story adaptation of a Mexican hacienda. It reminded me of Casa Bonita in Denver in its heyday.
I didn't have much hope for the Gamer, the movie we were seeing. I hadn't even seen a trailer, but the theme: about controlling people inside a live-action shooter game set in the near future, seemed ripe for absurdity on screen.
The first couple lines of dialogue in the movie seemed to verify my suspicions. They were crammed with disgusting obscenities yelled at a fast pace. This was going to be a very crude movie, I thought to myself.
But it turns out I had misjudged it. The obscenities of the first few lines were not throwaways, but mostly just to set the tone for the future sci-fi world.
In fact, after about ten minutes I really began to like this movie. By the end, I was totally hooked. For sci-fi, it seemed to have original concept, based on a mutation of trends from such movies as Running Man, Freejack, Barbarella and Logan's Run, among others. This kind of derivative borrowing didn't bother me, because it felt like a fresh spin on these themes, updated for the latest develoments of technology in our society.
The story worked very well as narrative, leading up to the appropriate climax between the good guy and the bad guy. The correct good characters were "sacrificed." The resolution worked just as one would need it to. There was a tiny little Blade Runner (original version) epilogue that I probably didn't need, but that's a very minor complaint, given how well the rest of the story worked.
I couldn't help think that not only was this one of my secret favorites of the year so far, but that this was one of those movies that would come and go fairly quietly from the theaters, but which would in future years remain a closet cult favorite, referenced in blog posts ten years from now as various now-outrageous aspects of it come "true."
"Wow, that's just like in the movie Gamer," people will be saying ten years from now.
But unfortunately it won't be a good thing, when they say this. But that's how things have been going lately.
9
A couple days after my first visit to Studio on the Square, I was back there, this time with my friend Greg. His two sons were at his ex-wife's place and we had the evening to ourselves. We decided to make it a movie double feature evening. Our first showing of the night was going to be 9, which had just been released to amazing reviews.
At first the movie did not disappoint me at all. For one thing, the animation is very good. Furthermore the style of the animation fits into the steampunk storyline very well---apocalyptic World War II era. Somehow everything about this part of the movie felt very right.
The voices were well-cast. My usual complaints about animated features being cast with an eye to star power draw, instead of real voice talent, was not in effect. At no point did I find myself being able to see the actors sitting in the studio at the microphone, something that happens all too often (like with John Travolta in Bolt).
The story itself was very intriguing as well, and kept me following it for the first hour. The only sour note was the fleeting sinking feeling at discovering that the only female character was the obligatory ninja, kick-aass woman warrior type. We've come a long way since Elinore in Wizards, baby. Every movie now needs a female warrior to remind us that femininity is dead and is never coming back. Girls just want to kick s9me ass. Under no circumstances can a male character rescue a female character, unless there is some kind of reciprocal rescuing. We mustn't give the children the idea that such sex roles are in any way good. Let's all raise our little red books and shout "Power to the People and Down with the Capitalist Gender Identities!"
O.K. That was probably too much criticism for this movie. I got used to it.
The real disappointment about this movie was at the end, with got gooey in a faux spiritual way that reminded me of the "happy ghosts" of Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi at the end of Return of the Jedi. There was so much good hard-edged Steampunk in this movie that to see this kind of spiritualist crap in the last few minutes felt like a big letdown, so much that it nearly spoiled the entire movie. Certainly I walked out of the theater feeling much more ambiguous about it than I would have, if it had kept to a more naturalistic story.
It's the great tradeoff we have made in Postmodernity. In the land of movies, we no longer believe in God, or in the power of Christianity (which is almost never shown in a positive light), but we believe in all manner of ghosts and spirits that manifest themselves in the physical world.
But we're oh so smarter and more advanced because of it, aren't we?
At first the movie did not disappoint me at all. For one thing, the animation is very good. Furthermore the style of the animation fits into the steampunk storyline very well---apocalyptic World War II era. Somehow everything about this part of the movie felt very right.
The voices were well-cast. My usual complaints about animated features being cast with an eye to star power draw, instead of real voice talent, was not in effect. At no point did I find myself being able to see the actors sitting in the studio at the microphone, something that happens all too often (like with John Travolta in Bolt).
The story itself was very intriguing as well, and kept me following it for the first hour. The only sour note was the fleeting sinking feeling at discovering that the only female character was the obligatory ninja, kick-aass woman warrior type. We've come a long way since Elinore in Wizards, baby. Every movie now needs a female warrior to remind us that femininity is dead and is never coming back. Girls just want to kick s9me ass. Under no circumstances can a male character rescue a female character, unless there is some kind of reciprocal rescuing. We mustn't give the children the idea that such sex roles are in any way good. Let's all raise our little red books and shout "Power to the People and Down with the Capitalist Gender Identities!"
O.K. That was probably too much criticism for this movie. I got used to it.
The real disappointment about this movie was at the end, with got gooey in a faux spiritual way that reminded me of the "happy ghosts" of Darth Vader and Obi Wan Kenobi at the end of Return of the Jedi. There was so much good hard-edged Steampunk in this movie that to see this kind of spiritualist crap in the last few minutes felt like a big letdown, so much that it nearly spoiled the entire movie. Certainly I walked out of the theater feeling much more ambiguous about it than I would have, if it had kept to a more naturalistic story.
It's the great tradeoff we have made in Postmodernity. In the land of movies, we no longer believe in God, or in the power of Christianity (which is almost never shown in a positive light), but we believe in all manner of ghosts and spirits that manifest themselves in the physical world.
But we're oh so smarter and more advanced because of it, aren't we?
Extract
Memphis has been amazing. This is mostly due to my friend Greg's hospitality here on Mud Island. It has been a truly awesome way to be introduced to this wonderful city. I definitely will be coming back in the near future.
Of course I've made it a priority to see some movies while I've been here, not only to catch up with the releases, but also to explore Memphis through its cinema establishments. The only downside of this is that there are no theaters here in the downtown area where Greg lives, just north of the Pyramid. You have to go a couple miles to the nearest one, and in most cases, out to the eastern suburbs. That's about the only negative thing about Memphis I've experienced, and it is hardly that negative, since the drives having given me a chance to see more of the city.
The first movie I saw was Extract, which was playing at the Malco Studio on the Square (map). Malco is the big chain in this area of the south, and almost all the cinemas in Memphis are part of this chain. The Studio on the Square has four screens, and is the only cinema in the central. It is located in the trendy nice park district and is what passes as an art theater. When I got there on a weekday night, the parking lot was full from the cars of patrons attending a special screening of an independent movie.
I was looking forward to Extract. Having spent the 1990s in Austin, I came to like Mike Judge as a local guy made good. I like his stuff. Always have. His stuff may not be epically profound, but it is usually entertaining and funny.
The movie didn't disappoint me. I laughed plenty of times and had fun. It wasn't terribly deep, but I didn't care. That's not what I was looking for. Instead it created fun and interested characters that I cared about. The concept and the story were original enough while playing on some universal themes. I reminded me of some of the light comedies of the 1930s. It could have been Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, or Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, doing the lead roles by Jason Bateman and Mila Kunis.
It was well cast. In addition to the aforementioned principals, there was the ubiquitous J.K. Simmons, and a splendid charater role by Gene Simmons as a creepy tort lawyer. Perfect casting. And lots of fun.
One of the things I like about Judge is that his works can explore some of the baser parts of the Postmodern condition without reveling in it, or glorying the gutter instincts of humanity. He draws humor out of the gutter while pointing the way towards the higher ground of human nature.
All in all, it was not bad for an introduction to marvelous Memphis.
Of course I've made it a priority to see some movies while I've been here, not only to catch up with the releases, but also to explore Memphis through its cinema establishments. The only downside of this is that there are no theaters here in the downtown area where Greg lives, just north of the Pyramid. You have to go a couple miles to the nearest one, and in most cases, out to the eastern suburbs. That's about the only negative thing about Memphis I've experienced, and it is hardly that negative, since the drives having given me a chance to see more of the city.
The first movie I saw was Extract, which was playing at the Malco Studio on the Square (map). Malco is the big chain in this area of the south, and almost all the cinemas in Memphis are part of this chain. The Studio on the Square has four screens, and is the only cinema in the central. It is located in the trendy nice park district and is what passes as an art theater. When I got there on a weekday night, the parking lot was full from the cars of patrons attending a special screening of an independent movie.
I was looking forward to Extract. Having spent the 1990s in Austin, I came to like Mike Judge as a local guy made good. I like his stuff. Always have. His stuff may not be epically profound, but it is usually entertaining and funny.
The movie didn't disappoint me. I laughed plenty of times and had fun. It wasn't terribly deep, but I didn't care. That's not what I was looking for. Instead it created fun and interested characters that I cared about. The concept and the story were original enough while playing on some universal themes. I reminded me of some of the light comedies of the 1930s. It could have been Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck, or Cary Grant and Irene Dunne, doing the lead roles by Jason Bateman and Mila Kunis.
It was well cast. In addition to the aforementioned principals, there was the ubiquitous J.K. Simmons, and a splendid charater role by Gene Simmons as a creepy tort lawyer. Perfect casting. And lots of fun.
One of the things I like about Judge is that his works can explore some of the baser parts of the Postmodern condition without reveling in it, or glorying the gutter instincts of humanity. He draws humor out of the gutter while pointing the way towards the higher ground of human nature.
All in all, it was not bad for an introduction to marvelous Memphis.
The Time Traveler's Wife
The other movie I saw at White Flint in Maryland last month was The Time Traveler's Wife, which was August's entry into the now monthly genre releases of time travel movies.
As anyone who's read my previous entries knows, I've pretty much maxed out on the time travel theme in movies, and wish that Hollywood would give the concept a rest for a while. The reason is the same as I mentioned for magic in my last write-up about the Potter movies: it makes for lazy storytelling.
For much of The Time Traveler's Wife, I thought this might actually be an exception, and in the end, I thought it was one of the better time travel movies, but it's ultimate failure says a lot about why time travel as a concept has become a narrative loser.
The movie was written and directed by women, and has a feminine tear-jerker quality to it, which is perhaps why it gave a bit of freshness to the time travel concept. But it couldn't save it.
Why did it fail? It failed because although it provided a highly emotive roller-coaster ride of human interactions, of romantic and family love, utlimately the plot didn't make sense. Specifically, the movie felt deep while you were watching it, but afterwards, the more you think about it, the more the story simply doesn't make sense, until the entire thing just becomes one giant plot hole. This is essential problem with nearly all time travel movies, and here it felt as if the drama simply covered up the essential logical defects in the narrative.
This result was probably inescapable given the version of time travel in the story, which the "static" kind, in which the past and future seem to be completely determined, and we cannot escape fate. There is ultimately no free will in this particular narrative universe.
It makes for great scenes, in which the characters love and hate and love each again. But it simply doesn't make any sense. This might be enough if you're looking for a tear-jerker, but it ultimately leaves me unsatisfied because it doesn't say anything real about the human condition.
This is because the cause-and-effect relationships, which as Aristotle knew two thousands years ago to be essential to real pathos in tragedy, simply don't work on a human level. It creates emotions, but it can leave you feeling manipulated when you think about how these emotions were brought about. A superior movie should seem better the more you think about it, but time travel movies like these often fall apart when you analyze them afterwards.
One might complain: "well how then do you make a time travel movie without these problems?" I would reply, "What the hell? You want to make fantasy seem like reality? That's your problem?" In another words, you can't do it. You can only fake it long enough to tell a real human story that works on a human level.
The most interesting part about this movie, in the long run, is that besides being in the time travel genre, it is also in the category of movies that are secretly about the taboo subject of intergenerational love stories. As in the case of Benjamin Button, the fantasy was used as a cover to tell multiple layers of cross-generational relationships that would otherwise be prohibited by current Hollywood rules.
A story about a man in his thirties who courts a teenage girl is taboo, but if he is a time traveler who is going back to see his current/future wife as a young woman, well then, that is ok. Later it is the story of a woman in her thirties dating a younger man, a theme that is less taboo, but nevertheless would be thematically powerful on its own terms, if it were the premise of a non-fantasy story.
On one hand, this is case of why time travel is a powerful tool that should be used in stories. But like I said, ultimately the cause-and-effect relationships don't make sense, so the narrative fails. I would argue that really this is case for exploring stories that actually confront the taboos of narrative, rather than covering them up with fantasy.
Well there's always next month, and a new entry in the time travel movie derby.
As anyone who's read my previous entries knows, I've pretty much maxed out on the time travel theme in movies, and wish that Hollywood would give the concept a rest for a while. The reason is the same as I mentioned for magic in my last write-up about the Potter movies: it makes for lazy storytelling.
For much of The Time Traveler's Wife, I thought this might actually be an exception, and in the end, I thought it was one of the better time travel movies, but it's ultimate failure says a lot about why time travel as a concept has become a narrative loser.
The movie was written and directed by women, and has a feminine tear-jerker quality to it, which is perhaps why it gave a bit of freshness to the time travel concept. But it couldn't save it.
Why did it fail? It failed because although it provided a highly emotive roller-coaster ride of human interactions, of romantic and family love, utlimately the plot didn't make sense. Specifically, the movie felt deep while you were watching it, but afterwards, the more you think about it, the more the story simply doesn't make sense, until the entire thing just becomes one giant plot hole. This is essential problem with nearly all time travel movies, and here it felt as if the drama simply covered up the essential logical defects in the narrative.
This result was probably inescapable given the version of time travel in the story, which the "static" kind, in which the past and future seem to be completely determined, and we cannot escape fate. There is ultimately no free will in this particular narrative universe.
It makes for great scenes, in which the characters love and hate and love each again. But it simply doesn't make any sense. This might be enough if you're looking for a tear-jerker, but it ultimately leaves me unsatisfied because it doesn't say anything real about the human condition.
This is because the cause-and-effect relationships, which as Aristotle knew two thousands years ago to be essential to real pathos in tragedy, simply don't work on a human level. It creates emotions, but it can leave you feeling manipulated when you think about how these emotions were brought about. A superior movie should seem better the more you think about it, but time travel movies like these often fall apart when you analyze them afterwards.
One might complain: "well how then do you make a time travel movie without these problems?" I would reply, "What the hell? You want to make fantasy seem like reality? That's your problem?" In another words, you can't do it. You can only fake it long enough to tell a real human story that works on a human level.
The most interesting part about this movie, in the long run, is that besides being in the time travel genre, it is also in the category of movies that are secretly about the taboo subject of intergenerational love stories. As in the case of Benjamin Button, the fantasy was used as a cover to tell multiple layers of cross-generational relationships that would otherwise be prohibited by current Hollywood rules.
A story about a man in his thirties who courts a teenage girl is taboo, but if he is a time traveler who is going back to see his current/future wife as a young woman, well then, that is ok. Later it is the story of a woman in her thirties dating a younger man, a theme that is less taboo, but nevertheless would be thematically powerful on its own terms, if it were the premise of a non-fantasy story.
On one hand, this is case of why time travel is a powerful tool that should be used in stories. But like I said, ultimately the cause-and-effect relationships don't make sense, so the narrative fails. I would argue that really this is case for exploring stories that actually confront the taboos of narrative, rather than covering them up with fantasy.
Well there's always next month, and a new entry in the time travel movie derby.
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince
Before I get to the movies I've seen in Memphis, I have to mention a few stragglers I didn't talk about from when I was in Maryland last month. Both are movies I saw at the AMC Loews at the White Flint Mall in Bethesda.
The White Flint Mall is the kind of place that reminds me of how much money has flowed into the Washington, D.C. area over the last couple days, like a giant suction pump that has vacuumed in all the wealth from much of the rest of the country and the world.
The mall is beautiful, with valet parking and and ornate design. At the front entrance is a three-story Borders Books, which I navigated to reach the theaters on the third floor.
The multiplex itself was actually very low-key, given the rest of the mall. It was very compact, with a tiny conessions stand and long thin auditoriums. I was one of about ten people there to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for the weekday matinee.
I don't really know what to say about this movie, since I'm not really a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, nor do I detest them. To say that they are simply not my "thing" is more accurate.
First off, I just don't relate to the whole magical paradigm of storytelling that has emerged over the last couple decades, and which has reached its apotheosis in the Potter stories. To wit, a magical hero battles a magical villain using magical powers. To win the battle, the hero must find the right combination and use of magic to defeat his evil nemesis.
What's wrong with this? Nothing, if you do it right, but I think it ultimately over time makes for lazy storytelling. If there are no rules to reality, then you can get away with anything.
J.K. Rowling seems to take advantage of the "no holds barred" storytelling that magic in a way that strikes me as being very haphazard. The plot of the movies seems to be Dumbledore telling Harry, "Oh yes, and here's another magical person and magical power I didn't tell you about until now, but turns out to be very important." I thought the series reached its nadir in the third movie, with the whole time travel-driven plot.
This kind of stuff bores the hell out of me. I watched the first two Potter movies at the theater, but stopped after that. Last year I caught up by watching the next three in quick succession from Netflix.
When I sat down to watch this installment at White Flint, I immediately realized that I had little memory of where the story had left off, and was utterly confused by what was going on. It brought to mind something about the Potter stories that I've discovered: over the course of six movies (at present), there has been precious little actual narrative of consequence.
After five stories, we still no very little about Voldemort or what he is really doing. By this time, we should have learned a lot about what his real agenda is. But he remains a shadowy evil. Yawn.
That being said, Half Blood Prince was probably one of the better movies of the series, mainly because it finally started to cash in on some ofthe set-up from earlier movies. We still got introduced to arbitrarily new magical stuff, but there was enough momentum from the previous five movies to make me give a damn about what was happening.
It followed my general rule of enjoying the even-numbered Potter installments (2,4, and 6) better than the odd-numbered ones (1,3, and 5). It doesn't bode well for the next installment, but perhaps the series will end on a high note with Episode 8.
The White Flint Mall is the kind of place that reminds me of how much money has flowed into the Washington, D.C. area over the last couple days, like a giant suction pump that has vacuumed in all the wealth from much of the rest of the country and the world.
The mall is beautiful, with valet parking and and ornate design. At the front entrance is a three-story Borders Books, which I navigated to reach the theaters on the third floor.
The multiplex itself was actually very low-key, given the rest of the mall. It was very compact, with a tiny conessions stand and long thin auditoriums. I was one of about ten people there to see Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince for the weekday matinee.
I don't really know what to say about this movie, since I'm not really a huge fan of the Harry Potter series, nor do I detest them. To say that they are simply not my "thing" is more accurate.
First off, I just don't relate to the whole magical paradigm of storytelling that has emerged over the last couple decades, and which has reached its apotheosis in the Potter stories. To wit, a magical hero battles a magical villain using magical powers. To win the battle, the hero must find the right combination and use of magic to defeat his evil nemesis.
What's wrong with this? Nothing, if you do it right, but I think it ultimately over time makes for lazy storytelling. If there are no rules to reality, then you can get away with anything.
J.K. Rowling seems to take advantage of the "no holds barred" storytelling that magic in a way that strikes me as being very haphazard. The plot of the movies seems to be Dumbledore telling Harry, "Oh yes, and here's another magical person and magical power I didn't tell you about until now, but turns out to be very important." I thought the series reached its nadir in the third movie, with the whole time travel-driven plot.
This kind of stuff bores the hell out of me. I watched the first two Potter movies at the theater, but stopped after that. Last year I caught up by watching the next three in quick succession from Netflix.
When I sat down to watch this installment at White Flint, I immediately realized that I had little memory of where the story had left off, and was utterly confused by what was going on. It brought to mind something about the Potter stories that I've discovered: over the course of six movies (at present), there has been precious little actual narrative of consequence.
After five stories, we still no very little about Voldemort or what he is really doing. By this time, we should have learned a lot about what his real agenda is. But he remains a shadowy evil. Yawn.
That being said, Half Blood Prince was probably one of the better movies of the series, mainly because it finally started to cash in on some ofthe set-up from earlier movies. We still got introduced to arbitrarily new magical stuff, but there was enough momentum from the previous five movies to make me give a damn about what was happening.
It followed my general rule of enjoying the even-numbered Potter installments (2,4, and 6) better than the odd-numbered ones (1,3, and 5). It doesn't bode well for the next installment, but perhaps the series will end on a high note with Episode 8.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Resurfacing in Memphis
I can't believe it's been almost three weeks since my last posting. It has gone by fast.
It's become difficult to maintain the blog while travelling. It's not that I don't have the opportunity, but that I rarely feel in the mood to write in an introspective manner while I'm in motion. So I've settled for just providing a summary of my peregrinations while giving the kind of quick short movie reviews I did last month.
So here's where I've been: after leaving my friend Howard's place in suburban Maryland, I crossed the Potomac and ventured through horse/polo country of northern Virginia until I got to Front Royal. At that point, I spent the next four days driving the almost 600 miles of Shenandoah National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway back-to-back, camping along the way, until I got to the Cherokee reservation in western North Carolina.
It was an awesome experience---including the side trip to Charlottesville to see Monticello (fantastic!) and the campus of the University of Virginia. As a Coloradoan used to the rockies and their majesty, was stunned at how beautiful the mountains of North Carolina are. The highlights included driving to the top of Mount Mitchell, and taking the Thomas Wolfe tour in Asheville.
At the southern end of the Blue Ridge Parkway, I headed south into the "beak" of South Carolina, giving me my 48th state (only two more to go!) and then into northeastern Georgia, where, following a friend's suggestion, I visited the Georgia Guidestones. I was quitely delighted to find that this anti-liberty, pro-world government and pro-eugenics monument was defaced with copious anti-NWO graffiti (although I don't approve of destruction of private property).
I then visited lovely Athens, and took a walking tour of the University of Georgia campus. The next day I drove to Atlanta, stopping in Stone Mountain to gaze upon the monument to Confederate heroes. In downtown Atlanta, I toured the Georgia capitol and rode MARTA out to the Olympics plaza. I took a picture of myself giving the finger to the windows of the CNN building. What fun! All during my visit to Atlanta, I couldn't get the theme to Matlock out of my head.
I then drove northwest to Calhoun, Georgia, crossed into Alabama, and followed the ridge of the subsiding mountains all the way to Birmingham, arriving at sunset just in time to ascend the statue of Vulcan and watch the lights of the city come on. I had wanted to go there, to experience the very southern end of the Appalachians, after having been in Maine the previous month. It gave me a sense of completeness about the experience.
In Birmingham, I broke down and stayed in a motel for the first time since Binghamton, New York. I also ate at a Waffle House for the first time in almost a year, since they don't seem to have them in New England.
The next day I visited the Natural Bridge of Alabama, a glorious aging tourist attraction off the Interstate, and then crossed into Mississippi, a state I just love. I paid twelve bucks in Tupelo to vissit the birthplace of Elvis Presely, because it seemed absurd not to.
By late afternoon, I was in Memphis, at the home of my friend Greg from high school. He lives on Mud Island, in a wonderful New Urbanist housing development with a coffee shop right near by where I am now typing this.
Greg has been an incredible host, taking me out to eat Bar-B-Que, see the worldest largest hog, walk Beale Street, and many other fun things. I've gotten to meet some of his awesome friends. and his two wonderful sons, who attend the Montessori school that is just across the street from here.
I managed a fantastic side trip through western Tennessee to visit the Shiloh Battlefield, a place that I found very stirring, especially since it turns out to be the glory of my native state. I also visited the home (now a museum) of Buford Pusser (awesome 1970's decor), and on a separate day, that place where the King lived (worth every penny of admission).
Almost two weeks later I can say that I absolutely love Memphis, and especially Mud Island. I could easily live there. It has catapulted into the top rung of my favorite U.S. cities. I'm going to miss it when I leave here, but I have a feeling I'll be back fairly soon.
It's become difficult to maintain the blog while travelling. It's not that I don't have the opportunity, but that I rarely feel in the mood to write in an introspective manner while I'm in motion. So I've settled for just providing a summary of my peregrinations while giving the kind of quick short movie reviews I did last month.
So here's where I've been: after leaving my friend Howard's place in suburban Maryland, I crossed the Potomac and ventured through horse/polo country of northern Virginia until I got to Front Royal. At that point, I spent the next four days driving the almost 600 miles of Shenandoah National Park and the Blue Ridge Parkway back-to-back, camping along the way, until I got to the Cherokee reservation in western North Carolina.
It was an awesome experience---including the side trip to Charlottesville to see Monticello (fantastic!) and the campus of the University of Virginia. As a Coloradoan used to the rockies and their majesty, was stunned at how beautiful the mountains of North Carolina are. The highlights included driving to the top of Mount Mitchell, and taking the Thomas Wolfe tour in Asheville.
At the southern end of the Blue Ridge Parkway, I headed south into the "beak" of South Carolina, giving me my 48th state (only two more to go!) and then into northeastern Georgia, where, following a friend's suggestion, I visited the Georgia Guidestones. I was quitely delighted to find that this anti-liberty, pro-world government and pro-eugenics monument was defaced with copious anti-NWO graffiti (although I don't approve of destruction of private property).
I then visited lovely Athens, and took a walking tour of the University of Georgia campus. The next day I drove to Atlanta, stopping in Stone Mountain to gaze upon the monument to Confederate heroes. In downtown Atlanta, I toured the Georgia capitol and rode MARTA out to the Olympics plaza. I took a picture of myself giving the finger to the windows of the CNN building. What fun! All during my visit to Atlanta, I couldn't get the theme to Matlock out of my head.
I then drove northwest to Calhoun, Georgia, crossed into Alabama, and followed the ridge of the subsiding mountains all the way to Birmingham, arriving at sunset just in time to ascend the statue of Vulcan and watch the lights of the city come on. I had wanted to go there, to experience the very southern end of the Appalachians, after having been in Maine the previous month. It gave me a sense of completeness about the experience.
In Birmingham, I broke down and stayed in a motel for the first time since Binghamton, New York. I also ate at a Waffle House for the first time in almost a year, since they don't seem to have them in New England.
The next day I visited the Natural Bridge of Alabama, a glorious aging tourist attraction off the Interstate, and then crossed into Mississippi, a state I just love. I paid twelve bucks in Tupelo to vissit the birthplace of Elvis Presely, because it seemed absurd not to.
By late afternoon, I was in Memphis, at the home of my friend Greg from high school. He lives on Mud Island, in a wonderful New Urbanist housing development with a coffee shop right near by where I am now typing this.
Greg has been an incredible host, taking me out to eat Bar-B-Que, see the worldest largest hog, walk Beale Street, and many other fun things. I've gotten to meet some of his awesome friends. and his two wonderful sons, who attend the Montessori school that is just across the street from here.
I managed a fantastic side trip through western Tennessee to visit the Shiloh Battlefield, a place that I found very stirring, especially since it turns out to be the glory of my native state. I also visited the home (now a museum) of Buford Pusser (awesome 1970's decor), and on a separate day, that place where the King lived (worth every penny of admission).
Almost two weeks later I can say that I absolutely love Memphis, and especially Mud Island. I could easily live there. It has catapulted into the top rung of my favorite U.S. cities. I'm going to miss it when I leave here, but I have a feeling I'll be back fairly soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)