Spontaneous Musings

Amazon's Kindle Daily Deals included some sci-fantasy writers that I'd been waiting to buy for dirt cheap...and a gothic horror writer.

1. The Poppy War

2. A Witness for the Dead by Katherine Addison

3. Mexican Gothic by Silvia Moreno-Garcia

Like I need more books. I keep going to sleep while reading Project Hail Mary on the train. It's interesting - it's kind of a problem solving space adventure between a sentient alien bug and a human. Has lots of hard biological science, astro-physics, and engineering data. I'd put it in the category of "hard science fiction". I've read pretty much all the sub-genres of sci-fi. My preferences are space opera, hard sci-fi, and mystery/sci-fi hybrid. I also like sci-fantasy. Sci-romance tends to be on the silly side and badly written - also very pulpy, so I avoid. Military sci-fi gets on my nerves, and tends to fall into war sci-fi, which I can do without.

****

Talked to Chidi about the flick TAR, he'd also seen "Barbarian", which he thought was fun but didn't like as well - and it reminded him a lot of X.
I'd agree - the descriptions were similar in some respects. In X, Chidi told me, an old woman was killing people - when all she really wanted was sex with her husband. In this one, an old crazy woman was killing people when all she really wanted was a baby to care for.

TAR - he thought was all things. It just haunts you afterwards. Or sticks with you. He'd not thought much of it when he left the theater, but then he couldn't stop thinking about it. He agreed with me that it is in some respects a sly indictment of "cancel culture", also the Jewish element is definitely there - in how Jewish artists got sidelined or cancelled during the Holocaust, or if Nazi sympathizers - cancelled out. Cancel culture is controversial - and makes folks on social media from both ends of the spectrum twitchy.

It also brings up the cognitive dissonance involved in regards to someone who treats people in their personal and professional lives despicably, but is an amazing artist who creates beautiful and stunning art. Do we cancel their art to punish them for despicable acts? And ourselves as well for loving their art? And how do we handle that cognitive dissonance of a person being more than one thing, often contradictory things at the same time?

The film makes the audience uncomfortable - because at the end, the audience finds itself relating to the isolated artist - TAR, and angry at the social media critics who have cancelled her - forcing her to practice her art on the absolute fringes of society. We find ourselves making excuses for her behavior and angry at those who persecuted her - even though we know it was with cause. Feld takes the audience inside the perspective of the perpetuator and the victim. For people are often both.
( Read more... )

Both have been nominated for the Oscars, and have garnered multiple awards between them. Flee is short listed for an Oscar in the Documentary Film, International Film and Animated Film categories.

As an aside? I don't think they are comparable in the least. Outside of both being animated films, they've nothing in common. Comparing the two is akin to comparing an apple to a banana, both are fruit, both peelable, and both make great pies. Or comparing tennis to golf.

I'm not even certain which I liked better, I liked them for different reasons and had issues with them for different reasons.

1. Flee (currently available on Hulu on VOD)

I had to be in the right frame of mind for Flee. I tried to watch it last night and dozed off during it. Today, however, I was riveted. It's that kind of film.

It's subject matter is not easy. It's a documentary about a man whose family fled Afghanistan after Russia pulled out. So this was pre-21st Century Afghanistan - or around the early to mid-1980s. ( Read more... )

Nicolas Costa-Waldo and Riz Ahmed are the two main voices, and executive producers, along with Amin. And the story is depicted as entirely true and presented in a documentary style - Amin is being interviewed, except it is animated, along with the flashbacks.

I've not seen a documentary done quite like this before - although it does remind me a little of Persepolis (except I liked it better.)

Very moving, and sad. I had chills afterwards.

2. Mitchells vs. the Machines - this is a film directed towards kids and families, not single women in their fifties. So wrong demographic. The humor is well, American Situation Comedy. (So again wrong demographic).

At one point they state they are the weirdest family in America and not normal. And ...I'm thinking, no, you are like every single sitcom family that I've seen on television over the past ten-twenty years, and therefore I can't relate to you at all. My father wasn't a big dumb doofus who wanted to live in the woods. And we did not own dogs, nor was my brother ever into dinosaurs - Van Helan, Heavy Metal, and girls - yes, Dinosaurs, no.

So relatable - it wasn't.

It was however entertaining in its own way. Also possibly the most detailed animated film I've seen in my life. It was the exact opposite of Flee in that regard. Utilizing more than one animation style throughout (reminding me a little of Into the Spiderverse in that regard, although it's nowhere near as good as Into the Spiderverse.) It's computer three dimensional computer animation. The characters are kind of "cartoonish" as opposed to "realistic". People do kind of look alike, except for the central family.
( Read more... )

When comparing films or anything really - it's important to pick items that are related to each other and similar in medium. For example? I wouldn't compare the Buffy movie or Buffy comics to the Buffy television series - they are three different mediums, you kind of have to take that into account. Same with say Justice League - you don't compare the films to the comics - different mediums, different requirements. Nor do I compare Snyder's films to say the Marvel films - two different verses, different characters - be like comparing Apples to Tomatoes. Nor would I compare Justice League to the Avengers - again Apples to Tomatoes.

In regards to Justice League - and why it offers film geeks a great opportunity to see what works and what doesn't - is we are comparing two different cuts on the same film. Add to that, we have a film that the studio involved chose to re-shoot/rewrite and re-score with a new collaborative team - while essentially keeping footage, story, and writing from that team. It would be like your beta being hired to step in and rewrite your fanfic and adding stuff to it without your approval, then publishing it with your name on it along side theirs. Or someone being hired by your agent and publisher to re-write your novel, and publishing it under your name and theirs, without your approval - which happens all the time with "work for hire" gigs, particularly films. [Actually it has happened with a few novels as well, and more than one film and television series.]

Director's Cuts also provide you with the ability to compare to original cuts of a film, see what the studio got rid of, and what the artist's original vision was - and understand how the business of film affects the final product for good or ill. Note - not all director's cuts add to the original or are that different. Nor are all that great. Blade Runner - is an example of one where the Director's cut added something to the movie, although it remains controversial as to whether that was an improvement or detriment. While Superman II (Richard Donner) is an example of a cut that added nothing to the film.

In addition to the above? It's important to pick films and subject matter that you enjoy. For example? Magnificent Ambersons by Orson Wells, has an original that varied greatly from the Director's cut of the film. But I don't like the film. I have no interest in it.

Justice League works for me - because I've seen both films, I'm familiar with the work of both directors, and the source material (for the most part). Also I know the characters fairly well or well enough. I've seen at least five to ten films or works by both. Pretty much everything except for about two or three items.

Knowing the filmmakers work - makes this kind of analysis more interesting, in that if you were to ask me - say a week or so ago, which filmmaker was better at dialogue and humor - I'd say Whedon. I'd also say Whedon was better at characterization and emotional character moments. Both, aren't the best at plotting. And I'd have said Whedon was better at layers, metaphor, and narrative. Snyder - I'd have said was better at cinematography, action scenes, plot (not by much) and that's about it.

Folks? I've changed my mind. In respect to Justice League? Snyder actually is better at dialogue, humor, characterization, emotional character moments, action, story, and cinematography. I was surprised by this, since I generally prefer Whedon's films and works to Snyder's. Snyder tends to be dark, somewhat Randian in tone, and not memorable in the dialogue department. He's still not exactly stellar in the dialogue department - but he is so much better here than Whedon. Also, weirdly, I sensed more of a Randian/conservative theme coming from Whedon's group than from Snyder's.

That's why I feel the need to analyze why - because I was surprised. I don't get surprised by films that often. Also the comparison provides some insight as to what works and what doesn't and why. In particular dialogue - which is a lot harder to write well than people realize. In addition - dialogue needs to accomplish several things: 1) Be true to the character and/or reveal character, 2) Provide information, and 3) Further the plot.

How you do it - will determine how your reader or viewer responds to your characters and story. But it's even harder, or at least I think it is, for characters you've not created and in particular those that your audience may be as familiar if not more familiar with than you are. (I think most fanfic writers would appreciate that. It's why I don't like writing fanfic, I get self-conscious. For me, when I read or watch something utilizing characters I've fallen in love with - I get thrust out of the story when the characters say something out of character or do something out of character.)

Justice League Film Comparison Regarding Use of Dialogue or Why I'm Glad I'm Not a Screenwriter

There's an interesting article about the three original scripts associated with Justice League - that was published in 2019.

( Excerpt about the three scripts, the original, the Snydercut, the Whedon Reboot )
What happened? Joss Whedon was hired to "help" punch up the script of Justice League. And on the 2017 film, Whedon's only credit is "script" which he allegedly co-wrote with Chris Terrio. It's worth noting, before we go any further that he did not write the script by himself, and Terrio never worked directly with him. He had help with the script from Geoff Johns (a writer of the Justice League and Teen Titans comics) and Jon Berg. Per the article above Whedon's script was based around Snyder and Terrio's rewritten script, but had significant alterations by a team of writers including Geoff Johns, Joss Whedon, Allan Heinberg, Seth Grahame-Smith, and Andrea Berloff. They also largely edited and re-wrote Chris Terrio and Zack Snyder's original script.

In addition, Whedon is known for his script-doctoring skills and got his start fixing other people's scripts. He did that even as a show-runner on various television series. But Whedon also is a comedy writer - who came from situation comedy writing - specifically Roseanne, which is know for it's insult humor and slapstick. Also Buffy often had similar low brow and slangy, quips. Snyder - or so it was claimed, was dour with his script and humorless. They wanted to "humanize" and "lighten it up".

Note - there is only one screenwriter credit on the Snyder version - Chris Terrio does the script, Snyder directs. On the Whedon version - there's Whedon and Terrio. We also know from the article above on Whedon's Reboot, Johns, and various others who had a hand in the script - with Whedon directing and shooting the new footage. I point this out - because there's an old adage amongst film geeks and screenwriters - the more writers involved with the script - the worse the film will be. Same with the old adage about too many chefs in a kitchen? There's a reason a team of writers rarely if ever gets an Oscar or is nominated for any film.

Luckily for comparison purposes there are scenes that only the dialogue was changed. Otherwise this would be harder. (Also I'm referencing youtube and this Site for the Justice League 2017 script. My memory isn't perfect or word for word. Along with other online comparisons, and the movies on HBO Max.)

1. Diana's Dialogue with A Terrorist

( Read more... )

2. Bruce Recruits Barry

( Bruce Wayne recruits Barry Allen )

What I found fascinating and surprising is that Snyder's version focuses on female empowerment, while Whedon's focuses on Nerdy Socially Awkward Boy empowerment often at the detriment of women. And it's the nerdy boy's hero-worship of the White Male Superhero. Women and Minorities in Whedon's version are either pushed into the side-kick category or objectified. The shifts in the dialogue get this across. While Diana's scene is truncated, the Flash's isn't - if anything they added dialogue to it.

They do however remove the first introduction to the Flash, and replace it with a joke, that kind of falls flat. Jokes require build up and continuity to work well. Here it feels off, and unnecessary. The Flash isn't annoying or grating in Snyder's version, he is in Whedon's. He comes across as a bit of a jerk in Whedon's version - and it's hard, as a result, to care about him, while in Snyder's you do care about him - and he isn't a jerk at all. i would have expected the opposite.

3. Bruce Attempts to Recruit Aquaman ( Bruce Attempts to Recruit Aquaman )

One more example, I think in regards to dialogue that was changed while the directorial footage is essentially the same. Changing the meaning of the footage - which had originally been shot with different dialogue.

4. Justice League's Fight with Superman ( Read more... )

In each of these sections the character is often sacrificed in the dialogue by the Whedon version for jokes, witty banter, or for exposition (explaining the mother boxes), while in the Snyder version the dialogue is focused on further plot and revealing the characters. In the Snyder - funny moments are either situational (Flash being thrust into Arthur - which worked better for humor purposes) or small lines, like Bruce knowing Icelandic and paying Arthur more money than he asked for. Or, in Flash's section the quick exchange - "I need friends", Bruce - "Great". There's hidden irony there - since Bruce doesn't quite have them either.

Rule number 1 with dialogue - it has to be true to the character. And in regards to exposition - it's better to show than tell in film. Info dumps in film work better when we can see them.

I thought it would be better to show the differences in the dialogue above then merely tell you about them. [Whether that worked or not, I don't know. I had to see the film for myself to get it, so it may not have.] Some of the Whedon cut's changes and adjustments are rather baffling. And others, are well, offensive. Most of what he does with Diana is offensive - and in a way that surprised me.

To be fair to Whedon, he's not the sole writer on his version - and he was catering to a lot of people above him, who hired him, and had been nitpicking at the film for quite some time. Yet, here's the thing - being familiar with Whedon's other works - the added jokes, quips, and demeaning content - is boiler-plate Whedon. I've seen this in the Avengers, Buffy, Firefly, Dollhouse, Dr. Horrible and Angel, along with in the comics and the portions of the X-men film that he script doctored. He's not doing anything he hasn't done in his other works. He was actually hired to do insert it.

Undercutting a dramatic moment with humor - which is normally something that I enjoy, can work in some situations - but it matters how you do it. In this instance the undercut is at the expense of the characters - and in particular women and minority characters. So, it stood out more here - because it was outside of his own stuff, it wasn't evenly braced against the empowering moments with those characters, and it wasn't softened by the other writers/directors that Whedon had hired. Here he's putting it into someone else's story, and redirecting and re-editing that person's footage. As a result these items, which I recognized as Whedon's style of humor, stand out in stark contrast and not in a good way. That surprised me - because I hadn't noticed how demeaning Whedon's humor can be to minority and women - until I watched and compared the films. When it was gone, the film was actually better, less jarring. And the characters of Wonder Woman, Lois, Cyborg, and Aguaman had more agency and came across as less silly or only there to support Batman and Superman. They had agency, they were leads, and they were more important - in Snyder's version.

There are a few adjustments though that make sense, and make the scene tighter - in say the Aquaman scene with Bruce. But in the Flash scene they add dialogue - which unnecessarily lengthens the scene. Also there's additions of dialogue by Whedon et al in the Superman fights the Justice League sequence that makes no sense, and renders the scene somewhat silly. Not comical - just silly and grating. Superman wouldn't talk yet - he'd just been resurrected. And he doesn't know that Batman orchestrated it. Nor would he necessarily remember the particulars of his fights with Batman in Bvs.S. Snyder is a stickler for these sorts of details, while Whedon doesn't tend to be.

Another thing I noticed about the Whedon cut's use of humor - it often made the film somewhat "campy" or "silly" and in other areas..."crass and cringe-inducing". I'm not sure Whedon respected the material in quite the same way as Snyder did or the characters.

In the Avengers, some of this works, mainly because it fits the characters. But I don't think it works with DC's characters quite as well, and not here.

As previously noted, there's a continuity problem in regards to small details - these characters and the tone of who some of them are - have been previously set up in other films, that have the tonal quality. Clark, Bruce and Diana were previously set up in Man of Steel, Batman vs. Superman, and Wonder Woman. Whedon's Justice League jumped away from that continuity of character, along with other things. Whedon tries to refer to BvS with an exchange between Clark and Bruce in the Justice League fights Superman sequence, but it doesn't quite work - if anything it is jarring, and it threw me out of the story. Clark wouldn't talk at this point. He's never been much of a talker to begin with.

Anyhow, I think dialogue matters in film, and if used poorly or inadequately, it can pull the viewer out of the story or jar them. It's true of other stories as well - fanfic, novels, etc. If your characters don't sound genuine to the reader - the reader is gone.

[ETA: Fixed some typos and changed Whedon's addition to "underlined" text, and Snyder's to "bold" text, since blockquotes automatically turn it into italicized text.]

So, I've been reading comparisons of Justice League movies, and more and more tempted to do my own. Mainly because they aren't satisfying me. I do however agree with one of the reviews/comparisons - from Slate who states that doing a back to back comparison of the Whedon Cut and Snyder Cut is akin to attending a 6 hour film class. And they should teach it in film courses. (Although Scalzi does make a good point that there are better films to do this with - such as The Magnificient Ambersons - which was a film yanked from Orson Wells, and then he did his director's cut of it. My only issue with that - is I find Wells films deathly dull. Talk about dark films, where the director is obsessively self-indulgent, and more into visual metaphors than story. I'm not a fan of Wells style of movie making, but white male film geeks adore him for some reason that I've never understood. I've debated this with so many white male film geeks over the years. Female film geeks tend to prefer people like Jane Campion. Film geeks like all geeks are a rowdy argumentative bunch that rarely agree on anything - but art is subjective.)

I've always been fascinated with subjective vs. the objective elements of the art form, and the degree to which it can validly be reviewed or critiqued. Much like a fictional novel, a painting, or any other form of art for that matter.

Film also as an art form - fascinates me. I am a frustrated film major. My favorite courses in undergrad often focused on the analysis of films, television shows, or visual medium. And I spent a lot of time as a child watching old movies on television, or going to the movies. I love movies.
I like to lose myself in them - in someone else's head for a bit.
( rather long, although not that spoilery except for links to videos, etc. )

Oh, almost forgot - the ironic thing about all of this is way back in the 1990s, Whedon got upset with how the Kuzie's ruined Buffy the Vampire Slayer. He'd sold his script to them, and they directed it, and rewrote his script - actually Donald Sutherland, Rutgher Hauer, and Paul Stuben all had a hand in it, improvising lines. Whedon was furious and incredibly upset with how they ruined his movie.

Cue about thirty years later? Whedon does the same thing to Zack Snyder's Justice League, and except the actors and Director are furious with him, along with Christopher Nolan.

So, it's actually possible to compare the Snyder Cut of Justice League vs. Whedon's version on HBO Max. (Unfortunately for Whedon - because I didn't remember Whedon's cut that well -- I saw it in 2018. I wouldn't remember it. Just vaguely. So I was a bit shocked when I re-watched parts of it. I didn't realize how offensive the racism and sexism is in these films - particularly the Whedon films. Also the comparison is NOT favorable or complimentary to Whedon at all. In fact, it completely changed my opinion regarding Whedon and Snyder.)

Folks, I was shocked by the differences. Shocked and appalled. They are that stark. That obvious. And the pattern that emerges? Appalling.
And all you need to do is just watch the first 15-30 minutes of both films to pick up on it and once you do...

Side by Side comparison of the two films.

It's baffling why Whedon and the executives cut the bits that they did. But even more troubling is there's an obvious pattern to Whedon's cuts, and additions. All the character moments cut - are female and minority characters. Their agency in the movie is removed in Whedon's version, along with their story arcs. Lois stops Superman in the Whedon version at Bruce's request - not her own, her story is gone. She's objectified in Whedon's film.

All the additions to Whedon's film - are either jokes at those characters expense, moments that undercut the drama, or dialogue that strengthens the perspective of white male characters, and their agency. There are bits in Whedon's cut that once seen in comparison to Snyders, are clearly sexual harassment, and unnecessary - such as the Flash falling on Diana's chest and appearing to hump her (a scene Gail Gadot refused to do, and a body double did instead), or various men flirting with her - everyone from Aquaman to Bruce Wayne, objectifying her. While Snyder doesn't objectify her at all - the only reference to that is Barry Allen's in character sheepish statement to Aquaman - "Do you think she'd be interested in a younger man?" and exclamation of "Holy Cow" upon seeing her, with Bruce rolling his eyes in apology to Diana. Aquaman: "Barry, she's 5000 years old, we're all younger men from her perspective." We also get in the Snyder version a very nice character moment with Arthur and Diana discussing their separation from their people, and how their people are enemies. But in Whedon's version, the only exchange is Arthur telling Diana, she's hot. (Which makes no sense, Arthur wouldn't say or think that.) As you can see? Whedon's cut in stark contrast is filled with rude come-on's about Diana, and even one with Lois (there's a horrible scene in Whedon's version between Martha and Lois that focuses on a thirsty co-worker who is sexually harassing Lois, but doing it in an seemingly innocuous geeky manner. It's supposed to be funny, it's not.)

I understand some of the cuts - such as truncating some of the long action sequences with Steppenwolf, removing some of the torture sequences, and doing away with all the nightmare stuff. It does make sense, for example, that Whedon and company cut all the Knightmare stuff (which is all foreshadowing and some of it self-indulgent on Snyder's part - about things to come, which of course never will). Also shortened some of the fight sequences, made them less bloody to obtain a PG-14 rating (Snyder's film is more graphically violent, and the heroes kill more people in it, while in Whedon's they don't really kill that many people). Snyder's film is also darker in tone. But the CGI is better in Snyder's version, as is the aspect ratio - which allows you to see more.

The Whedon version adds this weird and somewhat jarring bit about this White Russian family in the middle of the war zone, which is completely unnecessary to the film. It is a separate story, and the characters are distracted during the final battle working to save them. It makes no sense, and I don't know why Whedon et al added it. Particularly when they removed other far better rescue sequences which added depth to the characters and made it possible to care what was happening on screen. While the Russian family bit is not in the Snyder cut, but the character rescue moments are demonstrating how Superman is NOT the only person saving people. In Whedon's version too much emphasis is put on Superman saving folks alone. And it's put in there - in place of character moments for the minority and female superhero characters. He also removes all the nice character moments that add depth and make you care about the minority and female characters.

Lois Lane, Diana, Victor Stone, Aquaman, Silas Stone, and Barry (Ezra Miller) all have their stories truncated and agency removed, often with jokes added instead.

I was appalled when I realized it. I don't understand why they did that. Or who made the decision to do it. But it reflects poorly on Whedon.

Add to all this - Whedon's version does a lot of "telling" through dialogue and quick takes, not showing. It's as if he doesn't trust his actors to convey it without words, or for that matter the audience. He feels the need to thrust it at us repetitively.

Anyhow, Mother called in the middle of writing this post. She kept interrupting my geeky watching of the films. She also got confused.

Mother: I talked to your brother and he told me I was completely wrong about the Justice League films. He said the Whedon cut came out first and was the original, and the Zack Snyder is a director cut that came out recently.
Me: He's right. The Zack Snyder is a director's cut. Whedon reshot Zack's film and it was the one released.
Mother: He saw the Snyder version and didn't like it because it was four hours. He liked Whedon's better.
Me: He probably doesn't remember Whedon's. If he bothered to look at them both, I bet he'd change his mind.

I'm somewhat surprised by this. But not completely. Also, I'm wise enough not to discuss it with my brother. The boy likes weird shit. We rarely agree on films. I mean we're talking about someone whose favorite superhero film is Ang Lee's Incredible Hulk and one of his favorite movies is Titantic, and who adores 2001 (which frankly puts me to sleep).

ME: I'm going to avoid discussing the films with my brother, thanks for the warning.
Mother: I could be wrong, I got confused with what you said. I may have confused what he said as well.
Me: True, but I've learned not to argue with my brother about films, it's kind of head-ache inducing.

Also, I told mother that I'm a frustrated film major. She agreed, I've always been fascinated with the analysis and making of films.

Anyhow, watching these two films and comparing them?? Changed how I view Zack Snyder and Joss Whedon, and made me understand why the reshoot of Justice League in 2017 was such a toxic one, and so abusive. Also why Joss Whedon no longer has a career as a director, and his reputation as a progressive liberal director is shot to hell. I'm glad Whedon's version bombed and took down his career with it.

It rained today and is cold and crappy, so I stayed indoors after work.
Tomorrow is my second dose of the vaccine. One of my project managers warned me that the line may be long - apparently it took one of her co-workers two hours to get it today. One hour waiting outside the building, and forty minutes inside the building. Oh joy. Although it did kind of take about forty-five last time - what with lines, being called, and the fifteen minutes after.

In a way, I'm envying the folks getting the J&J (Johnson & Johnson).

She advised to go early, but I think that may have been the problem. People coming earlier than their scheduled time. We get a scheduled time for a reason.

We shall see.

Mother has had no side-effects from her second dose of the Moderna outside of a really sore arm.

Mother: Of course I took two tynenol afterwards. But I hurt normally.
Me: That could be the reason.
Mother: No one told me not to take it.
Me:Well no - I'm not going to tell my poor in pain mother not to take pain relievers - I value my life.
Mother: Exactly. I'm in pain normally - I'm not going to stop taking pain relievers!

Honestly, I'm confused. They say not to do it before. But people do. They say do take it before and after for people who had a bad experience the first round. I don't think they know.

I told mother - they were telling people not to - because they don't want you to take a fever reducer. That's the reason.

Mother: Well, I've not gotten a fever.
Me: I should hope not, you took tynenol.

Hopefully it worked. I think it did. I'm going with that.

Sisinlaw got an appointment, because of her ashma. And in Massachustus they are apparently vaccinating all students - regardless of state residency, so niece will most likely get the vaccine. (Over 14, can get it.)

***

The Governor and the Mayor are still fighting over opening stuff up in the city. The Governor decided to open up gyms for limited capacity indoor classes (honestly - I think they've already been doing some of that), and the Mayor thinks it is too soon. The governor has changed the restrictions on domestic travel into NY, you no longer have to quarantine or get a test. The Mayor is upset about it and thinks it is too soon.

They've been fighting for months now. I've had it with the Mayor, who changes his views on things on a daily basis or so it seems. And I don't know what I think about the Governor. Co-workers and I have decided if the Governor were to leave office it probably wouldn't effect us that much or change our lives for the better. (I think we were all kind of hoping it might, but have come to the realization that it most likely won't.)

Meanwhile the Governor is still fighting with his fellow Democrats. Well, the democrats under the age of 55-60, at any rate. The voters meanwhile are taking the same stance that Biden and the Attorney General of NY has - waiting for her to complete her investigation into the matter - before coming to any conclusions. In short, after four years of Trump, and a pandemic, New Yorkers no longer trust insane marketing people. We're kind of onto their game now. This may mean that folks can't destroy politicians and fellow celebrities any longer via social media platforms? Not that they ever really did. Cancel culture is kind of an illusion - all you are doing is cancelling people on Twitter and Facebook. The world is not limited to Twitter and Facebook and Instagram. People can be successful outside of social media.

***

My game plan is to watch Justice League, and possibly The Falcon and The Winter Solider tomorrow and during the weekend. Possibly just Justice League. It's been enough time since the last one - that it will feel new. Also I can remember the last version well enough to notice the differences.

I'm still baffled by why WB chose Whedon of all people to finish and re-shoot Snyder's Justice League. Now that the reviews are out in regards to the Snyder cut? Even more baffled, not less. ( Read more... )

Anyhow, I finally figured out why I've been exhausted all week long - frigging Daylight Savings Time has screwed up my time clock again. If it weren't for the fact that I don't like the desert, require lots of trees, an ocean nearby, and am allergic to dust and dry air, I'd move to Arizona and be done with it.

Saw the flick My Week with Marilyn last night. This was the film based on the memoir by Colin Carter, about the week the film documentary writer and director spent working on the film The Prince and the Showgirl with Marilyn Monroe and Laurence Olivier. Kenneth Brannagh and Michelle Williams were nominated for Oscars for their portrayals of Oliver and Marilyn. They deserved them, particularly Williams who so perfectly portrayed the title character, that I almost thought I was watching Marilyn Monroe on the screen. Her performance went beyond mere mimicry to depict the desperate and hungry soul that lay beneath the movie star sheen. It is by far the best thing about the movie and possibly the only reason to see it. That and Brannagh's take on Olivier...who is humbled, humiliated and maddened by his encounter with Marilyn. Brannagh is almost perfect for the role of Olivier since he in some respects shares many of Olivier's character traits...the notorious ego.

The problem with the film is it is less about the notorious struggle between Olivier and Monroe to make The Prince and The Showgirl, which drove Olivier back to the stage, and more about why men fell in love with Monroe and got their hearts broken. Which is a shame, because we already know that. All you have to do is watch Monroe's movies, which are much better. The best parts of the film focus on Olivier, or on the making of Prince and Showgirl, the worst on Colin and Marilyn. 60% is on Colin and Marilyn - and there's not much to it. Sort of silly boy crush - and done better in other films. Also Colin is a character that it is difficult to care much about. A privileged lad who is resourceful and self-absorbed, not to mention a bit of a user. When the prop girl, whom he was dating and had slept with, Lucy, portrayed by Emma Watson (yes, the one who played Hermoine), tells him that she's glad that Marilyn broke his heart, because he's the sort who needed to have it broken, I wholeheartedly agreed.

Rent it for the performances...not the story. The dialogue is not bad. Bit slow in places, but considering the story - that's to be expected.

After watching it, it occurred to me why characters such as the one's Marilyn Monroe portrayed and in the end became herself...always grated on my nerves. Harmony in Buffy and Angel is basically a similar trope as is Darla. The pretty ditzy girl who exudes sex, that men fall over themselves to help or assist, with her curves and her blond locks, and her
seemingly mindless little girl banter. She uses the heterosexual male gaze against him, she uses the heterosexual male desire to dominate against him as well...she's like a siren, luring him with her song, before she can sink in her teeth. As Arthur Miller tells Sir Laurence Olivier... she's destroying me. I can't write. I can't create. I can't work. I can't think. She's devouring me.

Yet, when we are in the women's perspective...that's not the intent. Marilyn states at one point to Colin, who fails miserably to understand, "They all fall in love with Marilyn, but when they discover I'm not Marilyn...they leave." Marilyn is a tragic story of how giving in to the male gaze, becoming that obscure object of desire can literally destroy you. She took pills to wake up, pills to sleep, pills to be happy, pills to come down. She had to always be on, always be the sex symbol, always that obscure object of desire with the smokey kitten voice. She could never just be plain old Norma Jean.

The following is spoilers. Or basically, I watch Cabin in the Woods, so you don't have to.
Or for those who have seen it and wish to discuss.

Yes, I know..for someone who keeps saying she's not a fan of Joss Whedon, I certainly see and read a lot of the man's works, don't I? There was this blog post that I read online somewhere that stated -- if you want to find your way into a girlgeek's heart, watch everything Joss Whedon has done. Sigh. Too true. We girl-geeks have a weirdly ironic love of Whedon's stories. I've no idea why. Best not to wonder why...just to do or die. I am, as you well know by now, extremely critical of things I love and enjoy. What can I say? It's the car I drive or how I am put together.

The following will compare Cabin with Hunger Games and various other films. Before going into the review, it feels odd to do a meta on it, since the film itself is more a meta than a film or a meta on the horror genre in general.

( There be big ass spoilers in these woods...don't say you weren't duly warned - for both Cabin and Hunger Games, vague spoilers for Hunger Games )

[This is a rather long post, I'm afraid. Because I have a lot of thoughts and I want to express/share them, but am struggling to find the way to do it. I will cut tag to save my flist, but if you choose to read this post - please - make certain you read the part about what I brought with me into the theater - what was influencing my thinking/perspective at the time. Because I think that part is very important.]

Well, I decided to see Avatar in 3 D today, largely because of this review by Roz Kaveny, which I saw linked to in her lj. I respect Roz, who has been on the front lines of what can best be described as the culture wars for more than a decade. She also doesn't proselytze or judge, so much as convey her point of view even if it may differ from your own. Not an easy thing to do, as I'm sure most of us can attest, much to our own chagrin. ;-)

http://www.strangehorizons.com/reviews/2010/01/avatar-comments.shtml#comments
( Why I saw Avatar and the negative and positive reviews regarding it )

My own take on Avatar is a complex one and difficult to put into words. To fully understand it, you'd have to know what I'd watched prior to seeing it this week, what I'd read, and what I thought about. Because I brought more with me into that film besides my body, my coat, hat, gloves, scarf, and purse, and of course 3 D glasses - funky sunglasses reminiscent of Risky Business (a Tom Cruise flick from the 1980s). I brought everything beneath the cut as well:

( Quotes that haunt me from The People Speak, a filmed performance version of Howard Zinn's The People's History of the US, the book Unquiet earth and my own personal background )

My thoughts on Avatar...
( Spoilers - cutting for spoilers and length )

( Why I Am Proud to be American today listening to My Country Tis of Thee- only thing about politics or the presidency in this post )

"> The Pervert's Guide to Cinema

List of Films dicussed go here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Pervert's_Guide_to_Cinema

YouTube Clip: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8sFqfbrsZbw

( Synopsis from The P Guide. )

Wales and I went to see The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, described above, at The IFC Theater last night - which is housed in the old Waverly Art House in the Village on Sixth Avenue and West 4th Street, next to the subway.

The IFC theater is perhaps the most comfortable theater I've been in. Cushioned arm-chairs with acres of leg room. We found good seats in the middle of the row, next to two guys we'd been chatting with in the lobby. I'd found the film through one of the film goer's meetup groups I'd joined on Meetgroups.com.

The film clocks in at about 2 hours and 35 minutes. It felt like three hours. Long film. And somewhat intense. With a narrator who has a very thick eastern european accent and speaks passionately in a staccato voice.

That said? It did fulfill my weird craving for a psychoanalytical discussion of cinema and media - which I kept, rather unsuccessfully, trying to do with people online. Although, I think it was a bit much for Wales. After Part II, she asked what time it was and when she discovered there was another hour to go, she muttered - "I'm dying here, dying."

The film was too long. Repetitive in places. And reminded me why I did not get a graduate degree in film or media criticism, and did not become a philosopher or psychologist. It is also reminded me of why I despise Freud and much prefer Jung. The psychoanalysis is Fruedian, with a capital F. Unlike Freud, Jung was not an absolutist, and questioned things, was more curious and open. Frued tends to be more absolute and unquestioning in his analysis - often ignoring the flaws in his generalizations and assumptions.

But.

It was a fascinating film and Zizek had some interesting ideas regarding the language of cinema.

Last night I wrote down what I remembered from the film. Here they are. These are my impressions of what was said and what I got from it. They are not necessarily my views, nor do I agree with everything that was disclosed by Zizek - who focused solely on films and filmmakers who supported his theories, ignoring those that did not. His presentation was at times manipulative and persuasive, but once you realized that the focus was so narrow, you began to question his theories.

( Part I - Desire : Cinema tells us what we desire and helps us define our reality, Freud's interest was not in the fact we are having sex or how, but rather, what we are thinking and imagining during it and why the libido needs to fantasize. Why are we fantasizing to enjoy it. )

( Part II: Male Fantasy - dealing with the female engima by obliterating her monsterous and dirty presence, making her little more than a reflection of the male, a part of him, which if he removes - he is free. )

( Part II, B- The Female Fantasy )

( Part III: Distintergation/Reconstruction of Self and Fantasy as a way of discovering self )

( Part III -Romantic Fantasy - Projection of Fantasy on to the other )

One additional point of interest - Hitchcock apparently loved to manipulate the emotions of his audience and found new ways to do it in each of his films through images and music.
His dream was that sometime in the future - the human brain would be hot-wired to a device and all a director had to do was push buttons to obtain the emotional response he desired.
[Hitchcock was one twisted individual - who had serious problems with women. So does Zizek in my opinion. Actually so did Freud.]

Interesting film. I recommend with one caveat - rent it, don't buy or go see in a theater. You may want to fast-forward.