There are markers of Spring. In my beloved town of Dexter, MI, one of the earliest is the opening of Dairy Queen, usually on the first weekend of March. Had you visited Dairy Queen on opening day you would have had to trudge through the snow to get there. The next one is, of course, the vernal equinox -- the astronomical moment of Spring. This was a little better. There was still some snow on the ground, but also a bit of sun. Of course, it was accompanied by a warning that the next couple of weeks could still bring snow. Then comes Oberon Day. This is the day the Bell's Brewing Company (of Kalamazoo) starts shipping the spring wheat varietal called Oberon. It is a reason to hit the bar. Oberon day was cold and gray. Opening day for the Tigers follows. Also cold and the game was rained out. Now comes the news that the real break in the cold won't come until as late as April 10th. Not great, but it's been worse in recent memory. Life in a northern town, I suppose.
[Movies] Flick Check: Tone Opposites
[Books] Book Look: The Second World Wars
[TV] Toob Notes: Sneaky Pete
Friday, April 06, 2018
[Movies] Flick Check: Tone Opposites
Two big-budget sequels to sci-fi icons, Blade Runner: 2049 and Alien:Covenant, had stunning visuals, especially Blade Runner, but both left me cold. They are unremittingly grim.
Blade Runner: 2049 is a masterfully crafted film. Cinematography is unparalleled. But plot-wise, it treads well-worn ground. Once again we are in the future where everything is awful except for a wealthy elite. I am so deeply weary of dystopian visions. Even more so of dystopias that are kept in place by a corrupt and ruthless elite. Honestly, it's like sci-fi filmmakers can picture no possible futures for the world except to become North Korea writ large.
The plot revisits the themes of what it means to be human, what is the value of non-human life, or almost human life, etc. Essentially a more elegant take of various Star Trek episode themes. Yawn. But it is truly a feast for the eyes, and it's always good to see Harrison Ford in the old roles, which he still carries off like a true pro.
Alien: Covenant is less high-minded and less extreme in it's visual mastery, but still striking. Technically, it is both a sequel (to Prometheus) and a prequel (to the original Alien). It, too, trods well-worn ground. Two robots, one has turned against humanity, symbolize the discourse on whether humans are good or evil. Of course, all this was set in motion by wealthy elites in their greed to use the aliens for their own nefarious purposes. The scares of the original Alien are not approached. The crew characters can't hold a candle to the original, or Aliens either, or even Prometheus for that matter.
Honestly, despite the undeniable craftsmanship that went into both movies, the adolescent philosophizing and class-warfare dystopianism doom them. And really, would be impossible to inject a bit of levity here and there. There is barely a smile, never mind a laugh, wedged into all this gloom. I'm reminded of the Joss Whedon quote: "Make it dark, make it grim, make it tough, but then, for the love of God, tell a joke."
In contrast, Thor: Ragnorak was a joke a minute. One thing Marvel has never had trouble with is putting humor into their movies. It is the thing that sets them above the imitators. Ragnarok pushes that capability over into outright farce. There was a thread of a plot here regarding the destruction of Asgaard and a bit of work forwarding the grand epic of Marvel, but it was all in service of the goofy fun. Even the characters changed to fit the script. Thor is not the mighty, noble, hammer-worthy god of thunder; he is hapless and desperate. Loki is not an evil mastermind, but petty and wagish. Hulk is not the uncontrollable beast, but a pouting child. It works because, as I have harped about before, Marvel casts actors that can do comedy. It is their (not-so) secret weapon. That said, it the larger scope of things, it has to be viewed almost like Deadpool: a one-off with little relevance to the big picture. When we get to Infinity War next, these guys are going to have to go back to their old characters (I assume).
And it's not without its shortcomings. Interestingly, the actions scenes lack some snap. They seem a bit pedestrian -- designed to generate still visuals for the posters. The plot is uninteresting and contrived. But that's OK because it was fun. Which is the point of farce: everything is in service of the gags and laughs. As fun as it was, it is ultimately a less satisfying movie that one that hits the killer balance of humor and drama just right. The previous Avengers movies and Spiderman: Homecoming come to mind as just about perfect in that respect.
Now there is a thing a never thought I would say: a movie is too funny. And it's not really, it did what it was supposed to. If every once in while, in middle of a major mythological epic you want to let your hair down, you should. (Trouble with Tribbles, anyone?)
Blade Runner: 2049 is a masterfully crafted film. Cinematography is unparalleled. But plot-wise, it treads well-worn ground. Once again we are in the future where everything is awful except for a wealthy elite. I am so deeply weary of dystopian visions. Even more so of dystopias that are kept in place by a corrupt and ruthless elite. Honestly, it's like sci-fi filmmakers can picture no possible futures for the world except to become North Korea writ large.
The plot revisits the themes of what it means to be human, what is the value of non-human life, or almost human life, etc. Essentially a more elegant take of various Star Trek episode themes. Yawn. But it is truly a feast for the eyes, and it's always good to see Harrison Ford in the old roles, which he still carries off like a true pro.
Alien: Covenant is less high-minded and less extreme in it's visual mastery, but still striking. Technically, it is both a sequel (to Prometheus) and a prequel (to the original Alien). It, too, trods well-worn ground. Two robots, one has turned against humanity, symbolize the discourse on whether humans are good or evil. Of course, all this was set in motion by wealthy elites in their greed to use the aliens for their own nefarious purposes. The scares of the original Alien are not approached. The crew characters can't hold a candle to the original, or Aliens either, or even Prometheus for that matter.
Honestly, despite the undeniable craftsmanship that went into both movies, the adolescent philosophizing and class-warfare dystopianism doom them. And really, would be impossible to inject a bit of levity here and there. There is barely a smile, never mind a laugh, wedged into all this gloom. I'm reminded of the Joss Whedon quote: "Make it dark, make it grim, make it tough, but then, for the love of God, tell a joke."
In contrast, Thor: Ragnorak was a joke a minute. One thing Marvel has never had trouble with is putting humor into their movies. It is the thing that sets them above the imitators. Ragnarok pushes that capability over into outright farce. There was a thread of a plot here regarding the destruction of Asgaard and a bit of work forwarding the grand epic of Marvel, but it was all in service of the goofy fun. Even the characters changed to fit the script. Thor is not the mighty, noble, hammer-worthy god of thunder; he is hapless and desperate. Loki is not an evil mastermind, but petty and wagish. Hulk is not the uncontrollable beast, but a pouting child. It works because, as I have harped about before, Marvel casts actors that can do comedy. It is their (not-so) secret weapon. That said, it the larger scope of things, it has to be viewed almost like Deadpool: a one-off with little relevance to the big picture. When we get to Infinity War next, these guys are going to have to go back to their old characters (I assume).
And it's not without its shortcomings. Interestingly, the actions scenes lack some snap. They seem a bit pedestrian -- designed to generate still visuals for the posters. The plot is uninteresting and contrived. But that's OK because it was fun. Which is the point of farce: everything is in service of the gags and laughs. As fun as it was, it is ultimately a less satisfying movie that one that hits the killer balance of humor and drama just right. The previous Avengers movies and Spiderman: Homecoming come to mind as just about perfect in that respect.
Now there is a thing a never thought I would say: a movie is too funny. And it's not really, it did what it was supposed to. If every once in while, in middle of a major mythological epic you want to let your hair down, you should. (Trouble with Tribbles, anyone?)
[Books] Book Look: The Second World Wars, by Victor Davis Hanson
The plural in the title is telling. In this 20,000 foot overview, Hanson sees very the various conflicts of the collective idea of World War 2 as more distinct than the popular imagining. The variations came over time, technology, and ideology as opposed to simple geography. Hanson starts with the fact that in any rational estimation of the situation, the outcome of the war was foreordained. Had anyone sat down in 1939 and tried to determine if the Axis powers could fight a war as it was to be fought for domination of the world it would have been objectively impossible to see them succeed.
Of course, no one did such a thing. Decisions were made based on delusion, many of them were in fact racist delusions. Axis powers often fell into the trap of believing their opponents were inferior in mettle and so a temporary tactical or niche strategic advantage would be enough to secure victory. After a few early victories by the Axis it became apparent that the Allies would readily adapt, and anything they couldn't adapt to they would just outproduce into oblivion.
Hanson shows how this played out thematically in chapters on air power, naval power, infantry, artillery, leadership, etc. and gives the numbers, sometimes exhaustively, to back up his ideas. He is also a classicist, so as an added bonus you get comparables from history for many battles and concepts, pointing out nuances in the historical effectiveness of siegecraft or the primacy of infantry no matter how strong your navy (or air force).
When it comes to leaders, he weighs in as pro-Patton, down on Bradley and MacArthur and Montgomery to some extent. Churchill comes out well, Roosevelt and Stalin (as war leaders) did OK if not stellar. Hitler was, of course, a disaster.
Like virtually every popular historian I have read he engages in judgements that can seem arbitrary. One campaign is faulted for being too timid while another for being too aggressive. One leader should have paid more attention to details while another could not see the big picture. There may be valid reasons for the judgments that time, word count, or narrative limitations do not allow, but in the absence of explanation these can see like simple ex post facto rationalization. Like I said, I have yet to read a popular history that doesn't involve this to some extent.
Hanson writes in a very clear, forthright style -- perfect for history or non-fiction in general. Should you read The Second World Wars? Yes, if you are curious about the topic or are steeped in it and want to know how the winds of opinion are blowing. WW2 was the most monumental event in human history and it is slowly vanishing from living memory. Even those who heard stories of it from their parents, like Yours Truly, are sliding into old age. The great mass of Millenials will be unable to distinguish it from any other war from the olden days, never bothering to wonder of the source of the epithet "Nazi" that they fling wantonly at each other over Twitter. One can only hope that in each succeeding generation there will at least be a few folks who maintain a weird interest in this obscure historical topic. I suspect The Second World Wars will be on their core reading list.
Of course, no one did such a thing. Decisions were made based on delusion, many of them were in fact racist delusions. Axis powers often fell into the trap of believing their opponents were inferior in mettle and so a temporary tactical or niche strategic advantage would be enough to secure victory. After a few early victories by the Axis it became apparent that the Allies would readily adapt, and anything they couldn't adapt to they would just outproduce into oblivion.
Hanson shows how this played out thematically in chapters on air power, naval power, infantry, artillery, leadership, etc. and gives the numbers, sometimes exhaustively, to back up his ideas. He is also a classicist, so as an added bonus you get comparables from history for many battles and concepts, pointing out nuances in the historical effectiveness of siegecraft or the primacy of infantry no matter how strong your navy (or air force).
When it comes to leaders, he weighs in as pro-Patton, down on Bradley and MacArthur and Montgomery to some extent. Churchill comes out well, Roosevelt and Stalin (as war leaders) did OK if not stellar. Hitler was, of course, a disaster.
Like virtually every popular historian I have read he engages in judgements that can seem arbitrary. One campaign is faulted for being too timid while another for being too aggressive. One leader should have paid more attention to details while another could not see the big picture. There may be valid reasons for the judgments that time, word count, or narrative limitations do not allow, but in the absence of explanation these can see like simple ex post facto rationalization. Like I said, I have yet to read a popular history that doesn't involve this to some extent.
Hanson writes in a very clear, forthright style -- perfect for history or non-fiction in general. Should you read The Second World Wars? Yes, if you are curious about the topic or are steeped in it and want to know how the winds of opinion are blowing. WW2 was the most monumental event in human history and it is slowly vanishing from living memory. Even those who heard stories of it from their parents, like Yours Truly, are sliding into old age. The great mass of Millenials will be unable to distinguish it from any other war from the olden days, never bothering to wonder of the source of the epithet "Nazi" that they fling wantonly at each other over Twitter. One can only hope that in each succeeding generation there will at least be a few folks who maintain a weird interest in this obscure historical topic. I suspect The Second World Wars will be on their core reading list.
[TV] Toob Notes: Sneaky Pete
Sneaky Pete is sourced from folks in both the Justified family and the Breaking Bad family so you know the quality will be first rate. That is to say, these people know what they are doing. They know how to plot. They know how to dramatize. They know how to build characters. They know timing and pacing. They know good actors and casting. Naturally, they turned out this a top notch drama; probably the best one I know of right now (until Better Call Saul returns).
Marius Josipovic is a con man who assumes the identity of his cellmate, Pete Murphy, upon release from prison. The Murphy clan into which he is welcomed is a hotbed of secrets and shadiness themselves. Between the family bail bond business, Marius' (Fake Pete) con-man ways, and real Pete's history of criminality, there is enough fodder for an endless supply Elmore Leonard-y capers and characters.
The appeal here is the combination of crime capers and family drama. It works well, as you would expect of anything backed by the top-drawer talent behind it. It is not pantheon level. For the time being -- the first two seasons anyway -- it is plot-driven. Plot twists and hidden motives can only go so far. By the end of the recently released Season 2 we are starting to see some character's arcs begin, but they are still not driving the action. That may come. For now, it's just a top quality show that's worth binging. Enjoy it for what it is, and hope they are able to level-up going forward.
Marius Josipovic is a con man who assumes the identity of his cellmate, Pete Murphy, upon release from prison. The Murphy clan into which he is welcomed is a hotbed of secrets and shadiness themselves. Between the family bail bond business, Marius' (Fake Pete) con-man ways, and real Pete's history of criminality, there is enough fodder for an endless supply Elmore Leonard-y capers and characters.
The appeal here is the combination of crime capers and family drama. It works well, as you would expect of anything backed by the top-drawer talent behind it. It is not pantheon level. For the time being -- the first two seasons anyway -- it is plot-driven. Plot twists and hidden motives can only go so far. By the end of the recently released Season 2 we are starting to see some character's arcs begin, but they are still not driving the action. That may come. For now, it's just a top quality show that's worth binging. Enjoy it for what it is, and hope they are able to level-up going forward.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)