Rhetorantical Bloviations

Name:
Location: Monterey, California, United States

Sunday, January 14, 2007

Lady in the Water

I posted this recently in response to an online discussion of Lady in the Water. Since I never got around to reviewing it (and so saving a few bucks for those select few, like myself, who are too stubborn to take good advice). So I thought I would post it here as well. Here goes:

I really wanted to like this film, and went to see it against my better judgment, a host of terrible reviews and the urgings of practically everyone I know. I loved the Village, and was rather impressed by The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable as well. I wanted to be seduced into this magical world, as I was with the Village (a flawed movie, to be sure, but one that was able to capture my imagination nonetheless and hold it until the end). Alas, It was simply not possible. While the concept is fantastic- a modern day fairy tale- the execution falls far short of even slightly entertaining. There were moments when it seemed possible that it might develop into something more, but each time it failed. There wasn't even the characteristic Shyamalan twist at the end (or, if there was, I was so numb by that point that I did not notice it).

Threadbare plot, clumsy direction, uneven camera shots, silly names, and a highly unbelievable premise. Worst of all the film does not really draw the viewer into the world, and fails to achieve that sense of suspension of disbelief necessary to creating a watchable film, particularly a film of this genre.

Another problem (the biggest problem in my opinion) was the ham-handed telling of the fairy tale, it was far too forced. It should have been allowed to flow naturally, revealing itself a bit at a time, in a very subtle manner, rather than being told between poorly filmed phone conversations and grossly self-indulgent scenes of Giamati hamming it up for the camera (which was actually one of the more watchable parts of the film). It seemed as though the director was very pleased with the modern day fairy tale he had wrought and really wanted to be absolutely certain the viewer understood that it was a modern day fairy tale. It is rather (extremely) condescending to the audience, and I admit to leaving the theater with my intelligence somewhat bruised (and my pocketbook somewhat emptier). It wanted to be E.T. it just didn't have the heart...or Spielberg. Still, it was probably much better than Eragon (which I am going to give a wide berth).

Giamati is a fine actor, but he is wasted here. Howard does passingly well, much better than her performance in the Village. With time I have no doubt she will blossom into a actress of some talent. The remainder of the cast may as well have been sleeping-walking through the film, no doubt taking a cue from the director. The ending was ridiculous.

I think Pan's Labyrinth, another movie about fairy tales, will be a far superior movie, and I cannot wait for its release.

Children of Men

Just got back from watching Children of Men, and it is easily one of the best movies I have seen in some time. A masterpiece! The premise, script, acting, cinematography, direction- everything- is incredibly well done. It is gritty realism at its best, and maintains a steady, tense pace throughout, while never wavering from its sense of realism. The characters do not degenerate into your typical thriller clichés, there is a depth to them, and they are all portrayed very delicately and with an amazing amount of subtlety to their personalities. While the protagonist is something of an antihero, he does not come off as your usual self-seeking guy who ends up reluctantly doing what is right only after having endless guilt trips thrust upon him by the noble underdogs. He's just an ordinary guy reacting to an unexpected, if violent, set of circumstances. No judgments are rendered.

Additionally, there are some truly poignant scenes, one scene in particular (without giving anything away) is one of the most moving of any film I have seen, and time just sort of stands still as you watch it- almost moved me to tears by its originality and the sheer beauty of its execution. I highly recommend this film, this is four star caliber material.

Saturday, January 06, 2007

Godlessness, it's not just for breakfast anymore.

I find myself becoming increasingly atheistic as I grow older, though there is still that nagging agnostic portion of being which I cannot seem to shake. That quiet, yet insistent, part that asks, "what if?" and does not wish to commit to absolutes. I suppose I must allow for a (very) slight possibility that there is some higher power, some deity or other, though if there is, he/she/it is highly disorganized, and possibly little more than a bully.

Again, I fear I must abandon even this pitiful attempt at hedging my bets for one very simple reason…no proof. Not a single shred. Nope, notta. Despite much literature to the contrary, despite numerous proponents of the "one true way" (whichever one true way that happens to be for that particular individual or individuals), despite a great many things offered as proof, the simple fact remains that no one, not a single, solitary soul on this globe has the slightest idea as to whether or not there is a god/dess, and entertaining fantasies will not change this. Attempting to maintain a rational conversation with someone convinced of the existence of things which cannot be proved has been a continuing source of irritation throughout most of my life, and is possibly the reason I am slowly going bald (actually this is genetics- though people who refuse to accept the logical conclusion of genetics- i.e. evolution, cause it to fall out at a much faster rate).

Faith and other vague feelings will not save us from this situation of no proof, for, no matter what we may "feel" or what we wish were so, we still cannot prove it, and so it should be abandoned. Faith is ridiculous, especially in the face of facts. Not that asking metaphysical questions is unhealthy. On the contrary, it is necessary and often leads to wonderful truths (all provable through science). Unfortunately, one of these is not proof of the existence of god It is when we begin answering these questions without proof that we stumble (or more often charge full force) into dangerous ground. Once we have convinced ourselves of the existence of something which cannot be proved, we are free to assign to it any traits we wish, and thus are free to create our own reality, however ridiculous it may be. I think that, if there is a indeed a god, he/she/it is fully knowable through the scientific process, and can be fully quantified and explained. Otherwise it is mere theory, and probably would not be sufficient even for an entertaining science fiction yarn.

I do firmly believe in evolution. I can say, with full conviction, that we (humans) began as some form of single-celled organism, and gradually evolved to our current state at the top of the food chain (not as grand a place to be as one might at first believe). I believe the purpose of the universe is for matter to create more of itself. It has been proved that the universe is composed of energy, though I by no means believe that this is a sentient energy, not in the new age sense. I think that when we die, we as individuals cease to exist and all that is left is energy. This energy is changed into something else, and so on. So herein lies this eternal life, though not one we shall ever know, for, as I said before, in the end we die, end of story. And, I think that this is entirely sufficient; not only is there no life after death, there is no need for it.

One could conclude from the above that I believe in nature and the Gaia theory. To an extent this is true, but only on the level that nature is not in any way a sentient being, but rather the pure mechanics of the universe. There is no connectedness, no great pool of energy we all return to and cohabitate in unending joy.

I think much, if not all, of man's need for faith, religion, etc, springs from one or more of the following: man's fear of death (or rather his fear of not existing any longer- I am guilty of this on occasion), the fact that man cannot stand the thought (or reality) of losing his loved ones, and man's uncontrollable need to be right. You may notice that most of these stem from either a now obsolete system of survival instincts or from man's not inconsiderable ego; the feeling each of us has that we are the only reality. Are we justified in feeling this, perhaps, in the sense that we cannot help it, it is all we know (and all we will know without proper education and a conscious effort toward not believing this nonsense). Are we actually the center of the reality, not a chance. Each of us is one tiny, insignificant speck in the immensity of the universe. And, again, this is as it should, and must, be.