Movies

Convincing Bullshit

They Are Alive (JFK to Z) by metaphilm : Conspiracy theories are strange beasts. Generally devised by a paranoid person or group, almost all of them beg the question. One favorite conspiracy theory contends that the CIA (along with a group of anti-Castro Cuban exiles and the military-industrial complex) killed JFK to allow the rise of Lyndon Johnson and the U.S. involvement in Vietnam (obviously there are many variations of this particular theory). This theory was captured adroidtly by Oliver Stone’s film JFK.

In many ways, JFK aptly represents the essence of most of the substantial conspiracy texts. They combine an uncritical analysis of their own findings – that, for example, the CIA would use Oswald as an agent, and a highly important one for that matter – with an absolute skepticism of the Warren Commission’s evidence and conclusions.

Stone is a great filmmaker. JFK, at first glance, makes an alarmingly good case against the traditional story as forwarded by the Warren Commission, but when one is familiar with the language of cinema, its hardly convincing. Stone’s use of cinematic language gives JFK the feel of a documentary, with its black and white footage and its reliance on natural lighting, among other staples of documentary filmmaking. Take away these techniques, and the theory is exposed for what it really is: a “counter-myth” to the prevailing orthodoxy (as Stone himself once commented). Norman Mailer referred to it as “more convincing bullshit than the Warren Report’s bullshit.” But its still bullshit, you see?

Does this mean JFK is a bad movie? As much as I disagree with Stone’s convincing bullshit, I must admit, he does a masterful job presenting it. On a strictly technical level, I enjoy it. It is a suspenseful and tautly constructed thriller, but by using what is essentially a fictional story and presenting it as historical fact, Stone ultimately shoots himself in the foot. He wants to get his point across so badly that he relies on convincing bullshit instead of pure facts.

One senses that Stone deliberately pushes his fictive interpretation over the facts. Why? The fictional account is better and more convincing propaganda against a government Stone strongly mistrusts and Americans have trusted too much.

And this is where I begin to disagree with the author. Yes, the fictional account is better and more convincing, but it’s still propaganda. With JFK, Stone is asking the audience to believe his story over the government’s, but upon closer examination his story falls apart. If you want to show how untrustowrthy the American government is, why choose a conspiracy theory that is pretty much known to be false as the vehicle for your argument? Could it be that Stone is simply demonstrating how someone can make a convincing case based on fictional suppositions, thus deminishing the value of other explainations based on the same evidence (after all, his admission that the film is a “counter-myth” seems to imply that this may be the case)? Its a fine line Stone is straddling, and its easy to come down on eather side of the issue. Ultimately, no one knows what really happened on that fateful day, and I don’t think Stone added anything significant to that, other than underscoring our lack of understanding. But damn, its fun to watch, isn’t it?

Messing with Memory

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind by Charlie Kaufman : The latest script from the surreal screenwriter who brought you Being John Malkovitch, Adaptation, and Confessions of a Dangerous Mind. Its about a couple who break up and attempt to erase their memories of each other, but one of them changes his mind halfway through the process… There’s a lot of potential in these types of stories. Memory is a fertile subject, and Kaufman could blow my mind away with this thing (if his past writing is any indication, I think he’ll be successful). I’ve only read about 1/3 of the script, so I can’t say for sure, but it seems like he’s on the right track (I thought it had a bit of a slow start, and the female lead is a bit annoying, but it gets better; I don’t want to ruin it, though, so I’m not going to finish it). Sort of reminiscent of Memento; moving backwards at intervals, with various flashbacks or flashforwards; all sorts of non-linear memories and confusion, but somehow still coherant (as I said, I didn’t finish, so I can’t say for sure). Apparently it’s a hot script, with Jim Carrey and Kate Winslet attached to act. Keep your eye on this one, its bound to be an interesting one.

Die Another Day

For the latest installment of the James Bond series of films, Pierce Brosnan’s people are apparently so swamped with interview requests that they actually allowed an interview with The Facer. I never heard of The Facer before, but… let’s just say the interview was somewhat less traditional than Mr. Brosnan is used to. An excerpt:

FACER: Vin Diesel is what I call a “bondawannabee.” At least based on his movie XXX. Did you see it?

BROSNAN: I just did, yes. Very exciting. Not Bond, though.

FACER: I know. The guy’s as suave as a rectal exam. But he is hunky. Would you date him?

BROSNAN: Who?

FACER: Vin Diesel. I mean, if you were a woman. Women love men who are named after fossil fuel products. Indicates a certain dynamic flammability, I think.

BROSNAN: (silence)

FACER: This is pretty agonizing for you, isn’t it?

BROSNAN: Well, it’s not the worst interview I’ve had.

Like I said, its not quite traditional. The discussion of innuendo in Bond girls’ names is absolutely hilarious (I’ll give you a taste: “Daisy Throatwash”). Also, Brosnan is apparently a pretty damn good sport.

Torpedo in the Water!

The First Annual Torpedo Awards over at filmfodder is an interesting read. The award “honors” a film performance by an actor or actress that is so bad it keeps a good movie from being a great movie, hence “torpedoing” it. They’ve done a decent job of it, picking out most of the obvious ones (such as Sofia Coppola in “The Godfather III”, The entire leading cast of “Bram Stoker’s Dracula”, Denise Richards in “The World is Not Enough”, or my personal favourite Jeremy London in “Mallrats” – that guy couldn’t deliver Smith’s brilliant dialogue for shit) and making a few controversial but debateable choices (such as Jack Nicholson in “The Shining”, Quentin Tarantino in “Pulp Fiction”, or, perhaps not so controversial, Mark Hamill in “Star Wars”). The only glaring ommission I can see (and I’m notoriously bad at picking stuff like this) is Edward Furlong in “Terminator 2”. That whole crackly-voiced whiny-ass punk kid routine got real annoying real fast. Of course, there were other problems with T2, and you’re supposed to look only at the performance not the role, but I think that movie could have been a lot better had it not been for little Eddy’s performance… I’m sure there are lots of others – anyone want to give it a shot?

Amateur

The internet has given voice to many an amateur, and usually, the term “amateur” is appropriate. But in some cases, the quantity and quality of material produced renders the term meaningless. James Berardinelli has been reviewing films on the internet for years, and he does so more consistantly and thouroughly than many professional film critics. In a certain sense, he is anything but an “amateur”. Take this recent review of My Big Fat Greek Wedding. With one line he completely sums up my feelings about the movie:

Watching this movie is like eating cotton candy – there’s a lot of sweetness and not much substance, but it’s a joy to consume while it lasts.

That line is just so dead-on that it’s almost scary. Unlike a lot of web gems, Mr. Berardinelli actually has achieved a certain amount of recognition, from people like me to big name film critics like Roger Ebert, and it is well deserved, too.

Making Chop-Socky Important

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: The Art Film Hidden Inside the Chop-Socky Flick by Mattew Levie : Everyone was willing to heap praise on Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon when it came out, but few actually examined the importance of the film. Most people rightly praised the stunning visuals or the expertly choreographed fight sequences, but there was no discussion of what made CTHD an important film. This despite being directed by Ang Lee, a man known for his slowly paced character studies. They’ve been making martial arts films in Hong Kong for quite some time, and as far as that goes, CTHD is pretty much average. But there is something that sets it apart from its mindless action counterparts. Levie contends that CTHD is a commentary on the plight of the modern woman.

Imagine Jade Fox as the strong professional woman who is perceived as too “aggressive” and even “bitchy,” while her equally aggressive male colleagues are spared this criticism; Shu Lien as the woman who works twice as hard as her male colleagues to reach the same stature, sacrificing her personal happiness for professional success; and Jen as a beautiful, capable teenager trying to set her priorities: career or family?

Its an interesting viewpoint, and it fits with the movie. The women in CTHD are desperately trying to succeed in a world that doesn’t overtly oppress them, but is still full of sexual prejudices and challenges. Its watching how the women in CTHD reconcile with this world that gives it an advantage over its competition.

The article is from Bright Lights Film Journal, which has always been a good read for movie fans with more diverse interests. They just released a new issue, with good articles on the distribution of Black Films, The Tarantino Legacy, and the failure of Wag the Dog.

Old Man, Your Kung-Fu is Useless!

Nova Express is a Hugo Award nominated zine covering the entire spectrum of speculative fiction. Issue 14 is the highlight, containing, among other things, an interesting discussion of Hong Kong cinema, including the superbly titled Old Man, Your Kung-Fu is Useless! (don’t forget to read part 2), and a few top ten lists. Author Walter Jon Williams does a resonable job categorizing and giving examples of the various genres within the Chinese action film (though he excludes the more recent Honk Kong Gangster genre typified by John Woo and Ringo Lam). If for no other reason, its good for finding some good examples of Chinese action movies. I’ll be checking out some of the Wu Xia Pian films… if I can find them…

Also, in the same issue, is an interesting article entitled Why Lovecraft Still Matters: The Magical Power of Transformative Fiction. The author, Don Webb, examines some of the things that make Lovecraft so pervasive, and gives a brief overview of his works. Lovecraft’s Mythos was an ingenius creation, as he was somehow able to slowly evoke a subtle emotional reaction on readers’ minds. The Mythos itself was almost self reinforcing; most of Lovecraft’s stories were published in the pulp magazine Wierd Tales, and Lovecraft was able to secure a secondary source of income by revising manuscripts for other Weird Tales authors, which enabled him to add references to his own imaginative universe in other authors’ works. Further, he encouraged his friends to drop references to them in their own work. For example, one of his best known creations, the Necronomicon (the magical book of the dead), is often thought to be real because sometimes Lovecraft would reference other well known books of the occult alongside his fictional Necronomicon. Other authors also referenced it in a similar manner, thus lending to the illusion. Fascinating stuff.

Very Secret Diaries

Time to lighten things up a bit. This Cassandra person is doing a series of stories about Lord of the Rings characters’ secret diaries. Its hilarious. Homosexual overtones abound. Check them out:

Funny stuff, unless you think the homosexual overtones are heresy or something. Also, check out this Ninja site, its funny too. Mighty fine basassery. [thanks S�m�l]

Reflections on LotR

By the way, I saw Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Ring on Teusday night (or Wednesday morning, if you prefer), and I was completely blown away. I think I must feel the same way people felt when walking out of the original Star Wars. I would describe the film as a sweeping epic, in the true sense of those words (before they were perverted by the use of critics describing the like of, say, Gladiator) and Peter Jackson should be honored for being able to capture the spirit of Tolkien’s work while, at the same time, not shutting out those who are not familiar with the books. This is perhaps one of the most ambitious efforts in film history, and Jackson actually manages to imbue the film with the depth and texture that it demands. From beginning to end, the film showcases the grand beauty of Middle Earth, with graceful vistas, immense landscapes of forbidding snow or rolling greenery, and sweeping shots of terrifying battles, but don’t let that fool you – Jackson was able to temper the pace and suspence of the film so that its scale does not detract from it. This is grand filmmaking, yes, but Jackson also focuses on the human side, letting his wonderful actors do their thing and also showing the details of Middle Earth’s history and architecture… This is an adventurous effort at its best, and its one of the best movies I’ve seen in a long time.

Bizarre Movie Renderings

Star Wars Asciimation : Ok, so it turns out that the phrase “Some people have way too much time on their hands” is completely true. This guy has converted Star Wars into an ASCII animation. The whole movie (well, almost, he’s nearing the end) is presented with ASCII art. He also did a short Asciimation portraying the death of Jar-Jar and is working on a home made jet engine.

These haiku movie reviews are brilliant. [via Wisdom]

The Sixth Sense

Macaulay Culkin

eat your heart out. This is what

child acting’s about.