The Case for Queenly Sequels

Seeing a movie at the Embassy Theatre is always a wonder and a joy.

A pity then that the movie I chose to see there, Elizabeth: the Golden Age, wasn’t quite as engrossing.

To be fair, I find Cate Blanchett absolutely fascinating, so I enjoyed every scene where she ran around screaming (a lot of those) in some outrageous outfit or other. Clive Owen made a fine tall dark “scoundrel”; Abbie Cornish (who I swore was the wondrous Melanie Lynsky but, much to my embarrassment, was not) played the lust object well; Samantha Morton always freaks me out even when she isn’t playing a psychotic Scottish Queen; and everyone else was fairly good as well, though the Spanish King was played as insane rather than just as a religious nutter, which kind of made him a joke rather than a menacing force.

So it wasn’t the actors then, or the script (well, not really). It was the little things. The score was overly loud (that may have been the superior Embassy sound system, but I doubt it) and drowned almost every scene in an orchestral mire; the climactic high seas battle scenes were a CGI marvel, but were also confusing (I am sure they were in reality too; but it didn’t really make for easy viewing, which detracted from its climaxateness); and the whole final battle from the Queen’s perspective seemed to be directed by the person who had put together music videos for Enya in the 1980s, all billowing saffron and gazing into the distance.

The cinematography was quite interesting too. Obviously someone decided to take advantage of the (real?) sets and get a few cameras up in the rafters, as we occasionally had a birds eye view on the mousey humans scurrying about their palatial mazes. While “noice and different”, it also got to be a bit distancing (were we meant to be flying away from what was happening to the central characters?), especially after the first few uses.

And historical accuracy was (I am sure) sacrificed on the pyre of artistic license.

So: loved Cate, the rest was okay, so overall, a bit disappointing. Love the venue though. Ah, the Embassy!

Verdict: 2 cannons out of 5, with one extra cannon belonging solely to Cate

The Case for Smarties

The concept of smart v dumb has fascinated me. Because I think it is plain to everyone that some who may at first glance be dumb can actually be quite smart, and vice versa. For example, George W Bush: is he a foil being blindly led by self-interested parties that surround him for personal financial gain; or a cunning man of the people who has managed to win re-election through an amazing ability to adapt both himself and the facts to new political situations?

I am not going to argue about individuals (a Judgement for another day perhaps), but rather, today, I sit in judgement of the scale of “smart” and “dumb” – and I have found them wanting. “Wanting” in that I believe that there are extra dimensions to smartness that aren’t smart, and dumbness that aren’t dumb. So I have constructed the Smartscale™ (v1), which groups multiple types of “smarts” (where smart is the smart end of the scale and dumb is the unsmart) in the following two ways:

1) Firstly, potential smarts. While I had initially thought to label this “academic smarts”, that term does not really seem to fit as it seems to limit the scope to bits and pieces of paper. Potential smarts are background indicators of smartness, like experience or study. I see this as looking at a person’s smarts C.V. and from that determining the smarts they may have access to, or at least have deep down inside. Potential smarts can only be acquired with time, but are not necessarily acquired in all areas, or perhaps not at all. It gives a base in being what people call smart, but does not guarantee the person will appear smart when you meet them in person.

2) And that is the second part of the Smartscale™ (v1) – the apparent smarts, which could also be described as astuteness. We all know these people – those who are quick on their feet, witty, dauntless, unstoppable. Every question has an answer, some shrewd and accurate, while others being cases of bulldust baffling brains. These smarts can only be determined in person and, while it may not actually be a true indication of deeper depth, the obvious intelligence required to be able to react so quickly and be so persuasive and thus provide (if nothing more) the illusion of being smart is a type of smartness in itself. This scale is harder to move along, as it requires a certain “natural” way of thinking and dealing with people to be convincing.

And, as I am making this a more complex scale, the two interact. In the scale below, I have started with the potential dumb on the left hand side. As (one hopes) people tend to become more well read and experienced with time, this provides the x axis to “ground” the smart scale. Apparent smarts, as something a bit harder to change with time, forms the y axis. And where people sit, well, it’s a combination of the two.

[Not sure what I have done, but this image looks horrible here; but click on it and it should look better - or, at least, be legible]

Personally I think of myself as sitting in the Smart – Dumb quadrant. I can be a complete mutard in person, but (a conceit perhaps) I tend to think of myself as a bit of a thinker about things. I am not going to attempt to identify exactly where I sit within that quadrant, as that is just inviting trouble.

And the idea of placing oneself in this scale is, really, quite pointless. The only people who can judge where one sits on the Smartscale™ (v1) is someone (or someones) else. A judge, as it were.

Right, I have now laid down the groundwork for my Smartscale™ (v1) and, when I next decide to sit down and engage myself in thinking about something completely useless, I can refine this tool a bit more. Suggestions (and comments on its complete inanity) welcome.

Just as an aside, I have toyed with the idea of a 3 x 3 matrix of determining “smartness”, and it may have to come to that depending on my ruminations…

Verdict: A giant leap forward in uselessness

The Case for 3D

3D is almost back in style.

It used to be a gimmick to lure people back to the cinema after the advent of television. A bit like cinemascope and smellovision. But now it is back. Probably to lure people back to the cinema after the advent of home theatre. And Beo-Wulf was my first taste of it in a non-I-Max cinema.

Unfortunately, Beo-Wulf is actually quite dull. It got off to a rocky start when the sound track was out of synch with the images. To be honest, I actually thought it might have been (badly) dubbed from the original "Danish", but then it became apparent that the naked King was in fact Anthony Hopkins, so that wasn't to blame. However, even when the soundtrack was sorted out about 20 minutes later, things didn't really get better.

Sure, the action sequences were quite nifty. But the interminable non-action sequences were like watching 3D paint dry. Beo-Wulf leant himself to the most amusing scene where he battled the hideous Grendel in his birthday suit (to face the monster on its own terms) and the "camera angles" used to obscure his "manliness" were inventive, if bordering on the ridiculous after the first 5 seconds of combat. The fact the naked torso of Beo-Wulf got a lot more screentime than the naked outline of stunning Angelina Jolie as the nameless demoness made one wonder who the target audience for the film was. Most of the characters were actually deathly dull (for example, the Queen was sour, depressing and flavourless for most of the film, and it got worse when she sang) and the two and a bit hour running time could definitely have used some trimming.

And we didn't even get to keep the 3D glasses at the end of the film either, even though we paid for the priviledge of wearing them.

Verdict: Beo-Wulf made 3D images two dimensional - or perhaps even one dimensional. Fractions would just be cruel...

The Case for Living Death

“Directors Month” saw me going to watch the latest of Quentin Tarantino’s flims, Deathproof. Originally conceived as part of a double feature of 70s action flick inspired films, Deathproof is the “uncut” single movie version. And, to be honest, it suffers for its separation and subsequent “lengthening”.

At least, I assume it has been lengthened. Because, for an action movie, there is surprisingly little action. Tarantino’s traditional snappy dialogue is provided in abundance, at the expense of the stunts and action. A 45 minute set up for the first action sequence is rewarded with 10 minutes of actual action, and then another hour set up ensues followed by about 20 minutes of action. And the set up is not really that engrossing, to be honest.

The first set up was the more interesting, even with a directorial cameo. Tarantino seemed more focussed on sticking with the 70s cheap flick ethos, with grainy footage and terrible sound, that he kind of gave up with for most of the second part. The first part also felt more Tarantino-esque, with very quirky characters and ridiculous topics of conversation taken deeply and discussed in depth.

Part two seemed to function more as a highlight on Zoe Bell. An incredible stunt woman, I am not so convinced by her acting. But I also think my own “Kiwi aversion” prejudices came through. The “where are you from?” section really grated with me as I could see exactly where things were going and thought – in my opinion – that trail is actually not one that NZers tend to follow. Flight of the Conchords makes fun of the fact NZers are fairly monotone and rather unexcitable, so I always find NZers being portrayed as more excitable “Americans playing NZers” painful to watch.

At any rate, the dialogue in part two really drags. After being tantalised with action at the end of part one, the return to general inactivity is a huge disappointment. There are some amusing and interesting exchanges – this is a Tarantino film – but by this stage I had enough of the talk and wanted more with the action. And during some of the more dragged out dialogues (following the “oh yes you did”, “oh no I didn’t” kind of format), I was searching for the reading light so I could get into my book and come back to the movie when things got interesting again.

It ends on a girl power high and regains its 70s cheesy movie feel, so it ends well. But the end was a frightfully long time coming.

Verdict: The film may be Deathproof, but there are some parts where I felt it slipped into a coma. Or I did. Three bullets out of a six-shooter.

The Case for the Queen

Actually... no case needs to be made in this instance.

For who in their right mind could possibly say no to the incredible Queen Latifah?

A real woman touting beauty products on the telly? The apocalypse must be nigh. But I am going to enjoy it...

Verdict: Long Live the Queen

The Case for Lynch Land

Well. What can I say? I knew what I was in for.

I love David Lynch films. They are imaginative, use strange camera techniques, incredible actors, and I always come out enjoying the experience. Not that I have any idea what most of this movies mean or can explain the plot… if there is one.

Inland Empire was another excellent addition to his list of incomprehensible yet beautiful works (including Mulholland Drive and Lost Highway). There were more unusual moviemaking techniques, such as extreme and uncomfortable close ups; grainy footage; spot lighting with flashlights, dark and disturbing scene lighting and music. The actors, especially an amazing turn by Laura Dern, all performed amazingly given the incredible circumstances and situations in which they found themselves. And imaginative – well, how else can one describe a film that seems, in the final analysis, to make next to no sense whatsoever, even if the director claims there is some… somewhere?

With David Lynch films, meaningful expressions and the mundane (yet actually incredibly meaningful) dialogue (or monologues; or silences) replace the action and oh-so-clever encounters of other films. This makes the choice of actors that much more important, and Lynch seems to both pick incredible actors and get them to perform to the best of their ability, such as Laura Dern, whose most incredible moments involve her just recounting stories to camera under the harshest lighting and looking ragged and beaten. Other familiar faces , like Jeremy Irons and Mary Steenburgen, show up, but this is Dern’s film – well, as much as it can be anyone’s other than Lynch’s.

Story-wise. Well, impossible to recall. But I both loved and was freaked out by the bunnies. I can’t explain it, you really need to see it.

Actually, that was what I was going to say to cover off this film. “I can’t explain it; you need to experience it”. But my verbosity has got the better of me. Because I liked it.

Verdict: Definitely not for everyone, but for those who love Lynch, definitely a large slice of cherry pie with some mighty fine coffee as black as midnight on a moonless night.

The Case for Aliens 2

A wee while ago now (back in September), I promised to mention a trip to Stonehenge Aotearoa. The image below is actually from their website, and an amazing site it is too.

Nestled in the hills of the Wairarapa, this Antipodean Edifice stands watching the southern skies, observing in its calculating way the passage of the seasons, the months and the years, but sun and by star and by moon.

And by ALIENS.

Yes, this wee New Age, Old Age, Druidical enclave does in fact appear to be home to a nest of the Alien enamoured (or, as we could also call them Extra Terrestrial Collaborators. or ETCs). That is, of course, assuming that any humans involved in the project are actually still conscious and have not had their bodies taken over in a case of intergalactic possession, or are not just mindless automatons controlled by remote telepathy.

The people (ETCs?) who greeted us on our trip to Stonehenge seemed utterly lovely. However, we were not allowed to go and view the site itself as there was a gang of touring bikers there at the same time and they had taken all the places on the tour for that morning. Whenever I hear of one group of people controlling an event to the exclusion of others, I start thinking alien conspiracy.

However, try as they might, those alien entities still give the game away. Perhaps their highly advanced mental faculties have not excluded them from the sin of pride, or else they revel in games of psychological torture by leaving only tantalising clues of their secret existence on our planet, but on the driveway to the stone circle lies this small statue, guarding the entrance way to the alien subether relay station or Intergalatic Petroleum station or whatever Stonehenge Aoteroa might actually be. It appears to be made of stone or concrete, but perhaps this is actually the state of an alien hitchhiker in suspended animation, waiting for the next rocket truck to come along this particular interstellar highway.

Whatever its true insidious nature, it can't help but be unnaturally insidious.

The aliens are out there. And news from Hollywood is that they are making another X-Files film - another sure sign of an alien conspiracy, for those of us who are watching...

Verdict: They get more and more bold as the decades roll by, until finally...