Monday, May 19, 2008

Smitten With a Whip: Three Appreciations of Indiana Jones

By Odienator, Matt Zoller Seitz, and Keith Uhlich

[A contribution to Cerebral Mastication's Indiana Jones Blog-a-thon.]


***

A Well-Oiled Machine: Raiders of the Lost Ark

By Odienator

When re-releasing their beloved E.T. and Star Wars trilogy for a new generation of viewers, Steven Spielberg and George Lucas angered the films’ original fans by committing crimes of digital alteration. Spielberg turned government agents' guns into walkie-talkies, removing the few justifiable hints of menace in E.T. Lucas’ sins guaranteed him a lower circle of Hell: he added special effects using technology then unavailable to him, which upset purists like me; he changed character motivations; worst of all, he recast an actor in the ghostly final shot of Return of the Jedi (substituting Hayden Christensen, young Anakin Skywalker in the prequels, for Sebastian Shaw, who played the older, unmasked Anakin in the film proper) for the sole purpose of trying to convince us that the second trilogy deserved to be mentioned in the same breath as the first. Granted, these are Spielberg and Lucas' films, and they can butcher them at will, but in making the original versions hard to obtain on home video, it felt as if they were rewriting history. Imagine the rabid anti-smokers digitally redoing Paul Henreid’s famous Now, Voyager cigarette lighting scene with Twizzlers.

Lucas and Spielberg collaborated on Raiders of the Lost Ark, a movie I resisted buying on any media until a widescreen version was available. The duo released the entire original trilogy in a DVD box set, along with a bonus DVD detailing all aspects of the filmmaking process. News of the release horrified me at first, as I expected some form of alteration to befall the series, which I could deal with only if it involved erasing the second installment, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Thankfully, the only thing these guys put their damn dirty paws all over was the title of the movie that started it all. Raiders of the Lost Ark, at least on the box and the DVD menus, became the unwieldy Indiana Jones and the Raiders of the Lost Ark.

People always ask me, “What’s your favorite movie?” or “Who’s your favorite actor/director?” My opinions have changed slightly over the years, but there is one question I doubt will ever be subjected to the kind of dirty pool changes I’ve just bitched about: If someone asks me what was the best time I had at the movies, the answer is, and will always be, the day I saw Raiders of the Lost Ark. I read somewhere that every generation gets the James Bond it deserves. For me, that Bond was Roger Moore. Or so I thought. After watching Raiders again for the first time in several years, I noticed how much it plays into the conventions of the Bond genre. There’s an opening adventure to establish the hero’s feats of derring-do (though this occurs post-credits sequence), an M-like figure (Denholm Elliott) to assign adventures to the hero, a sidekick (John Rhys-Davies) who occasionally provides local information, spectacular action set pieces with suspenseful last minute escapes, and a feisty woman to add eye candy for the adolescent boys. Raiders has all of these, recasting and returning the Bond formula to its earlier, more chaste incarnation in the serials George Lucas loved as a kid.

Raiders has an odd pedigree and an even odder legend of its creation. The story is credited to Lucas and Philip Kaufman, two outer space-loving guys, and written by Big Chill-helmer Lawrence Kasdan. Kasdan had just worked with Lucas prior, reshaping Leigh Brackett’s script for The Empire Strikes Back. The idea for the script came, according to both Spielberg and Lucas, from stories Lucas would tell about a hero named after his dog. After Close Encounters and Empire, Raiders came into being with Tom Selleck as Indiana Jones. Thanks to CBS, however, Selleck was unable to fulfill his obligation to the feature, leaving Harrison Ford the opportunity to create another trilogy-based character who will live forever. Selleck looks more like a serial character than Ford, but this would have been a different movie if Magnum P.I. hadn’t been contractually bound; Indy would have been more suave and less dangerous.

Speaking of danger, Mr. Jones can’t seem to stay out of it. Raiders opens with one of the greatest sequences ever committed to film, a mini-masterpiece of storytelling and editing that establishes the character’s motivations, enemies, skills, flaws and temperament better than pages of exposition. Indiana Jones is on some kind of mission in the jungle, looking for an artifact that its prior owners have suitably booby-trapped. Jones shows his vast knowledge of archeology early, preventing his subordinate (a pre Doc-Ock Alfred Molina) from stepping on the same fatal booby trap that will later repay his underling’s treachery. Indy retrieves the idol he is seeking, but sets off the ancient burglar alarm in the process. What happens next is thrilling: Indy outruns poison arrows, his guide’s treachery, and a boulder the size of Jupiter. Just when you think our hero’s home free, he is then robbed by his arch-enemy, a Nazi named Belloq (Paul Freeman). Belloq is armed with far more natives than Indy is, and Jones doesn’t speak their language. This leads to even more running, a quick escape, and the movie’s revelation that Jones has ophidiophobia.

Raiders of the Lost Ark has little time to stop and tell you All About Indy. The film’s dialogue sequences seem to be impatiently waiting for the action to begin; the storyteller is speeding up the tale to get you to the good parts. This isn’t a criticism, as Kasdan’s script moves through the important details and Spielberg’s camera provides reminders by mirroring scenes or repeating pieces of earlier dialogue. Raiders reveals a lot about its characters by showing rather than telling. When we meet Marion (Karen Allen), Indy’s former love interest and the daughter of his mentor, she is drinking people under the table at the bar she owns. This seems like a throwaway character trait at first, like the skill a Bond girl is given to hide that she’s really just fodder for the hero’s loins. Indy’s character even seems to overshadow her (literally at one point—Spielberg reintroduces Marion to Indy by projecting his shadow on the wall behind her). Yet in a later scene, that throwaway detail becomes a major plot point, and Marion becomes more complicated than any Bond girl ever could be.

In their first scene together, Marion and Indy provide us with enough detail to invest in their relationship. They talk quickly, for as soon as Indy shows up looking for an artifact Marion’s father used to own, so do the Nazis. The chase is on, with Marion as Indy’s self-proclaimed “goddamned partner” in search of the Ark of the Covenant, a large MacGuffin that turns out not to be a MacGuffin after all. During the course of the film, Marion saves Indy and, to balance out the show for those teenage boys who get fidgety when a woman is effective, Indy saves Marion. Of the three women Jones encounters in the first three films, Marion is the most interesting and the least aggravating. The filmmakers were wise to bring her back for the fourth film, if only to save me from Cate Blanchett’s Natasha Fatale.

The original trilogy’s penchant for strange sidekicks for Indy also starts here with a Benedict Arnold of a monkey. The monkey latches onto Marion and Indy, then provides details of their whereabouts to their enemies. Kasdan and company find a clever use of the monkey; we hiss at him at first, but his accidental redemption saves Indy from a literal date with death. Later sidekicks will include the annoying Short Round in the second movie and the film’s acknowledgement of its Bondian lineage, The Last Crusade’s Indy Sr., Sean Connery.

I read an interview with Spielberg where he mentioned that he probably wouldn’t have used the Nazi plotlines if he’d made the original trilogy later in his career. (Thank God he didn’t digitally replace them with gigantic talking walkie-talkies on the DVDs.) This partially explains why the newest installment of the film, the forthcoming Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull, is set in the postwar era. The Nazis support the premise that Raiders is a throwback to a time when they were the villains to be mocked and hated in films and cartoons; Belloq’s bespectacled lead henchman, Toht (Ronald Lacey), is truly menacing in every scene in which he appears. At the same time, though, the film's bad guys are permitted a little complexity. Belloq is allowed some form of identifiable and relatable human failing—it seems he really is taken with Marion and that clouds his judgment. He has a scene of dialogue where he gives Indy the standard-issue “we’re two sides of the same coin” speech, but by film’s end, I realized that he was right. If the Nazis hadn’t opened the Ark of the Covenant when they got it, wouldn’t Jones (or his benefactor) have done so himself, inheriting the splitting headache that Belloq eventually earns?

Enough details and ramblings. Why Raiders remains my favorite time at the movies is simply this: It is damn exciting, technically crafted by Lucas, Kasdan, Spielberg, editor Michael Kahn (who won an Oscar for this) and composer John Williams into a well-oiled machine with well-timed shocks, how-did-he-do-that escapes and gory mayhem. Lucas may have re-edited so that Han Solo doesn’t shoot first, but Spielberg still allows Jones to commit the overly ruthless execution of the Nazi driving the Mercedes Benz whose ornament Indy thrillingly hangs onto in (for me) the iconic shot of the film.

As the ornament bends and Ford’s facial expression becomes more panicked, you can feel the movie pulling you to the edge of your seat. Kahn’s editing, Williams’ music, the stunt work and Spielberg’s direction conspire to grab you by the windpipe. This is great moviemaking, and Ford holds the entire contraption together. After playing Han Solo, his casting served as a form of shorthand, telling audiences to expect an adventurous type with a sense of humor who doesn’t play by the rules; yet this same expectation allows Ford to play with the more subtle details of his character. When a student in Indy's archeology class sends him a message with her eyelids, Ford seems genuinely taken aback—his “OH NO SHE DIDN’T!!” expression is great—and Ford's looks of frustration whenever Indy has been bested have a boyish “Aw, shucks” charm that shines through the cracks of the character's seemingly impregnable façade.

The much maligned (and deservingly so) Temple of Doom gets a lot of flak for being violent, but Raiders is equally violent. The tone is different, however, and that carries a double edged sword. Doom is far darker, and the violence takes on a more appropriate, accurate sense of its disturbing nature, but in doing so it pulls the series into a place it didn’t seem designed to go. Why thrill us with mayhem only to slap our hands for enjoying it later?
__________________________________________________
The Odienator lurks occasionally around The House Next Door and can be found most Wednesdays sparing no one at Movies Without Pity.

***

Childish Things: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

By Matt Zoller Seitz

Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom has the series' simplest plot, most annoying love interest, most casually racist and imperialist attitudes and most grotesque imagery (Doom and its summer-of-'84 blockbuster cousin, the Spielberg-produced Gremlins, sparked the creation of a new MPAA rating, PG-13). At the same time, though, it's the most viscerally intense entry in the series and the most wide-ranging in its moods, spotlighting the imaginations of Spielberg and his co-producer, George Lucas, at their most freewheeling. It's a blast from the id—like Close Encounters, 1941, E.T. and A.I, a rare instance of the director appearing to construct images and situations for his own private reasons, rather than keeping his eyes and ears attuned for signs of viewer discontent.

Spielberg was shocked by the negative response to the movie (robust box-office notwithstanding) and subsequently characterized it as a miscalculation, even a mistake; it's surely no coincidence that he followed Doom with back-to-back adaptations of critically acclaimed historical novels (The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun) and returned to the Indiana Jones saga with The Last Crusade. The latter has charm and heart, but compared to Doom, it’s mild stuff—a salve for Indy fans that still felt burned. Doom does whatever it pleases, even if it means chucking commercial cinema's knee-jerk insistence on "plausibility"—a requirement Spielberg and Lucas observed whenever possible in the innately preposterous Raiders—out the nearest window.

The film declares its "What the hell, let's try it" swagger in its first two shots: (1) a dissolve from the Paramount logo to a brass mountain-emblazoned gong on a Shanghai nightclub stage being struck by a burly ringer, and (2) a whip-pan from the ringer to the nightclub's main stage, which dollies into the stage's central prop, a dragon statue with a mouth that disgorges our heroine, the nightclub singer Willie Best (Kate Capshaw, the soon-to-be second Mrs. Spielberg). As Douglas Slocombe's camera keeps rolling (this is a surprisingly long shot), Willie sings Cole Porter's "Anything Goes" in Mandarin, addressing the lyrics to the viewer, not the nightclub patrons, and capping the third "Anything goes" with a knowing smile into the lens. Then she turns her back to the camera and leads us through the portal, revealing a backstage area big enough to accommodate a Busby Berkeley-style all-gal chorus line.



What are we looking at? Is this an unseen spectator's fantasy? Willie's grandiose daydream? An alternate reality? It's no real-world nightclub routine, that's for sure. What stage director in his right mind would choreograph a dance routine in a style that's not theatrical but cinematic (the dancers obviously arranged for an unseen movie camera's benefit), and stage it in a room that the club's patrons can't even see? Anything goes, indeed.

Spielberg and his partner Lucas always worked very close to their subconscious minds; with Temple of Doom they outdid themselves, for better or worse. Raiders promises extreme brutality, then either averts its gaze (envisioning a German strongman's decapitation-by-propeller by showing blood hitting a fuselage) or serves up a sight gag instead (Nazi torture master Toht hauling out what one assumes are nunchaku, then folding them into a coat hanger). The supernatural blowout finale plays less as pornographic gore than supernatural spectacle: God's punishment as sound-and-light show. Doom starts out in more or less the same helium-high action mode as Raiders, but stirs in wacky slapstick and surrealism, then piles on nightmare logic: by its midpoint, a seeming escapist action picture has become a horror film.

Set in 1935, a year before the events of Raiders, Doom kicks off in a Shanghai nightclub (Club Obi-Wan, alas) with a business-deal-turned-brawl between Indy and some gangster patrons; then it moves lickety-split through a tire-squealing car chase and a should-be-escape via cargo aircraft that becomes yet another nail-biting setpiece when the pilots (the gangster’s minions) wait until their passengers—Indy, Willie and Indy's boy sidekick, Short Round (Ke Huy Quan)—fall asleep, then dump the fuel and bail out over India, forcing our heroes to sky-dive on a raft that becomes a makeshift bobsled that carries them down a snowy mountainside and lands them in the Ganges, which spirits them over a waterfall and deposits them near a village plagued by a Thuggee cult that stole their mystical Sankara stone and their children.

Doom's first 15 minutes are even more exhausting than the sentence you just finished reading; many viewers find its jumbled energy as grating as Capshaw's bimbo-in-peril shrieks. A major complaint—admittedly one among many—is that because Doom occurs in a Looney Tunes dimension in which humans can leap from a crashing plane on a raft, slalom down a mountain and dive off a waterfall without sustaining a scratch, one can't get too invested in what happens; if anything goes, nothing matters.

I see the point of such gripes, but for me, Doom's sheer audacity remains a tonic. As I've written elsewhere on this blog, Raiders was the first film that made me realize that movies were directed: that they didn't just appear mysteriously on theater screens fully-formed. Doom was just as significant to me as Raiders and in some ways more important, because it was the first contemporary escapist picture I'd seen that struck me as unquestionably the work of an artist—a snapshot of the contents of the director's head. That realization—prompted by Doom's Buster Keaton-style action choreography, with runaway mine cars literalizing the notion of movie-as-roller-coaster and lines of henchman toppling like dominoes—entranced me as deeply as the more measured kineticism of Raiders. Spielberg, Lucas and their screenwriters, Williard Huyck and Gloria Katz, spark sense memories of the unfettered free-association that humans rarely enjoy past childhood. Seeing the film reminded me of what it felt like to be eight or nine, shoehorning seemingly incompatible objects and characters (say, a Shogun warrior, Star Wars figures and Tonka trucks) into the same willy-nilly plot.

Yet Doom is remarkable not just because it evokes the id-play of childhood, but because it destroys that same innocence on behalf of a story that's as much a fable of maturation as The Last Crusade. Raiders puts a smile on your face, and the prequel wipes it off: to quote Trey Wilson in Raising Arizona, that's its whole goddamn raisin d'etra.

Doom's fairy tale-dark vision is presaged by the village scene in which a wizened shaman recounts how representatives of an ancient, reawakened evil, the Thuggees, stole their children along with a sacred Sankara stone. Then it moves through a juvenile "Can-you-top-this?" phase: a gross-out palace dinner where decadent pashas dine on snakes, beetles, eyeball soup, and chilled monkey brains; a sex farce interlude between Indy and Willie that climaxes with Indy's near-strangulation by a Thuggee assassin and Indy and Short Round's narrow escape from a bug-infested spike chamber. Then the film descends (narratively and geographically) into more sinister terrain, an underground lair in which Thuggee boss Mola Ram (Amrish Puri) rips still-beating hearts from the chests of sacrifice victims and then dunks them (still alive, somehow!) into boiling lava while child slaves toil in diamond mines overseen by whip-toting goons.

Doom signals each stage of its descent into horror with an unambiguous cue—starting with the opening sequence, which finds Willie entering the nightclub through a dragon's mouth (the mouth of Hell), then leading us back through it to reveal an unseen secret universe. (The Busby Berkeley set is to Club Obi-Wan as the Thuggee lair is to Pankot Palace.) When the travellers' raft arrives at the devastated village, the film announces its shift into mystical/menacing mode by slow-dollying into a tight close-up of the shaman: his grim face signals his people's misery and his determination to end it by treating a grave-robber as a liberator. (When Indy suggests that chance brought them here, the Shaman laughs, insisting it was prayer.) At the start of the temple section, Indy descends from a protected perch to the main platform of the Thuggees' sacrificial altar to swipe the Sankara stones, then pauses to stare at human skins stretched out like shawls (a Holocaust image); the rack-focus from Indy's face to the skins and back is accompanied by off-camera wails of agony.

The film's next section is the nastiest, depicting Indy and Short Round's torture by the Thuggees; Indy's conversion to evil by being force-fed a potion contained in a skull-shaped pitcher (its mouth spigot delivering a figurative kiss of death); Short Round's brief stint as a diamond-digger terrorized by vicious slave-masters; Willie's near-deep-frying in the Thuggee lava pit (it's not necessary for Mola Ram to tear her heart out; the sight of Indy enslaved by the dark side suffices), and Short Round morally and physically re-awakening Indy by searing his side with a torch while crying, "I love you!" (Short Round's action is the antidote to Mola Ram's poison—a moment foreshadowed in the opening sequence, which finds Indy accidentally ingesting poison and then scampering after a vial containing the antidote.)

It’s easy to dismiss Doom as a parade of bizarre, sometimes wantonly cruel setpieces, set in a xenophobic fantasy version of Asia that’s as untethered from cultural reality as Edgar Rice Burroughs’ Tarzan stories. (One could argue that Indy and Willie are unflattering national stereotypes, too—caricatures of American self-interest—but because they’re the film’s romantic leads and are ultimately more sinned-against than sinning, the defense won't wash.) Yet there's method in the film's madness: more than anything else, Doom is a sordid-fantastical origin story about trivial people deepened by trauma. Its intent unfurls during the first village sequence, beginning with the shaman’s spooky riverbank close-up and accelerating with the arrival of the escaped slave boy who collapses at Indy's feet.

The adventurer's reaction is unlike any we've seen in this film or in Raiders: shock, helplessness and seemingly instinctive, involuntary tenderness. Then Indy examines a scrap of cloth the boy carried—emblazoned with a painted image confirming that the stone taken from the village was one of the fabled Sankara stones, and therefore quite valuable—and his face is animated by a nearly demonic greed as he says, "Sankara." (Ford's expression here is—intentionally I think—similar to Indy's expressions in the sequence where's he's ingested the potion.)

The subsequent scene on the hilltop (marked by the appearance of one of Spielberg's signature shooting stars) is more complex than it initially seems. Short Round tells Indy that the boy was a slave who escaped from Pankot Palace. "What are we going to do, Dr. Jones?" he asks, meaning, "What are you going to do about these children?" Indy, who was clearly discombobulated by the slave child, tells Short Round they're going to Pankot to recover the lost Sankara stones. "What is Sankara?" Short Round asks. "Fortune and glory, kid... Fortune and glory," Indy replies. But note his tone of voice: it's flat, almost monotone, arguably the least expressive line reading in either of the first two Indy films. One could write it off as a bum take that somehow found its way into the final cut. But if one places it within the movie’s clearly intended context—an origin story about a freebooting rascal remaking himself as a righteous hero—it seems not just intentional, but inevitable, perhaps even the key that unlocks Indy’s iconic persona.

When Spielberg described the movie as Indiana Jones Goes to Hell, he wasn’t kidding. The dragon’s mouth, the banquet hall decorations, Mola Ram's skull paint and sash, the evil-Indy poison, the magma pools and the interior of the barricaded mine-car shaft are all the same hellish red. The movie is a crucible in which the hero is melted down and remade. It introduces Indy as a tuxedoed, single black-marketeer, a man so mean he tries to force payment for a job by threatening to stab a woman with a fork. The film’s emotional zenith finds Indy dying a figurative (moral) death after ingesting the potion and succumbing to a sinister sleep that literalizes the moral sleep in which he had previously existed; he is reawakened by love (corny, but that's how it plays) and emerges a new Indy, a man less interested in personal gain ("fortune and glory") than restoration (telling Indy and Willie, “let’s get out of here… all of us”). This evolution, too, is foreshadowed in the film's opening nightclub brawl: while Indy fumbles after the antidote to the poison he drank, Willie simultaneously grasps at the diamond that the gangster boss gave Indy as payment for his grave-robbing—a diamond that means nothing to a man on the brink of death.

Doom ends with Indy liberating children from slavery, reanimating a nearly-dead countryside and entering (for the time being) a facsimile of a nuclear family. Returning the Sankara stone to the shaman, Indy says quietly, "I understand its power." The trip to hell and back burns off Indy’s selfishness and foregrounds the decency and sense of moral responsibility he once sublimated. A single man-child goes to Pankot Palace and returns as a family man reuniting lost children with their parents. In its madcap-picaresque way, Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom echoes 1 Corinthians 13:11: “When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.”

Flash back to that starlit hilltop: given what Indy is about to experience, the changes that are about to be beaten and burned out of him, his rote pronunciation of “fortune and glory” makes sense. He's about to do the right thing for the wrong reasons. “Fortune and glory” is the lie that the old Indy has to tell himself, in order to give himself permission to start the adventure that will birth the new Indy: a man willing to risk his life for principle. Nestled in the midst of Spielberg’s most disreputable action movie is one of the most psychologically true moments he’s ever filmed—a moment in which a man’s life changes and he doesn’t even know it.
___________________________________________
Matt Zoller Seitz is a filmmaker and Editor Emeritus of The House Next Door.

***

All Is One: Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

By Keith Uhlich

The title promises an epic kind of finality, so it’s only fitting that Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade opens at the proverbial start of its globetrotting protagonist’s career. Clad in Boy Scout uniform, emerging from the shadows—both geographically literal and Fordian symbolic—of Utah’s craggy Moab arches, Henry Jones, Jr. (River Phoenix) is all raw energy and American pluck, his ideals, as so often in Spielberg, potently reduced to an oft-repeated phrase (“It belongs in a museum.”).

He’s a knight-in-training, a quintessentially Western conqueror—enough of a freethinker that he gets by moment-to-moment, but still subservient (and often unknowingly) to a power structure greater than himself. His true instincts (all throughout his life) are base, improvisatory, brutal: the scoutwear here is as much a guise as the suit and spectacles he’ll adopt as an adult academic. As he makes off with the jewel-encrusted Cross of Coronado, he sheds (or shreds) the trappings. The hat goes flying, the clothes become tattered, caked with dirt and blood—experience sticks, makes its mark, sculpting the boy into the man.

A circus train is the conduit between Jones Jr.’s past, present, and future—it’s the three (soon to be four) film series’ madeleine in the tea, a remembrance (and a search) unburdened by time. Here, car by car, is the Jones legacy in miniature: a crate of snakes burrowing their way into, and unlocking, a fear-tinged subconscious; a rhino’s tusk, wittily placed so as to suggest a stunted, yet perpetually unbridled sexual urge; a lion (king of the jungle vs. usurper of the throne) to be tamed by bloodletting whip; and a magic box, a caboose-residing deus ex machina, that leads (per P.T. Barnum) to a great and expansive unknown. “Damn,” says Jones’ antagonist Fedora (Richard Young), as his quarry, prize in tow, runs off into the deserted distance. Then, same shot, a smile: beaming, ever-widening—the sacred melded with the profane.

Home, then, to father, so disinterested in his son’s adventures that he resorts to a dunce cap exercise (“count to ten… in Greek”). With no common ground on which to meet, they separate, Jones Sr. muttering to himself a selfishly guarded epiphany-cum-invocation (“may he who illuminated this, illuminate me”). The “rightful owner” of the cross comes calling, the town sheriff in his employ (no place, here, for idealized figures of authority). Jones Jr. relinquishes the prize, but gains something, perhaps, far more valuable. “You lost today, kid,” says Fedora (suddenly a surrogate), “but that doesn’t mean you have to like it.” He crowns him with the iconic chapeau, shadowing the fresh-faced youngster and bringing out, in a years-spanning jump cut (simple, resonant, sublime), the world-weary adult (Harrison Ford). No longer “Junior,” henceforth Indiana Jones.


***

Tempting to call this sequence Spielberg’s finest achievement, though the hyperbole, let’s admit, would be entirely personal, hardly supportable by fact. But: “Archaeology is the search for fact,” says Professor Indiana Jones in one of Last Crusade’s early scenes, “not truth”—a statement, an ideology, easily proven within the walls of academe, less so in the complicated hash of the world at large. The facts, then (at least to me), are these:

In terms of purity (of theme, rhythm, meaning, metaphor, and movement), Spielberg never tops his opener, though I don’t think he’s out to. Coming as the third panel in a masterful triptych which includes The Color Purple and Empire of the Sun, Last Crusade is quite apparently a fade-out, a slow diminuendo—trace the bell curve from Color Purple’s orgasmic explosion of community, through Empire’s sustained cri de coeur for childhood lost, to Last Crusade’s end-credits ride into (a Spielberg favorite) a perspective-obliterating sunset. “The search for the cup of Christ is the search for the divine in all of us,” says Indy’s confidante Marcus Brody (Denholm Elliott), just before they embark on a quest, initiated by Indy’s missing father (Sean Connery), for the Holy Grail. That suggests a journey both outward and inward (what we see, what is hidden, and, resulting, what comes to the fore) that Spielberg and his collaborators—among them, George Lucas and Menno Meyjes on story, Jeffrey Boam on script, John Williams, as ever, on score, Douglas Slocombe, final film, on photography—consistently parallel and explode onscreen.

This push-and-pull between the secular and the spiritual is perhaps best embodied by the Venice locale where Indy, Marcus, and Dr. Elsa Schneider (Alison Doody) begin their crusade—a library housed in a former church. Using clues gathered from both his father’s grail diary and a stained glass window depicting the Christian trinity, Indy uncovers the edifice’s heretofore unspoken “truth.” “X marks the spot,” he smirks, pointing at a hidden-in-plain-sight Roman numeral, and sheepishly contradicting, though not canceling out, a formerly confident classroom pronouncement. Per Roland Barthes: “… the subject gains access to bliss by the cohabitation of languages working side by side: the text of pleasure is a sanctioned Babel.” In a sense, then, this crusade is about the co-existence, and the acceptance, of the multiple natures within and without.

Thus, when Dr. Schneider is revealed as a two-faced antagonist (during Indy’s rescue of his father from an Austrian castle), it comes as something of a meta-shock considering the Marions and Willies of yore. The love in this Indiana Jones film is familial rather than sexual, though Spielberg complicates, or better, perverts it by having Schneider be the sensuous, Mata Hari-like link between father and son. It’s poisonous, yes, but it cuts both ways: when Indy (disguised as Gestapo) seeks her out during a Berlin book-burning rally, they have a brief semantic argument (all sound and fury) before coming to the plangent philosophical point: “All I have to do is squeeze,” says Indy, his hand violently at his former lover’s throat. “All I have to do is scream,” she whispers. Neither of them does—the acknowledgment is enough.

This collision of ideals (cloaked in and revealed by threats) leads to an indelible punchline, as Indy comes face-to-face with Der Führer himself (Michael Sheard). Two creatures of myth (one fictional, one horribly real) stare each other down, silently, mysteriously, iconically (fatherland locking eyes with a cautiously defiant snake in the grass). The grail diary exchanges hands, but Hitler can’t see the forest for the trees—he’s an image man, plain and simple, and must maintain an immediate illusion of power. Unknowingly, he inscribes the very thing that would give him all he purports to desire; he makes his mark on the quest, but, by that action, is brought down to earth and put in harsh perspective. The only thing that might have deepened the gag would be to have Riefenstahl on hand, filming the exchange and setting the epitaph in emulsified stone (reportedly, the wonderful, horrible Leni was indeed present in an early rough cut).

“What do you want to talk about?” asks an indignant Jones Sr. of his son, both of them sharing a quiet moment on board a zeppelin. There are innumerable lost years here, but Indy “can’t think of anything” to bridge the gap. Our turmoils, Spielberg seems to say, are mostly our own creations. And besides… in this world, action (whether by plane, car, boat, gun, or tank) always intrudes on the chatter. So it is more the pregnant pause, the sidelong, tossed-off glance that reveals the profound truths, as when Jones Sr. (ever the bookish fish-out-of-water) lets loose a flock of seagulls to bring down a Nazi fighter plane. He proudly quotes Charlemagne (“Let my armies be the rocks and the trees and the birds in the sky”) as he walks past his son with the knowingly smug look of an educating elder, but Indy looks after him with a genuine surprise and a determined love, the gulf of time collapsed, even if only by a fraction.

Abysses abound in Last Crusade (it’s in one of these very crevasses that Indy comes to his ultimate, life-altering realization). But first: “It’s time to ask yourself what you believe,” says suit-and-tie baddie Walter Donovan (Julian Glover), just before he sends Indy off (a bullet to his father’s gut as blackmail) on the journey’s final leg, which encompasses a trio (a trinity) of challenges—essentially to be humble before, walk in the name of, and leap for the glory of God. Not to say that Indy becomes a blind believer: he’s as secular as they come, but it’s this quality of to-hell-with-it openness that helps him to recognize the mortal realities of the tasks before him, without dismissing their simultaneous otherworldliness. (In Spielberg’s oeuvre, the mundane and the metaphysical feed off of and into each other as surely as do the dual forces of commerce and art.) Indy’s earthbound wisdom and perseverance (in concert with his trust, when called for, in thaumaturgy) grants him entrance to a small antechamber inhabited only by a centuries-old knight of the Crusades and numerous, shimmering chalices (photographed so as to seem both tantalizing and pornographic).

As Hitler was oblivious to the power of the grail diary (seeing only kindling or a blank space on which to scribble his devil’s mark), so Donovan, a more placidly powerful antagonist, is blinded by the Grail’s own purported beauty. He lets Dr. Schneider pick out the supposed cup of Christ (true to the character, a smirk flickers across her face, as if she might intentionally be choosing in error) and then drinks from it without question. His hubris, his unfailing certainty, does him in. Per the old knight’s warning, the false grail takes Donovan’s life from him, drying him to brittle bone, a Nazi button insignia emerging from his ashes as the only enduring remnant/legacy. Indy grasps the implication (the fact, if you will): that myth and spirit are too often couched in glittering terms. Symbols and signs must be brought down to earth, but, befitting the archaeologist’s credo, the mystery must remain intact. So it is: the Grail is actually the humble cup of a carpenter, and its promised gift of eternal life is given with little pomp and circumstance, merely a kindly nod and assent from one in the know (“You have chosen wisely,” says the knight).

Son and father (the latter healed by the Grail’s mystical powers) now connect over the artifact, a fleeting moment, for how can the end of a quest (of even, so it seemed at the time, a film trilogy) compare to the journey itself? What it begets is one last challenge. For Indy’s immortality, even if canceled out by Dr. Schneider’s selfish removal of the Grail from its sacrosanct resting place, is assured on the level of cinema. The character will live on, even if he, now hanging over that aforementioned abyss, reaches for the Grail and dies the death of a object-besotten conqueror. These too, it would seem (the Grail and Indy both), belong in a museum. Father breaks the spell, addressing his son on terms both reel and real:

“Indiana… Indiana… let it go.”

The choice to live on, even beyond the borders of the current quest, is the better one. So the family reunites, connected in bliss, in transcendence, in—per Jones Sr.’s own words (his bookends)—“illumination.” But old habits die hard: Indy’s moniker, no longer needed for redemptive purposes, is brought down to the level of dogs (as long as life courses through us, we tread both great heights and great depths). The prickly status quo returns, but the just-passed, irrevocably etched experience remains—even if only, for the immediate moment, below the skin, hidden from view.

Now only twilight and sunset. Illumination fades; the self annihilates in silhouette. And all (father, son, and spirit) is one.

___________________________________________________
Keith Uhlich is Editor of The House Next Door and a contributor to various print and online publications.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Keith's Korner: Confessions from the Editor (#3)

By Keith Uhlich

I finished Vladimir Nabokov’s Pale Fire two days ago, which prompts me to think about the killing power of words. Not out of nowhere: the germ of the idea was there earlier this week when I published a Florence Nightingale quote on Links for the Day. Here again:

“You ask me why I do not write something… I think one’s feelings waste themselves in words, they ought all to be distilled into actions and into actions which bring results.”

Spoken as a realist, I gather, resultant from the things Nightingale saw before her eyes. Yet I can’t help but sense a pessimistic edge as well, all-encompassing. Are words truly so inferior that they can’t effect results, cannot be considered—through their disciplined, enlightened, and impassioned practice—another form of action?

This parallels a recent discussion I was having with a friend, so exasperated was he by a Turner Classic Movies showing of Lilies of the Field, that it inspired a reflection on the legacy of the film’s star Sidney Poitier and, more generally, on the ability of movies to effect truly progressive and society-altering change. Where we came to was a sense that movies could definitively be shown to promote destructive tendencies (with Riefenstahl’s filmography and Birth of a Nation the standout examples), whereas any lasting progressive results existed in much murkier, abstract, unprovable territory. My example of the Dardenne Brothers’ Rosetta reportedly helping to raise the price of minimum wage in Belgium was met with an outwardly dismissive, yet resonant retort: “Doesn’t make me want to watch it again.”

Takes me back, as well, to a curious exchange I once had at a party about Guess Who’s Coming to Dinner?, where my comments on the film’s failed aesthetics and simplistic presentation of societal ills inspired an elder partygoer to chastisement. I wasn’t there, she observed, when the film was released. She was, and, coming out of the theater, she saw firsthand how the film changed people’s perceptions of race and equality. Her tone was lofty, defiant, absolute—I recognized it as such because I had practiced such a posture myself (and still do at times, even against my better judgement). It’s not a good ground on which to meet in debate, so the statement hung there until the conversation, slowly but surely, took a more levelheaded turn. Post-party, of course, I came up with a rebuttal that I’d never get to propose: Had she gone home with these people (each and every) to see how they put their newfound enlightenment into action?

There’s that word again, so let’s take the repetition as incitement to definition. I’d put forth that there are two distinct kinds of action: mass action and individual action. Personally speaking, I tend to trust more in the latter than in the former. I’ve always had a phobia of groups—the propensity for mob rule and homogenization of thought is just too great a temptation. It’s a lost-in-the-crowd syndrome that made me squirm while reading Nathanael West’s Day of the Locust. It’s what I feel, often, while searching the web, the wisely chosen path too easily usurped by aimless wanderings (the words—like the ideas in movies whose primary intention is to change a mass number of minds—blur together into inseparable, superficial morass).

Better the individualist pursuit, then? Ah, but this has its pitfalls too. Back to Pale Fire and its beleaguered academic protagonist Charles Kinbote, who asserts himself so forcefully within Nabokov’s poem/prose/commentary pastiche that his holed-up-in-a-cabin narcissism, by book’s end, begets its own school of destructive thought. “I shall continue to exist,” he writes in the closing, direct-address passages, “I may assume other disguises, other forms, but I shall try to exist.” It’s the “try” that chills to the bone because it manages to be at once indeterminate and absolute, a totalitarian indecisiveness, poisonous and practically invisible as it wafts its way toward a good many susceptible minds.

The dangers are not isolated, in other words, but it’s easy to let those traps (aesthetic, ideological, emotional) hamper us in all situations ‘til we’re stifled and inert. Filmbrain has a point, I think, when he ponders in a recent Like Anna Karina’s Sweater blog post about the current crop of movies, “Whither subtlety?” There is a strong sense that the mass audience is being talked down to across the artistic (not to mention political) spectrum, that issues of true note must be distilled to a palatable essence, even though this effectively mutates them, makes them unrecognizable. I would argue, however, that it’s been like this to some degree forever and always, and that it is the very potent illusion of mass media (which implicitly, and wrongly, suggests that everything that can be seen and done has been seen and done) that fosters both our shared and personal senses of despair.

Will we then be a land of Charles Kinbotes, self-exiles imposing our dire, roundabout, fantasyland interpretations on a world that won’t have us? Or will we be passive receptacles for, or purveyors of, the easy amalgam that reduces engaged thought to platitudinous pronouncement? If the answer exists it is in the quagmire of experience, as likely to swallow us whole as to leave us high and dry, at times blinding and deafening, at others a depressively haunted and lonely place.

In this moment, at least, the words are on the move, and my head’s still up.
_____________________________________________
Keith Uhlich is Editor of The House Next Door and a contributor to various print and online publications.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Directorama #26

A Weekly Webcomic by Peet Gelderblom

Click to enlarge: (To navigate previous episodes, click here.)

__________________________________________
Peet Gelderblom directs, edits and develops commercials, TV programs and broadcast design in Amsterdam. His writing and graphic criticism can be found at Lost in Negative Space and 24LiesASecond.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Doctor Who, Season Four, Ep. 4: "The Sontaran Stratagem"

By Ross Ruediger

"Sontarans are great… I think that's partly because they come from a very specific world. That back story gives them a great context. Robert Holmes didn’t just create a race, back in the 1970s: he created a world that they came from. Even if you never saw that planet, you understood why they did what they did."—David Tennant, Doctor Who Magazine #395

I hate to contradict our Time Lord and Savior, but he’s ever so slightly off in his close. It’s not that we ever understood why the Sontarans did what they did, but rather that Holmes’ vision of the race was so clear that we accepted what they did without question—and that was make war (not love). The “why” could make for a good story someday, but at present their reintroduction is plenty.

The Doctor (David Tennant) receives a call from none other than Martha Jones (Freema Agyeman), calling him back to Earth. The TARDIS materializes and it’s a hilariously awkward reunion, with Donna (Catherine Tate) surprisingly smoothing over any hurt feelings that might remain between the former traveling companions. Donna also notices an engagement ring, and Martha tells of her betrothed—Dr. Thomas Milligan, the pediatrician from last season’s finale. As was revealed in the Torchwood episode “Reset,” Martha now works for UNIT (Unified Intelligence Taskforce), a military organization dedicated to combating hostile alien life. (They appeared regularly during the Jon Pertwee era, at which time the Doctor was their unpaid scientific advisor.) Martha, along with Col. Mace (Rupert Holliday Evans), detail 52 deaths that all occurred simultaneously across the world—and all connected to ATMOS (Atmospheric Omission System), a navigation system that also reduces carbon dioxide emissions and is installed into every vehicle on the planet. (Shit gets done real fast on Doctor Who’s Earth; no doubt the HDTV switchover will go far more smoothly in this fictitious universe.) ATMOS was invented by Luke Rattigan (Ryan Sampson), a child prodigy who runs the Rattigan Academy, a private school for smart kids. But prodigy or not, ATMOS seems perhaps too advanced for Earth technology.

UNIT raids the ATMOS factory and finds little more than zombified workers. Donna, however, clues into the fact that nobody’s ever taken sick leave or holiday—these people work nonstop. Something alien is indeed at work. Two UNIT grunts investigate the recesses of the factory, only to discover a hidden room containing a disturbing, gestating creation. A diminutive, armored creature appears, challenges them, and quickly takes them out: their weapons are useless. The “stratagem” of the episode’s title may have a bigger meaning, but here it alone helps us understand the Sontaran race. They’re all about war, conflict and strategy.

The Doctor takes a visit to the Rattigan Academy, and after ruffling the boy’s feathers by correcting his grammar, zones in on something nobody else would recognize, a matter transporter. He uses it to find out what’s on the other end—a ship full of Sontarans, and then he immediately zips back to Earth, with General Staal “The Undefeated” (Christopher Ryan) hot on his trail. The Doctor briefly defeats the undefeated with a tennis ball to the probic vent (surely the first time for such a maneuver in a sci-fi program). Meanwhile, Donna catches up with her family, and Martha is kidnapped by two UNIT soldiers now under the control of the Sontarans, only to end up cloned. (Surely I am not the only one who found the dripping wet, naked Freema to be sexy as all hell.)

The Doctor hooks up with Donna once again and takes a closer look at the ATMOS installed in the family car, but a gas is released and Staal, hovering above the planet with the hidden Sontaran fleet, kicks his plans into gear. ATMOS all over the world releases its deadly gases, while the Doctor stands idly by and the episode goes to credits.

“The Sontaran Stratagem” is a killer setup for this type of two-parter, which always grabs a couple pre-midseason slots. It’s got great action, character, effects work and design (the shades of purple and green that adorn the episode are beautiful). But what really sells it more than anything else are the Sontarans, who are so wonderfully reintroduced like the Daleks before them with virtually no tweaking or revisionism. Christopher Ryan’s (Mike of The Young Ones and Marshall of AbFab) Staal is a perfect and believable alien villain with a devious mission. I would have liked to see a clearer explanation of the fact that the Sontarans are a clone race, even though it's always presented some problems since they clearly don't all look exactly alike. Here, there only real tipoff we get is in their mastery of cloning through Martha.

The reunion of the Doctor and Martha is also a high point, as is her schooling of him about the reasons she works for a military organization like UNIT—her aims are similar to his own agenda during his time with UNIT. The strength of the episode is not in the details, but in the execution of them. It moves fast and entertains from start to finish. As always, a tighter dissection will follow after Part Two.
______________________________________________
Ross Ruediger is a San Antonio-based writer. In addition to contributing to The House Next Door, he also publishes The Rued Morgue and writes for Bullz-Eye.

NEXT WEEK: Sci-Fi is taking the Memorial Day weekend off. Tune in on May 30th to see the story's conclusion in "The Poison Sky."

Classic Who DVD Recommendation of the Week: There's more Sontaran goodness to be found in "The Two Doctors," starring Colin Baker and Patrick Troughton.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Links for the Day (May 19th, 2008)

1. "Quotational Writing": The latest post from Girish Shambu. Food for thought and numerous links of note therein.

["I’m fascinated by writing that juxtaposes quotations, allusions, and citations, ceaselessly making connections to other texts. Of course, a postmodernist would say that all texts do precisely this. Roland Barthes’ famous essay, “The Death of the Author” (1968) calls any text “a tissue of quotations drawn from the innumerable centres of culture.” Similarly, Michel Foucault writes in The Archaeology of Knowledge (1969) that every book “is caught up in a system of references to other books, other texts, other sentences … The book is not simply the object that one holds in one’s hands … its unity is variable and relative.” Barthes and Foucault, in an early expression of the postmodern sensibility, were pointing out that intentionally or unintentionally, all texts are intertextual: Every text exists not in isolation or autonomy but as part of a vast ‘environment’ of texts. But I’m after something a bit more specific here: I’m wondering about texts that literally collage together quotations and citations from a variety of sources. One example that leaps to mind is Lesley Stern’s amazing book, The Scorsese Connection (BFI, 1995)."]

***

2. Walter Chaw delves into the four-disc edition of Blade Runner.

["So I don't like the latest version of Blade Runner very much from an aesthetic (and an aesthete's) viewpoint; I don't like that I can see a good fifty percent more detail in Scott's obsessively intricate set design--evidence of his tyrannical vision in every square centimetre of every single frame. I don't like that it feels like showing off now in a way that every previous, dark-as-pitch version felt like modesty true. But it's a masterpiece, still, impossible for me to separate in my mind from one giant omnibus evolving in leaps and bounds with each technological advancement and revealing with each ironic scrub, addition, and subtraction a piece forever growing in terms of intra- and extra-textual complexity."]

***

3. Go GreenCine for your Kingdom of the Crystal Skull fix. The reviews are out!

[""Best appreciated as a pulp prequel to Close Encounters of the Third Kind... no, I can't," sighs Glenn Kenny... "I mean the thing kind of is that, but the fourth Indy installment isn't really an attempt to retroactively create a Spielberg omniverse. But David Koepp's script, from a story by George Lucas and Jeff Nathanson and Hergé and Edgar Rice Burroughs and Erich von Däniken and Carl Stephenson and... well, you get the idea... does tie together a good number of Spielbergian themes into an eventually pretty nifty package. Yeah - this is, by my sights, the most fun and least irritating installment of the series since the first one.""]

***

4. "Nintendo shows us how Wii can get 'Fit'": The gamer workout.

["If Nintendo has their way your living room could be the new big thing in exercise. With its new game "Wii Fit" hitting stores Monday, Nintendo is looking to bring exercise into the home, making people more aware of their bodies and starting to create a comfortable, fun environment to get healthy."]

***

5. "Revealing Starbucks logo gets mixed reviews": Some milk with that?

["Starbucks Corp. has a new more revealing logo of its trademark mermaid. The logo — which offers a more revealing look at the coffee chain's mermaid symbol and goes with brown instead of green as its color — is getting mixed reviews from marketing and public relations experts. "It's unusual," said Sally Baker, who runs Scottsdale, Ariz.-based Great Ideas Public Relations. "I'm not sure most people will get it." The logo features a bare-chested mermaid with her tail fin split in half. The previous green logo showed less of the mermaid."]

***

Quote of the Day: Bette Davis

"I do not regret one professional enemy I have made. Any actor who doesn't dare to make an enemy should get out of the business."


***

Image of the Day (click to enlarge): National mourning in China for the earthquake victims.



***

Clip of the Day: I just know you want to stare down Jessica Alba.

_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Links for the Day (May 18th, 2008)

1. "Brains Not Required (Or: Whither Subtlety?)": Filmbrain uses his noggin to dissect the state of the art.

["...of late I find that few films require any sort of active engagement. Directors are happy to show us how clever/sensitive/witty they are, but they leave us with nothing to discuss, let alone think about. As small films made outside of the studio system, they needn't succumb to the lowest common denominator, but do nonetheless. I'm growing weary of independent and/or foreign films that are as compelling as a made-for-TV drama, that rely on heavy-handed symbolism while hammering their message into us. Films that tackle political/social issues, or moral struggles, and reduce them to childlike simplicity, with poorly written characters that exist purely as functions of the plot. More often than not these films are all about the third-act "big moment", which rarely comes as a surprise as the filmmaker has been dropping less-than-subtle hints throughout. With their meaning wrapped up and dispensed in a neat, foolproof package, these films not only discourage and resist discussion/analysis/interpretation, they're barely pleasurable even as divertissements."]

***

2. News of the moment: "Sen. Kennedy hospitalized after seizure" (from the Los Angeles Times); "MySpace Suicide Case Leads To Tougher Laws" (from eFluxMedia); "11 questions for Indiana Jones' whip trainer" (from The Daily News).

["Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, hospitalized Saturday after apparently suffering a seizure at his home on Cape Cod, Mass., was awake and joking with family members later in the day, a spokeswoman said. The Democratic senator is undergoing tests at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston to determine the cause of the seizure."]

***

3. "Felon Fest: Statham vs. The Man": House contributor Steven Boone debuts as a regular columnist for Spout Blog.

["A halfway house in East New York, Brooklyn. Spring, 2008. The male residents––ex-junkies, parolees and disability recipients––all gathered for their nightly movie ritual. Four to a room, two bunk beds, one cheapo DVD player and a 13-inch Coby TV set. Audio commentary provided by the audience of (on average) five men: two on the bunks, three hunched around the screen on milk crates. The core crew of film fanatics is Kid and Hef, two old-timer felons, each of whom could be mistaken for a black variation of Walter Brennan in Rio Bravo."]

***

4. "Need for Speed": House contributor Fernando F. Croce on Speed Racer, Iron Man, and Harold & Kumar Escape from Guantanamo Bay.

["Here's to the extremes of cinema. I watched the Wachowski brothers' Speed Racer not long after Eric Rohmer's The Romance of Astrea and Celadon, and the switch proved to be more illuminating than jarring. Rohmer imagines open-air theater circa 1607, the Wachowskis present an uber-digitalized Neverland of gibbering humanoids and roaring titanium -- one is serenely archaic and the other is frantically futuristic, yet these two polar poles create such absolute worlds that the great elasticity of the medium is laid startlingly before your eyes. Both pictures are unlike anything I've ever seen. Who says we can't have Vermeer and Van Dongen? Let's stick to Speed Racer. As an Andre Bazin disciple who considers The Matrix trilogy the biggest cinematic nullity of all time, I went in ready to hate it. For quite a while, expectations were met: So much spinning and whooshing and faces sliding across the screen and lines shouted as if in the middle of a cockfight that, by the 15-minute mark, I was ready to recite that old Far Side punchline ("May I be excused? My brain is full"). Still, all the metaphors (arcade parlor, candy store, ADD tantrum, swirling puke) had already been taken by other critics, so I stuck around just to try to come up with a new description for this horror. I'm not sure exactly when it happened (The most pungent crimsons since Nicholas Ray? The tour through Roger Allam's neo-Jetsons conglomerate? Christina Ricci's ever-widening peepers?), but the damn thing gradually turned enchanting. Did the movie change, or did my conception of movies?"]

***

5. "Montana teen is in a class by himself ... literally": From MSNBC.

["Jeff Greenwood is in a class by himself. He was the only student to graduate from Opheim High School this year, but the small event Friday drew a big name. Gov. Brian Schweitzer gave the commencement address. Greenwood, who plans to attend Dickinson State University in North Dakota, said the high school is the "hub of activity" for rural Opheim, a town about 10 miles south of the Canadian border."]

***

Quote of the Day: Robert Heinlein

"In the absence of clearly-defined goals, we become strangely loyal to performing daily trivia until ultimately we become enslaved by it."


***

Image of the Day (click to enlarge): Does this cause this?



***

Clip of the Day: A church on wheels, no slave to time. (Hattip: Todd VanDerWerff)

_____________________________________________________
"Links for the Day": Each morning, the House editors post a series of weblinks that we think will spark discussion. Comments encouraged. Suggestions for links are also welcome. Please send to keithuhlich@gmail.com.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Saturday, May 17, 2008

Cannes 2008: Day 1 - Badges and Blindness

By Matt Noller

My first day at the Cannes Film Festival begins in a line. Me and my fellow students, twenty-five deep, wading in a sea of tiny old French women, waiting to get our badges. Right now my expectations are at once tempered and sky-high. On the one hand: My door to the Cannes Film Festival is about to be opened. On the other: From what I’ve heard about how cinephiles are treated, I would not be surprised if our badges were printed on graham crackers and written with ball-point pen. And since the food here is so expensive, the time may come when a graham cracker sounds delicious.

Thankfully, our badges are pretty legit, if not as nice as the Market and Press badges. I won’t look like an idiot with it on, and hopefully I won’t ever be struck by the urge to eat it. With that out of the way, it’s time to check out the movies. I open up the film schedule, and—what? The official Cannes films don’t start until the 7 p.m. premiere of Blindness. The rest of the films playing today are Market screenings (which means that a distributor paid the festival to let the film be shown in local Cannes theaters). There are no restrictions on quality, and as awesome as Zombie: The Beginning sounds, I decide to spend the day napping until it’s time to beg for Blindness tickets.

At 4 p.m., I head back into Cannes, decked out in my tuxedo, wielding every cinephile’s most treasured possession: a sign, written in Sharpie marker on printer paper, reading “Invitations S.V.P.” I strut up next to the Lumiere Theatre feeling remarkably confident. I’m well-rested, I’m looking good, and I’ve got a sign. France ain’t gonna know what hit it.

Needless to say, I don’t get a ticket to the red-carpet premiere. My date with Julianne Moore will have to wait. I do, however, get a ticket to the follow-up screening at 11pm, which I’m psyched about, but have to wait four hours to see. Luckily, some of the students I’ve gotten close to so far have also failed in their mission, so we’ll at least be bored together. And hungry. It’s time for dinner. As highly-cultured film students trying to get the full French experience, we pick McDonald’s.

At 10:30, we return to the Lumiere, flash our tickets to the guards and walk onto the red carpet. There are no gorgeous celebrities to ogle, but standing here, staring up at the theater, I am quite certain that this is the single greatest moment of my life. We step inside, and it gets even better; Femme Fatale exaggerated the interior of the Lumiere slightly, but not by very much. We’re not even inside the actual screening area yet, and it’s already beautiful. The theater itself, we soon find, is huge, like a sports stadium without the stench of stale beer. There’s not a bad seat in the house, and the screen is absolutely gigantic. I’m so high on the experience right now that I don’t think it would even matter what the film is that we’re about to watch. Which, it turns out, is a good thing, because the film we’re about to watch is Blindness.

***

By most accounts, José Saramago’s Blindness, which I have not read, is a stunning novel, and I believe it. There’s clearly a great movie to be made from this material, but Fernando Meirelles’ adaptation is not it. Cursed with a constant need to over-enunciate its themes, Blindness is a clear case of a director being, quite simply, out of his league.

This should come as no surprise; Blindness would be a tough assignment even for a really smart director, and Meirelles has always been a fundamentally shallow one. Gifted with a formidable visual sense but little else, he has made his name creating striking, yet intellectually hollow films. His breakthrough hit, City of God, was a derivative, but viscerally exciting Scorsese rip-off, and The Constant Gardener, one of the first of the many recent “white guy in Africa” films, is a prime example of undeniable formal chops used in the service of wrong-headed and offensive ideas.

Blindness is smarter than either of those films, but not thanks to Meirelles. The original story—that of an unnamed country whose citizens are stricken with an infectious disease that causes blindness—is rich with moral and allegorical implications, but Meirelles seems ill-equipped to fully understand or explore them. Instead, he narrows in on a handful of the more obvious themes and then spends two hours hammering them into the ground.

The problems are immediately apparent. The film begins with a voice-over from Danny Glover, in the role of the wise black man (I guess Morgan Freeman was busy). “I don’t think we went blind,” Glover intones. “I think we always were.” Yeesh. Apparently, the film’s conceit isn’t extreme enough to already be a clear metaphor; we need to be told right away. The voice-over returns periodically throughout the film, popping up any time Meirelles feels the need to explain a character's emotions or emphasize an especially important thematic note.

If you still don't get it, don’t worry; Meirelles has your back. One of the key motifs of Blindness is the surfeit of stimuli that dominates our lives: traffic, television, radio, white noise. A point is made to distinguish between regular blindness, which results in darkness, and the “white blindness” of the film. The difference is clear: rather than the emptiness that darkness implies, the film’s citizens are driven blind by the buildup of these stimuli; white is, after all, the result of combining every color of the spectrum. Like many of Blindness’ ideas, it’s an interesting one executed poorly. Whereas a work like Don DeLillo’s White Noise approaches this theme with subtlety and tact, Meirelles does so by framing seemingly every shot in as unnatural and cluttered a way as possible. Objects protrude into every corner of the frame, dominating the characters’ environments. It’s a rigorous strategy that results in a few striking images, but it mostly just comes off as showy, as does Meirelles’ tendency to end scenes with a blinding fade to white, an obvious and irritating tactic designed to imitate the characters’ condition, as if we didn’t already have a pretty good idea what that would be like.

These techniques also distance the audience from the characters, who remain nameless throughout. This would be fine if Meirelles had the balls to embrace keeping his audience at arm’s length. But once the protagonists—led by Mark Ruffalo’s doctor and his wife (Julianne Moore), one of the few not stricken by the disease—are shipped off to an asylum for quarantine, Meirelles attempts to draw pathos from their increasingly desperate circumstances. The victims descend into chaos, fighting over food and shelter. A vicious despot (Gael Garcia Bernal) emerges, taking charge of the asylum and hoarding food, exchanging it for valuables and sex.

The idea is, I suppose, to structure the story as an allegory for the creation of civilization, of blindness and chaos eventually leading to knowledge and control. It’s another interesting idea, likely handled exceptionally well in the novel, but Meirelles presents the madness of the asylum in such an obvious way that it’s almost laughable. Many of the events are truly disturbing, but it’s cheap and easy to elicit emotional response through horrifying images. It's much harder to do so through character and tone. Audience reaction should be earned, not forced, and Meirelles consistently comes down on the wrong side of this line.

The one exception is Moore, who stands out brilliantly among an uneven cast (Ruffalo is wasted, and Bernal is effective but seems to be performing in a different movie). It’s perhaps not a shock that Moore can pull off the role of a suffering housewife, but there’s more to it than that; as she attempts to lead her followers through the tragedy, her face and body gradually register increasing measures of horror, exhaustion, and strength. It’s deep, layered acting, powerful but never showy; Meirelles could learn a thing or two from her.
________________________________________________
Matt Noller lives and studies film and journalism in Athens, Georgia. You can also read him at Uh, movies.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

Lewis Lost: The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian

By Keith Uhlich

The very real wonders of the first Chronicles of Narnia adaptation from Walt Disney Pictures and Walden Media (The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe) are all but lost in the follow-up, Prince Caspian. Corporatizing C.S. Lewis' popular fantasy world (turning it, in effect, into a Tolkien-by-way-of-Jackson blockbuster) was something of a sticky proposition to begin with, but director/co-writer Andrew Adamson got by in the first film, sublimating the instinct to go Shrek savvy and sticking close to Lewis' slow-build reveal of the Christian allegorical otherworld, Narnia. Overwrought CGI bombast was certainly in evidence, but it was tempered by a variety of perverse, highly personal touches, from the opening Blitz bombing (a literal fall from the heavens), which ably sets up the disparate dynamics of the four Pevensie siblings (William Moseley, Anna Popplewell, Skander Keynes, and Georgie Henley), to a nutball appearance by Santa Claus, pulling weapons out of his sack and offering up Aesop moral witticisms as if he were Q arming James Bond.
__________________________________________
To read the rest of the review at Underground Online (UGO), click here.

TO READ THE FULL POST WITH COMMENTS, CLICK HERE

BSG Saturdays, Season Four, Episode 7, "Guess What's Coming to Dinner?"

By Todd VanDerWerff

After a string of relatively contemplative episodes, Battlestar Galactica’s seventh episode of its fourth season, “Guess What’s Coming to Dinner?,” zips along with verve, finding little time for the character moments the last few episodes have been filled with, and concluding with one of the show's better cliffhangers. Written by Michael Angeli and directed by Wayne Rose, the episode must have been manna to fans who’ve been distressed by some of the more philosophical stones the show has overturned this season, especially one that made such excellent use of the entire cast. While there are a few points where the plot takes easy shortcuts instead of doing something more complex and interesting in the interest of time, the episode is another strong one for a season that is shaping up to be one of the show’s best.

The biggest problem with the episode comes toward the very end, when Sharon (Grace Park) shoots and kills the Six known as Natalie (Tricia Helfer) with two gunshots. It is an excellent shock—most shows rarely go to this place—and it builds to the moment by having Sharon believe her child, Hera, is in danger and might be taken away by Six and Baltar (James Callis) to form some new form of nuclear family in a post-Cylon/human split future. But I just don’t buy that Sharon wouldn’t see that Natalie wasn’t the Six of her vision: the ice-blonde Caprica Six, the show’s femme fatale and the character more likely to be part of a kidnapping. Obviously, Sharon’s never met Natalie, and obviously, her protection of her child is going to come first, but the whole moment is predicated on the idea that a Cylon might think that all Cylons of a particular model are equally possible of being guilty (after all, Sharon is the ultimate Cylon rebel). The dramatic irony, however, of having Sharon send Tyrol (Aaron Douglas) over to save her daughter from the Cylon when Tyrol himself is a Cylon (though unknown to Sharon) is a nice little point, however.

That’s a small quibble, though, for a plot point that is the culmination of a storyline that examines the need of the Cylons to become more human. One of the major themes of the series has been the idea of what makes a human human and what sets us apart from other species. Specifically, the series has always been concerned with what is good about humanity, what is worth saving. The Cylons, meant in a way as a sort of freewheeling symbol for terrorism, are suitably alien, their society hard to comprehend or understand, even after the audience is taken inside of it in season three. In this episode, we learn that the Cylon quest to be more human now longs to encompass mortality (at least in some cases), as Natalie argues that the Cylons’ inability to die is keeping them from achieving the true likeness of their ancestors. But, of course, the humans have the ability to reproduce, which the Cylons do not, and as Natalie tells Sharon, she is blessed to have given birth to a child, to be able to have a legacy. The Cylons, with their constant downloading, of course have an everlasting legacy, but it seems that that pursuit now seems hollow to them. One of the complaints about the third season of Galactica was that the show spent too much time among the Cylons and robbed them of their menace by letting us know what their society is like. Those field trips, however, have given the scenes among the Cylons more of an edge this season, as our knowledge of their motives and society conflicts with our knowledge of their new civil war and what they’re willing to sacrifice to achieve their ultimate objectives.

Beyond the small moments among the Cylons, though, the rest of the episode scarcely lets up, starting with an excellent self-contained scene where the Cylon basestar commandeered by Starbuck (Katee Sackhoff), who seems to largely have her shit together again, jumps right next to the fleet and the Galactica nearly attacks it before Tigh (Michael Hogan) lets something—a nagging sense that something was wrong? Cylon programming?—stop him from opening fire. It's the right call, of course, as the late-to-jump Demetrius later proves, sparing Starbuck and company, but it certainly seems to rouse a few suspicions about Tigh, whom Adama (Edward James Olmos) levels a questioning gaze at. It’s interesting to note that of the two big battles that members of the final five have been involved in, both have been averted directly or indirectly by members of the final five (Anders, if you’ll recall, was scanned by a Cylon centurion in the season premiere, and the toasters called off the troops). This strongly seems to hint that if, indeed, this has all happened before and it will happen again, the final five are a vital link to providing a bridge between humanity and the Cylons, that they might form a truce of some sort or live together on Earth or something.

The rest of the episode moves lots of chess pieces around the board, getting them in place for the final cliffhanger, but it largely does so elegantly, taking time for arguments among the Cylons trying to align themselves with the humans as to whether the humans are even ready to proceed, and political machinations with Natalie appealing to the Quorum and dangling before the humans a huge prize—the Cylons’ resurrection hub, without which no Cylon can be resurrected (which, of course, ties in with Natalie’s desire to explore mortality). Natalie talks the humans into joining her quest to find the final five by unboxing D’Anna (Lucy Lawless, who’s returning soon), which sends the final five into some anxiety over their identities being learned. The anxiety of the four of the final five we know of has been palpable all season, but it’s reaching a boiling point here with just about every scene featuring a moment when they’re put on the spot (they don’t know the way to Earth, and they know when they’re discovered, they’ll be dead) and backed into an even tighter corner. This whole storyline has given strong actors like Hogan and Douglas great material to play and revealed unknown depths in players like Michael Trucco and Rekha Sharma, who were often just background scenery before this plotline.

Roslin (Mary McDonnell), meanwhile, is once again having visions of the opera house, watching Hera go off with Six and Baltar as Sharon looks helplessly on (I often expect Roslin to wake up and start saying, “And you were there, and you and you and you!”). These visions return at an inconvenient time for Roslin, who is losing her religion and being called out for having shared visions with a Cylon by Baltar (James Callis) on his radio show (and is this guy just on the radio all the time?). Roslin asks Tory (Rekha Sharma), whom she’s figured out is involved with Baltar, to find out how Baltar knows (as it turns out, he heard about the visions from Six), which gives McDonnell the chance to utter the phrase “charter member of his nymph squad.” Roslin’s getting hit from all sides this week, though, as her unilateral decision