I hope to see the Clone Wars later this week. A review should be forthcoming after that. Sorry about the non-writing; I have been working on the newspaper a heck of a lot.
I saw Hancock a few weeks ago. I don't feel like reviewing it, but a link that describes my thoughts (only funnier) almost to a "t" can be found here. BEWARE: Don't go there if you mind swearing, and if you don't want to find out what happens on season three of "Arrested Development," don't read what Jason Bateman says immediately after Will Smith asks him how he and Charlize Theron met.
Two other quick music notes. One is that I am getting more and more excited for the new Brave Saint Saturn album. The band has had two (very good) demos posted for a long time, but now, after several delays, IT'S ALMOST HERE.
Also, Ben Folds is releasing his latest album, "Way to Normal," at the end of September. Check out his Myspace to hear three new songs ("You Don't Know Me," "Hiroshima," Cologne") and two songs that he recorded to be silly and dumb on purpose just to mess with his fans ("Way to Normal" and the hilarious [but profanity laced] "B---- Went Nutz"). Again, BEWARE: Ben does swear on many of his songs. If you don't want to hear that, still go to the page and watch the video for Cologne. There is no profanity and the song is amazing.
Lastly, I am starting a new blog called Beauty/Conundrum. I don't know how often I'll be updating it, as I barely have time for this blog right now, but I wanted to start it because it portrays a more serious side of me, the side that talks about ideas and thoughts and feelings rather than movies, books and music. You can navigate to it on the sidebar of this blog. I won't be uploading it to Facebook (though it will be linked to under My Websites), so if you want to read it, you'll have to go to the actual blog. I posted something there today. I hope you like it.
Sunday, August 31, 2008
Monday, August 4, 2008
Reflections on media choices
Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things. - Philippians 4:8
...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4
These two verses have stirred endless amounts of debate among Christians, and I hope I won't add another argument. I merely wish to give my own thoughts and ask for your own.
I have often struggled to apply these verses to my life. I do try to follow them--I really do--but I am often confused about what the reach and intent of the verses are. Intent: that is the important thing, or so it has been drilled into my skull since coming to Northwestern (also, my apologies for this horrendous sentence). In fact, this has altogether been an ill-conceived paragraph, so please move on to the next one.
With the first verse, I am faced with two questions:
Question 1: How am I to determine what is true, noble, right, pure, etc. in the context of media?
"The Dark Knight" is a perfect example here. In fact, it is the example that sparked my idea for this blog. The other day, I was chatting about entertainment with an older friend who I respect very much, particularly in regard to his spiritual insights. He was telling me that he had been reading my blog, and I asked him if he had checked out my TDK review because I feel that that is one of my better blogs, and I liked the movie a lot. He said he had, but he hadn't liked the film that much because it was too dark for him. I understood; I don't think the movie is for everyone, even though I do think it is extremely well put together.
However, the subject came up later in the day with someone else that we both know, and my friend reiterated his dislike, this time including the fact that he thought it was too dark from an objectively biblical standpoint, pointing to the Philippians verse as a guideline (sorry if I'm embarrassing you, my unnamed friend, but I'm writing this because I really do respect your spiritual insights). His statement got me thinking about the positive/negative aspects of the movie.
The only negative aspect I could think of (and it is certainly the one he was referring to) was the shown or (as was usually the case) implicit violence. While I do think that this is a legitimate concern--the movie is filled with it--I did not come to the same conclusions as my friend.
Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated by the Joker. While the SPOILER SKIP THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE OK YOU'VE HAD YOUR WARNING pencil thing END OF SPOILER CONTINUE READING is pretty funny, it is funny on a level that the Joker has always had: one that makes him utterly terrible and terrifying. All of his violent, disturbing actions in the movie are designed to be unnerving, not to be glorifying. You grow to absolutely despise the Joker, to the point that you want him to be killed in order to stop the terror.
In short, the violence is the farthest thing from glorified. Its purpose is to paint a stark picture of evil and to show why such evil needs to vanquished, even if the cost is monumentally high.
That, I think, is the point that I would pick if I had to pick only one overarching theme for the entire movie: while it raises many hard questions, the movie ultimately champions those who do the right thing and fight against evil, even when it means extraordinary sacrifices must be made. That, to me, is a very noble and true thing to portray, and the movie makes its points while also being gripping, intelligent and entertaining. However, the challenge is still there: what makes a film or a song or a book noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable?
Question 2: Is it ok for us to to consume entertainment that does not fit this standard/that contains some material that does not fit this standard? If so, how much content is too much?
Example? "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," my absolute favorite novel by my absolute favorite novelist, avowed atheist Douglas Adams. I believe that all of his Hitchhiker books (with the unfortunate exception of "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish") have some good things to say about the absurdity of existence and the pointlessness of many of our everyday activities, mirroring Ecclesiastes in many ways. However, he doesn't ever give the spiritual solution found in Ecclesiastes (although the physical one--work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor--does show up in book five), and I would be lying if I didn't say that the main reason I enjoy the books is simply because they are gut-bustingly hilarious.
Besides the fact that there are, essentially, no spiritually uplifting elements in the book, there is also a mild amount of profanity, fair amounts of mildly-to-fairly crude humor (more on those two elements in section two of this blog), some instances of taking God's name in vain and some irreverent jokes. However, I love it. It is so funny.
Am I doing the wrong thing? Why or why not? Where is that line drawn? Obviously, we aren't only to think on such things. There's nothing wrong with listening to a knock-knock joke, and this link contains pretty good evidence of God using a pun--a pretty silly pun at that--in the book of Jeremiah.
What about objectionable content like the things I mentioned above? Almost every piece of media not explicitly "Christian"--and even some of that is--contains elements that some people might find wrong. Where's the line?
While I do think that there are things that are objectively objectionable and not good to consume, I think a good guideline is to wonder if the intake of such media is hampering you spiritually. However, sometimes one can turn a blind eye to such hampering. Prayer is a good idea when faced with something that you feel might not be a good idea.
Before some of you dismiss me for kids-stuff-Sunday-School pandering, allow me to be a bit boorish in saying that you probably need to hear this more than anyone. I know many Christians, and I unfortunately must sometimes include myself among them, who disregard these verses and will watch/read/listen to anything, all the while claiming that it doesn't affect them. Sometimes they don't even go that far; they merely like what they see, screw the consequences.
If you don't think that this verse applies to media consumption in some way, what do you think the verse is for?
I'm still trying to work this one out. I really don't think that we should only consume media that contains only positive/neutral elements. But I do think that this verse is important, and that it does apply, individually-conscience-wise and objectively, to certain pieces of media. What do you think?
The second verse also brings to mind two questions, and I think that my gut reactions may be contrary to a lot of yours.
Question 1: What is coarse jesting or profane speech?
I will say right away that taking God's name in vain is wrong. It's right there in the Bible, and if you do that, you are objectively sinning. However, what about some of the other things people say?
Take, for example, swearing. Swearing is almost completely subjective. If I say "piss," some of you would disapprove, some of you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If I said "crap" or "dang" around my grandma, she might think me rather uncouth. But most of you wouldn't care.
There are words that are even more borderline--words like "hell" or "bastard." However, people's opinions change even on the subject of more recognized profanities.
I would never say "the f-word" or "the s-word" or "the b-word" or usually even "the d-word" or "the a-word" around my parents. However, I have used all of them before, although I generally try to curb my usage substantially so as not to offend (and because excessive swearing makes you sound like an idiot who has never heard of synonyms).
Now, before you burn me at the stake, I should point out that most of you are probably fans of at least the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. However, they spout off the word "bloody" in that movie quite often, which is deemed rather (or perhaps more) profane in many other countries. However, we laughingly indulge in this foreign profanity as we quote all of Johnny Depp's funny lines. There are other examples of this type of thing, when an odd word would constitute an egregious insult in another culture.
Remember when I said I didn't want to offend others by swearing? I think that the key lies there. While sometimes people just need to lighten up, I do believe that, since crudity can oftentimes be a culturally or even individually defined thing, we should watch what we say--and what we watch/read/hear--around others who might stumble or be offended at our speech. This can protect our witness with some, show how we are different to others and keep our good standing with many people. Again, while some people just need to learn that some things are ok, perhaps it is not always our job to teach them these things.
Question 2: Where is the line where the individually defined becomes objective? And, with that, are there some generally recognized crude topics that are ok to joke about?
The problem with my above statements is that some people will venture into the crude realm quite unabashedly, and some things are, I believe, objectively crass.
Take, for yet another example, bestiality. I believe that joking about bestiality is gross, coarse, crass and inappropriate, and I believe that no one should do it. But why do I think this? Because it's a sin? No, because people joke about theft and lying and even murder and premarital/homosexual sex all the time (although I do believe some of that to be objectionable as well, especially joking about homosexual sex. And yet we get a kick out of people pretending to be gay). Why is it objectionable then? To be honest, I'm not sure I know. But I do firmly believe that it's not something to be joked about. Again, maybe prayer is the best answer here as well.
The other part of that question is that I have definitely laughed at jokes that would be generally considered crass and even at jokes that I would consider to be crass. A prime example of this would be the TV show "Arrested Development." AD is the most cleverly-written TV show I have ever watched. It can also be very crude at times, and sometimes I laugh at this crudity. The most popular character on the show is GOB, a womanizing, sometimes foul-mouthed, immature dope. And with good reason: he's absolutely hilarious, even if many of his one-liners are crude.
Again, it's a cop-out to say that he's wrong because he jokes about sin, unless you shun jokes about greed, theft, murder, assault etc. (and what about heist movies? The Oceans flicks and others glorify theft, but man is the first one entertaining) But why is he wrong? Is it wrong that I laugh at things that are mildly crude? What is the answer?
I'm not sure I know. I'd love to hear your answers. For now, I'm going to keep trying to work out my faith with fear and trembling. Gotta get my Bible, gotta talk to God.
...and there must be no filthiness and silly talk, or coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. - Ephesians 5:4
These two verses have stirred endless amounts of debate among Christians, and I hope I won't add another argument. I merely wish to give my own thoughts and ask for your own.
I have often struggled to apply these verses to my life. I do try to follow them--I really do--but I am often confused about what the reach and intent of the verses are. Intent: that is the important thing, or so it has been drilled into my skull since coming to Northwestern (also, my apologies for this horrendous sentence). In fact, this has altogether been an ill-conceived paragraph, so please move on to the next one.
With the first verse, I am faced with two questions:
Question 1: How am I to determine what is true, noble, right, pure, etc. in the context of media?
"The Dark Knight" is a perfect example here. In fact, it is the example that sparked my idea for this blog. The other day, I was chatting about entertainment with an older friend who I respect very much, particularly in regard to his spiritual insights. He was telling me that he had been reading my blog, and I asked him if he had checked out my TDK review because I feel that that is one of my better blogs, and I liked the movie a lot. He said he had, but he hadn't liked the film that much because it was too dark for him. I understood; I don't think the movie is for everyone, even though I do think it is extremely well put together.
However, the subject came up later in the day with someone else that we both know, and my friend reiterated his dislike, this time including the fact that he thought it was too dark from an objectively biblical standpoint, pointing to the Philippians verse as a guideline (sorry if I'm embarrassing you, my unnamed friend, but I'm writing this because I really do respect your spiritual insights). His statement got me thinking about the positive/negative aspects of the movie.
The only negative aspect I could think of (and it is certainly the one he was referring to) was the shown or (as was usually the case) implicit violence. While I do think that this is a legitimate concern--the movie is filled with it--I did not come to the same conclusions as my friend.
Most of the violence in the movie is perpetrated by the Joker. While the SPOILER SKIP THIS PART OF THE SENTENCE OK YOU'VE HAD YOUR WARNING pencil thing END OF SPOILER CONTINUE READING is pretty funny, it is funny on a level that the Joker has always had: one that makes him utterly terrible and terrifying. All of his violent, disturbing actions in the movie are designed to be unnerving, not to be glorifying. You grow to absolutely despise the Joker, to the point that you want him to be killed in order to stop the terror.
In short, the violence is the farthest thing from glorified. Its purpose is to paint a stark picture of evil and to show why such evil needs to vanquished, even if the cost is monumentally high.
That, I think, is the point that I would pick if I had to pick only one overarching theme for the entire movie: while it raises many hard questions, the movie ultimately champions those who do the right thing and fight against evil, even when it means extraordinary sacrifices must be made. That, to me, is a very noble and true thing to portray, and the movie makes its points while also being gripping, intelligent and entertaining. However, the challenge is still there: what makes a film or a song or a book noble, right, pure, lovely and admirable?
Question 2: Is it ok for us to to consume entertainment that does not fit this standard/that contains some material that does not fit this standard? If so, how much content is too much?
Example? "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy," my absolute favorite novel by my absolute favorite novelist, avowed atheist Douglas Adams. I believe that all of his Hitchhiker books (with the unfortunate exception of "So Long, and Thanks for All the Fish") have some good things to say about the absurdity of existence and the pointlessness of many of our everyday activities, mirroring Ecclesiastes in many ways. However, he doesn't ever give the spiritual solution found in Ecclesiastes (although the physical one--work hard and enjoy the fruits of your labor--does show up in book five), and I would be lying if I didn't say that the main reason I enjoy the books is simply because they are gut-bustingly hilarious.
Besides the fact that there are, essentially, no spiritually uplifting elements in the book, there is also a mild amount of profanity, fair amounts of mildly-to-fairly crude humor (more on those two elements in section two of this blog), some instances of taking God's name in vain and some irreverent jokes. However, I love it. It is so funny.
Am I doing the wrong thing? Why or why not? Where is that line drawn? Obviously, we aren't only to think on such things. There's nothing wrong with listening to a knock-knock joke, and this link contains pretty good evidence of God using a pun--a pretty silly pun at that--in the book of Jeremiah.
What about objectionable content like the things I mentioned above? Almost every piece of media not explicitly "Christian"--and even some of that is--contains elements that some people might find wrong. Where's the line?
While I do think that there are things that are objectively objectionable and not good to consume, I think a good guideline is to wonder if the intake of such media is hampering you spiritually. However, sometimes one can turn a blind eye to such hampering. Prayer is a good idea when faced with something that you feel might not be a good idea.
Before some of you dismiss me for kids-stuff-Sunday-School pandering, allow me to be a bit boorish in saying that you probably need to hear this more than anyone. I know many Christians, and I unfortunately must sometimes include myself among them, who disregard these verses and will watch/read/listen to anything, all the while claiming that it doesn't affect them. Sometimes they don't even go that far; they merely like what they see, screw the consequences.
If you don't think that this verse applies to media consumption in some way, what do you think the verse is for?
I'm still trying to work this one out. I really don't think that we should only consume media that contains only positive/neutral elements. But I do think that this verse is important, and that it does apply, individually-conscience-wise and objectively, to certain pieces of media. What do you think?
The second verse also brings to mind two questions, and I think that my gut reactions may be contrary to a lot of yours.
Question 1: What is coarse jesting or profane speech?
I will say right away that taking God's name in vain is wrong. It's right there in the Bible, and if you do that, you are objectively sinning. However, what about some of the other things people say?
Take, for example, swearing. Swearing is almost completely subjective. If I say "piss," some of you would disapprove, some of you wouldn't even raise an eyebrow. If I said "crap" or "dang" around my grandma, she might think me rather uncouth. But most of you wouldn't care.
There are words that are even more borderline--words like "hell" or "bastard." However, people's opinions change even on the subject of more recognized profanities.
I would never say "the f-word" or "the s-word" or "the b-word" or usually even "the d-word" or "the a-word" around my parents. However, I have used all of them before, although I generally try to curb my usage substantially so as not to offend (and because excessive swearing makes you sound like an idiot who has never heard of synonyms).
Now, before you burn me at the stake, I should point out that most of you are probably fans of at least the first "Pirates of the Caribbean" movie. However, they spout off the word "bloody" in that movie quite often, which is deemed rather (or perhaps more) profane in many other countries. However, we laughingly indulge in this foreign profanity as we quote all of Johnny Depp's funny lines. There are other examples of this type of thing, when an odd word would constitute an egregious insult in another culture.
Remember when I said I didn't want to offend others by swearing? I think that the key lies there. While sometimes people just need to lighten up, I do believe that, since crudity can oftentimes be a culturally or even individually defined thing, we should watch what we say--and what we watch/read/hear--around others who might stumble or be offended at our speech. This can protect our witness with some, show how we are different to others and keep our good standing with many people. Again, while some people just need to learn that some things are ok, perhaps it is not always our job to teach them these things.
Question 2: Where is the line where the individually defined becomes objective? And, with that, are there some generally recognized crude topics that are ok to joke about?
The problem with my above statements is that some people will venture into the crude realm quite unabashedly, and some things are, I believe, objectively crass.
Take, for yet another example, bestiality. I believe that joking about bestiality is gross, coarse, crass and inappropriate, and I believe that no one should do it. But why do I think this? Because it's a sin? No, because people joke about theft and lying and even murder and premarital/homosexual sex all the time (although I do believe some of that to be objectionable as well, especially joking about homosexual sex. And yet we get a kick out of people pretending to be gay). Why is it objectionable then? To be honest, I'm not sure I know. But I do firmly believe that it's not something to be joked about. Again, maybe prayer is the best answer here as well.
The other part of that question is that I have definitely laughed at jokes that would be generally considered crass and even at jokes that I would consider to be crass. A prime example of this would be the TV show "Arrested Development." AD is the most cleverly-written TV show I have ever watched. It can also be very crude at times, and sometimes I laugh at this crudity. The most popular character on the show is GOB, a womanizing, sometimes foul-mouthed, immature dope. And with good reason: he's absolutely hilarious, even if many of his one-liners are crude.
Again, it's a cop-out to say that he's wrong because he jokes about sin, unless you shun jokes about greed, theft, murder, assault etc. (and what about heist movies? The Oceans flicks and others glorify theft, but man is the first one entertaining) But why is he wrong? Is it wrong that I laugh at things that are mildly crude? What is the answer?
I'm not sure I know. I'd love to hear your answers. For now, I'm going to keep trying to work out my faith with fear and trembling. Gotta get my Bible, gotta talk to God.
Monday, July 28, 2008
10 Christian music albums to check out
By the way, if you are reading these blogs on Facebook, you should really go to the original post at ryanreviewslife.blogspot.com. The format is better, you can read the blogs the way they were written (with italics, bolds, etc.), and you can check out other cool things.
I knew the last post was going to come off as harsh, and it was meant to in some ways. However, I don't mean to bash all Christian music, and I dislike the attitude that all Christian music is bad almost as much as the circle-the-wagons mentality that only Christian music is good. In fact, a couple of the bands/artists that I mentioned in the last post (namely Switchfoot, Jeremy Camp and Sanctus Real) have done some good work, albeit tempered with self-copying and self-importance (Switchfoot), some repetitiveness (Camp) and many songs with preachiness, repetitiveness or simplicity (Sanctus Real).
So, in the spirit of fairness and of not wanting you to miss out on some good tunes, I have compiled a list of 10 good albums by bands generally thought of as Christian. I have picked albums from 10 different bands, and I have included short lists of their other stuff that's worth checking out. This list is roughly based on my quite subjective view of which album is best, with the best album being number one.
10. Polarity - The Wedding
Genre: Rock, with twinges of southern rock
I wasn't sold on this album when it first came out, mostly because I was not (and still am not) a fan of The Wedding's first release. However, this one far exceeded my expectations. The reason why is a huge uptake in energy.
The guitars are out in full force, along with some brass to make the album stand out from other rock acts. However, the biggest improvement over the first album is the vocalist, Kevin Kiehn. If you didn't listen closely to both albums, it would be easy to think that the band had switched vocalists, as Kiehn's voice goes from light and unfulfilled on the first release to full and bursting with emotion and distinction on their second.
Add that to the fact that many songs on the album have pretty deep lyrics for the genre they're playing in, and you have a solid sophomore release from The Wedding.
Other stuff to check out: You remember how I said that it sounded like they switched vocalists from the first album to the second? Well, after the second album, they actually did switch vocalist, and the new one isn't nearly as good, so Polarity stands alone as the only album by the band that I can recommend.
9. Word of Mouth - John Reuben
Genre: Rap/Hiphop
While I normally dislike the above genres, I can get into Reuben because, unlike much hiphop that I hear, he isn't repetitive and he tries to be unique in his musical arrangements. While he can a little repetitive at times, his lyrics are clever and provide some good and needed jabs at popular culture. Also, his song "Make Money Money" is the only rap song I've ever heard that employs a banjo.
Other stuff to check out: "The Boy vs. the Cynic" may actually be better than "Word of Mouth." No sweet banjo song though.
8. Brother, Sister - mewithoutyou
Genre: progressive/indie rock
I'm still trying to figure this band out. They are definitely very talented (although sometimes a bit too dissonant for my tastes), but I still am not sure how much I like them. The reason for that is that their vocalist, Aaron Weiss, rather than singing his poetic lyrics, sort of shout/speak/sings everything. While this would normally annoy me to no end, he isn't trying to sound good in these songs. When an artist thinks he's a good singer but isn't, the musical effect is usually pretty awful. Weiss' stylings are created to complement the music, which includes raging guitars, interesting drum parts and some oddball instruments like the accordion, but it still takes some getting used to.
This album is worth checking out for its poetic lyrics, particularly on "C Minor" and "In a Sweater Poorly Knit." Keep listening if you can get used to Weiss.
Other stuff to check out: I'm not too familiar with the band, but I've heard that "Catch for Us the Foxes" is a good release too.
7. Love Liberty Disco - The Newsboys
Genre: Usually pop or pop/rock, but this album, obviously, is disco
While The Newsboys have certainly declined from their pre-worship album days, many people have forgotten that they did release some solid pop tunes before the turn of the century (and, with this album, just after). This is probably the most underappreciated Newsboys album, but it is actually very well layered and a great tribute to what happens to be a similarly underappreciated genre.
It's fairly short, but in a way that's good, as the album doesn't overstay its welcome. The strings and the electric guitars mesh well, and the more atmospheric songs are good too.
Other stuff to check out: "Going Public," "Step Up to the Microphone"
6. Lift - Audio Adrenaline
Genre: Rock
Lift represents the best of Audio Adrenaline for two reasons. The first reason is that, on this album, they finally transcended what was already a very catchy straight up rock sound and turned it into something more introspective. This album more than any of their others sounds like a complete album, rollicking when it should and slowing when it should while still sounding cohesive.
The second reason is that this is the first album in which their second vocalist, Tyler Burkum, assumed significant singing duties, and it is the last album in which their first vocalist, Mark Stuart, was not dominated by Burkum in any of the songs. Their smooth/rough, evenly distributed vocal stylings makes for a balanced yet interesting listen.
Other stuff to listen to: While I am a sucker for at least something on nearly all of the band's releases, "Underdog" is the pinnacle of Audio A's rock and roll sound, and "Bloom" is a catchy, more raw version of the same style (although some of the lyrics leave something to be desired).
5. A Collision - David Crowder Band
Genre: Worship, experimental/alternative
Every time I listen to this album, I hear something new. Crowder has laced his songs with old-style recordings, bluegrass, echo laden piano parts, electronic elements and much more. In what might be an even more significant achievement, he has made many of his songs' music add to the meaning of his lyrics. You can feel the climax that he speaks of on tracks like "A Beautiful Collision," and "We Win!," and the eternal exultation of God is felt more thoroughly after hearing "Foreverandever Etc.," which ends on a repeating constant note, intimating that worship will transcend time.
What I love about this album is Crowder's ability to simultaneously make a great experimental album while making a great worship album. The man cares about the quality of his music, and it manifests itself in the quality of his lyrics.
Other stuff to check out: "Remedy" offers more great music, although the lyrics aren't as insightful as this release.
4. The Light of Things Hoped For - Brave Saint Saturn
Genre: Astro rock
While I am not a fan of Five Iron Frenzy or the short-lived Roper, Reese Roper's Brave Saint Saturn project is definitely one to check out. While their debut album "So Far From Home," is plagued by hasty production, The Light of Things Hoped For sounds much more full. The band's songwriting improved as well, and the result is a rock album supplemented by synthesizers, ethereal pianos and clips from NASA to build an poignant sense of loneliness. Many of the songs don't sound amazing by themselves, but the music in its proper place forms an album that tells a story, building to climax of the final song, "Daylight." This is one theme album you should definitely check out.
Other stuff to check out: So Far From Home is decent, but there is some poor songwriting on a few tracks, and the production is subpar. The two tracks I've heard from the upcoming album "Anti-Meridian" give me hope, however, that the band's final album will be its best.
3. Supernatural - dc Talk
Genre: Rock/hiphop, although by this time they had gone almost completely over to a rock style.
While "Jesus Freak" marked the transition from dc Talk being a corny, 80s rap tribute band into a talented Christian rock powerhouse, Supernatural takes over where Freak left off and develops the harmonies, riffs and complexity to a much more mature sound. While Supernatural does contain the rockin' guitars found on Freak (see "It's Killing Me" for one of the best examples), it branches out into wider fields to include more unique elements, like the organ on "Since I Met You," the Stevie Wonder-esque vocals on "We All Want to Be Loved" and the sound of a submarine sonar keeping time on "Dive."
It's too bad that dc Talk's career had to end on this note. While it's a worthy end, one has to wonder where they would have gone from this point, as this was only their second album since the realization of their new style.
Other stuff to check out: Well, there's Jesus Freak, but "Welcome to the Freak Show" infuses even more energy into those songs, while taking some of their older songs and actually making them sound good.
2. Mmhmm - Relient k
Genre: It went from garage punk to punk/pop to pop/rock. At this point, it was punk/pop at its most capable.
In retrospect, this seems to be a landmark album for the band. It was the last album with RK's "classic lineup" of Thiessen, Hoopes, Pittman and Douglas, it was the first album that garnered them mainstream attention, it has been (so far) the last album that saw a significant amount of punk influence, and it was the album that seemed to shake off the people who only liked the band for their funny songs. With the exceptions of "High of 75," "The Only Thing Worse Than Beating a Dead Horse is Betting on One" and "My Girl's Ex-Boyfriend," this album is laugh-free, and even those three songs don't get a lot of guffaws.
What this album does get is a dose and a half of what is hands-down vocalist Matt Thiessen's best lyrics to date. He's never been this consistently clever, poetic and insightful before or since. The guitars and drums work together to create a mostly break-neck pace for the album, but it never sounds rushed. Piano fills and backgrounds supplement the louder portions to make the album stand out and sound better and more meaningful.
As I said, Thiessen's best lyrics are contained here, whether it's a cry for God's help ("Be My Escape"), criticisms of society's jumping to the next big thing ("This Week the Trend," "Maintain Consciousness") or, most frequently, a reflection on the overwhelming grace of the Savior ("I So Hate Consequences," "Life After Death and Taxes," "When I Go Down"). This is the album for those that thought that punk couldn't get out a message besides "we hate the establishment."
Other stuff to check out: While all of their albums have some fun/quality songs, "Two Lefts Don't Make a Right (But Three Do)" is their second-best album, followed by the uneven-yet-musically-diverse "Five Score and Seven Years Ago." Their 26-song EP "The Bird and the Bee Sides" is also very solid.
1. If I Left the Zoo - Jars of Clay
Genre: Various albums have been classified as folk, powerpop, alternative, rock, Gospel/bluegrass/roots and contemporary. Here they could best be described as experimental/folk/alternative.
This is nearly unquestionably the most underrated album of an underrated band. While Jars has always remained relatively popular, they have nowhere near the same amount of fame (even in the Christian community) as they did when they release their first album. However, while that album has some good tracks and while "Flood" proved it could eat up the charts, the band's first release has been musically overshadowed by almost every album the band has put out since (which isn't to say that it's not good. Jars just keeps getting better).
The band's pinnacle album (for me, anyway) is If I Left the Zoo, Jars' highly successful attempt at playing music that is thoroughly different while still being characteristic of the band.
From the goofy accordion opening to the introspective, guitar-picking close, the album skirts all over the place while still remaining cohesive. There's the catchy, hook-laden "Unforgetful You," the high energy commentary on love rocker "Collide," the gospel-choir-backed "I'm Alright" and so much more. One of the best tracks might be the allegorical "Sad Clown," which talks about how only God can crack through the happy facade that we put up. A meandering toy piano on the bridge makes this song a highlight.
This album takes the band's obvious love for all sorts of music and meshes with some of their most thought-provoking lyrical imagery. Go listen to it. Please.
Other stuff to check out: While they have great tracks on all of their albums, "Much Afraid," "Who We Are Instead" and "Good Monsters" round out their best work. I'm looking forward to their 2009 release, which already sounds like yet another new direction for this talented band.
There's my list. It's not comprehensive and very subjective, but so are all reviews. Enjoy.
I knew the last post was going to come off as harsh, and it was meant to in some ways. However, I don't mean to bash all Christian music, and I dislike the attitude that all Christian music is bad almost as much as the circle-the-wagons mentality that only Christian music is good. In fact, a couple of the bands/artists that I mentioned in the last post (namely Switchfoot, Jeremy Camp and Sanctus Real) have done some good work, albeit tempered with self-copying and self-importance (Switchfoot), some repetitiveness (Camp) and many songs with preachiness, repetitiveness or simplicity (Sanctus Real).
So, in the spirit of fairness and of not wanting you to miss out on some good tunes, I have compiled a list of 10 good albums by bands generally thought of as Christian. I have picked albums from 10 different bands, and I have included short lists of their other stuff that's worth checking out. This list is roughly based on my quite subjective view of which album is best, with the best album being number one.
10. Polarity - The Wedding
Genre: Rock, with twinges of southern rock
I wasn't sold on this album when it first came out, mostly because I was not (and still am not) a fan of The Wedding's first release. However, this one far exceeded my expectations. The reason why is a huge uptake in energy.
The guitars are out in full force, along with some brass to make the album stand out from other rock acts. However, the biggest improvement over the first album is the vocalist, Kevin Kiehn. If you didn't listen closely to both albums, it would be easy to think that the band had switched vocalists, as Kiehn's voice goes from light and unfulfilled on the first release to full and bursting with emotion and distinction on their second.
Add that to the fact that many songs on the album have pretty deep lyrics for the genre they're playing in, and you have a solid sophomore release from The Wedding.
Other stuff to check out: You remember how I said that it sounded like they switched vocalists from the first album to the second? Well, after the second album, they actually did switch vocalist, and the new one isn't nearly as good, so Polarity stands alone as the only album by the band that I can recommend.
9. Word of Mouth - John Reuben
Genre: Rap/Hiphop
While I normally dislike the above genres, I can get into Reuben because, unlike much hiphop that I hear, he isn't repetitive and he tries to be unique in his musical arrangements. While he can a little repetitive at times, his lyrics are clever and provide some good and needed jabs at popular culture. Also, his song "Make Money Money" is the only rap song I've ever heard that employs a banjo.
Other stuff to check out: "The Boy vs. the Cynic" may actually be better than "Word of Mouth." No sweet banjo song though.
8. Brother, Sister - mewithoutyou
Genre: progressive/indie rock
I'm still trying to figure this band out. They are definitely very talented (although sometimes a bit too dissonant for my tastes), but I still am not sure how much I like them. The reason for that is that their vocalist, Aaron Weiss, rather than singing his poetic lyrics, sort of shout/speak/sings everything. While this would normally annoy me to no end, he isn't trying to sound good in these songs. When an artist thinks he's a good singer but isn't, the musical effect is usually pretty awful. Weiss' stylings are created to complement the music, which includes raging guitars, interesting drum parts and some oddball instruments like the accordion, but it still takes some getting used to.
This album is worth checking out for its poetic lyrics, particularly on "C Minor" and "In a Sweater Poorly Knit." Keep listening if you can get used to Weiss.
Other stuff to check out: I'm not too familiar with the band, but I've heard that "Catch for Us the Foxes" is a good release too.
7. Love Liberty Disco - The Newsboys
Genre: Usually pop or pop/rock, but this album, obviously, is disco
While The Newsboys have certainly declined from their pre-worship album days, many people have forgotten that they did release some solid pop tunes before the turn of the century (and, with this album, just after). This is probably the most underappreciated Newsboys album, but it is actually very well layered and a great tribute to what happens to be a similarly underappreciated genre.
It's fairly short, but in a way that's good, as the album doesn't overstay its welcome. The strings and the electric guitars mesh well, and the more atmospheric songs are good too.
Other stuff to check out: "Going Public," "Step Up to the Microphone"
6. Lift - Audio Adrenaline
Genre: Rock
Lift represents the best of Audio Adrenaline for two reasons. The first reason is that, on this album, they finally transcended what was already a very catchy straight up rock sound and turned it into something more introspective. This album more than any of their others sounds like a complete album, rollicking when it should and slowing when it should while still sounding cohesive.
The second reason is that this is the first album in which their second vocalist, Tyler Burkum, assumed significant singing duties, and it is the last album in which their first vocalist, Mark Stuart, was not dominated by Burkum in any of the songs. Their smooth/rough, evenly distributed vocal stylings makes for a balanced yet interesting listen.
Other stuff to listen to: While I am a sucker for at least something on nearly all of the band's releases, "Underdog" is the pinnacle of Audio A's rock and roll sound, and "Bloom" is a catchy, more raw version of the same style (although some of the lyrics leave something to be desired).
5. A Collision - David Crowder Band
Genre: Worship, experimental/alternative
Every time I listen to this album, I hear something new. Crowder has laced his songs with old-style recordings, bluegrass, echo laden piano parts, electronic elements and much more. In what might be an even more significant achievement, he has made many of his songs' music add to the meaning of his lyrics. You can feel the climax that he speaks of on tracks like "A Beautiful Collision," and "We Win!," and the eternal exultation of God is felt more thoroughly after hearing "Foreverandever Etc.," which ends on a repeating constant note, intimating that worship will transcend time.
What I love about this album is Crowder's ability to simultaneously make a great experimental album while making a great worship album. The man cares about the quality of his music, and it manifests itself in the quality of his lyrics.
Other stuff to check out: "Remedy" offers more great music, although the lyrics aren't as insightful as this release.
4. The Light of Things Hoped For - Brave Saint Saturn
Genre: Astro rock
While I am not a fan of Five Iron Frenzy or the short-lived Roper, Reese Roper's Brave Saint Saturn project is definitely one to check out. While their debut album "So Far From Home," is plagued by hasty production, The Light of Things Hoped For sounds much more full. The band's songwriting improved as well, and the result is a rock album supplemented by synthesizers, ethereal pianos and clips from NASA to build an poignant sense of loneliness. Many of the songs don't sound amazing by themselves, but the music in its proper place forms an album that tells a story, building to climax of the final song, "Daylight." This is one theme album you should definitely check out.
Other stuff to check out: So Far From Home is decent, but there is some poor songwriting on a few tracks, and the production is subpar. The two tracks I've heard from the upcoming album "Anti-Meridian" give me hope, however, that the band's final album will be its best.
3. Supernatural - dc Talk
Genre: Rock/hiphop, although by this time they had gone almost completely over to a rock style.
While "Jesus Freak" marked the transition from dc Talk being a corny, 80s rap tribute band into a talented Christian rock powerhouse, Supernatural takes over where Freak left off and develops the harmonies, riffs and complexity to a much more mature sound. While Supernatural does contain the rockin' guitars found on Freak (see "It's Killing Me" for one of the best examples), it branches out into wider fields to include more unique elements, like the organ on "Since I Met You," the Stevie Wonder-esque vocals on "We All Want to Be Loved" and the sound of a submarine sonar keeping time on "Dive."
It's too bad that dc Talk's career had to end on this note. While it's a worthy end, one has to wonder where they would have gone from this point, as this was only their second album since the realization of their new style.
Other stuff to check out: Well, there's Jesus Freak, but "Welcome to the Freak Show" infuses even more energy into those songs, while taking some of their older songs and actually making them sound good.
2. Mmhmm - Relient k
Genre: It went from garage punk to punk/pop to pop/rock. At this point, it was punk/pop at its most capable.
In retrospect, this seems to be a landmark album for the band. It was the last album with RK's "classic lineup" of Thiessen, Hoopes, Pittman and Douglas, it was the first album that garnered them mainstream attention, it has been (so far) the last album that saw a significant amount of punk influence, and it was the album that seemed to shake off the people who only liked the band for their funny songs. With the exceptions of "High of 75," "The Only Thing Worse Than Beating a Dead Horse is Betting on One" and "My Girl's Ex-Boyfriend," this album is laugh-free, and even those three songs don't get a lot of guffaws.
What this album does get is a dose and a half of what is hands-down vocalist Matt Thiessen's best lyrics to date. He's never been this consistently clever, poetic and insightful before or since. The guitars and drums work together to create a mostly break-neck pace for the album, but it never sounds rushed. Piano fills and backgrounds supplement the louder portions to make the album stand out and sound better and more meaningful.
As I said, Thiessen's best lyrics are contained here, whether it's a cry for God's help ("Be My Escape"), criticisms of society's jumping to the next big thing ("This Week the Trend," "Maintain Consciousness") or, most frequently, a reflection on the overwhelming grace of the Savior ("I So Hate Consequences," "Life After Death and Taxes," "When I Go Down"). This is the album for those that thought that punk couldn't get out a message besides "we hate the establishment."
Other stuff to check out: While all of their albums have some fun/quality songs, "Two Lefts Don't Make a Right (But Three Do)" is their second-best album, followed by the uneven-yet-musically-diverse "Five Score and Seven Years Ago." Their 26-song EP "The Bird and the Bee Sides" is also very solid.
1. If I Left the Zoo - Jars of Clay
Genre: Various albums have been classified as folk, powerpop, alternative, rock, Gospel/bluegrass/roots and contemporary. Here they could best be described as experimental/folk/alternative.
This is nearly unquestionably the most underrated album of an underrated band. While Jars has always remained relatively popular, they have nowhere near the same amount of fame (even in the Christian community) as they did when they release their first album. However, while that album has some good tracks and while "Flood" proved it could eat up the charts, the band's first release has been musically overshadowed by almost every album the band has put out since (which isn't to say that it's not good. Jars just keeps getting better).
The band's pinnacle album (for me, anyway) is If I Left the Zoo, Jars' highly successful attempt at playing music that is thoroughly different while still being characteristic of the band.
From the goofy accordion opening to the introspective, guitar-picking close, the album skirts all over the place while still remaining cohesive. There's the catchy, hook-laden "Unforgetful You," the high energy commentary on love rocker "Collide," the gospel-choir-backed "I'm Alright" and so much more. One of the best tracks might be the allegorical "Sad Clown," which talks about how only God can crack through the happy facade that we put up. A meandering toy piano on the bridge makes this song a highlight.
This album takes the band's obvious love for all sorts of music and meshes with some of their most thought-provoking lyrical imagery. Go listen to it. Please.
Other stuff to check out: While they have great tracks on all of their albums, "Much Afraid," "Who We Are Instead" and "Good Monsters" round out their best work. I'm looking forward to their 2009 release, which already sounds like yet another new direction for this talented band.
There's my list. It's not comprehensive and very subjective, but so are all reviews. Enjoy.
Thursday, July 24, 2008
This is what's wrong with Christian music
Please note, when I say "Christian music," I realize that this does not apply to every band that falls under the moniker. Indeed, there are many good Christian acts out there (although, sadly, many are now gone). However, this is an indictment of the industry as a whole and many of the acts that are at the center of the industry's focus.
While there are many things I could focus one besides the topics I cover here, I think that the things I dislike the most can be distilled into these four points.
1. Industry inbreeding and/or deriving from secular bands
Earlier this year, I came across a poster in a youth room from a church I was visiting. On it was a list of most of the "big Christian bands" at the time the poster was released. Across from each band was another list, this one letting potential listeners know which secular bands the Christian bands sounded like.
On the surface, this may seem acceptable to you. After all, there are so many subgenres and so many bands that many of them play in the same style, right? Well, sure, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I submit that it's symptomatic of a larger problem (well, two larger problems, but I'll address the second half in point four).
To so boldly link bands suggests that, rather than playing in the same genre, the bands on the left side of the poster were the "Christianized versions" of the bands on the right. This is not a good creative step for the Christian music industry, and whoever decided to actually broadcast this with a poster may have been a few beads short of a rosary.
This was more prominent in the late 90s/early 00s, but I used to hear (and still on occasion hear) that X Christian band was like "The Christian version of X secular band!" The phrase was bandied about in excitement, as if flaunting your unoriginality in musical taste was a badge of honor or something.
Let's face it. Music, Christian or secular, is notorious (even more so than other entertainment mediums) for copying everything else out there. However, this is almost encouraged in some circles of the Christian industry, which, if you think about it, is kind of insulting.
Christians are and have always been capable of coming up with original material, be it music, literature or ... well, I guess we're still waiting on film. However, the Christian music industry is full of bands that either ape secular bands or commit the probably worse sin of copying other Christian acts, most of whom are already copying others.
Take, for example, the trail of wreckage left by Relient k. When they started up, their band drew lots of comparisons to MXPX, NOFX and Jimmy Eat World. However, their first album, though basically generic garage punk, still managed to get in a few pretty good songs edgewise. It also (and many people don't recognize this) contained many vocal harmonies which added a bit to the songs and prefaced their very harmony-driven sound today. Speaking of today, they have since evolved into a talented pop-rock band that likes to take their sound in different directions, and most people have dropped charges of copying from Relient k's offenses.
Where's the problem then? Well, first, you have Hawk Nelson, a Christian punk-pop band that is always a couple of albums short of where Relient k is. They rode (some say hijacked) Relient k's introduction of Christian pop-punk to success, and they now feed off the success that they've had as Relient k-lite. Every now and then a good, original song will surface, but those songs are few and far between.
One rung down the ladder stands Stellar Kart, aka Hawk Nelson-lite. Stellar Kart is a few albums behind Hawk Nelson, who, as I've already said, is copying Relient k's style from a few years ago. Add that to the fact that you know that somewhere out there is a band that is taking their cues from Stellar Kart, and you have a mess.
The rest of the story? While still professing Christians, Relient k has distanced themselves from the industry and positioned themselves as more of a "we're a rock band who sings about whatever but a lot of the time it's our faith" kind of band. Like Switchfoot, except Relient k is actually good. OOOH, WHAT NOW?!?
This kind of stuff goes on all the time in Christian music. It happens in secular music too, but in the Christian world nobody minds. They even promote it! So, the next time you're on a Christian band's myspace and their "sounds like" section says "Like nothing else you've ever heard," keep in mind that it probably sounds just like all of the other bands that sound like nothing else you've ever heard.
Bottom line: Originality is important. While it's not bad for a band to have moments when you can hear their influences, it is bad for bands to try to be their influences, except, "y'know, we sing about God."
2. "Preachiness"
This one can even befall bands that are good, like Audio Adrenaline (see, Christian music industry, you CAN have a band that carves their own niche within a broad genre!), and it too often does in bands that are ok but have the potential to be better, like Sanctus Real. Sanctus, a band with one pretty solid album (not without its flaws, as you'll see momentarily) and a few albums with some good tracks on them, churned out a little number for their best album called "Mr. Deeds." Besides being a lame Adam Sandler reference, the chorus of the song goes like this:
"If you don't have faith you have nothing at all,
If you don't have deeds your faith will fall,
They can't be true without each other,
You can't have one without the other."
Apparently, Sanctus had been trying to listen to the market, and the market was saying something along the lines of "Gee, I totally want to hear a song that contains a simplified version of faith vs. works crammed awkwardly into a mediocre song structure. What do you mean, 'read James'? What the heck is that?"
Obviously, I am not against songs that convey spiritual truth. Nor am I necessarily against songs that contain simple lyrics. However, simple songs still can be innovative and catchy (see "She Loves You" by the Beatles or "Beautiful" by Audio Adrenaline), and spiritual truths do not need to be hamfistedly shoved into a song. Compare the above song with the lyrics to "Jealous Kind" by Jars of Clay, a song discussing the nature of God's jealousy:
"You know I've been unfaithful,
Lovers in lines,
While you're turning over tables with the rage of a jealous kind,
I chose the gallows to the aisle,
Thought that love would never find,
Hanging ropes will never keep you,
And your love of a jealous kind."
Simplistic and pandering vs. eloquent and poetic. Straight-forward to a fault vs. layered and complex. Incidentally, when a band cares about its lyrics, the music is usually better too, and these two songs are no exception.
However, while Jars of Clay is a popular band in some circles, they are nowhere as "in" the industry right now as Sanctus Real. In fact, there are many (far too many) people who will tell you that they got into Jars' first album (you know, the one with "Flood" and a bunch of other songs on it) and then never really liked anything else they did. The problem? Their first album is probably their worst one.
Bands end up being preachy way too often. Either that or they fall prey to problem number three, which I will discuss momentarily. Preachiness shows laziness or lack of talent, and it shouldn't be allowed to thrive when there are bands writing lyrics of substance.
Bottom line: If we want to do systematic theology, we'll read the Bible, not listen to your song that distills the subject into a Sunday School lesson for an eight year old. Give us something meaty to work with, or at least give us something easy that's catchy and different.
3. Lack of creativity
While point three can be tied to points two and one, it deserves its own section because it goes far beyond both of those points. There are many times when a band isn't being preachy or a copycat, but they still lack originality.
You know what I'm talking about. Bands that strum power chords over and over through every single song they ever do, never stopping to put in an ounce of originality, diversity or inspiration. Bands whose lyrics aren't preachy but are still utterly mundane and ill-conceived. Both Christian rock and CCM have made their fortunes as of late off of McMusic, and so many people are only too happy to lap up these exultations of the generic.
Take Chris Tomlin as an example. While he has a couple of good songs, most of his songs lack any sort of musical impact, and almost all of his songs could be categorized by singing "God is great, great is God, God is King, King God is great, etc. etc. ad nauseum."
David Crowder Band, on the other hand, is relatively popular among the CCM crowd, but the group definitely plays second fiddle to a truckload of CCM artists who it is better than by leaps and bounds, including Jeremy Camp, Tomlin, Casting Crowns and, well, almost anyone else, because David Crowder Band is one of the most original acts to hit the CCM scene in a long time. Compare almost all of Tomlin's lyrics with this snippet from Crowder's "Wholly Yours."
"I am full of earth,
You are heaven’s worth,
I am stained with dirt, prone to depravity,
You are everything that is bright and clean,
The antonym of me,
You are divinity."
These lyrics essentially say everything that almost any of Tomlin's lyrics have ever said, but they transcend them and actually make you think about what you're listening to. Yes, God is great, but having "God is great" pounded into my head 20 times in three minutes isn't going to make me think about it any differently.
That's not even accounting for Crowder's music. His "A Collision" album is an absolutely marvelous display of musical complexity, both in adding in intricate unique details and using musical effects to enhance what his lyrics are trying to convey.
Worship isn't the only genre that cows to the mundane. Here are some lyrics from Everyday Sunday's "Wake Up! Wake Up!"
"Feels like I'm going through the motions in the dark,
In a world that leaves me with an uninspired heart,
All I know is I'm so tired,
Living life I barely feel,
Give me hope, give me fire,
Give me something real."
Yawn. I can only hope that the original title of this song was "Wake Me Up When It's Over." We can do better than to listen to stuff like this. The acceptance of bands like Everyday Sunday and their compatriots has given rise to an industry that is currently fawning over Family Force 5, a band who has taken being really generic and given it a twist by writing slightly more creative lyrics, coming up with such absurd stage names that you kind of want someone to beat them up and generally sucking at every aspect of making music.
Bottom line: Don't just be another face in the crowd. If you're making music, put some effort into it.
4. Attitudes of industry/consumers
This bothers me so, so much. The reason that bands like Family Force 5 and Thousand Foot Krutch and Stellar Kart exist is that no one cares that they aren't good. People don't take the time to actually listen to what they're hearing, and the only result is to push the good Christian bands into obscurity and tarnish the entire idea of Christian music. Why do you think that so many non-Christians hate listening to Christian music? They think it's preachy, derivative and boring, and, if they were to turn on your average Christian radio station, they'd be right at least 90% of the time.
But not enough Christians care. So the Christian music industry continues to put out crappy music, and that many more people go through their lives without ever appreciating what real music is or how good music sounds.
"Well," you might say, "that might be true, but it's the same way with secular music, right? There's lots of crap there. [and I agree, there is] Why is Christian music any worse?" Simply because of this: Christian music has a captive audience.
I know so many Christians who have some sort of vague distaste for secular music. They wouldn't really tell you it's wrong (most of them wouldn't, anyway), but deep down it's what they really think. "Christian music uplifts me," they say. "What's wrong with that?"
Nothing is wrong with that, but how are you being uplifted by mediocrity and mindless Chicken Soup for the Soul platitudes? Are we really that simple? Is that really all we need to reach some sort of higher spiritual plane? And, perhaps more importantly, have we really degraded an ancient art form that has been a part of mankind from the beginning to a point where its worth is not based on quality, but on whether it has some chic spirituality sentiment wrapped in it? Music is worth listening to not because it has some cute little message, but because it's music! Music is designed to make you think, feel, associate, let go, NOT to feed you Christianized fortune cookies!
I realize that I'm going into rant mode now, so I'll end this with two true stories. The first is that Jars of Clay, a few years ago, released a single called "The Valley Song." It's a touching song about loving and trusting God through the rocky parts of life, and it was written after one of the band mate's family members died. Many Christian stations refused to play the song because, rather than making listeners feel good, it reminded them of the trying times that they face. Apparently the station managers had never read, I dunno, Job, or most of the rest of the Bible for that matter.
The second story is about Carlos Santana, acclaimed guitarist who would be shunned by many Christians because he is A) not one and B) very into meditation and New Agey stuff. He wrote a song called "Heaven," which many Christians might recognize if they listened to any radio that wasn't Christian. However, it was recently covered by the acceptable Christian band Salvador, who changed none of the lyrics, and it became a minor Christian hit.
Looks like we're still rejecting the sinners after all.
While there are many things I could focus one besides the topics I cover here, I think that the things I dislike the most can be distilled into these four points.
1. Industry inbreeding and/or deriving from secular bands
Earlier this year, I came across a poster in a youth room from a church I was visiting. On it was a list of most of the "big Christian bands" at the time the poster was released. Across from each band was another list, this one letting potential listeners know which secular bands the Christian bands sounded like.
On the surface, this may seem acceptable to you. After all, there are so many subgenres and so many bands that many of them play in the same style, right? Well, sure, and there's nothing wrong with that, but I submit that it's symptomatic of a larger problem (well, two larger problems, but I'll address the second half in point four).
To so boldly link bands suggests that, rather than playing in the same genre, the bands on the left side of the poster were the "Christianized versions" of the bands on the right. This is not a good creative step for the Christian music industry, and whoever decided to actually broadcast this with a poster may have been a few beads short of a rosary.
This was more prominent in the late 90s/early 00s, but I used to hear (and still on occasion hear) that X Christian band was like "The Christian version of X secular band!" The phrase was bandied about in excitement, as if flaunting your unoriginality in musical taste was a badge of honor or something.
Let's face it. Music, Christian or secular, is notorious (even more so than other entertainment mediums) for copying everything else out there. However, this is almost encouraged in some circles of the Christian industry, which, if you think about it, is kind of insulting.
Christians are and have always been capable of coming up with original material, be it music, literature or ... well, I guess we're still waiting on film. However, the Christian music industry is full of bands that either ape secular bands or commit the probably worse sin of copying other Christian acts, most of whom are already copying others.
Take, for example, the trail of wreckage left by Relient k. When they started up, their band drew lots of comparisons to MXPX, NOFX and Jimmy Eat World. However, their first album, though basically generic garage punk, still managed to get in a few pretty good songs edgewise. It also (and many people don't recognize this) contained many vocal harmonies which added a bit to the songs and prefaced their very harmony-driven sound today. Speaking of today, they have since evolved into a talented pop-rock band that likes to take their sound in different directions, and most people have dropped charges of copying from Relient k's offenses.
Where's the problem then? Well, first, you have Hawk Nelson, a Christian punk-pop band that is always a couple of albums short of where Relient k is. They rode (some say hijacked) Relient k's introduction of Christian pop-punk to success, and they now feed off the success that they've had as Relient k-lite. Every now and then a good, original song will surface, but those songs are few and far between.
One rung down the ladder stands Stellar Kart, aka Hawk Nelson-lite. Stellar Kart is a few albums behind Hawk Nelson, who, as I've already said, is copying Relient k's style from a few years ago. Add that to the fact that you know that somewhere out there is a band that is taking their cues from Stellar Kart, and you have a mess.
The rest of the story? While still professing Christians, Relient k has distanced themselves from the industry and positioned themselves as more of a "we're a rock band who sings about whatever but a lot of the time it's our faith" kind of band. Like Switchfoot, except Relient k is actually good. OOOH, WHAT NOW?!?
This kind of stuff goes on all the time in Christian music. It happens in secular music too, but in the Christian world nobody minds. They even promote it! So, the next time you're on a Christian band's myspace and their "sounds like" section says "Like nothing else you've ever heard," keep in mind that it probably sounds just like all of the other bands that sound like nothing else you've ever heard.
Bottom line: Originality is important. While it's not bad for a band to have moments when you can hear their influences, it is bad for bands to try to be their influences, except, "y'know, we sing about God."
2. "Preachiness"
This one can even befall bands that are good, like Audio Adrenaline (see, Christian music industry, you CAN have a band that carves their own niche within a broad genre!), and it too often does in bands that are ok but have the potential to be better, like Sanctus Real. Sanctus, a band with one pretty solid album (not without its flaws, as you'll see momentarily) and a few albums with some good tracks on them, churned out a little number for their best album called "Mr. Deeds." Besides being a lame Adam Sandler reference, the chorus of the song goes like this:
"If you don't have faith you have nothing at all,
If you don't have deeds your faith will fall,
They can't be true without each other,
You can't have one without the other."
Apparently, Sanctus had been trying to listen to the market, and the market was saying something along the lines of "Gee, I totally want to hear a song that contains a simplified version of faith vs. works crammed awkwardly into a mediocre song structure. What do you mean, 'read James'? What the heck is that?"
Obviously, I am not against songs that convey spiritual truth. Nor am I necessarily against songs that contain simple lyrics. However, simple songs still can be innovative and catchy (see "She Loves You" by the Beatles or "Beautiful" by Audio Adrenaline), and spiritual truths do not need to be hamfistedly shoved into a song. Compare the above song with the lyrics to "Jealous Kind" by Jars of Clay, a song discussing the nature of God's jealousy:
"You know I've been unfaithful,
Lovers in lines,
While you're turning over tables with the rage of a jealous kind,
I chose the gallows to the aisle,
Thought that love would never find,
Hanging ropes will never keep you,
And your love of a jealous kind."
Simplistic and pandering vs. eloquent and poetic. Straight-forward to a fault vs. layered and complex. Incidentally, when a band cares about its lyrics, the music is usually better too, and these two songs are no exception.
However, while Jars of Clay is a popular band in some circles, they are nowhere as "in" the industry right now as Sanctus Real. In fact, there are many (far too many) people who will tell you that they got into Jars' first album (you know, the one with "Flood" and a bunch of other songs on it) and then never really liked anything else they did. The problem? Their first album is probably their worst one.
Bands end up being preachy way too often. Either that or they fall prey to problem number three, which I will discuss momentarily. Preachiness shows laziness or lack of talent, and it shouldn't be allowed to thrive when there are bands writing lyrics of substance.
Bottom line: If we want to do systematic theology, we'll read the Bible, not listen to your song that distills the subject into a Sunday School lesson for an eight year old. Give us something meaty to work with, or at least give us something easy that's catchy and different.
3. Lack of creativity
While point three can be tied to points two and one, it deserves its own section because it goes far beyond both of those points. There are many times when a band isn't being preachy or a copycat, but they still lack originality.
You know what I'm talking about. Bands that strum power chords over and over through every single song they ever do, never stopping to put in an ounce of originality, diversity or inspiration. Bands whose lyrics aren't preachy but are still utterly mundane and ill-conceived. Both Christian rock and CCM have made their fortunes as of late off of McMusic, and so many people are only too happy to lap up these exultations of the generic.
Take Chris Tomlin as an example. While he has a couple of good songs, most of his songs lack any sort of musical impact, and almost all of his songs could be categorized by singing "God is great, great is God, God is King, King God is great, etc. etc. ad nauseum."
David Crowder Band, on the other hand, is relatively popular among the CCM crowd, but the group definitely plays second fiddle to a truckload of CCM artists who it is better than by leaps and bounds, including Jeremy Camp, Tomlin, Casting Crowns and, well, almost anyone else, because David Crowder Band is one of the most original acts to hit the CCM scene in a long time. Compare almost all of Tomlin's lyrics with this snippet from Crowder's "Wholly Yours."
"I am full of earth,
You are heaven’s worth,
I am stained with dirt, prone to depravity,
You are everything that is bright and clean,
The antonym of me,
You are divinity."
These lyrics essentially say everything that almost any of Tomlin's lyrics have ever said, but they transcend them and actually make you think about what you're listening to. Yes, God is great, but having "God is great" pounded into my head 20 times in three minutes isn't going to make me think about it any differently.
That's not even accounting for Crowder's music. His "A Collision" album is an absolutely marvelous display of musical complexity, both in adding in intricate unique details and using musical effects to enhance what his lyrics are trying to convey.
Worship isn't the only genre that cows to the mundane. Here are some lyrics from Everyday Sunday's "Wake Up! Wake Up!"
"Feels like I'm going through the motions in the dark,
In a world that leaves me with an uninspired heart,
All I know is I'm so tired,
Living life I barely feel,
Give me hope, give me fire,
Give me something real."
Yawn. I can only hope that the original title of this song was "Wake Me Up When It's Over." We can do better than to listen to stuff like this. The acceptance of bands like Everyday Sunday and their compatriots has given rise to an industry that is currently fawning over Family Force 5, a band who has taken being really generic and given it a twist by writing slightly more creative lyrics, coming up with such absurd stage names that you kind of want someone to beat them up and generally sucking at every aspect of making music.
Bottom line: Don't just be another face in the crowd. If you're making music, put some effort into it.
4. Attitudes of industry/consumers
This bothers me so, so much. The reason that bands like Family Force 5 and Thousand Foot Krutch and Stellar Kart exist is that no one cares that they aren't good. People don't take the time to actually listen to what they're hearing, and the only result is to push the good Christian bands into obscurity and tarnish the entire idea of Christian music. Why do you think that so many non-Christians hate listening to Christian music? They think it's preachy, derivative and boring, and, if they were to turn on your average Christian radio station, they'd be right at least 90% of the time.
But not enough Christians care. So the Christian music industry continues to put out crappy music, and that many more people go through their lives without ever appreciating what real music is or how good music sounds.
"Well," you might say, "that might be true, but it's the same way with secular music, right? There's lots of crap there. [and I agree, there is] Why is Christian music any worse?" Simply because of this: Christian music has a captive audience.
I know so many Christians who have some sort of vague distaste for secular music. They wouldn't really tell you it's wrong (most of them wouldn't, anyway), but deep down it's what they really think. "Christian music uplifts me," they say. "What's wrong with that?"
Nothing is wrong with that, but how are you being uplifted by mediocrity and mindless Chicken Soup for the Soul platitudes? Are we really that simple? Is that really all we need to reach some sort of higher spiritual plane? And, perhaps more importantly, have we really degraded an ancient art form that has been a part of mankind from the beginning to a point where its worth is not based on quality, but on whether it has some chic spirituality sentiment wrapped in it? Music is worth listening to not because it has some cute little message, but because it's music! Music is designed to make you think, feel, associate, let go, NOT to feed you Christianized fortune cookies!
I realize that I'm going into rant mode now, so I'll end this with two true stories. The first is that Jars of Clay, a few years ago, released a single called "The Valley Song." It's a touching song about loving and trusting God through the rocky parts of life, and it was written after one of the band mate's family members died. Many Christian stations refused to play the song because, rather than making listeners feel good, it reminded them of the trying times that they face. Apparently the station managers had never read, I dunno, Job, or most of the rest of the Bible for that matter.
The second story is about Carlos Santana, acclaimed guitarist who would be shunned by many Christians because he is A) not one and B) very into meditation and New Agey stuff. He wrote a song called "Heaven," which many Christians might recognize if they listened to any radio that wasn't Christian. However, it was recently covered by the acceptable Christian band Salvador, who changed none of the lyrics, and it became a minor Christian hit.
Looks like we're still rejecting the sinners after all.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
The Dark Knight, emphasis on the "dark" part (aka I need to make my movie reviews shorter somehow)
Sorry it's taken me so long to blog. I have been WAAAAY busy, but at least I have a backlog of ideas now.
Warning: this blog will be long, so I've split it up into sections, and I have included a table of contents. Never fear though, it's not book length; the sections are as much for my organization as for your navigation.
1. CONCLUSIONS (spoiler free)
2. ANALYSIS (mild spoilers)
3. COMIC BOOK THEMES (some spoilers)
4. SPECULATION (some big spoilers)
1. CONCLUSION
Here is the part for people who have not seen the movie and want to find out absolutely nothing about the film. As usual, I will attempt to keep the review as spoiler-free as possible, but a few mild ones will slip in every now and then.
Yes. This movie really is as good as people have been saying. Yes. Ledger's performance really is that great, and if he gets an Oscar nom it won't be a pity vote. However, be forewarned: while not graphic in its violence, it is relentlessly intense, and you feel a lot more of violence than you see. It's tremendously well put together, but the darkness might not be for everyone. Ok, now that that's out of the way...
2. ANALYSIS
Watching this movie was like watching a beautifully filmed, lovingly crafted car wreck. Sometimes you want to look away, sometimes you feel like you should feel away to respect the characters' privacy, but you can't. You just can't stop watching this movie. It is one of the most taut, intense movies I have ever seen.
I really need to watch it again to completely process it. All of the pieces fit together, yet it doesn't seem like a "put the puzzle together" film at all. Essentially, it succeeds where Gore Verbinski's Pirates 2 and 3 failed: It takes disparate bits of chaos, and it turns them into a cohesive and gripping whole. You really care about all of the characters, even though they are living in a fantastical world (albeit a realistic version of one).
The film has some excellent themes about sacrifice and morality. One of the central questions the story is how far will (and should) the forces of good go to fight evil. Does the combat of the worst kind of evil necessitate stooping down to the same level to eradicate it? Or can good really be incorruptible? Can Batman stop the Joker (and to a lesser extent, Two-Face), without breaking, as the Joker puts it, "his one rule"?
It now appears that "Batman Begins," itself a formidable and great film, served largely as an introductory movie for the bigger conflict of The Dark Knight (and presumably the last film in the trilogy, as director Chris Nolan has always imagined the films as a trilogy and Christian Bale was signed for three flicks). Indeed, Begins looks much smaller in scope in comparison to The Dark Knight, and much more storyline will be carried over to the next film from this one than Begins carried over to TDK. TDK is also much darker, and not something that kids should see. The story is sweeping, and I'm sure you already know it, but I'll give you a bare bones summary.
Batman continues to successfully fight crime, although some of his admirers are becoming a bit too vigilant themselves. Suddenly, and with two almost quirky (but vicious) displays of violence, the Joker arrives in Gotham and decides that the most fun and amusing way to spend his time would be to break the Batman--corrupt what he stands for, make him break his "no killing" rule, unveil him to the masses and make the masses loathe him. Batman tries to thwart the Joker while remaining pure in his cause.
Meanwhile, Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne, is hoping that the new district attorney, Harvey Dent, can be the hero Gotham needs: one with a face and one that plays squarely within the bounds of the law. I mean, Batman is a good guy and all, but he probably breaks some "excessive force" rules when he drops a man from a balcony just high enough to break the man's legs (which, by the way, is a great scene).
Bruce has another reason to want Harvey to succeed as well: if Harvey really ends up being the hero, Batman can hang up his cape and Bruce can lead a normal (well, normal for a billionaire playboy) life and settle down with his sweetheart, lawyer Rachel Dawes. The problem is that, while Rachel knows Bruce is Batman and still loves him, she also has a thing for Dent, and Dent has a big thing for her. Both Bruce and Rachel know they can never be together while Batman still roams Gotham, so any excuse to get out is a good one for both of them. However, Gotham seems to need Batman more than ever, and Bruce is starting to need his cowled persona as well. All of this comes to a head as the Joker, working with what is left of Gotham's mob from Begins, attempts to get revenge on Batman for the mob and create what he calls "a better class of criminal."
All of the performances are stellar, particularly the interplay between Batman, Dent and Lt. Gordon, one of the few straight cops on the Gotham City PD. In fact, the performances are so good that it's almost a shame that Heath Ledger's Joker outperforms them all. Jack Nicholson played the Joker, but Heath Ledger is the Joker. His makeup and scars are pitch-perfect, and he makes for a terrifying--yet at times very funny--villain (I'll be covering this more in the next section).
All in all, it is a gripping, chaotic movie, but not one that sacrifices making sense for chaos. It is the rare movie that lives up to the hype.
3. COMIC BOOK THEMES
As I've blogged earlier, Batman Begins is very faithful to its source material. The element of striking fear into those who intimidate the fearful is key to Batman mythology, and it was played out well in the film.
However, I've realized that, much like the way that Begins gives us Batman's origins in order to set us up for the bigger story of TDK, Begins also gives us the themes of Batman's premise in order to set up the ethical questions and dilemmas that drive Batman's career. Since the Joker is Batman's greatest villain, one of the main questions that has haunted Batman since his incarnation is presented here: Even though Batman has a strict "zero fatality" rule, couldn't he just make one tiny exception and kill the Joker? Joker has no motivation. His evil knows no limits. Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Joker wasn't in it? Batman's qualms about letting him live and preserving his incorruptible symbol vs. getting rid of the Joker and perhaps losing the slim distinction between him and the other "freaks" runs through the entire movie. Other themes that run through the movie are the idea that Bruce has developed a need for Batman and begins to think that he too is incorruptible.
I was a bit worried about the Joker for a while. He didn't seem happy enough in previews. This is remedied quite nicely in the actual film. He somehow accomplishes what only the best Joker comic books do: somehow make the character perversely evil and funny at the same time. The second time the Joker killed someone in the showing I went to, the entire audience laughed. And with good reason, too: while the death was in many ways shocking, it was also very funny. That is the epitome of who the Joker is: finding joy within chaos and destruction.
Ledger also brings out two other important facets of the Joker: his goal of showing others the beauty of madness and his ultimate desire to continue to do battle with Batman forever.
As the movie progresses, the Joker's scheme changes from trying to kill the caped crusader to trying to drive him (and the other heroes of Gotham) crazy. He does this through sundry painful ways which I will not reveal here, but they are used to good effect. This is one of the parts of a specific comic book that I noticed. "The Killing Joke," one of the best Joker stories ever, is focused around the Joker's assumption that anyone can go mad if they have just "one bad day." In the movie, the Joker says that "madness is like gravity. All it takes is one little push." Also present from The Killing Joke is the Joker's constant mangling of his origins, which I thought was a nice touch.
As far as battling the Batman forever, this is laid out when the Joker derisively sneers that he would never want to go back to "ripping off mob bosses." He also croons "you complete me" to Batman, and later saves (albeit violently) Batman's identity from being uncovered. However, this whole display brings up yet another important and oft-asked Bat-question: does Batman bring the freaks out of the woodwork? Does he cause more problems than he solves?
All in all, Ledger and Nolan portray the best Joker that I can imagine coming to the big screen. It's not as good as the Joker in the best comics, but it comes close to some, and anything worthwhile will always be best in its original material.
Harvey Dent (and his decline into the villainous Two-Face) is portrayed well, and it smacks of "The Long Halloween," another one of my favorite Batman comics. While nothing in this movie (or the last one) follows a comic storyline, that's good: comic book movies need to be faithful to the spirit, not the events, of the books. I particularly liked the gradual descent of Dent from playing by the book, although as Two-Face he could have been just a smidgen more sympathetic and carry some themes of the hope of redemption. However, it's a very, verrrrry minor complaint (more on Two-Face in the speculation section).
BIG SPOILER WARNING!
I wasn't sure whether Gordon had actually died, but I knew I was going to be majorly pissed if they killed him. Gordon is far too iconic and important of a character to kill off so early, particularly since he hadn't become commissioner yet. Now, that would have been a comic-book aberration I would have been mad about. Fortunately however, he was still around and ended up bringing a cool element to the film.
END BIG SPOILER WARNING.
Lastly (for this section), I would like to comment on a phrase that's getting tossed around a lot by people surprised by the violence and darkness in the movie: it's not a comic book movie. That is patently false.
While, yes, it is definitely not campy or cartoony in any way, it is definitely a comic book movie. Maybe it's not a Spiderman or Fantastic Four or Superman movie, but it is Batman. This portrayal of this hero--and his portrayal in Begins--are spot on. Many of the best Batman books are exactly what this movie is: weighty, dark (in some cases darker) and violent. Much of the violence is even handled the same way, namely that the graphic portions are implied rather than shown. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the most faithful movie adaptations of any book I have ever read.
No, it isn't for kids, but no, that doesn't mean it should be rated R. The complaints about this are totally nonsensical. Yes, it probably doesn't help things that TDK has been advertised on, well, anything you could possibly think of, including things sold to children. However, ultimately the responsibility of knowing what is ok for a child falls on the child's parents. Relying on the ratings system in a case like this is lazy, and parents who leave the theatre with frightened children have only themselves to blame. If they weren't sure about the content, they should have looked into it (a cursory Internet search would more than suffice). If they were bullied into it by market saturated kids, well, they need to grow a pair.
In short, it is an amazing example of a Batman comic book movie, but I would not want my children to read certain Batman comic books until they were a bit older. The movie exceeded my expectations for faithfulness, which made me like it all the more.
4. SPECULATION
The end of this movie reallllly had me wondering how the next film will play out. I imagine that Batman's vigilante status will be emphasized, and I'm hoping that his ideals are played out to be worthwhile. It would make sense with how the film series has gone so far: first, with the origins and foundation of his concepts, second, with the questioning of his principles and lastly with the vindication of them (although it will probably not be a wholehearted victory). Of course, Nolan will probably surprise us all.
SPOILERS!
On a more specific note, I'm very much wondering who the new villains will be. I highly doubt that they will recast the Joker (it just wouldn't work, as I think everyone who watches the film will agree). Before I saw the movie, I assumed that Two-Face would be the villain for the final film, but it now appears that he is dead. I hope they find a good way to discover him still alive, for three main reasons:
1. Since he was only around for the back half of the movie, his character (which, while not quite as good as the Joker's, is still rich and possibly more complex) did not get a thorough enough treatment.
2. TDK contained Batman's two greatest villains, but this one was (mostly) the Joker's show. Two-Face needs a chance to shine in a movie where he can be more than an albeit formidable sideshow.
3. Iconic Batman villains that would be climactic enough AND fit Nolan's mold for the series are quickly running out.
Allow me to elaborate on this point (also, if you could comment on which villains you would like to see appear in the third film, that would be cool. I'll post wikipedia links to all of the ones that I mention). Nolan has shied away (wisely so, in my opinion) from villains that have "magic" or cartoony abilities/shticks. While he can change some of these traits to a point (and, in fact, has, particularly with Ra's Ah Ghul, who in the comics has been alive for centuries and has all this magic stuff), it is impossible to divorce, say, Poison Ivy from the fact that she is part plant, emits plant pheromones and has poisonous kisses. Similarly, you can't make Mr. Freeze without the acknowledgement that he's a man who lives in a refrigerated suit and has a freeze gun (it should be noted here: the comic book version of Mr. Freeze is awesome and bears almost no resemblance to the campy-though-hilarious version of him in "Batman and Robin").
The other part of number three, the climactic point, is perhaps even more important. While there are some villains left who would or could pass the test of realism, most of them would seem like an anticlimax when compared the tribulations that Batman has already faced. For example, while, with a few changes, The Mad Hatter would be suitable and even good for a Nolan Batman flick, he would seem like small potatoes when compared to the Joker and Two-Face (this is true in the comic books as well).
Here's the list of bigger Batman villains and their problems with being filmed. I tried to put them in some semblance of supposed likelihood of being filmed, but they aren't in exact order.
Catwoman: Catwoman is being put up by some as the obvious choice, but I'm not so sure. For one, she's not completely evil like most of Batman's other villains. She even moonlights doing hero work at times. Seems kind of anticlimactic, not to mention the fact that she has already been portrayed (and favorably received, though not by me) in "Batman Returns" and (not favorably) in her own movie. Plus, I'm not that big of a fan of her, so there might be a bit of personal bias sneaking in there too.
The Penguin: It should be noted that I think this could be a cool idea, but only if they do the classic Penguin and not the amazingly annoying deformed and stupid version of him that Tim Burton put in Returns. I originally thought they would need more time developing his backstory, but now I think the mob is in place to a point where the Penguin might be able to step into control fairly easily. The problem with this is that, while the Penguin has the potential to be cool, he is oftentimes turned into a laughing stock (even sometimes in the comic books). Also, he has been previously portrayed.
The Riddler: He could be interesting, but most incarnations seems a bit goofy. This be overcome, but there are still a few problems: his obsession with order would seem a step down from the Joker's obsession with chaos, people would still associate him (unfortunately) with "Batman Forever's" Jim Carrey, and it may be hard for some viewers to distinguish him from the Joker, even though their film incarnations would undoubtedly be different. Dang, I'm trying to make these short.
Black Mask: He definitely has potential, perhaps even more so than the Penguin. He can be very intimidating, and his personality is markedly different than most of the loonies that Batman faces. However, there are two problems: the first is that his appearance balances perilously on the line as far as Nolan's comic-book believability. The second is that, what with the modification of Two-Face's disfigurement, Mask's origin may appear too similar to TDK's villain.
Mad Hatter: Would have to be modified to look a bit less goofy and a bit more plausible (with the mind-control).
Clayface: Not realistic or that well known, although some interesting themes could possibly be mined.
Bane: Not realistic.
Mr. Freeze: Although he is a great character, he's not very realistic and it's too soon to bring the character back after Schwarzenegger.
Poison Ivy: One-dimensional, anti-climactic, unrealistic.
Man-Bat: Umm... he's a man that turns into a giant bat?
Killer Croc: No explanation needed.
There are others too, but those are most of the main ones. Of course, Nolan could surprise us all. However, I'm one Bat-fan who's hoping that Two-Face will make a return appearance.
There was some other stuff I was going to write, but this is already too long.
Warning: this blog will be long, so I've split it up into sections, and I have included a table of contents. Never fear though, it's not book length; the sections are as much for my organization as for your navigation.
1. CONCLUSIONS (spoiler free)
2. ANALYSIS (mild spoilers)
3. COMIC BOOK THEMES (some spoilers)
4. SPECULATION (some big spoilers)
1. CONCLUSION
Here is the part for people who have not seen the movie and want to find out absolutely nothing about the film. As usual, I will attempt to keep the review as spoiler-free as possible, but a few mild ones will slip in every now and then.
Yes. This movie really is as good as people have been saying. Yes. Ledger's performance really is that great, and if he gets an Oscar nom it won't be a pity vote. However, be forewarned: while not graphic in its violence, it is relentlessly intense, and you feel a lot more of violence than you see. It's tremendously well put together, but the darkness might not be for everyone. Ok, now that that's out of the way...
2. ANALYSIS
Watching this movie was like watching a beautifully filmed, lovingly crafted car wreck. Sometimes you want to look away, sometimes you feel like you should feel away to respect the characters' privacy, but you can't. You just can't stop watching this movie. It is one of the most taut, intense movies I have ever seen.
I really need to watch it again to completely process it. All of the pieces fit together, yet it doesn't seem like a "put the puzzle together" film at all. Essentially, it succeeds where Gore Verbinski's Pirates 2 and 3 failed: It takes disparate bits of chaos, and it turns them into a cohesive and gripping whole. You really care about all of the characters, even though they are living in a fantastical world (albeit a realistic version of one).
The film has some excellent themes about sacrifice and morality. One of the central questions the story is how far will (and should) the forces of good go to fight evil. Does the combat of the worst kind of evil necessitate stooping down to the same level to eradicate it? Or can good really be incorruptible? Can Batman stop the Joker (and to a lesser extent, Two-Face), without breaking, as the Joker puts it, "his one rule"?
It now appears that "Batman Begins," itself a formidable and great film, served largely as an introductory movie for the bigger conflict of The Dark Knight (and presumably the last film in the trilogy, as director Chris Nolan has always imagined the films as a trilogy and Christian Bale was signed for three flicks). Indeed, Begins looks much smaller in scope in comparison to The Dark Knight, and much more storyline will be carried over to the next film from this one than Begins carried over to TDK. TDK is also much darker, and not something that kids should see. The story is sweeping, and I'm sure you already know it, but I'll give you a bare bones summary.
Batman continues to successfully fight crime, although some of his admirers are becoming a bit too vigilant themselves. Suddenly, and with two almost quirky (but vicious) displays of violence, the Joker arrives in Gotham and decides that the most fun and amusing way to spend his time would be to break the Batman--corrupt what he stands for, make him break his "no killing" rule, unveil him to the masses and make the masses loathe him. Batman tries to thwart the Joker while remaining pure in his cause.
Meanwhile, Batman's alter ego, Bruce Wayne, is hoping that the new district attorney, Harvey Dent, can be the hero Gotham needs: one with a face and one that plays squarely within the bounds of the law. I mean, Batman is a good guy and all, but he probably breaks some "excessive force" rules when he drops a man from a balcony just high enough to break the man's legs (which, by the way, is a great scene).
Bruce has another reason to want Harvey to succeed as well: if Harvey really ends up being the hero, Batman can hang up his cape and Bruce can lead a normal (well, normal for a billionaire playboy) life and settle down with his sweetheart, lawyer Rachel Dawes. The problem is that, while Rachel knows Bruce is Batman and still loves him, she also has a thing for Dent, and Dent has a big thing for her. Both Bruce and Rachel know they can never be together while Batman still roams Gotham, so any excuse to get out is a good one for both of them. However, Gotham seems to need Batman more than ever, and Bruce is starting to need his cowled persona as well. All of this comes to a head as the Joker, working with what is left of Gotham's mob from Begins, attempts to get revenge on Batman for the mob and create what he calls "a better class of criminal."
All of the performances are stellar, particularly the interplay between Batman, Dent and Lt. Gordon, one of the few straight cops on the Gotham City PD. In fact, the performances are so good that it's almost a shame that Heath Ledger's Joker outperforms them all. Jack Nicholson played the Joker, but Heath Ledger is the Joker. His makeup and scars are pitch-perfect, and he makes for a terrifying--yet at times very funny--villain (I'll be covering this more in the next section).
All in all, it is a gripping, chaotic movie, but not one that sacrifices making sense for chaos. It is the rare movie that lives up to the hype.
3. COMIC BOOK THEMES
As I've blogged earlier, Batman Begins is very faithful to its source material. The element of striking fear into those who intimidate the fearful is key to Batman mythology, and it was played out well in the film.
However, I've realized that, much like the way that Begins gives us Batman's origins in order to set us up for the bigger story of TDK, Begins also gives us the themes of Batman's premise in order to set up the ethical questions and dilemmas that drive Batman's career. Since the Joker is Batman's greatest villain, one of the main questions that has haunted Batman since his incarnation is presented here: Even though Batman has a strict "zero fatality" rule, couldn't he just make one tiny exception and kill the Joker? Joker has no motivation. His evil knows no limits. Wouldn't the world be a better place if the Joker wasn't in it? Batman's qualms about letting him live and preserving his incorruptible symbol vs. getting rid of the Joker and perhaps losing the slim distinction between him and the other "freaks" runs through the entire movie. Other themes that run through the movie are the idea that Bruce has developed a need for Batman and begins to think that he too is incorruptible.
I was a bit worried about the Joker for a while. He didn't seem happy enough in previews. This is remedied quite nicely in the actual film. He somehow accomplishes what only the best Joker comic books do: somehow make the character perversely evil and funny at the same time. The second time the Joker killed someone in the showing I went to, the entire audience laughed. And with good reason, too: while the death was in many ways shocking, it was also very funny. That is the epitome of who the Joker is: finding joy within chaos and destruction.
Ledger also brings out two other important facets of the Joker: his goal of showing others the beauty of madness and his ultimate desire to continue to do battle with Batman forever.
As the movie progresses, the Joker's scheme changes from trying to kill the caped crusader to trying to drive him (and the other heroes of Gotham) crazy. He does this through sundry painful ways which I will not reveal here, but they are used to good effect. This is one of the parts of a specific comic book that I noticed. "The Killing Joke," one of the best Joker stories ever, is focused around the Joker's assumption that anyone can go mad if they have just "one bad day." In the movie, the Joker says that "madness is like gravity. All it takes is one little push." Also present from The Killing Joke is the Joker's constant mangling of his origins, which I thought was a nice touch.
As far as battling the Batman forever, this is laid out when the Joker derisively sneers that he would never want to go back to "ripping off mob bosses." He also croons "you complete me" to Batman, and later saves (albeit violently) Batman's identity from being uncovered. However, this whole display brings up yet another important and oft-asked Bat-question: does Batman bring the freaks out of the woodwork? Does he cause more problems than he solves?
All in all, Ledger and Nolan portray the best Joker that I can imagine coming to the big screen. It's not as good as the Joker in the best comics, but it comes close to some, and anything worthwhile will always be best in its original material.
Harvey Dent (and his decline into the villainous Two-Face) is portrayed well, and it smacks of "The Long Halloween," another one of my favorite Batman comics. While nothing in this movie (or the last one) follows a comic storyline, that's good: comic book movies need to be faithful to the spirit, not the events, of the books. I particularly liked the gradual descent of Dent from playing by the book, although as Two-Face he could have been just a smidgen more sympathetic and carry some themes of the hope of redemption. However, it's a very, verrrrry minor complaint (more on Two-Face in the speculation section).
BIG SPOILER WARNING!
I wasn't sure whether Gordon had actually died, but I knew I was going to be majorly pissed if they killed him. Gordon is far too iconic and important of a character to kill off so early, particularly since he hadn't become commissioner yet. Now, that would have been a comic-book aberration I would have been mad about. Fortunately however, he was still around and ended up bringing a cool element to the film.
END BIG SPOILER WARNING.
Lastly (for this section), I would like to comment on a phrase that's getting tossed around a lot by people surprised by the violence and darkness in the movie: it's not a comic book movie. That is patently false.
While, yes, it is definitely not campy or cartoony in any way, it is definitely a comic book movie. Maybe it's not a Spiderman or Fantastic Four or Superman movie, but it is Batman. This portrayal of this hero--and his portrayal in Begins--are spot on. Many of the best Batman books are exactly what this movie is: weighty, dark (in some cases darker) and violent. Much of the violence is even handled the same way, namely that the graphic portions are implied rather than shown. In fact, I would go so far as to say that this is one of the most faithful movie adaptations of any book I have ever read.
No, it isn't for kids, but no, that doesn't mean it should be rated R. The complaints about this are totally nonsensical. Yes, it probably doesn't help things that TDK has been advertised on, well, anything you could possibly think of, including things sold to children. However, ultimately the responsibility of knowing what is ok for a child falls on the child's parents. Relying on the ratings system in a case like this is lazy, and parents who leave the theatre with frightened children have only themselves to blame. If they weren't sure about the content, they should have looked into it (a cursory Internet search would more than suffice). If they were bullied into it by market saturated kids, well, they need to grow a pair.
In short, it is an amazing example of a Batman comic book movie, but I would not want my children to read certain Batman comic books until they were a bit older. The movie exceeded my expectations for faithfulness, which made me like it all the more.
4. SPECULATION
The end of this movie reallllly had me wondering how the next film will play out. I imagine that Batman's vigilante status will be emphasized, and I'm hoping that his ideals are played out to be worthwhile. It would make sense with how the film series has gone so far: first, with the origins and foundation of his concepts, second, with the questioning of his principles and lastly with the vindication of them (although it will probably not be a wholehearted victory). Of course, Nolan will probably surprise us all.
SPOILERS!
On a more specific note, I'm very much wondering who the new villains will be. I highly doubt that they will recast the Joker (it just wouldn't work, as I think everyone who watches the film will agree). Before I saw the movie, I assumed that Two-Face would be the villain for the final film, but it now appears that he is dead. I hope they find a good way to discover him still alive, for three main reasons:
1. Since he was only around for the back half of the movie, his character (which, while not quite as good as the Joker's, is still rich and possibly more complex) did not get a thorough enough treatment.
2. TDK contained Batman's two greatest villains, but this one was (mostly) the Joker's show. Two-Face needs a chance to shine in a movie where he can be more than an albeit formidable sideshow.
3. Iconic Batman villains that would be climactic enough AND fit Nolan's mold for the series are quickly running out.
Allow me to elaborate on this point (also, if you could comment on which villains you would like to see appear in the third film, that would be cool. I'll post wikipedia links to all of the ones that I mention). Nolan has shied away (wisely so, in my opinion) from villains that have "magic" or cartoony abilities/shticks. While he can change some of these traits to a point (and, in fact, has, particularly with Ra's Ah Ghul, who in the comics has been alive for centuries and has all this magic stuff), it is impossible to divorce, say, Poison Ivy from the fact that she is part plant, emits plant pheromones and has poisonous kisses. Similarly, you can't make Mr. Freeze without the acknowledgement that he's a man who lives in a refrigerated suit and has a freeze gun (it should be noted here: the comic book version of Mr. Freeze is awesome and bears almost no resemblance to the campy-though-hilarious version of him in "Batman and Robin").
The other part of number three, the climactic point, is perhaps even more important. While there are some villains left who would or could pass the test of realism, most of them would seem like an anticlimax when compared the tribulations that Batman has already faced. For example, while, with a few changes, The Mad Hatter would be suitable and even good for a Nolan Batman flick, he would seem like small potatoes when compared to the Joker and Two-Face (this is true in the comic books as well).
Here's the list of bigger Batman villains and their problems with being filmed. I tried to put them in some semblance of supposed likelihood of being filmed, but they aren't in exact order.
Catwoman: Catwoman is being put up by some as the obvious choice, but I'm not so sure. For one, she's not completely evil like most of Batman's other villains. She even moonlights doing hero work at times. Seems kind of anticlimactic, not to mention the fact that she has already been portrayed (and favorably received, though not by me) in "Batman Returns" and (not favorably) in her own movie. Plus, I'm not that big of a fan of her, so there might be a bit of personal bias sneaking in there too.
The Penguin: It should be noted that I think this could be a cool idea, but only if they do the classic Penguin and not the amazingly annoying deformed and stupid version of him that Tim Burton put in Returns. I originally thought they would need more time developing his backstory, but now I think the mob is in place to a point where the Penguin might be able to step into control fairly easily. The problem with this is that, while the Penguin has the potential to be cool, he is oftentimes turned into a laughing stock (even sometimes in the comic books). Also, he has been previously portrayed.
The Riddler: He could be interesting, but most incarnations seems a bit goofy. This be overcome, but there are still a few problems: his obsession with order would seem a step down from the Joker's obsession with chaos, people would still associate him (unfortunately) with "Batman Forever's" Jim Carrey, and it may be hard for some viewers to distinguish him from the Joker, even though their film incarnations would undoubtedly be different. Dang, I'm trying to make these short.
Black Mask: He definitely has potential, perhaps even more so than the Penguin. He can be very intimidating, and his personality is markedly different than most of the loonies that Batman faces. However, there are two problems: the first is that his appearance balances perilously on the line as far as Nolan's comic-book believability. The second is that, what with the modification of Two-Face's disfigurement, Mask's origin may appear too similar to TDK's villain.
Mad Hatter: Would have to be modified to look a bit less goofy and a bit more plausible (with the mind-control).
Clayface: Not realistic or that well known, although some interesting themes could possibly be mined.
Bane: Not realistic.
Mr. Freeze: Although he is a great character, he's not very realistic and it's too soon to bring the character back after Schwarzenegger.
Poison Ivy: One-dimensional, anti-climactic, unrealistic.
Man-Bat: Umm... he's a man that turns into a giant bat?
Killer Croc: No explanation needed.
There are others too, but those are most of the main ones. Of course, Nolan could surprise us all. However, I'm one Bat-fan who's hoping that Two-Face will make a return appearance.
There was some other stuff I was going to write, but this is already too long.
Tuesday, July 8, 2008
10 movie conventions that must stop
As great as some movies can be, there is always something that can go wrong. These ten things have been going on for far too long and show no signs of stopping, much to the detriment of the industry. I realize that much of this isn't that original, but some of these things have really been bothering me. I will detail some of these things below. They are in sort-of order and sort-of not order so as to group similar problems.
10. Will Ferrell is not in movies that are very funny or showcase his acting ability.
While I haven't seen very many of Ferrell's movies, I usually find him instantly irritating, which is why I was so surprised to absolutely love "Stranger Than Fiction." Ferrell completely plays against type here, and he does so well that I wanted to see him perform in other roles like this. It's still a comedic role--just watch the movie--but it was more subdued and didn't rely on a constant barrage of dumb, crude humor and annoying personality traits. Also, I thought I should include that I want to see Will Arnett in a funny movie. Most of his movies since Arrested Development have been reviewed as stinkers.
9. Movie trailers give away plot points/best parts in movies.
I'm in good company here; in a recent interview (I'll try to find the link later), Steven Spielberg agreed with me. While I was enthralled with "Wall-E," I wished that I hadn't seen as many trailers for it. While the original teasers did just enough to whet my appetite, further trailers began giving away what I would see. I didn't want to know. I would rather have been surprised. Also, while I know it's necessary to show some of the jokes when you are advertising comedies, trailers sometimes go too far with this and show the best jokes in a movie. If you show us the best joke in a trailer, no one will laugh when we actually watch the film. Example? I bet that the whale bit in "Hancock" would have been much better received had it not been in the trailer. It wouldn't even have been necessary to show it, either. Just have a screen that says "Hancock! Starring Will Smith!" Badabing. Instant money-maker.
8. There are a lot of movies that have completely unnecessary sequels.
I know everyone harps on this, but it's true. While you can occasionally come up with a good sequel to a standalone movie (see Toy Story 2), most of the time (see Pirates 2 and 3, National Treasure 2, Shrek 2 and 3 and basically every other movie that was sequelized and your first reaction was, "wait, what?") you end up getting a mediocre movie, except with more money to spend. Even some movies that were left open to sequels have this problem. One element of these types of movies that make them more annoying is...
7. In many sequels, much of the characters' dialogue is taken up by self-referential jokes about the previous movie.
Remember the first "Pirates" movie, when Johnny Depp asked incredulously where all the rum had gone, and it was funny? Now do you remember "Pirates 2," in which nearly every character talked about rum all of the time all the while mugging the camera as if to say "Rum! Haha! It's funny! Remember? In that last movie all of us were in? That was pretty good, huh? Please, someone. Love me." Similarly, those who watched National Treasure 2 surely got fed up with all of the jokes about the first film and how great it was. Originality falls by the wayside. This leads us to...
6. There are too many movies that are based on something else, and not enough big original releases.
Think about the blockbuster hits so far this year. First there was a movie based on a comic book, then one based on a children's book, then a sequel, then another one based on a comic book, then one based on a TV show, then an original animated movie, then a mostly original idea, although one that parodies a comic book. Soon to come is a sequel based on a comic book (The Dark Knight), then another sequel (The Mummy 3), then a movie based on a cartoon set in between 2 other movies (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Last year, out of the top ten movies, two were based on comic books, one was based on a TV show, one was based on a TV show/toy line/comic book, three were based on books (albeit loosely with I Am Legend and the Bourne Ultimatum), one was (sort of) based on a theme park ride and six of them were sequels. In 2006 (sorry, this is fun), two were based on comic books, three were based on books (one of the books on a true story), one was based on a theme park ride and four of the movies were sequels.
I don't necessarily have a problem with movies of this nature, but there aren't enough anticipated, promoted movies that are based on an original idea anymore.
5. There are very few 2D movies anymore. Almost all animation is computer generated.
As much love as I have showered on them, I still blame Pixar. Toy Story was so darn good that everyone got on board with the 3D train. The problems?
5a. Many studios seem to believe that making a movie with 3D animation automatically makes it good. This is not true. Good dialogue and story are still required (Disney and Dreamworks, this means you).
5b. Since everything now is a game of technological catch up, the stories are doing the same thing. Dreamworks is the big culprit here. While you can argue about who copied who with "A Bug's Life"/"Antz," Dreamworks later came out with a fish movie close in proximity to "Finding Nemo," (it should be noted that "Flushed Away" also has a few odd Nemo parallels) and they've also copied themselves incessantly (the studio, which has been computer animating for 10 years, already has produced three sequels, Flushed Away is ripping off of "Chicken Run," and three more Shrek movies, a "Kung Fu Panda" sequel and an "Over the Hedge" sequel are in the works or in talks). Disney, meanwhile, has been attempting to ape Pixar's digital whimsy for years, and they also produced "The Wild," which has been acknowledged by pretty much everyone as being a rip-off of Dreamworks' "Madagascar."
5c. While many 3D animated movies look cool, there is a certain whimsy and a certain way of portraying characters and stories that only 2D movies can accomplish. "The Emperor's New Groove" wouldn't have been what it was without the cartoony, slapstick animation. "Mulan" would have probably ended up being a really cruddy faux-3D-anime flick. It just wouldn't have been the same.
Alas, most studios show no sign of going back to the classic format. Ever. "The Jungle Book," anyone?
4. Special effects by themselves do not the movie make.
I am talking to YOU, "Transformers"! While the gargantuan special effects budget managed to distract plenty of the people from the fact that the acting, story, dialogue and pretty much everything in the movie was completely annoying/dumb/both, I am not fooled. "Special effects" in the above statement can also amended to "Special effects and Johnny Depp acting strangely," "Special effects and menacingly glaring young men," "Special effects and Elijah Wood" and...
3. Sex symbols just hanging around for no reason.
While I am not in support of objectifying the female body in any case, I especially hate it when this happens in a movie where it is not in context with the rest of the film (or at least the way the film should be) or when the sex symbol is introduced in a completely contrived way in which everyone (including, but not limited to, the actress) is aware that lust is the only reason that the sex symbol is there. See "Get Smart's" Anne-check-out-my-legs-and-butt-did-you-miss-it-here-is-again-Hathaway, "Transformers'" Megan-dude-I-am-totally-hot-AND-I-can-fix-cars-everyone-watching-this-HAS-to-want-to-sleep-with-me-Fox and "Star Wars: Episode II's" Natalie-wow-this-monster-totally-clawed-at-me-in-just-the-right-way-as-to-not-actually-mar-my-tummy-but-still-show-it-off-to-everyone-Portman for prime examples of this.
2. Movies are not true to the spirit/events of their works.
I know, I know. Everyone whines about this too. But it's true. While no adaptation of a work, be it movie, book, TV show, whatever, will be as good as the source (ie, while "Lord of the Rings" is better in book form, "Star Wars" movies will always best the books made out of them), it is possible to make a good movie out of something else. "The Princess Bride" is a great movie and a great book, the movie does well by adhering the many of the oddball elements that make the book so good. "Batman Begins" is the best of the Batman films because it is the only one that shows Batman as he is the comics. Batman's dark visage is what makes him, and why it took four movies to recognize this is beyond me. One book that should have had its spirit maintained is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Alas, neither the spirit nor the events of the work were kept, resulting in a jumbled mess.
On the other side of the spectrum, while "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is a bit dry at parts, it succeeds largely because of its reliance on the events of the source material. This is one of the things that Hollywood screws up a lot. Movies that should have had their events followed more closely include "Prince Caspian" and (I know, I know) the Lord of the Rings (especially "The Two Towers").
1. Filmmakers think that they are oh-so-clever, and thus insert awful and out-of-place political commentary and "satire."
I put this one at number one partly because it's where it fit, partly because this has been an issue in the last two movies I've seen in theatres and partly because it really really bothers me. While the two instances I've criticized in this blog are related to President Bush, I would say the same thing about a joke with Kerry and flip-flopping, Clinton and sex and probably Obama with change (or, if McCain gets elected, McCain and being really old).
While some of these jokes were funny the first time, they are not only dated (in 20 years, if these things are still considered relevant, then it will be historical humor and much easier to digest), they are also the political equivalent of a junior higher who has seen "Napoleon Dynamite" or the Knights Who Say "Ni!": you know, deep down, that the source material had some merit, but it's been lost in a swarm of annoying people who have beaten the joke to death, resurrected it to a creepy zombie and then killed it again.
However, I don't really expect any of these things to change, because the movies that contain them make money.
The End, thank you, goodnight. I'll be watching "Juno" if you need me.
10. Will Ferrell is not in movies that are very funny or showcase his acting ability.
While I haven't seen very many of Ferrell's movies, I usually find him instantly irritating, which is why I was so surprised to absolutely love "Stranger Than Fiction." Ferrell completely plays against type here, and he does so well that I wanted to see him perform in other roles like this. It's still a comedic role--just watch the movie--but it was more subdued and didn't rely on a constant barrage of dumb, crude humor and annoying personality traits. Also, I thought I should include that I want to see Will Arnett in a funny movie. Most of his movies since Arrested Development have been reviewed as stinkers.
9. Movie trailers give away plot points/best parts in movies.
I'm in good company here; in a recent interview (I'll try to find the link later), Steven Spielberg agreed with me. While I was enthralled with "Wall-E," I wished that I hadn't seen as many trailers for it. While the original teasers did just enough to whet my appetite, further trailers began giving away what I would see. I didn't want to know. I would rather have been surprised. Also, while I know it's necessary to show some of the jokes when you are advertising comedies, trailers sometimes go too far with this and show the best jokes in a movie. If you show us the best joke in a trailer, no one will laugh when we actually watch the film. Example? I bet that the whale bit in "Hancock" would have been much better received had it not been in the trailer. It wouldn't even have been necessary to show it, either. Just have a screen that says "Hancock! Starring Will Smith!" Badabing. Instant money-maker.
8. There are a lot of movies that have completely unnecessary sequels.
I know everyone harps on this, but it's true. While you can occasionally come up with a good sequel to a standalone movie (see Toy Story 2), most of the time (see Pirates 2 and 3, National Treasure 2, Shrek 2 and 3 and basically every other movie that was sequelized and your first reaction was, "wait, what?") you end up getting a mediocre movie, except with more money to spend. Even some movies that were left open to sequels have this problem. One element of these types of movies that make them more annoying is...
7. In many sequels, much of the characters' dialogue is taken up by self-referential jokes about the previous movie.
Remember the first "Pirates" movie, when Johnny Depp asked incredulously where all the rum had gone, and it was funny? Now do you remember "Pirates 2," in which nearly every character talked about rum all of the time all the while mugging the camera as if to say "Rum! Haha! It's funny! Remember? In that last movie all of us were in? That was pretty good, huh? Please, someone. Love me." Similarly, those who watched National Treasure 2 surely got fed up with all of the jokes about the first film and how great it was. Originality falls by the wayside. This leads us to...
6. There are too many movies that are based on something else, and not enough big original releases.
Think about the blockbuster hits so far this year. First there was a movie based on a comic book, then one based on a children's book, then a sequel, then another one based on a comic book, then one based on a TV show, then an original animated movie, then a mostly original idea, although one that parodies a comic book. Soon to come is a sequel based on a comic book (The Dark Knight), then another sequel (The Mummy 3), then a movie based on a cartoon set in between 2 other movies (Star Wars: The Clone Wars). Last year, out of the top ten movies, two were based on comic books, one was based on a TV show, one was based on a TV show/toy line/comic book, three were based on books (albeit loosely with I Am Legend and the Bourne Ultimatum), one was (sort of) based on a theme park ride and six of them were sequels. In 2006 (sorry, this is fun), two were based on comic books, three were based on books (one of the books on a true story), one was based on a theme park ride and four of the movies were sequels.
I don't necessarily have a problem with movies of this nature, but there aren't enough anticipated, promoted movies that are based on an original idea anymore.
5. There are very few 2D movies anymore. Almost all animation is computer generated.
As much love as I have showered on them, I still blame Pixar. Toy Story was so darn good that everyone got on board with the 3D train. The problems?
5a. Many studios seem to believe that making a movie with 3D animation automatically makes it good. This is not true. Good dialogue and story are still required (Disney and Dreamworks, this means you).
5b. Since everything now is a game of technological catch up, the stories are doing the same thing. Dreamworks is the big culprit here. While you can argue about who copied who with "A Bug's Life"/"Antz," Dreamworks later came out with a fish movie close in proximity to "Finding Nemo," (it should be noted that "Flushed Away" also has a few odd Nemo parallels) and they've also copied themselves incessantly (the studio, which has been computer animating for 10 years, already has produced three sequels, Flushed Away is ripping off of "Chicken Run," and three more Shrek movies, a "Kung Fu Panda" sequel and an "Over the Hedge" sequel are in the works or in talks). Disney, meanwhile, has been attempting to ape Pixar's digital whimsy for years, and they also produced "The Wild," which has been acknowledged by pretty much everyone as being a rip-off of Dreamworks' "Madagascar."
5c. While many 3D animated movies look cool, there is a certain whimsy and a certain way of portraying characters and stories that only 2D movies can accomplish. "The Emperor's New Groove" wouldn't have been what it was without the cartoony, slapstick animation. "Mulan" would have probably ended up being a really cruddy faux-3D-anime flick. It just wouldn't have been the same.
Alas, most studios show no sign of going back to the classic format. Ever. "The Jungle Book," anyone?
4. Special effects by themselves do not the movie make.
I am talking to YOU, "Transformers"! While the gargantuan special effects budget managed to distract plenty of the people from the fact that the acting, story, dialogue and pretty much everything in the movie was completely annoying/dumb/both, I am not fooled. "Special effects" in the above statement can also amended to "Special effects and Johnny Depp acting strangely," "Special effects and menacingly glaring young men," "Special effects and Elijah Wood" and...
3. Sex symbols just hanging around for no reason.
While I am not in support of objectifying the female body in any case, I especially hate it when this happens in a movie where it is not in context with the rest of the film (or at least the way the film should be) or when the sex symbol is introduced in a completely contrived way in which everyone (including, but not limited to, the actress) is aware that lust is the only reason that the sex symbol is there. See "Get Smart's" Anne-check-out-my-legs-and-butt-did-you-miss-it-here-is-again-Hathaway, "Transformers'" Megan-dude-I-am-totally-hot-AND-I-can-fix-cars-everyone-watching-this-HAS-to-want-to-sleep-with-me-Fox and "Star Wars: Episode II's" Natalie-wow-this-monster-totally-clawed-at-me-in-just-the-right-way-as-to-not-actually-mar-my-tummy-but-still-show-it-off-to-everyone-Portman for prime examples of this.
2. Movies are not true to the spirit/events of their works.
I know, I know. Everyone whines about this too. But it's true. While no adaptation of a work, be it movie, book, TV show, whatever, will be as good as the source (ie, while "Lord of the Rings" is better in book form, "Star Wars" movies will always best the books made out of them), it is possible to make a good movie out of something else. "The Princess Bride" is a great movie and a great book, the movie does well by adhering the many of the oddball elements that make the book so good. "Batman Begins" is the best of the Batman films because it is the only one that shows Batman as he is the comics. Batman's dark visage is what makes him, and why it took four movies to recognize this is beyond me. One book that should have had its spirit maintained is "The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy." Alas, neither the spirit nor the events of the work were kept, resulting in a jumbled mess.
On the other side of the spectrum, while "The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe" is a bit dry at parts, it succeeds largely because of its reliance on the events of the source material. This is one of the things that Hollywood screws up a lot. Movies that should have had their events followed more closely include "Prince Caspian" and (I know, I know) the Lord of the Rings (especially "The Two Towers").
1. Filmmakers think that they are oh-so-clever, and thus insert awful and out-of-place political commentary and "satire."
I put this one at number one partly because it's where it fit, partly because this has been an issue in the last two movies I've seen in theatres and partly because it really really bothers me. While the two instances I've criticized in this blog are related to President Bush, I would say the same thing about a joke with Kerry and flip-flopping, Clinton and sex and probably Obama with change (or, if McCain gets elected, McCain and being really old).
While some of these jokes were funny the first time, they are not only dated (in 20 years, if these things are still considered relevant, then it will be historical humor and much easier to digest), they are also the political equivalent of a junior higher who has seen "Napoleon Dynamite" or the Knights Who Say "Ni!": you know, deep down, that the source material had some merit, but it's been lost in a swarm of annoying people who have beaten the joke to death, resurrected it to a creepy zombie and then killed it again.
However, I don't really expect any of these things to change, because the movies that contain them make money.
The End, thank you, goodnight. I'll be watching "Juno" if you need me.
Monday, July 7, 2008
Wall-E World
Pixar is a good film company. Well, I guess I should say "division" or something now that they are owned by Disney, but their ownership by the Mouse hasn't hurt their product at all. In fact, their only misstep, 2006's completely horrible "Cars" (well, horrible unless you think that Larry the Cable Guy is the funniest man on the planet, in which case you might be slightly horrible), was actually the last film they produced before getting bought out by Disney.
Pixar has had me ever since 1995's "Toy Story," but their work has gotten so much better than that. "A Bug's Life," while not nearly as good as some of their other work, is still a competent, amusing flick, "Toy Story 2" at times surpassed its predecessor (although maybe I'm biased because I love all of the "Empire Strikes Back" jokes) and "Monsters Inc." is still one of the funniest and original animated movie I've ever seen (the funniest, however, is "The Emperor's New Groove").
Then came the big one: "Finding Nemo." While the film is a bit overrated (for all of its humor and the cool animation of the water, it is essentially a well done buddy movie--with fish), Pixar's most popular offering is still a good view. It was the film after this one, however, that makes Pixar a studio that I can still get really excited about: "The Incredibles." You see, with the exception of the kiddie-fodder Cars, The Incredibles is the first Pixar movie to actually delve into themes, making and exploring them better than much of the live action film world. In addition to this, it is also really funny, well-acted and very well-written, perfectly paced and all in all one of my two favorite animated movies ever (the other being the aforementioned "Groove").
After Cars came "Ratatouille," which both continued the thematic layering of The Incredibles and was Pixar's best rendered film (not best, it just had the best animation). And now comes "Wall-E," and it aims to impress.
[very mild premise spoilers ahead] The movie opens on an earth several hundred years in the future. It is an abandoned, lonely place, devoid of all human life (and almost all animal life, save a cockroach). Why? Because humans accumulated so much garbage that the non-biodegradable stuff forced everything else out. The humans (no word on the animals) went off to space on a giant space station, leaving trash cleaning robots to clean up earth so that the humans can return.
In fact, the only sentient being on the entire planet is Wall-E, the only trash cleaning robot who hasn't broken down and probably the only one to somehow evolve a personality. It is his personality and the personality of his love interest that carry the movie. That's right. Much in the way that Ratatouille had us not minding the thought of a rat in the kitchen, in Wall-E you actually care about the romantic relationship between two robots.
This is, remarkably, mostly pulled off in two ways: sound (not dialogue) and movement/expression. Ben Burt, the genius sound editor behind all of the Star Wars and Indy movies, conjured up a gargantuan sound bank for this feature--one big enough so that all of the robots even remotely featured in the flick have a distinct personality, just based on the squeaks, beeps and whirrs they emit. You can tell when a robot is sad or happy based on the sounds it makes (and most of it is computerized or mechanical sounds, and the little that isn't has been made to sound that way) and the subtle movements of its body. They rarely ever cheat on the robots' bodies either, which makes it even more amazing.
When I say cheat, I mean that they don't make the robots' metal parts curve unnaturally. In fact, nothing that any of the robots do looks like something a robot couldn't do. That, in my opinion, is the biggest testament to the success of the film: the movie gets you to care about and like and sympathize with machines, but they don't do it in any way that compromises the robots' machinery.
In addition to the primary love story, there is a great underlying theme to this film: isolation. While the primary love story shows the basic principle that loneliness is good for no one, when the humans in the movie do show up (halfway through the film, leaving the first half to two robots and a eerily yet wonderfully rendered future earth), the movie has some great things to say about self imposed isolation. All of the humans are fat, don't walk anywhere (they have hoverchairs), and they spend all day at a holographic computer console that constantly is in their field of vision. In becoming so immersed with technology--even with the interactivity of technology--they have lost the necessities of real relationships, of life not in front of a computer or on a cell phone. Touch, initiative, experience, all of these things have been forgotten by man. What a relevant message for today's world, where some people get antsy if they haven't texted anyone for too long.
There is, however, one complaint that I have about Wall-E. It's small, but it really bothered me.
At one point in the movie, a corporate CEO/U.S. President (can you see where this is going?) shows up to proclaim that the earth, regardless of the planned cleanup, will never again be habitable. He then proceeds to make a dumb, short speech about how we should "stay the course" and "not try to fix this mess we made." Wow. "Get Smart," just when I thought you couldn't get any more heavy-handed than having the President reading children's books to kids on the eve of a nuclear attack, Wall-E shows you up.
Again, while I have no problem with political satire, the above scene is A) not funny, B) not original and C) completely unnecessary. This movie could have been the most political thing in the world. It could have made fun of obesity, but it chose not to. It could have been a preachy environmental flick, but it took the high ground. In short: the movie could have had an agenda, but it chose not to cheapen itself by being dated or whiny. Except this one scene. The rest of the movie has an entirely timeless feel about it, but this one scene was so unbearably preachy and uncalled for that it just nagged at me slightly for the rest of the movie. So unnecessary. But fortunately, only one blemish on an otherwise great film.
There is more I could say about this movie. The score is excellent, it's funny in a sweet sort of way, it's beautifully rendered and so much more. But you should just go see it. And see it while it's still in theatres; it will look even better there.
Pixar has had me ever since 1995's "Toy Story," but their work has gotten so much better than that. "A Bug's Life," while not nearly as good as some of their other work, is still a competent, amusing flick, "Toy Story 2" at times surpassed its predecessor (although maybe I'm biased because I love all of the "Empire Strikes Back" jokes) and "Monsters Inc." is still one of the funniest and original animated movie I've ever seen (the funniest, however, is "The Emperor's New Groove").
Then came the big one: "Finding Nemo." While the film is a bit overrated (for all of its humor and the cool animation of the water, it is essentially a well done buddy movie--with fish), Pixar's most popular offering is still a good view. It was the film after this one, however, that makes Pixar a studio that I can still get really excited about: "The Incredibles." You see, with the exception of the kiddie-fodder Cars, The Incredibles is the first Pixar movie to actually delve into themes, making and exploring them better than much of the live action film world. In addition to this, it is also really funny, well-acted and very well-written, perfectly paced and all in all one of my two favorite animated movies ever (the other being the aforementioned "Groove").
After Cars came "Ratatouille," which both continued the thematic layering of The Incredibles and was Pixar's best rendered film (not best, it just had the best animation). And now comes "Wall-E," and it aims to impress.
[very mild premise spoilers ahead] The movie opens on an earth several hundred years in the future. It is an abandoned, lonely place, devoid of all human life (and almost all animal life, save a cockroach). Why? Because humans accumulated so much garbage that the non-biodegradable stuff forced everything else out. The humans (no word on the animals) went off to space on a giant space station, leaving trash cleaning robots to clean up earth so that the humans can return.
In fact, the only sentient being on the entire planet is Wall-E, the only trash cleaning robot who hasn't broken down and probably the only one to somehow evolve a personality. It is his personality and the personality of his love interest that carry the movie. That's right. Much in the way that Ratatouille had us not minding the thought of a rat in the kitchen, in Wall-E you actually care about the romantic relationship between two robots.
This is, remarkably, mostly pulled off in two ways: sound (not dialogue) and movement/expression. Ben Burt, the genius sound editor behind all of the Star Wars and Indy movies, conjured up a gargantuan sound bank for this feature--one big enough so that all of the robots even remotely featured in the flick have a distinct personality, just based on the squeaks, beeps and whirrs they emit. You can tell when a robot is sad or happy based on the sounds it makes (and most of it is computerized or mechanical sounds, and the little that isn't has been made to sound that way) and the subtle movements of its body. They rarely ever cheat on the robots' bodies either, which makes it even more amazing.
When I say cheat, I mean that they don't make the robots' metal parts curve unnaturally. In fact, nothing that any of the robots do looks like something a robot couldn't do. That, in my opinion, is the biggest testament to the success of the film: the movie gets you to care about and like and sympathize with machines, but they don't do it in any way that compromises the robots' machinery.
In addition to the primary love story, there is a great underlying theme to this film: isolation. While the primary love story shows the basic principle that loneliness is good for no one, when the humans in the movie do show up (halfway through the film, leaving the first half to two robots and a eerily yet wonderfully rendered future earth), the movie has some great things to say about self imposed isolation. All of the humans are fat, don't walk anywhere (they have hoverchairs), and they spend all day at a holographic computer console that constantly is in their field of vision. In becoming so immersed with technology--even with the interactivity of technology--they have lost the necessities of real relationships, of life not in front of a computer or on a cell phone. Touch, initiative, experience, all of these things have been forgotten by man. What a relevant message for today's world, where some people get antsy if they haven't texted anyone for too long.
There is, however, one complaint that I have about Wall-E. It's small, but it really bothered me.
At one point in the movie, a corporate CEO/U.S. President (can you see where this is going?) shows up to proclaim that the earth, regardless of the planned cleanup, will never again be habitable. He then proceeds to make a dumb, short speech about how we should "stay the course" and "not try to fix this mess we made." Wow. "Get Smart," just when I thought you couldn't get any more heavy-handed than having the President reading children's books to kids on the eve of a nuclear attack, Wall-E shows you up.
Again, while I have no problem with political satire, the above scene is A) not funny, B) not original and C) completely unnecessary. This movie could have been the most political thing in the world. It could have made fun of obesity, but it chose not to. It could have been a preachy environmental flick, but it took the high ground. In short: the movie could have had an agenda, but it chose not to cheapen itself by being dated or whiny. Except this one scene. The rest of the movie has an entirely timeless feel about it, but this one scene was so unbearably preachy and uncalled for that it just nagged at me slightly for the rest of the movie. So unnecessary. But fortunately, only one blemish on an otherwise great film.
There is more I could say about this movie. The score is excellent, it's funny in a sweet sort of way, it's beautifully rendered and so much more. But you should just go see it. And see it while it's still in theatres; it will look even better there.
Thursday, July 3, 2008
Don't diss topians
Pardon the awful pun. I couldn't help it. Also, I may reveal mild spoilers in the text below, but I've tried to keep it out of that area.
Very recently, I had the chance to read two of the foremost dystopian future novels, "1984," by George Orwell and "Fahrenheit 451," by Ray Bradbury. Earlier in the year, I read another of the foremost dystopian novels, "That Hideous Strength," by C.S. Lewis. Since the books have similar setups (set in the vague future, oppressive society up to no good, etc.) but different approaches, I thought it would be good to compare the three, especially since they are often mentioned in conjunction with each other.
1984 is by far the most famous book of the three, but it was my least favorite.
The government: English Socialism, commonly referred to Ingsoc or the Party. The world has been split up into three large countries: Oceania (The Americas, South Africa and the British Isles), Eurasia (Mainland Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, India, Mongolia, Japan and the surrounding area. What is left is fought over among the three countries.
Themes: Rule through ignorance, subversive language and technology, the quest for power
The book starts out very promisingly, as it appears to be an indictment of Communism and Socialism by showing how such ideologies always end up with the very thing they supposed to decry and how they could appear several years down the road (the book was published in 1949). The main character, Winston Smith, is a Party drone who questions all of the nonsense that the Party throws at him and everyone else (for example, their constant and comprehensive altering of past news articles in order to always prove party predictions right). He often questions whether or not it might be he who is insane, since the Party has such control over the past that it has become a merely subjective reality.
However, then a love plot is introduced, and it is done so quite clumsily on the whole. While Orwell does a great job of showing how sexual repression is tied into the ideas of the Party, Winston's love interest is never very likable, nor is she believable. When, for example, she tells him that she has slept with many other men, how are we to know that her shenanigans with Winston are not simply another, to paraphrase Winston, "rebellion below the waist," especially because the pair had previously almost no connection in any way?
The books strongest points are in explaining how the Party works its magic. They have invented a language that they are slowly developing in order to shun creative thought, because how can people think of concepts like freedom when absolutely no words even resembling them are in existence? Using language (or the lack thereof) to control thought is one of the best parts of the book. Similarly, many of their other methods are very well explained and reasoned. Unfortunately, this led to my biggest complaint about the book.
While Orwell does a great job of explaining the how of the Party's workings, he is entirely unsatisfactory in explaining the why. The greatest why, he said, is power. Power is an end unto itself. While I think that some people buy that, I think that to have an entire ruling elite based solely on power is implausible. The rulers of the party still live like members of a slightly poorer middle class, they still are chased about by the thought police, they have none of the trappings that power can bring. While they explain that they are drunk with the power to mold minds and hearts, it still seemed like a bit of a stretch.
In summary: While it is well written, 1984 lacks sufficient motives for its villains, the love story is unsympathetic and the pessimistic worldview becomes a bit dreary by the end.
That Hideous Strength is not as well known as the other two books, but it is excellent all the same. It can be read alone, but it is also the third and best book in Lewis' excellent space trilogy. It is actually not primarily concerned with describing the oppressive regime, but its makeup functions as the underlying vehicle that moves the plot.
The government: Great Britain's present government, but one that is slowly taking away civil liberties. They have allowed the National Institute for the Coordination of Experiments (the NICE) to use a large part of a small English town to conduct dubious experiments, and suspicious things are happening to those who aren't in line with the program.
Themes: The brokenness of a faithless existence, the worship of science, the slow chipping away of freedom.
The book explores a committee of people who believe in the supremacy of man, but those in the know realize that they're simply serving another master, although they think it's someone different than it really is. The book is especially relevant now in a society of increasing atheism and, oddly, even more so now that the Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to have an unchecked power.
The committee enlists the help of an young, educated but clueless man, who soon grows uneasy about some of NICE's activities. However, the threat of retribution keeps his serving the committee, while their experiments begin to fill their religious void by becoming more and more mystical.
Like many of Lewis' books, the themes of the book are more interwoven than actually stated. While this book is probably the most overtly Christian of the three (the first being the least, the second being a Christian allegory), much of what is learned about the power of the divine over darkness is shown rather than said.
General Overview: While the book is not a primarily dystopian work, the themes of all parts of the book are good, and the dystopian future looks at times eerily similar to where we may be headed.
Fahrenheit 451 is more famous than That Hideous Strength and less famous that 1984, but it was my favorite of the three.
The government: A powerful, vague, authoritarian one that was created out of the general laziness and mean-spiritedness of society. In this book, it's not the government that made us who we are, it's us.
Themes: jealousy, apathy, the importance of thought, the resentment of the lazy.
The one hurdle you have to jump in this book is Bradbury's incessant use of metaphors. It's not bad (although a few at the beginning are a little off), but you just have to get used to it. Once you do, this book is great.
The story revolves around a fireman named Montag. The catch? In the future, rather than putting out fires, firemen light fires--specifically, they burn books and the houses that contain them. It's the why of this statement that makes the book for me.
While you at first believe the answer to the why to be a 1984-style "we can't let the masses become to smart or they will overthrow us all," the reason given is a much different--and, in many ways, much worse--one. As it is so icily and matter-of-factly explained to Montag, book reading is illegal because the people wanted it that way.
Turns out, people became so apathetic that most people didn't read at all anymore. However, there were a few intellectuals who still read and who still thought and who still didn't live for cheap entertainment. Unfortunately, the lazy, stupid masses didn't like that, because who likes the smartest kid in class? No one. Rather than to focus on self-improvement, society dictated that those who wanted to take the extra time to become smart should be punished. When the government finally instituted book burning, it was something society was already comfortable with.
Wow. Talk about eerie. I know people who don't read at all. I know people who take a kind of ignorant pride in the fact that they don't learn things and they don't read and they don't care. "Who needs books?" they seem to be saying. "I get along fine with what I already know." It's as if the little kid who thought he got on fine without being able to read has grown up and not changed his mind. "There are better things to watch on TV, and it's easier to understand." While Bradbury's future isn't likely to come to fruition (not for a long time, anyway) the seeds of it are already in place, and the book serves as a scathing indictment of a culture that's entertained by Runaway Brides and Natalie Holloways, all the while shunning anything that requires thought processes.
Summary: Well written, beautifully-crafted monologues, excellent view into the characters' minds and one of the best societal criticisms I've ever read.
P.S. If you want something really good by Orwell, read "Animal Farm."
Very recently, I had the chance to read two of the foremost dystopian future novels, "1984," by George Orwell and "Fahrenheit 451," by Ray Bradbury. Earlier in the year, I read another of the foremost dystopian novels, "That Hideous Strength," by C.S. Lewis. Since the books have similar setups (set in the vague future, oppressive society up to no good, etc.) but different approaches, I thought it would be good to compare the three, especially since they are often mentioned in conjunction with each other.
1984 is by far the most famous book of the three, but it was my least favorite.
The government: English Socialism, commonly referred to Ingsoc or the Party. The world has been split up into three large countries: Oceania (The Americas, South Africa and the British Isles), Eurasia (Mainland Europe and Russia) and Eastasia (China, India, Mongolia, Japan and the surrounding area. What is left is fought over among the three countries.
Themes: Rule through ignorance, subversive language and technology, the quest for power
The book starts out very promisingly, as it appears to be an indictment of Communism and Socialism by showing how such ideologies always end up with the very thing they supposed to decry and how they could appear several years down the road (the book was published in 1949). The main character, Winston Smith, is a Party drone who questions all of the nonsense that the Party throws at him and everyone else (for example, their constant and comprehensive altering of past news articles in order to always prove party predictions right). He often questions whether or not it might be he who is insane, since the Party has such control over the past that it has become a merely subjective reality.
However, then a love plot is introduced, and it is done so quite clumsily on the whole. While Orwell does a great job of showing how sexual repression is tied into the ideas of the Party, Winston's love interest is never very likable, nor is she believable. When, for example, she tells him that she has slept with many other men, how are we to know that her shenanigans with Winston are not simply another, to paraphrase Winston, "rebellion below the waist," especially because the pair had previously almost no connection in any way?
The books strongest points are in explaining how the Party works its magic. They have invented a language that they are slowly developing in order to shun creative thought, because how can people think of concepts like freedom when absolutely no words even resembling them are in existence? Using language (or the lack thereof) to control thought is one of the best parts of the book. Similarly, many of their other methods are very well explained and reasoned. Unfortunately, this led to my biggest complaint about the book.
While Orwell does a great job of explaining the how of the Party's workings, he is entirely unsatisfactory in explaining the why. The greatest why, he said, is power. Power is an end unto itself. While I think that some people buy that, I think that to have an entire ruling elite based solely on power is implausible. The rulers of the party still live like members of a slightly poorer middle class, they still are chased about by the thought police, they have none of the trappings that power can bring. While they explain that they are drunk with the power to mold minds and hearts, it still seemed like a bit of a stretch.
In summary: While it is well written, 1984 lacks sufficient motives for its villains, the love story is unsympathetic and the pessimistic worldview becomes a bit dreary by the end.
That Hideous Strength is not as well known as the other two books, but it is excellent all the same. It can be read alone, but it is also the third and best book in Lewis' excellent space trilogy. It is actually not primarily concerned with describing the oppressive regime, but its makeup functions as the underlying vehicle that moves the plot.
The government: Great Britain's present government, but one that is slowly taking away civil liberties. They have allowed the National Institute for the Coordination of Experiments (the NICE) to use a large part of a small English town to conduct dubious experiments, and suspicious things are happening to those who aren't in line with the program.
Themes: The brokenness of a faithless existence, the worship of science, the slow chipping away of freedom.
The book explores a committee of people who believe in the supremacy of man, but those in the know realize that they're simply serving another master, although they think it's someone different than it really is. The book is especially relevant now in a society of increasing atheism and, oddly, even more so now that the Supreme Court has allowed eminent domain to have an unchecked power.
The committee enlists the help of an young, educated but clueless man, who soon grows uneasy about some of NICE's activities. However, the threat of retribution keeps his serving the committee, while their experiments begin to fill their religious void by becoming more and more mystical.
Like many of Lewis' books, the themes of the book are more interwoven than actually stated. While this book is probably the most overtly Christian of the three (the first being the least, the second being a Christian allegory), much of what is learned about the power of the divine over darkness is shown rather than said.
General Overview: While the book is not a primarily dystopian work, the themes of all parts of the book are good, and the dystopian future looks at times eerily similar to where we may be headed.
Fahrenheit 451 is more famous than That Hideous Strength and less famous that 1984, but it was my favorite of the three.
The government: A powerful, vague, authoritarian one that was created out of the general laziness and mean-spiritedness of society. In this book, it's not the government that made us who we are, it's us.
Themes: jealousy, apathy, the importance of thought, the resentment of the lazy.
The one hurdle you have to jump in this book is Bradbury's incessant use of metaphors. It's not bad (although a few at the beginning are a little off), but you just have to get used to it. Once you do, this book is great.
The story revolves around a fireman named Montag. The catch? In the future, rather than putting out fires, firemen light fires--specifically, they burn books and the houses that contain them. It's the why of this statement that makes the book for me.
While you at first believe the answer to the why to be a 1984-style "we can't let the masses become to smart or they will overthrow us all," the reason given is a much different--and, in many ways, much worse--one. As it is so icily and matter-of-factly explained to Montag, book reading is illegal because the people wanted it that way.
Turns out, people became so apathetic that most people didn't read at all anymore. However, there were a few intellectuals who still read and who still thought and who still didn't live for cheap entertainment. Unfortunately, the lazy, stupid masses didn't like that, because who likes the smartest kid in class? No one. Rather than to focus on self-improvement, society dictated that those who wanted to take the extra time to become smart should be punished. When the government finally instituted book burning, it was something society was already comfortable with.
Wow. Talk about eerie. I know people who don't read at all. I know people who take a kind of ignorant pride in the fact that they don't learn things and they don't read and they don't care. "Who needs books?" they seem to be saying. "I get along fine with what I already know." It's as if the little kid who thought he got on fine without being able to read has grown up and not changed his mind. "There are better things to watch on TV, and it's easier to understand." While Bradbury's future isn't likely to come to fruition (not for a long time, anyway) the seeds of it are already in place, and the book serves as a scathing indictment of a culture that's entertained by Runaway Brides and Natalie Holloways, all the while shunning anything that requires thought processes.
Summary: Well written, beautifully-crafted monologues, excellent view into the characters' minds and one of the best societal criticisms I've ever read.
P.S. If you want something really good by Orwell, read "Animal Farm."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
