Showing posts with label movie violence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label movie violence. Show all posts

Monday, May 11, 2009

Updates from Keegan Country

The plot continues to thicken, as THE SWORDSMAN and DANGEROUS MOONLIGHT appear in different editions, at Amazon, from Lulu.com, without me signing anything, paying anything, agreeing to anything. O...kay.

Suffice to say, I have zip, zero, nada, nil as per any idea of what goes on; but I have a sneaky feeling I might just know. And alas, it ain't good news.

Lulu is out there touting for business, right? They're actively pushing books -- mine, among those of numerous other writers, I could guess. They're doing it for nothing?? This can only mean that they, too, are feeling the recession biting, and are actively out there, selling books -- which is something they never did before.

Times are getting tougher, guys.

And audiences are getting harder to please: good gods, have you seen the WOLVERINE reviews?!!! I don't think I've ever seen a movie pounded so hard. Now, I haven't seen the movie -- and might not get the chance to, before the DVD comes out, but I really don't believe any company could spend a couple of years and about fifty million dollars on a project, and have it be as bad as the critics are saying...
  • Fans of the many comic books in which Wolverine has featured will rue what has become of their favourite characters.
  • Falling somewhere between noble failure and modest success, 'Wolverine' is ultimately a generic Summer film actioneer that will quickly be forgotten
  • If, in real time, the dull X-Men Origins prequel actually were the first X-Men film produced, it might have been the last.
  • The amount of muscle on display is the film's most remarkable aspect, unless you count how unforgivably dull it is.
  • ...A story line that isn't emotionally involving and action sequences that for the most part aren't that exciting, presented within a story that's full of potholes.
  • X-Men Origins is really a series of action sequences, the usual mix of bangs, chases and fights, held together by a plot so predictable that you get no points for guessing right.
  • It's dull, bone-crushing, special-effects stuff, of interest only to hardcore fans who've probably read it all in Marvel comics.
  • Each CGI set piece erases distance, space, weight, gravity and wit. It’s empty, soulless action -- visual noise.
  • Everything that happens seems to play out as if following a checklist. It’s Paint by Numbers: The Movie.
Eep. Could it really be that bad? Could it really be that hard to sit in the dark, eating, for two hours, while watching Hugh Jackman smoldering all over the screen and rippling his abs? Maybe these reviewers are allergic to muscles.

Ciao for now,
MK

Wednesday, November 12, 2008

Mad Max, blog spam and Aussie movies on a hot morning

I'm not really having a "rant" this morning (for one thing, it's too hot! The temperature will be tickling 100 degrees Fahrenheit this afternoon, and by 8:00am it was uncomfortably hot sitting in the shade in the back yard), but ...

I do want to grumble a wee bit -- before I progress to much happier subjects! Bear with me.

It might be futile, but I'd like ask visitors not to spam this blog. 99% of users don't (and many thanks to all those who don't!), and I delete the spam fast, probably before it's even been seen, but ... still.

The spam I'm seeing is basically along the lines of 1) blatant commercial copy pasted in, or 2) some brief, inane statement of the utterly obvious, with a commercial link attached. Like this, which was blithely parked on http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/mel-at-movies-australia.html:


    Mel Gibson is mythic hero Mad Max, champion of post-nuclear survivors in an all-time-great action spectacular. He always looks like he's having fun up there on the screen. Mel Gibson and Danny Glover bust loose as Vietnam vets-turned-L.A. cops after heroin smugglers. The best pure action movie since Raiders of the Lost Arc.

And yes, a commercial link was attached; and no, I'm not quoting the link -- I'm also not naming names, but -- if you're reading this, please don't park your advertising on my blog -- or, if you MUST do it, leave a proper comment, have something to say, and make sure your facts are correct. Then, I'll leave your advertisement up. We'll call it a trade.

My problems with the above comment are far too numerous for it to be taken seriously...

Mel Gibson is an actor ... Max Rockatansky was a character -- an absolute anti-hero, not a champion, in a 1978 Australian movie in which economic collapse, not nuclear war, is hinted at, on-screen in the original Mad Max, as having caused the wasteland scenario we see in Mad Max 2. (View the first movie, not the second, for the backstory and worldbuilding.) Everyone in the DVD-viewing world knows Gibson and Glover starred in Lethal Weapon -- but Glover's character, Sgt. Roger Murtaugh, was not a Vietnam veteran. Only Martin Riggs is described as having served in 'Nam. And is Lethal Weapon the "best pure action movie since Raiders of the Lost Ark?" First of all, learn to spell ARK, as in "of the bloody Covenant," not "a segment of the circumference of a circle."And then, be gracious enough to say, "imho" or similar, because with the above bald statement you're going to get a big fight from fans of virtually anything made by Arnie, Sly, Segal, van Damme, Peter Jackson, Jim Cameron, Gore Verbinski, Marvel Studios, and scores of others who are responsible for projects as diverse as Iron Man, The Mummy, Van Helsing, The Peacemaker, Terminator, Return of the King, Pirates of the Caribbean -- and many more action films that have been made in the two decades since the original Lethal Weapon movie was made. I would seriously counsel against making such a sweeping statement without the small, life-saving prefix, "imho."


Okay ... I'll stop grumbling now. But, I mean, really. And yes, I deleted the post as pure spam. And no, I don't at all mind you putting in a link to your own blog or page or site. Only, please -- have something to say, add something, and make sure your facts are right! A comment that adds value stays up -- trust me. I can smell pure spam from a mile away, and as soon as I notice it, sorry, but it gets deleted. The blog has been spammed by everything from glass manufacturers in India (!) to Internet marketers in heaven-knows-where. I try to be vigilant.

To clarify ... I'm not having a grumble about Raiders of the Lost Ark! It's one of my favorite movies, and highly recommended.

I also highly recommend the original Mad Max, which is very, very different from The Road Warrior. It's raw, and "honest," and doesn't have a particle of "hype" about it.

The movie was shot in Victoria, Australia in 1977 (!) and released in 1979, with a copyright date of '78, after being edited in the late Byron Kennedy's spare bedroom! Gibson was 21 ... and nope, it wasn't his first movie, either. He'd made SUMMER CITY the year earlier, while still studying at NIDA.

Of the three "Max" movies, which is the best? Depends what you're looking for. If you want "hype" then, the the third one, with Tina Turner, a bunch of cute little kids, and plenty of outrageous stunts. If you want "the kapow effect!" then you want the second, with an all-Aussie cast, and cinematography by Dean Semler, who went on to win the Oscar (T-bloody-M) for Dances with Wolves.

But if you want raw truth, total honesty, bleeding-wound emotion, with none of the Hollywood candy-coating ... watch the first one. It's not fun -- it's not about having fun. It cost A$150,000 to make, as an indie movie, and it earned over$125m at the box office -- in Japan it swiftly became a cult.

Of course, in the US is was difficult to exhibit; it had to be heavily censored ... because the violence is very realistic, and the injuries sustained by accident victims are also realistic; director and creator George Miller is a doctor ... and it also had to be overdubbed with heavy American accents, because in 1980, US audiences couldn't understand foreign accents!

[Left: the final shot of the first movie where Max, busted up and broken, takes the last of the v8 Interceptors and heads for the wasteland.]

The net effect is absolutely weird. Remember, all the cars are right hand drive, the landscape is Aussie, the cars are Australian makes and models! Yet you hear US accents issuing from Jim Goose, and Midge, The Feef and Jess, and -- Max. Yeek. I saw this cut of the movie on VHS when I was in the States a loooong time ago. Get the Australian original, uncut. The US has stopped overdubbing Aussie movies in the years since, but I imagine the old cut of Mad Max is still circulating somwehere. Avoid it, if you can.

Anyway -- there you are: Max Rockatansky, age 21 ... Mel Gibson when he was so young, you blink and shake your head. Was anyone ever that young?! Back in the days when he was as Aussie as the next cobber, before he went whacko, and ... the rest is history. (In fact, his looks still had to "settle in." He would acquire those drop-dead gorgeous characteristics in about another 4-5 years. He was a nice kid in Mad Max, though ... he was a superstar downunder when his face was still inclined to break out occasionally. Seriously. Some of us were there, and have good memories.

Right now, I'm going to close this post -- not because there isn't more to talk about (there is), but because it's getting way too hot. Both the PC and I need to cool down (and it's only 9:15am).

More later...

Ciao for now,
MK

Friday, November 7, 2008

Mel at the Movies: Australia

The posters are up and the trailers are playing for the upcoming "event" of 2008: Jackman and Kidman, together again for the first time, in...



To be honest, I don't go to the cinema much; the last movies I saw on the big screen were IRON MAN and Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skull ... both of which I enjoyed vastly. (I know some people are rubbishing Jones now, but I personally enjoyed the movie, so, what they hey? It had a great sense of both humor and the ridiculous; it knew when to laugh at itself; Harrison Ford has turned into a likable old codger who, in this incarnation, could go on for a long time. Okay, he's not young anymore. Where is it written that a person has to be young to be likable? Spielberg and Lucas cast an attractive young dude as Jones Jr., and Cate Blanchett gets to strut her stuff outrageously, so who's got a complaint? The movie was FUN, people.)

Having said that I don't go to the theater much, I shall certainly be sitting in the middle of one of the big ones at the Marion megaplex later this month ... Australia is a movie I gotta see.

In the last couple of days I've been watching numerous trailers. In case you've missed them, and are interested (!), here you go:


THE FULL TRAILER

and


A second, different trailer.


...There are about a half dozen trailers and sneak previews circulating right now, each giving a different perspective on the movie. One of them at least is "getting rotten reviews" as a trailer! Peanut gallery critics are not even waiting for the movie to come out -- they've got Australia labeled as a lousy movie because they found the trailer "baffling and incomprehensible."

It's true that if you don't know much about Australian history, you could be confused. It's equally true that Aussies and Kiwis might find the trailer for a movie about the American Civil War to be confusing ... doesn't mean it's going to be a lousy movie: just means that the parochial education -- necessary to understand the visual references used in the shorthand with which movie trailers are crafted -- is missing in folks from way downunder. High duh factor on that one. Same difference with the trailer for Australia. I watched the exact same 90 seconds that had rubbed this person the wrong way, and the footage made perfect sense to me.

What's going to take me to the movies to see this one on the big screen is sheer curiosity: my gods, it's a movie about Australia, with real Australians in it!!! Hugh Jackman, Nicole Kidman, Bryan Brown, Jack Thompson, Bruce Spence, David Wenham, Bill Hunter, John Jarratt, David Gulpilil, Ray Barrett, Arthur Dignam ... they're all Aussies!!

It's seldom that a movie about Australia is actually 1) about Australia, 2) done properly and not turned into a pastiche from foreign perspectives, 3) FILMED in Australia, 3) cast with real Aussie actors.

For example ... The Thorn Birds, filmed in Hawaii in 1983, starring Richard Chamberlaine, Barbara Stanwick, Rachel Ward, Christopher Plummer, Jean Simmonds, Piper Laurie, Earn Holliman ... the dramatisation of the crash-hot Australian monster novel of the early 1980s. Not one single Aussie actor in it. Not even filmed here.

The year before ,The Man From Snowy River premiered locally with the kind of pomp and fireworks that are usually reserved for things like Return of the King and Revenge of the Sith...


In its favor were the cast (all Aussies with the exception of Kirk Douglas who played two parts and was actually very good in both ... don't count Gus Mercurio as a Yank: he'd been here for so long, he was as Aussie as any of us by '82), and the cinematography, which was so vast, so sweeping, so color-saturated and amazing ... it looked like a Marlbro country commercial half the time. Sorry, guys, but it did. In the end, the massive cinematography (reminiscent of Brokeback Mountain) looked like the cigarette commercial, and ended up as a detraction.

The big problem with The Man From Snowy River was that, for most of the audience, the whole movie ... all 102 minutes of it ... hangs on about four and a half minutes of action which, admittedly, knocks your eyeballs right out of their sockets. The thing is, you have to wade through 95 minutes of Nineteenth Century Soap Opera to get to this. Now, if you fell instantly in lust with Tom Burlinson or Sigrid Thornton, you sat there drooling for an hour and a half. If you didn't, you kinda toughed it out and waited for this:



There you go: there's The Man From Snowy River in a thimble -- at least, the bit that counts, the bit the greater percentage of the audience remembers. The rest is soap and teen romance, and glorious backdrops. This highspot is well worth the rental price of the DVD, if you have a big-screen TV. Trust me on this: you will get goosebumps.

Not quite what some of us had in mind when we imagined a movie about Australia. Sure, Snowy was as Aussie as the dog on the tucker box -- which, in a big way, was a relief. But ... a movie about Australia?

A couple of years earlier, we came close

"From a place you've never heard of comes a story you'll never forget." Whoever wrote that slogan got it right. Gallipoli is less a movie than an experience ... and it's an experience it'll take you a week to get over. Not that it's graphically violent by today's standards: if you're thinking along the lines of Private Ryan and We Were Soldiers -- wrong. To many people (myself included) too much too-graphic violence causes compassion fatigue well inside the 120 minute running length of a movie. What shocked me in Reel One doesn't rouse much of an emotional reaction in Reel Six. Gallipoli is the exact opposite. It's like an exercise in virtual reality. You are there ... you live and work with these guys (Mel Gibson in the days when he was an Aussie, and drop-dead gorgeous, and Mark Lee, who has always been an Aussie, and equally drop-dead gorgeous). And you die with them. The movie stands out in my memory as the most amazing Australian movie done to date ... but I can't watch it more often than about once in three years, because it's almost unbearable, especially in the last ten minutes or so.

Here's the sneak-preview:



YouTube has a couple of uploads of the end, but the good one of them is dubbed from a copy with what looks like it might be Dutch or Danish subtitles. I find this distracting, but give it a shot:



(Yes, of course I have a copy, and I know it line for line. I wasn't at the premier, but I saw it the first week it played here (parts of it were shot in South Australia, so it was a big event here; believe it or not, Mel Gibson used to live in this city a loooooong time ago, before he went well and truly bonkers. I can tell you, the audience was full of very elderly veterans of the actual campaign ... and you had to swim out of the theater. It was that good. That real.)

Australia opens here on November 26th, and I just have to be there. A real Aussie movie, with real Aussie actors and ... everything. From the trailers, it looks like it's going to be tremendous, and certainly Hugh Jackman will be a sight for sore eyes:


I'll talk more about the movie when I've seen it. For now, my recommendations regarding Aussie movies? Gallipoli (keep the kleenex handy), Quigley Downunder (there, now I've astonished you, right?), Man From Snowy River (learn where the fast forward button on your remote is), The Chain Reaction (if you're lucky enough to find a copy) ... and here's hoping that I'll be able to add Australia to this list very soon.

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

Movie trilogies: part three mayhem

If you look at anything long enough, patterns emerge from the background tapestry of Life. There was a day when Cro Magnons looked into the sky and saw constellations ... when people looked into their spent teacups and discovered they could read the leaves ... and out of this simple and logical progression came the pseudo-science of market analysis. Eight minutes later, your ancestors could have been forgiven for running back and forth "doing a Doctor Smith," bleating, "We're doomed, doomed," until someone whacked them upside the head with a handy two-by-four. (Incidentally, Garry Oldman was great in the part. Seriously, what an actor.)

So, if you look at the whole, wide, thrashing ocean of movies -- as a realm, you understand; not any specific movie -- for long enough, you start to see patterns.

Like... Hollywood loves trilogies. And ... Part One is almost always The Best. And ... all the Part Threes seem to go ballistic.

Don't get me wrong: I love an action movie. The big action sequences are fantastic, especially in this age of CGI, where anything is likely to happen, and probably will if nobody exercises a little artistic or editorial restraint. The days when plot elements had to make sense -- or at least obey the more mundane rules of physics, such as gravity and inertia -- are gone, and unmourned.

However, the average age of the normal, ordinary, run-of-the-mill moviegoer is 14. Therefore, when movies are designed and executed to make a profit over their nine-figure budgets, they're targeted to ... tweaked for ... the fourteen year old, whose adolescent bum is the most usual form of bum found on any seat more or less in front of a big screen.

I've been asking myself if the average age of the audience might be the cause of Hollywood's current trend. I call it the "Top That! Syndrome." Basically, the symptoms are simple. No matter what you did in the previous movie, the next one has to out-do it.

So, Part One could afford to set up the characters, backstory some of them, expand on the screen presence of others -- with comprehensible dialog, and other qualities which are expendable in the future segments. This installment will still need massive effects and whacked-out action, because without these elements the film is going to bomb so badly, there won't even BE a second or third movie.

But Part Two is born under a cloud: it's a TTS baby, contracting Top That! Syndrome in utero. It has to be bigger, faster, wilder, funnier, bloodier ... and the audience will love it.

However, TTS has a phase where the patient will have a close encounter with disaster, a near-death encounter ... a phase that could easily be terminal, unless teams of specialists can drag it back from the brink, and resurrect it. And virtually all Part Threes come into the world teetering on the brink, because of Top That! Syndrome.

Some survive: Return of the King could only follow the book. Everything that could be done to top The Two Towers was done, but the framework for the material had been laid down decades before, so there were several pacing points, parts in the denouement where one could draw breath -- absolutely enforced scenes where the action had to stop!!

Most Part Threes are not allowed the benefit of these pivot points, where the characters stop running, shouting, shooting, fighting, crashing, whatever. The Mummy: Tomb of the Dragon Emperor ... Pirates of the Caribbean: At World's End ... and even Revenge of the Sith is dangerously close to falling into the same category.

The entire movie has been converted to action sequence. All of it.

Surprise: I actually enjoyed these movies. You just have to get into the spirit of the mayhem, and there are times when I can. I also know that movies like Tomb of the Dragon Emperor were aimed, fair and square, at Mr. Average Moviegoer, age 14, complete with the popcorn, candy and acne, in the front row. These movies hit the bull's eye, and make a ton of money.

But (and some of you are going to be looking for a blunt instrument to throw at me for this) for myself, I far prefer The Curse of the Black Pearl, The Mummy, and old Fellowship of the Ring, the very first X-Men episode, and ... so on. Those where the action STOPPED occasionally; when people talked to each other, rather than yelling at one another over the roar of the oceans and engines and hurricanes.

By now, the news that Johnny Depp has signed for a Pirates of the Caribbean Part Four is old news. But I'll add my two cents' worth right here. Since they finished the original storyline, maybe they can go back to Square One, start over, and come up with a movie that has something more like the pace of Curse of the Black Pearl. Because ... I hate to think what will happen if the TTS is not arrested, retarded -- perhaps even cured. (Is it curable? One hopes so!)

The other bit of news that's old, now, is that Johnny has also signed to play Tonto in The Lone Ranger, against George Clooney. This will make interesting viewing! I wonder if they're going to do it 1950s twee (like the TV show), or if they'll have the nerve to tell the Old West like it was, historically ... dirt and fleas and racial discrimination and all. The movie could have a sting in its tail, if they do it right ... have George rescue Johnny from a lynch mob intent on murdering him for being born an Injun, for example... Hmmm.

Like the rest of the audience, I love action scenes; I'm just not wildly enthusiastic about having the whole movie converted to action. A nice blend would be preferable. Like ... Vertical Limit, and maybe even The Peacemaker, and Max Max, and Troy.

Lately, when I hear that there's going to be a trilogy spinning off a movie I really liked, I tend to groan quietly, because the probability is, the whole thing is eventually going to go haywire. It doesn't always happen. The Zorro movies haven't gone (yet) to a Part Three -- but Nostrakeeganus, he predicting they will. It'll be (!) Son of Zorro, in another five or ten years, when Antonio's and Catherine's celluloid kid is old enough to put on the mask. X-Men: The Last Stand was frenetic, but only borderline whacked out (it's main problem was, it was under-cooked: it should have been a half hour longer, with a great deal more in it ... but the developmental material was obviously ditched to push the action sequences closer together to get Mr. Average Moviegoer revved up in the front row. Damn).

Two of the current Hollywood franchises worry me -- because I liked them both. Iron Man is one of my favorite films, and to my mind, the best comic book movie yet done. The words "sequel" add "trilogy" have been uttered, and part of me is groaning.

The other franchise that worries me is already 66% of the way trough to the terminal phase of Top That! Syndrome ... Batman. The Dark Knight was furious, frenetic, full of comic violence and cartoon horror. Contrast it with the previous movie, Christian Bale's first outing as the Bat. The fact is, few people liked the first movie, Batman Begins (I was one of the few; I loved it ... it was realistic. Woah. So, naturally, audiences stayed away in droves and movie critics pounded it. Makes sense, right? The action sequences were in proportion, and stopped for long enough for characters to be constructed.)

Now, apply the symptoms of TTS to The Dark Knight ...! To Top That, what comes next? Oh ... dear.

Thursday, August 21, 2008

And on the seventh day --

KDO: acronym - Keegan's Day Off. And it's more like the fourteenth day since I took one off! AND it it shouldn't count, because I'm still walking like Galen (see yesterday's post), getting conversant with the floor ... and what use is a day off when you have a bad back? That's not a day off, it's what is called, in this country, a Sickie. (As clearly distinct from a Ciggie, which is a cigarette.)

Thanks to those who kindly mentioned yesterday's Planet of the Apes humor ... yes, I was always a big fan of the concept, going back to the original Charlton Heston movie, which I saw as a wee little tyke. The tv series of the 1970s was actually quite well done -- esp. when you consider what they had to do on a tv budget and weekly schedule. Makes you shudder.

The 2001 Tim Burton remark was terrific ... and I don't actually give much of a stuff about what the critics say about it (I know they hated it unanimously). I grew up with Apes movies, and as per critics as a subspecies of mankind ... I do believe I established, about a dozen posts ago, how ridiclous the whole field of film criticism is (see this post, apropos of Beowulf). With Tim Burton's POTA, the little bast-dears are at it again. Here's an unutterably stupid comment from film critic on Tiscali: "While the stunning make-up failed to disguise Tim Roth's sadistic enjoyment in the role of Thade, Wahlberg seems altogether too real to operate in such a fictitious world although his understated strength at least gave his character some credibility." Say, what? I wonder what this individual made of 300, and The Dark Knight?? Now, shoot over to scifi.com and hear Tim Roth on the subjec: "I think the whole [scenario] is funny. We would step back occasionally, me and Paul [Giamatti] and just laugh ourselves silly because it truly is absurd." In other words (before I shut up about the whole subject) every single one of us has a completely unique way of seeing anything at all ... but, usually, only critics get to foist their uniqueness (read: utter subjectivity) on the public, AND get paid for it, AND have a fair percentage of unsuspecting readers take what they read as gospel. [sound of barfing]

For those who liked the Apes movies, here's a good interview: Director Tim Burton and cast have a big adventure reinventing Planet of the Apes, and for everyone else --

Onward to other subjects!

(But, lunch first. Like the man said in the movie, "I'll be back.")

Pasting in the link to scifi.com reminded me of another interview I read there, a little while ago -- their interview with Samuel R. Delaney, who has become rather iconified in the field of ... I won't say "gay SF," but rather, "experimental gender and human relationship SF." It's a very good interview on may levels. Delaney speaks about his life experiences as a writer, a creator of speculative fiction, and a professional author in the 1970s, when SF underwent its epiphany, and its revolution.

Is anyone else reading this old enough to remember the New Wave?! You may not believe it, but put away somewhere ... plastic-wrapped and packed flat ... I still have some issues of the English magazine, NEW WORLDS. It was a newspapaper sized magazine, with humungous pages, and no binding ... so, the color printing came out of the mgazine like so many posters. And the stories -- woah. Weird.

One of the most refreshing areas of the New Wave was the simple fact you could talk about sex and display the "undraped human form" and not be shoveled into the same pile of stuff as the porn rags. Sexuality had, by that point, gained a kind of respectability; the inclusion of sensual material in a story did not get the whole thing labeled as porn.

But, going back to Samuel R. Delaney's interview, the discussion regarding DAHLGHREN is interesting, even though SRD didn't seem to want to settle down and talk about the novel in much depth. At the time it was published, it was contentious to the point of being difficult to publish, not merely because it was one of the first sorta-kind-mainstream books to tackle being gay, but because it also didn't shilly-shally and beat around any bushes -- it was specific and explicit about it. Also, it's a long book, even by today's standards at 800pp, and for an SF novel of its day (mid-70s-ish) it was monstrous.

And there were problems galore, apparently ... the sound you hear now is Keegan chuckling wickedly, because (aha, Eureka, and so forth) it turns out I'm not alone in being victimized by the Universe (!). "IT" has happened to someone else too!

The "IT" I'm referring to is the thing which has been the flea in my ear since 1999: AQUAMARINE went to press without being proofread or copy edited. There have been times when I really did think I was the only serious writer this had happened to. Not so. Let me give you a quote from the very end of the interview with Samuel R. Delaney -- and then I'll give you the link to go over an read the whole interview...
    Scifi.com: But you've been continually correcting typos, as can be seen by your essays on it and published correspondence in 1984 and elsewhere. Getting a more perfect Dhalgren has been more difficult than getting a more perfect Babel-17.

    Delany: Often that's just different publishers. Dhalgren is so large that it's more difficult. Some books come out with remarkably fewer typographical errors than others. Dhalgren had more than its share from the very, very beginning. I was never sent the copyedited manuscript to read. Dhalgren, when it was a manuscript, it went off, and the next thing I got were galleys, so I never had the copyedited manuscript. And I only had the galleys for four days. You try to correct 800 pages of galleys in four days; it's an undoable task. And given that that's how it was done, I think Bantam did a remarkably good job. But there were hundreds of errors in the initial publication. And slowly but surely they got it down to a reasonable number of errors. And when Wesleyan redid the book, again, it was done a little too fast, it was rushed and nobody proofread it, with the result that suddenly there were another hundred-odd errors that crept in. And Vintage is very nice. Most of the errors of correction at this point are done not by me, but by other people who call up and say, "Hey, on page 373, there's no period at the end of this sentence." And I look, and sure enough, they've left out a period.
[Source: SciFi.com, issue 217; Samuel R. delaney interviewed by Scott Edelman]

...sounds of wicked chuckling issue, once again, from Keegan!

And here's the link to the whole interview. It's a very good one:

Samuel R. Delany exposes the heart of Dhalgren over a naked lunch

Ciao for now,
MK

Saturday, August 9, 2008

Marginal notations

As a writer, I'm interested in critics and what they say of other books and movies, because their impressions of other writers' work gives me half an idea of how they could potentially trash mine. But I admit, as a breed, they mystify me.

Yesterday I was talking about the 2007 BEOWULF -- admittedly from the perspective of the effects. I didn't say much about the production itself, because (!) everyone, bar none, comes at a movie (or book) from his or her own angle, and likes/dislikes, loves/hates it because of reactions generated inside the individual. I NEVER read the critics before I see a movie, and I usually take anything they say with a pinch of the proverbial. Just occasionally, something will get under my skin. Bear with me!

(IMHO, it's unwise for critics to come right out and tell people, "The movie (or book) totally stinks," because there will always be many people out there who were touched by it, or impressed by something in it which the critic failed to see. Those viewers will either get a complex because the critic just told them they're so stupid, they like something that stinks, and for some reason they respect the opinion ... or they'll conclude that the critic is a callow moron, for missing so obvious, and so wonderful, an element in the movie. Either way, reviews soundly and subjectively trashing movies and books are of questionable wisdom ... people get hurt, angry, and feuds begin. How dumb is this?)

Now, a reasonable, constructive criticism is something else. All writers can benefit from constructive opinion, BEFORE the book goes to press or the movie is finished. After the fact, however...? I've read book reviews (thank gods, not of my work) that say, in almost these same terms, "The whole book is a piece of crap, without an original idea anywhere in it; I hated the stereotype characters, the plot was stultifying, the background was ripped off from two other books; and if you spent money on this, you were robbed, and you're an idiot."

Alas, I've read way too many reviews which are echoes of this. The first one I read goes back about 30 years. The movie the critic was butchering was (!) STAR WARS. I read the same approximate criticism of the 1994 STARGATE movie. Those are the two which stand out in my memory because they did such a complete butcher job on two movies which were unanimously adored by consumers (myself included).

I'm not about to defend STAR WARS or STARGATE. I don't have to, even if I wanted to (which I don't). The financials for both projects are their vindication ... and even as I say that, I can hear the critics and their advocates saying, "You can never go wrong, feeding the moronic public the lowest common denominator ... dish up garbage, and they'll shower you with money."

What I'm actually talking about is the thrust of that last line. The garbage part. Garbage in whose opionion? And whose opinion do we trust, and why?

It all depends on your point of view, and who you're talking to at the time. I haven't even seen the new EREGON movie (and at the moment have no plans to), but I read the reviews of the book, and they stank. Apparently, you take STAR WARS and you set that plot and characters in Middle Earth, and you get EREGON. I remember thinking, "Oh, dear, not again," because George Lucas himself was bashed brutally cira 1980 for lifting virtually every element of his project from extant films as widely diverse as a 1940s Nazi propaganda piece, TRIUMPH OF THE WILL, and DUNE, and THE THREE MUSKETEERS.

And so the carousel spins. Writers do "borrow" elements from other projects ... they also steal, either knowingly or un-. Sometimes they get caught, and sometimes no one cares enough to slap their wrists, or a borrowing will be called an "homage."

However, it's the trash factor which concerns me here. The part where a critic says, flat out to his viewers/readers, "Don't see this movie. It's unwatchable."

Oh .... boy. Yes, I'm talking about one of the BEOWULF reviews, a video clip uploaded to YouTube, dubbed down from some TV show (in the US) where a couple of hip (?) young men babble for far too long about what they didn't like about a movie. Fair enough: they are more than welcome to their opinions, but the other side to that coin is this: you're right back to the situation where you're accusing the viewer of tastelessness and idiocy, if s/he liked the same movie.

Uh ... huh. Now, these guys bashed BEOWULF for several reasons. One: being animated. Apparently, in their eyes the characters look wooden and rubbery. Guys, it's ANIMATED, and the technology isn't perfect yet!! Good gods, how stupid is it to bash an animated movie for being animated?

Their point was, of course, BEOWULF should have been made live. Yes? Then tell Disney MULAN and so on, and on, should have been done live. Sorry, guys, this is not an intelligent criticism. An animated features is crafted as an animated presentation, because it's an animated film from an animation studio which produces animated movies. The key word in the previous sentence is ANIMATED, and the duh factor is off the scale.

The second point for which BEOWULF was bashed was its lack of "heart," evident because human emotion is not yet projecting through the digital characters ... it's the exact same criticism which was heaped upon THE GOLDEN COMPASS (I read the reviews since Ian McKellen voiced the polar bear). Here's the rub. THE GOLDEN COMPASS was done live, with actors like Christopher Lee and Derek Jacobi, and Nicole Kidman. They're not digital. "Heart" is not something that can be guaranteed, just by filming live

The most "telling" criticism levelled against BEOWULF was the thinness of the storyline, the fact it concentrates on the action scenes and skates over the human melodrama in the background. Now, here's your problem: it's already been decided that the digital characters are like rubbery figures, with wooden acting ... now, you want to tackle twenty years' worth of soap opera with this digital cast??? How daft would that be?! So, the movie concentrates on the action, and is rubbished for being like a video game --

Except in its opening scenes, before the plot gets underway. In these scenes, its all about humans and their ribald, rambunctuous and inebriated antics, which laid the movie open for further criticism. Our two young reviewers seemed to have major problems with sexual references and harsh language in an animated film. I went on to other reviews after this one, and other reviewers had major problems with nudity, although nothing I read said a word against the bloodletting and gore, which in places are comparable to 300, albeit not depicted in adoring slow-mo.

At which point, I stopped reading. The last thing I remember seeing was someone who said, "Grendel was not remotely scary," on the one hand, while watching nude digitizations of the monster's mommy and Beowulf was just too much for this poor guy who'd had to go see the movie on critics' free tickets.

And it's here where the whole subjectivity problem jumps into focus. "I didn't like the movie because it was animated, it should have been made live, because you can tell it's not real people, it's ... well, animated." Duh. "I didn't like it because I can't stand looking at beautiful people without their clothes on." Say what? "I didn't like it because it skipped the decades-long soap opera of human drama and gave us the action -- and although the characters are rubbery figures, I wanted less action and more stuff about people doing mundane things." Good gods. "I didn't like it because when they depict people being ordinary human beings, they're drinking and flirting and getting sexy, and it's gross when animated characters get ribald." Says who? "I didn't like it because the monster was only gruesomely decayed, deformed and hideous, 20 feet tall, and munches people alive, head-first, and tears bodies apart with his bare hands, he wasn't remotely scary." Yurk.

The bottom line is about subjectivity. Some critic, somewhere, will bash anything ever written. As I began, as a writer, I'm interested in this stuff. I get bashed by critics, all writers do, and it's vitally important to sort sense from stupidity. If you couldn't differentiate an objective criticism from subjective egocentrism, you'd give it away and get a job in a shop.

Here's my parting shot. A rave review from a flaming fan of THE DARK KNIGHT. Get this one: "It was fantastic, amazing, but I wouldn't want to see it again."

Now, that's how your movie takes two billion at the box office, and another one on DVD. Right?

Friday, August 8, 2008

Digital daydream

Today, I can't help seeing visions of a movie that was never made -- or hasn't been made yet. I saw BEOWULF last night (for the first time; I'd missed it at the theatres), and was very impressed by the gulf of difference, and development, over the FINAL FANTASY movie which was done about ten years ago. The evolution of digitals is phenomenal. FINAL FANASY: The Spirit Within was amazing back in 2000. I was as impressed, then, as I am with BEOWULF now.

Nostrakeeganus, he going back into the prediction business ... I'll give you five more years, and you won't be able to tell who's real and who's a digitoid, in the movies. They tell me, computer power is doubling or quadrupling every year. We're on the brink, right now, of a line beyond which we'll be in a digital reality from which there is no turning back. ('Digitoid' is a phrase a coined for one of the HELLGATE books. I like it ... it actually respects the digital entity ... and they're getting extremely, uh, respectable. Scroll down.)



Picture Credits: pics on this post are publicity stills, with all interests reverting to the company, no rights contested, no wrongs to be revenged! (Click pick for the larger version.



The character of Beowulf seems to be a composite of several actors. Ray Winstone voiced him, but that ain't Ray Winstone's face, much less his bod. They had a professional athlete model for the body, for sure, and the face is a cross between the young Sean Bean (see him in the SHARPE movie series), and elements of Ray Winstone himself, and a touch of someone else whom I just can't place.

(This is how digital face design goes: DreamCraft's cover artist, Jade, will slog through this every time we create a new face, or faces, for the book covers. I'll say something ridiculous like, mix up Brad Pitt, Charles Bronson, Percy Montgomery (the kicker for the South African Springboks national rugby team) and Gary Bailey (used to keep goal for Manchester United in 1980). Out of this ridiculous mish-mash will appear a face which is something new, yet has elements of all the contributors.)

And now the daydream, the visions I can't help seeing...

Imagine this: THE NARC MOVIE. Seriously. The whole thing is 100% digital, so you can be as outrageous as you like. One bunch of mime artists comes into the studio and does the motion capture ("mocap") work to set the body language for the characters. They go home. Another bunch of people comes in ... voice artists this time. They voice the characters and go home. They're unknowns, and brilliant (most voice artists are; ADR specialists only get into the news when they're celebs ... say, Ian McKellen is dubbing Iorik the polar bear, so it's big news in the media (and incidentally, he did a fantastic job of it). So now you have the athletic body shapes and fine-tuned body language mapped into the computer for Jarrat and Stone, Gable and Cronin and Ramos. Then they're voiced -- probably by artists who look nothing like these guys. Short, rotund, bald, 62, all of the above ... but he's got the Stoney timbre and cadence. Woah. Meanwhile, a team of digital designers has been designing the faces, which are then slapped over the erased-faces of the mocap artists.

Oh, boy. It'd cost upwards of a hundred million bucks ... if you're going to daydream, do it big. The cities would look like Syd Mead designed them. The spacecraft look like something out of one of the ALIEN movies. The riot armor has something in common with the suit Tony builds in IRON MAN. And so on.

Sigh. Hey, you can dream, right? And five years from now, the digital realism is going to be such that you won't tell any difference between the digitoid and the human. Speaking of which: if you missed BEOWULF at the movies, rent it on DVD. It's probably still way over-priced (upwards of thirty bucks in this country), but renting it is always an option. We use Quick Flix, which I believe is the same as Net Flix (spelling??) in the US.

The plot of BEOWULF will remind you of many facets of THIRTREENTH WARRIOR, which shouldn't surprise you, since they're both reworkings of the same legend. (I spotted that instantly, as soon as the Antonio Banderas movie got underway ... I was in Fairbanks, Alaska, at the time.) The opening scenes are rambunctious indeed: digital drama is getting ribald and sexy. The movie violence (and design hideousness) is gruesome to the max that I personally care for. Anything else is wasted on me ... they could save themselves several million bucks on their budget, because I'm not even looking when people's heads get chewed in two and their brains leak out. The musical score is very fine, and the animation is astounding.

Behind the animation are the performances of Ray Winstone, Anthony Hopkins, Brendan Gleeson and Angelina Jolie. Of them all, it's Hopkins (as usual) who is the stand-out actor. He has a presence, a voice, a manner about him, which consistently set him apart. He was equally as good, in BEOWULF, as in the first Zorro movie, and THE EDGE, and (my personal favotite) THE WORLD'S FASTEST INDIAN. Brendan Gleeson is one of the most recognizable faces in movies like this: you saw him in TROY, playing Helen's hopeless, hapless husband (forgive the alliteration: it wasn't intentional!) ... in BEOWULF he's a far nicer character than in TROY. In fact, he's more likeable than the central hero, Beowulf himself, whose arrogance is essential to the character, but hardly endearing.

Hats off to all concerned on BEOWULF: I'm impressed. Very.

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm about to drift off into some more NARC movie fantasies!

Wednesday, July 23, 2008

The Dark Knight - movie review


A darkness incandescent...

Don't sit around reading the reviews (or even this one). Get your butt out to the cinema, pay their pound of flesh and see the damned movie! Or let me put it like this: if you only see one movie this year, THE DARK KNIGHT has to be the one.

I saw the movie before I looked at the reviews, and for once the critics have got it right ... though, of the reviews I read last night, only the Rolling Stone critic picked up on the real fangs and claws of THE DARK KNIGHT.

It's a movie and a half. It's an acid trip. It's one of the very few films in a long, long time that will exercise your brain as well as your adrenal glands. Viewers and reviewers around the world are already touting Heath Ledger for an Oscar; and if he doesn't get one, I'll want to know why. Yes, he was that good.

Which is not to undermine the other performances in the movie. Gary Oldman is nothing short of fantastic as Jim Gordon, who has become the very personification of common decency and human integrity. His performance is so subtle, his character so 'un-glamorous' that Gordon takes on a haunting realism which makes him stand out at the very moment he is being surrounded by the macabre, the grotesque, the surreal. If Heath Ledger doesn't get the Oscar, Gary Oldman should get it: his performance as Gordon is of necessity crafted from the ordinary, the mundane, the tatters of rampant normality. By contrast, Ledger was handed the whole machine shop, with the welding bay fired up, and given an engraved invitation to let rip. Sure, the Joker thoroughly eclipses everyone and eveything else in the movie ... but look at what Heath has to work with. Gary Oldman's task must at times have looked like Everest: create a Jim Gordon who's middle aged, and thin, and tired, and scared ... and not for a moment swamped by the Joker or even the Batman himself.

The courage exhibited by Christian Bale in this movie is startling: he spends about 80% of his screen time masked, with only the glint of his eyes and the gravel-like hiss of the voice to express emotion. No critic has yet, to my knowledge, recognized the brilliance of this performace; and they might never comment on it, because they're uniformly (and understandably) dazzled by the Joker. Bale is an enormous talent in his own right. I first noticed him in REIGN OF FIRE, an Irish SF movie (which is almost anomalous; an Irish science fiction movie??), which came out in Aus in 2002. He was astonishingly poweful at 28. Six years later, he seems to be a case of nitro about to explode ... and in the third Batman movie, he might get the chance to do just that.

This time around, however, the prvilege of explosion was for Heath Ledger -- and thank gods he actually scored this opportunity; because it was to be his last. He did some wonderful work, beginning with the short-lived TV series, ROAR, when he was still a teen. In A KNIGHT'S TALE he was the classic pretty face, which was a good place to start. Hollywood loves a pretty face. Later, BROKEBACK MOUNTAIN gave him the opportunity to show that he could act with the best of 'em, while THE BROTHERS GRIMM let him demonstrate that he wasn't bothered about glamor and good looks.

In THE DARK KNIGHT, the pretty face is so absent, you really can't see through the crust of old, smudged pancake makep to the man underneath. If you didn't know it was Heath Ledger, you'd never guess. He was as talented as Johnny Depp when it came to doing accents and voices: you can't hear Heath Ledger's own natural voice in any word the Joker says. The characterisation of the Joker is so complete, the actor never peeks out for a tenth of a second; and the Joker is all your nightmares rolled into one.

This is the guy who can, and does, take the Batman apart at the seams. And here's the rub: he doesn't do it with the muscles of the Hulk, the super-powers of the Wolverine, Tony Stark's flying armor, or the Terminator's firepower. He does it with words, and with perhaps the most ferocious intellect ever depicted in a movie.

He is fearsomely intelligent. Much more intelligent than Bruce Wayne, Jim Gordon, and the rest of Gotham's finest. It's just too bad he's also stark, raving mad. His insanity is incandescent, it lights up the darkness both of director Christopher Nolan's bleak view of the city, and of a region of the human psyche which has seldom been explored on film.

This is the first comic-book-movie which has, to my thinking, transcended the genre. THE DARK KNIGHT is not a comic. It's art. What characterises art? Is it vision, design, intellect, and the courage to be, say and do the extraordinary? In any analysis, the film slides itself neatly into the category of art.

Only once does it cross an imaginary line, and for a few minutes threaten to look and feel like a comic. Two-Face (Aaron Eckhart) is an extremely difficult character to portray. He works better on paper than in film; on paper, his grotesque appearance can be hinted, suggested. On film, there's no option but to get on and depict the nightmare face ... and by 2008, to do any kind of justice to the face, the depiction has to be grotesque indeed. Shades of Heavy Metal and 2000 AD. Here's the rub: moviegoers have been so bludgeoned by the grotesque, the horrific, that if the appearance of Two-Face were toned down, the character would no longer work. People would say, 'What's so bad about that? Deal with it.' We're so desensitized to horror and ugliness, it takes one hell of a lot to shock us in this area (just as we're so desensitized to movie violence that it's starting to turn into a joke ... showing with THE DARK KNIGHT was the trailer for Tropic Thunder. I rest my case.)

Aaron Eckhart is very good as Harvey Dent. He's very good as Two-Face, come to that ... even if Two-Face is the single facet of the movie where THE DARK KNIGHT passes back over the line from art to comic. Moreover, Christopher Nolan must have been keenly aware of this, because rather than keeping Two-Face alive at the end of the movie, he is thankfully laid to rest. The character of Harvey Dent is used as the motivation for Bruce Wayne and Jim Gordon making the decisions that make all hell bust loose. Because of him -- his presence, what he stands for, what he's prepared to do -- they literally tear Gotham to bloody tatters between them, and all in the name of Good ...

And, enter the Joker at stage right. The rot has already set in by the time the Joker shows his smudged, scarred clown face. The city is already teetering, though it needs one more good shove to make sure it goes over.

Who the Joker is, we don't know. He has no name, no background, no story. Just the ferocious intellect of a genius, the soul of a psychopath, the mind of a madman, the face of a nightmare. These qualities come together to mold the guy who could, and did, break the Batman, without recourse to kevlar or titanium, or superbikes and indestructable cars.

His weapons are the words of the script by Christopher and Jonathan Nolan, and this script should be registered as a weapon in its own right. It has an acid-eaten lethality, showcasing itself: You wanna know how to take down Batman? Not with guns. Not with high-tech. You do it with mind-games.

Heath Ledger's performance is off the scale; but remember, the Nolans wrote these words. The script is the scalpel with which the city, the society in which we live, and much of the human psyche itself, are peeled like an onion. Don't lose sight of the script, in the incandescent darkness of Ledger's and Bale's performances.

The film is rated, absurdly, PG-13. For myself, I'd have slapped an R rating on it. Not for the sex scenes (there aren't any), not for the nudity (there isn't any), nor fo the coarse language (there isn't any), or the on-screen violence (it's Hollywood violence, no one takes it seriously enough to stop six year olds watching Jurassic Park).

It's what happens just-offscreen, just out of our field of view ... it's the passion and joy the Joker takes in inflicting, and suffering, pain and destruction ... and, more than anything, it's the sheer, insane brilliance of his arguments in support of chaos, horror and death. The man makes a terrible logic. You see the sense his argument. Part of you agrees with him, though you shock yourself to the core by agreeing. With words, the Joker (read: Ledger, Nolan and Nolan) take that scalpel and they flay alive society, justice, civilization, humanity, morality, courage.

Would I want any teen of mine watching this? No way. They might actually be listening to the dialog! For 15 years, parents, teachers, priests, doctors, elder siblings, have been working to instill into this hypothetical kid a little grasp on what's right and wrong. Right? Give THE DARK KNIGHT exactly two hours and thirty-two minutes, and said kid won't know who's right, who's wrong, and who's a big, fat liar. The fact is, a lot of adults will be asking the same questions about now. (And here's the scary part: in a couple of years, some psycho, somewhere is going to be parroting back the Joker's insane brilliance to criminal psychiatrists, quoting his philosophy, his world view, as motivation, reason and absolution.)

The movie needs an R-rating, but our film censorship bureaus are so strangled by their own codes and ethics, they can't work it out. No nudity? No profanity? No bonking? No buckets of fake blood, and dismembered bodies? Okay, it's PG-13, right Dead wrong. THE DARK KNIGHT demonstrated with absolute acuity, that the most lethal weapons are not guns, knives and explosives. They're words.

That said, the film is supremely beautiful, on many levels, from the purely visual to the deeply emotional. Gary Oldman, Christian Bale and even Michael Caine (who is almost but not quite restricted to sarcastic wit) surpass themselves. Bale must overcome the costume itself: he doesn't even have benefit of his face and normal vocal range, with which to act. Gary Oldman is similarly impeded by Jim Gordon's mantle of incredible 'normalcy' -- middle-aged, plain, tired, frightened -- among a legion of the beautiful and young, and the macabre and grotesque.

Kudos to all who were involved with the movie, from the cinematography and scripting, to the effects and editing. THE DARK KNIGHT has a handful of flaws, which occurred to me at the time, while watching. But here's the mark of a great movie: I can't even remember what most of them were, now, and the two I do recall don't seem to matter. Great soundtrack music; effects and stunts par excellence; and an ending which will rock you.

Keegan's score: Five outta five, and an extra gold star for the courage to just do it.

Wednesday, July 2, 2008

Rummaging, the Cap'n, and the price of DVDs

I spent a while this morning rummaging around on websites, trying to find out if Torchwood season 2 would be airing in Australia (it's my day off; I'm allowed to rummage). To date there isn't a word about it, one way or the other, but it seems Season 1 was shown almost under protest. Well into 2007, neither the ABC (which screens the parent show, Doctor Who), and SBS -- the station specializing in international favorites like Inspector Rex (Austria, German language, subtitled), Iron Chef (Japan, Japanese overdubbed into English), and Red Dwarf (England; English; subtitles for hard of hearing; like kids whose music has been making their ears bleed), among rafts of others -- seemed to have any interest in Torchwood ... the reasons for which remain obscure.

Someone suggested they'd shy away from it because it was foul mouthed and sexy. Well, that's possible, I suppose; but there are already shows on both networks (esp. SBS) which are equally explicit, and more so. I doubt they'd turn down ANY show which would sell advertising space (yes: SBS is showing commercials now. And it drives you bloody nuts) ... so the bottom line is much more likely that thehy can't/don't/won't believe Torchwood will rate in Australia.

It's painfully true that this country doesn't have much time for SF ... and South Aus is the nation's dim spot. SF won't rate worth a deleted expletive down here (much less gay SF, or SF with a gay twist: perish the thought), and SciFi shows usually bumped back into the wee small hours of the morning.

It would also be reasonable true to say that some (even most?) Aussies view SF as being something of a juvenine genre -- it's for kids, isn't it? Now, Doctor Who might slide into the niche with a couple of inches to spare on each side. For decades it's had a cheesy-horror aspect which contributed to its cult status ... but who could take the horror seriously, much less get a chill out of it, when the monster is all-too-obviously a guy lurching around in a suit?

Okay, there's maybe one exception to this rule. The Brain of Morbius was fairly well done. It was 'let down' here and there by some pretty silly costumes and a few bit-players over-acting, but the idea was excellent and much of the execution was good enough that, when it aired in Australia for the first time, the ABC shoved it on at 9:30pm. Reason: (shock, horror) it was SF that had exceeded what The Powers That Be (hereafter referred to as TPTB) deemed to be suitable for kids. As per the new incarnation of the show -- it's what we used to call 'kidult.' Certainly not kids' TV pure and simple, but something a wide range of people can enjoy. The horror aspect is done well, without being gross; even in 2008 you have to know where to draw a line with the blood, gore, dismemberment and so on. And as it happens, the way the 'movie violence' aspect is handled, within it's own parameters it's quite effective.

You can hear the South Aussie TV executives spluttering. Good golly, SF that's not for kids? SciFi that can't be shown in the 5:00 - 8:00 bracket? Now, there has to be something wrong with this picture ... if kids can't watch it, who in the world will be watching it? Nobody else watches SF! Do they?

Therefore, in the minds of TPTB, nobody would be watching, so no one would be buying advertising, so the show constitutes a dead loss.



Naturally, they're dead wrong. I was reading somewhere, a while ago, that Torchwood out-perfomed Doctor Who in the US. But TV executives down here don't seem to be able to learn from the experience of others, and Torchwood landed firmly in a category which was too-hard to label. And if you can't label it, you can't market it.

Perhaps against the odds, Torchwood season 1 did go to air here, but its premier was in a late-nite slot and it was soon bumped back to midnight-ish. I have to confess, we used to set up the DVD recorder, go to bed, and figure it out in the morning. And before the show was halfway through, a friend handed us a DivX DVD with the whole shebang on the one disk, so we abandoned the actual broadcast.

Now, season 2 probably won't screen down here at all (following in the time-honored tradition of Highlander and Trek, and the new Galactica, and what have you) ... but the good news is, the whole season just came out on DVD in the UK. Of course, it'll be months before you can get it down here, and it'll be very expensive when it does put in an appearance. However, the DivX people won't let that stop them. I have absolutely no doubt that someone, somewhere has already uploaded it --

And no, I am NOT an advocate of, nor a participant in, video piracy. Let this be firmly understood, or nothing significant will come out of the argument I'm about to make (and my apologies to Dickens for the mutilation of that line).

I DO NOT advocate video piracy. I firmly agree that video pirates should be quashed.

However, I also CAN NOT condone the abuse of the video public, where two DVDs in a slipcase can cost $125. This is executive level thieving, just as surely as video piracy is boot-end stealing. There is no case anyone could make to justify charging over a maximum of maybe forty bucks for a two- or three-DVD set of ANYTHING. People would line up to pay forty bucks for a season of their favorite show. You'd beat 'em off with a stick. But at double, and triple, that price ... people can't pay it. Not won't. Can't. And, if TPTB fondly imagine fans will go without, well, I have some glorious shoreline property at Lake Eyre I'd like to sell to them. So video piracy happens, and it'll continue to happen, as a direct result of the executive level thieving.

You want to stop video piracy? Make DVDs affordable. It's as simple as that. Who in his or her right mind would be watching a dub-down, or a shonky copy, when you could have perfect copy in a beautiful slipcase, at a price you can afford??

Okay, Keegan, get down off the soapbox!

Feet on the ground. Right.

Interestingly, though, Torchwood is morphing as it heads into a third season ... and you gotta wonder why. They're only doing a short season (5 shows), which smacks of something experimental. Jack's gone (!), along with other vanishing characters, and the whole show is being dumbed down and polished up to appeal to a younger audience.

Well...shoot. I have no idea if John Barrowman left the show because it was being dumbed down, or if it's being dumbed down because he's gone. It's almost as if the mature nature of the show was riding on the shoulders of Jack, who, being gay/bi/omni, was a character designed, and predicted, to appeal to, uh, big kids. Take Jack out of there, and what's left is the SF element --

In which case, there's no good reason not to ramp it up and be a whole lot more like Doctor Who, which, admittedly, has been a lot of fun. Your audience is wider, your viewers can afford to be younger. You might leave a 'sub-text' omnisexual element in there for the sake of continuity, but until or unless Jack's back again, the gay element can be put on hold ... and when he *is* back, the gay element could be handled more along the lines of what we saw in Doctor Who.

So I would be guessing the 5-episode 3rd season is an experiment ... try the waters, see what they're like. (DW itself is having a shakeup, with a number of movies being scheduled instead of a whole 13-show season; looks like Tennant is probably back -- I don't know that anyone's too sure of anything much more than that, right now.

Surprising what you can get out of an hour's rummage among websites and blogs!

Right now, I'm on my break, the winter sun is shining and I'm going to take a book, a cup of tea, and go find a suntrap.

Cheers for now,
MK

Sunday, June 29, 2008

The cruellest cut...

Last night I was writing a quick column about the way DEATH'S HEAD was cut by 15% of its running length, according to publisher requirements; I was asked, how do you go about doing thr work, and stretched my memory back over more years than any of us care to tell, to actually remember doing it (shiver). Then, later in the evening we played the DVD of the director's cut of TROY, which is about a half hour longer than the theatrical release ... and I was struck by the similarity in the two editing jobs.

On one hand you have the writer who has to cut the heart and soul out of a book to make it fit covers which had been pre-printed; on the other hand, you have a director who's been told to bring the story in at a certain length, and s/he has to rip through the film and find a way to cut it by about 20% of its length, and do it without compromising the story.

Well, maybe the cuts to TROY didn't compromise the plot, but they certainly chewed into the 'integrity' of the characterization. The director's cut is extremely good. I'd actually missed the movie on the big screen because I was (!) dumb enough to believe the critics, who had nothing good to say about it. I suppose it depends what you want to get out of a movie for your $14 ticket (yup; that's what we're paying locally ... and you bet, a movie's got to be good to be worth the asking price ... it's not like buying a paperback, where you get days of entertaining for your $24, or whatever. With a movie, whether it's good, bad or indifferent, the whole thing is over in a couple of hours).

Maybe the critics who went to TROY were wanting something more, or different from it. More of Helen, less of Achilles? More female nudity, less of Brad Pitt's physique dramatically undraped for the cameras? Okay. I can see how a troupe of het film critics could get upset at the scarcity of female nudity in the theatrical version, while Brad and Orlando get to romp around in sun tan oil and smiles. I can just imagine the puffs of steam, or smoke, coming out of these critics' ears as they sit beside wives or girlfriends who're oohing and aahing over the cinematic beefcake. So TROY was always destined to be rubbished by mainstream movie critics!



There's a little more for these guys in the director's cut. Not only is the movie a lot more bloodthirsty (though nowhere near 300 or PATHFINDER. I'd put it on a par with THIRTEENTH WARRIOR), but there's enough nudie shots of Helen to woo the other side of the fence. There's also a lot of Mr. Pitt, who broods all over the screen and leaves the viewer with a lingering impression of animal magnificence, and also a kind of madness. Was Achilles thoroughly nuts for a while? I'd have to say so -- and if you've read your Homer, the original text of the ILLIAD only underscores the idea. This seems to come across in the director's cut more keenly than in the theatrical cut. Kuods to Brad Pitt on many levels. For having the guts to actually portray the 'hero' as a blood-hungry maniac for a while ... for being a major investor in the movie ... and for living in the gym for months. That physique didn't just happen. One can imagine the buckets of sweat spilled to make it happen.

And as a writer I can also imagine how directot Wolfang Peterson would have wept tears of blood in the cutting of it. A couple of shots, I could have lived without --basically, seeing people's heads get cut in two isn't high on my day's agenda. But violence was only part of what was added back in, in the process of restoration for the DVD.

Cutting DEATH'S HEAD was the same kind of 'tears of blood' chore, a trial by ordeal. (What doesn't kill us makes us stronger. Yeah, right. You know that the guy who said that ended his life insane, locked up in a loony bin? What doesn't kill you can also turn you into such a head-case, the nice men in the white coats come to collect you one day!) Which isn't to say that I went bonkers while cutting DEATH'S HEAD. (Okay, I almost did; but enough sanity hung on by the proverbial thread for me to get to the post office with the manucript!)

the header art for the new NARC site

Incidentally, if the writers among you would like to know more about how the whole thing was done, you can find the story on the NARC page, on the website.

Speaking of the website, it's actually up at this moment ... still under test in a couple of places, but it's been debugged and is running smoothly enough for me to invite you to visit. The address hasn't changed:

the main page.

The official launch will be in a couplre more days, because there's still a few details to be added in; but it's looking very, very good.

Saturday, June 14, 2008

Sonnets from the peanut gallery

I was asked a strange question a while ago. "How do you write a sonnet?" As a person who's been known to rattle off the occasional sonnet, I suppose I was as qualified as the next bod to answer ... and I assume the question had something to do with a college paper.

What jogs my memory about this is that I was juggling the type for the new eBook version of FORTUNES OF WAR yesterday, and of course there are two sonnets from Shakespeare himself quoted in the book. Which got me thinking about Shakespeare, and about the upcoming Macbeth movie (with Sean Bean as Mac). If they do it justice, as is understood by moviedom in 2008, it will be bloody indeed. I'm thinking of both 300and PATHFINDER: Legend of the Ghost Warrior. I imagine Macbeth will be a gore-fest ... and appreciating Sean Bean as I do, I expect to have a ringside seat at the carnage! Yet I ask myself, do I really need to see a guy's head get cut in two, to afford a high-resolution view of his bare brain? Hmmm.

A long time ago (must be ten years; I was in Alaska at the time), I got myself into some coniderable trouble by starting to talk about the violent aspect of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN. I was actually going somewhere important with the argument, but didn't have long enough to get there before a complete stranger, who'd overhead what I was saying to a friend, rounded on me and put me very firmly in my place for having the temerity to say I didn't need the gore the movie had loaded up into my memory cache. Acording to this stranger, I DID need it, and DO need it. All right, let's look at this soberly.

Now, for all I know that stranger might be a film director; he might have gone on to work on the GHOST WARRIOR movie, which is even more gruesome than RYAN by a factor of about ten years' Hollywood development. That stranger was certainly an advocate of movie violence -- and to a point I do understand his argument, which goes like this: In order to appreciate the suffering, trauma and horror undergone by soldiers in the field, civilians have to see the real deal, in gut-leaking, brain-spattering detail.

And herein lies the real question. Do we need to actually see it? Are we so dense that we don't know, on an instinctual level, what it's all about?

And, as valid as the stranger's point is, it's deeply problematical. There's an inescapable downside to brutalizing the audience. Psychiatrists call it desensitization. You can think of it as habituation, or acclimation.

It happened to yours truly, even INSIDE (and well inside) the running-length of SAVING PRIVATE RYAN itself, and it's a big problem. In the first reel, one was shocked and sickened by the dismemberment depicted in stark, raw, detail. One felt the crawling skin, the odd hot-cold sensation, the prickling scalp and rapid pulse --which was the exact reaction Steven Spielberg intended. He scored, big time.

But 90 minutes later, I (and the rest of the audience with me) was so habituated to the gore, the effect had faded away. I watched the last-reel dismemberment without turning a hair. Ten years on, PATHFINDER: Legend of the Ghost Warrior, didn't upset my equilibrium at all --

And it should have. Seeing a guy's head cut open and his brain laid bare should make any normal person retch. Seeing, in closeup, the tip of a blade slice right through someone's face and take out his eye, and then the eyeball falls out, kersplat, into the muddy puddle at his feet, in another closeup shot, should make a normal human being shudder, or maybe even heave.

My point is this, kids: we're habituated now. We got used to it. It's a decade since PRIVATE RYAN, and in that time, the audience has been 'educated' to PhD level in realistic battlefield violence ... we've seen it all in closeup and technicolor. And the horror factor is so diminished, scenes that should be traumatizing bounce off even the most sensitive of us.

I ask myself, is this a good thing? The stranger who put me down at the cafe in Anchorage, AK, in 1997, desperately wanted to have the civvy audience 'educated' ... exposed to the real deal, in clinical detail. One would hope his motives were pure -- ie., so that they know at firsthand the horrors of the battlefield.

Hollywood obliged, over and over, in always-increasing detail, until we're now face to face with a kind of cynical 'yeah, so what?' attitude.

I look back on the mystique of the warrior, at whose bloody secrets the civilians could only guess, and who was revered, nursed of his wounds, even worshipped, by lesser beings like we, who fully believed we would have folded at the knees if we were faced with such horror.

Right now, there's a whole generation of kids out there to whom the soldier's trade, and his trauma, have been demystified, and they know for a fact what denuded brains and torn-out eyeballs look like ... and they ain't bothered by it.

I ask myself, this is a good thing? And you have to wonder, just a little bit, about the next generation of soldiers coming of age just now...