Wolverine: Keegan's take on a movie that's being bashed

The reviews of Wolverine are so bad, they're intriguing. In fact, I found them irresistible. How in the hell could a bunch of extremely talented people (including Stan Lee and Hugh Jackman) get it so incredibly wrong?

So I went along to the 2:00pm session yesterday at the Megaplex.

Keegan's verdict? For godsakes stop reading the reviews, go and see the bloody movie, and you will discover several things.

The CG effects are nowhere near as poor as the critics are blathering on about. A couple of the shots look a little bit "fake" by the standards of 2009, but in 1999, the same shots would have blown your brains out. (Get real here: a couple of less-than-perfect CGI shots do not make unmitigated crap out of an entire movie. )

There are two, maybe three, genuinely wobbly bits in the plotting. (Get real, again: it's a comic book. Turn a blind eye to the wobbly bits and concentrate on the important element: Hugh Jackman is the sexiest thing on two legs.) Unless you are terminally heterosexual, and male, or a terminally hetero female in lust for a pixie like Elijah Wood, there is no way in any world that you could call the movie "dull" or "dry." In fact, you may need a bib, because you'll spend just under two hours in a full-on drool.

The plot is NOT "overly complex," and my guess is that the critics who employed this old chestnut as a reason to smack Wolverine with a D or an F spent one half of the time texting and the other half running out to the bathroom and/or parking lot for a smoke. The plot is not complex at all, so long as you're wide awake. The same bozo-grade critics levelled the identical lame criticism at the third Pirates of the Caribbean movie. Guys, let me give you a tip: drink less at the press meeting before you go to the theater, and stop blaming the movie after you anaesthetised yourself on several gallons of free champagne. I hope you had the hangovers you damned-well deserve.

And no, I am NOT blind to the fact that a couple of the CG shots are less than staggering by current standards; and the plot has a hole you could drive a Mack truck through. However, Hugh Jackman acted his a$$ off, and lived in the gym while making this opus. The results are somewhat spectacular. And in Keegan's not so humble opinion (which comes to you complete with fresh bib), he's more than enough to make up for the shortcomings of the rest of the movie. And I know, I'm biased. I paid for the movie ticket (while critics get theirs free!) so I'm allowed a degree of bias. I bought the bias option with my ten bucks.

Now, let me give you the POSITIVES that 1001 critics are falling over themselves to utterly ignore ... and it beats hell out of me why they do this:

• Fully 95% of the CG work is just fine.
• A solid cast gives sterling performances.
• The dialog is, on the whole, realistic and believable.
• The film offers unexpected, and welcome, humor.
• The cinematography is stunning, with marvelous wilderness locations.
• The sets are extremely atmospheric and evocative.
• It's an ACTION movie, hence the ACTION sequences, and there are plenty ... would you go to the ballet and then call it rubbish because of all the dancing?!
• The SOUND balance is crystal clear, sharp and admirable. I never missed a word.
• The FOLEY work is spot-on. Most of the bozo-brigade critics who're currently rubbishing this movie wouldn't even know what the word "foley" means.
• The film's visual editing is crisp and clear. There is NEVER any ambiguity in the denouement, which is more than can be said for numerous movies which have been lauded by the same critics.
• The film score, or soundtrack music, is extremely good...
• ... and did I mention that Hugh Jackman is the sexiest thing on two legs?

So ends Keegan's verdict. I'm giving the movie 4 out of 5 stars, because you certainly can drive a tank through the most major hole in the plot. For myself, I don't actually give that much of a "stuff" about a couple of off-kilter CG shots; and the remainder of the production is of a very high standard.

So ... why all the rotten reviews?

There are many reasons, I'm sure. Far too many action movies have jaded the critics, since the early 1980s, when Arnie and Sly got into overdrive. Then again, is it vaguely possible that US film critics harbor a deep-seated, possibly even unconscious resentment about the fact that Hugh Jackman is an Aussie, born and bred? More than a decade of massive special effects movies have made some people so "CG happy" that when a shot or two fall short of the expected standard, they bin the entire movie ... which would be like dumping the whole live symphony orchestra performance in the bin because a few individual musicians hit blue notes here and there. I do believe that certain critics have just had enough, more than enough, of these big action movies, and would much rather be watching something else (which is fair enough; I just wish they'd bugger off and review something else, and leave someone who still enjoys actioners to cover them) ... and lastly, I wonder how many of these critics watched the movie with their partner going consistently gaga over Jackman for two hours in the seat beside them, and growled at the screen, "I'll get you for this, you Aussie bastard, if it's the last thing I do!" The pen being mightier than the claw in our own world, they unsheathed their own ballpoint weapon and did their worst -- secure in the knowledge that professional motion picture folk never, never ever respond to critics, no matter what stupidity is printed. Such is the etiquette of the trade. If you're a movie critic, you have an official license to literally babble through your hat and say what you like. And my gods, they do.

Lastly, there's also safety in numbers. When everyone else is calling a certain movie crap, you run the risk of not being "one of us," if you tell the truth and say you enjoyed the hell out of it, and could clearly see the 85% of the movie that was brilliant -- as well as the faults!

Well Keegan -- being Keegan -- is giving Wolverine four out of five stars, and is going to go see it again next week.

And no, I don't like movie critics.

To Hugh Jackman, if anyone significant sees this and forwards it: Cheers, mate. You did good.

Ciao for now,

MK

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 waffles

The world on Wednesday is "business as usual" -- meaning, orderly chaos. Since I'm still blogging in the vacuum, I'll restrict myself to an update, and let you get back to your life!

If you've been following the CreateSpace situation in the last couple of days, you'll be interested to know that we are STILL WAITING for any intelligent response from Customer Service. At this point, we've been waiting for six days, with a jammed, gridlocked shopping cart and no ability to publish a new project -- with Christmas looming just weeks away, and the whole CreateSpace-Amazon "process" taking a month!

For the backstory on this:
http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/hiccups-in-create-space-process.html
http://mel-keegan.blogspot.com/2008/11/tuesday-morning-blues.html

As Queen Victoria was heard to say on more than one occasion, "We are not amused."

We'll keep you posted.

And speaking of being posted: it just hit us (like the proverbial load of bricks) why the USPS parcel rates have shot up ... the carbon tax applied to airlines. When you ship a person (say, 60kg) from the US or UK to Aus or NZ (say, 10,000km), the tax converts to around A$275. That's A$6.25 per kilo of weight, per one-way trip. Parcels make one-way trips. And this is pretty much EXACTLY what the USPS price rise measured.

Duh.

Okay: grin and bear it -- it's for the planet. So -- so long as the megabucks raised by the carbon tax are spent on planting trees, restoring river systems, cleaning up waterways, enforcing "carbon reinjection" in the oil and coal-to-liquid industries ... fair enough. Get a Mel Keegan novel shipped to Australia, and you probably paid to plant a couple of trees. And that's cool. Puts the additional cost in a different, more acceptable light.

(The other possibility is that the carbon tax funds will be used to prop up corrupt governments and mega corporations which are too rich to begin with. This is not so cool, but only time will tell which way this particular barrow-load of manure is going to hit the ventilators.)

In other news, AUSTRALIA opened overnight ... and the critics are just short of getting out the pistols and taking pot-shots at each other: they're so widely divided, the movie is either phenomenal or rubbish, depending on who you listen to.

I'll have to wait till I see it. It opens here momentarily; the critics' preview was last week, and Aussie critics were just as divided as the Americans. Here's the best roundup of the US critical voice:
http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/story/0,26278,24709251-5013560,00.html

By the sounds of it -- and being cautious and charitable -- AUSTRALIA looks like it's been fractionally overcooked, with some CGI effects here and there that don't quite work, and if you don't like Nicole Kidman, you're going to find 165 minutes of her tough to endure. To balance all that out, Hugh Jackman is verrrrry nice eye candy, and from what I've seen of the trailers, there's a lot more CGI stuff that does work than doesn't ... and the scenery, panoramic and color saturated as it is, will be advantaged by the big screen.

I'll hold my tongue on the subject till I've seen it.


Last note for today: We're putting the finishing touches to the 2009 Mel Keegan Calendar, which will be produced be Lulu.com -- NOT Zazzle, because Zazzle.com is way too expensive on calendars. I'll be posting again with a "show and tell" about this project, which should be available for Christmas ... Lulu being a helluva lot faster than either CreateSpace (who don't do calendars anyway) and Zazzle.

Ciao for now,
MK

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.

Captain Jack, webpages, and hunks in harm's way

We're having all kinds of fun today. So much fun, we're thinking of hiring a marquee and throwing a garden party, and inviting y'all.

Not.

The "fun" is all about webpage design. Now, design work is relatively easy. Basically, you treat the monitor as a page, and fiddle with elements to achieve the same kind of harmonious balance as you would get on paper ... book covers are a perfect example. Making a full wraparound jacket work, much less the dustjacket for a hardcover, is not the easiest job in the world. Thank gods, Jade at DreamCraft has been doing this for over fifteen years now, and things like the below example just fall into place:

(I still smile when I see this cover, because the painting, "The Jungle Book" was done first -- it was the painting that made the whole story jump into my mind. The hunk turned into Sonny Moran, the tiger just was Indhira, the location was the Tarkine. My brain is weird. I know.)

The beauty of working on paper is, you know ahead of time what size it is. You tell the printer what size to print on, and upon pain of death s/he (or more likely a digital printing robot these days) does exactly what s/he (or it) is told.

Webpages are different. For a start, monitors come in all shapes and sizes, and are never the same color twice. What's pale butter on one screen will come up as the brightest shade of sickly yellow on another; and their brightness settings are such that you can never, predict how images are going to appear. Worse than this, there are so many moitor resolutions today that designing a common page, something which is going to look good on them all, is a job that's assumed the proportions of the the Labors of Hercules.

Right now, we're designing a raft of new pages for the MK OnLine site ... trying to make it easier to get through the jungle to the "point of sale" whatsit; trying to get as close as possible to "one click shopping." And it's not so easy.

The design itself is simple enough ... making it work well, and look good, on anything from a square screen laptop with a 1024 x 768 resolution, to one of the big widescreen doohickies, is something else.

We'd hoped to have the new pilot page up and testable today, but it's still not right. We might get it online later, or it could be tomorrow. Bear with us: we look forward to your feedback. We read everything and listen to criticisms with a completely flexible mind. You'd be surprised how often a design (especially in the fluid pixelic world of the web) has been changed along the lines of visitor comments.

So that's the thrilling work which has us all shackled to the desk today; and not surprisingly, in the midst of boredom and frustration, my mind is wandering...

Wandering back to the last episode of the latest season of Doctor Who (went to air here last Sunday, on ABC 1), which was deliciously crossed with Torchwood and a new show I know absolutely nothing about, but which seems to revolve around the inimical Miss Smith, her kid, the tin dog, and a supercomputer that sounds like a wine waiter.

It was very, very nice to see Captain Jack back: John Barrowman looking great, as always. One could have wished they had devoted more screen-time to the character, but the script called in so many guest stars, there's a limit to what can be given to any single character.

In the limited time he had available, Jack was very effective, and Cheers to all concerned for a great job. You really had to concentrate on this one, though; blink, and you'd lose the plot -- which makes me wonder how this show will go down with critics, esp. in the US, where the third segment of the PIRATES OF THE CARIBBEAN trilogy was apparently way to complex to be followed by the poor widdle dears viewing on the free critics' passes.

(Well, if you insist on continually running out of the cinema to take phonecalls, smoke, use the loo because you've drunk buckets of watery coke to wash down your wheelbarrow loads of popcorn ... you can expect to lose the plot of a complex movie; critics shouldn't blame a film for this. However, re: POTC3 ... they did!)

I haven't looked at reviews of the end of the latest DW season yet, but I suspect the less cerebrally gymnastic of the general media critics will be saying the end was incomprehensible -- NOT true. But you did have to know your Doctor Who inside out and upside down (they didn't stop for one second to explain who in the hell Davros is; did you notice that?) ... and you had to stay glued to the screen with both ears open.

Lastly, Americans and other non-British native speakers might have their work cut out for them, following the rapid-fire dialog which is delivered in regional accents -- David Tennant and Catherine Tate, both amazing (how they get their tonsils around that lot beats hell out of me), both very British, and both so fast, one is reminded of the line from Pirates of Penzance: "This particularly rapid, unintelligible patter isn't generally heard -- and if it is, it doesn't matter." Personally? I had no problem with the accents or dialog ... then again, I have almost as much family in the UK as I have in the US, am used to the dialect, and was prepared to give it benefit of my few remaining brain cells! I thoroughly enjoyed the show; and it looked to me like the actors themselves were having a blast.

Lastly, for today, since I haven't given an update on the progress of LORDS OF HARBENDANE for a week or more, it couldn't hurt to do that right now. The book is well along, and we're still looking at a release date of end-October, which is in good time for Christmas.

Galleys are being proofed at this time, and the cover is under design. The cover blurb has not been written yet, but I can give you the book in a semi-coherent nutshell: "Gorgeous Gay Hunks adventuring across a fantasy landscape, with battles, sword fights, horses, shamanic powers, savage tribes, barbarous enemies, a cast of thousands, some sizzling pages (!), a fully-detailed fantasy world which might astonish you, and a (gay) romantic streak at least foot wide." You know me by now!

We should have sample readings online in the next couple of weeks, and you'll be able to download a PDF right off the blog here. Later on, we'll do the full book launch on the blog, just as we did for AQUAMARINE. (Incidentally, many thanks to all who sent feedback on the new edition of that one. We labored long and hard on it, and the good work showed ... we hoped it would!)

And now, it's back to the grind: trying to figure out a way to make the same damned page design look good, and work properly, on screens, and resolutions, that are so different, it's like trying to design a cut of LORDS OF THE RINGS that'll look terrific on your Pocket PC. Oof.

If we do manage to get the new pages online today, I'll post again later -- a recruitment ad for test pilots. Till then (or till tomorrow),

Cheers,
MK

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

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?

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.

Unsung Heroes of the Event-Free Zone

Thank gods the Tour de France only has a week to go. I don't think I could stand much more of this ... it's unmittigated sadism. They used to call this torture -- forcing a person so stay awake, force-feeding them chemicals, such as caffeine, in a desperate attempt to keep the eyes open, because they keep the best part till last ... and it's invariably about two o'clock in the morning when the leaders zip across the line. By that time, these guys have been in the bike saddle for maybe six hours, and have slogged up mountainsides in the heat, the cold or the rain; they've fallen off and picked themselves up, ridden through hundred-degree afternoons, left their skin on the bitumen --

And they look a hell of a lot better than the poor buggers at home, we unsung heroes who make up the Viewing Public without whom the whole bloody event would be cancelled, because there'd be no one to watch the damned commercials!!!

(I debated about putting half of the above paragraph in captitals and then decided against it. Caps would make it look like I'm yelling. I'm not. I'm whimpering pitifully while trying to find the scotch tape. I'm going to need it if I intend to get any work done this afternoon, because my eyes are not going to stay open by themselves. Whimper.)

Today is a rest day for the likes of Cadel and Robbie and Simon and George and Fabian and about another 160 just like them.

Tomorrow is a rest day for Keegan: first day off I've scored in two weeks. I'm going to a movie. Last time I blogged about going to a movie, I didn't actually get the chance -- stuff happened, as it usually does, and my moviegoing activities were postponed. (I'd seen IRON MAN and the new Indiana Jones in the previous month, so I can't complain too much. I defiitely want to see the third MUMMY picture. And tomorrow, THE DARK KNIGHT.)

Incidentally, the new Indiana Jones is very good. If you read critiques to the contrary, don't believe a word of it. Some idiot said he wished the movie had not been made ... presumably because he can't stand to watch Harrison Ford getting older. That's fair enough. Ford is about 66 now, I think, and sure, he looks like Han Solo's father. Thirty years have gone by! What, a person should look the same after three decades of rough living? Ford hasn't exactly coddled himself through those years, and the truth is, he was showing the mileage a loooooong time ago.

(Interestingly, though, Brad Pitt doesn't seem to be showing the mileage at all. How the hell does he do it? He has to be mid-40s now, and there are photos where he looks younger than the missus, who's only 33. Damn.)

Anyway, it's THE DARK KNIGHT for me tomorrow, and I'll let you know what I think. I expect to like it a lot. (Then again, I also liked IRON MAN a lot, and subsequently read some genuinely stinking reviews of the movie, which sorta-kinda surprised me. Some critics can't seem to get one salient point through through skulls: it's a FANTASY! It was never going to be structured like MASTER AND COMMANDER: THE FAR SIDE OF THE WORLD, scripted like OUTBREAK, with acting performances like Russell Crowe in GLADIATOR. Movies like IRON MAN are strictly for fun. It'd be like tuning in to THE SIMPSONS and breaking your heart over the deeply-moving human drama that unfolded in the next 25 minutes, between the Coke, Pizza Hutt and Bigpond commercials. I would often love to tell some of these critics to 'get real,' but ... what do I know? I'm just a viewer, the poor nong who puts the money down to actually BUY the ticket.)

As you can probably surmise from the diatribe on movie critics, Indiana Jones and ... so on, this neck of the woods continues to be an Event-Free Zone. So I'll fall back on Plan A and put up some pictures. Australian pictures this time, since I did the Alaskan shots yesterday.

Same story: they're parked on Jade's Flickr account for sheer convenience (meaning, Keegan hasn't bothered to get an account yet, and might not be bothering, since it's so much easier to shoot the pictures to the existing account, and Jade doesn't seem to mind, so ... what the hey?) If you'd like to use a photo, just drop me (or Jade) a line either here, or at Flickr, or on the website.

Pictures, now...


Laden vines stretch away to the Barossa hills. Some of the best wines in the world are made in this part of the world ... not all of them. I'm admittedly biased because I'm from the southern wine-growing zone, but I actually prefer the McLaren Vale wines over the Barossa vintages...


Morialta is a deep river gorge a few minutes' drive from the city of Adelaide. It's a sort hike through to the waterfall (which actually flows in winter), and you think you've stepped back in time a million years. You wouldn't be surprised to be stalked by raptors. This shot was taken from the Giant's Cave, high in the cliff...


There you are, you see: we DO have fall colors in Australia ... just not many! Seriously, the native trees don't shed their leaves, so the foliage never 'turns,' but early settlers planted European trees wherever they went, and obviously these do change. (The only northern trees that don't do well down here are birches. They call them 'weeping birches' downunder, because they droop like weeping willows -- and you can't get anyone to listen when you say they're not supposed to.


Speaking of early settlers, this is the kind of structure they built. Of course, they originally built them with roofs and windows and everything. (!) This colonial ruin is probably Heritage listed. I think it's somewhere in the Scott Creek area, but the truth is, that's only a guess.


Yeah, yeah, okay, you were waiting for pictures of the beach. This is Australia, after all, and we're one BIG beach, we admit it. This one is south of Adelaide, at Silver Sands.


Also the sea shore, but not quite what you were expecting: the horse tram at Victor Harbor, which carries passengers over the causeway to Granite Island. This shot was taken (plus about 1000 others) on a winter's day. It's very cold ... which would suit the Little Penguins which are native to the area. Doesn't seem to bother the clydesdales, either.

Now, I gotta find that scotch tape ... or maybe duct tape...