Frem Here To Awesome Festival
Advertisement

SpoutBlog on spout.com

  • Iron Man Makes Us Hard: SpoutBlog Week In Review

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

  • Tribeca Review: Sita Sings the Blues

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]


    Nina Paley’s Sita Sings the Blues is a strange and beautiful little film, a potentially wispy slice of autobiography smartly elevated through irresistible, orgiastic style. The 82 minute feature cross cuts between the story of the director’s own divorce with a loose retelling of the ancient Indian myth Ramayana, and we’re led back and forth between the two millau by three silhouetted figures who colloquially comment on the events in Indian-inflected English. There are also musical numbers, set mainly to songs by 1920s jazz siren Annette Hanshaw, which drop psychedelic Bollywood versions of the Ramayana characters into Busby Berkeley configurations. It’s an infectiously personal work, and all the more admirable as a work of animation meant resolutely for adults.

    An opening number set to department store bhangra gives way to modern-day San Francisco, where a pasty couple rendered in Squigglevision is awoken by their hysterical cat. This setting of domestic bliss is upset when the husband announces that he’s going to work in India for 6 months. The wife eventually follows, then returns to the States for work only to receive an email from the husband asking her not to come back. Meanwhile, Sita is kidnapped away from her beloved husband, the future King Rama, and when she returns, Rama believes she’s been unfaithful. Sita is banished to the forrest, Nina is banished to New York, and yet both women pine for the men who rejected them.

    Both Sitas are a distancing device, to inflate the filmmaker’s own heartbreak into something bigger than it is. That’s not a pejorative criticism––who hasn’t had moments where their own ennui seemed bigger than themselves, transcendent of cultural barriers, beyond style and oblivious to time? Still, this wouldn’t work as well if it does if not for Paley’s self-deprecating sense of humor. While Sita is confronting the gods, Nina is weeping in a roach-infested studio in Brooklyn. Real life may take after myth, but the myth is far less mundane.

    “If you want the rainbow, you must have the rain,” goes the chorus to one of Hanshaw’s songs used in the film, and that split between magic and gloom is the key to unearthing the substance within Sita Sings the Blues‘ ample style. The jazz interludes, delivered by Sita’s hyper-glamorous double and presented in the film’s slickest animation, sit outside the narrative but explicitly connect Nina’s modern-day angst to Sita’s ancient predicament. Each of these songs, and the many gorgeous but over-the-top animated musical numbers through which they’re delivered, are about the heart’s strange ability to revise history, to make us long for and celebrate someone who has treated us badly, to fantasize about being desired by someone who has run us into the ground. Sita Sings The Blues bounces all over the map, but it always comes back to that horrible melancholy of focusing on a rainbow whilst standing in the pouring rain.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Review: Iron Man

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    The ultimate male power one-man-show, Iron Man is less successful as political allegory than as sexual fantasia. Its most exhilarating moments are essentially pornographic: gadget porn, war porn, rehab porn (you don’t have to see the thing to know that the spiritual rehabilitation for the protagonist is supported subtextually by the actual rehabilitation of the actor who plays him), and porn porn. Each incarnation of Tony Stark’s super suit is sexier than the last, with the final model’s lovingly CGIed streamlined curves simultaneously suggesting hardness and touchability. Better still are the countless close-ups of Robert Downey Jr inside this metal womb, his face fixed in concentrated ecstasy as his hands ejaculate fire. Oh, whoops–spoiler alert.

    But of course, there’s no sex in this movie at all, beyond a cartoonish scene involving a minor character early in the film which really only exists in order to set up Gwyneth Paltrow’s one great joke. Paltrow, apparently drawing warmth from her strawberry blonde highlights, plays Tony Stark’s assistant/love interest Pepper Pots, and she never gets to consummate the constant sexual tension that she shares with her boss. Ultimately, that’s as it should be, because this isn’t a movie about sex as an extension of romance––this is a movie about the sublimation of sex into the battle for power.

    Yes, Iron Man eventually, single-handedly kicks terrorist ass, but it’s less an attempt to restore global order than a single score setting, a personal revenge. His real political battle happens at home. The final third of Iron Man, which consensus seems to suggest is the least satisfying, is given over to Stark’s battle with business partner Obediah Stane (Jeff Bridges). Stark’s weapons, designed purely with American global dominance in mind, have been getting into the hands of our enemies, and Tony wants to put a stop to it. Stane is like, “Uh, do you know what that would do to our bottom line?” But contrary to some interpretations, Iron Man is not against the proliferation of weapons at all. It’s against a morally bankrupt culture of accumulation which puts the greediest of Us in cahoots with the most evil of Them.

    And ultimately, the answer to combating Them is for Us to reestablish the link between mechanized killing and the body. Iron Man is never exactly anti-military, but it isn’t shy about pointing up the U.S. military’s impotence, especially in a number of scenes where commanders helplessly sit behind computer monitors, watching a conflict unfold outside of their control. Iron Man singlehandedly dispose of an insurgency that seems to have sprung up under the military’s nose but remains out of their control, and his technology allows him to do so with enviable speed and efficiency. There’s an amazing amount of propaganda in this film against the idea of unmanned weapons, of lives being taken by machines without a connection to a human fighting for recognizable values and taking personal responsibility.

    Others have noted a contradiction between Stark’s post-reformation insistence that his company stop selling weapons, and the fact that he proceeds to spend the rest of the film crafting The Greatest Weapon of Them All. But this contradiction is beautifully resolved in the film’s final scene, in which Stark, under his breath, describes his own iron-clad might as “fantastic.” He’s moved from CEO to worker, from beneficiary of the mechanized chain that produces the spoils of war to a single man capable of waging wars on his own, in absolute opposition to the morality-by-committee that’s sullied his name. This is terrifying, and fittingly, Stark doesn’t take this responsibility lightly––he’s completely in awe of it.

    Downey’s delivery of a line like this–both one-liner joke and philosophical statement of purpose––has been commented on much, and is worthy of comment, But this is also a spectacularly physical performance, and there are moments where it has more in common with certain Gene Kelly solo numbers than any superhero movie I’ve ever seen. There’s a lot in Iron Man that doesn’t exactly work––most glaringly, it has trouble building momentum across three acts that are wildly disparate in narrative purpose and tone––but watching Downey act, by himself save for the company of holograms and machines, is absolutely awe inspiring.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • CG: Death to Imagination

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]
    Under discussion:

    Jurassic Park  (1993)

    Labyrinth  (1986)

    The Hulk  (2003)

    Spider-Man 3  (2007)

    When I saw the title of Olly Richardson’s rant on The Empire Blog asking if CG has killed our imaginations, I presumed he meant filmmakers’ imaginations and how special effects are less creative when done with the ease of computer graphics. But no, he’s really talking about our imaginations, meaning me and you and everyone we know. I’d never given it too much thought, but maybe modern audiences are really losing their ability to believe at the movies:

    We never used to be so picky. If somebody watches the original King Kong or any of the works of Ray Harryhausen, you will never hear them complain about how the skeletons were a bit jerky or that the big ape’s fur didn’t blow realistically when he was climbing the Empire State Building (if they do complain, however, you should feel free to shoot them on the grounds of wrongness and philistinism). You just watch the film, acknowledge that what you are seeing couldn’t possibly exist, admire the artistry it took to create it and choose to believe it anyway. That’s what suspension of disbelief is: ignoring the protests of your eyes and more logical parts of your brain in order to enjoy a good story.

    Yet I don’t think most complaints regarding the realism or believability of a film like The Incredible Hulk (which sparked Olly’s piece) is really focused on acceptance of the Hulk’s existence or even how realistic he looks in CG. It’s about believing a creature’s existence and tangibility within the world of the film and within the context of the filmmakers’ intentions.

    Ray Harryhausen effects were featured in a lot of movies that weren’t supposed to be taken seriously. Today’s blockbusters, however, come with the pretense that they contain more realistic effects. Otherwise, they would just use cell animation and puppets like they did in the old days. Speaking of which, part of the problem is that characters like Yoda and the Gremlins (look at that BT ad to see how puppets are still excellent) were already truly realistic more than 20 years ago, because they were made from real, tangible substances, and were able to be accepted within the worlds of their films.

    Meanwhile, a film like Labyrinth, in which the puppets and animatronics look more like puppets and animatronics than real breathing creatures, is still fine because it makes no claim to be anything but what it is. But ever since Jurassic Park, we’ve come to put up with a Hollywood that wants us to buy every little CG thing as photo-realistic. At least Olly acknowledges the present conditions:

    We’ve now arrived at a place where technology is capable of producing something so photo-realistic that if we can detect a small patch of skin that doesn’t fold in the right way or an eye that fails to glint with emotion, we cry foul and declare what’s on screen to be ridiculous and unbelievable. I’ve done it myself, huffing through Spider-Man 3 about the fact that the giant man made of sand just didn’t look like a real giant man made of sand. I base this complaint on precisely no experience of giant men made of sand, just a belief in what he should look like. Apparently my vision contrasted with those of the vastly more talented and able people at ILM (or whomever created it). So, why have we become so demanding? Why have our eyes taken over the job of filmic enjoyment from our brains?

    The issue is not with our visions not coinciding with ILM’s, though. That kind of thing was happening more than a 100 years ago to Verne fans watching a Melies film (and in 1902, they were believing everything on screen was real). And the belief of what a man made of sand looks like shouldn’t really vary too far from what an effects technician believes. Complaints about the detail and realism behind Spider-Man 3’s Sandman likely have more to do with where the effects guys cut corners and ended up failing to deceive our eyes.

    There is no way that Universal or director Louis Leterrier mean for the Hulk in their movie to not look realistic and tangible. Not after the criticisms against Ang Lee’s The Hulk. So, yes, fans do have a right to scrutinize the reboot for not looking any better, and it has nothing to do with a lack of imagination or ability to suspend disbelief. They could easily just go and read another Hulk comic or even watch the ’70s TV show, which may have been totally cheesy but at least had a palpable character in simply using a green-painted bodybuilder.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • New Hancock Trailer Includes Too Many Familiar Plot Points

    1 out of 1 people found this review helpful. [What do you think?]
    Under discussion:

    Ghostbusters  (1984)

    Superman III  (1983)

    Hancock  (2008)

    I’ve been on the fence about Hancock from the beginning. Sure, it’s a Will Smith blockbuster and it co-stars Jason Bateman, both typically prime selling points for me, but it also seems a bit one-note and silly. Upon first hearing about the concept of a drunken has-been superhero, I immediately thought about drunken Superman in Superman III. After seeing the teaser trailer, I felt the exaggerated special effects (including the rather funny whale toss) were a little too over the top.

    Now comes a full trailer (Quicktime version here) that reveals a lot more action and a lot more plot points. The former seems to have everyone on the Internet suddenly more excited about the movie. But what about those new story reveals? Aside from the usual problem of giving too much away, the trailer exposes the overdone concept of a world without its under-appreciated hero(es) — think Ghostbusters, any one of a thousand comic book titles (the hero is in jail, or half-defeated, or in an alternate state such as in Superman III) — and makes it seem as though screenwriters Vincent Ngo and Vince Gilligan based the rest of the movie around that single, simple recycled idea.

    Of course, mainstream moviegoers like familiar concepts, so the trailer should work in that regard. And it’s interesting that Sony isn’t actually revealing too much of the plot, since we still haven’t seen any indication of the storyline involving an affair between Hancock (Smith) and the wife (Charlize Theron) of his new PR man (Bateman). In fact most moviegoers are probably wondering why Theron seems to have such an insignificant role.

    Anyway, it seems the buzz on Hancock is building quickly today thanks to the new trailer, which means most people are responding differently than me. I can’t remember the last time I saw a movie’s anticipation level rise so suddenly. Here, a sampling of quotes from the newly excited blogosphere:

    • Empire asks: “Is this summer’s surprise super hit?”
    • John at The Movie Blog says it clearly: “I have to admit that my interest in this movie went from “That looks ok” to “Holy shit! How many days until this comes out??” in less than 3 minutes.
    • Eugene at Cinematical highlights the appeal of the movie’s “focus on what it’s like to be a superhero not in a universe where you can do whatever you want, but in the American bureaucratic state.”

    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

  • Miley Cyrus, Underwear Ads and Disney’s Denial-as-Business Model

    Was this review helpful? [Be the first to tell us!]

    The New York Daily News reports that just days after Disney tried to shame Vanity Fair and photographer Annie Leibovitz for releasing a photo of tween Disney Channel sensation Miley Cyrus wrapped in a bed sheet, it’s been revealed that the company is selling Disney underwear in China via billboards that show adolescent models wearing even less. A Disney spokesman claimed the Chinese ad “has caught us totally by surprise” –– which seems about as credible as the suggestion that the company had no idea what was happening on Leibovitz’s set. The shock shouldn’t be that Disney is selling sex; the shock should be that Disney is not only feigning shock, but that they’ve turned feigning shock into a business model.

    Earlier this week, Stu Van Airsdale at Defamer tried to deflate the hysteria (or, depending on your perspective, stoke it even more) by suggesting that the Cyrus photo does nothing more than speak to a truism of our culture: “teenagers ****.” “Disney can tell Annie Leibovitz no,” Stu wrote, “And a few hundred million dollars’ worth of Hannah Montana franchise decline will only illustrate how quickly the company would have interceded had it had the chance.”

    But of course, it’s not that simple, and if Disney actually loses any money from any of this, I’d be seriously surprised. A Disney corporate policy has emerged, and its pure honesty is refreshing: You want to sell underwear to teens? Show teens wearing underwear. You want to sell a tween icon of repressed desire? Create a faux-scandal in which that icon is forced to apologize, atone for and make a big public show of repressing desire.

    Because Miley Cyrus isn’t just a Disney channel star in the mold of a young Hilary Duff or Britney Spears, who offered Disney-appropriate values with a wink-wink, which they summarily abandoned as soon as they hit voting age––Miley Cyrus has made millions of dollars by namedropping Jesus. More specifically, she’s sold the idea that Christian worship is compatible with all the other things teenagers like to do: shop, shop for inappropriate clothing, wear inappropriate clothing whilst dancing suggestively, and generally devote most of their free time to feigning sexual confidence without actually earning it. Yes, some teenagers ****, but most teenagers play-act sexiness long before they actually confront the scariness of Sex for Realsies.

    Disney understands that there’s money to be made from an update of the Catholic school girl, a role model who plays up a sexed-up image whilst reminding her fans that it’s all surface, that no matter how it might appear, she never goes all the way. And maybe Miley Cyrus goes all the way in really life, but if so, she should really keep that to herself for as long as possible––as the Saga of Britney has taught us, a woman who actually has sex is far less desirable than a raging ball of tease and restraint who can’t possibly take responsibility for her own sexiness. And that’s really the game that Disney is playing as well––they’re putting the sex out there, and then pretending like it’s happening magically, without their knowledge or consent. In some twisted way, it’s absolutely genius.


    Originally posted on:SpoutBlog

 

Like what you're reading?

Subscribe
Search
  Go

Browse previous
<May 2008>
SunMonTueWedThuFriSat
27282930123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
1234567


Categories
 


Advertisement