Artistic Slavery

I’ll say it. It ought to be obvious.

Slavery is wrong.

And if it’s wrong, then justifications for it are wrong, including retaliatory enslavement. Or enslavement for a greater good. I’d argue that most cultures that engaged in enslaving others (and contrary to popular depiction, this includes a stunningly broad cross-section of cultures across human history and geography and includes cultures with no qualms about enslaving others of their own ethnicity) would have and continue to argue that the slavery is necessary for some greater good. This might be an economic advantage. It might be an effort to enlighten or raise up a less advanced culture through education and the sharing of new values.

Or it might be argued that slavery is necessary and proper in order to elevate an underrepresented or historically marginalized group.

Which is what is happening with Hollywood. Hollywood is being enslaved towards an ostensibly higher purpose. Not everyone is handling the enslavement as quietly as their enslavers would like.

Hollywood is being enslaved to tell certain stories and utilize certain actors and actresses to tell those stories. New rules by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences set to go into effect in 2025 are the means of enslavement. Failure to do so automatically disqualifies a film for consideration of an Academy Award for best picture. No matter how good a movie might be, if it doesn’t have a minority lead character or a cast comprised of at least 30% of a pre-defined minority group making up the general cast, the movie won’t be considered for the coveted award.

Ostensibly this is to reflect the fact that movies are global merchandise now. Or, if you want to use fancy, artistic-speak, “The aperture must widen to reflect our diverse global population in both the creation of motion pictures and the audiences who connect with them.”

Are any other global studios being placed under such slavery? Are Bollywood Awards now mandated to include non-ethnic Indians under threat of disqualifications? British-made movies? In other words, is this a universally recognized, necessary slavery, or simply the arbitrary enslavement of US-made movies?

On the flip side, arguably what makes American films popular around the world is that they are American films. This means that oftentimes the characters will be overwhelmingly American-looking, which historically has meant Caucasian. Certainly the demographics have shifted a lot in the US in the last 100 years so that to have non-Caucasian American characters is appropriate. But to mandate it? Hmmm. And at what point, when whites are minorities in the United States, will they be included in the list of approved minority groups?

I wouldn’t hold my breath waiting on that update.

Some argue these new rules really won’t have much impact on best picture contenders because already such films typically utilize minority actors and actresses or tell minority stories. Either that means Hollywood is voluntarily shifting towards a shared set of values, or it is succumbing to less formalized media pressure. Given that Hollywood is motivated increasingly by profit rather than artistic aesthetics, if these values truly are real with real dollar implications, Hollywood shouldn’t need to be enslaved. It will run after those dollars full tilt.

Logically, Hollywood won’t be the only slave.

How long until writers are told their stories will not be considered for Pulitzer Prizes unless they meet a particular ethnic or minority group count? At least 30,000 lines have to deal with a minority group or character? What about painters and sculptors? No National Endowment for the Arts awards unless their images are of minority groups or individuals or stories? And let’s not leave out music. Since we can’t see, either on film or in the descriptions of an author, whether there is minority representation, do we simply say conductors and lyricists have to be from minority groups in order for the work to be considered for a Grammy or an Oscar?

Slavery is wrong. Justifying slavery towards a greater cause is hardly novel and, in the lens of history, will be judged just as harshly as physical enslavement was in the past.

Nerding a Bit

I guess if I’m not to be proclaiming from the pulpit our Lord’s birth and how our celebration of that should be a pointed reminder that He’s coming back and that’s what we should be waiting for every day, I can at least geek out a bit regarding the winding and complicated nature of evil that is never so simple or isolated as we’d like to think.

For the Tolkien fans out there, a consideration of perhaps Peter Jackson’s biggest failure in his overall magnificent film adaptation of The Lord of the Rings.

Watching Netflix

I’ve watched very little Dave Chappelle. A few YouTube clips at most. I don’t have a feel for his comedic style or where he might be coming from in life. The little I know about him is just that – little. So I don’t have opinions or perspectives on the controversial material that has thrust him into the spotlight again. Opinions and perspectives expressed in comedic observations, but which directly conflict with or challenge the prevailing championing of transgender issues.

This has earned him the ire of those who once felt he was on their side. A small group of Netflix employees have demanded Netflix remove the show. Netflix has thus far refused to do so, claiming it supports the creative license of content producers, and noting that Chappelle’s work as a whole has been some of the most widely viewed material Netflix has produced. No official word on whether this latest offering from Chappelle, entitled The Closer, follows in that lucrative and widely viewed path.

Personally, I wonder what Chappelle is up to. Either he’s boldly taking a stance contrary to the currently dominant vocal minority, or he’s orchestrating a larger-scale comedic event, where he’ll reveal at some point down the line how he was trolling those folks who cheered his countercultural stance. In the long run, I’d argue that it doesn’t matter.

What does matter, and what we should all be watching for carefully, is whether Netflix caves to that strident but very, very small minority of voices within the company insisting Chappelle’s show should be removed because it conflicts with their personal opinions and ideologies. The rest of Hollywood appears to have mostly caved to such voices long ago, and set about dutifully creating content that supports and encourages the sorts of lifestyles and world views championed by this minority. Upcoming new releases include a son-of-Superman comic line where the titular character is bisexual. Another includes a reboot of the awful 80’s horror franchise Child’s Play, this time serialized on cable channels and involving the main character (other than Chucky) just figuring out he’s gay.

Certainly there are a few voices like Chappelle’s willing to challenge this tidal wave of gender confusing material aimed squarely at children and adolescents ill-equipped to make healthy sense of it. But those voices are few and far between, or at least sparsely covered. When they are covered countering opinions overwhelm the actual material the article is allegedly about.

How ironic that those who champion inclusivity and diversity are adamant that any voice out of step with their own ideologies should be silenced. That was one of their complaints when other voices were reflecting or directing our cultural opinions.

What’s at stake here is creative license, to be certain. The reality is that approval and assent to gender and sex redefinitions is nowhere near unanimous. The minority of liberal voices seeks to create the appearance that their views and ideas (which are always in flux) are the majority view. If contrary material is made available to the public and is commercially successful it will demonstrate this is not the case, threatening the control these voices now exercise.

I commend Netflix. Not for their ideology necessarily, but for being a company instead of an ideological power. Their job is to create content and earn money for doing so. The market determines whether they continue to produce certain kinds of content. I don’t personally like slasher films like Child’s Play, nor am I much of a fan of most comedians today, Chappelle included. The question is whether people should determine what is produced by spending their money on it, or whether companies should determine what people like by only producing a certain kind of material.

So far the latter approach is holding sway, and I believe history will judge that trend harshly – both as a business model as well as a sociological movement. In the meantime, be aware of what your kids and grand-kids are watching, and don’t be surprised if they come to some conclusions about the world and right and wrong that are starkly different from your understandings and beliefs.

Movie Review: Signs

I enjoyed M. Night Shyamalan’s The Sixth Sense when it came out, but it never created a burning desire in me to see all of his films. And so I didn’t. This is no doubt not a reflection on his work but rather my somewhat tepid response to movies in general. So the wife and I sat down to watch a movie the other night and opted for Signs.

The movie is 18 years old now, but I don’t intend any spoilers regardless. The film is essentially a discussion of faith. Not a specific faith, though a thin veneer of Christianity is displayed but not articulated as anything more than the most gossamer of realities. It’s a typical Hollywood understanding of faith and, frankly, a typical Hollywood understanding or caricature of Biblical Christian faith.

A faith that can drive a man into ministry, (in this case, presumably the Episcopal Church since the main character was a priest but was also married and has children while people still refer to him as Father). But a faith that can be rejected and tossed aside by tragedy. A faith that can turn to bitter dust when suffering comes and steals what we value. Frankly, perhaps it is an accurate description of many people’s faith, which is sad and frightening.

Regardless, the main character when we meet him is no longer a priest, a backstory gradually brought out through the length of the film. His lack of faith – or perhaps his desire to push God away and keep him at arm’s length – runs through the entire film, surfacing occasionally in more explicit moments. He is angry with God.

Despite this very Christian context, the film is devoid of Biblical Christian faith. God is apparently here to ensure our personal happiness, and if He does not do so in the way we would like him to, He deserves our anger and rejection. Only if God redeems himself by making it up to us – and also by getting through out thick skulls and blindness so we actually see what He’s doing – does He become worthy of our love and service again.

All of this wouldn’t be so irritating if it weren’t really the fundamental story of the entire movie. The movie is an interesting character study, and it’s primarily a character study, not unlike many stories by my favorite author, Ray Bradbury, or the television series The Twilight Zone. However in a two-hour movie I hope for something a bit deeper than what a short story or a 20-minute television show can provide, and I feel Signs falls short on delivery.

Let’s talk about the life of faith and the challenges of life which can lead a Christian to despair or to anger with God. But let’s do so with more nuance and depth than a missing crucifix on a wall or a worn or unworn clerical. A bit more Job, actually. There’s a real discussion of what faith looks like and how it struggles amidst the suffering in this world. That would make the payoff of movies like this even more powerful, and more than just popcorn fare.

It’s not a bad movie, and much more qualified cinema experts agree. Perhaps that’s what drove Mel Gibson to switch sides of the camera to direct a film showing a far greater Biblical depth. Certainly in light of Gibson’s much chronicled personal demons, it’s something he’s well-qualified to enact, and a more powerful reminder of how great the love of God in Jesus Christ is.

Movie Review: Bill & Ted Face the Music

Bill & Ted Face the Music

I’ll assume you’ve seen the first two movies, or don’t care to and are going to skip this post all together. I’m not going to bother plot summarizing the other two, and there may be a spoiler or two in here. It’s OK if you aren’t interested. I’ll write something else before long.

But if you have an interest….

I think the major problem with the series of films is the characters and the premise can’t support the scale thrust upon them in the latter installments. Excellent Adventure works because the scope is plausible. Pass a history class with an epic presentation. It’s something these two goofballs can handle – just barely. But with Bogus Journey and now in Face the Music, both characters are unduly weighted beyond their capabilities. Defeating an evil genius and saving all of time and space is just too much for the basic concept to carry, and it shows. There are great moments, to be sure, but the movie could be equally compelling with a plot line of much more believable scale. This latter installment could just has easily have focused on saving their marriages to the Princesses without all the other heavier stuff. Most of the movie could be unchanged.

This movie does a good job of making the characters age-appropriate. Bill & Ted are a lot older now, and it shows. Not just in the lines in their faces, but in the grunts and groans that accompany every landing of their time-traveling phone booth. You can feel their angst and the disappointment of apparently not having achieved their purpose in life now that they’re in their 50’s. Life is good – very good. But there’s still the need for something further to be accomplished, the race against the clock is literal in this movie.

The daughters are a touching addition to the movie. Not a necessary or even compelling one, but a great update to the franchise as well as a continuation of the storyline left off in Bogus Journey. And most incredible of all in this strange little alternate universe of sorts, the film completely avoids any sexual issues or situations that otherwise are standard fare in nearly every modern movie. Bill & Ted are happily married to the Princesses, who are more or less happily married to them. Nor are the daughters used for sexual tension of any sort in the film. As the dudes comment in Bogus Journey, there is a chasteness that pervades this franchise, aside from a few innuendos mostly in the first film.

Of course, people have to look for this kind of stuff, as the author of this article in the New York Post. He insinuates homo-eroticism in the guitar riffing the dudes do when they’re exceptionally happy. He also takes time to criticize the homosexual slur in Excellent Adventure. He ponders how really innocent or happy these two can be if they are apparently exclusionary of homosexuals. I imagine the same critique could be leveled at those who use the slur Trumpers, or liberals. The fact our denigrations are ideological these days hardly implies an advanced moral state from 30 years ago.

This reviewer takes a swipe at Bill & Ted’s “unusually close” relationship to their daughters, an interesting commentary on what is expected from fathers (or not expected). It’s obvious the fathers and daughters share a love of music as well as a mutual love and respect that is so unadorned and honest it’s nearly breathtaking. Their mutual encouragement to one another is beautiful, and it’s a shame if that’s now acknowledged as “unusual”.

Could the movie be better? Of course. As I mentioned earlier, scaling back the drama significantly would be a huge help. The ending is somewhat anti-climactic, but what ending wouldn’t be after a 30-year wait? So ditch the saving space & time plot – it’s overwhelming. Ditch the sub-plot about time-traveling wives as well – it’s unnecessary and never has time to play itself out in a way that is either amusing or helpful. Frankly you could ditch the daughters sub-plot as the use of the musicians seems somewhat superfluous. As this reviewer notes, the long-sought after song isn’t all that great. I think it would have been just as effective to end the movie just as they’re about to start playing, knowing the world is saved, and so the song itself – as it was in the previous two movies – is really a secondary issue. This could also remove the inexplicable presence and focus on Kid Cudi, that completely eludes me other than that he was apparently willing and available to join in this segment. While the assassin robot was somewhat humorous at times, he seemed a rather frail sub-plot that could have been done without. Or maybe eliminate Kid Cudi to give the robot a bit more screen time.

The scenes with the marriage counselor are great and could easily have been expanded as a larger running gag through the film. I’d have been much happier with more run-ins with alternate Bills and Teds, and the hell sequences could have been shrunk down to focus in just on the reunion with The Grim Reaper – which was definitely one of the highlights of the movie.

As a commentary on growing older, I’ve definitely seen worse. There’s acknowledgment of the challenges of life, of finding fulfillment – challenges that exist despite wonderful spouses and children. If Reeves better conveys a weariness with the passing of time and the efforts to accomplish something meaningful, Alex Winters does a good job of channeling the inner youthfulness he naturally exuded in the first two films. It’s a reminder there should be some sort of balance between who we were when younger and who we are as we mature and grow older. But this film isn’t really about a wistfulness for youth. It isn’t a pining to relive the glory days, but an angst about being or becoming who Bill & Ted are supposed to be, and more specifically, accomplishing one single thing that makes all the difference.

Overall this film exudes an optimism just like the earlier two. A reminder that it isn’t how smart you are that makes a difference, but what kind of a person you are. There’s great hope that Bill & Ted will remain the good-hearted goofballs and bestest of friends status they’ve always been, and that their wives will continue to love them and their daughters will find their ways in life beyond the shadows of their father’s obsessiveness with a song.

I could foresee one more installment in this series – one that coincides with Bill & Ted’s retirement from whatever they occupy themselves with for the next 20 years or so. I’m happy to discuss script possibilities if anyone’s interested!

Good, Old Fashioned Fun

Our age of cynicism and snark has rendered the concept of innocent fun almost painfully out of date. When we’re constantly suspicious of everything and everyone, when we’ve learned that technology is better at deceiving us than enlightening us, and when the media seems to compete at informing us of the failings of anyone of any note, how do you relax and just be silly and have fun? How do you appreciate cleanness in a culture that assumes any real enjoyment has to be at least moderately dirty?

I remember my shock and disappointment the first time I ever went to a comedy club. Before the Internet age where everyone can know what’s happening anywhere, comedy clubs held a kind of special mystery for me. What a fantastic concept – a place dedicated to making people laugh? That was before I learned firsthand about overpriced drink minimums and the apparent understanding that profanity equaled creativity or comedy. I’ve never been back since.

But the reality is that our culture and the ever-connectedness of the Internet affects most people to some degree. We can’t avoid it. It’s literally the definition of culture, something we’re immersed in and have a hard time separating ourselves from it because we’re conditioned by it. A good measure of this is to watch things from a long time ago – and your age will determine what that length of time means specifically to you, but I’d suggest at least 35 years ago, as a good starter. If you have kids, then sharing with them things you enjoyed as a younger person is a particularly effective – and often painful! – exploration of changes in culture.

So it is I’ve introduced my kids (and wife, really) to an some old friends from my younger years – Bill S. Preston, Esquire and Ted Theodore Logan. Together they have a most Excellent Adventure, only to subsequently endure a most Bogus Journey. But, now it’s finally time for them to Face the Music.

These are unlikely characters for me to have a fondness for. They’re nothing like me now nor were they anything like me back in the day. Although I fancied myself for a brief period of time a laid-back sorta California guy, it was less than a half-hearted persona. And I could never very convincingly pull off the energetic, good-hearted idiocy these guys are endowed with.

But I realize in retrospect how amazingly clean these movies are compared to much of comedy today that relies on technology or sarcasm or profanity and explicitness to grab the audience. My family has watched the first two films with me. I only really remembered the first one as I found the sequel to pale in comparison. And it does still. But it maintains much of the fresh-scrubbed earnestness of the original. It also utilizes some slightly rougher language than the first one, but nothing compared to what you find today in even PG-13 films.

Equally impressive is the commitment the actors have to their characters and the concepts as a whole some 30+ years later. As the third installment of the series opens in theaters, I’ve appreciated the way the actors protect and cherish the two good-hearted but dim-witted characters they played as much younger guys.

For instance Keanu Reeves – who I would never have guessed would be the one to go on to superstardom – has recently clarified the two characters are not stoners. They aren’t slow-witted because of drugs. They aren’t the sharpest knives in the block but they know who they are, they are committed to their friendship, and they are committed to their dream of achieving fame through their rock group, Wyld Stallyns.

Two good friends who want to make music together. Their naivete is painful at times. They’re misunderstood by those around them who are more worldly-wise (Ted’s dad, most notably) and who assume their simple natures will end in failure. But if you’re happy with who you are and you have a good friend and you enjoy being together, can your life really be called a failure, even if you aren’t rich?

I haven’t seen the latest installment but I look forward to it, in no small part because it’s rather a miracle this film has been made and neither of the lead actors really needed to do it, so hopefully early reviews are accurate and they’ve held out for a story that stays true to the characters and the style already established. But at the very least, it’s been nice to reminisce a little bit about a time when you didn’t need to be rude or drunk or stoned or naked in order to have fun. I trust that’s still true today for many, many people. I just wish we had more movies about them.

Movie Review: The Old Guard

I enjoy Netflix for making a broad variety of movies accessible for a reasonable price. I lament the variety doesn’t seem as broad or deep as it did years ago, but the streaming industry is certainly subject to the same shifting landscape of technology and ownership as everything else.

I’ve watched a few of Netflix’s movies, but not many. Perhaps like others my age and older it seems like these would pale in comparison to real movies produced by real studios that have been doing this for close to a century. The reality is that this isn’t necessarily true, and Netflix is capable of putting together a movie with big name stars that is pretty much indistinguishable from a movie released by a big name studio.

I just need to get with the times.

The Old Guard piqued my interest for blending action and supernatural elements. A small coterie of immortal warriors fights for survival against a very predictable big-pharma mad scientist while trying to integrate a fledgling member. Charlize Theron headlines a group of earnest actors with characters no less memorable than her own.

It’s a story full of cliches. Some are traditional, like the mysterious, battle-harded leader Andy who is a swirl of unknowns despite knowing her troops for centuries. Some are less traditional, like the forced highlighting of homosexual relationships and the insistence on women as the movers and shakers of the future (and in this case, the past). All of the characters are two-dimensional. The plot is predictable to a fault. There are no surprises.

All of which are faults most big movie productions suffer from. I think they’re accentuated here by the uncertainty of whether this is a stand-alone movie, a setup for a franchise, or the pilot of a Netflix series. Frankly, it would function best as the latter, which could have removed some of the awkward stabs (ha!) at character development. The actors and actresses are all fine, but severely limited by the script.

However the action sequences are pretty well-executed. None of the cheesy special effects and cheap CGI of, say, a Sci-Fi Channel production. A good (if somewhat strange) combination of modern combat technique as well as less ballistic fighting skills. It makes sense for the characters but it seems a bit unrealistic.

But far the more unrealistic major flaw is the combination of both pervasive technology and a complete disregard for it. A world in which tech is everywhere but professional warriors don’t know enough not to bring along a commercial cell phone that would easily allow people to track their whereabouts. Or the idea of pulling up to the curb in a busy downtown London highrise area with no other traffic or pedestrians around, to conduct a daring and explosive (literally) raid before disappearing again seconds before authorities and civilians arrive to gawk. It would have been far more believable if they had kept the action to more exotic (and less tech-infested) locales as it’s really distracting how ludicrous this setting and execution is.

The ending definitely sets up a sequel or a series, though frankly either one is really superfluous. There doesn’t seem to be many places for a sequel or series to go, beyond resolving a subplot reintroduced rather miraculously at the (literal) last second. Frankly most of the ending seemed rushed and superfluous. Not like there was much doubt how it was going to end.

Staying Sane

As people deal with shelter-in-place orders and social distancing, here are some interesting options for staying sane both individually and as a family.

Here’s a list of movies suitable for watching among multiple generations of adults.  I can vouch for The Two Popes as a worthwhile watch.  Our family has also (previously) watched The Hundred Foot Journey, and were not as thrilled with the overall quality of the movie despite a few good moments.  The Shawshank Redemption is one I only recently watched and found to be deserving of the accolades it has collected over the years.  Likewise Raiders of the Lost Ark is a great family classic.  Romancing the Stone isn’t nearly as good in the adventure category, and goes for some more sexual humor than Raiders does (although sequels to Raiders up the sexual innuendo substantially).  While it might sound boring, The King’s Speech is a phenomenal movie from an acting perspective.  As I remember, A Fish Called Wanda also has some sexual innuendo but also some stellar performances.  The Usual Suspects is one of my all time favorite films.

Perhaps you’d rather do some explorations in the real world?  Maybe a virtual trip to Disneyland would be a fun diversion?  Or if you’d rather wander farther afield, here is a collection of walks through various places in the world.

Farewell, Rutger

Interesting that there has been so little mention of the passing of actor Rutger Hauer.

He is most famous as the villain in the classic sci-fi movie Blade Runner.  His closing scene in the film is truly beautiful, and a testimony to his acting chops.  You can watch it – but only if you’ve already seen the film – major spoiler here!

I came to appreciate Blade Runner a bit belatedly.   Hauer will always be bound up in my memory with another film, Ladyhawke.  It could be that it’s an early film of Matthew Broderick.  It could have to do with the lovely Michelle Pfeiffer and those piercing blue eyes.  It could have to do with my personal preference for medieval settings and sword and sorcery stories.  It could be that I was young and it made a big impression on me.   It likely has to do with all of the above.

Regardless, the film is marred by one of the worst soundtracks I can think of, a terrible 80’s synthesizer fusion that doesn’t match at all the scenery or setting and is an awful distraction.  It’s unfortunate because the plot is a very good one.  And Hauer delivers a typically understated performance that still leaves you rooting for him.  It’s a shame his passing didn’t make more of an impression on the media.  But it’s a good reminder that fame is fickle and legacy is more often pursued than achieved.

 

Geekin’

If you grew up on Star Wars like I did, and have struggled (or given up trying) to appreciate the slew of films released over the last 19 years, you might enjoy this.  A really, really good fan film that tries and largely succeeds to incorporate over 40 years of franchise films into a five minute video.  Enjoy!