Wednesday, November 23, 2011

On The Hunger Games

(Written by Suzanne Collins.) Katniss Everdeen is a survivor. She has cared for her mother and her little sister ever since her father died. Back when she was a little girl. Before near starvation and the need to hunt animals robbed her of her childhood. Now she has to survive the annual Reaping Day - the day where one boy and one girl between the ages of twelve and eighteen will be picked to fight in the Hunger Games. The "Games" where two people from each district of Panem, twenty-four "tributes" in all, will fight to the death. But Katniss's name is not pulled out of the glass bowl. Her younger sister Prim's is. So Katniss reacts like any protective, loving sister should - she jumps forward and volunteers to take Prim's place.

A reviewer quoted on the back of The Hunger Games declares that philosophy can be found within the pages of the book. Though all books contain some sort of philosophy merely because they have words put together in a (somewhat) meaningful manner, this book has a little more deliberately philosophical look at the modern world. Set in North America sometime in the future, it is a commentary on the way our culture seems to be heading - downhill. The good characters, while they don't stick to stereotypes, stick closely to an ideal that our culture, helped by feminists on the warpath, is speeding away from at an alarming rate. But this presentation of goodness is tempered with two searing attacks on evil.

The relationship between Katniss and Peeta is odd, but that is more a compliment than a criticism. With a strong heroine and a strange tendency to end male characters' names with an "a," The Hunger Games hinted that perhaps Katniss would end up saving Peeta, the main male character (I can't call him a hero yet because I haven't read the other two books in the series and he has a rival). Now, there is nothing wrong with the girl saving the guy, as long as it does not constitute an inversion of gender roles. That is, the heroine can save the hero through feminine means (wiles, love, etc.), but she should not save his life in battle through her physical prowess. But there is no inversion of gender roles in this book - just a switch in story roles. Katniss is definitely the heroine and the main character, with Peeta taking an unassuming spot in her shadow. But he is strong in his own right, and spends much of the book looking out for her. In fact, their relationship is refreshingly reciprocal, with each saving the other at different times and through different means.

Now to the depiction of evil. There are two noteworthy lessons in The Hunger Games; a lesson on an unhealthy obsession with beauty and youth, and a lesson on a large, overbearing government. First, the people in the Capitol - the ones who live high on the hog while the rest of Panem starves - are addicted to beauty and youth. People have countless surgeries to keep themselves looking young. They reject fatness as ugly, and have a strange, bright sense of fashion. (Picture Lady Gaga and you have a pretty good idea of what people in the Capitol think is beautiful.) There is almost nothing they can't do when it comes to personal appearance, and they choose to use the technology at their disposal to make themselves fit the ideal of beauty. But those who participate wholeheartedly in this idea are self-absorbed and, frankly, stupid. Caught in the cages of their self-absorption, the ones most obsessed with their appearances are those who are most clueless about what it means to be a good person. Thus, they are portrayed as shallow.

Second, the government, which is a threat to the people of Panem because of its power, is portrayed as evil. So many books and movies nowadays seek to pit the rich against the poor. Some of these stories even offer some form of government as a remedy to the inequalities of wealth. While the government can and should regulate society and the economy to some extent, it can become over powerful and oppressive. It is not the answer to all societal ills or even, I daresay, most of them. The Hunger Games embraces this idea and indicts both the rich, who live clueless, self-absorbed lives in the Capitol, and the government, which oppresses those in the twelve districts. Both the controlling government and the rich are portrayed as bad, but only the government is shown as a real threat. Now, I haven't read the other two books in the trilogy yet, so I can't guarantee that the end won't produce some rich businessman or other pulling the government's strings. But so far, at least, the government is portrayed more as a threat than a savior.

This isn't to say that the good characters are always good. Katniss makes a few questionable moral decisions, and some of the other good characters have definite flaws. But flaws allow for moral development in the characters - and sometimes the portrayals with the most contrast between good and evil rest in a character's realization that something he or she did was wrong.

In the end, the people are what matter to good characters in The Hunger Games. Katniss goes to what she believes is certain death in order to save her younger sister. Peeta nearly loses his life protecting Katniss. Even the odd Cinna, who designs Katniss's costumes for the opening ceremonies, is portrayed as good because of his obvious compassion for her. On the other hand, evil is sometimes portrayed as brutally violent, sometimes as subtly oppressive, but always as manipulative, cold, and self-absorbed. The Hunger Games asks and answers the question of what will happen if our culture continues to careen in the direction it is currently heading. The conclusion is not pretty, but it is sound.

My Rating: T (violence, sexual references, murky moral decisions)

Review of the second book, Catching Fire

Reviews of similar books:

Tuesday, November 22, 2011

Pertaining To Captain America: The First Avenger

Steve Rogers (Chris Evans) is an ordinary guy. Except for his asthma and other health difficulties. And his weight - about one hundred pounds, and he's a grown man. But the thing that really sets him apart is his heart. Far more courageous than he should be given his physical stature, he would do anything to join in WWII over in Europe. Even lie on his enlistment form, which he does with regularity only to be turned down because of his health. Then one day, Dr. Erskine (Stanley Tucci), a researcher for the United States military, offers Steve a chance to help his country. The little guy jumps at the opportunity. But when something goes wrong and he is relegated to selling war bonds and making propaganda movies, he thinks he may have gotten less than he bargained for.

This movie is awesome. The special effects are stunning (more so in the theater than on DVD), it's well-written, humorous, and has a sweet romance. The characters are not only likeable - they're lovable. It's also actually pro-America. But the thing I like the most is the old-fashioned feel.

The presence of World War II probably added to this feel. Setting the story in this time period helped to avoid the usual pitfalls of so-so modern movies: Dated jokes. There's also a simplicity in the story that hasn't been in any other superhero movies I've seen. (And I've seen twelve.) The good guys are genuine good guys (every one), and the bad guys are genuine bad guys (every one). The bad guy wants to conquer the world. The good guy wants to save it. So far, extremely simple and very much like a classic movie.

But what ultimately makes Captain America a throw-back is its similarity to the rousing speeches that heroes used to make in war movies. If you've seen a movie made about WWII during WWII you'll know what I mean. In the climax scene of every one of these movies I've seen, the hero is confronted by the villain. It seems as if all hope is lost. But the hero tells the villain that, while good has lost this battle against evil, evil cannot conquer good. That the Nazi agenda is too evil, too brutal to ultimately win. When one man goes down, three more take his place. When the stakes are high, someone or a group of someones step in and win the battle against evil, at least for a time. That is the final impression of Captain America. Steve is the only one who can defeat the Red Skull (Hugo Weaving), but his help is not needed to win WWII. *Spoiler Warning* Though he is lost to the world by the end, the Allies march on to victory against the Nazis. Evil has been defeated, but not for want of victories. That was the message of old WWII movies, and that is a message of Captain America. *End of Spoiler*

The first Iron Man movie is probably the best superhero movie I've ever seen. But Captain America is my favorite. Pro-America, lovable characters, well-written, cool, and with a sense of the old-fashioned, good ol' movie about it, it's a more familiar, sympathetic movie than Iron Man. Even better, the ultimate triumph of good over evil, though it comes with great cost, is clearly seen.

My Rating: T (violence, thematic elements, vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar movies:

Friday, November 18, 2011

Snow Whites and the Fourteen Dwarves?

Two Snow White movies in one year! Both have trailers, so I thought I'd write a few observations.



Mirror, Mirror with Lily Collins, Julia Roberts, and Armie Hammer



Snow White and the Huntsman with Kristen Stewart, Charlize Theron, and Chris Hemsworth

MM has by far the better actress for Snow White. I've never seen the Twilight series (and never care to), but I can say right now that I just don't like Kristen Stewart in the role of Snow White. Stewart's kind of "beauty" is purely fashionable - a pouty chin and not much else to recommend her. Her lips are "red as blood"? Her hair "black as night"? I don't think so. Plus, the story has had to be altered a little ("You are the fairest, but there is another destined to surpass you") because no one with eyes to see would think Kristen Stewart is fairer than Charlize Theron, the evil queen. On the other hand, Lily Collins has been given black hair, white skin, and red lips to fit with her character. Julia Roberts plays the queen as a convincingly (slightly) fading beauty who isn't quite as pretty as Snow White.

Unfortunately, SWATH looks like a far better fairy tale than MM. For one thing, MM looks like it has been hopelessly updated. The characters speak in modern language made harsher by their American accents. And changing it so that Snow White saves the prince? Not loving that idea. (Although, as an aside, the trailer seems to hint that this doesn't really happen.) In contrast, SWATH has a Lord of the Rings/Eragon oldness that I rather like. Additionally, though Snow White goes into battle, she still must be saved by the kiss. However, that retainment of the climax in the fairy tale also creates a contradiction in the movie. Why make her a "tough girl" if she's going to end up being saved by her man anyway? That only makes her look worse - she tries to be "tough" (read: like a man) and take care of herself, but she pathetically fails. Unless the kiss is before the battle, which would be completely anticlimactic and ridiculous.

Just as a footnote, the content in both movies looks borderline. For SWATH, I understand that someone obsessed with beauty (like the queen) would do some pretty evil and/or eyebrow-raisingly bizarre things. Like bathing in white liquid. Or stabbing a man in bed. Plus, I don't mind sexy content (within reason) as long as it is portrayed as bad. So the content in SWATH, though it appears not as good as I would like, is excusable. But the content in MM looks like it's supposed to be funny. It also looks like the movie will be marketed to tweens. (With that kind of humor? I hope teens and up don't think it's side-splittingly funny.) With both these elements, and MM may cross a line or two with its content.

*Spoiler Reflections* On Perception in Inception

Last week I wrote a post about the ending of Inception. Is it a perception that exists only in Dom's (Leonardo DiCaprio) mind, or does he really get back to his family? My conclusion was that he gets back to his family, although I admit the evidence is shaky either way. This week, I want to add a little footnote that was just enough out of place to be unfit for the post last week.

With the question about whether Dom is caught in limbo or not comes another question: Does it matter to him? In other words, does it matter whether his happy ending is real, or is it sufficient that he thinks it is real? The answer is: Of course it matters, stupid! Reality is always better than an illusion - Dom says so himself to his projection of his wife Mal (Marion Cottilard). She is only a figment of his imagination, and he rejects her because she is not his real wife. She is, in effect, a simplification of the real Mal, and nothing less than the real Mal will satisfy him.

The same principle applies to reality. A good illustration is The Matrix. Neo (Keanu Reeves) is convinced that he lives in the real world. He goes about his business, and is reasonably happy. But he knows there's something more. Soon he finds out that his brain has been hooked up to a machine, and, as he says, none of his memories really happened. It takes him a while to adjust to this idea, but he never questions that reality is better than the illusion he had been living.
So is a false happy ending better than a real tragic ending? No. It is better to know the reality than to live under an illusion. Sooner or later reality will come and hit you over the head, sometimes with unpleasant consequences. Besides, reality goes hand in hand with truth, and Truth is God. So it is always better to know the reality (at least of the things that really matter) than to be deceived, even by yourself.

The cleverness of Christopher Nolan is revealed in the way he handled the final scene of Inception. It evokes all sorts of questions, including the question of whether or not a happy ending that exists only in a character's mind is really a happy ending. But the ultimate irony is that the ending itself arguably exists only in the viewers' minds. Since none of us can really know how the movie ends, we can all draw our own conclusions. So Nolan took the idea of an ending that is perceived (perhaps wrongly) by a character and projected that onto the viewers. That is clever writing.

Tuesday, November 15, 2011

Concerning He Knew He Was Right

(Based on the book by Anthony Trollope.) Louis Trevelyan (Oliver Dimsdale) is a happily married man. He has a beautiful, spirited young wife named Emily (Laura Fraser) and an adorable son. But, as he tells his good friend Hugh Stanbury (Stephen Campbell Moore), marriage isn't always a bed of roses. In fact, Louis is very worried about his marriage. Emily's godfather Colonel Osborne (Bill Nighy) has been seeing a lot of her lately. He's known for dallying about with married women, and Emily is so inexperienced in society. Of course, Louis doesn't really suspect her of doing anything wrong. But then, Colonel Osborne seems to have a way with women...

Yes, the main storyline is incredibly depressing. Louis and Emily split very early in the four-hour movie, and Louis deteriorates as the hours march on. But this movie is made worthwhile by the side characters and the humor.

First and foremost comes Dorothy Stanbury (Caroline Martin), Hugh's sister. She's the sweetest, nicest girl one could ever hope to meet. To perfect her character, she's not particularly pretty. Beautiful women are all right in movies, but every once in a while it's nice to see one that is realistically nice-looking. There are other likeable side characters as well. Hugh comes to mind, and, to a certain extent, Emily's sister Nora (Christina Cole). Others, unfortunately, have too little screen time to make the list.

Then there are the funny side characters. Reverand Thomas Gibson (David Tennant) is absolutely hilarious. He's awkward and has no sense of humor whatsoever. Best of all, he's got a great propensity to get himself into bad situations, but no courage to get himself out. Equally funny are the sisters that both have their eyes on him - the French girls, Camilla (Claudie Blakley) and Arabella (Fenella Woolgar). Their scenes with him and with their mother are very, very funny. Then there's Miss Stanbury (Anna Massey), Dorothy and Hugh's aunt. She's a stiff sort of highly religious woman who likes to boss everyone around, but tends to make snap judgments about things.

The only downsides to this movie are: The somewhat unfavorable protrayal of religious characters, the main storyline, and a nerve-jangling American woman who pops up everyone once in a while. Ugh, just the thought of her painfully bad imitation American accent is enough to send even a strong-stomached person into a tailspin. I think the actress imitated a Canadian accent instead of an American one - I've seen a Canadian television show wherein some of the characters had similar accents. Whatever the reason, she does not sound like a genuine American.

Fortunately, with the exception of the main storyline, the annoying parts of the movie are fairly ignorable. The writing, costumes, and acting are wonderful, and so many characters are either likeable, funny, or even both. He Knew He Was Right is definitely worth the four hours if you are a British mini-series fan.

My Rating: T (marriage disintigration, thematic elements, child kidnapped by its father)

Reviews of similar movies:

Friday, November 11, 2011

*Spoiler Reflections* On the Ending of Inception

As I said in my review of Inception, the movie's ending is difficult to understand. It's rather like an abstract painting; any person's interpretation of the meaning is as valid as the next one's. (Oh, it's a bird. No, it's a plane. No, it's a big fluffy cloud with a man-eating lion on top.) In a nutshell, the main character, Dom (Leonardo DiCaprio), appears to escape from a dream state called limbo and make his way back to his children. But the viewer isn't sure whether Dom really makes it back. It's possible that he's still in a dream - that he has, in a sense, created a happy ending for himself. I've had a chance to watch the movie again, and I have some ideas about the ending.

The first things to consider in the dream/reality question are the elements that support the dream argument. These are most of the elements in the final scenes. Dom is met at an American airport by his father, who was in Paris the last time Dom saw him. Then Dom meets his children in his old home. The children are conspicuously the same age as the last time he saw them. Also, if I recall correctly, they are wearing the same clothes. These elements suggest that Dom is, indeed, in a dream built from his memories.

However, the last element in the final scenes does not suggest that Dom is in a dream. He spins the top on a table to see if he is in a dream, but he's distracted before he can see whether the top will fall over or not. The camera focuses in on the top as it spins, and it appears to wobble slightly (more in the sound than in the sight) before the picture cuts to the credits. This would indicate that Dom is in reality.

There is another piece of evidence that I think hints at his being in reality. Dom's employer, Saito (Ken Watanabe), coaxes him into taking on the last, difficult job by asking him if he wants to become "an old man, filled with regret, waiting to die alone." The word "regret" pops up later in the film, too, when Dom talks about the moments of his life that he regrets. Both times the word is bound up with the consequences of his choice to plant an idea in his wife's mind - an idea that caused her to commit suicide and separated him from his children. So, clearly, Dom's character is bound up in his regrets. But the song that is used by Dom and his crew to warn them of the impending end of a dream is entitled Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien. Loosely translated into English, it means "No, I have no regrets." This strongly suggests that Dom is in reality.

So does Dom get back to his children or is he trapped in limbo? It seems to me that the former is the more likely answer. Why else would Non, Je Ne Regrette Rien be used so often throughout the movie? And why else would the top begin to wobble just before the credits start? These elements seem harder to explain away than the question marks raised by the other elements I mentioned. Although, I could easily be wrong; Christopher Nolan obviously intended the viewer to remain in the dark.

Tuesday, November 8, 2011

In Relation To The Phantom of the Opera

(Written by Gaston Leroux.) Once upon a time, there was an opera house in Paris. A beautiful young woman namd Christine Daae lived and worked there ever since her father, a famous and talented Swedish violinist, died. When the opera passed to new owners and a new patron, Christine's breathtakingly beautiful voice was discovered and Paris sang her praises. Among her newfound followers was an old friend Viscount Raoul de Changy. His old feelings for her came back in a rush, and he was determined to marry her. But someone she called the Angel of Music was very displeased with Raoul's attentions. The Angel - or Demon - wanted Christine all to himself, and he was willing to do anything to secure her.

Since I read a version translated from the original French (and abridged - though nothing important was cut out; just flowery descriptions and pointless lines), I cannot comment on whether this book is particularly well written or not. But I can say that it's a good tale, if a bit unbelievable, and at least some of the characters are likeable.

First, the tale. The whole story pivots on the Phantom and his genius. He's a fabulous musician and a very clever inventor. At the same time, his inventions are a bit unbelievable. (For example, the Torture Room, though a clever concept, would never work. The tree, reflected in the mirror walls, would make someone think he was in a jungle. But the man's reflection would also be seen on every mirror. That, I would think, would keep him from losing his mind.) But then, the whole book has a flavor of surrealism, brought on by a very romantic flair and the permeating madness of the Phantom. Because of this, the unrealistic inventions and elements in the story add to the story instead of detracting from it.

Strangely enough, the term "romantic" certainly fits for the tale as a whole and the love between Christine and Raoul, but not for the central love story of the book. *Spoiler Warning* The Phantom's aching search for even a small expression of love is the ultimate point of the story. When he receives just a small gift of love, he is satisfied. Christine, in giving him her kiss and her tears, shows him that someone in the world cares for him. He finds that is all he ever wanted, and he lets her and Raoul go. This is contrary to the typical romantic idea of love, in which passion must be continually satisfied. *End of Spoiler*

In addition to the decent story, some of the characters are likeable. Christine and the Persian are both good characters. Both are honorable, both seek to help others more than themselves. Raoul's brother and Meg are also good characters, though they are in the book very little.

But Raoul is sadly a very pathetic character. Nearly always on the verge of tears, headstrong, and weak-minded, he is a very disappointing hero. Christine is the one who saves the day, and Raoul does nothing to help. In fact, he makes matters worse. Without Christine and the Persian, he would have died an ignominious death.

So, all in all, it's a fairly decent book. But Raoul's schoolboy (dare I say schoolgirl?) character pales in comparison to the genius and virility of the Phantom, who is the center of the tale. In fact, the Phantom's cold-blooded madness is the only thing that makes him less likeable than Raoul. Because of this, the book could never be better than just good.

My Rating: OK (horror elements, very vague sexual references)

Reviews of similar books or movies:

Friday, November 4, 2011

Untitled Blog Post

More pictures from the Snow White movie coming out next year! (Link to the movie's IMDb page here.)

Reasons for excitement: I love the costumes and overall look. The pictures almost look like illustrations from an old fairy tale book. I also loved Lily Collins in The Blind Side - she'll make a good Snow White. And - this is very important in a fairy tale - the hero looks absolutely gorgeous.

Reasons for dismay: While the whole "look" of the movie fits with the traditional Snow White template, it looks like there are some liberties being taken with the story. It seems as if Snow White will end up leading her troops into battle against the evil queen - when will Hollywood get tired of that story element? What's with this fascination with fighting female protagonists? And what about the kiss?

Reasons for curiosity: It will be interesting to see Julia Roberts as an evil enchantress. I've seen her in two roles (Tess in the Ocean's movies and Alice in Conspiracy Theory), and neither comes close to evil, much less enchantress. But I trust she has the grace needed for the enchantress and can muster enough coolness to pull off the evil part.

Tuesday, November 1, 2011

On Arch of Triumph

Dr. Ravic (Charles Boyer) is an illegal immigrant in France on the eve before WWII. Of course, Ravic isn't his real name. An Austrian who was imprisoned and tortured by the Nazis, he now spends his time helping other immigrants and avoiding the police. He stumbles across a nightclub singer named Joan Madou (Ingrid Bergman), who turns out to be a needy immigrant. The two embark on a love affair that can only end in tragedy when Ravic spots the man who tortured him in Germany. Now he wants to make sure that man doesn't return to Germany to torture others. The only way he can do that is to put him in a grave.

I apologize for the short post, but I'm running a bit short on time.

This movie is well-acted (particularly by Ingrid Bergman), fairly well-written, and pretty engaging. It's a bit weird to see Charles Boyer play an Austrian with his very heavy French accent. Also, Charles Laughton plays the evil Nazi - with a really bad "German" accent. Ah well, almost all movies have their foibles. This one's are apparently mismatched accents.

The foibles weren't the worst thing about this movie, though. The ending is horrible. No movie is good without a happy ending. I don't mean an ending that goes "and they all lived happily ever after." One of my favorite movie endings is one where literally almost half the characters die. At any rate, the ending to this movie is tragic. And that ruins what would otherwise be a pretty decent film.

My Rating: T (thematic elements, violence)

Reviews of similar books or movies: