Quick thoughts on Inception...

So I just watched Inception nearly thirty years after its release (or so it would seem in some circles). The plot was predictable and kind of uninspired, but I do know that I want all future films to star Ken Watanabe, Joseph Gordon-Levitt (and Lukas Haas), Tom Hardy, and Cillian Murphy. Or James McAvoy and Michael Fassbender and the aforementioned 4-5 actors.

Tree of Life, Thor, and Gustav Klimt

As a welcomed break from all films blockbuster and lackluster, Lydia and I went to see The Tree of Life. Bizarrely, this is the second mention of yggdrasil in theaters as Thor deftly renders physics unnecessary with some folksy, religious descriptions about how all things are literally connected by the branches of the tree of life. Little did we know that Kenneth Branagh and Terrence Malick were making the same film using different source materials.

I'll only make one more reference to Thor before moving on to spend what could be possibly days talking about The Tree of Life and my desire to make a top ten list of Malick's films (he only has six to his credit if you don't count his student work). The stuff that Thor is made of is really quite simple. It's the comic book and Doris Day and Rock Hudson films. Everyone smiles, everything works out in the end, and it's all because of their plucky outlook on life.

For Malick I think there are two primary sources that feed into the creation of his film. The first one is Gustav Klimt's Tree of Life, which I think speaks to the film's sense of all things being connected. What is a joke in Adaptation about where to begin a story, for Malick is the big revelation about the interconnectedness of all things. Klimt's painting is perhaps the film zoomed out to capture everything in a single frame. As we zoom forward we perceive individual moments part of the larger whole. Malick conversely focuses on the branches (no, there will be no puns about forest for trees, etc.), and rarely gives us any clue that what we are seeing (until the end) is all part of something much larger. The sun, water, grass, dinosaurs, bb guns, and death are all connected and are all a part of some thing. In some reviews I think this is being misconstrued as an argument for religion and the existence of God, but Malick is more complex than that. This leads me to my second source.

The search for God is here more a search for the narrative of existence and our desire to put some order on all of the things that have happened. After all this isn't a story about the development from nothingness to man, but from nothingness to the death of a man. In this way I think Malick is borrowing heavily from the ideas and aesthetics (less heavily) of Andrei Tarkovsky, specifically Solaris (not Solaris or Sunshine). The camera pauses for long periods to study the movement of water, nebulas, and snakes which leaves you awestruck with the beauty of it all. For both directors, the point seems to be not to focus on the why and how, but on the is. Life is full of wonder, beauty, chaos and pain, but this is enough. We don't need to find out what lies beneath because the majesty of it all is on the surface. I think this also speaks to the voice-overs which are at times redundant, obvious, or incoherent. Ultimately, the attempts by the characters to provide some sort of insight don't actually provide anything. And with that, I will stop my insight and leave you be.

I just realized something

as part of my marathon community/packing session:

Abed's "My Dinner With Andre" outfit is a modified shirt/cardigan combo for adults:

______________

Edited by LN: I just discovered that I can edit your posts. I had no idea! I feel drunk with power. Think of all the terrible things I can attribute to you! And vice versa...







I'd like to think that the wardrobe inspired the episode. Dan Harmon was watching MDwA, and was like, "That guy is wearing a fine cardigan. Abed would look awesome in that cardigan." 

Okay, that's all. I won't edit anyone else's posts again.
-L

Wacky, all around.

Since Jessie found and Lydia forwarded that awesome clip from Cougar Town I thought I'd share this:

A Cougar Town - Community Metaverse

Also: are you people aware that people in Canada can't watch Hulu? THAT IS THE PRICE YOU PAY FOR UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE.

I knew it couldn't be perfect up here.

Though honestly? I predict Hulu will soon be replaced by something better with only one commercial per break because, you know, two commercials is on the way to being exactly like regular tv.

And that's bullshit you guys.

Wedding Movies 1: Something Borrowed

Jessie and I have resumed our semi-regular movie nights, and we have seen a series of weddings. I'm going to try to think of something brief to say about each of them. 

Something Borrowed is a dull movie, senseless and unconvincing, with almost nothing to recommend it. The best thing I can say about it is that it reminded me a little of a feeling I had when I watched The Switch, that this movie was the fraternal twin of a sadder, quieter movie I would have liked more (which is to say, at all). There were moments when I could imagine this was supposed to be a sort of bitter-sweet, sentimental, romantic movie that might have starred Barbra Streisand in the 70s. But then right away it gets back to g-rated wiener jokes and physical comedy.

It is in the first ten minutes of the movie that Rachel, played by Ginnifer Goodwin, has an impulsive, one-night affair with her best friend's fiance. What follows is a series of bad decisions, and there is no possible redemption for the unpleasant people who populate the film. John Krasinksi's Ethan is a fugitive from that better movie I was talking about, in which there are characters with human feelings, like compassion and humor. Apart from him, everyone is secretive and dishonest and heartless. As I watched, I could not envision a happy ending for the movie, but I was comforted to realize that I didn't particularly want a happy ending for any of the characters. I walked away asking a series of questions: Why do the country club parents prefer the party girl over the sensible lawyer? Why doesn't Rachel ever say to Darcy (Kate Hudson), "I was into this guy, and you knew I was into him, and you got engaged to him, and that's a kind of a betrayal."? Why does she like the pretty boy and not the much more interesting, funny, and decent Ethan? Why did the pretty boy get engaged to Darcy in the first place, when they clearly have no chemistry and no affection for each other? When in fact the only thing they really have in common is that they both enjoy betraying and ignoring Rachel? Finally, why, why, why does anyone expect me to believe that Ginnifer Goodwin is so unpretty that strangers would stare in judgment and disbelief at the sight of her with a handsome soap actor?

try not to throw up when you look at this hideous monster

p.s. I just remembered that Something Borrowed is a very famous and popular book I know nothing about. That's something it has in common with The Switch, although I have a feeling that the book Something Borrowed is not as much less cheerful than the movie as Jeffrey Eugenides' story is less cheerful than The Switch. I can't be sure, having not read either of them.

Bones vs Castle

Most people I know who watch Castle also watch Bones. In a way, this makes sense; both are hour-long murder mystery shows, available online. Both have smart strong leading women, and lots of gore. But I gave up on Bones a long time ago. Erica asked me, very reasonably, to explain the difference between them--I mean, the difference that makes me love the one and hate the other. Exactly what she said is this: "Remind me about the differences between Castle and Bones... cuz they usually have exactly the same murder scenarios." She's right, of course. And not only do they have the same plots, they are each other's top recommendations on Hulu--an indication that the list of people who watch both shows is not limited to Erica, Dave, and my mother. 

Becket vs Bones: creepy smiling contest

Both shows have sort of freaky-looking, excessively angular female leads who give oddly flat performances. I prefer looking at Stana Katic over Emily Deschanel. It is purely subjective, and you are allowed to disagree.

The male leads (both Joss Whedon alums, for whatever that's worth) are similarly...nope, there's just no contest here. Both are sort of rugged masculine dorks, but come on. No question, Nathan Fillion is as much better in every way than David Boreanaz as...well, as Firefly is better than Angel.

In many ways, Bones is more of a science fiction show than a detective/police show. It is full of implausible futuristic scientific devices, and most of the characters are scientists, not detectives. This does not automatically make Bones a worse show, but it sets the bar higher for certain things. Because Bones is so willing to toss around fancy imaginary technology, and break all the rules of the natural world, it should be much MORE creative, and instead it is, as E pointed out, pretty much the exact same murder mysteries.

Both shows have flat secondary characters, but Bones makes me scratch my head and make horrible, horrified faces at the TV much more often, with its bizarro notions of How Smart People Behave--Temperance Brennan often doesn't understand things about human behavior for comic effect then understands them perfectly in the next scene. Each of the minor characters has exactly two traits (smart and socially awkward; artistic and bisexual; honorable and sporty; young and psychoanalytical), and they rarely make it through a scene without mentioning each at least once.

Castle is not perfect either. The daughter character, who at first seemed more like a person than most teen girls on TV, has gotten more sappy and child-like in every episode. If the show lasts, in two more seasons, she will be Richie from The Dick Van Dyke Show.

this is what that would look like

Also, I don't particularly want the will-they-won't-they-sexual/romantic-tension to drag on for twenty seasons. Those relationships (and there are dozens of examples, in every genre of TV show) inevitably begin to feel insincere and manipulative.

Those are the two things I hate about Castle.These are things I hate about Bones:
1. Toyota advertizing is weirdly and unwinkingly integrated into the show
2. Bad science
3. Bisexual who marries a dude. (Note: I don't feel like tracking down the facts, but I think this plot took place on Bones during the same season when queer women chose to be with men on both House and Nip/Tuck. There should be a term for this, making characters temporarily gay for ratings. Like maybe, "Nielson-gay.")
4.Totally unbelievable gimmicky unresolved sexual tension.
5. Weird imaginary science, when the show never seems to think of itself as SF

I put Castle in the same broad category as Psych--it's a perfectly good show that is occasionally very witty. Bones tries too hard, takes itself too seriously. And while it might occasionally be interesting or even surprising, it's never witty.

  GoAnimate.com: Bones by lydia.nichols

Like it? Create your own at GoAnimate.com. It's free and fun!