Flight

Flight
seen @ Jamaica Multiplex Cinemas, Jamaica, Queens, NY
11.8.12

I don't think I've ever been really afraid of crashing in an airplane. The last time I flew was in 2007, and other than some trepidation during takeoff, which is probably natural, it was never a big deal for me. Flying is one of those things where you're quite conscious of how much trust is involved in the act. From takeoff to landing, so many things can go wrong, and while one can say the same thing about other forms of public transportation, with flying it's different because you're up in the sky, a state of being that is not natural for humans.

Given that, plus the amount of lives involved in the average airline trip, it's a wonder perhaps that more pilots don't get strung out on drugs and booze to maintain their nerve, as Denzel Washington's character Whip does in Flight. The movie makes a point of the fact that no one else could've landed that plane under those circumstances. But does the fact that Whip was high as a kite negate his heroic act?

This is a concept that has always interested me from a literary standpoint: how bad people can do good things, and vice versa. In fact, I had an idea for a graphic novel several years ago along similar lines - even got about a dozen pages or so into it before I decided I didn't like the story after all. At the time, the angle I came at it from was how hard it was to be "good" when one's natural inclination is to be "bad."

Whip makes no justification of his alcoholism in Flight; in one scene he goes on a tirade in which he repeatedly says that he chooses to drink and that's all there is to it. We like to think that "bad" behavior needs justification of some kind - one was abused as a child, one was raised in a bad neighborhood, one never had proper role models - yet sometimes, there is no rational explanation. I'm reminded of We Need to Talk About Kevin in that sense. Why was Tilda Swinton's son a bad seed, at least around her? Don't know. Why can't Whip choose not to drink? Don't know... and that makes it even more frustrating. Flight, good as it was, was also very difficult to sit through.

It's a terrible thing to say, but I've long suspected that we prefer living with our bad habits, whatever they may be and no matter how bad they are. I suppose it's simply easier, to some extent. I know I should watch what I eat more (and I try to, honestly), but it's easier to eat a cookie or two when the mood strikes. Overcoming those bad habits requires a conscious, and often forceful, act of will. This morning, while watching TV, I suddenly decided to do some exercises during the commercials. No reason, except I didn't wanna lay on the couch like a lump the whole time. I think I'll do that more whenever I watch TV. (Turner Classics is commercial-free, though; what'll I do then?!)

My question, though, is which is our natural state of being: indulging in "bad" habits, or exerting the will to overcome them? Which act makes us more human in the long run? I guess that depends on which side of the moral barometer you fall on. Any ideas?

Franchise fever

So the posters for The Hobbit are up around the city now, and I know I should be excited for when it comes out, but I just can't care enough about it. Partly because I never read the book (I never even finished the Lord of the Rings books), partly because I'm not that big a fan, but mostly because it means another three-movie investment. Three more movies, in 3D and IMAX and now with some newfangled 48-frames-per-second technology that's supposed to make for a better picture. I admit, that part intrigues me, though I don't know if it intrigues me enough.

Seems like most, if not all, genre movies these days have to be the foundation for a franchise. (And not just genre movies - are you ready for Magic Mike 2?) Keeping up with them all can be wearying, and I feel less inclined to do so now than in the past. Maybe it's a by-product of getting old and cranky and less tolerant of the same old bullshit, but I don't think that's all.

Naturally, some franchises will always have my loyalty, no matter what. I'll always turn out for any new Star Trek movie, for instance, and now that there'll be new Star Wars movies, with fresh creative minds behind them, I couldn't resist that if I wanted to. However, I only found the first Hunger Games movie decent, not outstanding, and I don't think I'd be that interested in more in that series; I'm definitely not that eager for more Spider-Man, and as enticing as the next X-Men movie sounds, my loathing of the previous one doesn't inspire much confidence. Why?

Part of the reason is financial - movie tickets aren't getting any cheaper - but most of it is simple boredom, even for a mega-franchise like Avengers. Watching it come together was exciting because nothing like it had ever been done in movies before, and it was the culmination of a childhood dream. (And I'm not exaggerating when I say that; it's the truth.) Now that it's happened, and it's part of history, do I wanna go through the process all over again?

Maybe, maybe not. In the comics these movies are based on, crossover events - mini-series where a whole bunch of heroes get together for one big adventure - used to be rarer, and more special. Now, they're commonplace, and it's harder to get excited about them, especially when each succeeding event has to top the last one somehow. It's one reason among many why I gave up superhero comics, and I see these superhero movies going down the same path.

It goes without saying that franchises mean money, and Hollywood will continue cranking them out for as long as this remains true. I, on the other hand, am beginning to get a little fatigued by them, which is why I think I may indulge in them to a lesser degree. You feel the same way or not?

And speaking of comics...

...I'm selling off a whole lot of my graphic novels and trade paperbacks at half off cover price. If you want some, email me at ratzo318 (at) yahoo (dot) com with the word 'comics' in the headline and I'll send you my list. Be advised: I have an EXTREMELY eclectic collection - far, far more than just superheroes, though I have those for sale as well. I'll be happy to answer any questions you have about any of the books on my list.

Off-topic: If you're in NYC this month...

...please make a journey to the Kaleidoscope Gallery in the Bronx - specifically, City Island - and come see my City Mouse gallery show. This is the project I had been hinting at in previous posts, the one that had taken a great deal of my time preparing, but now it's done. The Kaleidoscope is a small but cozy gallery/gift shop on City Island, a small fishing community dating back hundreds of years, off the eastern coast of the Bronx. My cartoons take up one wall inside, and include, among other things, the Jimmy Cagney strip from August. Plus, I have prints of my work for sale.

The movies of Howard Hawks... in limericks

Gentlemen Prefer Blondes

Two Little Rock girls had a plan:

"Let's each bag a filthy-rich man!"

Through song and through dance,

They both took a chance

To get that rock put on their hand.

The Thing From Another World

Those North Pole eggheads got scars

From a strange visitor from the stars

He was fought in the snow

But all he wanted to know

Was if Santa made visits to Mars.

Bringing Up Baby

A troublesome leopard ain't nothin'

Next to being caught wearing Kate's clothin'.

When inquired why,

Ol' Cary replied,

"I just went GAY all of a sudden!"

Why am I in a lyrical mood? Ask Brandie.

The Disney/Lucas deal from a Trekkie's POV

"What you fail to grasp is that Star Wars is probably the biggest thing that ever did or ever will happen to our generation. And if there's an angle by which we can profit from 'The Force' in our little corner of the world, then why don't we?... Face it, my friend - the Force will be with us. Always. Star Wars is the future." 

- Randal, Clerks: The Comic Book, written by Kevin Smith

I don't like to think of it as a rivalry, but it is. Yes, it's possible to like them both - I do - but I've always believed that even those who do still favor one over the other deep down, depending on which one they were first exposed to, perhaps, or some other circumstance.

Anyone who's read this blog long enough knows which side I'm on. I could go into a bunch of reasons why I know my side is better, but you don't care about that. Besides, these days, there are so many other franchises that have become part of the mainstream, part of the great geek conversation, that it's no longer a matter of two sides, if indeed, it ever was.

Still, there's never been a question of which one was cooler, has there? As far as the world at large is concerned, there's never been any doubt which franchise was "acceptable" and which was "nerdy," even now, in 2012, when the nerd mentality has come to dominate American pop culture.

And now this. A deal that was once considered unthinkable, unimaginable, one that is practically guaranteed to keep you-know-what number one for generations to come. But you know what? That's okay. If it means bringing in new ideas and new people to execute them, then that's all to the good in the long run. There's actually one hope I have that I'd like to address, one I haven't seen discussed anywhere else yet, though.

One of the most profound, fundamental differences between Star Trek and Star Wars is that the latter is pure fantasy - influenced by a variety of real-world sources, but still firmly within the realm of imagination - while the former is more grounded in the real world. From the outset, Trek has made a greater effort to base its fictitious world on not only real scientific principles, but Gene Roddenberry's philosophy of mankind and how he believed people ought to live... and this included having a diverse cast of characters.

The humans in George Lucas' universe - let's be honest - are much less so. Indeed, with the prequels, he has been accused of indulging in some of the worst racial stereotypes in creating some of his alien characters. When you compare SW to more recent franchises like The Matrix, The Hunger Games, and even non-sci-fi ones like The Fast and the Furious using this as a basis, SW comes up looking dated and almost retrograded.

If SW is to truly move forward story-wise, with new creative talent to back up Lucas, I believe it needs to make an effort to reflect the changing storytelling standards. Fandom has greatly diversified in terms of race, gender and sexual orientation since the original trilogy, and as a result, they've been demanding to see that same level of diversity in their fiction. Trek showed the way forty-plus years ago, and I believe it's incumbent upon whoever comes in to continue SW to keep this firmly in mind.

-------------------

Related:

Return of the Jedi
Does Lucas have the right to alter Star Wars?
5 times Trek and Wars have crossed paths
5 hopes I have for Star Wars Episode VII

Carnival of Souls/Horror of Dracula

I'm back. I rode out Hurricane Sandy, but I also stayed offline until late Wednesday. Hope you and yours are safe and well. I've had another, unrelated project going on that has been taking up my time and has now been delayed, so posts may be kinda erratic for the next week or so.

Carnival of Souls
10.25.12
Horror of Dracula
10.26.12

I was originally gonna do these as separate posts, but because of the delay as a result of the hurricane, I've decided to do both of them in one so I can put this behind me. 

Carnival of Souls was the second half of the Friday twin bill at the Loews last weekend and the film I was most eager to see. The premise: a young woman who appears to survive a car crash gets a new job as a church organist in a small Utah town and keeps seeing weird, horrifying things and people that don't seem real, but haunt her nonetheless. 

A movie like this seems to invite multiple interpretations. What stood out for me was what seemed to be a theme of atheism versus faith. Mary works in a church, playing the organ, but she clearly is not a woman of faith, and more than one person remarks on the alleged contradiction: how can someone work in a house of worship without subscribing to its tenets? Mary insists it's just a job to her.

It's a good question, the more I think about it. I've been to churches, synagogues, and other places of worship and tolerated the services there, even if I didn't believe in the things being said, but some occasions have been harder to sit through than others. While my mind insists that organized religion is a crock, sermons appeal to the heart, and they're harder to ignore, especially when one hears them repeatedly over a period of time.

Mary believes she's being tormented and pursued by zombie-like beings. I tend to think that the zombies represent something, but I'm not sure what. Her conscience, perhaps? I do feel like there's some sort of inner conflict that Mary is struggling with, even though it's not made explicitly clear within the film's context. 

In addition to the faith versus atheism theme, Mary is presented as very self-reliant. She acts like she doesn't need anybody. Johnny, the neighbor who tries to score with her, is definitely kinda creepy and one can't really blame Mary for not wanting to hang out with him, but even when she sees a doctor for her hallucinations, she ends up deciding that she doesn't need him, that she can figure this out on her own. 

Maybe the zombies represent her regrets, some repressed part of her persona that she never allowed to come to the surface for whatever reason. Don't know... but the ambiguity of this film is a big reason why it's appealing.

As for Horror of Dracula, it's basically the original Dracula story, re-told Hammer Films-style, with Christopher Lee as the fanged one and Peter Cushing as Van Helsing. The last time I saw these two together in a Hammer film was The Gorgon, from last Halloween. This was considerably better than that one, however I was disappointed to see so little of Lee, even though I admit I found it odd at first to see Dracula being played with a British accent.

The whole film felt unmistakably British: prim and proper and a bit staid, even in the face of such a classic horror story. It didn't have quite the level of menace and dread as the Lugosi version. Honestly, it felt kinda like the Masterpiece Theater version, which isn't necessarily an insult: it looks lovely and uses the location shots to great advantage. And it did have its moments: for instance the first time we see Lee in full vampire mode (see the image above) scared me for sure. Frank Langella remains my favorite Dracula. Cushing's Van Helsing is good, but I liked Anthony Hopkins' interpretation in Francis Ford Coppola's version better. 

Maybe the Halloween crowd was slightly different from the usual Loews crowd, but I found myself more aware of the audience during the movies, especially on Saturday during Dracula. Several people around me whispered stuff to their friends periodically throughout the movie, but  not enough to be truly annoying. I only had to shush somebody once, and that was when he tried to answer his cellphone. 

Maybe I just didn't want to start a row in my favorite movie theater. I mean, I'm willing to put up with some whispered asides during a movie, especially when it's part of an event such as this, but on Saturday night I felt like I was close to the limits of my tolerance. It didn't help that I felt a little crankier than I did on Friday night. I probably should've invited a friend or two to come with me, but I didn't.

The ride back into the city didn't help. Apparently there were many Halloween parties on Saturday, because I saw lots of people on the streets and in the trains in costume, and the ones on the PATH train heading into Manhattan were annoying. Actually, I find that whenever I come from the Loews on a Saturday night, I always see some cluster of skanky, tarted-up chicks on the PATH, presumably on their way to a club or bar somewhere in Manhattan. 

This time they were in costume, and they were the kind of costumes you'd expect: "sexy" cop, "sexy" soldier, etc. - and of course, there's always some girls with cat's ears on their head and painted cat's nose and whiskers. The interchangeability and blandness of these people never fail to set my teeth on edge, especially being in such close quarters with them. But that's just me.

--------------------------
Previously:
Homicidal