Ain't No Cure for the Summertime (Bite-Sized) Reviews

Once upon a time, I would use the powerful platform I have as a virtually unread blogger to shape the public discourse about the popular motion pictures of the day. My pronouncements on photoplays were brief but poignant insights. I eschewed lengthy recapitulations of plots and recommendations of which movies were worth seeing. Instead I offered punchy observations and analysis to help my readers spark conversations. I called these Bite-Sized Movie Reviews (though I've been inconsistent on using the hyphen). Then for a prolonged period I disappointed my audience by failing to deliver these movie morsels. Well, rejoice fair reader, because at long last I have a collection of thoughts on a few of this summer's blockbusters and some underexposed cinematic gems. Hopefully, you will learn a great deal from my musings and be inspired to share some witty thoughts of your own.

Marvel's: The Avengers-

• Let me start with the awkward title. While the group of superheroes known as the Avengers is a well-established brand (at least among U.S. comic book nerds), they aren't the only franchise marketed under the title "The Avengers". So Marvel probably wanted to distinguish a movie they hoped would succeed from an earlier film of the same title that bombed painfully. (When you click on that last link be sure to compare the film's gross to it's production budget.) In fact the earlier Avengers movie went over so poorly it almost pulled a triple-homicide on the careers of Ralph Fiennes, Uma Thurman and even Sean Connery.  Additionally, I suspect the leaders of Marvel's still nascent movie studio were concerned about audiences recognizing how they had interconnected multiple movies. To the average movie-goer there might be no clear connection between The Avengers and Thor or Iron Man or The Incredible Hulk except for the shared Marvel brand. So to maximize their potential audience, Marvel's marketeers didn't want anyone to misunderstand what was going on here. It worked too. As the first über-sequel -following up on multiple films that were only partly connected- The Avengers has earned more than any of the previous Marvel movies; putting aside the Iron Man movies it has grossed more than all of the lead-ins combined.
• I knew I had no reason to see the movie Battleship (Yes, this is still about The Avengers. Just hang on a second.) as soon as I learned that at no point during the movie does anyone say, "You sunk my battleship." That is the one vital line any script for that movie HAD to contain. The fact that the filmmakers didn't realize they had to include it -even if only ironically- was all I needed to know to not want to watch that movie. The fact that it also appeared to be the cinematic equivalent of a septic tank overflowing was just affirmation. I tell you this to help explain why I felt a little disappointed when a friend noted that no one says "Avengers assemble!" in The Avengers. I wouldn't have said I was a stickler for catchphrases before this summer, but apparently I am.
• On the topic of the film's commercial success, you may have heard a certain amount of cheering erupt from some of the geekier corners of Internet as The Avengers broke all kinds of box-office records. That was the sound of millions (or, more likely, thousands) of fans rejoicing that geek idol Joss Whedon finally had a profitable project he could point to as validation for all of his creative brilliance. His career began as an unheralded writer for sitcoms like Roseanne, while making uncredited contributions to screenplays for various hit movies. Life in Hollywood wasn't a bowl full of cherries though. On many films he found himself pushed out of the creative process and frustrated by the decisions of others. Once he became so infuriated with his supposed collaborators that he dented a bathroom stall venting his anger. Mr. Whedon first achieved a cult-like popularity when he adapted his creation Buffy the Vampire Slayer from a disappointing movie into a much beloved TV series. Since Buffy and its spin-off Angel became minor television successes, Joss launched multiple projects. Some of which were cancelled before their time in spite of critical acclaim. Nothing he's done has ever crossed over into mainstream success despite many people taking a strong rooting interest in his career. At long last as the writer and director of The Avengers, he has proven that his work can connect to a large audience. Hopefully this will clear his path to bigger and better things. For now though, Mr. Whedon can take a much deserved bow.
• Throughout Joss Whedon's career he has been known for a few trademarks in his work: witty writing, clever plot twist, a deft sense for sincere emotion, and frequently casting the same actors. After watching The Avengers with your typical star-studded Hollywood cast, I wondered what it might look like if you recast the movie with a cadre of actors more familiar to the Joss Whedon oeuvre. The following is a breakdown of who I would have liked to see in an alternate universe version of The Avengers.I invite you to look up any of the actor with which you are unfamiliar. I'll even provide the links. They are all delightfully talented, even in things not involving Joss Whedon.
  Role                            Movie Cast                           Whedon Cast
  Iron Man                    Robert Downey Jr.                Alan Tudyk
  Captain America     Chris Evans                              Nathan Fillion
  Thor                             Chris Hemsworth                   Adam Baldwin
  Hulk                              Mark Ruffalo                           Sean Maher
  Black Widow              Scarlett Johansson              Christian Hendricks
  Hawkeye                    Jeremy Renner                      David Boreanaz
  Loki                              Tom Hiddleston                Jonathan M. Woodward
  Phil Coulson              Clark Gregg                            Tahmoh Penikett
  Maria Hill                   Cobie Smulders                     Felicia Day
  Prof. Selvig                Stellan Skarsgård                  Olivia Williams
  Nick Fury                   Samuel L. Jackson               Chiwetel Ejiofor
  Pepper Potts             Gwyneth Paltrow                  Amy Acker
  Jarvis (voice)            Paul Bettany                        Anthony Stewart Head
  The Other                   Alexis Denisof                        Alexis Denisof 
  (OK, that last one didn't need to be changed)
  Council Chairman   Powers Boothe                       Harry Lennix
  *spoilers* Thanos   Damion Poitier                      Brian Thompson

The Cabin in the Woods-

• I've included this in my bite-sized reviews, mostly because I wanted to point out another movie Joss Whedon had a major role in making that didn't do to well at the box office. I don't understand how a horror movie that humorously deconstructed the genre couldn't earn at least as much money as Scream. As someone who hasn't enjoyed the Saw-ification of horror movies in recent years, I thought this film provided plenty of clever touches that horror fans and non-fans could enjoy. The fact that this film couldn't find a larger audience nicely exemplifies the snake-bitten nature of Joss Whedon's pre-Avengers career.
• Even without Whedon's involvement, I still would have been attracted to this movie if only for Bradley Whitford's presence. I can't quite explain it, but I find that man irresistibly charming in pretty much everything I see him in, especially when he's doing comedy. I like him so much, that part way through Kate & Leopold, I was actively rooting for Meg Ryan to abandon Hugh Jackman and go for Whitford's character instead.
• You may not find Cabin in the Woods at the cinemas anymore, but I think you might enjoy it even more on home video. The filmmakers seem to have made more of an effort to cram this movie with Easter eggs than any other movie I've seen. Off the top of my head I can think of four points in the movie when I wished I could have paused to take in all the little details that were captured in frame. That doesn't even count Anna Hutchison's final scene.

Moonrise Kingdom-

• Having watch and thoroughly enjoyed many of Wes Anderson's films, I think I may have noticed his most distinguishing trait as a filmmaker. He loves to use obfuscation, usually followed by an ironic revelation. We get a lot of that in this picture so it stood out enough to catch my attention. You have a shot of a scout that seems veritably Norman Rockwell until the camper turns his head to reveal a bandaged eye. At one point we are given a clear accounting of the simple supplies in a primitive campsite, only to have a large box of tinned food suddenly revealed. Anderson uses music and distance to prevent the audience from hearing certain pieces of dialogue. He writes dialogue that dances around the subject -in Moonrise Kingdom there is an important sublot involving Bruce Willis's character that is never explicitly stated but very clearly implied. Wes Anderson subtly challenges his audiences with this tactics. He asks them not just to watch and listen, but to consider what they cannot see or hear.
• Another persistent quirk in the films of Wes Anderson is his particularly mannered style of dialogue (one of many, along with panning through buildings like they were dollhouses, strangely retro art direction, and soundtracks that play like concept albums). Every character speaks in a idiosyncratic style where all of the emotions ring true even thought the actual words never sound like anything you'd hear in quotidian language. Somehow the affected cadences and precious witticisms seem to sound equally likely no matter which character says them. Anderson writes with the same voice regardless of age, sex, race, or class. With such a distinctive authorial voice every type of person is placed on a level field with no one presented as inferior or excluded. This creates a beautiful sort of equality between all of Anderson's characters where everyone is on equal terms. If writers want to avoid accusations of sexism, racism, or similar prejudices, I recommend using Wes Anderson as inspiration.
• This film presents the central characters as a pair of troubled and misunderstood preteens running away from home and struggling to understand the approach of adulthood. However if you are a cynical sort (Guilty!), you could also interpret this as a pair of developing psychopaths on the verge of breaking loose from all societal restraints. My knowledge on this subject is largely based on watching reruns of Criminal Minds, but as I understand it there are a few key warning signs for dangerous behavior and between the two leads we see all of them. You witness abuse/mistreatment of animals, fire starting, bed wetting, violent outbursts, and a complete inability to emotional relate to peers. I don't really think the kids are evil. I just worry you could watch this movie as a prequel to Bonnie and Clyde.

Prometheus-

• When you talk anyone who hasn't seen this movie they deserve to know first and foremost that Prometheus is much more of a horror story than a science-fiction tale. The central mystery of possible extraterrestrial interference in the early development of humanity gets sidetracked by prolonged sequences of monsters threatening people with gruesome deaths. I can even point to a couple of scenes where the logic of events (and possibly physics as well) get tossed aside to justify some additional action beats in the plot. It does succeed in frightening the audience to a disturbing degree, After my own father saw it he said he almost regretted having watched it he found it so disturbing.
• The promotional hype for this movie focused mostly on the director Ridley Scott. That's understandable since he was returning to the Alien franchise. However I felt most aware of  another creator's influence while watching the movie: the co-writer, Damon Lindelof. You may know him from his brilliant/confusing work on Lost (link leads to cussing). I couldn't help but noticed some important themes Prometheus shared in common with Lost. There are small things like folks troubled with daddy issues, or women struggling as their infertility suddenly leads to a life threatening pregnancy. Even the storytelling structure feels very similar to Lost.  We get puzzling glimpses into the underlying mythology of the universe and are left with numerous unanswered questions at the end of tale. I didn't mind that stuff when I watched Lost, so it doesn't bother me in Prometheus. Though I am well aware that there are loads of people who find that sort of thing pretty upsetting.

The Hunger Games-

• This was also a movie I watched.

Snow White and the Huntsman-

• One of the more interesting pieces of film criticism I have ever read was actually written by a sports writer. Bill Simmons once wrote a column about the movie Two for the Money in which he made clear that he enjoyed the film without ever crossing the line to endorsing it to his audience. My favorite part came when he tried to write a one sentence review that couldn't be used for blurbs in commercials and ended up writing, " Not only is "Two For The Money" surprisingly un-gawd-awful, I found myself feeling the opposite of mildly unentertained for a prolonged period of time that nearly coincided with the end of the movie."  Basically this parallels my feelings about Snow White. I had worried it would turn out to be a dud that spent loads of money instead of coming up with any good ideas. In the end though, I was surprised by how much I didn't dislike it. It may not have been brilliant, but it worked as a simple summertime entertainment. The script was pretty dull, though thankfully not completely formulaic and predictable. While I generally enjoyed the look and feel of the film a few scenes toward the end were weakened by an effort to squeeze in a few more special effects. I actually would recommend others to see it, if they can tolerate fantasy films. It just goes to show you that sometimes low expectations can be the best thing about a movie.
• I was intrigued with the prospect of this movie based on the strong visuals I saw in the advertisements.  Then I learned that the director Rupert Sanders had made a short film based on an excellent comic book, and my interest level went up several notches. When I watched the video online, (Heads-Up: It contains adult-type content.) I admired how well Mr. Sanders had captured the mood and visual style of the comic. That's when I knew that I would be seeing Snow White and the Huntsman at some point, if only on video a few years from now.. It delivered a lot of what I expected, gorgeous costumes, sets, and visual effects, and something I hadn't anticipated, straight-forward, unobtrusive directing. Rupert Sanders made his influence felt in his short film by making some eye-catching choices. In the feature he mostly stood back and let the film play out in a clean and simple manner. He didn't include a lot of attention grabbing shots or force in any flashy camerawork or editing for the purposes of showing off. What impressed me most about his directing style was that I almost never thought about it during the course of the film. Controlling your creative urges to deliver a clean and competent product marks a true professional, and I expect Mr. Sanders to do very well in the future. 

Those are all the words I feel like making you read this time. Though if you feel inspired to write any of your own, I would be glad to read them. Consider it my way of paying you back for my prolonged absence.

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 5

Defining the Detective-

Above: A stock photo of a stereotypical detective.

With the history of detective fiction sketched out, I would like to draw a few conclusions about the archetype of the detective character. I feel the identification of these tropes will become useful when I propose some new takes on the detective genre. Only through specific identification and analysis of any literary genre, can we best know how to utilize or undermine certain elements for our own purposes.

The most obvious feature of every detective throughout the history of the genre is their intelligence. They may not always be geniuses, but they do always display at least a relative intellectual advantage compared to the criminals they pursue. In the case of Joe Friday this meant he was often seen chasing an especially incompetent class of crooks, demonstrating that no sound thinking person would every take up a life of crime. Even the lowliest member of a C.S.I. squad knows an obscure fact or has access to an exotic device that allows them to collect evidence the perpetrator never knew they left behind. It makes sense for gifts of observation and mental acuity to define a genre based on the logical process of deductive reasoning. Yet in order to justify the story's focus on the protagonist, the detective character always holds some significant intellectual advantage which makes them a necessary part of the story's resolution.

Next, I notice that apparently every noteworthy fictional detective is, in one way or another, an outsider. This facet of the character can be expressed in any number of ways. Going back to the early days of the genre you had figures like Miss Marple and Father Brown who came from outside the traditional law enforcement fraternity. Holmes was an outsider because his mind worked on a level far beyond his contemporaries. Poirot was an outsider because of his nationality. Nero Wolfe was fat. Kojak was Greek. Alex Cross is black. Kinsey Millhone is a woman. On and on it goes. For every significant detective, you can find some reason why she is not a part of the standard justice system. In part, this recurring character trait gives the characters easy mystique, audiences love individuals who stand out. It also helps provide the sleuths a special perspective on the cases that can explain how they can find evidence and make connections when others could not. To a larger degree though, I feel it serves to demonstrate one of the fundamental assumptions of the detective genre as a whole: sometimes the legal systems that we know fail to produce the results we desire. We see this everyday in our real lives, so it would probably strike audiences as strangely false to see general issue police officers put away criminals using routine methods. The public wants to see a radical alternative to the status quo in fiction, because they are dissatisfied with it in reality.

Lastly (at least for now), I have found that detectives generally have a larger interest in solving crimes than the altruistic pursuit of justice. Often stories feature some personal stakes for the crime fighter -it reminds them of a case from their past, their partner dies working the case, they want revenge on the prime suspect. Even when the protagonist doesn't have skin in the game, she seems to derive something personal from seeing any crime solved. Holmes derived a peculiar intellectual pleasure from finding explanations. Many characters have a haunted past that compels them to find justice for others. At the very least, in examples like Law & Order or Dragnet, the cops take a personal pride in maintaining an orderly society and punishing wrongdoers. The audience needs to know their is something to gain from the story's resolution or else it rings hollow and they won't come back for more. The simplest way to achieve this is to give our hero a cause with which we can sympathize.

Now that we have identified the key components of a classic detective -namely, intelligence, outsider status, and a personal motive- I can start coming up with some new detective stories that play off the norms of the genre.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 4

The History of Detectives in Fiction-

Above: The cover to a collection of illustrations from the history of mystery and detective stories, found on Flickr.

All the discussion of variant detectives made me ponder what elements are essential to the archetype of the character and what traits have waxed and waned with the transitory phases of culture over. With the recent addition of a digital tuner to my television set, and Netflix vast "Instant Watch" library, I now have access to a large amount of old detective TV shows and movies. As I study sleuths, both modern and classic, I begin to gain a sense of the course the detective genre has taken over the years. In a way these decades-old characters can serve as data points which combine to chart a sort of evolutionary path for the modern American detective character. If examined in the proper manner the progress of fictional sleuths can provide some fascinating insights into both the essential elements of the detective archetype and our cultural development over the past-century or so. Consider the following:

Above: The cover of The Memoirs of Sherlock Holmes by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, supplied through Flickr.

1800's-1920's- Since the earliest detective fiction stories by Edgar Allen Poe, through Arthur Conan Doyle, and on to the early works of Agatha Christie, the detective was essentially a puzzle maven. While the protagonist always displayed brilliant intellectual acumen, either as a natural talent in the case of Holmes and C. Auguste Dupin, or as acquired knowledge as with Miss Marple or Father Brown- the cases usually didn't require a genius to solve them. Often all of the evidence was presented to both the detective and the reader, and the challenge lay only in interpreting the information. In most stories the hero steps in after traditional crime fighters have failed and manages to solve the case simply by noticing a crucial misinterpretation, or making a keen-eyed observation, or providing some obscure or arcane factoid, or by simply rearranging the information into a decipherable pattern. None of this seems fitting of a genius. However when the starring sleuth appears to pull answers from thin air, and the story disguises the facts to confound the reader, and stresses how terribly impressive the hero's deductions (if you can even call them that) are, the reader winds up getting a thrill out of the story's climactic revelation just the same. While the creators of these stories may not have been capable of crafting problems worthy of their detective creations, they did establish the central mythological elements and tropes that would define the detective genre through the present day.

Above: A cover to a typically racy pulp magazine featuring crime and detective stories, found on Flickr.

1930-40's- The next generation of crime fiction took a dramatic leap, branching it out to several different directions. Commonly referred to for the stylized mystery movies of the period both print and film detectives have been labeled as film noir in retrospect. The noir period was heavily influenced by the racy pulp magazines of the day and the underground, culturally subversive films that spawned a new sub-genre. As detective stories transitioned to new media, and the culture of the world seemed to spin out of control, the creators added new elements and explored new concepts. Now in the hands of pulp writers the stories took on a darker tone, the cases involved a seedier variety of crime, and the plots drifted away from straight-forward problems with simple solutions. Meanwhile filmmakers switched the focus onto action sequences instead of extensive sections of expository dialogue, and -to make sure the actors earned their paychecks- the characters became more fleshed out than the ciphers that preceded them. The changing tone of the art and the foreboding nature of contemporary events produced some significant changes in theme. Now the cases transcended from puzzles -that required collecting or organizing information- to true mysteries- that require investigating areas that resist comprehension, like human psychology, and require gathering new evidence or making deductive or intuitive leaps. Even more significantly the detectives themselves took on some new characteristics. No longer do their intellectual gifts separate them out as a special asset to the local authorities. In fact, the protagonists increasingly came from outside the traditional authority structure, most often as private investigators. In this era, their morality, their dogged pursuit of "justice" no mater what cost, often puts them in conflict with traditional authority figures. I would imagine the creators of these stories saw a world that seemed to be falling apart, where the authorities no longer could be trusted, and no simple solutions seemed possible, and they crafted heroes who fit that environment and had the skill to overcome it. Once this new generation of detectives rose to prominence, the detective genre would largely be defined by a dialectic between the original Holmes detectives and the new prototype of the noir-style.

Above: A photograph of Jack Webb the actor who portrayed Sgt. Joe Friday on Dragnet.

1950-60's- Detectives of this era were first and foremost social servants, almost always employees of a benevolent social institution, such as the local police force or the FBI. Now that the world was at peace these detectives represented an America returning to work. During this time frame, television became a popular source of crime stories. As TV filled a niche in the daily lives of the audience, the stories told came to reflect how the audience thought about their own private lives. So the detective stories of the days were filled with friendly functionaries, either blue-collar beat cops in TV shows like Adam-12 or white-collar detectives from Dragnet. These characters approached crime fighting with a workmanlike attitude, going about their jobs with gray flannel suits and stoic expressions. Once again they usually did not display special intellectual powers. In fact rarely did these characters encounter any cases that were difficult to solve. Usually the perpetrators were apprehended simply through persistent pursuit, and the cases were open and shut with all the evidence plain for all to see. (All cases were open and shut, because all situations involving crime were open and shut.) If anything made the detectives of this era distinct from other characters, it was their loyalty to their values and the system they served. Their strong morality made them servants to authority rather than rebels to it. If ever the detective stories represented the hopes and dreams of an era it was during this period. The crime fighter was just an average person with a good heart who brought order to the streets. In the same manner, Americans hoped that staying true to their values and doing their jobs in good faith would bring order to their lives and the world as a whole. Several popular TV series on the air today, such as the Law & Order franchise or the CSI family of shows, still bear many of the hallmarks of this period's detective stories.

Above: An artistic portrayal of the television detective Kojak, created by Lisa Brawn.

1970's- Here we come to an interesting little span, where I feel the detective genre reached a bit of a nadir. The focus almost entirely shifted away from the crimes and their solutions, and instead focused on the heroes and their personalities. If the stories had been about the deductive gifts or investigative prowess of the protagonists, we might still have had something to add to the genre. Instead we got a collection of TV shows like Kojak and The Rockford Files, which were more interested in creating lovable TV stars than exploring stories of crime. While the milieu of detective work still provides ample fodder for conflict and action sequences, the emphasis was definitely more on the leading roles eccentric character traits or individual charms. In a way I feel this was a reflection of the changing American middle class. No longer did people find comfort playing a role in building the great society, now they wanted to feel they were the star of their own story, no matter how mundane. The job you did became less important as people began to put more emphasis on how you did your job. I feel the legal and medical dramas of the time displayed similar sensibilities and represent part of a larger cultural shift that also involved crime shows. The content of the detective series did change in one interesting way. The problems confronting the sleuths became more like the seemingly insolvable mysteries of the noir period, with an increased focus on a criminal's motives or a lack of clear evidence. However since the detectives rarely had to think up a solution or explanation of a crime -usually a climactic gun fight would take care of that problem- this did not actually add new thematic depths to the genre. I think the mysteries were just easier to write than puzzles when all the writer's attention was going to character details. In some ways the star vehicles of today, like Monk and House, are the descendants of these shows.

Above: A painting illustrating the characters and scenery of the TV show Miami Vice, painted by Pepe Cardosa.

1980-90's- I would describe the detective fiction of this era as the progeny of two earlier strands of the genre. We have the obvious continuation of the 1970's, where the focus of the narratives had less to do with the unraveling of mysteries and more to do with character examinations of the featured detectives. In some cases (e.g. Miami Vice, Wiseguy, Homicide: Life on the Street), the purpose of the show was mostly about exploring the personal lives of the crime fighters and dissecting the ways in which their personal neuroses where caused by, or contributed to, their detective work. I feel this trend reached its apex with the first season of NYPD Blue where the show's creators successfully used soap-opera plot lines to overshadow the police procedural elements of the series. Accordingly the distinguishing characteristics of this new batch of gumshoes came from their ability to manage or endure personal crisis rather than overcome the challenges of crime fighting. Beneath this continuing trend, we find the dark undercurrent of a return to noir sensibilities. As the storylines reflected the hardships of our heroes, the subtext spoke to a world soaked in violence and amorality. American culture seemed to struggle with themes of societal collapse and moral decay. Perhaps not coincidentally these were also major themes of the Reagan revolution and rise of the religious right occurring contemporaneously. As with the 1930's and 40's the American public felt the world had spun out of control, and even traditional authority figures struggled against problems like gang-violence, drug abuse, and corruption. In an interesting evolution from the noir period, the morality of the characters no longer spurred the on to eventual victory, rather it provided a bulwark to help them stand against the ceaseless tide of chaos and injustice. Though any given story may show the hero surviving a particular crisis, the suggestion that eventually the dark nature of the world would erode away all the good in the character seemed to be applied universally. Concurrently in the world of detective literature, novels focused increasingly on characters from outside the traditional authority structure. Books found niche markets by featuring protagonists from minority perspectives who took an unconventional perspective on the institutions of law enforcement. Most notably female detectives rose to a new level of prominence and brought a new morality as well. Rather than reinforcing the 1950's imagery of white men imposing their version of order on society, these investigative women seemed more sympathetic to the victim. This theme resonated with the resurrected noir sentiment, here casting the victim as a casualty of the world's cruelty and the detective as the sole means for justice.

Above: A photograph of David Caruso as Horatio Caine from CSI: Miami, found on Flickr.

2000's- As the private-eyes of the 1940's gave way to the beat cops of the 1950's so to did a generational shift occur with the new millennium. The detectives at the end of the 20th century were grunts in the nationwide war on crime. In some cases they were stoic, in other cases neurotic, and in still others they were pathetic (in the Aristotelian sense). Generally though, their personalities and personal drama distinguished them from the standard crime fighter. The latest generation of detectives embodies a strong return to their Holmes-ian roots. Now the detectives are once again servants of traditional authorities. They prove their value through displays of intellectual sharpness rather than moral fortitude. Examine TV mystery series like House M.D., The Mentalist, and Bones, and you will find many echoes of Holmes. Like Holmes, the stars of these series frequently display demonstrably superior skills of observation and mental agility. Like Holmes, they find their intellect hinders their ability to interact with others. Also like Holmes, they are mostly domesticated creatures, whose occasional misbehavior masks that they perpetually preserve the status quo. Unlike Holmes, they are typically specialists with intensive knowledge of one area and occasional blind spots for other topics. They are the hedgehogs to Holmes' fox. I have come to think of this era as recasting the detective as a technocrat. Here I find this era is best typified by the C.S.I. franchise. Each show under the C.S.I. label presents a group of moderately attractive functionaries with hollow personalities. They sport a wide array of crime solving gizmos and casually toss scientific terminology (which may not always be realistic, but is always dumbed down to the audience's level). Once again the story element of true mystery -where complicated and ineffable variables are involved- has been superseded by the use puzzle plots- where all you need is the dedication to identify and arrange all the evidence.

Now, I will readily admit that this is in no way a complete history of detective fiction. I simply tried to assemble the most comprehensive analysis I could using my own relatively limited familiarity with the genre. Anyone who knows more about detectives in literature, especially more recent works, or has a better memory for classic TV shows, should please share any insights or wisdom you have in the comment section. For my part, I think I have gathered enough information here to draw some conclusions about the detective archetype in my next entry.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 3

Above: A stylized painting of The Joker and Batman created by Harold Smith, found on deviantART

The Natural Conflict Between Batman and The Joker-

As I continue my deconstruction of the detective story, I plan to go through a detailed and thorough study of the history of the genre. (Trust me it's going to be long and probably laborious to read. I'll try to spruce it up with some pictures just to give your eyes a rest.) Before I get to that, I would like to take a tangent into the underlying iconography of Batman. I feel this material is appropriate to raise here as Batman is almost certainly the most widely known detective character created in the 20th century, and this piece of symbolism directly pertains to his status as a detective. Further, my thoughts on this topic led me to some noteworthy conclusions that greatly influenced my perspective on the larger genre.

Since Bob Kane and Bill Finger created the character, Batman has evolved significantly. Starting out as a rogue vigilante of the pulp tradition, he eventually matured into a more conventional authority figure with a gift for deduction. Batman uses his limitless talents and resources to impose a structure and order onto Gotham. Though his goal may not always be to uphold something as politically variable as "the law", he does protect the basic tenets of the social contract that enjoy almost universal support. At the same time as creators toned down his agenda his methods also shifted. Instead of using firearms and violence to solve problems, the stories increasing featured Batman using his intellectual skills. Thus the "World's Greatest Detective" moniker became a vital component of his character. In fact even casual fans are aware of Batman's supposed strength as a detective, even though he hardly demonstrates it in most stories.

I submit that these two aspects of the Batman mythos, detective and authoritarian, are deeply linked and inseparable. In essence, deduction is the process of bringing order to knowledge. Through his sleuthing and analysis Batman solves crime by sorting through the facts, finding how the relate to each other, establishing the proper truth values for them, and determining where they belong in the larger structure of knowledge. As if in an unspoken allegory, whenever Batman is shown undertaking these microscopic acts of deduction he does so to serve the macroscopic purpose of bringing order to society. Thus his role as a superhero in which he maintains and improves the social structure is simply an extension of his identity as a detective. What he does defines who he is and vice versa.

From this conclusion we can also investigate a question about the Batman mythology that has defied explanation for generations: why is the Joker the archenemy of Batman? As Bruce Timm -who co-created and produced the iconic Batman: The Animated Series- noted, the Batman-Joker feud is a little confusing, because it's not as though you think of clowns and bats being natural adversaries.

Usually when we study comic book nemeses they display one of two obvious dichotomies. Either they are representatives of opposing ideologies/worldviews (Captain America vs. Red Skull, Superman vs. Lex Luthor), or they are characters with a common past drawn in separate directions by fate (Spider-Man vs. Green Goblin, Reed Richards vs. Victor Von Doom). On a surface level the Joker and Batman share neither of these relationships. Moreover the rouges gallery in the Batcave contains an obvious candidate for each type of archvillain.

The Riddler seems like a natural antithesis to the Dark Detective, with his penchant for presenting information in misleading or confusing manners. However, his essential function -posing questions- is really very complimentary to Bats' fundamental nature- finding answers. I can see Batman actually preferring the Big Question Mark to his other foes, because he always makes the job of stopping his crimes so straightforward. The Riddler, with his habitual clue dropping, is a puzzle -an incomplete or disorganized set of information that begs for the application of order. The Joker, with his impenetrable insanity, is a mystery -a set of information that contradicts or confuses your prior knowledge and defies efforts to organize it.

In the other category, you have Two-Face. Since Harvey Dent has history as an ally of Batman, his later battles with the Dark Knight have added dramatic poignancy. Even better you could argue that Two-Face represents a strong philosophical opposition to Batman. Because Two-Face has an obsession with chance, he confronts Bats attempts to create an orderly city with evidence that the universe is arbitrary and chaotic. Sadly this aspect of the character doesn't come up very often, and when it does, it is downplayed as part of his gimmick.

I read a comics blog that noted that there are only two (ha!) Two-Face stories worth telling: his origin; and any variation on him being healed, but ultimately returning to his duality inspired madness. I feel the power and repeated revisitations to these stories actually weaken the character's symbolic heft, because the change the underlying narrative of who Two-Face is. Instead of making him a good man pushed to madness by the injustice of random fate (as symbolized by him flipping a coin to make decisions), it turns him into a intrinsically flawed man who inevitably breaks down (as symbolized by his scars). The message that some people are naturally inclined to evil fits right in with the binary and objectivist view Batman often espouses.

Which brings us to the Joker. So much of what makes the Joker an effective villain is what we don't know about him. Who did he used to be? What motivates his crimes? What defines his madness? What goes on in his head? He is a mystery, and if there's anything Batman can't stand it's a mystery.

Also, while clowns may not be natural enemies of bats, they are the constant opponent of logicians. As Jimmy Carr and Lucy Greeves argued in the book The Naked Jape, all jokes are the same. By this I mean, they all seem predicated upon establishing a given story, or order, to the world of the joke. Then with the punchline they undermine the order, betraying the rules the joke created and leaving us drifting in a world of nonsense. For a detective like Batman, everything must fit into a structure of reliable empirical truth, organized by certain absolute rules. For a clown like the Joker, no truth is reliable, no structure is sacrosanct, and no rules can be enforced.

I believe the Joker could be said to be the most powerful character in comicbooks, because no one can ever force their will on him. To Batman, who tries to control all of Gotham City, this is not just anathema but intolerable to the very essence of his crusade. Just as an irresistible force could never meet an immovable object -for the existence of one logically negates the possibility of the other- Batman can never succeed in his mission if the Joker is what he appears to be, a person beyond control. Conversely the Joker's fundamental philosophy -that nothing makes sense, and therefore nothing means anything- would be refuted if Batman is what he appears to be, a person in total control of himself. Both of these characters represent something that cuts to the core of the other. This is why they both detest each other so deeply and yet neither can ever bring themselves to end the other. It is not sufficient that the threat posed by the other is removed, they each have a vested need to see the other one cast aside his very nature.

I can think of few conflicts in modern fiction that have been as prolific and as evocative as what I just described. Which is why generations of fans and writers have kept coming back to the undeniable truth, that as long as Batman is a detective he and the Joker must be archenemies.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 2

Above: The cover to the 1987 edition of Douglas Adams' novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency

What's the Opposite of Sherlock Holmes?-

Before moving on to other topics, I wanted to make one last note on variations of the Holmes character. In my brother's e-mail, he suggested an über-Holmes. That led me to wonder what an anti-Holmes might look like. My brother offered a character who has Holmes' level of skill, but an opposite moral inclination (or at the very least a disinterest in solutions except for self-serving purposes). What I wanted was an investigator who took an approach to investigation that was diametrically opposed to Holmes' deductive methods. I wanted a detective who didn't use deductive reasoning, scientific methods of inquiry, or anything close to meticulous attention to detail.

After a few moments thought, it dawned on me that the best example of this I could think of was created by Douglas Adams. (No one who knows me well is surprised that I would turn to this example as I enjoy Adams so much I own many heavily worn copies of his novels.) For his science-fiction/mystery novel Dirk Gently's Holistic Detective Agency, Adams created a private eye named Dirk Gently who offered a rather particular kind of investigation service. Dirk's method, such as it was, assumed everything was connected and considered everything he encountered as possible evidence. This meant rather than narrowing his focus to only the most pertinent information and proceeding in a logical and scientific order, he would often proceed at random and get caught up in bizarre tangents. The BBC recently made a television adaptation of the character, and the trailer nicely demonstrates the sort of chaos this normally involved. While any reasonable person would expect Dirk to fail -in truth his approach was probably just an invention to cover for his laziness and shortcomings as a detective- he often succeed because within the finite fictional universe he inhabited everything was connected.

Adams even makes the clash between Dirk and Holmes explicit in his second Dirk Gently novel The Long Dark Tea Time of the Soul. Gently scoffs at Holmes axioms of deduction, after hearing of a young woman who recites changes in stock prices exactly 24 hours after they occur. His critique of Doyle's sleuth is laid out in the following interlude:

"What was the Sherlock Holmes principle? 'Once you have discounted the impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.'"

"I reject that entirely," said Dirk sharply. "The impossible often has a kind of integrity to it which the merely improbable lacks. How often have you been presented with an apparently rational explanation of something that works in all respects other than one, which is just that it is hopelessly improbable? Your instinct is to say, 'Yes, but he or she simply wouldn't do that.'"

"Well, it happened to me today, in fact," replied Kate.

"Ah, yes," said Dirk, slapping the table and making the glasses jump. "Your girl in the wheelchair -- a perfect example. The idea that she is somehow receiving yesterday's stock market prices apparently out of thin air is merely impossible, and therefore must be the case, because the idea that she is maintaining an immensely complex and laborious hoax of no benefit to herself is hopelessly improbable. The first idea merely supposes that there is something we don't know about, and God knows there are enough of those. The second, however, runs contrary to something fundamental and human which we do know about. We should therefore be very suspicious of it and all its specious rationality."

I don't know if any of that comparison interests anyone, but at least it demonstrates how heavily the works of Douglas Adams influence my thinking on almost any subject. Perhaps someday I'll explain why his line, "the wrong lizard might get in", summarizes all of my complaints about modern politics.

To be continued . . .

Analyzing the Detective Genre: Part 1

For about 22 months, I have been working on a side-project outside this blog. Inspired by an e-mail from one of my brothers, I undertook a lengthy review and analysis of the detective genre. (It should be noted that it took me so long to complete this work mostly due to inefficiency and sloth on my part, and not because I observed any scholarly practices of in-depth research.) Having at long last completed my work, I figure I should maximize the utility I get out of it, by sharing it through this blog. As with anything I write, or say, or even sometimes when I pantomime, I got pretty verbose with this. To protect your eyes from too much staring at a screen, I have broken up this piece into multiple sections over multiple post. So keep watching this space as I add on more entries to my highly involved ramblings (or, as I imagine they will say at my inevitable mental competency hearings, building up evidence of my derangement).

Introductory Material-

To give you the best understanding of what inspired my thoughts on detectives and how my thinking evolved, I will share with you the actual e-mail my brother sent me about two years ago. My brother wrote it as a fairly casual epistle, meant to spur a little dialogue, so please remember that you should hold him blameless for the madness that ensued.

He wrote:
Today [my] mind passed briefly onto the Promethean Sherlock Holmes, whose ability to examine only the necessary evidence gave him god-like powers of deduction. Of course, this is very infuriating to everyone who has a more difficult time choosing which details are important.

I was thinking of a less complex alternative to Sherlock: one who has perfect knowledge of a crime because one committed it. In the fictional sense, this is what is true for Arthur Conan Doyle. But this theme--criminal cum detective--has been tried out in the crime drama since then.

What I think is an interesting third alternative to both the supremely powerful Sherlock and the supremely evil Doyle would be a detective--given many of the flaws like pride, ambition, and greed that typify the pop culture detective criminals--who takes on seemingly uncrackable cases, then corrupts the evidence in order to land an easy-to-prosecute suspect with a Law & Order-type turn of events. I imagine that in some episodes this detective would be more motivated by ambition to peg a cold case, but in others s/he'd use it as an evidence dump for committing some personally motivated crimes. The thing writes itself! Lemme' know what you think of this character.

From that seed of inspiration, I begin to think long and hard about a variety of topics connected to the detective genre. Though honestly, I should say that my thoughts weren't so much long as intermittent, and the thinking probably wouldn't have been so hard if I hadn't been drinking so much. The first topic I wanted to address was the variations on the detective archetype he raised in his e-mail. From there I could springboard into a wide range of ideas and make my brother regret that he ever brought up the subject.

Variations on the Detective Character-

To begin the discussion with my brother's ideas, I enjoyed the concept of a Holmes-like detective whose powers of observation border on the supernatural or even divine. There is an undeniable attraction in watching anyone breeze through a seemingly impenetrable case with impossible ease. Audiences get a kick out of that thing, but they can also tire of it quickly. We desire conflict in our drama, something in short supply when no puzzle would truly challenge the hero. As you suggest the obvious solution is to generate conflict between the hero and the other characters as a result of her deductive prowess. This practice certainly can work well and several current crime series use it (e.g. Psych, Monk, and new for people who prefer handsome blond protagonists The Mentalist). I think you could draw more drama from going in a different direction, by pitting the Promethean Sherlock Holmes in conflict with her own powers.

In this scenario, I envision the detective character having some kind of supernatural power, wherein, she can ONLY see the evidence relevant to the mystery and is blind to everything else. Naturally this allows her to solve cases quite easily as she only considers the truly vital information. You could visualize this as the evidence standing out from everything else in its own super-reality, or by having every other detail of the world fade away and become insubstantial. The downside of the detective's powers is, of course, that they severely limit and, to a degree, control the sleuth in question. The supporting characters would be fascinated and awed by her abilities against which she constantly struggles. She might wish to avoid cases, or at least not be overwhelmed by her abilities when she becomes involved in them. This intrigues me as it takes the gift-and-a-curse trope to a new level and it could have some rather odd implications. What happens when the sleuth can't see a piece of evidence that everyone believes is crucial? What if she can see something that has no reasonable connection to the case at hand? What if she has a case with very little physical evidence, is she effectively blind? What if she starts investigating a wide reaching conspiracy and becomes overwhelmed with all of the items of evidence she starts seeing? I see this as a continuing story with more potential and a new way to play the super-detective as a wounded character.

My brother also proposes a character who can solve crimes through some kind of perfect knowledge of the crime, which certainly has potential. It seemed to me that he didn't have many ideas for the character, so with I decided to build off of that with some of my own ideas. I will expand on a possible version of this character later on.

Now this idea about a corrupt Holmes is definitely the best of the ideas my brother put forward. As soon as I read hid description, details began to take shape in my mind. I imagine not a police officer or P.I. but a rising young prosecutor in a very rough city. She has high political aims and step one is cleaning up a major metropolis. Of course, it turns out that the broken system is not ready to lay down and serve as her stepping stone. She doesn't have the resources she thinks she needs to solve her cases. She gets almost no institutional support from her fellow prosecutors and the local police department. When she tries to muscle her way into the circles of power, she gets pushed back and put down. Deciding that she doesn't want to wait for reform to save the city and her career, she sets out to carve her own path. Using her own gifts for deduction, she focuses her prosecution on the suspects she wants to bring in. When needed she can either spin her investigations to trap the suspect or manufacture the evidence or charges needed to get the conviction. She upsets the comfortable and causes all kinds of shock waves through the corridors of power, but the public loves her and that's what she wants. See, he was absolutely right. This character does write itself.

To be continued . . .

A Bite-Sized Return

Wow the blogosphere is still here? I thought it would have been destroyed by now. With all the chaos spreading through Internet these days, you would have to figured that if the Democratic Primary didn't make everyone's computer explode than all the gossip about The Hills would. I suppose so long as we are going to continue chattering endlessly into the abyss, someone might as well try to say something interesting. With that goal I figure now is as good a time as ever to bring back some Bite-Sized movie reviews.

In case you haven't read one of my movie review posts before, or in case you contracted that terrible Memento disease (you know the one where you wind up spending all of your time hanging out with Joe Pantoliano and tattooing your to-do list on your thighs), I will remind you of how I do things. Working under the presumption that blogs should be the source of new writing styles or at least original opinions, I avoid running down plot points or providing more traditional reviews. Instead you get a few bullet points that give you the kind of insights, observations, or snarky comments that only the Cap'n can provide. These reviews aren't intended to help you decide what to see at the cineplex (or more often what to pirate online), but instead to give you something to think about during and after your viewing of the film. Now that I've said that let's discuss the current releases I saw in the last few weeks.

The Forbidden Kingdom-

• As interesting an idea as it is to have Jackie Chan and Jet Li co-starring in a film (this would be the martial arts equivalent of Eddie Murphy and Denzel Washington trying to share a movie), I couldn't help but think of the two actors' age. As of the time of this writing Jet Li is 45 and Jackie Chan is 54! Let me put it another way both of these guys could be the grandfathers of 90% of MySpace users. Granted they are still masters of their craft, but during some of the wire-fu fight sequences I kept worrying that one of them would break a hip.
• On a personal note: I have long claimed to be a Jackie Chan fan, but this was the first film starring Mr. Chan I actually watched in a movie theater. I'm not sure what to make of that fact.
• For a movie set in a mythical version of medieval China, an American audience needs a gateway character, in this case a teen from Boston played by Michael Angarano. As far as I can tell Mr. Angarano was essentially paid to 1) be white and 2) vaguely remind people of Shia LeBeouf. To me, it is absolutely stunning that Shia LeBeouf is some how famous enough that people can get jobs by simulating a Shia LeBeouf performance. I realize there is some honor in this for the actors doing the simulating. After all Skeet Ulrich pretty much owes his career to vaguely reminding audiences of Johnny Depp. However I refuse to believe that the kid from Transformers and Even Stevens merits his own cottage industry of professional impersonators.
• The best thing in this movie may be the performance of Liu Yifei. This talented Chinese actress brings the only real human touches to this movie, in a role that is quiet yet strong. She's already a minor pop sensation in China (having found success as a model, actress and pop singer), but I sincerely hope she returns to American cinema to refine her acting talents.
  

Baby Mama-

• Did you know that this film has Steve Martin, Greg Kinnear, and Dax Shepard in it, all in prominent roles? You may find it odd that I would consider mentioning major members of the cast a unique enough item to include in my review. I bring it up mostly because the advertising department at Universal seems to go out of their way not to mention these actors. The promotional poster gives them relatively minimal attention, and the trailer spends more time with the guy who plays PC on those annoying Macintosh commercials than the three male leads combined. I can't understand what is happening here. I understand they probably targeted this to a largely female audience (though anyone could enjoy it, and I imagine many dudes will give it a try), but that doesn't mean they'll only attract tickets by featuring the female cast. Can you imagine a guy movie starring Will Ferrell and Andy Samberg not mentioning the fact that it also starred Goldie Hawn, Meg Ryan, and Brittany Murphy? I will never understand why Hollywood takes deliberate steps in "promoting" a movie that probably reduce their total potential ticket sales because they can only imagine selling a movie to one narrowly defined demographic niche.
• Many reviews for this movie I've read mention it is predictable, but don't seem to mind. I also found it pretty predictable, but was still entertained. This struck me as a demonstration of an important difference between comedy and drama. In drama the story itself is important and an exciting well executed plot can often overcome for many other shortcomings a film might suffer (see The Usual Suspects or The Sixth Sense). In comedy the story is but an excuse for the filmmakers to stage scenes with clever dialogue, quirky characters, and zany antics. Allowing films that tell almost no story at all to still be regarded as the pinnacle of the artform (see Airplane! and Monty Python and the Holy Grail). Just consider whether your enjoyment of a comedy had ever been damaged by knowing how the story will end.
• This movie is set in Philadelphia (though of course it was filmed in New York), which made me think about how few great movies take place in Philadelphia. If you think about movies set in Philly you obviously start with Philadelphia and The Philadelphia Story (which each brought Oscars to actors who were probably the most popular and likable movie stars of their respective generations). Then you have to think of the Rocky series (earning an average of 0.5 Oscars per film so far, though as long as Sylvester Stallone is alive there's some chance that number may change). And then what? Witness? Twelve Monkeys? The M. Knight Shyamalan movies? You see my point.

Iron Man-

• A few people have told me that this was the best super-hero movie they've seen. I personally felt more of a thrill watching X-Men movies and had a more satisfying experience watching the Spider-Man films. Still I concede that this has the most adult feel of any of the super-hero movies. In fact this movie could almost be a standard drama if the technology the hero used to try to right his wrongs and protect the innocent was a little less far-fetched -say he were flying a next generation combat helicopter instead of wearing a CGI suit of armor. I think many people are willing to praise it openly because the film seems serious enough on its own merits that they feel confident their adoration won't be treated as fanboy-ism or an immature interest in childish power fantasies. Jon Favreau may not have made the best super-hero movie, but he certainly provided the best cover for critics (who tend to be geeks at heart anyway).
• One of the things this film absolutely got right in my comic geek opinion, was how it included references to the comic series in a realistic and relevant way. Naming the terrorist organization the Ten Rings as an allusion to Iron Man's long-standing nemesis the Mandarin (Warning: link leads to an abundance of Cold War era racism). Incorporating an updated take on Tony Stark's constant servant Jarvis -a butler in the comics, an Artificial Intelligence smart-home system in the film. Even dropping little hints to well-established elements in the comics, like the name of another Iron Man villain or Jim Rhodes' stint in the armor. This is the way you reward the longtime comic fans without distancing a general audience. (Are you paying attention X-Men franchise?)
• You have to admire the filmmakers for having the guts to cut to credits on a very daring closing line. It left my wife sputtering and me grinning like Tony Stark after a batch of whiskey sours. It might have been diminished by the fact that there is a post-credits epilogue, but even that ends on a great note, so no harm no foul. It does make me wonder if I have to include it in my list of all time greatest closing lines. Right now my top five would look like this: 5) The Princess Bride 4) Casablanca 3) Sunset Blvd. 2) Chinatown and 1) Some Like It Hot. (Now if you don't know any of those lines by heart, DO NOT look them up. Go watch the movies. After that I bet you will remember the last line like it was your own name.) I may just have to find room in there for this one. It will be tough though, not even Fight Club's last line managed to jump any of the ones I listed. I would also be interested to hear what your picks for the best closing lines in a movie have been.
  

Another Serving of Bite Sized Movie Reviews

Once again it is my burdensome task to try and take the many hours of movies I have watched over the last several weeks, combine it with my years of training in cinematic studies (well at least a couple of quarters worth of classes in undergrad) and boil it all down to a few bullet points. I want to provide the blogosphere with those interesting insights and observations that only the Cap'n can provide. This time I will try something even more daring than my previous bite sized reviews by reviewing movies that are actually still in theaters. I know it may seem audacious, but I realized that continuing to rehash movies from months ago wasn't going to get me many dings on Technocrati. So let's hit up those movies I have seen so far in 2007.

300-

• Watching the battle sequences in this film in all their brutal beauty, I noticed that I found something deep and familiar resonating within me as the Spartans skillfully slashed their way through the Persian armies. It is the same vicarious thrill I get when watching Hustle, the brilliant BBC series about con artists, and when I watch Jason Kidd make a no-look cross- court pass for an easy dunk by a teammate and when I see Ricky Jay perform sleight-of-hand. I thoroughly enjoy watching an expert perform their craft with all of the mastery and talent they have developed over the years. It doesn't matter much if I'm presented with an actual expert in a real life situation (as in my basketball and magic examples) or an artistic representation of fictional scene (as in this film). I find myself engrossed by any presentation of a clearly difficult act given the appearance of ease by a skilled individual. Sufficed to say, I loved the fight sequences. I was nearly hypnotized by the elegant movements and machine like precision with which the titular 300 Spartans and their opponents fought and killed each other. These were the highlights of the film when the director gave us the most inspired visuals and the most skilled pacing. It's when the movie leaves behind the battle that it starts to suffer.
  
• Hollywood directors must really, really, REALLY love Frank Miller's stuff. First Rich Rodriguez credited Miller as a co-director for the Sin City movie, because the film so closely followed the visual presentation laid out in the comic. Now Zack Snyder has decided to crib directly from the comics to the degree that I was recognizing individual panels as the film freeze framed on certain images. I would say this copy and paste film making made the film slightly weaker, but after seeing how shaky the camera work, pacing, and even plotting got once the movie started to go outside Miller's comic, I've decided Snyder probably made the best choice to stay tenaciously faithful to the source whenever possible.
  
• As a historian I should probably say something about the historical accuracy of a film depicting one of the great events of ancient Western history, the Battle of Thermopylae. I think the film makes an honest effort to present the people and events as well as they were recorded by some ancient historians (who of course romanticized certain elements and created some misleading impressions of the circumstances). At the same time I believe nothing really looked the way the film presents it. That is to say the film took the words from one version of history and painted the most outrageous picture it could based on them. So it has to be appreciated for making some effort to present some historical accuracy even if it cannot really be taken seriously as a historical work. Of course, it should go without saying that anyone who goes to this movie expecting a realistic presentation of the past is as naive as the person who watches Star Trek expecting a realistic presentation of the future.

Blades of Glory-

• While the movie was plenty entertaining and even has strong hints of re-watchability, I couldn't shake the feeling that it was still a few scenes away from being an all-time comedy classic. Then it dawned on me that there were probably a few scenes cut from the theatrical release that will be on the DVD, which might have made the difference between a pretty funny movie and a truly great comedy. This may be the dark side of the DVD Era, with so many extras and special features included for the booming home market, we might start seeing more films holding off on the version for cinemas to keep costs down -or just figuring they can always fix it on the two disk director's cut special edition. It steals some of the power from the art when the creators aren't putting their all into front-loading a truly great big screen motion picture. I may be a traditionalist hold out, but I still believe movies should be defined by what is projected in a movie theater not what you can rent at Blockbuster.
• One of the great mysteries of current American entertainment may be why Will Ferrell has not yet made a top level R-rated comedy. I don't know if Eddie Murphey, Bill Murray, or Chevy Chase would have made it to where they are today without reaching for that career defining R-rated romp (well maybe Chevy Chase would be where he is today). It would have been so easy to take Anchorman or Talladega Nights to that next level. I kept expecting them to just go that extra-step in this movie with Chazz Michael Michaels sex addiction and give us that raunchy scene that's a gut buster to watch the first time and a guilty pleasure to watch over and over again. It just baffles me how we haven't see Will Ferrell, who may be the most fearless actor in Hollywood, put in one top level movie aimed at adults. I really hope Slate has somebody looking into this, because I really feel I may go crazy(okay crazier) if I don't find an explanation for this bizarre situation.

Zodiac-

• I will admit that I am a huge David Fincher fan, and that I like many men of my generation was drawn in by his early work from the late 1990's. There was a stretch between my freshman and sophomore years at college when I may not have gone two weeks without watching some portion of either Se7en or Fight Club. These movies are on all the time and they absolutely deserve to be. My favorite part of Fincher's style is how he creates very dark and gritty worlds then finds space within those worlds for wild visual excess. In Zodiac though he plays it much closer to the vest. I think he may have been aiming at subtlety to contrast this story of a mysterious serial killer with what he did in Se7en, but much of it felt restrained to me. I don't like seeing artists hold back even if it is to try and improve some other aspect of their craft. I am hoping Fincher finds a place where he's comfortable tapping into those crazed corners of his minds, because watching those helps stir the crazed corners of my own mind.
• I have a theory that the quality of an actor can be measured by how easily they can be replaced. For instance if I tried taking Will Ferrell out of Blades of Glory and putting in any other male comedy actor working today, that movie takes about five steps backwards. If I replace Matthew McConaughey in just about any role he's ever played, the movie he was in gets better. I thought Zodiac was a nice demonstration of how usefull this rule can be. I think the movie would have been exactly as good if any other generic young leading man had played the cartoonist come sleuth of Jake Gyllenhaal. He didn't bring anything to the role you would miss if he left, but I don't think there was much room for improvement given the limits of the character. You'd only hurt the movie if you tried to replace Mark Ruffalo as the seasoned detective, because he brought out the soft touches and lighter moments of the character that I think any other actor would have rushed right over in their efforts to be gruff and cynical. Robert Downey Junior is absolutely dazzling as the drunken journalist assigned to the Zodiac killings and could not be replaced without catastrophic consequences. The best performance of the film though belongs to Anthony Edwards who turns Ruffalo's partner into a captivating character that I wish I had as a professional partner and friend. You may be able to replace him without ruining the movie, but you could never get another actor to add as much to the film as he did.
  

More Bite Sized Movie Reviews

Since I have seen so many movies, and have so much work out there in reality to avoid, I have returned with even more miniaturized movie reviews. Remember these aren't here to summarize the plot or give you some kind of rating, I only aim to share the most original insights I can bring for any and all of the films below.

The Last King of Scotland-

• This film serves as a great example of how to film female nudity (of various degrees and in an assortment of contexts) without ever stooping to exploitation. It has been said that the history of film is the history of men photographing women. In most cases that act of photographing seems to objectify or degrade the women being pictured. The twin engines of cinema as an art film accomplish this through an oddly paradoxical process. First the camera has the strange power to invade their intimate secrets and inner lives by getting closer than most men would dare to capture the woman's essence and trap here essence. Then the projector dehumanizes the woman by inflating her image to stretch across the theater screen and keeping her a safe distance from the leering audience. The process has happened in countless films and every time it reaffirms the traditional power structure between the genders that has made women feel oppressed and abused for so many centuries. This film however treats the women it photographs with respect. The camera keeps its distance the director gives each woman filmed a personality and each shot a meaning deeper than flesh. Those few seconds of the movie offer great insight into the art of filmmaking for any serious aspirant or scholar.
• Conversely I felt the film really mishandled its portrayal of violence. The violence I felt the most emotionally affected by all came either directly or indirectly through the action of our supposed protagonist, a young Scottish doctor who has traveled to Uganda and gets caught up in Idi Amin's rise to power. Though the audience knows Amin to have been a brutal dictator and the film acknowledges as much, Amin's tyranny is never given the same weight on screen as the Scot's blunders and misfortune's. In a strange way I feel the way the film treats the two characters is more responsible for the praise Forest Whitaker has received for this film than the actor himself. The movie honestly makes you feel more sympathetic to the most evil character in the picture than the hero we follow from start to finish.
• Forest Whitaker definitely acts his socks off though. His inspired use of an Ugandan accent makes me wonder if we could dub him the Hefty Black Male Meryl Streep. So long as that title hasn't been taken yet.

Little Miss Sunshine-

• Ensemble pieces must be difficult for the actors involved . Learning to share the screen can be difficult to those used to demanding the spotlight, but the reverse can be even more so. Yet countless actors throw themselves into these crazy little movies every year in the name of art, in the hope of having a good time, and possibly just to steal food from craft services. Usually making the sacrifices involved in an ensemble film have two affects on the actors involved: 1) They clearly demonstrate they can put their egos aside to focus on making the best movie possible; and 2)They give up any hope of being honored with an award. Sorry but awards go to people who chew up the scenery and put on big showy performances, and there's no room for that in a little art house ensemble piece like Little Miss Sunshine. This is a real pity because I believe of the eight best performance I saw in a movie last year six of them were in this film. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, or the Oscars, have concurred to a limited extent by granting nominations to child actress Abigail Breslin (because cute kids always get a nod) and to seasoned vet Alan Arkin (almost surely as a way of saying "we care about old actors too"). I think it's a shame they couldn't have acknowledged the far superior performances of Steve Carrell, Greg Kinnear, and my personal favorite, Paul Dano. Sadly that's just one of the difficulties involved in an ensemble picture.
• The yellow Volkswagen minibus that you've seen in the trailers and on the film's poster should win an award for Best Symbol/Metaphor in a Feature Film. Much like the Hoover family it carries it is a dysfunctional oddity. Out of place among traditional cars, it can barely run, it needs to be pushed to do anything at all, it looks and behave abnormally most times and occasionally it screams out for attention. Yet when you step inside you find just enough privacy and stability to develop some peace, happiness and hope.

Pan's Labyrinth-

• Many have referred to this film as a dark or adult fairy tale simply because it contains elements drawn from fantasy and folklore. Trust me when I tell you the bulk of this movie is focused on more earthly affairs of a sad and gruesome nature. The fantasy elements may even be nothing more than a clever coping mechanism by the protagonist. You will leave the theater discussing the complex moral and psychological issues that form the basis of this film and not the visual wonders that make a world of (sometimes morbid) wonders come to life. This is not to diminish the literary merits of some fairy tales, simply to let U.S. audiences know they should expect little of the fell-good buoyancy or simplistic moralizing you may be used to after Disney raised three separate generations of children on watered-down treacly versions of classic fairy tales.
• The original Spanish title translates as "The Labyrinth of the Faun", referring to the mythical creature exemplified by Pan and Mr. Tumnus. The character of Pan is neither seen nor mentioned in the film itself. I normally wouldn't mind that sort of misnomer as occasionally artist's suggest additional layers of meaning in their work through a title that refers to a larger concept or idea (The West Wing writers used to love doing this). However in this case I and my film going companion's spent most of the movie trying to guess when Pan was going to show up. When we realized Pan was not involved just another nameless faun, it left me a little upset. More upsetting was my eventual realization that the only reason the English title refers to Pan at all is because the filmmakers assume Americans are too stupid to understand what a faun is, or that they will assume its a movie about deer hunting.
  

The Da Vinci Code-

• With all of the controversy stirred up by this film for some of the implications it makes about religion, I wonder if anyone has ever bothered to mention how staunchly feminist this movie is. Of all the messages to resonate most from this movie, the idea of women deserving equal treatment and status to men. Given that all the Sturm und Drang has focused on particulars of Jesus' life which one either accepts or rejects on faith alone, I can only assume this means that everyone agrees women have been oppressed by Christianity for centuries and deserve a more prominent place in the religion. It will be good news to many that all of the Catholics who protested the movie's portrayal of Christ have decided to support the ordaining of women from now on.
• Dan Brown author of the Da Vinci Code novel has come under scrutiny for lifitng some of his historical theories from other books about the hidden history of Christianity. I am surprised Kevin Smith hasn't sued over all of the clear thematic and dramatic similarities between this story and Smith's Dogma. Both films mostly focus on ways the Catholic church has hidden the true history of Christianity. Both films feature women in crisis who enter quests involving Jesus' bloodline. Both films claim that Jesus had a close relationship with someone other than the twelve apostles and that relationship reveals a hidden aspect of Christ's life. Both films have killer angels. Both films feature a high ranking Catholic who is out to deliberately deceive the public. Both films feature some truly disgusting greasy mullets. It's downright creepy ow similar the actually are.
• The filmmakers had to realize it would be risking making this movie. After all its best hope is to be the third best movie ever made about the holy grail. Right out of the gate they had to know they could never top Indiana Jone and the Last Crusade or the even more brilliant Monty Python and the Holy Grail. In fact watching The Da Vinci Code movie mostly made me want to go back and watch these movies again. I don't believe it's a good sign when your movie makes people think about movies they would rather spend their time seeing.

We'll cut it off again with that. Stay tuned to this spot for even more Bite Sized Movie Reviews.