Yet more links to Peter Bradshaw reviews. As is typical, the Christian layering is what leapt out at me most. Jesse James as the American celebrity-Christ. A living counter-cultural myth with the forces of order breathing down his neck. A fraud -- he didn't restrict himself to killing Unionists and he didn't give to the poor. But when did that ever matter? Playing the charismatic but deadly warlord is enough to ensnare the imagination. And people like him don't retire. Suicide, as Charley Ford so ironically tells him, is a coward's way out. So how do you go? How do you kill a god? You have a coward do it for you.
The cheap reenactments, and the religion they perpetuate, are a fake of a fake. Except it always becomes real, if enough people believe it. Charley's act becomes more and more lifelike, but he doesn't have the skill to engineer a glorious end. Bob is assassinated, but he never had a glorious life, ending up as a saloon owner and married to a stripper. And he realises this, and repents, before the end. Maybe his last words were a confession..?
I'm being pretty elliptical (even for me!), but that's kinda the effect the film has on you. It's all long takes, long dialogues, long silences. Oblique but tense. Bradshaw has a problem with the voice-over, but he likes his cinema extreme. I found I needed that comforting familiarity. Otherwise, I don't know if I could have taken the endless chilly exteriors and tormented, crumbling psyches...
26.2.11
'Hereditary succession is a burlesque upon monarchy. It puts it in the most ridiculous light, by presenting it as an office which any child or idiot may fill. It requires some talents to be a common mechanic; but to be a king, requires only the animal figure of man -- a sort of breathing automaton. This sort of superstition may last a few years more, but it cannot long resist the awakened reason and interest of man.' - Thomas Paine, Rights of Man
25.2.11
A Genealogy of the Doctrine of Utility
This blog is really turning into a scrapbook, now. I attended a lecture by Niall O'Flaherty (who first taught me on the history of political ideas) and I just wanna jot down some thoughts.
The basic idea is that the secular British utilitarianism of the 19th century has its roots in the theological utilitarianism of the 18th century. Here's how it works. In explaining the origin of morality, natural theologians sought a middle ground between Mandeville's reduction of all motives to self-interest and Hutcheson's divine 'moral sense'. The solution was that we associate goodness with utility, but then form abstract rules based on those associations to the point where we follow those rules even when they are not useful. Hence: a moral sense born out of self-interest.
(I think this looks a lot like Hume's idea of justice, but more on that below.)
The problem here is universality: you only get local moralities with this system. So you need something else. You need God. God has designed human beings to be happy, thus whatever promotes their happiness is moral. All that association and abstraction gets in the way of this simple fact and needs to be ditched. And so: utilitarianism.
Hume, being an atheist, can't go for the God option. Both his and Adam Smith's (also Rousseau's) moral systems remain products of social environment. Maybe that's why they didn't track into the 19th century? Instead you've got Paine's adaptation of natural law, Kant's categorical imperative, Bentham's utilitarianism... Maybe Hume needed a more secular era to get his due?
The basic idea is that the secular British utilitarianism of the 19th century has its roots in the theological utilitarianism of the 18th century. Here's how it works. In explaining the origin of morality, natural theologians sought a middle ground between Mandeville's reduction of all motives to self-interest and Hutcheson's divine 'moral sense'. The solution was that we associate goodness with utility, but then form abstract rules based on those associations to the point where we follow those rules even when they are not useful. Hence: a moral sense born out of self-interest.
(I think this looks a lot like Hume's idea of justice, but more on that below.)
The problem here is universality: you only get local moralities with this system. So you need something else. You need God. God has designed human beings to be happy, thus whatever promotes their happiness is moral. All that association and abstraction gets in the way of this simple fact and needs to be ditched. And so: utilitarianism.
Hume, being an atheist, can't go for the God option. Both his and Adam Smith's (also Rousseau's) moral systems remain products of social environment. Maybe that's why they didn't track into the 19th century? Instead you've got Paine's adaptation of natural law, Kant's categorical imperative, Bentham's utilitarianism... Maybe Hume needed a more secular era to get his due?
24.2.11
Whatever Happened To The Caped Crusader?
After the Morrison madness, it would have been especially difficult for Gaiman to shine. Like a lot of his stories, it's a bit... nice, in that unthreatening, vapid, Gaiman way. Not without merit, however. It's a gem of an idea, cute but poignant. And it does get at something essential about Batman -- his delusional obsession with this ridiculous crime-fighting business. It's all a lie, but not if you believe it. And that unbreakable will that never gives up on a problem. The man's crazy, he can't stop, he'll die in battle.
And be reborn, inevitably. The ending was a very rich cheese even by Gaiman's standards. But if the niceness is a bit sickly, it's still niceness. You can't hate him for it...
And be reborn, inevitably. The ending was a very rich cheese even by Gaiman's standards. But if the niceness is a bit sickly, it's still niceness. You can't hate him for it...
23.2.11
Superman Beyond
May have been in a darker place when I wrote this. Obv I haven't been able to stick to the comix downsizing that was promised. I've quit Ultimate Spidey and X-Factor for cost reasons, and becasue I get better Bendis and David elsewhere (you should really check out Scarlet and Fallen Angel). Buffy Season 8 ended pretty well, with a welcome confession of sins from Whedon in the final issue, so I'll be picking up the new season when it comes out. Plus I keep buying trades -- this comix disease just cannot be rid of!
That's just the background to me having a second run at Final Crisis. I'm abt half-way thru now. It's telling, perhaps, that I quit last time just before reaching the centre-piece of the story, the two issue Superman Beyond arc. If I had read it then, I may have been much more enthusiastic about the whole book. The writing here is really quite dense -- symbols and patterns weaved with dazzling skill. I just want to unravel some of them, for reference more than anything.
Monitor is absolute and perfect, a white conscious void. (God?) Flaw encased in concept containing contradictions / events / stories. It's harmful: stories destroy / limit / define. Mysteries infect Monitor. History begins.
Contact makes probe split in two. One half a Silent Sentinel, a doomsday weapon to be used at the end of the world / final crisis. (Christ?) Other half Dax Novu. Seeks knowledge, infected with the bleed / life (body?). Died to chain beast / himself. Becomes Madrakk, eater of life. Will be unleashed at the end of the world / final crisis, when Monitor civilization declines and falls. (Lucifer? Anti-Christ?)
Mammon / Madrakk the evil god of greed / property / material wealth. Coming out of the bleed / void into the multiverse. (Body taking over the mind? Addiction to story?)
Superman and Ultraman not dualities but symmetries. Beyond conflict. Hate crime fused with selfless act. An act of enormous power. Transcendent.
The Silent Sentinel awakes (awesome letterbox effect on this page!) in the city of Monitors (readers?) between dimensions / panels. Realm of form and meaning to realm of primal forms. Weeja Dell meets him and leads him to final battle. Lover of Nix Voltan who would have fought against the Vampire Gods, but was killed / exiled unjustly.
Madrakk holds elixir of life, only vampires can consume it. Madrakk believed into existence, but Superman a better story. Madrakk is Dax Novu corrupted. Superman knows his origin, and kills him. Even the idea of him lost and forgotten.
"To be continued" a warning: stories never end. Carved on tombstone: life after death after life.
Part 1: Ogama cast down where he can do no harm. Feeds Ultraman the blood of Madrakk. Will return when Superman is weak.
Part 2: Superman wakes his sleeping beauty with a kiss. Feeds Lois the bleed and revives her. Remembers and saves while Madrakk forgets and kills.
Character's dreams, character's lives, our dreams and our lives, all resonate with story.
Enough fragmentary notes. These two issues tell a kind of meta-story behind ALL stories: tragedies, comedies, the quest... The presence of Captain Atom -- Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan -- might signal the kind of ambitions Grant Morrison has here. It's an staggering piece of myth-building, an intelligent exploration of our collective unconscious, and a supreme achievement in comics, really.
Blasts Secret Invasion out of the water, that's for sure.
ETA: Finished the book last night. It was huge, constantly surprising and very very awesome. There's just one more detail to add to the ramble above. The final crisis is only that of the Monitor race. They have decided to stop interfering with the earth and surrender to the bleed / life. Also significant that the humans and super-humans win using Metron's gift of knowledge. Has Morrison been reading Feuerbach, one wonders? We don't need the gods anymore. They have become human beings.
The one line that effectively summarizes all of the above: "This is the story of all our stories."
That's just the background to me having a second run at Final Crisis. I'm abt half-way thru now. It's telling, perhaps, that I quit last time just before reaching the centre-piece of the story, the two issue Superman Beyond arc. If I had read it then, I may have been much more enthusiastic about the whole book. The writing here is really quite dense -- symbols and patterns weaved with dazzling skill. I just want to unravel some of them, for reference more than anything.
Monitor is absolute and perfect, a white conscious void. (God?) Flaw encased in concept containing contradictions / events / stories. It's harmful: stories destroy / limit / define. Mysteries infect Monitor. History begins.
Contact makes probe split in two. One half a Silent Sentinel, a doomsday weapon to be used at the end of the world / final crisis. (Christ?) Other half Dax Novu. Seeks knowledge, infected with the bleed / life (body?). Died to chain beast / himself. Becomes Madrakk, eater of life. Will be unleashed at the end of the world / final crisis, when Monitor civilization declines and falls. (Lucifer? Anti-Christ?)
Mammon / Madrakk the evil god of greed / property / material wealth. Coming out of the bleed / void into the multiverse. (Body taking over the mind? Addiction to story?)
Superman and Ultraman not dualities but symmetries. Beyond conflict. Hate crime fused with selfless act. An act of enormous power. Transcendent.
The Silent Sentinel awakes (awesome letterbox effect on this page!) in the city of Monitors (readers?) between dimensions / panels. Realm of form and meaning to realm of primal forms. Weeja Dell meets him and leads him to final battle. Lover of Nix Voltan who would have fought against the Vampire Gods, but was killed / exiled unjustly.
Madrakk holds elixir of life, only vampires can consume it. Madrakk believed into existence, but Superman a better story. Madrakk is Dax Novu corrupted. Superman knows his origin, and kills him. Even the idea of him lost and forgotten.
"To be continued" a warning: stories never end. Carved on tombstone: life after death after life.
Part 1: Ogama cast down where he can do no harm. Feeds Ultraman the blood of Madrakk. Will return when Superman is weak.
Part 2: Superman wakes his sleeping beauty with a kiss. Feeds Lois the bleed and revives her. Remembers and saves while Madrakk forgets and kills.
Character's dreams, character's lives, our dreams and our lives, all resonate with story.
Enough fragmentary notes. These two issues tell a kind of meta-story behind ALL stories: tragedies, comedies, the quest... The presence of Captain Atom -- Watchmen's Dr. Manhattan -- might signal the kind of ambitions Grant Morrison has here. It's an staggering piece of myth-building, an intelligent exploration of our collective unconscious, and a supreme achievement in comics, really.
Blasts Secret Invasion out of the water, that's for sure.
ETA: Finished the book last night. It was huge, constantly surprising and very very awesome. There's just one more detail to add to the ramble above. The final crisis is only that of the Monitor race. They have decided to stop interfering with the earth and surrender to the bleed / life. Also significant that the humans and super-humans win using Metron's gift of knowledge. Has Morrison been reading Feuerbach, one wonders? We don't need the gods anymore. They have become human beings.
The one line that effectively summarizes all of the above: "This is the story of all our stories."
21.2.11
Savage Grace
The effect so seamless, I didn't even notice it until it was pointed out in the "making of" feature on the DVD -- the film divided into five days, crucial turning points in the narrative. A decision forced by lack of funding, but one that pretty much makes the film what it is. There is no sweep. Rather, it is intensely focused on the detail of family bonds and secrets. Close-ups of revealing looks, faces composing themselves, moods shifting in unpredictable ways. And the pace is masterfully controlled. There is so little gap-filling info that you are constantly engaged thru every transition. And the set-pieces are gloriously put together. A movie full of little crescendos.
As for the content, well Peter Bradshaw can help with that. Father, mother and son all fail at fulfilling their expectations of each other. Barbara has to act the part of high-society wife, but her obsession with keeping up appearances alienates her husband. His presence and demeanor is a constant reminder that she doesn't fit in, and so she uses sex both to fight against and then to conciliate him. Doesn't work, obviously. He settles for sadism and then someone more carefree (and more youthful to boot).
Brooks is oppressed by the legacy of his more successful forebears, and wants his son to be cast in their image. But Tony is a mummy's boy, indolent, and worst of all, gay. Tony both desires the approval of his father, and finds his macho attitude stifling. But after the divorce, mother and son both fall apart -- drawn ever more tightly to each other, and yet repelled by that closeness. Dependance and distance, an embrace and a knife -- constant, concurrent extremes that tear the family apart.
As for the content, well Peter Bradshaw can help with that. Father, mother and son all fail at fulfilling their expectations of each other. Barbara has to act the part of high-society wife, but her obsession with keeping up appearances alienates her husband. His presence and demeanor is a constant reminder that she doesn't fit in, and so she uses sex both to fight against and then to conciliate him. Doesn't work, obviously. He settles for sadism and then someone more carefree (and more youthful to boot).
Brooks is oppressed by the legacy of his more successful forebears, and wants his son to be cast in their image. But Tony is a mummy's boy, indolent, and worst of all, gay. Tony both desires the approval of his father, and finds his macho attitude stifling. But after the divorce, mother and son both fall apart -- drawn ever more tightly to each other, and yet repelled by that closeness. Dependance and distance, an embrace and a knife -- constant, concurrent extremes that tear the family apart.
20.2.11
17.2.11
True Grit
Will Self on the money. Little to add but affirmation. There is this sense of ironic detachment, of films about films, to the Coens. They remain pretty damn guarded in their work as well as in interviews.
Just two techy things. Hailee Steinfeld is incredible in the lead role, particularly in the shift from hardass to wide-eyed enthusiasm as she gets on the trail. Btw yes, she does have the LEAD role. My friends were discussing this after the film. Apparently the awards slot her into the supporting actress category, which is crazy. Damon and Brolin have bit parts compared to her. I guess the names count for more than the work...
Second, not enough has been said about how funny the film is. It's hilarious, sometimes just because you don't know what the frack Jeff Bridges is saying. Related to this is the discussion about how realistic the film is, what with its switching idioms and its impressive protagonist (she does have the truest of grit). The comedy gives you the clue to the answer on this one. If the Coens make films about films, then fiddling with genre is at the heart of it. It's supposed to be ridiculous, unbelievable. It's art.
On the substance, the ending was really quite touching, but the 25-years-later coda left me somewhat cold. Matty Ross was cold. True grit didn't buy you very much, did it? And yet the film portrayed her adult character straight, almost as if she was a-ok. For me, there was a disconnect there, which drained some of the emotion built up by Rooster's chivalry. He ended up a circus entertainer. That's where grit has ended up in the New America. Good point, and maybe I'm just not being pessimistic and 'mature' enough, but I could have done without the crash back to reality. Just leave me to my fantasies of the rugged but noble Wild West...
Just two techy things. Hailee Steinfeld is incredible in the lead role, particularly in the shift from hardass to wide-eyed enthusiasm as she gets on the trail. Btw yes, she does have the LEAD role. My friends were discussing this after the film. Apparently the awards slot her into the supporting actress category, which is crazy. Damon and Brolin have bit parts compared to her. I guess the names count for more than the work...
Second, not enough has been said about how funny the film is. It's hilarious, sometimes just because you don't know what the frack Jeff Bridges is saying. Related to this is the discussion about how realistic the film is, what with its switching idioms and its impressive protagonist (she does have the truest of grit). The comedy gives you the clue to the answer on this one. If the Coens make films about films, then fiddling with genre is at the heart of it. It's supposed to be ridiculous, unbelievable. It's art.
On the substance, the ending was really quite touching, but the 25-years-later coda left me somewhat cold. Matty Ross was cold. True grit didn't buy you very much, did it? And yet the film portrayed her adult character straight, almost as if she was a-ok. For me, there was a disconnect there, which drained some of the emotion built up by Rooster's chivalry. He ended up a circus entertainer. That's where grit has ended up in the New America. Good point, and maybe I'm just not being pessimistic and 'mature' enough, but I could have done without the crash back to reality. Just leave me to my fantasies of the rugged but noble Wild West...
15.2.11
Repulsion
Old ladies with the bad experiences + sister with the scary sex noises = men are monsters. KILL THEM!!! Except you desire them too, don't you? You desire monsters? Looks like...
Did like one particularly contrived frame. Lady and gent right and left, with the (spinster?) neighbour in between. The moral majority getting between the beautiful young lovers.
Some visual metaphors explained in the crudest possible terms: Leaning Tower of Pisa = massive cock. Moldy rabbit = sexuality gone sour. Cracks in the walls = cracks in yr hymen. And that's about enough of that!
The aged male gypsy band waddling across London = what? A bit of the old country in the middle of the city... Innocence crippled? Tradition lost?
The nunnery? Its bells urging chastity, constantly overruled... a pop at religion? Probably wasn't an easy target, back then.
We start with Carol's real eye and we end with her eye again, a photograph of her as a child (and what a creepy child!). Comment on art maybe? The real into reel? Wikipedia says it's child abuse, although I missed that inference. I dunno... ask Polanski. Then again, child rape might be a bit of an awkward subject to raise with him...
It's all mirrors and lights and twisting doorknobs and heavy breathing down the phone. Cliches so worn they kinda lose the impact they probably had in 1965. However, the hands / rapists coming out of the walls shocked EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's still got it, even after half a century. Pretty impressive, really.
Did like one particularly contrived frame. Lady and gent right and left, with the (spinster?) neighbour in between. The moral majority getting between the beautiful young lovers.
Some visual metaphors explained in the crudest possible terms: Leaning Tower of Pisa = massive cock. Moldy rabbit = sexuality gone sour. Cracks in the walls = cracks in yr hymen. And that's about enough of that!
The aged male gypsy band waddling across London = what? A bit of the old country in the middle of the city... Innocence crippled? Tradition lost?
The nunnery? Its bells urging chastity, constantly overruled... a pop at religion? Probably wasn't an easy target, back then.
We start with Carol's real eye and we end with her eye again, a photograph of her as a child (and what a creepy child!). Comment on art maybe? The real into reel? Wikipedia says it's child abuse, although I missed that inference. I dunno... ask Polanski. Then again, child rape might be a bit of an awkward subject to raise with him...
It's all mirrors and lights and twisting doorknobs and heavy breathing down the phone. Cliches so worn they kinda lose the impact they probably had in 1965. However, the hands / rapists coming out of the walls shocked EVERY SINGLE TIME. It's still got it, even after half a century. Pretty impressive, really.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)