New post!

By which I mean, an entire new blog dedicated to film reviews (and other cinema related stuff).

The new blog is called Cinema cope (yes, Google tells me I'm the first person to come up with that one: you are welcome). It is, unsurprisingly, where I'll post film reviews. It's main focus will be, as the name suggests, movies I see at the cinema.

I'll be putting my reflections on all the Wellington Film Society screenings I get to up on Cinema cope. I'll also comment - however briefly - on any other movies I see at the cinema (and maybe even the ones I watch on dvd or TV etc).

Generally, I'll post there at least once a week. Usually on a Tuesday for film society screenings (i.e. the day after the screening), or Sunday for general screenings. Or both - if you're lucky.

ETA: Actually, if you're really lucky, I might try to get to a general release movie on Thursday (the day they usually first hit the big screen) and review it that night. So ideally the posting schedule will be:

• Tuesday for a review of the previous day's film society screening,
• Thursday evening for a review of a new release,
• Sunday for, say, a review of a film that's been out for a while.

 I'll generally try to post something on Sunday if I don't manage to make the Tuesday or Thursday postings.

Are you old enough?

Recently, Philip Greatrex has written this piece for the NZ Herald in regard to lowering the voting age to 16 (drawn to my attention by James Sleep). It reminded me of this No Right Turn post from 2007 arguing in favour of extending the franchise.

I agree, for the most part, with their arguments. I would like to see the voting age lowered to 16.

As the commentor 'Mike' says on No Right Turn's post: "The idea that someone can have a family, a job, a house (unlikely, admittedly, but theoretically possible), be in the military and not vote to get representation is ridiculous."

 (I'll note for the record Your Honour, it's weird reading a NRT post with comments allowed.)

Discussing this on Twitter, Rachel Carrell made these counter arguments:

1) "16 seems very young. They haven't even finished high school. We knew nothing at 16

2) "I'm Labour member but @ 16 would have definitely voted ACT - entranced by simple answer"

Point 1 is the very generalisation that Philip Greatrex is trying to counter. I call this the 'Political Engagement' argument. I've known of well-informed 16 to 17 year-olds whose political opinions would be as valid as many an 'adult'. Also, I've known of ill-informed older people who I personally hope wouldn't exercise their franchise.

I'd be surprised to find that the sort of 17-year-old who "knew nothing" would suddenly become politically engaged at 18. In any case, as a democracy, we don't stipulate that political engagement is a condition of being a voter. If you're over 18 we don't care how ignorant or foolish you are, you have a say in the government that represents you. I'm not convinced that 18 is a special age of general political engagement.

As for Point 2, I wonder if this governs many people's view on this issue: "Shit, I would have made a dumb choice at 16!"

But where does that slippery slope stop? Someone may consider (as I do) that their libertarian view at age 18 or 19 was evidence of their entrancement to simplistic answers. This might well be the case, but we aren't about to argue for the increase in the voting age to 20, are we? What is the age of political wisdom?

I don't think lowering the voting age is a panacea, but I don't think it will be any kind of impediment to progressive politics.

UPDATE: At the 2012 Labour Party conference, delegates supported a motion that if the party comes to power, it will lower the voting age by two years to 16.

Consequences: the Wellington Film Society March to April 2012

About a third of the way into this year’s Wellington Film Society schedule, and the selection almost seems themed, like some group art exhibition at the public gallery. The tone has been fairly dark, and the themes are frequently to do with consequences of your actions. There were three classic American noir films, where people getting what’s coming to them is often a feature. Nicolas Roeg’s bleak outback adventure Walkabout displays results of societal pressures of many kinds, and the two European films, The Skin I Live In and The Consequences of Love feature plenty of, well, consequences. In order of screening, here are the Film Society’s 2012 offerings from March and April, with my brief comments.

[Sans comments for two: I missed Wake In Fright, and I will review The Consequences of Love in a post of its own.]

The Skin I live In (La piel que habito)  Spain 2011

Antonio Banderas plays a brilliant plastic surgeon haunted by his past. Many of his achievements are a result of the experiments he conducts on Vera (Elena Anaya), a mysterious, beautiful woman held captive in his mansion.

By many accounts, Pedro Almodovar’s previous film, Broken Embraces, was a disappointment. I haven’t seen it, but if that’s right, he’s well and truly back on track with this gorgeous, kitschy yet unsettling surgical horror film. Almodovar’s usual concerns are on display again here, and his melodramatic and slightly surreal style is both immersive and sometimes a tad daft. The explanation for these proceedings is suitably deranged, and delivered not as a ‘gotcha’ twist at the end, but revealed like the unfurling of a bandage through the story’s middle act, allowing the audience to dwell on the events and the madness.

Mildred Pierce  USA 1945

Mildred Pierce (Joan Crawford, in an excellent “comeback” performance) runs from a beach-front house after shots are fired and her estranged husband is murdered. Flashback shows how Mildred came to be in this position, after leaving her previous cheating husband and trying to raise her daughters on her own. (Based on the novel by James Cain.)

Underrated film noir that stands up to contemporary viewing better than the next two examples. While it has an essentially conservative outlook, the social anxieties of the time are nicely laid bare. It features an effectively contemptuous performance from Ann Blyth as Veda – one of the most grating spoiled brats ever put to the screen.

Wake In Fright  Australia 1971

I didn’t see this one, but it sounds pretty good.

The Postman Always Rings Twice  USA 1946

A drifter (John Garfield) arrives at diner owned by a genial, older man and his beautiful wife (Lana Turner). They fall in love and together they plot the murder of the husband.

Another good film noir based on a James M. Cain novel, although this one doesn’t hold up as well to modern viewing as Mildred Pierce. (It’s still better than the 1981 remake.) There’s a vulnerability to both leads, and a precariousness to their criminal plotting, that lends the movie an odd kind of authenticity. Despite that, there are also a few ‘Why did they do that? Why don’t they just do this?’ moments. It features good performances all round, especially from Turner and Hume Cronyn, whose devious defence lawyer may be my favourite part of the movie. There’s a good, thorough commentary from Nick Davis here.

The Asphalt Jungle  USA 1950

A criminal genius gets out of prison and plans one last heist. He gathers together the necessary team (safe cracker, tough guy, money man, driver), and everything goes according to plan. Except, not quite.

A very influential, archetypal crime caper movie, The Asphalt Jungle is probably a must watch for cineasts. So I’m glad that they played it, although it did have a slight sensation of being a chore. It’s got an effective atmosphere, and the untangling of the heist is nicely understated. It’s once again conservative in outlook, but engenders a degree of sympathy with the characters. However, it seems at times even more preachy than the other noirs shown so far. Relatedly, perhaps, it feels the most dated.

Walkabout  Australia 1971

After their father has a breakdown, a teenage girl and her younger brother are left stranded in the Australian outback. They eventually meet and receive assistance from an aboriginal boy on his ‘walkabout’ (a rite of passage where he spends some time separated from his tribe).

Walkabout is a fascinating, often misunderstood, slightly naive coming of age adventure. Jenny Agutter (most recently seen as a SHIELD council member in The Avengers) gives a strong performance, nicely balancing stoicism and vulnerability. The film seems to suggest mostly a strong element of cultural incommensurability, but also a hint of shared humanity, or at least parallels in, for example, matters confronting those “coming of age”.

This nuanced portrayal is to its credit, but it juggles its themes clumsily at times, coming across a bit ANTH 101. For example, in the first meeting between Agutter’s character and the aborigine (David Gulpilil) sees her trying thick-headedly to ask for water: “Water!  ... You must understand ‘water’!” she repeats to the uncomprehending aborigine. Then her brother mimes a drinking action and gets the point across. Agutter’s character wasn’t portrayed as ignorant or dim-witted in most of the film, but we’re supposed to believe that she thinks he simply must understand “water”, and it wouldn’t occur to her to mime the act of drinking.

Roger Ebert says the film is about “The mystery of communication”, and that’s true to a point. But ham-fisted scenes like this one make it almost feel didactic, rather than mysterious. And some of the stylistic editing just seems pretentious.

But mostly I agree with Ebert. Walkabout is mostly a nuanced film about culture and communication. Like The Consequences of Love, it’s able to say a lot without having characters that speak a lot. Walkabout is for the most part poetic, subtle, visually strong, and not a simplistic “noble savage good; modern life hollow” tale that some think.

The Consequences of Love (Le conseguenze dell'amore)  Italy 2004

Titta lives in a Hotel in Lugano, Switzerland. He’s been there almost ten years, spending his days drinking alone, occasionally playing cards, and waiting for a mysterious delivery, which in turn triggers a dash to the bank. Ten years of living an inscrutable life, one day he decides to offer a barmaid a smile.

This will get its own post soon. In the meantime, watch the beginning, with music by Lali Puna.

[This review was originally posted on Poplitiko.]

The Pirates of Hollywood

[Sorry, this post has been edited a tad.]

As we all know, Kim Dotcom and other Masters of Evil Megaupload staff have been arrested, and are subject to proceedings to extradite them to the USA for trial.

With the Kim Dotcom/Megaupload affair being played out in New Zealand's legal system at the moment, I'll exercise the blog by linking to some essential reading.

Hypocrisy in Hollywood.

****

Oh, and while I'm at it, I'll admit to having a soft spot for this song. RIP Davy.

Ask the people

Watching Back Benches last night, I was puzzled by Rahui Katene's view on the situation in Fiji.

"What's so great about democracy?" she asked fellow bencher Stuart Nash, as she made the case that democracy wasn't necessarily the right system for every nation, and we shouldn't try to impose it on Fiji as that would be bullying.

Katene did, however, think that the Fijians should be asked what they wanted. Presumably she thinks the whole adult population should be asked, and have an equal say. After all, if you only ask a limited segment, such as the group currently in charge or a specified ethnic group, then you're already prejudging how things should be run, which is what you want to avoid.

Perhaps Katene has in mind only a one-off consultation of the people, and thereafter they're stuck with whatever form of government and group of people they choose to run the place. But it would be an odd notion to value the view of the people only on a onetime basis, thereafter locking in whatever decision they made, even to later generations, no matter how the people they chose to lead them behaved. So more likely she has no objection to some kind of ongoing 'touching base' with the people she wants to consult.

So Katene wants some sort of repeated, universal consultation of the will of the people of Fiji in how their nation should be run, and who should run it.

While the operational details vary from case to case, there is a type of system that broadly fits what she's after.
It's called democracy.

Twecon job

I took part in the second #twecon conference last Monday. The twitter-based conference was organised by Matthew Dentith, who has archived the 19 papers presented on his blog EPISTO.

In short, you have a maximum of six numbered tweets featuring the #twecon hash tag to make your point, or to make an artistic statement, or whatever. It’s very open.

It was a lot of fun, and I’ll take part again next time (there’s another to be organised later this year I believe). I also think having to make a coherent case in six 130-character entries is an interesting challenge and could be a useful discipline. (The 130 character figure is if you leave out the numbers and hash tag.)

I like the new rule, allowing for a non-numbered ‘appendix’ tweet. As long as the case is made cogently in the six tweet maximum I think one more tweet for references and background reading links is still in the spirit of the enterprise. Some of the #twecon papers are quite poetic, and the effect may in some cases be lessened if they had to be interrupted by tiny urls.

I enjoyed the Q&A aspect, but could only take part later in the day, because I cannot really contribute while I’m at work. Maybe #twecon could be held on a weekend or public holiday?

Anyway, here is my paper.

1 No agarrarse su lengua: A case for teaching second languages to children at an early age #twecon

2 Debatably, younger children more naturally learn language. Children who learn second languages more easily learn further languages #twecon

3 Language learning can seem intimidating to an adult, especially if we are too comfortable with the quasi-world language of English #twecon

4 We should teach children a second language as soon as possible or we are missing an opportunity. Some say it should not be forced #twecon

5 That’s a weak objection: at early ages most subjects are compulsory; we don’t say “only take PE if you want” #twecon

6 Te reo and/or a foreign language should be taught to children early. Then they will have the genuine choice to continue or not #twecon

Fellow tweconer stacefamily made the very good point that "NZ Sign Language should be on curriculum too. Useful throughout life".

Apocalypse not now

If the end of the world did not defeat us, then...

Easter Special

.

Belated Easter special.

I have finally written my first article for Poplitiko: Jesus Who.

Yes, it is about Jesus Christ and Doctor Who.

I hope to post moderately regularly there, now I'm under way. Pop culture writing is, er... safer than politics, now that I'm in the public service. (Not that I won't continue to post here.)

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

This is not an Easter song:

Taxing the ideologue

This is a response to this blog post by property investment lawyer David Whitburn, which in turn was a response to a series of articles in the New Zealand Herald about the worth of a capital gains tax. (They start here, but it’s the second installment where you can read the argument in favour of a capital gains tax.)

I’ll say upfront that arguments such as those of Chye-Ching Huang and Craig Elliffe have put me in favour of the introduction of a capital gains tax. However, this post is not about the benefits of such a tax per se, but a criticism of Whitburn’s response.

Whitburn makes the early claim that Elliffe and Huang "were disappointingly emotive". Yet, Whitburn himself then goes on to make several statements that could be described as ‘emotive’ to say the least. For example:

- “Do we want to borrow several billions of dollars every year until 2016 and create a noose for the taxpayers now, our childrens’ and grandchildrens’ generations...”

- “The idea of a new tax really offends me. It smacks of arrogance and a neanderthal like ‘big Government is good’ mentality...”

And most laughably, he concludes with: “New Zealand needs a capital gains tax as much as we need the plague to strike us.” Yes, the original comment was in bold. But hey, let’s not get emotive.

Next, he moves on to claim that Elliffe and Huang have apparently “forgotten that New Zealand’s mountain of debt is mainly not government (or sovereign) debt. In fact New Zealand is an outstanding performer globally when compared to most other countries" ... “As a country we are in the safe dark grey zone with Government debt at (considerably) less than 30% of GDP.”

Okay, so we don’t need a capital gains tax, because the public debt is not a big problem. Yet strangely, as soon as Whitburn has finished reassuring us that we don’t need capital gains tax or any other increase in public revenue – because public debt is low, we’re safe – he then comes up with a number of suggestions to cut public spending - some of them quite drastic. For example: “Don’t let people leave NZ until they have paid off their student loan.”

What could justify this kind of action, along with the other 15 suggestions he makes to cut government spending? The problem with our public debt, that's what. You know: that low, safe level of public debt.

[Some minor edits have been made to the following points.]

So what other arguments does he make against a Elliffe and Huang? None. That one inconsistent, misdirected point about public debt was it. He addresses none of the benefits they discussed; he addresses nothing else in their case at all.

There are many other suggestions he raised in regard to spending cuts that I diagree with (cuts to education spending, disposing of MMP), but will limit myself to a few more quick points. Whitburn asks: “Do we want to run the risk of more good Kiwis going overseas?” Well apparently, David, you consider a ban on people leaving the country a viable option, so why worry?

He says he does not approve of increasing government income by raising taxes. Yet, one of his suggestions is to raise tax. “Raise the tax on cigarettes so they cost at least $25 per packet (that will stop a great number of smokers and therefore save a lot of money on our pressured healthcare system)”. He claims he doesn’t like a Big Government mentality, and is in favour of individual liberties and personal freedom. Raising the tax on cigarettes is a move often criticised as “Big Government” or “nanny state”.

I do agree with some of what Whitburn suggests. We need, at some point, to raise the age at which the universal pension becomes available, or otherwise address the cost of the system. And I think a 4-year electoral cycle is worth considering.

Also, I’m not against increasing taxes on cigarettes. Then again, I’m not saying that the introduction of a tax is an arrogant compromise of my personal freedom.

I prefer the stance of libertarians over Whitburn’s stale conservatism. I still disagree with them, but at least they’re more consistent. Whitburn will have a lot of people largely agreeing with his position. The problem is that they don't even realise their own ideological myopia.

Brian Edwards vs the Sun

...day Star Times.

Okay, lame joke aside, I just want to have a quick word about the idiotic decision by the Sunday Star Times to threaten defamation action against Brian Edwards.

Here is the Edwards post that summaries the situation.

I am against our defamation law as it stands, but even if I were not, I think this case amounts to little more than intellectually feeble reasoning and, frankly, bullying, on the part of the Sunday Star Times' editor and the journalist cited as the other client, Jonathan Marshall. This will clearly end up being a counter-productive threat (in part due to the Steisand effect), if it isn't already. If the SST and Marshall were advised to take this step, they received some very bad advice. Maybe they should sue.

Anyway, I just wanted to vent that, and show some support for Edwards' stance on this issue.

2011 Review

Two days in: So far, so good.

What have I done in the first two days? I've enjoyed Wellington's fairly decent weather and got a lot of washing done. And some drinking.

I've had fun checking out some of the 150-plus* Low Powered FM radio stations available in Wellington. (Yes, that's the sort of thing I do for fun.) That's over one hundred & fifty in Wellington alone (including Kapiti etc). That doesn't even count the standard power stations like National Radio or Active, or any AM frequency stations like Access Radio. I was quite surprised.
[*Edit: Okay, not all of those are currently active, but there are a lot of smaller stations around, some of which are quite interesting.]

I finished Vladimir Nabokov's Despair. Good book. (I wonder if the original Russian title, Otchayanie, has slightly different connotations than the English equivalent?)

I read Charles Reece's Best 11 Films of 2010. I always enjoy his efforts at getting many non-standard publicity posters for the films. Such as...

EDIT: sorry, image not working any longer. This was it.

I got into part 3 of Y: The Last Man - 'One Small Step'.

And I caught up on the latest Natalie Tran Vlogs.

That's not too bad for two days of the new year.

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

For the next little while at least, I'll be posting all "pop culture" related stuff (such as film reviews and commentary) over at Poplitiko. Where I am inclined to comment on something other than pop culture, it'll be here. Plus I'll post links to Poplitiko just in case.

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

Merry new year.

Sound & Rhythm

This week's 15 minute film review looks at the Wellington Film Society screening of Beyond Ipanema, which was shown Monday 13 September in conjunction with the Reel Brazil Film Festival, now in its second year. Unfortunately I missed last Monday's (20 Sept) screening of Belgian Bond parody OSS117: Cairo: Nest of Spies. So, start the clock...

Beyond Ipanema (2009)

It would be difficult not to make a reasonably entertaining and interesting documentary about the resurgent Brazilian music scene: the soundtrack's a given, Brazil has ample gorgeous vistas and gorgeous people, and there's 60 years of history and interest from world famous musicians (chiefly David Byrne). Filmmaker Guto Barra (along with co-producer and music director Béco Dranoff) manages to make a doco that's just that: interesting, entertaining, handsomely put together, and featuring great music.

It's a good documentary film, but it seemed lacking in enough detail, enough depth; there weren't many of those moments that make the audience feel like they are marvelling at an incite. The film was somewhat like a bus tour, with a better than average guide holding the mike. (A tour mostly around Rio and New York, which received much of Barra's focus.)

One of the best moments was when someone from the Bossa Nova scene explains the difference between his style and regular jazz. It was all conveyed in the way he gestured and mimicked the sound and rhythm of the two styles - that's what made the scene, what drew the laughs, what instilled the appreciation. It's really not something a written review can replicate, which surely is a sign of documentary film at its best - working with sound and vision to impart wisdom and effect not easy to summarise.

The fog of war

Over the next few months I'm trying an experiment of sorts. I am attending the Wellington Film Society screenings on Monday nights, and would like to comment on the movies I see. However, I don't have the time to post a lengthy critique every week, so I've set myself the humble task of reviewing each week's screening in 15 minutes. The 15 minutes is for the main content, and does not include a little time afterwards for adding in links, tags and images, and proofreading for typos. I will post the comment after work on the day after the screening, so it should be up by around 6.30pm Tuesdays.

This first attempt is an exception: No Man's Land actually screened last week (30 August, I didn't go to this week's showing), and this review took longer than 15 minutes. It's a trail run...

No Man's Land (2001)

I went into the screening of No Man's Land (written and directed by Danis Tanovic) not knowing much about it. I'd heard of it, mostly because of the coverage it got from its 2001 Oscar win for Best Foreign Language Film, but had little idea of the story other than that it was set in the Bosnian war (1992 to 1995). It's one of those films where this lack of knowledge helps, as its story telling makes effective moments from the unexpected. For example, the opening scene is set in a night fog, with a Bosnian patrol lost and about to hunker down till dawn. We seem to be getting to know the gang - this film's dirty dozen, or inglorious bastards - as they talk and joke with each other. Then with daybreak the gang finds that they're much too close to the Serbian lines and suddenly virtually everyone in the Bosnian group is brutally killed.

Eventually, we settle on two or three main characters in a predicament together in a trench in no man's land. The relationship of the Serb and Bosnian characters in the trench is fairly realistically drawn, and appropriately frustrating. It is here, and in the character of the head of the French UN unit trying to intervene, that the humanity of the story is at the fore. The wider shenanigans involving the UN peacekeepers, the British command, the two sides' respective leadership in the area, and the media is more satirical, at times even perhaps a touch over the top, and gives the film a strong parable feel.



I'm wary of actors turned directors when it comes to the visual aspect, and this is a good example of why. No Man's Land has fairly bland cinematography (the shot above is one of the more interesting). Apart from the effective opening scenes, Tanovic relies largely on a few establishing shots and a lot of "Um, I know, let's point the camera at the actors".

Despite that, No Man's Land does a competent job blending different genres and styles: effective as war movie, situation comedy, tragedy, satire, farce, and even thriller.

Criticism of the film includes that it seems to have little to say other than 'war is hell'. That's true to a point, but I think that of most war films. I've never been a big fan of war satires. The likes of Dr Strangelove and the movie version of Catch 22, supposed classics of the genre, are okay, but not hugely impressive. Maybe it's a 'shooting fish in a barrel' thing - war seems easy to satirize. No Man's Land is one of the better attempts. Even so, the absurdities and violence on display still seem only an indication of the complexity and brutality of the real conflict.

War may provoke the occasional good movie, but on balance, I'm against it.

Lost on yer merry way

Ahem. I'm... a little late with this one. Lost's season finale was screened 30 May 2010.

(Spoilers)

So how about I cop out and refer to what others have written - after all, my thoughts are summed up nicely by much earlier comments and reviews, and, like the characters from Lost, I really need to move on. (In their case to the afterlife, in my case to reviewing No Man's Land and Inception.)

In regards to the finale itself, Charles Reece's Amoeblog commentary pretty well covers all the stuff I disliked, and the few aspects I liked, about The End.

I was particularly disappointed with the sentimentality (not to mention illogicality) of the 'Sideways Timeline' resolution, juxtaposed with the otherwise excellent final few 'real world' scenes on the Island.

I still feel the series overall was worth my time: often an almost perfect blend of the elements that make good science fiction/fantasy television drama. The flashbacks were well used early on (but not so much in season 2, where they were often wasted on characters who would turn out to have little real significance to the ongoing events), and the switch to flashforwards in season 3 was clever. The show was at its best during seasons 3 to 5.

Wellington's Dominion Post tv reviewer, Jane Bowron sums up:

What the show did do was throw action, science, myth, and retribution into the soup as it made acute observations on human nature in intriguingly drawn characters.

Above all, the show made us feel our loneliness, that we are all isolated in spite of Charlie's words at the very beginning when he assured Sayid: "They'll find us. They have satellites in space that can take pictures of your licence plates."

To which Sayid sarcastically replied: "If only we were all wearing licence plates."

Adios, Perdidos.

Off on a merry way, Often in a lotta days, Lost on yer merry way
Cause unrevealed and never known.

Lost for words

Nope, I'm not about to review the final of Lost - not yet. I have to watch it first. We had to record the final episode, shown in NZ on Saturday, as we had a social engagement and I decided that my friend was (narrowly) more important than watching Lost as broadcast. In the meantime I've been giving some consideration to the title I'll give the the blog wherein I do comment on Lost, which I'll be watching tonight. There's the above, and...


Making up for Lost time

The Island of the day before and after

The Lost Boys and Girls

Hurley burley

One Lost chance (I came up with it independently, but Gene Phillips beat me to it. I also like his next post, 'The Last Lost Chance Saloon'.)

Lost in translation

You Lost me

Lost in spaces

Jack shit

Get Lost.

Thank you Garielle McKone

The top 20 keyword searches that led people to Booksmart, so far this year.

I knew there had to be at least one porn searcher, but "booksmart porno"? And what's with "primetime live pizza hut"?

-------

1. "gabrielle mckone"

2. follatio

3. nz comic name suppression

4. political spectrum results

5. "2010 oscar nominations"

6. "book smart on both"

7. "courtenay place park"

8. "left social libertarian"

9. book smart positive points

10. book smart positive views

11. booksmart porno

12. booksmart.net reputation

13. everyman and his blog

14. gabrielle mckone

15. gabrielle mckone courtenay place exhibition

16. primetime live pizza hut

17. rehmat khan squash natasha

18. good things about book smart

19. hello laziness hypertext

20. not book smart

Laughing at fate

I know one shouldn't take the annual Academy Awards seriously. It has absurdities such as Avatar even being nominated for "Best Picture", let alone that it is more likely to win than, say, Inglourious Basterds. But come Oscar time I just can't help myself. Call it a guilty displeasure.

That said, the best picture nominee list this year is not bad. Had the Academy stuck to the usual five pictures for this category, and had they been Up in the Air, District 9, Inglourious Basterds, A Serious Man, and Up I would have been very impressed. Every one of those films is recommended from me. (The Hurt Locker and The Blind Side have not yet been released in cinemas in NZ, and I missed An Education as it finished its cinema run before I found out it was one of the chosen few. I hope to catch Precious this weekend.)

Of the six nominated films I have seen so far, only Avatar has disappointed. However, initially I was also a little disappointed with A Serious Man.



[WARNING: This commentary is best read after viewing the movies discussed, A Serious Man and Up in the Air. Partly because it contains some spoilers (albeit vague ones), but mostly because I can't be bothered to summarise the plots.]

You could almost justify going to A Serious Man just to see the scene which gave us the brilliant still above. As is often the case with good films set in what are usually considered drab or uninteresting environments (rambler home studded bland suburbia in this case) the visuals are surprisingly engaging.

However, although it has largely been reviewed positively, I have sympathy with some of the criticism of the Coen brother's latest effort. I quite liked Joe Morgenstern's sly take on the question posed in the film: what does God want of us? "What do the Coen brothers want of us?" he wonders.

Sometimes I feel as if the Coen's use the "black comedy" label as an excuse to portray the sort of "repellent ... grotesque" caricatures Morgenstern has concerns with in his review. With the exception of the protagonist, physics teacher Larry Gopnik (Michael Stuhlbarg), no one is really likeable, and almost everyone is infuriatingly selfish. Characters like Gopnik's nemesis Sy Ableman are not evil in a straightforward Ming the Merciless way, but they aren't far off, being very nearly as flat and clichéd. They all serve largely as cogs in the plot machine for the Job-like journey of the protagonist (almost the opposite of the previous Coen film, No Country for Old Men).

Gopnik seems to maintain his faith throughout the trials of the story, such as his wife leaving him for the aforementioned Ableman, an absolutely repugnant fake of a human being. Yet his faith, honesty, and a portion of dignity remain, while he understandably questions what all that means.

But Gopnik rarely seems to give serious thought to anything else, other than asking "what does it all mean", or "why does this happen to me" and similar questions when things go wrong (which happens a lot).

As Morgenstern mentioned, Gopnik describes Heisenberg's uncertainty principle by explaining that it "means we can never know what's going on." When explaining to a desperate student why he has failed a term test, Gopnik says he failed the maths. The student responds by claiming to have understood the theory in the story of the cat (in reference to Schrodinger's cat). Gopnik brushes this off as mere metaphor - it's really just about the maths. "I mean, even I don't understand the dead cat. The math is how it really works."

In the end, Gopnik's maths washes over him like a Tsunami, as in the image above, perhaps representing his tenuous grasp on the domestic reality that is rapidly untangling around him. At the very end of the story, when things seem like they might be about to look up for Gopnik, he is presented with a moral dilemma - and lo, he is weak. In the context of all that has happened to him many will find his weakness here understandable. But not his God, it seems.

No, not me - I'm an island of such great complexity.
(Pavement - "Shady Lane".)

Another film from the Oscar list this year that could broadly be categorised in the same genre is Up in the Air, my favourite movie of those nominated. Another comedy, this is a sort of 'romantic comedy' rather than a 'black comedy'. However, at times its humour is equally dry.

George Clooney plays frequent flyer extraordinaire Ryan Bingham, who has the job of crossing flyover country in order to assist people in their transitional phase of life - that is, he tells people they no longer have a job. In the process he finally seems to meet that special someone. Also, his own job (at least as he thinks it should be done) may well be under threat.

The depiction of the lone traveller 'man-is-an-island' lifestyle that is practiced and preached by Bingham is done perfectly. The acting is excellent (nominations for Vera Farmiga and Anna Kendrick), the script is about as good as mainstream Hollywood romance gets, and the politics is fairly evenhandedly dealt with by libertarian Jason Reitman (director and co-scriptwriter, along with Sheldon Turner).

But it is myopic to see this film too much in terms of politics or even romance per se. As cheesy as it may sound, this film is a rare instance of Hollywood living up to its own promotion: it is about a man trying to make a connection, in a world increasingly built around superficial connectedness.

Both A Serious Man and Up in the Air are funny movies. Neither film gives us a particularly happy ending, but the former is, ironically, trapped by its own genre nature - forced to buy into its black-comedic biblical twist. Despite the bitter pill delivered at the climax of Up in the Air, it still offers at least the possibility of hope and change, even with its downbeat ending.

There are fewer flaws and problems with tone and intent in Up in the Air than in A Serious Man. They have in common protagonists that try to maintain a certain sense of dignity in the face of what happens around them (albeit more cynically so in the former). Both protagonists have some idea of a faith or philosophy of life that they hold on to, rightly or wrongly, for most of their story. Both betray that philosophy at a crucial point, and in both cases, be it though fate or contingency, they pay a price for that decision.

Stephen to Academy: You Basterds

A couple of years ago I made a commitment to myself to watch every Oscar 'Best Picture' nominated film. It was an easy year to do so, with There Will Be Blood, No Country for Old Men, Juno, Micheal Clayton, and Atonement on the "Best" list. In the end, second best No Country won the Oscar.*

I failed to meet my commitment the following year, but I am determined to get back to the cinema to judge Oscar choices this year.

So fuck you, Academy.

Why? Because the 2010 Oscar nominations are out, and this year the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences has changed back to ten nominations for the Best Picture category.

Ten films in a short space of time. Okay, it's not so tough as that, because I've already seen four of them. Three of those were pretty darn good: Up, District 9, and Inglourious Basterds.

One, Avatar, was pretty darn crap.

And given the Academy's record of highly questionable taste, I'd be surprised if more than half of the remainder will be worth seeing.

Well, we'll see - I have until 7 March (US).

--------

* There Will Be Blood was the best movie, but No Country for Old Men was also excellent. Juno and Atonement were not bad and had aspects of interest, and Micheal Clayton was somewhere in between.

Celebrity justice, broken clocks & hidden Tigers

I'm a bit late in writing a substantial comment on the celebrity name suppression issue regarding a musician's sexual antics in Wellington earlier this year. I just have a couple of thoughts I want to get down, and will not be breaking the court order. However, as most people probably realise, it seems anyone who really wants to know can find out the suppressed name anyway.

This brings up the first issue. I wonder of this incident has been the death knell for that kind of name suppression. It seems to me that, rightly or not, people just do not respect this use of name suppression. I'm referring to when the suppression is for the benefit of the perpetrator, as opposed to the victim, and when the intent is to protect a reputation, as opposed to allowing for the completion of a fair trail. Given the way modern communication technology operates, I just can't see any other similar decision holding any more authority than this one.

Secondly, it's very rare that I have any sympathy or find much agreement with right-wing blogger Whaleoil (Cameron Slater), but I do broadly support his stance on this issue. Slater is in some trouble with the authorities after allegedly giving out enough clues to identify the entertainer and another celebrity who also has name suppression. I do not know so much about the latter case and the circumstances are different, so for the purposes of this post I'll be addressing the first case only.

I see this matter as basically being a question of whether the courts should concern themselves with protecting the reputation of an offender. The reason given for the discharge without conviction and permanent name suppression is that otherwise the consequences for the offender would supposedly have been out of proportion to the offence committed. Finlay Macdonald touched on this in a Sunday Star Times article (quoted from this Hard News column):

Yet the media are the very ones who create such a special class in the first place, and there's something a little disingenuous about stoking society's celebrity obsession on the one hand while demanding celebrities receive no special treatment on the other. One might even call it hypocritical.

You can call it the price of fame, but surely the price should be relative to the alleged crime.

Well, I don't like the way the media encourages the public's inane celebrity obsession either, but that is a separate issue. It is not hypocritical for some, including some in the mainstream media, to maintain that celebrities should be treated the same as "regular" citizens when it comes to conviction and sentencing for their criminal behaviour. As for the price being relative to the crime, it seems to me that the court's role is to ensure the sentence it applies is fair for the crime committed, taking reasonable account of the circumstances in which the criminal act took place. It is not its role to protect the accused from the wider repercussions of their own behaviour. That is what is happing here that Macdonald and Russell Brown et al don't seem to appreciate: the perpetrator of a crime is being given special protection from the consequences of his asinine actions simply because those actions brought him to the attention of the courts.

Consider another recent example of a misbehaving celebrity: the Tiger Woods affair (well, affairs). I've found much of the reaction to his transgressions somewhat sanctimonious. I don't condone what he did, but is it really that bad in the scheme of things? Should we even be so precious when we find out that many of these sports superstars are not (shock horror) the ideal role models we seem to want them to be? Macdonald again, on the NZ celebrity case:

The offence wasn't trivial, but in the context of the horrors the courts routinely deal with, it's hard to argue it merited more coverage than a far more serious assault by a nonentity.

Wouldn't this sentiment apply to Woods? Does he deserve more scrutiny and media coverage than any number of other people who have engaged in similarly dodgy conduct? The NZ celebrity, by comparison, has benefited from his conduct being regarded as actually criminal - putting it before the court and thus providing the option of name suppression at the conclusion of the process. As I suggested on Public Address [see comments for my original typo], the way for a celebrity to protect his reputation from the damage that can come from behaving like a fuckwit is to avoid behaving like a fuckwit. His reputation is his to look after, not the courts. Had the judge decided not to suppress the identification of the offender, any price this celebrity paid in terms of his reputation should be seen as the result of his own actions, not as a punishment of the court.

Back to Russell Brown from his blog:

Ironically, had he actually been named, the man would have been guaranteed a sympathetic run from the same media organisations who have been pursuing him -- in exchange for an interview. The Sunday Star Times was, for example, only too happy to softball Clint Rickards in exchange for pictures with his daughter. Such is the trade of celebrity value. The moral line can easily be moved to suit.

Yes yes, the media can be pretty shit. A capricious, shallow, hypocritical lot - well, much of the time. But the 'pro-suppression' arguments seem to be more about a distrust and (understandable) dislike of the way some aspects of the media work in regards to this sort of thing, rather than actual philosophical objections in terms of the broader justice issue. A more legitimate concern would be with why is the media and society in general so ridiculously celebrity obsessed, and relatedly, why does society naively persist in treating celebrities as role models or paragons of human conduct?

Shoot from the hip

First, a quick note from the Admin part of my brain. I have been especially slack lately in blogging, exacerbated by now being back in full time employment. Nevertheless, I hope to get in at least one, maybe two more blog posts on Booksmart before going away on Boxing Day for two weeks for my first trip to the South Island of the country I have lived in for virtually my whole life.

Second, another brief plug for Photospace (no, I don't get paid for this!). It's been done before, but I quite like the look of the upcoming "from the hip"-style photography show from Gabrielle McKone. (I thought August 09 was a particularly good month.)



Three Stories Up opens Monday, 21 December outside Jimmy Cafe on Courtenay Place. The show is curated by Photospace's James Gilberd, and will be the next light box exhibition at Courtenay Place Park.