Thursday, May 20, 2004
Meat, and poison
Hmm.
Same movie : different opinions.
Spacefan
Infernoxv
Love it, or hate it? heh.
*****
The Age of Mediocrity
I was never a huge classicist. Sure, I read Homer's Iliad, in bits and pieces. I suppose I have the GEP to thank for that. And I remember it in dribs and drabs, like everyone else. Reading the two vastly disparate opinions about Troy, the Movie (ugh. What a name. Like Tron. But Troy. How much more imaginative can you get?) I'm reminded of a pet grouse of my own.
Hollywood doesn't... care anymore. It doesn't give a rat's about storylines, and plots. We're herded into theatres and lulled into mindless submission with sweetmeats, and hunky torsos, and impossible waistlines and juicy curves, and then we're herded back out. Bleat.
We're not supposed to think -- or if we think, we're supposed to think what They want us to. The countless rewritings to better suit a projected audience's demands.
When Hollywood writes a classic today, it doesn't just write a classic. It rewrites it, ostensibly to suit the flavour of the times. Does anyone remember the Gods of greek and roman mythology? We had fun in school fooling around with them. Bacchus. Dionysis. Heracles. Hercules. etc. Apparently they've been censored out of Troy, since we live in a secular age. Heroism has been reinterpreted of course - it only belongs to the leading men, and heroism in this day and age is selfish. Glory and honour belong to individual "leaders of men". Hollywood rewrites.
It's like scraping the caviar off a biscuit and putting peanut butter on top, instead, because the children will prefer peanut butter. Someone else is doing the thinking for us. Someone no better at thinking than the average Joe Bloggs. Except, of course, that Ordinary Joe and Plain Jane aren't quite as motivated by raking in money from the masses.
Why rewrite a "Classic" if you're going to change the plot till it becomes incomprehensible? Why not just write an original story? Use the same shiny bodies and perfect nipples / breasts. Showcase lovingly the same immaculate eyebrows and flawless faces... but back them. With a strong story. Recapture casablanca. Remember Scarlett.
"Original stories" (here I generously include film translations of little-known books) fall prey to the same problems : Taking Lives is about a serial killer who murders and then assumes the identity of his victims ("like a hermit crab"). It casts Angelina Jolie as an intellectual criminal psychologist (oops. Fallen at the first hurdle already. Don't worry, it landed on it's specially augmented soft-bits. no lasting damage done.) and Ethan Hawke as the enigmatic Good Guy caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Within minutes of watching it, I had sussed it out. Ethan Hawke's gonna turn out to be the bad guy after all, right?
And guess what - he did. So many ways they could have worked the plot, to create a Real "twist". Instead, the usual trite and terrible nonsense. And oh yes, of course, Angelina Jolie wins in the end. Yawn.
There's even a special treat for the sheep, with Angelina Jolie leaking out of her little silk dressing gown in all directions, without actually taking it off (all the important bits are exposed,but the limbs remain tastefully covered up.) while she desperately humps Hawke, first... on a dressing table was it? Then in bed.
Oh please. Is that supposed to save this trivial piece of balderdash? THIS is the best hollywood can manage? Who writes this drivel anyway? Teenagers??!
To be fair, once in a very long while something exceptional happens. Star wars, a long long time ago, in a place far, far away was something special. Star Trek followed suit, and did pretty well.
More recently, The Passion startled with it's near-faithful retelling of the story of Jesus Christ. Nevermind that Mel Gibson tweaked a few scenes for dramatic effect (Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, instead of an angel. The temple crack'd from side to side, instead of a curtain ripping. etc)
We see that the intention is to retell the story. And the significances are captured admirably well. Perhaps too well. Militant Jews are suddenly up in arms, to crucify Mel. (hmm.)
Troy on the other hand isn't interested in significances, or storylines.
Troy is another Matrix - sharp, shiny, and out to empty your pocket. And make you bleat in ecstacy as it does it. A little more sweat and grease here, makeup person, if you may. And let's widen that chink in the armour a bit more, give them something to see, people. Let's blind them with our razzle and dazzle.
I haven't seen Troy yet, but I've got a funny feeling when I do, I'm going to be rather disappointed.
And The Day after Tomorrow? Oh please. No...
Same movie : different opinions.
Spacefan
Infernoxv
Love it, or hate it? heh.
*****
The Age of Mediocrity
I was never a huge classicist. Sure, I read Homer's Iliad, in bits and pieces. I suppose I have the GEP to thank for that. And I remember it in dribs and drabs, like everyone else. Reading the two vastly disparate opinions about Troy, the Movie (ugh. What a name. Like Tron. But Troy. How much more imaginative can you get?) I'm reminded of a pet grouse of my own.
Hollywood doesn't... care anymore. It doesn't give a rat's about storylines, and plots. We're herded into theatres and lulled into mindless submission with sweetmeats, and hunky torsos, and impossible waistlines and juicy curves, and then we're herded back out. Bleat.
We're not supposed to think -- or if we think, we're supposed to think what They want us to. The countless rewritings to better suit a projected audience's demands.
When Hollywood writes a classic today, it doesn't just write a classic. It rewrites it, ostensibly to suit the flavour of the times. Does anyone remember the Gods of greek and roman mythology? We had fun in school fooling around with them. Bacchus. Dionysis. Heracles. Hercules. etc. Apparently they've been censored out of Troy, since we live in a secular age. Heroism has been reinterpreted of course - it only belongs to the leading men, and heroism in this day and age is selfish. Glory and honour belong to individual "leaders of men". Hollywood rewrites.
It's like scraping the caviar off a biscuit and putting peanut butter on top, instead, because the children will prefer peanut butter. Someone else is doing the thinking for us. Someone no better at thinking than the average Joe Bloggs. Except, of course, that Ordinary Joe and Plain Jane aren't quite as motivated by raking in money from the masses.
Why rewrite a "Classic" if you're going to change the plot till it becomes incomprehensible? Why not just write an original story? Use the same shiny bodies and perfect nipples / breasts. Showcase lovingly the same immaculate eyebrows and flawless faces... but back them. With a strong story. Recapture casablanca. Remember Scarlett.
"Original stories" (here I generously include film translations of little-known books) fall prey to the same problems : Taking Lives is about a serial killer who murders and then assumes the identity of his victims ("like a hermit crab"). It casts Angelina Jolie as an intellectual criminal psychologist (oops. Fallen at the first hurdle already. Don't worry, it landed on it's specially augmented soft-bits. no lasting damage done.) and Ethan Hawke as the enigmatic Good Guy caught in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Within minutes of watching it, I had sussed it out. Ethan Hawke's gonna turn out to be the bad guy after all, right?
And guess what - he did. So many ways they could have worked the plot, to create a Real "twist". Instead, the usual trite and terrible nonsense. And oh yes, of course, Angelina Jolie wins in the end. Yawn.
There's even a special treat for the sheep, with Angelina Jolie leaking out of her little silk dressing gown in all directions, without actually taking it off (all the important bits are exposed,but the limbs remain tastefully covered up.) while she desperately humps Hawke, first... on a dressing table was it? Then in bed.
Oh please. Is that supposed to save this trivial piece of balderdash? THIS is the best hollywood can manage? Who writes this drivel anyway? Teenagers??!
To be fair, once in a very long while something exceptional happens. Star wars, a long long time ago, in a place far, far away was something special. Star Trek followed suit, and did pretty well.
More recently, The Passion startled with it's near-faithful retelling of the story of Jesus Christ. Nevermind that Mel Gibson tweaked a few scenes for dramatic effect (Satan in the Garden of Gethsemane, instead of an angel. The temple crack'd from side to side, instead of a curtain ripping. etc)
We see that the intention is to retell the story. And the significances are captured admirably well. Perhaps too well. Militant Jews are suddenly up in arms, to crucify Mel. (hmm.)
Troy on the other hand isn't interested in significances, or storylines.
Troy is another Matrix - sharp, shiny, and out to empty your pocket. And make you bleat in ecstacy as it does it. A little more sweat and grease here, makeup person, if you may. And let's widen that chink in the armour a bit more, give them something to see, people. Let's blind them with our razzle and dazzle.
I haven't seen Troy yet, but I've got a funny feeling when I do, I'm going to be rather disappointed.
And The Day after Tomorrow? Oh please. No...
