Logan Trailer Reaction

(In the spirit of the season…)

When I watch a movie, I’m hoping to see something new.  This is why I tend to like “weird” (aka arthouse) movies.  But I also really enjoy genre films.  This tends to put me in a bind, because as genre movies have become more popular, bigger budget affairs, the studios naturally want them to be safer and more formulaic.  The other things I increasingly look for are movies that pass the Bechdel test (link) and are not entirely white.  This has reduced the number of movies I’m interested in seeing.

I say all this in part to explain why 2013’s The Wolverine is my favorite movie of the X-Men franchise.  It’s an atypical superhero film: set in Japan instead of “New York analogue”, with a small stakes storyline - it’s basically a family drama rather than a city destroying alien invasion.  It passes the Bechdel test easily (something almost no studio blockbusters can manage, despite it being the lowest bar possible), and the setting results in a predominantly non-white cast.  Yes, the exploration of Japanese culture is eye-rollingly surface level, and the finale, with it’s ninja army and ridiculously oversized CG Silver Samurai, is kind of a let down.  But the film still manages to keep a laser-like focus on the theme throughout its runtime (reminder to self: blog post on mcguffin as physical manifestation of theme; see also Khan, Wrath of).

As a result, I had some anticipation for the sequel, especially knowing that the same filmmaker was behind it.  We now have our first look at 2017’s Logan:

(on a note of personal synchronicity, I ended my last blog post discussing Johnny Cash’s cover of Soundgarden’s “Break My Rusty Cage”, and this trailer prominently features the Cash cover of Nine Inch Nail’s “Hurt”, to great effect.)

Right off the bat, this does not look like a typical superhero movie, but even more importantly, it doesn’t look like The Wolverine either, so my desire for something new appears to be met.  The lighting and coloring of the trailer (and always important to consider that a trailer may not be representative of finished film in all sorts of ways) really helps establish a mood.  Although this film will surely be “dark & gritty”, it doesn’t look dark and gritty, like the WB DC movies.  Nor does it look bright and colorful like a Marvel movie.  This trailer is immediately suggestive of the first Mad Max movie (and not just because Hugh Jackman with old man makeup and beard looks like Mel Gibson).

must be an aussie thing

That look appears in keeping with what little bits of story we get.  This is a world of civilization in decay, rather than the far flung post-apocalyptic waste-land of the later Max movies.  And that sense of decay is feeding two genre concepts I feel have rarely been addressed on film: what happens to superheroes when they get old, and how do immortal (or practically immortal) heroes deal with everyone dying around them?

(Sadly, the movie appears to be all white, and the one girl won’t give the film a passing grade, but then again, it is just a teaser, so we’ll see.)

Aging Heroes

The world in comics tends to be static, with all 70+ years of storylines essentially happening within the same 5 year period (like the Simpsons).  The movies mirror that, but deal with the fact that actors actually do age by rebooting the characters on a regular basis.  As a result, we never see the heroes get old.  There are occasional one-off comic series dealing with older heroes, like “Old Man Logan” (thankfully not the storyline of this film), or “The Dark Knight Returns”.  But these are more products of the What If? Machine than ongoing storylines in continuity, and as a result have never been portrayed on film.  The Watchmen comics seriously dealt with this concept, but unfortunately the film version discarded that aspect in favor of… nothing by pretty pictures.

The X-Men film franchise offers a unique opportunity to explore this.  Hugh Jackman has been playing this character for 17 years now:

And it shows

Moreover, the character has appeared in multiple time periods within the series chronology.  Jackman has also stated that this will be his last appearance as Logan.  So when we see him in character here, it feels like this is actually the character grown old, the end of his run, and not a “what if” situation.  We also have Patrick Stewart, reprising his role as Xavier, along for the ride, compounding the oldness quotient.

The feels...

What the movie appears to suggest is an original if obvious take: when superheros age, their powers weaken the same way the human body & mind in general weaken with age.

Lonely Immortals

Immortals mixing with mortals is a common genre premise, but the consequences are rarely explored, more often just hinted at.  For example, the TV show Lost Girl (my brother’s favorite show, watch for his guest post on this blog!) features a practically immortal lead character who has relationships with humans.  But for the duration of the show, most of the characters appear to be around 30, so that actuality never hits home.  They mention the fact that the human love interest will grow old and die while our Fae heroine continues to appear the same age, and it does weigh on them from time to time.  But they never take the opportunity (even for a what if? one off episode) to, say, drop in on them 30 years later.

Let the Right One In does suggest that, but using two characters: the older companion at the end of his time with the ageless girl, and the new young companion just meeting her.  What we’re getting with Logan is the same character through the ages, over the course of many films.  Instead of watching a mortal companion grow old and die, Logan’s companion is society itself, now potentially in it’s last days.

The aging heroes and lonely immortals are really just attempts to express our feelings about mortality.  We tend to view ourselves as the immortals, always picturing ourselves around the same age, even as the people we know and love age and die, and the world becomes unrecognizable to us, and  we wonder where our super powers went.  But along comes a child, who the Professor insists is “like you...  Very much like you.”

Against this backdrop, the Professor tells us “Logan… You still have time.”

The Top 5 Films of 2015

(so it takes me a while)

1. Mad Max: Fury Road

This is a film that invites inspection through its masterful use of hinting; it hints at the details of a vast world, rich with symbolism, character, story and ethos.  But all of that is on the periphery of a film that appears deceptively simple; a straightforward chase movie with minimal dialog and almost no direct exposition.  The film has already been examined thoroughly from many perspectives - cinematic, feminist, allegorical, etc - but I wanted to look at two instances of single-word storytelling.  It’s fitting that a script so spartan works to pack as much punch into each word as it can, but to tell a whole story with a single word is pretty incredible.

“Redemption”

All of Furiosa’s back story, her entire character arc, is revealed in a single word more than half way through the film.  We are introduced to her as a character that rarely speaks, a kindred spirit to Max himself, who seems primarily motivated by survival instinct.  We don’t get any insight into why she takes the initial action that sets the film’s events in motion until they are long underway.  She and Max talk about what the women they have rescued are hoping to find, and then he turns it on her.  “What are you looking for?” he asks.  “Redemption,” she says.

We understand all of Furiosa’s history with that word.  We know what kind of man Imortan Joe is, we know how he treats people, how he treats women.  We know that she is a high ranking officer in his army / cult, perhaps even his right hand.  We can imagine what she must have done, what she must have been through, to get there.  And that’s the key.  That single word, “redemption,” lets us imagine it all.  We don’t need it spelled out for us.  We don’t need our faces rubbed in it.  We don’t need a lengthy flashback or a prologue or pages of expository dialog.  One word tells the story.

“Witness”

The details of Imortan Joe’s religion are again only hinted at, but there’s enough there to paint a picture.  It’s a warrior cult; the War Boys live to fight, hoping to sacrifice themselves, like berserkers or kamikazee, heroically on the battlefield, so that they may be “awaited” in Valhalla.  But before they make their sacrifice, they call out to their companions: “Witness!”  The sacrifice itself is not enough, someone has to see it.  The childlike nature of the War Boys leaves them craving attention and approval.  Someone must see, must know what they are doing.  To the point that Nux, having flooded his cabin with gas, ready to suicide bomb the War Rig, and finding none of his compatriots around, turns to his prisoner, Max, to be his validation: “Witness me, blood-bag!”

Later in the film, after missing his chance at glory, Nux forms a friendship with Capable.  She is the first person to show him compassion, to listen to him.  When he is about to make his final sacrifice, he looks at her through the windshield to the next car, holds out his hand to her, and says “witness.”

And she does.  Calmly, compassionately and intently, she watches him.  She gives him what he needs, for his faith which she does not share.  There is no emotional distress or pleading, no lengthy description of what it means to her or to him, just a witness to his deeds.  To let him know that he is seen.  The story of their relationship is told in a single word.

2.  Spy

Once this film gets going, the laughs are so wall-to-wall it’s almost painful; thanks to Melissa McCarthy’s ability to riff endlessly with assists from a great cast.  The great thing about the movie is that it’s not a parody.  It’s not making fun of James Bond, she is James Bond, complete with all the gadgets, goofy villains, crazy conspiracies and fight scenes.  It’s just that the movie is also very funny.  The target of the mockery is not the spy movie genre but the toxic masculinity often at its heart.

This is personified beautifully by Jason Statham’s Rick Ford character.  Full of bluster, constantly recounting tales of his impossible heroics, forever insisting that he alone can and will save the world, he not only dismisses McCarthy’s Susan Cooper out of hand (as does everyone else in the film), he is personally insulted at her being considered for the same task.  He is, of course, revealed to be completely incompetent in comparison to her.

    

Rick Ford is an obvious target.  More subtle is Jude Law’s Bradley Fine character.  Although a skilled agent himself, he has consistently (perhaps even unwittingly) subverted Susan’s career advancement, using her talents to support him in the field and preventing her any opportunity to shine on her own.

But best of all, this movie is just weird.

3.  The Duke of Burgundy

There were three films released in February 2015 that dealt with BDSM relationships.  Most famously, Fifty Shades of Grey depicts a man dominating a woman.  The insane Japanese film R100 involves a man signing up to be dominated by a whole squadron of women.  But The Duke of Burgundy, by telling a story about two women, is able remove all of the sexual politics that inevitably arise in the others.

The film is not set in our world, but in some timeless cocoon world; a world devoid of technology, devoid of men, and where everyone is strangely fascinated by moths.  It feels a bit like this year’s Under the Skin with its deliberate pace and otherworldly characters.  Weird soundtrack, too.  This is a film that shifts your perceptions, realizing (what seems obvious in retrospect) which character is more controlling, more dominant.  The age difference highlights this as well.

Also, too, this movie is super weird.

4.  Carol

Cate Blanchett is amazing.  I think there were some other people in this movie, too.

5.  Clouds of Sils Maria

This is another film that shifts the viewer’s perceptions as it unfolds.  An onion-layered film with a play-within-a-movie structure, the lines between play-character, movie-character, and even real life actor become blurred.  But at a certain point you realize you’ve been linking the actors with the wrong characters all along.  A fun movie to dissect afterwards (which the characters themselves spend a fair amount of the film doing).  Not recommended for people who require story lines to be resolved.

Not Quite:

Appropriate Behavior: good, but needed to be weirder.

Grandma: Lily Tomlin is great of course, but writing is too on-the-nose.

Star Wars: The Force Awakens: It was the best of JJ, it was the worst of JJ.  Exceptional casting, great characterisation, propulsive, fun and exciting.  But doesn’t hold up to examination, relies heavily on convenience, and uses nostalgia and unearned emotion in place of actual motivation and world building.  Seriously, what is the political situation at the start of the movie?

Mockingjay Part 2: Lionsgate’s cash-grabbing decision to split this into two films dooms the whole series into not being worth revisiting.  Criminal waste of Jena Malone.

International Garage Rock Appreciation Week

My tastes may have changed throughout my life, but no matter how much time goes by, a dirty guitar and a growling voice is still music to my ears.  Maybe it’s just a way of holding on to “the days of my youth”, or maybe those days just happened to have produced some of the best music in recorded history.  Who can say?  In any case, I’d like to kick off International Garage Rock Appreciation Week by sharing a few faves, old and new.

First, the (relatively) new: this is The Ettes, with “No More Surprises”, from their 2006 debut Shake the Dust.

“You got me so excited / But I’m still undecided / So I’ll just keep my tongue in cheek.”  Who doesn’t love that lyric?  And while we’re on The Ettes, I couldn’t find my favorite of theirs on YouTube (Aarrgh!!  [sorry, International Talk Like A Pirate Day isn’t until September]), so here’s one that sounds a lot like it, but is not quite as good.  “Chilled Hidebound Hearts”, from their 2008 follow up Look at Life Again Soon.

“I wanna get me something for free / I wanna get sleep but you won’t let me”

Turning now to Denver’s own Dressy Bessy, the first song I heard of theirs is still my favorite, “The Things That You Say That You Do”:

OK, enough with the new.  And enough with the Americans!  This is “Making Plans for Bison”, from Shonen Knife’s 1986 album Pretty Little Baka Guy, and it’s as amazing as the title would lead you to believe:

“Bear up Bison, never say die!”

And finally, the queen.  From her 1995 masterpiece To Bring You My Love, please enjoy PJ Harvey’s “Long Snake Moan”:

Have any favorites?  Post them in the comments!

On Continuation of Consciousness

Disclaimer: this post is based on the Theravada school of Buddhism, and specifically the Pali Canon.  It is also based on modern English translations of >2000 year old teachings.  In other words, ‘This is what I heard.’

Reincarnation is an important concept in Buddhism.  Buddha describes the attainment of knowledge of his past lives as key to achieving Enlightenment.  He also frequently pronounces the nature of the next life of a recently deceased follower.  Buddha espoused the doctrine of “no-self,” stating that concepts like “I,” “me,” and “mine” should be abandoned.  A person is merely a collection of aggregates, none of which persist after death.  He specifically denied any continuation of consciousness from one life to the next.  If there is no self, and no continuation of consciousness, in what sense can a person be said to have a previous, or next, life?

Buddha describes the night of his Enlightenment, and the seven days of meditation leading up to it, as a guide for his followers to replicate his results.  He first gained knowledge of his own previous lives (“Thus with their aspects and particulars I recollected my many past lives”) before understanding the arising and passing away of all beings, and how their actions in one life created the conditions for the next (“I understood how beings pass on according to their actions”).  These realizations directly preceded his conceptualization of the Four Noble Truths, the foundations of Buddhist philosophy, and his final liberation from suffering (MN 4).

Much earlier on the path to Enlightenment is the abandoning of “identity view.”  Identity view is described as associating any phenomena with a “self”.  Buddhism views a person as being made of five aggregates: physical form, feelings, perceptions, thoughts, and consciousness.  To overcome identity view, a follower should consider how a self cannot be found in any of the aggregates, individually or in combination.  “All material form should be seen with proper wisdom thus: ‘This is not mine, this I am not, this is not my self’” (MN 22), and so on for the other aggregates.  This ultimately leads to the proclamation “sabbe dhamma anatta,” “all dharmas are not-self” (MN 35).  The word “dharma” has many meanings in different contexts, but here it refers to phenomena, or more simply, “things.”  There is nothing that can be identified as a self.  As the nun Vajirā explains “Why now do you assume ‘a being’?  Is that your speculative view?  This is a heap of sheer formations: here no being is found” (SN 5).

Consciousness is merely one of the five aggregates, the awareness and function of the mind.  It is not above cause and effect, and therefore not permanent.  In one Sutra, a monk makes the mistake of thinking that consciousness continues from one life to the next, saying “as I understand the Dharma, it is this same consciousness that runs and wanders through the round of rebirths, not another.”  Buddha corrects him by explaining that consciousness originates dependent on the physical body, and does not exist independently.  As with all five aggregates, it arises and ceases as part of the process of the cycle of birth and death (MN 38).

So what links one life to the next, if no aspect of a person continues?  Only karma endures.  Karma is the action that causes an effect (or “bears fruit,” as described in the Sutras).  Actions taken in one life may have effects in others; the chain of causation is unbroken by the arising and passing away of beings.  In Buddhism, the karma generated in a person’s life determines the circumstances of their rebirth in the next.  Karma is a debt that must be paid.

Why would Buddha say “I recollected my many past lives,” if he teaches that there is nothing that can be considered “mine,” and nothing that can be pointed to as “I”?  Buddha describes engaging in linguistic conventions in order to make the teaching comprehensible.  When talking about his use of pronouns and describing the various kinds of self, he says “these are mere names, expressions, turns of speech, designations in common use in the world, which the Tathāgata uses without misapprehending them” (DN 9).  “Tathāgata” itself is a convention, a title Buddha uses to avoid referring to himself (kind of an early take on TAFKAP: The Aggregates Formerly Known As Gautama).  Buddha might have said “this collection of aggregates gained knowledge of the previously existing collections of aggregates which took actions that created the conditions for this collection of aggregates to exist and arrive at this point.”  But “I recollected my many past lives” is not only more comprehensible, it was also in keeping with the common beliefs of his followers.

The teaching of karma is tied into morality, to solve the problem of good or bad actions not necessarily yielding a corresponding result.  Most religions suggest actions will have consequences after death, via some reward or punishment, and karma is no different.  This holds true even when karma is disassociated with continuation of consciousness.  The good or bad effects of karma must occur sometime, to someone.  But identifying with such things will leave one in the weeds, as Buddha describes when he is questioned by the wanderer Vacchagotta.  The wanderer asks if Master Gautama holds various views, such as “the world is eternal,” or “the world is not eternal,” or “the soul and the body are the same, or two different things,” or “does an enlightened being exist after death.”  Buddha replies that he does not hold any “speculative views” because “with the cessation of all conceivings, all I-making, all mine-making, the Tathāgata is liberated.”  When asked where he will reappear after death, Buddha says “the term ‘reappear’ does not apply,” like asking of an extinguished fire what direction it went (MN 72).

Notes:

Citations refer to the volumes of the Pali Cannon:

DN = Digha Nikaya, The Long Discourses

MN = Majjhima Nikaya, The Medium Length Discourses

SN = Samyutta Nikaya, The Connected Discourses

The number refers to the number of a Sutra within that volume.

Hollywood, Women, and Power - an examination of superhero films

Much has been made of the dearth of women led superhero films (or women superheroes in film to any degree).  This is the golden age of comic book movies, with studios now churning out at least seven new entries every year.  The lack of super-powered women is glaringly obvious.  What is perhaps less obvious is the way that the few women who do appear relate to their power.  Also overlooked is the fact that one of the only female driven superhero films is also one of the most successful films of all time: Disney’s 2013 film Frozen.

Frozen made $1.276 billion in worldwide box office - good enough for fifth highest grossing film of all time in the year of its release (link).  Among superhero films, it is surpassed only by the Avengers, the epic team ups of four superheroes teased out over years of development.  Frozen came out of nowhere, catching everyone (including Disney - link) completely by surprise.

In a way, the surprise is understandable; here is a film that breaks with the Disney Princess formula in radical ways.  The film features two female leads.  It features a female lead without a love interest.  It can be read as a coming out story (young Elsa literally grows up in a closet, after all).  But it is also a classic comic book superhero story.  Elsa’s ability to generate ice and create almost anything with it is similar to Iceman, one of the original X-Men, who debuted in the comics in 1963 (link).  Like many classic superheroes, her powers are completely unbounded.  She appears to be able to do almost anything, from bringing permanent winter to a whole country, to building a castle, sturdy as stone, to creating clothing, lighting, and anything else she likes.  She even has the power to create life, bringing Olaf and Marshmallow into the world and imbuing them with souls.  Elsa has god-like superpowers.

Elsa is not the only woman superhero to grace the silver screen.  There have been a smattering of others.  Most of them are found in the X-Men movies, whose ensemble nature makes it almost impossible to leave out women entirely.  One of the most prominent X-Women is Jean Grey, who has the powers of telekinesis and telepathy.  Similarly unbounded, she can use her power for anything from floating a small object across a room to destroying all life on Earth.  How does Jean Grey relate to her power in this series of films?

(so much easier than using your hands)

She can’t control her power.  The stronger she gets, the less control she has.  She begins inadvertently hearing the thoughts of everyone around her and causing equipment to malfunction, and eventually unintentionally kills her boyfriend.  Her power is dangerous, a threat to herself and others.  So dangerous, that her mentor, Professor X, puts up psychic barriers in her mind in an attempt to suppress her power.  Ultimately, her power is a threat to society as a whole, destroying everything around her.  She must give up her power.  When the psychic barriers prove insufficient, she finally begs Wolverine to kill her, lest she destroy the world.

(be afraid…  be very afraid...)

Rogue is one of Jean’s teammates, and another female lead in the X-Men series.  Her power is to drain and absorb the power of others, weakening or killing them in the process.  How does she relate to her power?  She is afraid of her power.  She can’t control it, accidentally killing her boyfriend at a young age.  Her power hurts people, preventing her from getting close to Iceman, another love interest.  Her power is a source of shame, and she longs to be rid of it.  Eventually, she gives up her power, voluntarily taking the mutant “cure”.  By surrendering her power, she is granted a chance at a normal life with her boyfriend.

(men seldom make passes at girls who can destroy all life as we know it)

The Marvel Cinematic Universe has had almost no women with super powers.  One of the few was Pepper Potts, Iron Man’s girlfriend.  At the end of Iron Man 3, she is exposed to the Extremis virus, which grants her some sort of heat-based power.  She is able to use this power to save Iron Man and defeat the villain.  Immediately following this, she confesses that she finds the power overwhelming.  It’s too much for her, she worries.  She asks Iron Man to take away her power, which he does.

(look familiar?  Women with power are scary!)

Marvel’s Agents of Shield television show introduced super powered characters in its second season, including Agent Skye.  Her power is an ability to cause earthquakes.  From the moment it first manifests, she is terrified of her power.  She can’t control her power, destroying buildings and endangering people’s lives.  She wishes her power could be taken away, and turns it on herself, shattering her bones, to avoid hurting anyone else.

In each individual case, these characterizations may be appropriate to a storyline or character arc.  Taken as a whole, the pattern is unmistakable, and the message clear: women with power are a threat to society, and should give up their power or have it taken from them.  By way of comparison, are there male superheroes with similar relation to their power?  There are certainly a lot more men in comic book movies overall, men with all sorts of power sets and story arcs.  But of the scores of men with super powers, only one fits this pattern: the Hulk.  An uncontrollable rage monster, whose emotional outbursts are a threat to everyone around him, he wanders the earth hoping to find a way to remove his power.  In the eyes of Hollywood, any woman with power is just a Hulk waiting to happen.

Except Elsa.  She is not afraid of her power, and she can easily control it.  It can be harmful, but no more than any kind of power.  It is society that fears her power, that tries to subdue it.  She goes along with this, trying to conform, for some time, before eventually making a break with society.  She feels no need to give up her power; it is not a problem for her, but for others (the cold never bothered her, anyway).  She uses her power as she sees fit, and finally it is society that must change.  This change is solidified by her becoming Queen - her super power and political power unified.

(Elsa restores Summer, but keeps her power)

Frozen seems entirely accidental.  Disney was so caught off guard that they still haven’t managed a sequel.  These days, sequels are in the works before the first in the series hits theaters.  Even two years later, Disney was completely unprepared for Rey, the superhero lead of the new Star Wars trilogy, to be the breakout star (to the point that they barely had any merchandise of her ready to sell - link).  And they are not alone.  Warner Bros, anxious to repeat the success of Fury Road, is pushing for a new series of Mad Max films - without Furiosa (link).  And Marvel is still years away from a woman led comic book film (link).  It’s enough to make one think they don’t like money.

Notes

1. This post was conceived in mid 2014.  Little has changed.
2. Storm (X-Men) does not fit the pattern.  She is also one of the only women of color featured in a superhero film.  She has never been damseled or fridged on screen.  So after three standalone Wolverine films, Fox is making a Gambit movie.
3. Sue Storm (Fantastic Four) doesn’t fit the pattern either.  But she’s literally The Invisible Woman.