|
|
Catching Up| | Hello, sporadic readers. It has been a long time since I've updated, as usual, but this was a tough semester for me, and now that I'm back and finished my long job-hunting efforts, I can return to my blogging. And I've really had a lot of things I've felt like talking about, but unfortunately, they are so many that I don't know where to begin. Therefore, instead of having one prolonged rant, I will break it up into short mini-rants. (I will do the same at the anime blog too, of those of you who read it.)
Anyway, here it go:
Rant #1: Virginia Tech
This would have been more relevant about a month ago, but I was very busy during this time. Now that the dust has settled, though, perhaps I can better opine about it. Shooting incidents like this disturb me, not only because of the loss of life and the bouts of paranoia it gives me (i.e. causing me to mentally compile strategies for fleeing or hiding in my respective campus buildings) but because it reflects the idiocy of college administrators and their "gun-free zone" mentality. What it comes down to is this: if you're going to declare a campus "gun-free", you'd damn well better ensure that it is a secure, safe environment through more effective policing and security measures. Of course, tightened security is costly and time-consuming, and people generally complain about it once it is set into motion. And the truth is, we can't predict incidents like this; hell, Seung-Hui Cho, the VT shooter, didn't even fit our society's stereotype for school shooters (i.e. he was Asian college student rather than a white goth high-schooler with a grudge or a gangbanger in an inner-city school), and even if he was a weird, dodgy individual, I've known dozens of weird, dodgy individuals, none of whom have shot up my school. But I digress: the point is, if campuses can't guarantee that they can prevent massive shootings like this, they should at least allow some system that allows students to own guns on campus; "gun-free" environments create an opportunity for sick bastards like Cho to mow down dozens of people, whereas an environment that allows law-abiding citizens to carry weapons for their defense limits this opportunity. (Look up the shooting at the Appalachian School of Law in 2002 if you're skeptical; a similar situation was curtailed by armed citizens.)
Rant #2: "Hot Fuzz" and "Vigilante Values"
In a similar vein to the above discussion, I'll now bring up a movie I saw earlier this month: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost's "Hot Fuzz." (To those of you who don't keep up, these are two British actors who played Shaun and Ed in the satirical zombie movie, "Shaun of the Dead.") Being a devotee of "Shaun of the Dead" and all things British (I kind of have a thing for island-based cultures, for some reason), I saw this movie and enjoyed it. (SPOILERS, by the way. As usual, my review will rely on people having watched the subject material already.) It's basically a satirical cop film, another action-comedy-buddy-movie by Pegg and Frost, I encourage any who haven't watched it to do so while it's still in theaters; it'll probably be a more enjoyable than Emo-Man 3 (see next rant.) But one thing that bothered me about this movie was its subtle jab at the gun-owning community, particularly its penchant for what some snide British commentators have referred to as the "vigilante values" of the U.S. The baddies of this movie, a group of seemingly law-abiding countryside British villagers who brutally murder anyone who makes their village "imperfect" turn out to be the bad guys, and it's a supremely ironic (and even I must admit, entertaining) when the policemen, played by Frost and Pegg, must face down a group of middle-age, harmless-looking Brits in a heavily-armed showdown. And I get their message: vigilantism can go too far if left unchecked, and even if you start with possibly justifiable reasons, such as killing murderers and mobsters (see "Boondock Saints"), you can rapidly devolve into killing people for crimes far outweighing their guilt (see the "Saw" trilogy,) and could wind up leading to absurd reasons for killing people, like in "Hot Fuzz," when the villagers murder a local man for being a bad actor or a newspaperman for making too many spelling errors. (Some of you may criticize me for using other movies and try to apply them to reality, but I'm merely using them as an illustration of how the trend theoretically goes, not to imply that mafioso-killing brothers, reverse bear-traps, and neighborhood-based cults are a reflection of the real world.)
Unfortunately, if the movie's argument is itself carried to far you have quite another problem, much like the one Britain faces: criminals who become emboldened by a defenseless population. (If you're interested in more details, as well as where I picked up the neat little phrase "vigilante values," read this article at reason.com.) While we're led to cheer on Pegg and Frost's characters in the movie, we are subconciously led to accept the movie's assertion that civilians have no business trying to enforce to the law, and that we should leave it to the government and to law enforcement to protect us; don't fight back, don't get involved, let the pros handle it. But it's thinking like that that has led the U.K. to see such problems with crime; its citizenry is legally discouraged to defend itself even without guns, allowing murderers, robbers, and other such trash (i.e. chavs) to commit more crime with impunity. And yet the British continue to live in denial about this problem, and respond it by merely cracking down on guns, both in the hands of citizens and criminals, setting up security cameras in every corner, and banning of pointed kitchen knives in a vain attempt to curb the inevitable results. It almost seems like they are treating their population as if they were toddlers, removing all sharp and dangerous things out of the playpen so that their widdle citizens won't hurt themselves.
I know, I know, this is a lot to lay on the shoulders of a single movie, and I really don't blame Pegg and Frost for their creation: they're simply the product of their "culture of non-violence", where only bad guys (at the last extremity, the police) carry weapons. And I'm not saying that you shouldn't enjoy this film because of this underlying issue. I enjoyed it. But I also have an extreme sensitivity to social and political agendas in media, and if I sense a bad spot in an apple (or, in the case of "V for Vendetta," a razor blade), I'm going to say something about it. At the very least, I hope that you will at least take note of it and, whether you choose to take umbrage at it or just ignore it, that you remain aware of the subtexts within a storyline and the ramifications thereof.
Rant #3: Spider-Man 3
No, I didn't blindly hate it, as did apparently some. I actually was mildly amused by Spidey's symbiote-inspired attempts at tapping into Indie-coolness rather than being pained and horrified by the middle portion of the movie (i.e. Carla's reaction.) However, I do have a several minor nitpicks to make:
1. Too Many Villains
Honestly, I think it's a bad thing that these movies are hemorrhaging villains like this. Sandman and Harry/Whatever-Goblin-He-Is would have made a sufficient movie, and they should have saved the symbiont subplot (and the subsequent rise of Venom) for another movie. If they had done that, I would have actually been interested in a sequel. Instead, they used up a villain they didn't have to, and I honestly can't think of what they'll even film the next one about. I theorize it might be Dr. Connors/Lizard, or even Mysterio, but that's all idle nerd speculation. Besides, if all I have to look forward to is an anthropomorphic reptile and a fishbowl headed clown, I can't say that the prospect of such sequels agree with me. Of course, they wouldn't have this problem if they didn't insist on killing every villain or villain-like character at the end of each film, but there's nothing we can do about that now.
2. Retroactive Continuity
I'm sorry, but I don't buy this 'It wasn't actually the robber dude who shot Uncle Ben, it was Sandman" bit. If it was a lame attempt to try to buy Sandman credibility and to make his struggle with Spidey more dramatic, then it failed miserably.
3. Lack of Subtlety
Maybe it's just because I'm an English major, but I loathe it when scripts/books try to force the audience's viewpoint on the characters by conveying themes too heavily. Sandman's a good example of this. It's not enough for him to be a hudlum; no, no, he has to be a misunderstood convict with an ambiguously sick daughter, which apparently gives him carte blanche to rob banks to pay for the usual "expensive operation." I'm pretty sure I remember him saying something exactly along these lines onscreen: "I'm not a bad guy, I just had bad luck," as if the audience was too simple-minded to gather that from the scene itself. And Sam Raimi takes great pains to hammer this theme into our heads EVERY GODDAMN TIME he shows up on screen by making him stare for ten minutes at the locket with his daughter's picture in it. Why couldn't they just make him yet another villain for Spider-Man to pummel? If anything, it would have been more impressive if Spider-Man had chosen to forgive a despicable villain rather than one who was a hapless father trying to save his daughter.
There are other such instances of ham-handedness in the movie, such as the fact that every time symbiont Spidey is about to do a bad deed, he rubs the chest of his black uniform, or when Eddie Brock, like Sandman, baldly states "I like being bad. It makes me happy," instead of, once again, allowing the audience to deduct that for themselves. There was the over-the-top tension in Peter and MJ's complex relationship, which, while it may have made for good plot developments in the previous films, turned absolutely cringe-worthy in this film. (Hey Raimi, don't introduce Gwen Freakin' Stacy into the series unless you intend to have her die! There's no point otherwise!) But one of the more egregious moments is the sudden intervention of the "Magical Butler of Plot Device" who randomly
appears in this movie, magically bringing Harry around suddenly by
confessing that the wound on his father's body matched the glider's
blades blah-blah-blah. Where the hell did this guy come from? (Wait,
now that I think about it, I think he may have had a line or two in
Spider-Man 2, but not nearly enough to keep him from seeming
contrived.) More to the point, though, why didn't he speak up about
this, I don't know, WHEN HE DISCOVERED IT? Then all this pointless
drama between Harry and Peter could have been avoided... eh, whatever.
All I'm saying is that they could have found a smoother way of bringing
Harry to his senses.
So, those are my three MINOR gripes about the movie. Other than that, it wasn't bad. And it was nice seeing Topher Grace acting again.
Okay, that pretty much does me in for the evening. I've got to go to work tomorrow, so if y'all will pardon me, I'll go gather my strength.
| | | Posted 5/20/2007 8:05 PM - 21 Views - 0 eProps - 0 comments
- recommend
  - recs0
- share
- email
 - sent0
|
|
