Faithful readers may recall a similar story about this time last year, when I was just starting Wing Tsun... My apologies - this entry is going to be a little redundant.
My latest phase now is Krav Maga. A few reasons: (1) Wing Tsun was simply too difficult to maintain. I started it last summer, but in the fall I was still taking night classes and working two jobs. My two-day-a-week habit dropped to one, and then maybe once a month, and then about November nothing at all. (2) While I really enjoyed getting back into martial arts, and especially the formality/technique of Wing Tsun, it was not practical by any stretch. Not that I'm looking for a fight or anything, but if anything ever does happen, I want something reliable I can count on. (3) Cost. The Wing Tsun program meets three times a week, Krav Maga offers something every day. This gives much more flexibility, and with the "student special," I wound up paying a fraction of what I would have paid to stick with the more rigid Wing Tsun schedule. Cost isn't exactly the best thing to base martial arts enrollment on, but it's definitely a factor - most schools charge between $100-$200/month, depending on how big it is. Krav Maga is costing me less than $50/month. Perfect! The stars are aligned!
But that's all background - why Krav Maga in the first place?
Krav Maga caught my attention, as it does for most people, with its utter ferocity. It doesn't have the most aesthetic look, but if you want a fighting system that can get you home safely and realistically put someone down in a hurry, it's hard to think of anything better. Krav Maga doesn't have a rich, lush history behind it, and the system is less an "art" than a hodgepodge of effective methods and techniques - a pet criticism of more traditional schools - but the results are proven. And after just a few months, I think it will be hard to go back to anything else.
The whole reason for doing any sort of martial art (at least for me) is to promote practical fitness. I can jog a couple miles, or go lift at a gym, but self-defense adds a whole new dimension... It's not just about how strong and fast you are, but how strong and fast you can be in a dangerous situation; it's just as much about strategy and willpower as it is about technique.
And it's the most intense workout I've ever had! Most days, left to my own homegrown workouts, I break a healthy sweat, but I come home from Krav Maga drenched and parched.
A typical class is effectively split into two parts: about a half-hour on drills and aerobics (lots of burpees, sit-ups, and push-ups, offset with various "combatives" - punches, knees, elbows), followed by a half-hour of actual techniques (disarming, specific defenses, etc). The whole philosophy is to break you down so you can keep fighting even while exhausted. And it works. After a couple months, I can survive the classes better, but I also maintain better stamina outside, like during a jog or normal workout routine.
It's been a lot of fun. I'm actually a little bummed that I won't be able to do it (doubtful anyway, considering the school schedule) next year.
That's about it. Forgive my propagandist ranting. As penance, another video!
If this were a comic book world, there would be an alternate timeline in which the original Superman movies (ie, the Christopher Reeve ones) had never existed. I'm sure director Zack Snyder would prefer that - that way viewers didn't have anything to compare his "epic" slugfest to.
But we do, and this latest installment of the superhero "reboot" is a failure.
Snyder is known for his stylistic flourishes, to say the least... Left to his own devices, his movies invariably boil down to strutting machismo and "tough" yet over-sexualized femme fatales. He's obsessed with special effects and extreme slow-motion. He wants things to look cool - everything else is secondary... Not exactly my kind of director. But still, I have to admit: I enjoyed his Dawn of the Dead remake quite a bit, and I guess if anybody was going to make Superman cinematically relevant in this new "grim" era, he's as good a choice as any.
Therein is a piece of the problem... how do we make Superman cinematically relevant? Watch the original Superman series, and while they may have been ahead of their time and are arguably some of the best superhero movies ever made, they seem quaint and even hokey by today's standards. Everything now is so much bigger and faster, but most of all brooding. Superman has never been about brooding; he's the ideal moral agent - doing right for the sake of right, protecting those in need, helping those in harm... If it seems naive or quaint, those are traits inherent to the character.
And that, really, is the problem - Snyder is fighting a losing battle. He's all about darkness and brooding and atmosphere: the sun scarcely shines in Zack Snyder's world.
So, even before the movie begins, we're kind of set up for trouble. We've got a horrible mismatch of director and material, an outdated superhero, and the legacy of a once-great film series (albeit one that peaked with Superman II in 1980) that's fallen on hard times.
All that aside, I wanted to like this movie. I love the first two films, and I was genuinely excited for this latest installment. I was admittedly nervous about Snyder as director, and a little more nervous when the trailers seemed to imply that Man of Steel was essentially Superman: The Movie and Superman II rolled into one (with updated effects and a darker tone, naturally)... but I remained undaunted.
And then I saw the movie... and I was let down...
There's very little Man of Steel does right. It does essentially "retell" and combine the stories of Superman: The Movie and Superman II (without Lex Luthor), but fails to capture the fun, innocence, and excitement of the hero. Even with its outdated effects, I'd sooner rewatch both the earlier films than suffer through this one again.
Let's divide the movie into its constituent movies... First, the Superman: The Movie material - ie, the "origin story." This is handled pretty well, I have to say. We get a good sense of Superman's isolation and alienation, his struggle to find his identity and maintain a sense of moral goodness when it would be so easy to hurt anyone who would cross him... and I liked his "lost" years - ie, the time spent "wandering the desert" to come to terms with himself and his place in the world. This is all pretty good. I especially liked Kevin Costner's turn as Jonathan Kent. Costner has become a bit of a punchline after the debacle of Waterworld, but he brings a sincerity and believability sorely lacking from the rest of the movie. You've got to give credit where credit's due.
Quite a bit more time in this film is spent on Krypton than in the previous installments, which is kind of interesting... but nothing interesting happens there. Jor-el chides leadership for ignoring his research, Zod is a power-hungry madman, there are even a few ridiculous action scenes with some sort of-dinosaurs. I don't know. I guess I appreciate the attempt - trying to flesh out Krypton - but for all the money and effects and ugly photography, it just never held my interest. The costumes reminded me of Bill & Ted's Excellent Adventure.
The Superman II material (ie, the "identity/Zod" portion) is where the film takes a turn for the worst. Specifically, when Lois Lane shows up. Previously portrayed by Margot Kidder (in performances that bordered on grating, admittedly), here she has been completely stripped of any sort of femininity in favor of making her "tough" and "believable." She's a Pulitzer-prize winning journalist - she'll do things her way! She's not intimidated by the military! She acts more like a tabloid journalist on the level of Gale Weathers (ie, the Scream series) than any sort of serious reporter. We're supposed to take these things at face value - because any attempt to make her seem like a real journalist just doesn't work, and she quickly falls into the role of "damsel in distress," constantly being rescued.
So anyway, as she must, Lois slowly discovers Clark Kent's true identity, and they sort of fall in love... I say "sort of" because although their courtship was quite extensive in the earlier films, this time they just seem to like each other instantly. That's pretty much the extent of Lois Lane's involvement in the film. She discovers Kent's identity, and then spends the rest of the time standing around admiring him or being saved by him.
The second half of the film is essentially one long action scene, which sounds promising at first glance, but there's very little we get to actually see. Zod and his cronies descend on Earth, demanding Superman turn himself over lest the whole planet face annihilation. Despite his reservations, Superman does indeed give himself up - and indeed, it turns out Zod can't be trusted. Then the fighting starts... and it never really stops until the end.
This is the film's other fatal flaw. The action scenes are nearly incomprehensible and - worse than that - they're boring. There's very little choreography/photography to speak of, most everything accomplished with special effects and an overbearing sound mix. Example: Superman takes on two fellow Kryptonians in the non-descript streets of an empty town (I forget their names - they're taking place of Ursa and Non of Superman II), and it's almost unwatchable. First, the military rains down bullets, missiles, tanks, etc etc, all apparently without noticing that these creatures are essentially indestructible. Then Superman flies in to "save the day," and the scene is reduced to a constant flurry of punches, kicks, and "woosh" sounds until they've all had enough and go back to their respective bases.
This would have been fine, I guess, but only in the hands of a more competent action director. I know the "style" now is for action scenes to have lots and lots of cuts and sounds and flashes of action, but imagine how much more satisfying it would have been to actually see the fight and the choreography. I would have even preferred the slow-fast-slow CG-nonsense of Snyder's own 300 (a movie I hated) because it would have been vastly more interesting. As it stands now, the action of Man of Steel is mostly reduced to sound effects and flashes of movement (usually a body flying through some sort of building or rubble) in place of intelligible action.
(As Orson Welles once said: "A long-playing full shot separates the men from the boys." That in mind, if you want to watch an amazing action movie from the last couple years, see Takashi Miike's 13 Assassins. The second half of that movie, likewise, is essentially one long action sequence, but is so much more satisfying because you can actually tell what's happening.)
Such action continues ad nauseum, with countless hundreds (thousands?) of nameless/faceless extras being killed in the wake, until finally Superman and Zod square off. This is a cut above the other action sequences - perhaps because of Zod's indomitable spirit, perhaps because Michael Shannon is such a better actor than the others... For whatever reason, it was actually fairly interesting to watch, and I really commend Snyder and his writing team for the way the sequence ends... Don't want to spoil anything for anyone who hasn't seen the movie, but Superman has to make some pretty tough decisions here at the end, and I respect the way they forced this all-good character to again face the conundrum of choosing good or evil. (Though I will say, the sequence borrows heavily from a similar showdown in The Matrix: Revolutions, which again is more thrilling because of how much more you can physically see, but that's neither here nor there.)
Couldn't find the regular scene - but still... just WATCH it!
So that's about it... This turned out much, much longer than I'd intended, but a few closing words about Superman himself... Actor Henry Cavill does a nice job with the role, but he (like Brandon Routh in Superman Returns) does almost nothing to distinguish Clark Kent from Superman besides put on a pair of glasses. Christopher Reeve looked the part (tall, clean cut, square chin), but more importantly he actually acted differently as Clark Kent. You could believe people would overlook him and never give two thoughts about him - he actually changed his body language, even his voice. Cavill looks the part of Superman - beefing up and getting toned - but is less believable as Clark Kent.
Hoping for something a little better later this summer.
I know I've been off the radar for a while (busy! - what with PA school in full swing and our massive Eurotrip just before that)... and I hate to come back to this thing with "barrels blazing," so to speak, but there's a little something going on right now I just can't keep quiet about...
Yes, Paula Deen.
... or more specifically, her apologists.
Let's use some logic, people!
We all know what Paula Deen said was wrong... right?... we're in agreement on that much? Okay, good. I'm all for free speech - and if Paula Deen was the head of the KKK, I personally wouldn't care - but the people focusing on the repercussions she's facing are focusing on the wrong thing. The issue here is not speech, or the N-word - it's celebrity.
If Paula Deen had never gotten famous, it wouldn't matter what she said. But she is famous (so let's not have too much pity on her - after all, she's a millionaire many times over), and as such needs to come to terms with the ugly side of fame. The more famous you are, the less privacy you have. You can debate the fairness of that all you want, but them's the breaks, my friend.
When famous people foul up, they face the court of public opinion. Paula didn't break any laws - it's not like she's facing legal consequence - so anything happening to her right now is essentially the will of the people. Again, maybe it's unfair, but that's the way it is. Look at Tom Cruise - after his "couch-jumping" incident, his box office performance took a noticeable hit (look at everything after 2005)... or Ben Affleck - he faced backlash simply because he was dating Jennifer Lopez, and it's only within the last few years that he's finally gotten away from those ill effects.
So, let's turn away from Paula and take a look at the apologists...
The argument here is that the "punishment doesn't fit the crime," essentially. So far as we know, this was an isolated incident decades ago, so why should that affect anything right now? Well, don't mean to be rude, but when it happened is irrelevant. It happened, people found out about it, and they raised a stink. Like I said, all she's facing right now is public backlash - if the people feel it's appropriate, she'll completely lose her celebrity, and we'll never hear from her again... if the people feel she's had enough, they'll slowly let her back in. That simple.
Does this make sense? Yes, we've all said things we shouldn't have said; we've all done things we regret. That's not the point. She's famous. These things happen to famous people. The smartest thing Paula could do right now is simply take some time off and let the fires die down.
PS... Also, this is a little something leveled specifically at those attacking Wal-Mart/Target... To recap: the argument here is that if Wal-Mart/Target are going to drop their sponsorship of Paula Deen over this incident, then they should stop selling rap CDs which may contain use of the N-word, or other degrading lyrics... This is really stupid, and it makes no sense.
Logic!
What's the difference between corporate sponsorship of a celebrity and selling a product? The sponsorship! When you sell a product, that's all you do - you sell it. When you sponsor a product, you're endorsing it. That's why they dropped her: they didn't want to endorse a racist... This is why Wal-Mart/Target are not in the business of endorsing controversial artists, though they will sell their products as appropriate. See the difference? It applies even to non-controversial items: how can Wal-Mart/Target sell Coke and Pepsi? Because they don't endorse either one - they simply offer it, and the consumer makes the choice.
This is the marketplace of ideas in a microcosm.
The other thing that bugs me about this argument? It takes power away from the consumer, which completely goes against our capitalist system. Products are out there, you buy them or ignore them - it's your decision. So if Wal-Mart/Target actuallywere targeting Deen for some reason and were involved in a concerted effort to bring her down, use your power as the consumer! These places wouldn't exist with you! You are the consumer, you decide what sells and what doesn't! So if it bothers you that much, put your money where your mouth is - boycott! Show them who's boss, and they'll learn their lesson.
