Luke Cage: heavyweight disappointment

I've been a big fan of Netflix's Marvel line-up.

Daredevil was excellent. Jessica Jones was even better in a lot of ways. Iron Fist (hopefully) will be good...

Luke Cage, however, has been a bust... Part of that is (probably) due to source material, but I can't say for certain. All I've seen from Luke Cage as far as comics go was one or two guest spots in a Daredevil comic, and he didn't exactly impress. The outfit is goofy as can be, his catchphrase "Sweet Christmas" is groan-inducing, and there's just not much particularly interesting about him - super strong, invulnerable - kind of a black, flightless Superman.

The show improves on some of these things... Thankfully, the costume is done away with after a brief origin scene. He does say "Sweet Christmas," as well as "Sweet Sister," and probably a couple other "sweet" things... but there's really only so much that can be done.

Cage's "super power" is that he is unbreakable. Nothing can hurt him. Bullets, fists, blades - nothing. So most "fight" scenes are him walking through a storm of bullets and/or knocking people away with a flick of his wrist. Not very interesting. He does come up against some skeletons from his closet that exploit his weaknesses, but there's never any tension that Luke could actually be seriously harmed. Boring. And he doesn't exactly have a winning personality, either. He's big, quiet, will stand up for himself and others... And that's basically it.

The creative forces behind the show Luke Cage did the best they could - trying to ground Cage in reality, make him less ridiculous, more believable, more relatable - but those very forces aren't exactly potent either. I commend the show creators for tying into politics and current events (hoodies play a very big part in the show, as well as police-minority tensions), but this is a boring, prosaic show.

The best that can be said about Luke Cage, even at its best, is that it's competent. The action scenes are mundane, the direction pedestrian, the cinematography flat and uninspired... The music is excellent throughout, but that (honestly) is the best thing about the show. Which is a shame. Netflix and Marvel had made quite a formidable team - delivering numerous seasons of high-quality, cinematic television that reinvigorated a flagging brand after diminishing returns from multiple box office efforts, as well as a steep drop in quality.

Here's hoping Luke Cage was a fluke, and that Iron Fist will get them back on top.

Year-End Round-Up

This will be shorter than my typical "best of" posts from the past. With work, family, hobbies, obligations, there really just wasn't a whole lot of time for media consumption... There are a number of movies I didn't see that I would have loved to have seen, but it's already the end of January, so I'm going to go ahead and throw out what I've got, and if there's something exceptional I see on disc, I'll address it then...

MUSIC

The Satanist (Behemoth) - This CD is a couple years old at this point, but I've listened to it a lot this year, and there wasn't anything else that topped it. A masterful piece of metal, it grabs you by the throat and pummels you through the aether. Ridiculously fast, hard-hitting - the very definition of brutal - but there are moments of grace and beauty in the depths as well. One of the best metal albums I've ever heard.






BOOKS

The Familiar: Vol. 3 - Into the Forest (Mark Z Danielewski) - At times, it's understandable and even agreeable why Danielewski's latest could be called a big pretentious slog. But there's such beauty here, such power, such insight... if you give it a chance, the book will confuse you, entrance you, and even inspire you.






MOVIES

Swiss Army Man (dir. Dans) - Literally the most artsy-fartsy movie you could ever see, I loved almost every minute of it. Weird, unpredictable, touching, poignant... Swiss Army Man is at its best when it's free-wheeling between humanist angst and scatological absurdity; it drags a bit at the end when it tries to anchor itself in reality, but just about everything else about is a joyous celebration of life, love, lust, loss... Can't recommend it enough. My favorite this year.





Everybody Wants Some!! (dir. Richard Linklater) - This "spiritual sequel" to Dazed and Confused is at times more like an 80s-inspired remake... but it still never fails to deliver. A smile on my face from the opening song, Everybody Wants Some!! doesn't have the same ingenuity as Dazed and Confused, but it is more mature and polished. This comes a more confident filmmaker.

The whole Trump thing (no, not that one - the recent one)

Considering the sheer number of ridiculous statements the man makes, this may become a continuing entry, but for now...

I don't understand the outrage over Meryl Streep's speech at the Golden Globes. Once you get past the "look at us privileged people from humble beginnings" introduction, the content is quite elegant and hard to argue against.

(1) Primary message: be empathetic and compassionate to others, especially if you are in a position of power and the other is not.

(2) Secondary message: the press is accountable to the truth only, not to authority.
(3) Tertiary message: diversity matters.

I think if you showed somebody a transcript with the name removed, or even just talked about the actual content of the speech, they would be hard-pressed to say those are controversial messages.

So... why the "controversy"?

She never mentioned Trump by name, and I don't think anyone could justifiably call what she said "an attack"... There was no defamatory statement about Mr Trump. She said she was disgusted by his flagrant mocking of a disabled reporter, and that led into the statement on empathy. Again... why the controversy?

There's this implication that Hollywood is out of touch with "the common man," that liberal elites should "shut up and [do whatever they're paid to do]" rather than comment on politics... but Hollywood has been out of touch for a long time, so that's not the issue. And telling someone to not talk about something because you don't like what they're saying is just a childish thing to say - they can say anything, just as you can say anything in response.

One of the pillars of our democracy is that nobody is above scrutiny. Obama caught a lot of flak over his eight years - some of it deserved, some of it not. Would you have been just as outraged if Streep had been talking about him? If so, then you should look at your own biases.

What's more troubling in my mind is Trump's response... Because, really, who cares what Meryl Streep has to say? Even if she had outright insulted him or gone on this lengthy tirade, her statements are not going to affect anybody or anything. They're getting attention, but they'll be forgotten soon enough. Trump, however, will soon take office as the most powerful man in the world, and what was his response? To belittle her directly, and then go on the defensive to justify himself as right about months-old statements referring to a story about 9/11, all of which have proven false.

So, if Streep bugged you that much, or you're just generally outraged by the Hollywood elite, some suggestions...

(1) Take a breath. There are a lot of outspoken liberals involved in the movie-making process. But there are conservatives as well. It's everyone's right to say whatever they please.

(2) Boycott Meryl Streep. If it's that big a deal, don't watch her movies.

(3) Boycott Hollywood. Again - if you feel so strongly, do something about it. If you hate uppity liberal Hollywood and how much money they have and blah blah blah... then just don't give them money. Done.

For the Record (cue: needle drop)

We've done this song and dance before, you and I...




It's been (apparently) about eighteen months since my last entry (itself about eighteen months after its own previous entry), and I've got that itch again...


As it so often does, the keyboard calls for action.



After my first major break from writing, I started this blog and wrote a couple (what I hope were good) short stories. I can't guarantee the same will happen this time - but I've got the call again, and I'm hoping to answer it justly.




Goals for the New Year
(1) Write - at least a little bit - most days of the week. This will, likely, devolve into my insipid opinions on movies, books, or whatever media I've just consumed, but hopefully there will be at least a few nuggets of substance sprinkled in there somewhere. And even more hopefully, I'll be able to write something new.

(2) Finish a two-year-old story... No details, but I was cruising for a while on a story that had some really nice individual pieces, but then hit the inevitable road block, and it's been sitting untouched ever since. The hope is that the physical act of writing more will get me back into the rhythm, so I can find and complete the rest of the story.

(3) Other stuff - more mundane. Saving money, raising a happy healthy child, living healthier, all the other usual stuff people say at the start of the year.




Good luck to you and yours. I hope you'll wish the same to me and mine.

Patriot, Unrelenting: Thoughts on American Sniper

Last year, American Sniper did what no other movie about the Iraq war managed to do: it made money. With mostly positive reviews (72% on Metacritic) and enormous box office success ($350+ million in the US alone), the film was nevertheless a lightning rod of controversy. Some decried the story as hero worship, lauding Chris Kyle to near-messiah status; some felt the tone too jingoistic for such a complex situation. (There were other, more extreme opinions, but I'd rather spend time on the points that have at least some degree of merit.)

No matter the criticism - or perhaps even in spite of it - American Sniper became a rallying cry for conservative America. Pundits pointed to the film's financial success and lack of award status (ie, one minor-category Oscar with three major-category shutouts) as some sort of proof of Hollywood's "liberal agenda," or at the very least of being out of touch with the average moviegoer. (Um, duh - they're even out of touch with the artsy movie-goers.) For some reason, it became unacceptable to a huge number of people that a successful, popular, well-reviewed movie not be anointed "the best," even though box office darlings rarely take home Best Picture (or any Oscars, for that matter).

I did not see the movie when it came out. I had interest - I thought the trailer was strong - and I love a good film controversy, but there simply was not enough time/money/resources to see something that seemed most surely to be overrated, when there were so many other worthy films on my "to-watch" list.

So I waited until disc, and now I've finally seen it. And for what it's worth - now that the waters have calmed a bit from last winter - here's what I thought...


American Sniper (dir. Clint Eastwood) - 2/5

Chris Kyle was a super-soldier. With over 160 confirmed kills, two Silver Stars, five Bronze Stars, and numerous other medals and distinctions, he was an ideal product of the US military. He was efficient, deadly, dedicated, and (with four tours of duty) unrelenting.

One of the big problems in reviewing any biopic, especially of such a lauded figure, is separating the film from the figure. Biopics try to "peel back the curtain" and show us what the subject was actually like. Some succeed, most (in my opinion) do not and simply become checklists of major accomplishments and setbacks. To its credit, American Sniper avoids the typical biopic pitfall: aside from the occasional caption which denotes which tour he is currently on, there is almost no mention of his prowess as a soldier. I cannot recall a moment when the number of honors and distinctions is mentioned, even at the closing credits, when most movies love to extoll the accomplishments of the subjects which had not been covered in the bodies of the films themselves.

The failing of American Sniper, though, is that while it does not fall into hero-worship (though a case could be made for the closing montage), it unfortunately does not reveal much about Kyle as a human being either. Much of the film is simply a collection of Kyle doing various things: here he is in the rodeo, here he is in combat, here he is at home. This can be a winning tactic in the right kind of movie, but American Sniper is not abstract enough to pull off this kind of technique. The movie lacks a narrative drive - there's nothing connecting these scenes other than the fact that Kyle is in each and every one of them.

The film portrays Kyle as an almost idealistic conservative force. His dedication to his principles is unrelenting, such that any sort of cynical and/or dissenting view is met with profound disbelief, or even threats of violence. This single-minded focus serves him well in his military career, but essentially wrecks every other aspect of his life, though he never admits it and the film barely acknowledges it. Bradley Cooper does an excellent job typifying this behavior, and his eyes show the internal struggle he must be going through... but at the same time, this struggle is only shown in Cooper's gestures and facial expressions. Aside from a recurring, opposing sniper trying to cash in a bounty, Kyle faces virtually zero opposition from anyone else in the film. His wife offers some occasional limp protest or incredulity early on, but is largely reduced to a one-dimensional cluster of doe-eyed support. Even when it's revealed late in the film that Kyle has been out of duty for an unspecified amount of time and has not returned home - has not, indeed, even told his wife he was going to be home, what is her response? I think most wives would be pretty angry, offended, and hurt. This was a man who (at least in the film) was basically an absentee father of two and an essentially uncommunicative husband, and yet she simply tearfully wishes he come home. She never raises her voice, never gets angry, never really addresses the deeper issue - that Kyle clearly feels more at home in a war zone than with his family - and that is the end of the scene. I have to say that it plays pretty well, I just found it hard to believe that's how any real, flesh-and-blood woman would react.

This was my other major issue with American Sniper: I never really "bought" any of it. Did it seem based on true events? Yes. Was it a faithful adaptation of Kyle's life and autobiography? Probably. But it just never quite worked. Clint Eastwood's spare, economic direction vacillates with elements of realism, stylism, formalism, and hyper-realism, but never quite finds the appropriate balance, nor does it commit to any one style wholeheartedly. The battle scenes are somewhat convincing, except when they're not - there's an effective, sadistic standoff involving locals, terrorists, and a powerdrill done in a hyper-realistic style, but then there are stylistic flourishes of unconvincing slow-motion bullets and poorly rendered, video game-quality CGI that only pull you out of the experience. I can understand filming certain scenes in a certain style and other scenes in other styles, but the lack of any unifying vision or tone simply highlights Eastwood's mishandling and misdirection of the material.

There are things to like about the movie, however. Bradley Cooper nails the performance as a fierce, terse Chris Kyle, bringing nuance and shading beyond what is present on the page, or even in the rest of the film for that matter. In a Best Actor field that was cluttered with biographical portrayals, Cooper's version of Chris Kyle was the only performance that went beyond mere imitation and provided a glimpse (frustratingly, only a glimpse) into what it was that defined and drove the man. (As a sidenote: Keaton's fearless, soul-baring performance in Birdman was the best of all the nominees, but Cooper's was a more heartfelt and, ultimately, "real" performance than Redmayne's.) The cinematography, while spare and unimaginative, is nevertheless effective. What sinks American Sniper is, in my opinion, the failure to focus on Chris Kyle's mentality and humanity, instead focusing on his actions; and a severe lack of vision and direction of the material by Eastwood.

There's the potential for a good movie here, even a great one, but the only one who rose to the occasion was Bradley Cooper.

Nothing is Secret

Nothing is Secret: Or, Why You Won't See Many Pictures of My Family Online

It's been some time, dear friends... Other than an obligatory "best of," it's been over a year since last we spoke! So I hope you'll forgive me if my prose is a bit rusty and, well, prosaic...

In the interim, a number of big doings:

(1) I graduated PA school. Proud owner of a shiny, new Master of Science in Physician Assistant Practice.

(2) I passed the Physician Assistant National Certification Exam (PANCE). Quite a relief. My scores didn't earn me any bragging rights, but frankly - I passed, and that's all that matters.

(3) Still searching for a place to call home, so to speak... I'm being considered for a few positions: one in the Chicago area and one in the Seattle area. Major pros and cons to each area, and to each position; the wife and I have some big decisions to make in the near-future.

(4) Biggest news of all... WE HAD A BABY. It's been a while, actually, but I've been so wrapped up in school and other issues that it didn't seem important to blog about it.


That actually brings me to the topic of this entry: privacy.

Obviously, this is a blog, so there's a certain lack of privacy that simply goes with the territory, but it's important to me to keep things kosher at home as well as online.

We hear all the time about how millennials and the younger generations are increasingly interconnected on the Web and yet personally disconnected from the flesh-and-blood creatures around them. My wife and I are deliberately trying to buck this trend.

That's not to say we don't have an online presence - such thinking is simply unrealistic this day and age, unless your Luddite fear and paranoia have sent you to the hills to live in a shack as a hermit. There are facebook accounts, twitter accounts, intagram, this very blog, etc etc ad nauseum. But if you know us at all, you'll see a few common traits among all those entities: the vast majority of entries reveal very little about our personal lives. You'll get opinions, thoughts, quips, (occasional) complaints, and comments, but very little about friends, family, and even each other. And I don't want to speak for her, but for me that's by design.

I love to write. I love to share my thoughts and opinions on myriad topics. But I don't kid myself: over the Internet is no way to know a person. So even if I were to go back to the glory days of this blog and post an entry every day, or even multiple entries a day, you'll get few details about my life. Or my wife's. Or - especially - our child's. All this (sometimes) to the chagrin of extended family, who sometimes (lovingly?) request, in none-too-subtle tones, that we post more pictures online so they can watch the child grow up. Sorry, but no thank you!

It's great to share photos with friends and family. But the idea of sharing photos with an entire online community - for potentially hundreds, thousands, or even millions to see - doesn't work for us.

We keep to ourselves. Except for when we don't. If you do see a baby picture online, enjoy it - they're few and far between. And that's because we'd rather live our lives and enjoy them in reality, not gather more "hits" or "views" (or whatever) online.

Thanks for respecting that. And, of course, for reading!

Best of / the New Year

As per the last couple years, I'm going to give a quick rundown of my favorite movies, books, and general finds from the past year... A little different from the last couple years: I'm trying to keep things brief. Fewer "honorable mentions" or "runners-up," shorter explanations/justifications - let's stick with the best, and then go from there.

BEST BOOK - House of Leaves (Mark Z Danielewski)
At the start of the year, my literary goal was to give Stephen King a chance and venture through his Dark Tower series... I'm about a hundred pages from completing that goal; and while it's been fun, there were a few detours along the way. I started writing a short story, and the further along I went, the more bizarre and experimental it became... To keep up my inspiration, I sought out experimental literature. Enter House of Leaves.

Let me say up front: House of Leaves is not an easy book to read. Never mind the main storyline (which is fairly straightforward), or the footnotes/extracts/appendices so extensive they could be their own novel... I mean the book itself is hard to read. Danielewski puts you square in the minds of his characters, so much so that the text reflects their experiences. Best example: the titular "house" has a mysterious room which shouldn't be there - a room so vast and infinite a team of explorers and videographers get lost inside it... and it just may be haunted.

To convey the confusion, paranoia, and labyrinthine nature of the room, a whole section of the book is written as a maze. Think about that: you'll read a paragraph, which sends you to a paragraph a few pages ahead, which sends you to another paragraph a few pages back, which sends you to a paragraph on the same page but printed sideways... Or there's another page where a character falls and twists through the air, so the letters and words twist upside-down and rightside-up... This goes on for some time, and I'll admit it can be infuriating, but the payoff is so rewarding. You become invested in the story, and it's really a beautifully devastating book. It's trickery in the name of artistry, and by the end your heart will be cracked.

The whole book isn't like this, but this is the most extreme example

Stephen King is the winner this year for quantity, but his Dark Tower can't compete with House of Leaves - it's one of the best books I've ever read.



BEST TV SHOW - Breaking Bad (specifically, "Ozymandias")
I pretty much got on board with Breaking Bad during the third season; and I've loved everything ever since. They ratcheted things into overdrive, though, with "Ozymandias" - which is probably the single greatest episode of television I've ever seen. Fast-paced, dramatic, shocking, well written, well acted, well directed, subtle, exciting... any positive description you can think of, just apply it to this episode and it still won't be enough. The first time I've actually rewatched an episode just for the joy of it.

BEST MOVIE (DISC) - Anatomy of a Murder (Otto Preminger)
A "classic" I'd never seen, Anatomy of a Murder deserves its status as one of the great courtroom thrillers. A very smart, frank film about sex, rape, murder, and the justifications and excuses for all of those things - it's also got great music and cinematography to go along with it. We loved it!



BEST BAND - Lamb of God
I've gotten more and more into metal music as I've gotten older (while simultaneously refining a long-standing love of jazz and Chick Corea), and this year I started to really love Lamb of God.

Normally, this would be too heavy and intense, but I don't know... something about it has been sticking with me. A lot of it goes back to my love of drumming - and the percussion of Lamb of God is pretty obvious, even without musical training. Not just the work of double-bass virtuoso Chris Adler, but the music itself. The bass, the guitars, even the growling screams of Randy Blythe - all of it in the service of hitting you hard and leaving you breathless. They're not writing songs, these are sonic assaults. I love it.

BEST MOVIE (THEATRICAL) - Upstream Color (Shane Carruth)
For a long time, it seemed nothing would beat Rob Zombie's masterpiece, The Lords of Salem; I saw that in April 2013, and it took a DVD rental in January 2014 to finally knock it from the top spot.

Carruth's shoestring epic Upstream Color had me from the first moment, and it is without question my favorite film of the year. It's a bit like mixing David Lynch with Terrence Malick - that bizarre dream logic carried by soft, lyrical storytelling... it's more a tone poem than a movie, but that's what makes it so captivating. I suppose you could relay the story and try to pin down the narrative (an exercise in futility, if ever there was one), but why bother? It's a film about ideas, emotions, thoughts, gods, demons, life, death, birth, rebirth. If you like great cinematography and visual storytelling, it's a must-see. If you like ham-fisted writing with lengthy diversions and plot-point discussions, it's not the film for you.

This was actually a really good year for movies. The last two years, I could only come up with three movies I felt strongly about... this year I have nine strong recommendations, and a couple others I thought were really good. Below you'll find a list of challenging, interesting, sometimes outright strange movies that break with the norm... and what's really nice? Finally - some VISUAL storytellers! Some are obvious, but you could turn off the sound for most of these and still know exactly what's going on.

(1) Upstream Color
(2) The Lords of Salem
(3) The Act of Killing
(4) Blue Jasmine
(5) Before Midnight
(6) Inside Llewyn Davis
(7) Gravity
(8) Her
(9) Spring Breakers
...other fun ones: American Hustle, The Evil Dead (remake), Mud, About Time, and Warm Bodies.

Latest Obsession: Krav Maga

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!

Isn't this guy just ridiculous?

Look, Up in the Sky! It's... it's... Mediocrity!

Man of Steel - 1.5/5
(dir. Zack Snyder)

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.

A Short Rant

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 actually were 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.

A Sad, Sick, Psychosexual Masterpiece

I know I already wrote a pretty lengthy review of Rob Zombie and his filmic output a long time ago, but you'd better settle in and get ready for a little bit more... I just came out of his latest - The Lords of Salem - and it is nothing less than a masterpiece. A disgusting, deranged, psychosexual masterpiece - but a masterpiece nonetheless.

This is a film that will divide critics, casual film-goers, fans, haters - pretty much any audience you could imagine. Zombie isn't redoing his particular brand of immature schlock cinema (as he'd done with the likes of House of 1000 Corpses and his first Halloween remake)... he's not even redoing his more ambitious, though obsessively violent schlock cinema (a la Halloween II and The Devil's Rejects)... No, with The Lords of Salem I think we have Zombie at his most personal, if that makes sense. The main character is a woman, but this is the first time you can really see all the things he's been writing about in his movies and songs - demons, possessions, psychopaths, killers, generally anything perverse and unholy - coalesce into one astounding whole.

I've always enjoyed Zombie's output, but only to a point. Even with The Devil's Rejects - by all accounts, a pretty great movie, and one of my favorites of the last ten years - there was always some particular scene or touch that got in the way. Something that could have been taken out, or edited differently to better effect... With The Lords of Salem, this just isn't true. It's not perfect, but it's nevertheless extraordinary.


The Lords of Salem (dir. Rob Zombie) - 4/5

So first, now that we're in the review proper, let's set the mood... Imagine Rosemary's Baby. Now mix it with The Shining. That pretty much gives you The Lords of Salem... at least, on a superficial level. This is a story about demons and witchcraft and losing touch with reality.

But we've seen movies like that before... In fact, within the horror genre - indeed within just about every genre - you could list tons of movies about madness and the devil and the war between dark and light.

This is where Zombie comes in and shines. It's his little touches that make the film extraordinary.

When I mentioned Rosemary's Baby and The Shining, I wasn't just talking about plot and/or stylistic elements (the idea of birthing the devil, numerous photographic references), but the also the tone and the pace. This I think is the most maddening thing for the modern film-goer: Rob Zombie takes his time. The film is about 100 minutes, and it's a slow 100 minutes. But it's his deliberateness - his refusal to ramp up the pace and indulge in modern-day cliches - that sets his film apart. That and the absolutely unrelenting, permeating sense of darkness and dread. There truly is something evil going on here; and while it may not be startling or "scary," it is nevertheless horrifying. Oh, and there's the fact that this is an incredibly calm horror movie. Witches are burned at the stake, yes, and there's one murder, but even then the film is more obsessed with what's not shown - with the disturbed and deranged experiences and psychologies of its characters - than just the physical things that happen.

This is the story of Heidi Hawthorne, a former drug user and current DJ, who has been chosen. She is the lucky recipient of a new record - yes, actual record - from a group simply referred to as "The Lords." She listens to it dreamily, at work and at home, and while she doesn't like it, she is inexorably drawn to it. There's something about the recording that gets under her skin - that sinks in further than music should.

Constantly, Heidi isolates herself... She lives alone. She seems to have no friends. Only interacts with co-workers and her landlady... She goes to support group meetings for her former drug addiction, but even there she doesn't speak. She doesn't interact. Only listens and nods politely. Who is she? ... Who is she, really?

When Heidi meets a palm-reader near the middle of the film, she makes the offhand comment that she'd like to have her palm read to help find out who she is, but she always thought palm-readers were a scam... Think through that... She wants to find and fulfill her identity, but she casually rejects those who try to help her do just that. Is this some kind of defense, or is she putting up a front? Is she just kind of naive? And what of her dearest "friend," a fellow DJ who clearly has a crush on her and whom she clearly has fond feelings for... Will their relationship ever be consummated? Does she want it to be? And what of that door at the end of the hall?

Intriguing questions abound throughout The Lords of Salem, and it's a film so psychologically rich and unusual it almost requires multiple viewings... Seriously. This isn't something to just watch for fun because you like the action or suspense, or you're kind of a horror junkie - there's a lot going on here, and the film is so mired in occult (and blatant) sexuality and sexual and religious theory, that it deserves more a treatise than a critical review. Even without the bizarre-o-sexual dream sequences (sure to draw gasps of shock and cries of "WTF" from an audience), Freud would have had a field day with the film's subtext. Fans of Zombie will recognize his fondness for Jung from Halloween II, but this time he really delves into Jung's more complicated ideas of persona and individuation - and their consequences - rather than simply quoting him.

Heidi is constantly having bad dreams... Her life is kind of a bad dream. She's constantly waking up, dozing off, getting up to get water, crawling back to bed... At first, things are innocent enough - she walks her dog, she watches old movies, she listens to Rush - but that damned record... It just keeps playing, calling to her, and it just completely perverts whatever life she had. (Latch onto that word: "perversion" is a big, big theme in The Lords of Salem. Religious perversion, sexual perversion, social perversion.)

And then there's that door, and her landlady's sudden sisters, and the darkness on the other side.

HOLY MOTORS (or, It's About Time!)

Holy Motors (dir. Leos Carax) - 4.5/5

Repulsive, transgressive, unpredictable, sentimental... Leos Carax's Holy Motors is all these things and more. A raw, visceral celebration (condemnation?) of cinematic tropes and tricks, it's the only movie of recent memory that can inspire revulsion and even tears within just a few minutes.

Ostensibly, Holy Motors is about an actor moving from job to job (or "appointments," as he and his chauffeur refer to them), and all his joys, successes, heartbreaks, and failures throughout the course of a single day. A similar description could apply to James Joyce's groundbreaking novel, Ulysses, but a more apt comparison would be to his follow-up, Finnegans Wake (except for the part about the actor).

After all, it's not like this is simply about what you see and what you hear... except when it is. This isn't about "plot"... except when it is.

Holy Motors is about attitude, joy, emotion, aggression, love, sexuality, familiarity... About how a lot of us just spend our days shuffling along from "appointment to appointment" - changing our roles, our appearances, and our behaviors depending on what's expected of us and what we expect of the world... But that's too simplistic and "artsy" a description.

It's also about chaos, the unexpected, and doing something because you want to, because you can, because you know it's right, or because you know it's wrong. When you get right down to it, a number of things in this film almost make you laugh because they're just so preposterous... and then a number of things DO make you laugh because they're just so preposterous... and while you could easily dismiss the film for being weird for weird's sake, there's a lot more at play here than that - and you know it. There's a confidence here, a swagger sorely missing from mainstream movies. Carax and his team had a clear vision, and they went out and put it on screen. For good or ill, they pulled it off.

If you decry Hollywood for not taking chances, then - please - watch this movie and all its chances.

What other movie can make you laugh, gasp, and tingle? think about your place in the world, in the universe... in your own life? can ramble along, tearing through everything in sight with such anger and ferocity... and then leave you heartsick, longing for love, and caught up in a musical number? In many ways, Holy Motors is about manipulation - how we manipulate others and ourselves, and (on a more basic level) how storytellers manipulate their stories and their audiences simultaneously. It defies cliches, and then indulges in the very cliches it defies.

(Also, this doesn't really fit with the rest of the review, but something has to be said for the work of lead actor Denis Lavant. Playing eleven characters is a daunting task for any actor, but he pulls it off incredibly. Aside from some interaction with his chauffeur and a female analog late in the film, this is essentially a one-man show. Not only does he play different characters, he creates an entirely different physicality and appearance for each one. They move differently, they talk differently. It's really something extraordinary.)

I loved this movie within about two minutes of watching it, and while I can't say other readers will, you've at least got to admire the guts it took to make it.

A Little Perspective

Back during my undergrad, I was heavily involved in the online film community. IMDb primarily, but other web sites as well. Point being: I'm no stranger to hyperbole, both from myself and others... But there's a disturbing trend going on at IMDb, and I need to say a little something about it.

Just check out the Top 250... Something seem a little off to you?

First, entirely too many "modern" titles (ie, post-1975 - yes, I'm using Jaws as a demarcation point); second, entirely too many "fanboy" titles (all the various sci-fi/fantasy trilogies); and finally, most disturbing, there's way too much Christopher Nolan. (I thought about wording that differently, but hey - let's just say what I mean to say.)

Now, I've got nothing against Nolan per se, and I've enjoyed most of his movies, but... seriously? In the Top 100 alone (though Batman Begins is right at 105), he has five titles! ... Christopher Nolan has only made eight feature-length movies! Do you mean to tell me that Nolan, who's really only been around since 2000 with his much lauded Memento, is one of the best filmmakers in history? The only single director I see with more titles is Stanley Kubrick, and the only one with a better "batting average" I notice is Quentin Tarantino.

This bugs me, and kind of annoys me...

Nolan is talented, but he has a very narrow skill set. The dialogue is usually pretty bad... and I don't mean mediocre or average - I mean bad. Exceptions here and there, but for the most part too much exposition, too little humor, no personality... He really should not be a screenwriter. Visually speaking, he's a paradox: the lighting is generally dark, moody, atmospheric (which I like), but the shots themselves - the compositions, the mise en scene, etc - are incredibly simplistic. Even when the camera moves, characters tend to occupy the center of the frame, only moving to the side for traditional cross-cutting during dialogue scenes. Everything is incredibly sleek and polished, but that's not the same thing as visual innovation/ingenuity/tension; he's mistaking size/scale for aesthetic.

Jim Emerson has written extensively about Nolan's (lack of) visual aesthetic, but you don't need to be a film essayist or critic to notice it - just watch his fight scenes. What has always amazed me with Nolan, after making so many action movies, is that he is still utterly incompetant at directing action. Most action scenes are covered up with polished editing, or obsessive cross-cutting, but the action itself is poorly choreographed, a bore to watch, and you can almost never tell what's happening!

Examples abound, but the best one I can think of is the fight scene with Bane in The Dark Knight Rises (I'm referring to the first one, but the same could be said of both)... Let's just think through this for a few minutes... The scene is a big deal. Batman is supposed to be broken down. Not just defeated, but easily defeated. Nolan is obviously trying to make the scene as simplistic as possible: lots of long takes and wide shots meant to show off the actors and their choreography; it's almost entirely hand-to-hand; and the only sound comes from the fight itself... If there was ever a moment for a film to be visually exciting, this is it! ... and yet, the scene falls flat... and you find yourself wondering when, if ever, it's going to end...

There a few reasons this scene fails: (1) It's poorly choreographed. In this day and age, with mainstream successes like The Matrix, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon, and countless others, if you want to show off your fight scenes, you really have to show off. This looks more like something we would have seen during the seventies in a drama - ie, the actors aren't stuntmen or even action stars, so they don't want to bother themselves with complicated movements: they'll just trade blows for a while until someone wins. (2) It's boring. There's nothing at stake here! Earlier in the film, Alfred implies that Wayne's ego is getting too big (ie, he assumes he'll handily defeat Bane if he has to, he's underestimating this new foe, etc); when he starts getting pummeled, he starts getting desperate - he uses tricks and various gadgets... This makes perfect sense, but it doesn't amount to anything. We don't feel his desperation, we don't feel his pain, so it just seems like the actors are doing this because the scripts requires it, not because their characters demand it. (3) It goes on too long. A good fight scene is like a good movie: it requires an arc. There's a clear start, climax, and resolution. The fight obviously starts and stops, but it doesn't build to anything. There's no "defining moment," if you will. That moment should be, obviously, when Bane finally defeats Batman and humiliates him, but aside from some punishing sound effects, it just feels like more of the same. By the end, we should be looking at Batman the way Catwoman is: feeling utterly depressed and helpless, wondering if he'll live. But none of that tension is there, because the scene just goes on too long without any sort of emotional resonance.

Now... don't think I'm a hater, either. Nolan is the only current filmmaker I can think of who's at least trying (though not always succeeding) to make dumb action films palatable for a smart audience. He's also pretty good with the "broad" strokes of a film - ie, the basic storyline or arc, and general character motivations. And while we're at it, you've got to give it to him for being methodical and logical. His storylines are incredibly dense and complicated beyond necessity, but each piece clicks together fairly nicely; I'd like to see him whittle something down for the sake of simplicity, but that's not what he's interested in... Nolan's greatest strength, however, has always been his way with actors. He consistently gets strong performances, and I think that's why his movies have done so well with the critics. If you look at something like his Batman series, the storylines and scripts are not so different from other, typical Hollywood blockbusters (more refined maybe, but not necessarily better, at least on the page), but the acting elevates the material. I commend him for that.

....

I'm sorry if this seemed like an assault on Christopher Nolan, but I'm just saying - let's be realistic here. He's a good contemporary filmmaker, but he's not one of the best; and if his career thus far is any indication, he'll never be one of the best. My feeling is he'll be remembered primarily as a craftsman who elevated action movies to the level of opera, but that's about it.

I know part of the danger of "popular" lists like the IMDb 250 is that most people don't know what a good movie is, but that's also what makes it interesting: you can really see what resonates with the public, even if you don't think it should. I would rank my list entirely differently, but a good number of titles from the IMDb Top 250 would wind up on my own "greatest movie" list, so really it's a matter of preference.

Back in the Day

This is one of my biggest pet peeves: parents who complain about "kids these days." The older generation, fine, they're not currently raising any children, so it's a little different, but basically this applies only to parents who currently have kids in the home.

Here's the complaint: "Well, if I said that to my parents, they would have beat my ass," or "I remember when kids had respect for their parents," or "Kids these days really need a good spanking,"or "Every kid now has a cellphone, or a car - I had to work for mine!" and so on. I think you get what I mean.

Basically, parents are complaining that the current generation has a sense of entitlement and a complete lack of discipline.

Now, here's the tricky part... I'm not disagreeing. I worked in retail for a long time - I've seen kids of all ages and backgrounds - and I actually agree that most kids need stricter discipline in their lives. BUT it's ultimately the parents' responsibility to provide that discipline. If you're complaining about "kids these days," and you've got kids, you're essentially criticizing your own job as a parent.

Life changes. Sometimes for good, sometimes for ill. We've got to keep up with those changes. A number of people believe kids would show more respect and be better disciplined if they were physically punished more often (or at all)... Fine, then do that. A number of people believe kids would be smarter and better as individuals if they had less technology (ie, no TV in their bedroom, no phone at a young age, no iPod, etc)... Fine, then do that.

Essentially, this is my message for parents: put your money where your mouth is. If you think you had the ideal childhood, or the ideal parent, or the ideal mix of love/discipline, then replicate that for your child... If you think your parents did a terrible job and you know where they went wrong, then do that for your child.

Stop complaining and do something.

They're your kids: their upbringing is completely up to you.

Nothing New

For as long as I can remember, I've found writing a cathartic, relaxing, and invigorating exercise. Jumping-jacks for the mind. The same with reading - an absolute requirement for any writer worth his salt.

A big part of writing is being frustrated. Maybe the biggest part, in fact. At least for me (and, I suspect, for most other writers, too). Aside from the purely practical aspects - ie, actually making time to sit down and hammer something out, good or bad - there are also the purely creative. These are an animal all their own. "What's the best way to say what I want to say?" "Is it worth saying in the first place?" ... and (for me), "What if someone else said this before... and better?"

Things started very simply... I used to write movie adaptations. Don't misunderstand me: I wasn't trying to adapt books into movies, I was making movies into short stories. This started at about age ten with my (then-)favorite movie, Predator. And from there Aliens (naturally). These weren't straight adaptations - I'd change the ending or hone in on characters/elements I thought were really cool, but for the most part it was all about the movie.

Not exactly "creative" writing.

Then I discovered the world of Monty Python, followed quickly by George Carlin, and I started trying to write funny little skits or poems. And after that came Woody Allen, perhaps the biggest influence on my life to that point in more ways than one. Woody Allen showed me that you could do anything in any medium, so long as you had the skill to pull it off. I'd never seen a movie where people talked to the camera, or where there were amusing little asides that had nothing to do with the story... So, naturally, these sorts of things started popping up in my stories and scripts.

(Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.)

Most of these stories have long since been lost. I wasn't exactly meticulous about saving things, and when the family computer crashed, I didn't make too strong an effort to recover them. As a point of fact: I don't really care what happens to them. It's fun to write and to see the collection I've amassed, but I almost never reread anything. Again, like Woody Allen, once it's done, I pretty much never look at it again. I'll craft and hone and finesse it for months, but once I have the thing in a finished form, that's it. I've never been big on rewriting; if I can't get it right after focusing my attention for all that time, it's probably not worth writing. Plus, it's good to learn from mistakes. Generally speaking, I start with an image or a sentence or an idea and just start writing - see where the piece takes me. One time I tried to outline everything beforehand - mapped out every "scene" and plot turn - and absolutely hated it. That was the most bland, heavy-handed piece of writing I ever did, and it was a chore to finish. That's why I like to just write and write and write and see what happens.

Although certain ideas and themes will always capture my interest (science, religion, extreme beliefs), I've always made a conscious effort to always try something new. That's another thing I admire about Woody Allen. Yes, he's definitely got a "type" of story that he prefers and is best at, but he is otherwise the most versatile filmmaker (I think) in American film history. Dramas, comedies, morality tales, slapstick, musicals, chamber plays, even German expressionism... Grant it, they've not always been successful attempts, but I admire the work ethic. The biggest pet peeve I had about classmates in film school was how many of them had already resigned themselves to certain genres - and were content to stay in those frameworks. Some people only made "comedies" or "horror films." I had success within satire, but I at least wanted to try something different. And what better opportunity than during school! ... Hence my surreal, experimental senior film that wasn't such a hit, but satisfied my own needs nevertheless.

And then I took a break... A long, long break. I didn't write a single bit of fiction for five years.

Lately, I've had an explosion of ideas. New experiments to try. Take the novellette. The story started with a single line, and the "gut feeling" that it would be about ten pages... After a while, I really dug in and tried to write something new, challenging, and exciting - not just a story, but an experience - and it ballooned into forty-five pages, including "illustrations." It wasn't just "Who was this guy and what happened to him?", but rather "Who IS this guy, and what IS happening to him?"... and how best to express that. Now that it's finally done, I see a few spots that are a little clunky and a couple sections that could have used more attention, but overall I'm very happy. I feel like I achieved my goal, so the piece is done. It's funny, it's sad, it'll make you scratch your head... Time for the next one.

I was told a long time ago that if I ever wanted to make it in the film industry, it would be by my own devices - ie, I wasn't writing blockbuster material, but might have a chance on the independent/festival circuit. This has always been true: I've never had even the slightest inclination to write a "this happened" type story. You know - page-turners, plot twisters. No, I always wanted to explore why did this happen, or to whom did this happen. (I've a great deal of respect for Richard Linklater - a filmmaker who has somehow made multiple, amazing films in which basically nothing happens. True character pieces with only a modicum of plot.) That something happened is not interesting: it's the personalities and circumstances and the ultimate reason (if any) that make it interesting... And, skill. Great writers can (and do) make the mundane sublime; bad writers, if they're to have any chance, have to be a little more desperate in their approach.

The current piece could approach novel-length. It's a very tricky bit of business. James Joyce is my favorite author, and I adore stream-of-consciousness writing - Faulkner, Joyce himself, Woolf, Beckett, Dos Passos, etc. I'm trying to incorporate this into my latest story (even moreso than the novellette, which became stream-of-consciousness after a number of diversions and vignettes), and still find a way to actually make things happen. I don't want it to simply be a collection of non-sequitor thoughts, because then what's the point? Then I've failed on all counts. No, the idea is to really get in the heads of these people but still convey a sense of time passing and events occurring.

It's been a challenge, but a fun challenge. Some really neat devices and themes at work, and I look forward to developing them further. Ideally, I could work on this steadily and finish before school starts, but that's almost guaranteed not to happen. If I'm lucky, a first draft could be done by then, but that's the best I can hope for.

Which brings me to the tricky part (I know - brevity has never been a strength)... I feel like this is an interesting and important story to tell, but I don't want the technique or the form to overshadow the content (may be past that point already). A balancing act. I tried to write this once as a screenplay, but was never happy with the outcome; eventually, I abandoned it. I love the general concept, but could never quite get the structure right. I'm starting to have that problem again. The beginning and the end are pretty clear in mind - it's the in-between that's elusive.

What's it about? I don't want to give away too much in hope that some of you may actually read it, but essentially it's about family - a minor element of the novellette, the major theme this time: how we define it, how definitions change, what it means in the technology age. Some interesting things, I hope, but ultimately you'll be the judge.

Stephen King said once that there are essentially two types of writers: those who write for an audience ("popular" literature, essentially), and those who write for themselves. Not that I completely disagree, but I think that's too simplistic. Most fall on a continuum. For instance, I cannot fathom a writer who doesn't write for himself. But I would agree that some tend to try to satisfy curiosities within rather than describe or explore worlds without.

In the end, once it's done, the author is really the least significant part. It's up to the reader - whether one or many - to figure it out.

Progress Report

So, just a little update on how things are going with the New Year's resolutions...

(1) So far, no luck on the novellette. One magazine said No, and it's currently under review at another. Shouldn't expect it at all, but it'd be really cool to be a published author. Fingers crossed!

(2) Been very good with the resistance training, not so consistent with the cardio. Kate has fallen in love with Jillian Michaels, so we bought a few of her workout DVDs. It sounds silly, but she does a good job! Seriously. The favorite so far is No More Trouble Zones, which targets glutes, triceps, abs, and thighs. Just short of an hour, it's a chore to get through, but a good workout nevertheless. We've been trying to do that disc every other day, but sometimes our schedules (and sore bodies) demand otherwise.

Also changing things up with the weights: I'm going to try my hand at 5x5 training. Very simple in principle: choose a weight, do five exercises with five sets of five reps. Quite frankly, though, the workout program found through that link is too easy. You can finish in like fifteen minutes - barely enough time to get your heart rate up. So I combined all three workouts into one big routine. THAT'S a workout!

(3) I've been very good about the soda. I had a couple that I didn't really enjoy afterward (ie, drank one just to drink one), but I've been good about keeping it out of the house - pretty much only at movies.

(4) And the diet has been better too. I used to make my own trail mix and a sandwich for work every day, but I've changed that to a salad (spinach/walnuts/cranberries/goat cheese) and sandwich (PB&J)... and if I'm running late and only have time to make one, I make the salad. My hemoglobin should be nice and high!

Other than that, things are fairly mundane. Working on taxes, trying to sort out financial issues before grad school. We recently changed cable/internet providers to lower our monthly payment, and I'm also going to change my cellphone plan for the same reason. Gots to save money!


Again, just to keep track, here is some hard data...
Height: 5' 11" (unchanged)
Weight: 161 pounds (-3 from January 1)
BMI: 22.45 (didn't measure)
Body Fat (approximate): 12.5%
Measurements:
Neck: 13" (-1)
Chest: 38" (-0.5)
Shoulders: 14" (R)/13" (L) (unchanged)
Arms: 14" (R)/13.5" (L) (unchanged)
Forearms: 11" (R/L) (unchanged)
Waist: 33.5" (-2)
Hips: 37.5" (-0.5)
WHR: 0.89 (didn't measure)
Thighs: 21" (R/L)
Calves: 14" (R)/15" (L) (+1R/+1.5L)

New Year's Resolutions

This is more to keep myself accountable than anything, but here are some of my goals for the year...

(1) Get the novellette published. It's an awkard length (just shy of 17,000 words - on the cusp for most magazines), but I think my chances are pretty good. I actually submitted to a magazine in mid-December; obviously, I don't expect it to work out the first time, but I feel pretty confident that it will be published some time this year. Spooky Action at a Distance - (hopefully) coming to a publication near you!

(2) Work out more consistently. I did really well the second half of the year (ie, after the honeymoon) and gained about ten pounds of muscle, but really dropped off in December. The ideal schedule would be alternating days of resistance and cardio. Obviously, that's not realistic as things will come up, but it's a good goal to shoot for.

Here's January's routine: handstand pushup, diamond pushup, knee jump, one-leg squat, headstand leg raise, door pullup, and the Mahler body blaster. It's a bodyweight circuit taken from Mike Mahler. The goal for this month is to simply get to the point where I can do one complete circuit with minimal rest: 5 reps each exercise, except for the "blaster," which will get ten, and the "diamond," which will get thirty (eventually, the diamond will be replaced with a one-arm pushup, so I'm starting with an alternate exercise in order to build strength). Should be fun and effective.

Cardio will be a combination of things. Kate and I used to jog quite a bit, but it's far too cold right now. We have a stepper which really works the calves/quads, but I don't want things to get too repetitive, so I'm actually considering yoga/pilates/dance/etc. Anything new to keep it engaging. We also have a jump rope, but not really a place to use it until the snow melts.

(3) Drink less soda. A constant goal. I used to drink two or three Pepsis a day in college. Thankfully, that's tapered off, but I still drink more than I should. The goal is to only have soda "outside" the house - ie, at the movies, parties, etc - if at all. Sounds pretty realistic.

(4) Eat less sugar/fat. I'm starting to get concerned about my intake. I don't get enough vegetables, and I think I'm eating too many sweets. This will be hard because I'm always fighting to supplement caloric demands (and the easiest way is to have a "treat" or two throughout the day), but it's important. I want a long, healthy life! My thinking is: start taking salads to work rather than snacks. I'm almost always hungry during the day (even after lunch), and I think this is from calorically dense/nutritionally light foods. I'll keep taking sandwiches because they're quick and easy, but rather than my usual trail mix I'm thinking a salad to go with. Sounds tasty!


Obviously, the overall goal here is health. We're getting older, we want to start a family in the next couple years - time to get ahead of the curve. Now, I don't want to turn out like Marky Mark here...

...because he looks ridiculous (I know he's supposed to be playing a 'roided out buffoon, but he's so big he looks awkward - should have lost some muscle), but overall strength and fitness is important. Wish me luck!