Seven Reasons Why Black Panther is Overrated

Beware the comment section. Since this article will touch upon some of the more troubling aspects of identity-politics, it will undoubtedly cause some polemic debate.
If you don’t like this film, then apparently you’re not seeing things clearly. If you don’t necessarily subscribe to some of the political rhetoric spoken by the film’s hero and its villain, then you are in dire need of enlightenment. If you are skeptical about the film’s cultural importance, then your views must be clouded by the privilege of your skin-color.
This article will not be solely devoted to the manic following of Black Panther’s perceived social significance, but also on the film’s aesthetic flaws. With all this, it must be said that Black Panther is a good film and certainly deserves to be, at the very least, in the top ten of the Marvel staple. While I don’t personally take these films in such a regard as many others do, I do admit that they are well made films and Black Panther’s idiosyncratic style, thanks to the directorial whims of Ryan Coogler, makes it stand out among the more generic ones.
But I do feel that much of the film’s lauded praise has less to do with the film’s quality and more to do with the culture of identity-politics. It’s about what many people perceive this film rather than what it actually is.

Identity-politics, whether in favor or not, has been a profitable marketing tactic. Even if it might alienate a large group, it will also encourage a lot of people to see it, even if the product in question is not nearly as political as many people think. The goal is to manufacture hype by any means possible, one of them could be via the exploitation of the current political culture. The retweets, the tedious debates on Youtube, the clickbait articles, it’s all about getting people curious and making people give up their money willingly. Once you finally see the film, you realize that despite the film’s many qualities, it’s still nothing more than a well-made corporate product.
None of this makes this a bad film but we need to be honest about its flaws and ponder critically, whether or not, Black Panther really means what many think it does. No matter how smart we think we are, nobody’s truly immune to smart marketing. Our most favorite corporate predators know exactly how to lead us into their jaws by flooding our face-book and twitter-feed with hot button issues. Nobody’s really ”woke” because the trap is too well-crafted and before you know it, we are amidst fake-outrage and fake-news. We are desperately protecting our bubble from discourse and while this is happening; the moneymakers are just making more and more money.
It’s a brave new world, but nothing much has changed.

7. The Standard Marvel Ending

Besides Black Panther’s idiosyncratic flourishes, from its African-inspired score and slight political subtext, it could not escape the dumbed down, all too familiar Marvel ending. There is your standard countdown followed by massive (computer-enhanced) explosions. Worst of all, the ending of Black Panther involves people riding CGI rhino’s. And it’s as dumb as you can imagine.
All of this ruins the suspense it could have engineered if it kept it smaller, more intimate, more character based. We don’t need armies flocking into each other, save that for the next Avenger installment- which from the looks of the trailer looks positively exhausting.
The actual violence, because it needs to appeal to a younger audience too, is relatively bloodless and without grit. It’s hard to be worried about the main character if he can survive spectacular injuries without sustaining much if any serious injury. I know it’s part of the genre itself, but this is why Logan, with its visceral bloodletting was something special. It just becomes tedious and boring and you’re just waiting for the noise to stop. Not every Marvel film needs to turn into a CGI cartoon at the end.
What they don’t seem to understand is that people aren’t as hungry for this action anymore. People really want to care about the characters. If the viewer is already invested in the characters, you don’t need to go overboard, you can make it nice and simple and be often more effective that way- as the final season of Sherlock should have done. The relatively fight scene between Captain and Iron Man for instance, where you are watching two characters you care about fighting each other, is more exciting than anything we see at the end of Black Panther.

6. The Wasted Potential of Killmonger

The most baffling praise for Black Panther goes to its main villain: Killmonger. The character has become quite popular, deemed one of the best villains in the lackluster rogues’ gallery of the MCU and some articles have even theorized that he’s the real hero of the film. This might be due to Michael B. Jordan’s excellent performance which most certainly stands out. But the character itself, his history and motivations, have so much more potential and the film barely reaches the surface.
When we are first introduced to Killmonger, he’s standing in a London Museum lecturing a museum-curator about her country’s colonial past. Soon enough she is brutally murdered by his criminal partners and he doesn’t seem to care about her life at all. his introduction shows ruthlessness which continues throughout the film, right until his final demise- there’s even a scene where he kills one of the film’s heroes, slicing her throat right in front of her friends and smiling as he does it. This isn’t necessarily a bad thing because he’s the villain after all but the film hints at his nobler intentions, in his wish to save ”his people” from oppression. This is the aspect that makes him popular among his fans. For many he seems to represent the vengeful fury of the victims of colonialism, a product of the great many sins of the past. If this is true, the writing simply fails to properly exploit this idea.
There’s a wonderful scene where Killmonger enters the spirit-world and meets his estranged father. We witness his muted humanity, his father’s regrets for having inspired him on his corrupt path. The problem here is that we never see the struggle of Killmonger’s youth and looking at his accomplishments, he seems to have done quite well for himself- if one aspires to be a murderous mercenary.
We don’t see and only get a vague idea of Killmonger’s activist-education. He apparently wants to liberate people of ”oppression” but what cultures is he specifically talking about? About the oppression of women and gays in Arabic countries perhaps? A great part of his mission was motivated by vengeance and this makes more sense this way, yet the film keeps reminding us of his more noble intentions. All of this would have been interesting to explore but since this is a Marvel film, we can only get the bare minimum of his interesting motivations. If it didn’t have to appeal to the general fan-base of Marvel, we could have gotten something far more interesting.
His dying words comes with the mention slavery but the emotion behind them seems hollow, closer to the hypocritical jabbering of an extremist lunatic than a noble warrior. It seems tacked on, not genuine. There’s so much more potential here. It’s not enough to make references to colonialism or refugees. It deserves more than what the film gave us.
The excessive love for the character, in my mind, seems to represent a disturbing trend in identity-politics, where a character is revered for espousing anti-colonial rhetoric no matter his murderous deeds. All I saw was a ruthless mercenary whose nobler intentions were vague and hypocritical. If the film wasn’t engulfed in Marvel superficiality, perhaps the character would have been given more humanity and clearer motivation.

5. The Supporting Characters Are More interesting than Black Panther

A common issue with superhero films is that the main hero is often overshadowed by either the villains or the supporting cast. The Dark Knight is a perfect example of this- everybody was talking about Heath Ledger performance instead of Christian Bale’. As the long the lead is compelling enough, it doesn’t necessarily have to hurt the film’s quality.
But even though Chadwick Boseman is certainly a capable actor and does more than a fine job, you do find yourself wishing by the end of the film that it focused more on T’Challa’s trusted bodyguard Okoye (played wonderfully by Danai Gurira). One of the most memorable sequences in the film, is Okoye’s fight scene in the casino. Perhaps it’s the unusual but fun theme song of Okoye that plays in the background, but we get such an equally exciting moment with Black Panther.
Part of this is because T’Challa is written as a virtuous character with nearly no flaws while Okoye for example is shown to be temperamental and passionate. There’s also T’Challa’s industrious sister Shuri (Letitia Wright) who humorously questions Wakanda’s customs and has a youthful excitement throughout the events of the film. It’s not that T’Challa doesn’t have a decently written arc-his discovery of his father’s moral compromise and his decision to mend the sins of the past- it just doesn’t make his character anymore compelling.
Perhaps one could argue that his virtuous nature is akin to Superman but T’Challa is also mopier, taking his duty as Black Panther almost as a burden. Superman meanwhile did it for truth, justice and the American way. The script simply doesn’t allow the character to have enough fun.

4. Troubling Character Motivations

We already established the flawed motivations of Killmonger but it’s his followers, most notably W’Kabi (Daniel Kaluuya) that are the most frustrating upon reflection. W’Kabi becomes a devoted follower of Killmonger after he brought forth the body of a called Klaue (Andy Serkis who sadly departs the film far too early), one of Wakanda’s greatest foes which Black Panther had failed to apprehend. While the film does set this up early on, it still fails to make sense and almost seems unnecessary, just there to add some more bloat to a film that already has enough going on.
It just doesn’t feel right. He would betray a trusted friend, show little to no remorse for his death and then commence with mass genocide? Not to mention accepting the brutal slaying of faithful elder statesman Zuri (Forest Whitaker). In the final climatic battle we even see W’Kabi trying to kill Black Panther and when that fails, he’s willing to maim and murder the dissenters of Killmonger’s regime. He only changes his mind when he’s confronted by his beloved Okoye.
Why would any man, certainly someone as reasonable as W’Kabi, follow Killmonger, someone who obviously shows signs of mentally instability. I know some people are thinking about a current world-leader right now but regardless of how unstable that particular person might be, at least he didn’t try and murder one of your oldest friends.
The fact that so many would follow Killmonger, even the elder statesmen makes little sense. But that brings me to my next point…

3. The Contradictory World of Wakanda


Many people perceive Wakanda as an imaginary part of Africa which has been untouched by the horrors of colonialism. Wakanda is supposedly Africa without the usual horrors associated to it, not to mention far more technologically advanced than the Western world. A great premise to explore one day but it’s not the story we see in Black Panther. The problem with this interpretation lies in the film’s opening where it explains that Wakanda’s technological superiority came from a meteorite made out of the fictional resource of Vibranium, that crash-landed there centuries before. If the origins of Wakanda wasn’t fostered by interstellar magic, then this interpretation would have made some sense.
But even with the magic of vibranium, the tribalism at the center of Wakanda’s political ruling is a recipe for disaster. It’s supposed to be an advanced society but it’s a miracle it hasn’t collapsed in its early inception. In order to become the ruler of Wakanda you have to fight to the death with one of the tribal leaders. This is exactly what happens when Killmonger shows up and challenges T’Challa to a duel.
This just seems contradictory to the peaceful and soulful world of Wakanda. The scriptwriters tried to make the world seem like a secret Eden, a place that all other Western nations should be encouraged to imitate. But the savagery inherent in Wakanda’s society doesn’t merge at all with the screenwriter’s original intent. This doesn’t mean that its society should work with the exact same democratic principles of Western society, but it would work in the film’s favor if becoming the political ruler of Wakanda means being good in civil discourse rather than mortal combat.
Once again, due to the limitations of the superhero-genre and the Marvel formula, we never get to see this beautiful fantasy of Africa, untouched by colonialism. We only get a little taste. And that’s all Black Panther gives us. A taste of something special, but it never really gets there.

2. The Limitations of Being a Marvel Product

My main problem is that the film was ultimately just another Marvel product. This means that the filmmakers were allowed to stray only so far until they had to revert back to the comfortable formula. As I said previously, the viewer only gets a taste of something different, something that could have been very special to the genre. Having an almost all-black cast doesn’t make the story and its predictable outcomes necessarily riskier, it just makes it more bold on the surface while beneath everything stays the same.
The screenwriters were mostly inspired by the modern Black Panther comics by Ta-Nehisi Coates and if they had been more faithful to his work, then we certainly would have gotten a more risqué and rewarding experience. Unfortunately, the riskier traits of these comics, which included far more science-fiction weirdness, gay characters and a more in-depth look at the strange politics of Wakanda, cannot fit in a Marvel film. At the same time, one has to admit that a more faithful adaptation would have probably alienated most viewers and not make it as ludicrously profitable as it has been.
But I would have loved seeing this version of Black Panther. It might have been too out-there for its good, but it would have been certainly been more interesting.

1. The Need for Black Panther’s Cultural Importance

The adherents of Identity-politics needed Black Panther to be important, just as they needed Wonder Woman to be important. And while it’s certainly good to see modern superhero movies with an almost all-black cast or a female lead, the religious love for the mere concept of these films overshadows the truth about what these kind of films were and have always been: a corporate product. They are made by extremely wealthy people starring extremely wealthy people and the purpose of its existence is to gather more excessive wealth. There is certainly some creative spark in the inception of both these films but the end-result, no matter how entertaining, is ultimately compromised by the studio-executives who want this film to appeal to as many countries as possible.
The sad thing is that there are plenty of independent films out there with a diverse cast who are often forgotten in the face of these big blockbusters. These films are made with tiny budgets but they are made with immense passion and in the end, have so much more to say than any Marvel film.

Film journalism has become tainted with identity-politics, some of it rather cynically. Black Panther and Wonder Woman were seemingly universally praised and though though I’m not suggesting it was solely due to the culture of identity-politics, it was undoubtedly a factor for many reviewers. Taking a nuanced stance has rarely been profitable.
There’s the case of click-bait articles, the manufacturing of moral outrage. A film can be outright condemned from its inception, simply by not casting a diverse enough lead or cast. Films are constantly dissected through the lens of identity-politics and sometimes the point of the film gets lost- one of the most frustrating examples of this was Blade Runner 2049 imaginary misogynistic subtext or the imaginary racist subtext in Three Billboards in Ebbing Missouri.
Suddenly these bloated and expensive superhero movies are staples of civil-rights. They are not. They are made for profit. The money doesn’t go to a righteous cause, the money goes to the moneymakers. The excessive amount of money these filmmakers and performers receive is far more problematic than any white-washing. If people really care about inequality in Hollywood culture, then perhaps the focus should be less on diversity and more on wealth inequality.
Neither Black Panther or Wonder Woman are bad in their respective genres but neither are they game-changers or anything significantly different. The common argument is that they portray positive role-models for children in their respective gender and race, but in my mind, these role-models should not come from our Hollywood manufactured products. They should come from the heroes of history, real people who fought for civil-rights and gender equality and were scorned and sometimes even murdered for their righteous mission. Not fictional characters with superhuman strength whose adventures always seem to follow a neat three-act structure.
And while history might not be as entertaining or comforting as these superhero films, at least it’s real life. Perhaps that’s the place we really should be looking at.

Also published in: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2018/7-reasons-why-black-panther-is-overrated/

***

Everything Passes: An Appreciation for Woody Allen’s Radio Days

So many precious memories go to waste. Not everyone is able to get their story told. Not everyone is interested in writing their memoirs. And though not everyone lives akin to the greats of history, these memories are precious nonetheless because when these people pass on, the worlds they lived in will pass on, too.

And the less information we have about the world before us, the less we will understand about the past. And the less we understand about the past, the less we will understand about ourselves.

“Radio Days,” one of Woody Allen’s lesser known and often forgotten work, is a slightly autobiographical film about the preciousness and fragility of memories. It’s unlike most of his other films in that it doesn’t revolve around the neurotic follies of romantic relationships. There’s no real story. It’s just the scrambled reminiscence of the narrator Joe (Allen) as he recounts his youth from the late 1930s to the mid-1940s.

Thus, it’s filled with innocence – but with the little wickedness that comes with being a child. We are introduced to his bickering but ultimately loving family, who speak to each other in Allen’s delicious misanthropic wit. It’s a wacky slice of life. It’s a depiction of a time and place that has forever disappeared.

A strange time when people weren’t glued to their LCD screens but received their entertainment through the radio and in each other’s company. It might be a little romanticized, as the narrator states, but he can’t help that. This is just how he remembers it.

It’s about the radio stories he heard in that time. The characters that crept in his imagination. Time scrambles our memories, so Joe isn’t entirely sure whether some radio stories ended this way or that; in one instance of the film, he even depicts several endings. Families would huddle amongst each other listening to the radio.

In the film’s most touching moments, they would even cry with each other when the radio entailed some particularly sad news. Now we are bombarded with sad news and we carry on anyway.

Things were so much simpler then. Not necessarily better but simpler. But just like the worlds before it, eventually it had to disappear. We can find remnants of this world in our museums and in history books, and as long as people who lived in those old worlds are still alive, we can hear about them.

But not many people who lived in those radio days are left. As the Masked Avenger (Wallace Shawn), the voice of a popular radio show says, “After enough time, everything passes. I don’t care how big we are or how important are our lives.” And as time passes, we wonder what it’s all about – if it was even about anything. And all of those voices, no matter how important they were to us, will grow dimmer and dimmer as more time passes.

But as long we have films like “Radio Days,” these voices live on. It might not be their actual voices and Allen’s memories might not be entirely accurate (by his own admission) but it’s the best we have.
And I’m sure that these forgotten ghosts of Radio Days will be delighted, knowing that the next generation and the generations after that, will remember them like this.

***

Emotions Are All We Have: an Appreciation for Paolo Sorrentino’s Youth

Director Paolo Sorrentino enjoying a cigar. 

In one of the many beautiful scenes of Paolo Sorrentino’s masterful Youth, Mick Boyle (Harvey Keitel) is instructing his minions of screenwriters on the different perception of youth and old age. Standing atop a balcony of a luscious hotel in the Swiss Alps, Mick asks one of the screenwriters to look through panoramic binoculars. The screenwriter sees a mountain and from the binoculars perspective, it seems to be nearby.
”This is what you see when you’re young,” Mick says, ”everything seems really close. That’s the future.”
He turns her binoculars around and now, from her perspective, everything seems far away. ”That’s what you see when you’re old,” Mick says, ”everything seems really far away. That’s the past.”

Mick (Harvey Keitel) and his minions of screenwriters.

The central characters of Youth are both living in the past while confronting the darkness of the future. A renowned composer Fred Ballinger (Michael Caine) is depressed because he lost his musical and romantic partner. Mick, a filmmaker is working on what he deems to be his testimonial film. The daughter and assistant of Fred, Lena (Rachel Weisz), is struggling with her divorce. A young actor Jimmy Tree (Paul Dano) fears that he will never be taken seriously as an actor and will always be remembered as the guy who once played a Robot.

Jimmy (Paul Dano) observing the beautiful world around him. 

One might accuse this film as being slightly elitist since all of these characters struggle with these existential quarries in a five-star hotel in the Swiss alps. Through the beautiful cinematography by Luca Bigazzi we witness scene after scene of affluence: fancy dining, beautiful swimming pools, nightly entertainments. But director Sorrentino also satirizes excessive wealth and the emptiness that comes with it. Even by living in paradise, people don’t know what to do themselves and fail to appreciate each other. Lena’s estranged husband divorces her for some shallow pop-star- his stated reason is because she is apparently great in bed. Both Mick and Fred know that they haven’t always been kind and loyal to their loves ones. Even with all their wisdom and their place in high-society, they must deal with the most ordinary of regrets.

Fred (Michael Caine) in arguably Youth’s saddest scene.

The film switches attention from the central characters to the minor characters; such as a levitating Buddhist-monk, an ex-overweight soccer player, a quiet couple, a masseuse or a despondent young escort. We’re thrust right in the middle or at the end of their story, during the moment of some great epiphany and emotional deliverance. There’s a universe of suffering and contemplation out there. Each individual life is a beautiful individual story but we can’t know them all. There’s just many stories out there and not enough writers.

The insightful masseuse (Luna Zimic Mijovic) living in the moment. 

One moment characters may have deeply profound philosophical conversations while the next we are treated with something comically silly. Sometimes scenes flash by while other scenes take their beautiful sweet time. One scene might have beautiful orchestral music while the next may have some modern pop-song. Sorrentino, as the mark of a true artist, does what he wants and doesn’t heed any of the traditional narrative rules. He would do this again in HBOs episodic The Young Pope and in both cases, the result has been something truly special.

Lena (Rachel Weisz) learning to move on after her painful divorce. 

The future seems to coming after us with rapid speed while the past seems to be running away from us, and we try to catch up with one and try to outrun the other, but it’s impossible. If we move in the wrong direction, The only escape is to live in the present.

Fred seeing clearly, if only for a moment. 

***

The Dream That Nobody Sees but You: an Appreciation For Million Dollar Baby

There’s an authenticity to how Eddie ”Scrap-Iron” Dupris (Morgan Freeman), the narrator of “Million Dollar Baby,” speaks about the sport of boxing, and the physical and emotional torment that comes with it. That’s because many of his words come straight from F.X. Toole, the author of the original short-story collection “Rope Burns,” on which this film was based. Having been a boxing trainer himself, he understood more than anyone the psychology of the fighter.

The unnaturalness of moving into a fight instead of turning away from it. The madness that’s necessary to willingly get inside the ring and receive a vicious beating and then do it all over again. There is nothing pretty about the sport and the consequences can be devastating, as one can see early on, just by looking at the sole milky eye of Scrap.

Morgan Freeman as Scrap, the broken-down boxer. 

Boxers are a bunch of dreamers and most of them don’t get the glory they dream about. Some of them, like Scrap himself, must live with the permanent damage the sports has caused them – in the case of Scrap, it’s the loss of sight in one of his eyes. But there’s magic too, as Scrap states so beautifully: ”The magic of risking everything for a dream that nobody sees but you.”

Dupris is a broken down fighter and he speaks like one. He tells this story to the estranged daughter of his friend Frankie Dunn (Eastwood). Dunn sends a letter to his daughter every week, but she returns them every time. The film never clarifies why his daughter refuses to speak to him, but we know it must have been due to something terrible – and knowing Dunn’s profession, it probably had something to do with his fist. Dunn can be cocky, even cruel sometimes. But don’t be fooled by this – he cares about people even if he has trouble showing it.

It comes out the in the most peculiar of ways, such as how he keeps stopping his prize fighter, Willie (Mike Colton), from seizing the championship belt because he’s afraid that he’ll get hurt, despite the fact that Willie has been more than ready for some time now. He goes to Mass every week to make fun of the priest, but deep down inside, he wants forgiveness for something terrible. He’s a man of serious regret and who, by the end of the film, gives away his soul so to help the woman he loves.

Clint Eastwood as Frankie Dunn, a man of serious regret. 

This woman is Maggie Fitzgerald (Hilary Swank), a poor, trailer-trash waitress who insists that Dunn be his trainer. Since Dunn hates the idea of training girls, he refuses this without question. But Scrap sees something in her, and with Scrap’s help, Dunn eventually takes her on. In time he begins to see that she’s a real fighter, and in spite of her age and upbringing, that boxing was something she was made to do. Together with Scrap, the threesome becomes a family, with Maggie becoming Dunn’s surrogate daughter.

Hilary Swank as Maggie Fitzgerald, the woman who is willing to risk everything for a dream that nobody sees but her. 

The third act of the film is heartbreaking. You know something bad will happen, but when it does, it’s like getting hit by a prize fighter: you’re knocked down and it’s hard to get back up again, but you have to. But it will take time to pace your breath and get your act together. The wounds will hurt for a while but now you have to live with it.
This doesn’t mean the film is never fun; there’s great verbal and sometimes humorous dialog between the three perfectly cast leads. The subplot involving Scrap’s final fight as he’s defending a mentally slow boxer calling himself ‘Danger’ (Jay Baruchel) is especially crowd-pleasing.

Danger is the epitome of the hopeless dreamer. A fighter with nothing but heart, which, as Frank would say to Scrap, is a man ”waiting for a beating.”

Jay Baruchel as Danger, a fighter with all heart. 

As Eastwood’s Charlie Parker biopic “Bird” is filled with dark scenes in smoky jazz clubs, so this film is mostly filmed in the dark training rooms or dressing rooms where the fighters prepare themselves for the arena. Eastwood enters this strange world, as he has done so with countless others in his previous films, seamlessly,  using great source material (perfectly adapted by Paul Haggis) to make this world so believable.

“Million Dollar Baby” is simply a perfect movie. While some might criticize the actions of Dunn as though Eastwood was making some sort of ethical statement regarding the value of paraplegics, it doesn’t take away the effectiveness of his drama.
The actions of Dunn’s character had nothing to do with making a political or ethical statement on the whole of this issue. These cases differ in their individual complexities and Eastwood was never interested in generalizing them in this film. Eastwood is not interesting in preaching to you, he’s interesting in telling a story. The story of Million Dollar Baby being the long and painful journey for the dream that nobody sees but you- the dream that might possibly never come to fruition- and the story of what people are willing to do for love.

We must watch this in the context of Maggie and Dunn’s character instead of putting it in the context of our political bias. It’s hard for many people to distance Eastwood from his political statements, which is a shame because you would be missing out on some incredible works of art. Million Dollar Baby is one of his greatest films. It’s a film that will  stick with you like a deep internal wound, the kind we get from the greatest fights of our lives.

***

Read more: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/all-37-clint-eastwood-movies-ranked-from-worst-to-best/4/#ixzz4zwHSUPRa

Justice League: a Fascinating Study Piece of Corporate Desperation

I guess there’s certain innate naivety of mine when it comes to the art of cinema, there’s this idea that the people involved are always as passionate and committed to the art form as you are. But outside the realm of independent cinema, this kind of passion is a rare commodity and even if it does exist in the realm of big-budget franchises, it often gets destroyed by the tainted hand of a Hollywood executive. This does not mean that an artist should always roam free- as film is inherently a collaborative art, even with an auteur at the helm- but a little risk can create something magical. The films you remember were made with that essential component. The little risk involved made it memorable, a stand-out among all the rubbish. Perhaps it made you introspective, suddenly you reflect upon yourself, the evils and virtues of human nature; it made you laugh, all that darkness became hilarious and suddenly all that darkness can be overcome; it made you cry because it told you the truth; it made you leap in fright because there are monsters in this world and they are always hungry. If there is no risk and profitability is the sole prerogative of the finished product, then the pleasure will be fleeting, the story and its characters will fade from the mind.
There is the great conflict between the vision of an artist and his financiers. The clash between them is exposed for all of us, it doesn’t have to be a secret anymore. When we know hear that a director was fired for ‘creative differences’, we know enough. Disney has been wreaking havoc on this for quite a while now. Any dissent on the corporate vision of Disney and you’re out.
Generally Marvel films, which are owned by Disney, tread lightly on changing the formula, tweaking it every now and then to keep it a little fresh. At its heart there is nothing new to any of their films. They are well-made, relatively safe blockbusters. There is nothing wrong with that but over time, any excitement about any of these films have waned. They know what they are doing and they are doing it. You can’t fault them for making money. But there is something about the manner in which they control the industry, the safe nature about all their products. You know when you are watching a Marvel film, the latest Star Wars film or the latest generic Disney animation film, that a group of Hollywood executives have been carefully constructing a crowd-pleaser. There is something so vacuous about their efforts lately, I just can’t seem to care.
Compared to more risky ventures like Deadpool or Logan, Marvel films seem laughably forgettable. Some Marvel films like Guardians of the Galaxy 2 are great because they don’t really feel like Marvel films. It felt like a goofy, fun and engaging Science-fiction action film. It was fucking weird and that is what is fun. But I know what’s awaiting in the future: eventually these ragtag group will meet the Avengers. I wish it wasn’t part of the same world, it doesn’t need to be. It stands wonderfully on its own.
Right now, all the big studios want to come close to Disney”s success and so they venture into the Shared-Universe realm, sometimes with painful results. The painful first and final entry of Universal’s Dark Universe saga tells us what can go wrong when there financial profitability is the sole motivation of its existence. The arrogance involved in its promotion, with its planned sequels far ahead and the Dark Universe logo at the beginning, already made me loath the film for what stood for.
There is Sony Studios who pathetically tried to create a shared-universe films with the Ghostbusters and The Amazing Spider-man films. And there is Warner Brothers/DC. A series of films that is still going strong financially but has critically been bombing miserably (apart from Wonder Woman).
Moreover, it’s a series of films that have been artistically bankrupt and it seems to have a hit new low with Justice League….

Zack Snyder giving Batman (Ben Affleck) and Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot) direction. 

A Desperate Studio…

Zack Snyder/Joss Whedon’s Justice League is so incredibly desperate that it verges on hilarity. Ever since the mixed reception of Man of Steel, Warner Brothers have been desperately (and ineptly) trying to alter it to critical and audience satisfaction, while at the same time aping the success formula of Disney/Marvel. The problem to begin with was Zack Snyder, who, despite whatever criticism you might have about his work, is an auteur with a specific vision that often times includes his stylistic actions sequences and his own brand of philosophical postulations. Sometimes there are some interesting ideas out there and I honestly do think Watchmen is underrated, as Snyder, despite it being filled with his obnoxious style, was a loyal and ambitious adaptation.
Telling you that his focus as a filmmaker doesn’t fit Superman seems superfluous. We know this already. But I would be lying to you if I wasn’t looking forward to it. It had what I consider one of the most beautiful edited trailers I have ever seen: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KVu3gS7iJu4. The music still gives me goosebumps, the overture as Superman rises into the sky gave me that feeling of hope and awe, something the film should have been imbued with. Man of Steel is certainly an imperfect film, it’s incredibly uneven. There are exciting set-pieces, moving drama that is often put aside for senseless destruction. Not to mention that Henry Cavill does not have what it takes to be Superman. Christopher Reeve did. Reeve might have worn a Spandex suit and red boots but you believed him nonetheless. Cavill, has a bigger physique and wears a darker, less outlandish suit but you don’t feel the greatness of Superman. It’s just not there. It’s a presence for a special kind of actor.

Henry Cavill as Superman from Man of Steel (2013)

The great scenes have to be mentioned: the intro in Krypton works, the Americana imagery concerning Superman works, the soulful music works. The scene in which Zod (Michael Shannon) pleads Superman to not destroy his ship because it will destroy any hope for a new Krypton, prompting Superman to hesitate for a moment, is wonderful and you just wish it would have been included in a more tonally coherent movie.
With all its imperfects, Man of Steel was at least a film with a personality, even if it was a missed opportunity. The sequel Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice had incredible ambition but it was severely compromised by the studio execs who desperately wanted to cash-in on the shared universe lore. I remember this strange detachment watching Batman wreak havoc, it was not the feeling one should have when watching Batman. The philosophical underpinnings Snyder wanted to associate Superman and Batman with is severelly flawed and not developed enough- I suggest watching https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=467ehoaGDaE if you are interested in this aspect, as this video fantastically deconstructs the objectivist undercurrent of the film. There is crammed in cameo’s from other Superheroes, not to mention Wonder Woman’s obligatory supporting role. A painfully miscast Jesse Eisenberg as Lex Luthor, though admittedly it was the directing and writing of the character that was fucked to begin with- I don’t think I’ve ever cringed as much as I did during Eisenberg’s performance, only Justice League’s desperate ‘funny’ quips might have rivaled this. The forced emotional connection at the end was painful and if you can’t feel anything for the characters, you can’t really feel anything during the film’s ‘exciting’ action set-pieces.
You can feel that the studio still had faith in Snyder but some studio maintenance was in the background, as evident with the franchise pandering. When it comes to Justice League, any semblance of Snyder’s vision has been eradicated. Sure there are some flourishes of his style, remnants of his themes but the tone is completely different. Snyder left the film, which was nearly in its completion, due to a tragic suicide death of his daughter. The studio then hired Joss Whedon to reshoot scenes and basically used the opportunity to make a more studio-friendly film. I don’t mean to imply that the studio was vindictive by their actions, perhaps an arrangement was made with Snyder and the end-product might have been collegial compromise. But Whedon’s touch is all over this film, the cinematography is suddenly more colorful than the previous films- excluding Wonder Woman- and most importantly, the character of Superman is completely different.

Steppenwolf (Ciarán Hinds) and Howard the Janitor (Anthony Wise).

A Spark of Hope in The Beginning…

The opening of the film, in which a kid interviews Superman gives an interesting glimpse of what Snyder might have envisioned. Superman is interviewed in the beginning of what he finds most beautiful on earth, the screen cuts to black before he can answer. It’s left up to the audience what Superman’s answer would be, but more relevant is the viewer’s own answer. What is that one thing that always gives you light to the darkness of this world?
This opening is promising because it perfectly sets up the theme of ‘hope’ which should have been pervaded the film. The set-up of a world in misery after Superman’s death would have worked wonderfully if we really felt this misery- and not been relocated with dialog or the excruciating opening credits which has the worst Leonard Cohen’s cover of Everybody Knows I’ve ever heard- which is weird since Snyder has used original Cohen songs in Watchmen and why couldn’t he use it with this one?
It seems that Snyder wanted to emphasize the light instead of the darkness but it’s all hampered by Joss Whedon’s goofiness. The resurrection of Superman would given the film the religious subtext, as his return sparks hope in the hearts and minds of people. But it’s completely absent from the film. They dig up his body- and I’m not an expert on Kryptonian corpses, but this one looks remarkably good after being dead for some time- use some mumbo-jumbo science on him, he comes back alive, he gets angry for some reason and fights them. Lois comes around and they go to his old farm and then in the end, Superman wisecracks and kicks some ass. There’s no dialog about his feelings concerning the afterlife, the experience of being back among the live. There was a great oppertunity there to explore something interesting, to give emotional resonance to this character but it’s completely squandered. The weight of his return is completely wasted, it barely makes an impact, it’s seems only there so Batman can make some fun ‘quips.’ And when he makes a reference to his fondness for Truth and Justice, something completely undeserved, you just want to scream at the cinema.
There was also a reference to Superman becoming evil in a dream sequence Batman had in Batman v. Superman- which included a cameo by Flash trying to warn him of something. I guess that went nowhere huh?
The Death of Superman is a storyline that wasn’t ready yet to begin with. But the manner in which it is handled in Justice League is just insulting.
Also, watch his upper-lip, and then read about how during the reshoots, Cavill wasn’t allowed to shave his mustache. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it…

Death of Superman (1992)

No Identity

Seeing Batman quip funny lines, something that was completely alien to him in Batman v. Superman, is hilarious, also because Affleck seems unusually uncomfortable at times in the film. There’s been constant back and forth about his possible exit to the franchise and during the promotion of Batman V. Superman, he did look depressed- which naturally also had something to do with his personal life. His relationship with Alfred (Jeremy Irons) worked in Batman V. Superman, but even this is undermined by Alfred’s cute insistence that ”he should be dating someone.” Something that worked under the penmanship of Christopher Nolan but it doesn’t feel nature here. Neither does the forced romantic tension between Wonder Woman- hate to say it but the two don’t have much chemistry- and certainly not with the cute back and forth between resurrected Superman.
Ezra Miller as Flash is the main comic relief of the film, but most of the laugh comes from the sheer desperation of the studio of constantly forcing ‘funny quips’ on him. There are some genuine laughs, mostly coming from Miller’s facial expression. But most of his quips just reek of desperation. If his character had only been a bit more subdued, it would have felt more natural and the comedy would have worked.

Flash (Ezra Miller) as the forced comic relief of the film. 

There’s an emotional speech by Aquaman (Jason Momoa) that’s so incedibly artificial, which is capped off with such an embarassingly lame joke, that it almost becomes stunning in its shamelessness.  Examples such as these make it very clear that the studio desperately wanted to make a Marvel movie instead of making a film with its own sole identity.
Steppenwolf (wonderfully voiced by Ciarán Hinds) is reminiscent of the vacant Marvel villain. Even if Eisenberg’s Luthor had confusing motivations for his evil deeds, at least it was something different. There was something, despite the horrible execution, interesting about Luthor’s obsession. There is nothing interesting about Steppenwolf besides the Hinds’ wonderful voice. The problem is also the motion-capturing, as the CGI used to render his face gives him unusually little expression. His ultimate demise comes out of nowhere and you can’t seem to care about his evil plan. His evil scheme is eerily reminiscent to Infinity Stones plot from Marvel, but instead of Infinity Stones, Steppenwolf needs to obtain these ‘Mother Boxes’ so he can either destroy or create the world in his image, not sure which- it doesn’t really matter does it?
Ultimately the most entertaining aspect of the film is how shameless it is. It’s not the action sequences which is ultmately just a dizzying display of (sometimes subpar) CGI. It’s not the character interplay or the engaging story. It’s the fact that the DC universe films have reached such a new low that they become fascinating artifacts in the great filmmaking battle between artistry and studio mandates. If it has been a straight tonally similar sequel to Batman V. Superman, the film would have probably been as irredeemably flawed, but at the very least, it would have some semblance of an identity.
The fact that the film is also made with a whopping 300,000,000 dollar budget, only makes the end product ever so frustrating. As it stands now, Justice league is a soulless product of its time and a fascinating study piece of studio desperation.

Aquaman (Jason Momoa) having a drink before venturing into the sea- Drinking is something I should have done before watching this movie. 
***

Life is a State of Mind

This is an excerpt of my article ”Top Ten Political Movies to Watch During the Trump Presidency”. This segment details why Being There is a relevant political film in the Trump era:

”Life is a state of mind.”

The story of a simple-minded gardener becoming a political icon had been Peter Seller’s pet project for years. The reason why Sellers had been so fascinated with the original source novel by Jerzy Kosinski was because he saw himself as the main character; an empty vessel, a person without a defining personality.

Seller’s interpretation of Chauncy might have been right, yet one must not forget the central point of the story: that we are easily led by our own hubris. One could therefore state that Sellers’ perception of the character might very well have been what Sellers wanted him to be. This is something we all do, especially with our leaders.

Chauncy’s diatribes about gardening are perceived to be profound statements about the state of the economy, even though Chauncy is simply talking about gardening. Compare this to Donald Trump; his comments about making America great again are interpreted by people’s own bias of the myth of America.

White supremacists harken back to the days of Jim Crow, Evangelicals dream about a Christian utopia, blue-collar workers want to live in an America where there were jobs aplenty, others want an America that wasn’t ruled by political correctness, and others saw Trump as a weapon against the elites. People saw Trump as a man of the people; someone who wasn’t like those Washington fat cats, who could really make a difference. Most of these groups are, just like Chauncy’s followers, victims of their own hubris.

Trump is part of the elite, born into wealth, yet many see him as the quintessential self-made man – notwithstanding that the businesses Trump managed, inadvertently like Chauncy or with Machiavellian wit, tapped into the myths of people. This is what politicians do, but Trump’s character had been perfect for this political climate where people want definitive change.

This is a common thing that happens throughout history. The facts are all there, but people want to see him as they want to see him; the same way people started viewing Clinton as a progressive candidate even though she was anything but. In the end of “Being There”, when Chauncy walks over water, many interpretations have been made, from Jesus allegories to the filmmaker just having fun with the audience. In the end, just as one could be befuddled by people’s interpretation of Trump, we can only sigh and say: life is a state of mind.

Read more: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2016/top-10-political-movies-to-watch-during-donald-trumps-presidency/#ixzz4gW7P0J2e

The Primacy of the Human Animal

Due to being busy with several projects, I haven’t been contributing to my blog a lot. I will naturally return soon. But until that moment, I will share with my readers an excerpt of my an article I wrote some time ago ”Seven reasons why Blade Runner is more relevant more than ever.” Of all my Taste of Cinema articles, I’m most proud of this one. Hope you enjoy this. You can find the whole article here: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/7-reasons-why-blade-runner-is-more-relevant-now-than-ever/

The primacy of the human animal 

In Philip K. Dick’s novel “Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?”, which was the inspiration for “Blade Runner”, nuclear warfare has caused the extinction of most of its animal species. Animals that did not perish from radiation poisoning have become status symbols, not just in terms of wealth, but as a signal that its caretaker is filled with empathy.

In this post-apocalyptic world, empathy has become a precious commodity. It’s in such short supply that humans, under the guidance of a modern technology-based religion called Mercerism, have created a virtual reality machine called ”empathy boxes”. This machine causes them to experience a fictional narrative where they experience the suffering of a martyr. In the old days, people went to church and could only imagine the suffering of their savior. Now, they can experience his pain and therefore feel a greater connection.

This is all well and good, but it’s naturally far too late, as the damage has already been done. In “Blade Runner”, the subplot of Rick Deckard desiring a real sheep instead of an electric sheep has been omitted, but several references are made about the rarity of animal life. ”Must be expensive,” Deckard notes about an artificial owl flying past him, a nice reference to the novel as the owl was the first animal to be wiped away in the novel after the fallout of nuclear war.

Right now, many species in the cold Arctic as well as in sunny Africa have become endangered due to human interference. Many of our favorite Disney characters, which we used to watch as kids, have become a rarity on this planet.

We can mourn this, as we should, but it has always been like that. Our dominion on this planet has caused disastrous effects on its ecosystem and thus many beautiful animal species, whether through ignorance or mere indifference, were wiped away. This is simply an inevitable consequence of our reign on this planet; we demand more and more room, and thus it’s only logical that many animals will eventually have nowhere to go.

Much of it can be blamed on our callous disregard for our fellow mammals. In the past, theists used the word of god to justify the subjugation of the animal kingdom. Many critics of religion cite its combativeness against scientific inquiry, but many forget that if it were not for theistic principles, the human race would never be as powerful as it is now. We would never have reached the scientific revolution if God didn’t convince our ancestors of their superiority. It was biblical revelations that made the agricultural revolution as powerful as it was.

But that was only a small step; the revolutions that followed, the industrial and (most of all) the scientific only increased our dominance until we didn’t need God telling us that we are superior. We could just tell this to ourselves without any shame or fear of blasphemy. But the price that the non-human animal kingdom had to pay for this is more often than not mentioned by the proud human.

Even though there’s an increasing awareness of animal rights, the future still seems bleak or rather nonexistent for various species of animals, whether they are roaming the land or swimming the oceans. The film may have deleted the animal subject, but its passing mention, as well the seemingly visual absence of many animals, gives the viewer enough to go by. It makes them wonder about our destructive presence in this world, the unforgivable price that needed to be paid just so we could be here now.

Read more: http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/7-reasons-why-blade-runner-is-more-relevant-now-than-ever/#ixzz4cBBGho00

Why Moonlight deserved the Oscar over La La Land

My new (and surprisingly controversial) article on Taste of Cinema:

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/7-reasons-why-moonlight-deserved-oscar-best-picture-more-than-la-la-land/

 

New article on: Taste of Cinema

My new article on Taste of Cinema. This one is about eight famous films that are philosophically misunderstood. Any views or opinions are deeply appreciated 🙂

http://www.tasteofcinema.com/2017/8-famous-movies-that-are-philosophically-misunderstood/

 

Praise for Escape from L.A. (excerpt from my article ’10 movie flops that deserve another chance’)

To read my full article go to this site. Here on the other hand is a (revised) excerpt of this article concerning one of my favorite films: Escape from L.A.
The film also complains the title of my blog. I will probably divulge more on this later, but it’s one of my favorite endings in cinema history (and I’m a huge John Carpenter fan) so that certainly had something to do with it.
Hope whoever is reading this loves this film as much as I do.

Apart from a few good characters, this is really not up to scratch in most departments, especially the ludicrous plot.
・Kim Newman, Empire

John Carpenter is renowned for making genre-pictures, but his social critique should not be underestimated. The fact that he makes movies starring killers with white-painted William Shattner masks or shapeshifting aliens or ghostly pirates doesn’t change. Many of his wonderfully silly movies have something interesting to say.
Carpenter, however, isn’t your typical left-wing Hollywood diva – he’s the underdog, the lone wolf, the outsider who somehow made it into Tinseltown. While his career was not focused on tackling social issues (first and foremost he wanted to make entertaining movies), every now and then he can’t help himself and in several of his most poignant films, there’s an indictment on the establishment. There’s Snake Plissken sneering at the state of things.

The script for “Escape from New York” had been inspired by the Watergate scandal, as Carpenter saw the nation descend into even greater cynicism, inspired by their then-conniving commander-in-chief. That the film co-stars a selfish and oafish president (Donald Pleasence) who Snake has to save from the clutches of The Duke (Isaac Hayes) should be no surprise then.

The setting of a dystopian New York would be partly inspired by “Death Wish”, but only in its depiction as New York as a dangerous jungle, not in its core message of right-wing vigilantism. New York, at the time of its screenplay inception, was rampant with crime with all manner of thugs and hoodlums lurking in the shadows to rob old ladies from their purses; this was until Mayor Rudy Giuliani appointed himself as a political Paul Kersey- though over the years, his credit for the eventual declining crime rate has been overstated.
“Escape from New York” is one of the few commercial successes from Carpenter, as his films have a tendency to find their places in cult stardom. The insistence of a sequel, however, came mostly from its star, Kurt Russell who considered Snake Plissken to be his favorite role.

However, this wasn’t enough to sway Carpenter who had no interest in a lame cash-in sequel. Snake had to be back for a reason; there needed to be a certain political undercurrent that would justify his return. It was then in 1994, with the Northridge earthquake and the Los Angeles riots that Carpenter found the inspiration he needed for the sequel and revived Snake onto the big screen in what would become “Escape from L.A.”

Much of the criticism is pointed to how similar it is to the original, and there’s some fairness to that claim. Like the original, Snake Plissken, a former war hero who turned to crime, is imprisoned and offered a presidential pardon if he agrees to a mission. In New York, he had to save the president and obtain an important tape that would unite the world powers.

In the sequel the president himself asks him to travel to Los Angeles, which has become a prison colony and obtain the remote control of a super-weapon called the ”Sword of Damocles”. This super-weapon is able to take down electricity of national threat to America- yup it’s a delicious B-movie.

Like before, Snake is administered something that will kill him if he doesn’t complete his mission. The characters in “Escape from L.A.” are even similar, replacing the ones that came before. In “New York”, police commissioner Bob Hauk (Lee van Cleef) offers him the deal; in “L.A.”, Commander Malloy (Stacy Keach) approaches him. In “New York”, Snake encountered Cabbie (Ernest Borgnine) to help him on his quest; in “L.A.”, its Maps-of-the-Stars Eddy (Steve Buscemi); and so on.

The film is basically a remake, using the same formula but with a bigger budget so it can have more ridiculous action setpieces. Reading this, you would think that Carpenter was simply lazy, just playing it safe and making some easy cash. What most people missed, however, was that Carpenter made a brilliant satire of America in the guise of a bloated and expensive Hollywood picture. This wasn’t just Snake’s return to the big screen – this was Carpenter mocking the madness that was rampaging his country.

It’s not really much of a secret; the two main bad guys are Cuervo Jones (Georges Corraface), a guy dressed like Che Guevara, and the president (Cliff Robertson), an evangelical nutjob who turned America’s democracy into a theocracy. These are two very misguided extremists who are willing to enslave their fellow man for the “greater good.”
Los Angeles, both the glossy haven for the fortunate and a cesspool of broken dreams, has always been a perfect setting for satire and Carpenter naturally can’t help and take a few pot shots at the one place that made him famous. Not only does Hollywood get destroyed, but Los Angeles itself becomes a prison for every act of sinful pleasure, where people are exiled if they go against the new “moral” America.

None of these are products of the time; we still have Christian extremists in Democratic suits who, if they had their way, would turn America into the theocracy they’ve always dreamed about. The social commentary is as relevant now as it ever was, and you couldn’t say that about “Escape from New York”.

Aside from all this, the film is simply a lot of fun and never takes itself so seriously. Carpenter had a lot of fun with this film and considers it superior to the original.
From the hilariously bad special effects to the zany performances of Pam Grier as a transsexual gang leader, Buscemi as a treacherous guide, a cameo from the chin-king himself Bruce Campbell as an evil surgeon (mocking the plastic surgery obsession of LA), and even Peter Fonda as a groovy hippie surfing next to Russell in another one of its ridiculous set pieces.

Best of all, it has Russell playing the role he was born to play – the role that saved him from the kiddie fodder that seemed destined for him after he started his career with Disney. It has one of the best Carpenter endings (and that’s saying something, as the man has a knack for ending his films perfectly), with Snake calmly smoking a cigarette, looking into the camera, and uttering one of the best final lines of cinema history: ”Welcome to the human race.”
Welcome indeed.