Farrah Fawcett, 1947 – 2009
You will be missed.
Farrah Fawcett, 1947 – 2009
You will be missed.
Share the Fantasy
Perhaps the most memorable 28 seconds ever broadcast on commercial TV.
This 1982 commercial for Chanel No. 5 perfume, set to a cover of the 1950s Inkspots hit “I don’t want to set the World on Fire” was directed by the famed Ridley Scott.
In my opinion, this is the greatest commercial ever made.
Prison on Fire II/Gaam Yuk Fung Wan II (1991)
Directed by Ringo Lam
Written by Yin Nam
Starring Yun-Fat Chow, Sung Young Chen, Roy Cheung
The 1991 Ringo Lam film Prison on Fire II, starring the great Chow Yun-fat, contains one of the most hauntingly beautiful contemporary Chinese melodies ever written, 希盼得好夢 or Hoping for Good Dreams.
One of countless versions of this melody can be heard in the trailer to the film:
Another version I found on the net:
Click on 10.mp3 to either download or play.
Other versions will be added if and when I can find them.
Soundtrack Lyrics in Cantonese
監獄風雲 II 插曲
Alternate Lyrics in Mandarin
Prison on Fire II Poster
Prison on Fire II Poster in German
From: Bevin Chu
Sent: Thursday, January 25, 2007 9:31 AM
Subject: parenthetical bios in movie plot summaries
I am writing to urge HBO/Cinemax to change its practice of inserting parenthetical bios into its movie plot summaries.
I realize this is currently common practice, but isn’t it obvious that it’s bad practice?
Have those responsible for writing these plot summaries ever bothered to read their plot summaries?
They’re impossible to read. The parenthetical bios interrupt the sentences so badly one has to reread the passages again and again to get the meaning.
See the example below, and the same example with the parenthetical bios removed.
Example, as is:
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Jeremy Irons and Sinead Cusack.
This is a captivating, superb film adaptation of Graham Swift’s contemporary novel. It’s 1974 in Pittsburgh, and Tom Crick (Academy Award(r), Golden Globe(r), and Emmy(r) Award winner Irons, Inland Empire, Eragon), is faced with apathetic students. His wife Mary (Cusack, The Tiger’s Tail) is barren and mentally unstable. Mary’s growing, disturbing conviction that God will send her a baby through a “miracle,” coupled with a student Matthew’s (Hawke, Fast Food Nation, The Hottest State) open declaration that history serves no worthwhile purpose, triggers Crick to share his own personal history with his students.
Example with parenthetical bios in a separate section:
Starring: Ethan Hawke, Jeremy Irons and Sinead Cusack.
This is a captivating, superb film adaptation of Graham Swift’s contemporary novel. It’s 1974 in Pittsburgh, and Tom Crick is faced with apathetic students. His wife Mary is barren and mentally unstable. Mary’s growing, disturbing conviction that God will send her a baby through a “miracle,” coupled with a student Matthew’s open declaration that history serves no worthwhile purpose, triggers Crick to share his own personal history with his students.
Tom Crick: Academy Award(r), Golden Globe(r), and Emmy(r) Award winner Irons, Inland Empire, Eragon
Mary: Cusack, The Tiger’s Tail
Matthew: Hawke, Fast Food Nation, The Hottest State
Tuesday, May 02, 2006
Brokeback Mountain (2005)
Directed by Ang Lee
Short story by Annie Proulx
Screenplay by Larry McMurtry, Diana Ossana
Starring Heath Ledger, Jake Gyllenhaal, Anne Hathaway, Michelle Williams
Well I finally got around to seeing Brokeback Mountain. It was too controversial to miss. One simply has to see it to know what everyone else is talking about.
Because the film was directed by Taiwan born Chinese American director Ang Lee, “president” Chen Shui-bian and the Taiwan independence nomenklatura have been milking Lee’s Best Direction Oscar win for everything it’s worth. No occasion, however inappropriate, has been spared Chen Shui-bian’s far-fetched, lame Brokeback Mountain analogies.
According to a February 25, 2006 China Post article entitled “Chen’s Comments on Taipei-Washington Ties Raise Eyebrows”:
President Chen Shui-bian’s likening Taipei-Washington ties to the homosexual love depicted in the movie Brokeback Mountain has raised some eyebrows. Critics have questioned whether Chen has seen the awards-winning movie of by Taiwan director Ang Lee, or really understands what the film is about. Officials with the Presidential Office’s public affairs department yesterday said they did not know whether Chen had seen Brokeback Mountain.
Even Richard Spencer, the Daily Telegraph’s China Correspondent, and a self-professed admirer of Chen, thought Chen was reaching. In a March 7, 2006 article entitled “Taiwan’s president takes gay rights too far,” Spencer wrote:
I suspect even the most ardent supporters might think President Chen Shui-bian went a bit far the other day. In a speech to the American Chamber of Commerce in Taipei, he compared Brokeback Mountain to the island’s relationship with the United States. The analogy was long, and complex, and, to be frank, rather baffling.
“The most profound lesson we must take away transcends the love affairs in the movie,” he said. “It motivates us to understand all of us are bound to make difficult decisions in life, yet we must strive to dispel prejudice… and seek ways to reconcile and cooperate with one another. “Only by doing so can we together reach the frontier of a ‘great new world’.” And he did not give up there. “Lee once said: ‘There is a Brokeback Mountain in each and every one of us.’ I deeply believe that the common pursuit of a ‘great new world’ by both Taiwan and the United States will guide us to a place where universal values – democracy, freedom, peace and prosperity – can be fully realized in the world we share.”
Mr Chen has, I feel, failed to surmount the comprehensibility test on that one, and though his attempt to make the wild open spaces of the mid-west relevant to a small, slightly overpopulated and gadget-obsessed semi-tropical island is brave, it was probably doomed from the outset. The main reaction appears to have been some rather obvious crude jokes.
Spencer just doesn’t get it. The Taiwan independence nomenklatura doesn’t give a damn about gay rights. In fact Deep Green racists have denounced gays because, in their words, “ta men bu sheng dan” (they don’t lay eggs), i.e., they don’t reproduce and make more “Taiwanese.” The Taiwan independence nomenklatura only cares about international exposure for their “Taiwanese, not Chinese” identity politics. Chen merely wants to spin the film’s apolitical director as a “Taiwanese director.”
According to an April 29, 2006 Taipei Times article entitled “Tainan celebrates Ang Lee Day”:
Tainan City, the hometown of Oscar winner Ang Lee, declared April 28 “Ang Lee Day” as the director returned to the southern city to accept the honor. He was the first Asian to pick up Hollywood’s prestigious best director award. Flanked by his Oscar statue, Lee handed an autographed poster of his celebrated gay romance Brokeback Mountain to Tainan Mayor Hsu Tian-tsai during a ceremony at the city government building. Both men donned cowboy hats in honor of the occasion. To celebrate Lee’s visit, Chinzi Cinema yesterday held a free public screening of Brokeback Mountain. The city government also aired another Oscar-winning film by Lee, Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon. Lee reportedly also accepted an invitation from … Chen Shui-bian to give a speech in Taipei next Thursday about his journey from childhood in Tainan to an internationally acclaimed director. Lee recently was voted as the top figure in the arts and entertainment category of Time Magazine’s list of the world’s 100 most influential icons … Some local media reports speculated however that the voting results may have been distorted by overzealous Taiwanese web surfers who used software to inflate Lee’s number.
Ang Lee, right, presents a poster and a DVD of Brokeback Mountain to Tainan Mayor Hsu Tian-tsai at Tainan City Hall
Never mind that Ang Lee is a so-called “mainlander” whom Taiwan independence demagogues would demonize as a “mainlander pig” in any other context. The fact that he won an Oscar and can be promoted as a “Taiwanese director who has brought honor to his native Taiwan” means Lee’s Original Sin of being born a “mainlander” is forgiven.
The Taiwan independence nomenklatura’s attitude toward Ang Lee reminds one of Pino’s attitude toward African Americans in Spike Lee’s incendiary 1989 film, Do the Right Thing. In the film, Mookie, an African American pizza delivery worker played by Spike Lee, confronts Pino, the racist Italian American son of the pizzeria owner about his self-contradictory attitudes toward African Americans.
Do the Right Thing
Mookie: Pino, who’s your favorite basketball player?
Pino: Magic Johnson.
Mookie: Who’s your favorite movie star?
Pino: Eddie Murphy.
Mookie: Who’s your favorite rock star? Prince, you’re a Prince fan.
Mookie: Pino, all you ever talk about is ‘nigger this” and “nigger that,” and all your favorite people are so called “niggers.”
Pino: It’s different. Magic, Eddie, Prince, are not niggers. I mean they’re not black. I mean. Let me explain myself. They’re not really black, I mean, they’re black but they’re not really black, they’re more than black. It’s different.
Mookie: It’s different?
Pino: Yeah, to me it’s different.
But getting back to Brokeback Mountain, what was my reaction to the film? I’m sorry to say that after all the awards and all the hooplah, I was thoroughly disappointed. My reaction as the end credits rolled was, “Was that it?”
Lee ranks among my favorite living directors. But Oscar or no Oscar, Brokeback Mountain was not among his better works. Lee’s 1995 remake of Sense and Sensibility, which never fails to bring tears to my eyes no matter how many times I see it, was far more deserving of an Oscar than Brokeback Mountain.
Out of curiosity I visited the Internet Movie Database to see the number of external reviews posted. Brokeback Mountain must have set some sort of record. 246 reviews.
I visited Rotten Tomatoes to see what their “Tomato Meter” read. A very respectable 86%.
Sifting through the reviews at Rotten Tomatoes, I realized I really didn’t need to write my own review. Other critics had pretty much written mine for me. Here are the ones that reflect my own reaction to the film.
“Doesn’t match its hype.”
— John Wirt, ADVOCATE (BATON ROUGE, LA)
“I almost feel guilty that I can’t rave about it.”
— Betty Jo Tucker, REELTALK MOVIE REVIEWS
“The filmmaking itself, self-consciously restrained and desiccated, is inert and inexpressive.”
— Stephanie Zacharek, SALON.COM
“Only a rough draft of a great movie.”
— Kyle Smith, NEW YORK POST
“For all its brave beginnings and real achievements — its assault on western mythology, its discovery of a subversive sexual honesty in an unexpected locale — Brokeback Mountain finally fails to fully engage our emotions.”
— Richard Schickel, TIME MAGAZINE
“I was never moved or even overly excited by what I finally witnessed on the screen.”
— Andrew Sarris, NEW YORK OBSERVER
If I’m not mistaken, the ADVOCATE is a gay oriented newspaper. That means that the disappointment wasn’t felt merely by straight reviewers such as myself, but by gays as well.
Richard Schickel’s comments in TIME MAGAZINE were especially pertinent. I had been anticipating just what Schickel mentioned, an “assault on western mythology [and] a subversive sexual honesty in an unexpected locale.” What I saw in the theater was a failed assault. What I saw was not “The Longest Day,” but “A Bridge Too Far.”
In this connection, I can’t help thinking of a dramatically different movie that, in contrast to Brokeback Mountain, waged a surprisingly successful assault on American mythology and demonstrated a subversive sexual honesty in an unexpected locale.
That movie, believe it or not, was Tony Scott’s ultra slick 1986 action flick Top Gun, written by Jim Cash and Jack Epps, Jr., produced by Simpson/Bruckheimer, starring Tom Cruise and Kelly McGillis.
In terms of sheer subversiveness, Brokeback Mountain pales next to Top Gun. Screenwriters Cash and Epps really put one over on the Pentagon, which considered Top Gun the perfect US Navy recruiting film and practically subsidized its production. The psychologically clueless brass hats at the Department of Defense had no idea the film was mocking the homosexual panic behind the macho pretensions of the military, and doing so at their expense.
Talented Hollywood hyphenate Quentin Tarantino played a loquacious partygoer in the 1994 romantic comedy Sleep with Me. In it Tarantino’s character, Sid, holds forth on Top Gun’s gay subtext in a hilarious monologue written by screenwriter Roger Avary.
Sleep with Me
Sid: You want subversion on a massive level. You know what one of the greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood is? Top Gun.
Duane: Oh, come on.
Sid: Top Gun is fucking great. What is Top Gun? You think it’s a story about a bunch of fighter pilots.
Duane: It’s about a bunch of guys waving their dicks around.
Sid: It is a story about a man’s struggle with his own homosexuality. It is! That is what Top Gun is about, man. You’ve got Maverick, all right? He’s on the edge, man. He’s right on the fucking line, all right? And you’ve got Iceman, and all his crew. They’re gay, they represent the gay man, all right? And they’re saying, go, go the gay way, go the gay way. He could go both ways.
Duane: What about Kelly McGillis?
Sid: Kelly McGillis, she’s heterosexuality. She’s saying: no, no, no, no, no, no, go the normal way, play by the rules, go the normal way. They’re saying no, go the gay way, be the gay way, go for the gay way, all right? That is what’s going on throughout that whole movie… He goes to her house, all right? It looks like they’re going to have sex, you know, they’re just kind of sitting back, he’s takin’ a shower and everything. They don’t have sex. He gets on the motorcycle, drives away. She’s like, “What the fuck, what the fuck is going on here?” Next scene, next scene you see her, she’s in the elevator, she is dressed like a guy. She’s got the cap on, she’s got the aviator glasses, she’s wearing the same jacket that the Iceman wears. She is, okay, this is how I gotta get this guy, this guy’s going towards the gay way, I gotta bring him back, I gotta bring him back from the gay way, so I’ll do that through subterfuge, I’m gonna dress like a man. All right? That is how she approaches it. Okay, now let me just ask you – I’m gonna digress for two seconds here. I met this girl Amy here, she’s like floating around here and everything. Now, she just got divorced, right? All right, but the real ending of the movie is when they fight the MIGs at the end, all right? Because he has passed over into the gay way. They are this gay fighting fucking force, all right? And they’re beating the Russians, the gays are beating the Russians. And it’s over, and they fucking land, and Iceman’s been trying to get Maverick the entire time, and finally, he’s got him, all right? And what is the last fucking line that they have together? They’re all hugging and kissing and happy with each other, and Ice comes up to Maverick, and he says, “Man, you can ride my tail, anytime!” And what does Maverick say? “You can ride mine!” Swordfight! Swordfight! Fuckin’ A, man!
According to the film oriented website godamongdirectors.com:
[Val Kilmer] got all buffed out for the role of Iceman, Tom Cruise’s adversary, and while he didn’t like the script (“I turned it down at first, but Paramount had an option they exercised, so I had to do it”), Top Gun remains a key film of the ’80s — the most representative of not only what was wrong with movies but what was wrong with this country’s values. It’s also the most unintentionally gay movie ever made by a big studio, so homoerotic it’s like some kind of camp joke. It’s impossible to watch it without thinking of Quentin Tarantino’s hilarious monologue about the movie’s gay subtext in the “we’re hip screenwriters in Hollywood” flick Sleep With Me, which Kilmer hasn’t seen. All he’ll say about the above, while smiling, is “Oh yeah?”
C’mon, Val. When were we all fucking born? Yesterday? The day before that? We know you sit around at 4:00 am with your VCR and a copy of Sleep With Me, holding your head in your hands, moaning, “What have I done? Dear God, what have I done?” C’mon, Batguy, ‘fess up.
Like Sid said, “subversion on a massive level … one of the greatest fucking scripts ever written in the history of Hollywood.”
V for Vendetta
Saturday, April 15, 2006
V for Vendetta (2006)
Directed by James McTeigue
Graphic Novel by David Lloyd, published by Vertigo/DC Comics
Screenplay by the Wachowski Brothers,
Produced by Joel Silver, Grant Hill, Andy Wachowski, Larry Wachowski
Starring Natalie Portman, Hugo Weaving, William Rookwood, Stephen Rea, Stephen Fry, John Hurt, and Tim Pigott-Smith
A for Anarchy, E for Execution
According to the official Warner Brothers’ website, “V for Vendetta” is:
Set against the futuristic landscape of totalitarian Britain [and] tells the story of a mild-mannered young woman named Evey (NATALIE PORTMAN) who is rescued from a life-and-death situation by a masked man (HUGO WEAVING) known only as V. Incomparably charismatic and ferociously skilled in the art of combat and deception, V ignites a revolution when he urges his fellow citizens to rise up against tyranny and oppression. As Evey uncovers the truth about V’s mysterious background, she also discovers the truth about herself and emerges as his unlikely ally in the culmination of his plan to bring freedom and justice back to a society fraught with cruelty.
If I had to encapsulate my review in a single sentence, I would say that V for Vendetta gets an A for Anarchy, but an E for Execution.
Politically, the filmmakers deserve five gold stars. They had the audacity to send a unapologetically incendiary anarchist political message to movie audiences throughout the modern world, one that most people in the left/right, liberal/conservative political mainstream may not want to hear, but need to hear.
Technically alas, the filmmakers deserve to wear a dunce cap and sit facing the corner. They committed a critical blunder depressingly common among “auteurs.” They became preoccupied with “style” at the expense of story. In doing so, they weakened the enormously valuable message they were sending.
A for Anarchy
Anarchist Circle A
V for Vendetta Circle V
The A for Anarchy in a circle, usually in red and spray-painted on the background, is one of the most successful images among political symbols. It was created during the 20th century and is therefore a much more modern symbol than the classical black flag of anarchism. Its origin is not known, but there is evidence that the symbol was used by some anarchists during the Spanish Civil War and later by the Belgium organization AOA (Alliance Ouvriere Anarchiste). The Circle A is said to represent Proudhon’s maxim that “Anarchy is Order.” The “A” is for anarchy and the circle is either a symbol of order or represents the “O.” But the Circle A is also said to be a symbol of unity and determination, forwarding the anarchist ideals and the inevitable rebellion against the rulers. Anarchists are devoted to the re-establishment of freedom for everyone and the importance of the cause cannot be affected by outer restraints. The circle is therefore, to some extent, a shield against the oppressive society surrounding the sovereign anarchist. The Circle A also lends support to the idea of international anarchist solidarity, where the circle encompassing the “A” for anarchy could be interpreted as a representation of the world. Anarchists are committed to the abolishment of all rule, coercive hierarchy and oppression–no matter where it exists. The unavoidable anarchist rebellion takes no prisoners and thus no tyrant is safe when the rebellion has begun. No matter the origin and the true meaning of the symbol, the Circle A is a very powerful symbol of anarchism world-wide. It is very often seen spray-painted on walls and under bridges or on the background of a black flag of anarchism.
— Anarchism.net, The Well-Known Symbol of Anarchism, the Circle A
It should be abundantly clear to anyone that the red on black Circle V symbol in V for Vendetta was derived directly from the red on black Circle A symbol of the Anarchist movement. Just eliminate the horizontal stroke in the Circle A symbol, rotate it 180 degrees, and you have the Circle V. In case anyone imagines the nearly identical visual symbols are mere coincidence, consider the following voice over from the film:
“Remember, remember, the fifth of November, the gunpowder treason and plot. I know of no reason why the gunpowder treason should ever be forgot.” Those were almost the very first words he spoke to me and, in a way, that is where this story began, four hundred years ago, in a cellar beneath the Houses of Parliament. In 1605, Guy Fawkes attempted to blow up the Houses of Parliament. He was caught in the cellars with enough gunpowder to level most of London. Sometimes I wonder where we would be if he hadn’t failed. I wonder if it would have mattered. I suppose the answer is in the rhyme. More than the man, what we must remember is the plot itself. For in the plot we find more than just a man, we find the idea of that man, the spirit of that man, and that is what we must never forget. This, then, is the story of that idea, of that spirit that began with an anarchist’s plot four hundred years ago.
There you have it, an explicit admission that the film is a manifesto for anarchism.
As the patriot movement in America likes to say, “No Justice, No Peace!”
As protest signs waved by the 500,000 to 1,000,000 strong crowd demonstrating against the ruling DPP’s March 19, 2004 shooting hoax and March 20, 2004 election fraud declared: “Guan bi min fan, zao fan yu li!” (Officials have pushed the people too far, Revolution is justified!).
But where does the “V” in V for Vendetta come from? As V explains, it comes from a Latin quotation, a motto: “Vi veri veniversum vivus vici. By the power of truth, I, while living, have conquered the universe.”
Anarchy is Order
Proudhon, for the record, was wrong about property. Property is not theft.
But Proudhon was right about anarchy. Anarchy is Order.
Anarchy is not disorder. Anarchy is not chaos. Anarchy is merely “the absence of government.” The absence of government does not equate with disorder. The absence of government does not equate with chaos. Quite the contrary. The absence of government is the blank slate, the tabula rasa, on which a spontaneous social order can emerge naturally and flourish.
Government, not the absence of government, is the source of social conflict. As Bill McKay, the idealistic candidate in Michael Ritchie’s 1972 political satire “The Candidate,” observed, governments invariably “play off black against white, young against old, rich against poor.” They always have, they always will.
Governments in “advanced democracies” work only to the extent that a pre-existing social order permits them to work. Social order is not a benefit conferred upon society by government. Government is a disruptor of the spontaneous social order that emerges naturally in the absence of government.
As the great Chinese sage Laozi observed:
The way [the “Dao” or Adam Smith’s “Invisible Hand”] never acts, yet nothing is left undone. Should lords and princes be able to hold fast to it, the myriad creatures will be transformed of their own accord. After they are transformed, should desire [the statist compulsion to micromanage] raise its head, I shall press it down with the weight of the nameless uncarved block. The nameless uncarved block is but freedom from desire [liberation from the controlling statist mindset]. And if I cease to desire and remain still, the nation will be at peace of its own accord.
E for Execution
People rarely say exactly what’s on their minds … Especially when bringing up something painful, people often talk in circles until the other person figures out what they’re trying to say. Good screen dialogue should avoid being “on the nose.” Avoid having … characters cut to the meat … unless it’s a climactic scene, and even then, load your words with hidden agendas. There almost always wants to be tension between what your character is literally saying, what your character intends to communicate and what your character is thinking.
— Alex Epstein, On the Nose Dialogue
Complications Ensue: The Crafty TV and Screenwriting Blog
V for Vendetta is rife with “on the nose” dialogue, or perhaps I should say, on the nose monologues. In scene after scene, V talks up a storm, glibly explicating exactly what’s on his mind, even though he is supposed to be an angst-ridden tragic hero haunted by his dark past.
This groan-inducing syndrome is exacerbated by V’s Guy Fawkes mask, which covers his entire face, including his mouth. As V rambles on endlessly, we don’t see his lips move. All we see is his totally opaque, utterly static Guy Fawkes mask.
V for Vendetta Guy Fawkes Mask
The credits tell us V was played by Hugo Weaving, the talented character actor who portrayed the dastardly Agent Smith in “The Matrix” (1999, written and directed by Andy Wachowski and Larry Wachowski). But how do we know? We never see Weaving’s face once during the entire 132 minutes of the film. For all we know, V was played by a stand-in, and Weaving dubbed the voicetrack afterwards. Given that the Guy Fawkes mask covers the actor’s entire face, including the mouth and chin, the voicetrack wouldn’t even need to be lip-synched!
One could write a Saturday Night Live skit based on V’s Guy Fawkes mask. The “Pathological Liar,” played by Jon Lovitz, assures a casting director that he, Tommy Flanagan, actually played V in the movie:
“I was Weaving’s stand-in. In fact, I was V. I was the star of the movie. That was me behind the mask. Yeah, that’s right. Weaving got sick the first day on the set … from … the catered food. The shrimp was bad. I didn’t complain because Weaving and I were in Vietnam together. He sa … I saved his life … twice. Yeah, that’s the ticket!”
Contrast this with Erique Claudin’s mask in the “Phantom of the Opera, (1943, directed by Arthur Lubin, adapated by John Jacoby from a novel by Gaston Leroux) which covered the upper part of lead actor Claude Rains’ face, but not his mouth and chin. Doesn’t that make much more visual sense?
Phantom of the Opera Poster
Phantom of the Opera Mask
If for some reason the filmmakers objected to using a Phantom of the Opera style partial mask, they could have used a translucent mask. Movie audiences would then have been able to see Weaving’s lips move as he spoke his lines, and gotten an indistinct but queasy impression of the horrific scars the long-sufferering hero had been left with.
The gabby “on the nose” monologues and the deadpan Guy Fawkes mask undermine the film’s effectiveness. But they are not the film’s most serious problem. The film’s most serious problem is its clunky use of flashbacks.
Flashbacks can, if used appropriately, propel a film forward. But the flashbacks in V for Vendetta are constant interruptions that halt the film’s foward momentum, weaken the film’s thematic focus, and diminish the film’s emotional power.
Any device that diminishes a story’s emotional power — its ultimate payoff, its raison d’etre — cannot possibly be considered a worthwhile artistic choice.
B for Brazil
Terry Gilliam’s critically acclaimed but grossly neglected masterpiece “Brazil” (1985, directed by Terry Gilliam, written by Terry Gilliam, Tom Stoppard, and Charles McKeown) did a dramatically better job of depicting the Kafkaesque injustice of totalitarianism than V for Vendetta.
Brazil, a highly creative variation on George Orwell’s dystopian novel “1984,” was in retrospect, uncannily prescient. Consider the following dialogue from the film.
Do you think that the government is winning the battle against terrorists?
Oh yes. Our morale is much higher than theirs, we’re fielding all their strokes, running a lot of them out, and pretty consistently knocking them for six. I’d say they’re nearly out of the game.
What does this remind you of, but Ken Adelman’s “Cakewalk In Iraq” and George Bush’s “Mission Accomplished?”
Brazil blew me away. I left the theater awestruck, wondering, “How did Gilliam do that?” V for Vendetta failed to blow me away, even though I wanted it to and gave it every chance to do so. I left the theater perplexed, wondering “Why didn’t the movie work better than it did?”
Modernity and Mise-en-Scene, Terry Gilliam and Brazil
People should not be Afraid of their Governments. Governments should be Afraid of their People
Am I telling you not to see V for Vendetta?
No, I am not. See the movie despite its defects. Assuming you are a libertarian, V for Vendetta’s anti-authoritarian political message makes the movie worth seeing and worth supporting despite its botched execution. To turn media guru Marshal McLuhan’s famed aphorism on its head, “The message is the medium.”
After all, how can one not recommend seeing a movie whose tagline is “People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people.”
The American Government, instilling Fear in the American People
Homeland Security Advisory System, Current Threat Level:
March 21, 2006 The United States government lowered the national threat level for the mass transit sector in August 2005. The country remains at an elevated risk, Code Yellow, for terrorist attack.
Homeland Security Advisory System
The United States Government will continue to closely monitor and analyze threat information and share that information, together with guidance for protective measures, with state, local and private sector authorities as well as the general public as part of the sustained national effort to prevent terrorist attacks and protect our homeland.
All Americans, including those traveling in the transportation systems, should continue to be vigilant, take notice of their surroundings, and report suspicious items or activities to local authorities immediately.
All Americans can visit http://www.ready.gov
Friday, April 14, 2006
Directed by Ronny Yu
Produced by Bill Kong
Martial arts sequences directed by Yuen Woo Ping
Starring Jet Li, Betty Sun
Release Dates, in chronological order:
China [mainland]: January 25, 2006
China [Taiwan]: January 26, 2006
China [Hong Kong]: January 26, 2006
Malaysia: January 26, 2006
Singapore: January 26, 2006
Philippines: March 1, 2006
Thailand: March 2, 2006
United States: August 4, 2006
France: September 20, 2006
Germany: October 12, 2006
In Fearless … Huo Yuanjia, a real-life fighter who energized China during the last dark days of the Qing dynasty … is forced to learn that there’s more to martial arts and life than just winning or losing, living or dying … At the start of Fearless, Huo is a ball of highly skilled but undirected martial-arts aggression; his only goal is to become the top fighter in his hometown of Tianjin. He accomplishes this in rapid order, knocking off any and all contenders in a series of brutal one-on-one fights … Huo cracks skulls, snaps fingers and shatters knees … Surrounded by an entourage of drunken sycophants, squandering his money, ignoring the warnings of his wiser friends, Huo acts like a 19th-century Mike Tyson. He’s clearly headed for a fall. It comes when Huo, for nothing more than vanity, takes on Master Qin … The fighters go at each other with every available weapon, until a crazed Huo lands the killing blow. His victory comes at a terrible price — one of Qin’s students slaughters Huo’s family in reprisal. Overcome by guilt and self-loathing, Huo drifts away, ending up in [a] rural village where a beautiful blind girl [helps] him understand that existence is about more than just beating people up … Huo’s … gentler, more powerful form of kung fu … serves him well when he departs for a Shanghai that’s been drawn and quartered by foreigners. There, in a spurt of nationalism, he takes on Western and Japanese fighters, eager to prove that Chinese aren’t the sick men of Asia.
— Emotion in Motion, Time Asia Magazine, January 30, 2006
A Farewell to Arms
Fearless, according to the movie’s official website, will be Chinese martial arts champion and international action star Jet Li’s final martial arts flick. Li has told interviewers that he no longer has any desire to make martial arts films, but instead wants to dedicate his life to promoting his deeply-held metaphysical and spiritual beliefs. Whether Li’s legions of fans will allow him to do so remains to be seen. In any event, Li has drawn a distinction between martial arts films and action films.
As Li explains:
I’ll only be devoting 50% of my time and energy into making movies going forward. I’ve reached a point where I feel I can do something else … Making this film now I feel this is a concluding chapter to my martial arts movie career. Let me stress that martial arts movies and action movies are two separate things. Action could be modern times and set among city streets. What I term as martial arts movie would be the likes of Wong Fei Hung (Once Upon a Time in China) series. I just feel it’s time to close this chapter in my life.
Revenge, Good and Bad
Fearless belongs to a tried and true movie genre, the Revenge Story.
Revenge Stories fall into two categories: Revenge is Good stories, and Revenge is Bad stories.
Revenge is Good stories, to be perfectly blunt, are psychologically primitive, even atavistic.
Revenge is Bad stories are psychologically more evolved. That said, some Revenge is Good stories are less primitive than other Revenge is Good stories.
Revenge is Good
The gut-wrenchingly violent 1974 urban crime drama Death Wish, starring Charles Bronson, is a classic Revenge is Good story, and ranks among my guilty pleasures. Death Wish is a movie in which the hero’s acts of vengeance come across as morally justified. The hero’s wife and daughter are brutally raped and assaulted by street thugs during a home invasion. The hero’s wife dies from fatal kicks to her head. The daughter lives, but is so traumatized by the assault she retreats into catatonia. Bronson, a law-abiding white collar professional, is paralyzed by his loss, until one fateful night, when he fights off a mugger with a sock filled with quarters. He then acquires a handgun, and using himself as bait, blows away a series of muggers who mistake him for an easy mark.
As Roger Ebert wrote in 1974:
There’s never any question of injustice, because the crimes are attempted right there before our eyes. And then Bronson becomes judge and jury –and executioner. That’s what’s scary about the film. It’s propaganda for private gun ownership and a call to vigilante justice. Even the cops seem to see it that way; Bronson becomes a folk hero as the New York Vigilante, and the mugging rate drops fifty percent. So the police want to catch Bronson, not to prosecute him for murder, but to offer him a deal: Get out of town, stay out of town, and we’ll forget this. Bronson accepts the deal, and in the movie’s last scene we see him taking an imaginary bead on a couple of goons in Chicago.
Bronson defended Death Wish and its three sequels in 1987, saying “I think they provide satisfaction for people who are victimized by crime and look in vain for authorities to protect them.”
For the record, I consider Death Wish justified in its advocacy of private gun ownership and the right to self-defense.
Steven Seagal’s movies are also Revenge is Good stories. Seagal’s movies, paradoxically, are movies in which the protagonist’s vengeance is morally repugnant and indefensible. I say “paradoxically” because Seagal, a Tibetan Buddhist “tulku” or holy man, makes much ado about being “more enlightened than thou.” In Seagal’s movies the “hero” is an appalling bully, typically a law enforcement agent, who considers himself “Above the Law” and grossly abuses his mastery of Aikido, the “Way of the Peaceful Warrior” [ ! ] to beat anyone who dares defies him to a bloody pulp.
Above the Law
Never underestimate the accuracy of Hollywood movies as an indicator of American cultural trends. Transpersonal, aka “Integral” psychologists know that pop culture, especially popular films, are telling indicators of a society’s collectively held values, both conscious and unconscious. Hollywood is not known as the Dream Factory for nothing. Hollywood reads America’s psyche and projects America’s dreams onto the silver screen for all the world to see, literally and figuratively.
The constantly changing storylines of Hollywood films closely reflect America’s constantly changing values. Consider for example the 1987 comedy The Secret of My Succe$s, which reflected the “Winning is Everything” values of the Reagan Era. A mere four years separate the film from the 1991 comedy Doc Hollywood, which reflected the “Small is Beautiful” values of the post-Reagan Era. What makes the contrast even more remarkable is the fact that both films were Michael J. Fox star vehicles.
Steven Seagal’s films are an uncanny reflection of Charles Krauthammer’s “Unipolar Moment” triumphalism that guided Bush II regime foreign policy during Bush II’s first term, but is now hopefully on the wane. Steven Seagal’s tough cop protagonists, as they enforce domestic “law and order,” behave remarkably like Neoconservative “World Policemen” as they “defend democracy” in Bush’s New World Order.
Revenge is Bad
Revenge is Bad stories fall into two categories: Phony Revenge is Bad stories, and Genuine Revenge is Bad stories.
As you can probably guess, Phony Revenge is Bad stories far outnumber Genuine Revenge is Bad stories. Stories that pay facile pro forma lip service to the premise that Revenge is Bad far outnumber stories that conscientiously integrate the Revenge is Bad premise into the story structure.
Phony Revenge is Bad stories pander shamelessly to audiences’ atavistic desire to “kick ass,” then hastily cover up the pandering with a “Violence is not the solution” fig leaf that no one leaving the theater believes for one minute. The hero in Phony Revenge is Bad movies wreaks bloody havoc for two hours, then just before the end titles roll, mumbles some hypocritical platitude about how “Violence only begets more violence.”
Fearless is a rare example of a Genuine Revenge is Bad story. Fearless suggests that Revenge is Bad, and earnestly strives to convert audiences to that premise. Fearless conscientiously integrates the premise that Revenge is Bad into the story structure. In Fearless, the hero’s impulsive act of vengeance leads to such catastrophic consequences and to such deep remorse that the hero experiences a genuine epiphany and undergoes a genuine transformation.
According to Newsweek magazine:
Fearless went through ten screenwriters to ensure a seamless plotline. Perhaps most compelling are the movie’s emotional action scenes, which propel the story forward rather than serve as visual breaks from the real action … “One notable thing with this movie is that there are no villains,” says “Fearless” director Ronny Yu. “The good guy and the villain both reside in Huo himself.”
Fearless, like Spiderman 2, displays far more emotional depth than the run of the mill action movie, and transcends the genre’s usual limits. That Spiderman 2 was so deeply moving had a lot to do with its screenwriter, Alvin Sargent, author of the Oscar winning 1980 domestic drama, Ordinary People. Fearless’ official website fails to list the writers responsible for Fearless’ script, but whoever they are, they deserve similar credit.
A Larger Lesson
In any event, the final product reflects Jet Li’s personal convictions. As Li confided on his official website:
Time and again over the years I’ve stressed that violence is not the only means of solving problems. Western reporters also grilled me about why I keep professing my belief in this, yet keep on doing movies that are violent. I think it’s not possible to have every one of my movies represent what I truly believe. It just has to be the right subject matter, and now I think I found the right project that could help me achieve this.
If someone learns martial arts solely to pick fights on the street, to lean on it as a keystone weapon in conflicts, to use it to bully and intimidate others — then that person, in my opinion, cannot be considered a true martial artist. Sure, he may have mastered the physical aspect of the art – know all the forms to the point of creative second nature. Sure, he may win all the fights, beat up all his opponents, leaving them bleeding, and claim some outside applause. But while physically he may have won – in other respects, he has lost. Badly. For one can never win another person’s heart through fighting, through hostile force. The defeated, the one who had to bear the brunt of your physical force will only walk away with a wounded heart, with anger. As a Buddhist, I believe strongly in the concept of karma. What you do will come back to you eventually, as is the universal balance. You can win today, but tomorrow, your choice to use violence will return to you, perhaps in a form ten times stronger.
Jet Li could easily have been talking about right wing Japanese political leaders such as Japanese Chief Cabinet Secretary Shinzo Abe, Japanese Foreign Minister Taro Aso, and Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara..
Jet Li could easily have been talking about Neoconservative foreign policymakers Irving Kristol, Norman Podhoretz, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, Lewis Libby, John Bolton, Elliott Abrams, Robert Kagan, Michael Ledeen, William Kristol, and Frank Gaffney Jr.
The “triumph” of Pearl Harbor led to the tragedy of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
The “triumph” of Desert Storm led to the tragedy of 9/11. What will the “triumph” of Infinite Justice/Enduring Freedom lead to?
Junichiro Koizumi, are you listening?
George Bush Jr., are you listening?
Fighting, or seeking revenge, is a self-defeating process and the escalation of retaliatory violence can have very bitter consequences … When you learn martial arts, it’s not just a physical endeavor — it is also internal — and your actions show an understanding of some of the highest levels of martial arts … one day those people who beat you up will have regrets that they hurt you — they will feel guilty. So perhaps their outcome, even though they won in the short term, is not so kind in the long term. The goal with any conflict isn’t to kill the other person. The goal is to win their heart. Turning one from enemy to friend is the highest level of martial arts. You win the battle without throwing a single punch.
Steven Seagal, are you listening?
Fearless not only depicts an individual’s awakening, it offers a thoughtful answer to the troubling question of how nations that have fought bloody wars with each other might resolve their differences and face the future. That Chinese film makers would produce a movie like Fearless at this moment in history, when China is undergoing a peaceful renaissance, is highly encouraging. It suggests that China’s much publicized “peaceful rise” will indeed be peaceful, as long as China isn’t deliberately backed into a corner by China baiters in Japan and the US so consumed with jealousy they cannot countenance the prospect of “uppity Chinamen” successfully competing with them in the emerging global marketplace.
Fearless is what Japanese and US political leaders need to be in the face of inevitable change. As a now deceased US president once admonished: “Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.”
Fearless : : The Movie
The Official Jet Li Website