So, after my massive missive on Star Trek and why the series matters to me – it seemed only right to follow it up with an elephantine examination of Star Trek Into Darkness. (Tired of the alliteration yet? Okay, I’ll stop now).
The short version? I fucking loved it. I enjoyed myself more than I have going to the movies in quite a few years, and I’m now excited to see a third film.
The long version? Well, it’s spoiler time here, so steel yourself for a braindump after the break…
“You can whistle really loud, you know that?”
– James T. Kirk, “Star Trek” (2009)
In two days, I will be going into the cinema (a rare occurrence, as I can’t stand the bloody places despite how much I love film) to watch the new Star Trek movie – “Star Trek Into Darkness”. It’s the sequel to one of my most hated films of 2009 – one which had me leaving the cinema just about fuming, confused, and trying to figure out if my fellow film-goers felt similarly… or if I should avoid making their night bad by venting.
Fortunately, most of the folks I saw it with seemed to feel at least slightly let down as well, and so some “what the hell was that?” ranting did indeed take place. It didn’t stop there, either. I’m that annoying prat who takes any opportunity to get my angry on, referring to it as a Star Wars movie in jest (making Abrams’ being picked to direct Star Wars 7 all the more amusing).
Yep. It’s a film so bad I bought it on blu-ray, and have re-watched probably five times since.
Wait, what?
So, here’s the thing – I couldn’t hate the film so much if I didn’t love it too. Strong feelings go both ways.
So, I admit – Star Trek isn’t a bad movie. Certainly not an awful one. In fact, it does (seemingly) exactly what it set out to do, has some truly wonderful set pieces, fantastic sound design, great casting & performances. It’s nothing short of a film miracle watching great actors like Karl Urban, Simon Pegg and Zachary Quinto not only inhabit, or even just own, but re-invent roles that had previously been the exclusive domain of their original cast.
So why do I have such strong feelings about it? Like my bemused brother and other keep pointing out – it’s a fun movie. Nothing more. It’s not like the last few Star Trek movies before it were great, so isn’t it a step forwards one way or another?
Well, I think it’s because of the name Star Trek, and because of how important Star Trek (the TV series’) is to me. So, I figured it’s time I exorcise some demons and go through exactly what Star Trek has meant to me and done for me, and why I feel so passionately about its future and current state.
I have, for various reasons, found myself watching an abnormal number of superhero films of late. In the past few months, there’s been The Dark Knight Rises, Captain America, Thor, The Avengers, The Amazing Spider-Man and, of course, Lincoln.
Thing is… I don’t really like superhero films. They reduce morality and ethics to incredibly simple, black & white concepts of ‘Good’ and ‘Evil’.
So which films I like the most out of these kinds of lists… well, it’s a pretty poor question.
Until now.
I didn’t see a film that was great, perfect, wonderful, intense, powerful, believable or, really, even all that fantastic. But I did see a film which made me re-consider most of these opinions.
Five years ago, a friend of mine wrote a ranty email. It always stuck in my head, and wished he’d blogged about it instead. Unfortunately, he doesn’t have a blog (thought he should) so I’m posting it now.
Just to re-iterate – this is the work of someone awesome who is NOT me.
Welcome to the world of the men’s room.
======================================================================
I have a rant, and it’s not a pleasant one. (It’s about bodily functions and restrooms, so if you’re not interested – look away now!)
I hate pee-shy people. The mofos stand in cubicles and pee whilst there’s perfectly good urinals to be used. I’ve never really asked WHY these people do this, but I can assume because they’re afraid some faggot will look at their penis whilst peeing or they have an embarrassingly small penis. Either way, they seem to have this perverted thought that whilst peeing, everyone else must be looking at their love muscle. I can’t speak for you gents, but I deliberately avoid looking anywhere NEAR down that area whilst in a common bathroom, and I’m fairly sure everyone else is the same.
So what the fuck am I meant to do whilst they’re happily peeing away and I’ve got genesis brewing downstairs? Shit in the urinal? I bet these are the same people who line the toilet seat with little squares of paper because they know what others (ie – themselves) do to those toilet seats whilst standing up. Then the ground gets littered with damp toilet paper which is just fucking gross.
And don’t get me started on cubicle etiquette. If there are three cubicles, let’s call them stall 1 2 and 3, and someone is in stall 1, and stall 2 and 3 are available, then you do NOT got into stall 2, you go into stall 3. You want as much distance between you as possible. And it should be damned illegal to have a common bathroom without loud music. The sound of passing curries is not enjoyable. I’d really rather listen to Mariah Carey. Music is necessary to get the business done, otherwise you can end up with a 2-stall stalemate where both of you are “waiting” for the other one to leave so you can crank up the thunderbox.
Who are these mother fuckers who use paper towel to open the door, and then they LEAVE the paper towel in the door handle? If you’re that frightened of germs and must use paper towel in the door, use it to open the door, prop the door with your foot, and put the fucking paper towel in the bin! Jesus H Christ! Were you people born in dumpsters?! Obviously these people know they are disgusting individuals, because I’ve never actually seen someone leave paper in the door handle before, but I’ve come across many long after the perpetrator has left the scene of the crime.
Restroom. Hah! I don’t find anything restful about them at all – all I find is a bunch of selfish homophobic mental cases which cause me more grief than rest.
That is all.
Good bye.
Throughout adult life, there are many dark and terrifying tasks you must perform which would never have entered even your worst nightmares as a teenager or young child. The kind of tasks your parents would threaten you with if you were really naughty.
If you’d come home late, you might get grounded. If you don’t do your homework or get bad grades, maybe even a curfew or a cut in your allowance. Breaking something of your parents? They might make you clean the toilet! Or clean up after tea.
But if you’re really naughty – and I mean caught-firing-the-neighbour’s-cat-out-of-a-home-made-canon naughty – it’s time for a serious punishment. One so horrible it’d bring tears to the eyes of even the most hardened US Navy SEAL or Delta Force veteran.
I am, of course, talking about cleaning the kitchen.
Last year, I reviewed (in anything from a sentence to a paragraph) every film I watched for the first time. This year… I didn’t. However, instead I decided to do something different…
I’m 30 years old now. I’ve been making indie films for 6 years, writing for about 12, making video games for 6 months and pretending I know more than I do about all these things (and more) since I was born.
As a result of these things, I’ve gotten used to being asked for my opinions on things (and often asked to shut up shortly there-after once the individual I’m talking to realises their mistake).
Over the past year or so (yes, I’m a slow learner apparently), I’ve begun to realise the danger of opinions on subjective things like artworks, music, films or the attractiveness of someone else’s nose. With that in mind, I’ve slowly tried to work up a series of general rules for espousing opinions.
Of course, I don’t always obey these at all, but at least they give me reason to feel a bit guilty periodically and try to avoid it the next time I’m about to embarrass myself or others.
So, here we go:
Rohan’s List of Things to Consider Before Opening Your Mouth
Originally written on the 11th of November, 2012.
“Perhaps few authors are wholly original as far as their plots are concerned; indeed, Shakespeare invented almost nothing, while Chaucer borrowed from both the living and the dead. And to come down to a somewhat different plane, the present writer is even more derivative, since for these books he has in general kept most doggedly to recorded actions, nourishing his fancy with log-books, dispatches, letters, memoirs, and contemporary reports. But general appropriate is not quite the same thing as downright plagiary, and in passing it must be confessed that the description of a storm’s first aspect on p. 308 is taken straight from William Hickey, whose words did not seem capable of improvement.
If these tales are to continue, however, it is clear that the writer will soon have originality thrust upon him, for he is running short of history.”
– Patrick O’Brian, excerpt from his “Author’s Note” prefacing his 1984 novel “The Far Side of the World”
I remember people saying that you lose your imagination as an adult, and I never believed it – I still don’t. I’m more imaginative and creative now than I have been at any point in my life, but by the same token I find myself no longer able to enjoy things quite so frequently.
The most notable shift for me is that in the past decade I have become almost incapable of enjoying fantasy.
When Lord of the Rings was coming out yearly, I became quite into it. I still find myself enjoying those films. But newer things, or fantasy video games… I can’t take them seriously.
Instead I find myself gravitating towards serious dramatic work like The Wire or movies like Syriana, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy or Michael Clayton.
I’m still fine with things that verge on parody, but I find myself all but incapable of taking things very seriously. I enjoyed Batman Begins and The Dark Knight, but I’ve been rather stumped lately because I keep finding myself unable to shake this weird feeling that, “Uhm… do I really want to see a film about a dude who dresses like a bat and engages in some utterly implausible vigilante behaviour?”
For the next little while I’ve decided to write a series of short blogs about specific films or ideas in films that I find compelling. I will write these every week if I can manage it. So here is the first in the series.
Fred Zinnemann’s film of The Day Of The Jackal
Down here in my Doom Fortress under the ice in Antarctica (well, technically the main island of Kerguelen, but who’s counting, right?) my mad scientist teams have discovered many things. Cold Fusion (that’s a joke – get it?), the cure for the common cold, and a nasty strain of wandering-bowel syndrome which we have infected every politician in Canberra with as part of a secret ploy to take over the world we haven’t done this at all and you can’t prove we have.
We have also discovered, using hard scientific methodology, that The Day of the Jackal (1973) is one of the best movies ever made.
It’s too complicated to go into much detail here, but if you’re interested in our proof please read the paper “Using Quantum Physics To Prove That Day Of The Jackal Is Fucking Awesome” which will be published soon in all evil scientific journals. In short, though, here are the reasons:
Having proven this to you all with this incredible list (and the before-mentioned scientific paper) I will now get to my point:
Somebody should remake The Day Of The Jackal, set in modern day.
“But, wait a minute!” I hear some of you figuratively yelling. “Somebody already did that, back in 1997 with Bruce Willis!”
The Day Of The Jackal has provably some of the best scenes ever committed to celluloid. Also, a scene where a car chase is unfortunately undercranked.
To which my reply is “Fuck off, you cunt, that’s not a remake, that’s scrapings from a Hollywood producer’s bowels the likes of which made Fred Zinnemann’s last earthly actions be to threaten legal action if they didn’t disassociate their film with his 1973 masterpiece. I’m talking about a proper remake.”
Now, most film nuts lament remakes. We hate them. We fill our faces with hipster-disgust and woe when the name is mentioned, but the simple fact is this: no film is perfect, and every film is a product of its time.
This means that when you watch a film, you can learn a great deal about the filmmakers and the era s/he worked and lived in.
For this reason, remakes can sometimes be fascinating. Just look at the difference between the 1970s Solaris and the 2000s Solaris. One is always going to be greater than another, and your mileage may vary, but seeing the way different emphasis was placed on different parts of the story and how different creative decisions are made by the new filmmakers can be a fascinating thing.
After all, we love plays being put on over and over, so why not have a dozen re-tellings of our favourite movies? Imagine if Star Wars was remade, with a large budget, every ten years by a different director.
In 1987 we’d have the Tony Scott version.
In 1997 we’d have the first version with CG, done by Curtis Hanson.
In 2007 we’d have seen a darker remake done by Christopher Nolan.
In 2017, we’d be seeing a socially-conscious re-telling from the Empire’s perspective by Neil Blomkamp.
Now, it may not be a great idea, but it’s a fascinating discussion to have anyway.
So, why remake Day of the Jackal, especially if, as my scientists have proven, it’s so very nearly perfect?
Simple: because it’s something which would entirely change given the context.
The Day Of The Jackal is a movie about a failed attempt (indeed, knowing he fails from the start makes the story more fascinating) on the life of Charles de Gaulle, and a hugely accurate and authentic portrayal of the failings of that system. Re-make it being about, say, a failed attempt on the life of George W Bush in 2007, and you’d be telling a wildly different story.
Imagine this scene in the remake, in which The Jackal informs high up al-Qaeda or hard-right Christian groups in the US (there’s an interesting idea in itself) that their efforts at terrorism have queered the pitch so badly that they simply must employ a professional – in this case, him.
How would we get into the country? How would he get his weapon in? What technique would he use? Bush would be unlikely to make the kind of arrogant in-the-open speaking engagements that de Gaulle did, so how to get at him?
This new film would be a fascinating look at things such as TSA, post-9/11 paranoia and the political situation in the US just before the 2008 banking crash.
When remade again years later, it might be a whole new story involving the government regulation of social networks, the ethics of chipping your population and how the President is no longer the real head of state. Who knows?
Point is that while some movies can be remade and have something new to say, I think The Day Of The Jackal wouldn’t just have something new to say – it’d be a totally different experience, just as culturally relevant now as it the original was then.
Just a pingback – I wrote a guest-blog over at Martin S Pribble’s site called “The Church That Wasn’t – #AtheistCon“, about my experiences at the Global Atheist Convention 2012.