Secure Immaturity

Just a quick note that I’ll be fiddling with the look of this site over the next week or so.  The old WP Theme finally broke, and I’ve got to come up with something else.

I finally got to meet my daughter Elizabeth today and she is the most beautiful thing in the world. I love the last photo. . .she’s just like, ‘oh geez’. My favorite moment of the day was when I was telling her how many United-Arsenal games we are going to watch together and when I said Arsenal she had the most disgusted look on her face! That’s my girl!!!!!!!!!!

There are a lot of people who watch movies and swear up and down on all that is holy that they are ‘truly awesome dude’ or immensely radical man’. But I’ve seen these films and they don’t rule, rock or roll. They don’t even moderately rule. They just exist.

1. Kiss Kiss Bang Bang: No one shuts up about how amazing this movie is. Funny: sometimes. Smart: occasionally. Action-packed: nominally. Amazing: No.

2. Transformers: You can’t see anything and there is virtually no plot. The producers said, ‘I want a giant robot to get another giant robot in a headlock. Rinse and repeat for 198 minutes’. While this is, indeed, awesome. . .it is only awesome in moderation.

3. Aliens: I’ll say it: Alien is better then Aliens. I’ll continue to say it: Alien3 is better then Aliens. I’ll even go into insane territory and say it: Alien Resurrection is better then Aliens. I’m sorry: this movie is slow, unoriginal and kinda boring. Better then AVP though. But what isn’t?

4. Brazil: Okay, I get it. Terry Gilliam is really trippy. But does it mean anything? I’ve tried four times to watch this and each time I end up getting 40 winks.

5. Moulin Rouge: You don’t have to be a girl to like this. But you can’t be me if you want to love it. This movie is so dreadful but universally loved. . .I just don’t get it.

Any others? Write them in the comments section.

I love ‘Day in the Life’ films. They are so fun and unpredictable. I like the idea of making a character exist for a small, limited amount of time because, 1)the actor is forced to put an entire lifetime into the character so that you believe they exist with little or no back-story, 2)the writing has to be superb enough to make you believe this very tiny world exists and 3)if done correctly, it makes you want more which, in most cases, you can’t get. Here are my top 5 ‘Day in the Life’ films (no order).

1. Dazed and Confused.

2. Superbad: Excellent (if not raunchy) writing combined with surprisingly excellent youth actors makes for a 24 hours you’ll want to relive again and again!

3. Training Day: Though the end is sillier then a Gamera movie, the beginning, middle, and most of the end provide for a gripping and violent day in the life of LAPD narcotics officer who are on the tough sides of the street. Oscar winning performance from Denzel Washington and Oscar nominated performance from Ethan Hawke doesn’t hurt either.

4. Before Sunset: Though Before Sunrise was the start of this two-film story, Before Sunset takes place eight years after the first movie and makes connecting with the characters even harder for the actors and director because you are told very little, if anything, of what happened to the star crossed lovers after their one night of passion and love eight years previous. You fall in love with characters all over again as you try to figure out how they changed and how they stayed the same over a near decade period.

5. Halloween: An off beat choice but like Dazed and Confused, Halloween truly encapsulates the setting of the 70s and of the Halloween holiday and creates characters that, while both likable and unlikable, exist beyond the video tape/DVD and have traveled through your own world.

I thought of these real quick and there may be more but any other thoughts and picks are welcome in the comments section.

Back in college I was a wanna-be stoner. I wanted to be Jay. I wanted to be Silent Bob. And I wanted to be Slater. Because in the movie world, pothead=cool. Smoking pot never really turned out to be that cool and a night in the cells will tell you that in a cold, nasty way. But, regardless of how reality is, movie potheads are still funny. And in college, I watched Dazed and Confused to laugh and admire funny potheads. But as I trekked through my first viewing I found myself disappointed.

“Damn it. Why does this film have to be all smart and stuff. . .I want stupid stoner stuff,” I’d say as I threw up my arms in frustration. I didn’t realize then that Dazed and Confused was not made for the college pothead or even the college student of the 2000s. This was a film made for my dad. And it was a smart film made for my dad.

If you transport me eight years later to the present day, you’ll find a man not totally impressed with the pothead scene but amazingly impressed with the Dazed and Confused film. I simply love this film. . .with all my heart. I think, over time, people have wanted Dazed and Confused to be something it isn’t: a straight-up stoner comedy. And while there are elements of this in Slater, the crazy George Washington conspiracy nut pothead is never without a joint in his hand, the film is actually a love note to not the wretched 70s but the people who lived them. Richard Linklater, the director, admits that the film doesn’t glorify the 70s but simply shows it existed. . .whether he or others wanted it to.

And Dazed and Confused represents one day in the life of tortured kids living the only way they know how: by getting drunk, beating up freshmen and driving around aimlessly. My friend John says he loves this movie because it reminds him of his days in Texas. My dad enjoyed the movie because it reminded him of all the little arbitrary, life tidbits of his school days. I love the movie because, despite the time period, any young kid/adult can relate to the trials and tribulations of high school life and experience something from this movie.

Bizarrely enough, Dazed and Confused, while labeled a stoner-comedy or whatever by the general public, is actually a life changing film. Very few films truly grab you and tell the sometimes awful truth about your life. This movie is, for lack of a better word, moving with a side of hilarity and high fantasy.

The greatest power of Dazed and Confused is, however, it’s ability to think this is a documentary. The strange things about certain fictional universes is that they have a mind and time-line of their own. When I get done watching Dazed and Confused, I feel like the characters live on outside the DVD player and continue on with their lives. This is a compliment to Linklater’s direction and the amazing actors. It is no coincidence that Dazed and Confused launched many of its co-stars into either super stardom and/or steady character actor work in movies and television. Part of the fun of the film is seeing younger stars gracing the screen for the first time. Often you’ll say, ‘and there’s another one’, whilst perusing the various cast members and their stories.

Dazed and Confused is also the champion of the so-called ‘Day in the Life’ films: a film that takes place in one general 24 hour period. It is my favorite genre of film and when done right it can provide masterful results. A lot of films take place over certain periods of times ranging from a week to decades. While those films have merit, you always feel like you are getting the ‘best of’ moments of characters. ‘Day in the Life’ films force you to embrace what you can because there is nothing before or after. In a sense you are a god sent down to observe for a day. . .and that’s all you get.

In an ensemble piece, sometimes parts of the film can vary in entertainment value, but since every character is connected in some way and the film works at a break-neck pace (and strictly follows the ‘Day in the Life’ format) any parts that lag are quickly left and forgotten. But Dazed and Confused doesn’t suffer from this problem. Everything, from the characters to the production design, is flawless. I dare you to watch Halloween (made in 1979 and also a ‘Day in the Life’ film) and Dazed and Confused (released in 1993) and tell me if you can tell the difference between the two. Dazed and Confused is so authentic it defies the time barrier. This is no dress-up and play 70s film. . .this IS the 70s.

I think Dazed and Confused suffers from an image problem. I remember popping the VHS in in college and thinking how great this stoner comedy was going to be. And while my immature mind was disappointed in how ’smart’ and ‘intellectual’ it was, Dazed and Confused has come back, years later, and changed my view of life, love and happiness. Not many films of any design can do that.

And so it began. . .and so it ended. And I feel. . .nothing. I just invested a few months into re-watching the epic television show Babylon 5. I have now watched the series three times in its entirety. I watched it from beginning to end when I was a freshman in high school (1998) eventually catching up to Season 5 as it was live on TNT. Watching that and DS9 was like science-fiction heaven back then.

I watched it again in college (roughly 2004/2005) and now (2009). In high school I was mesmerized. In college I was full of nostalgia but saw the flaws. Now: I am a jaded, lonely, horrible human being who can’t enjoy a god damn thing. And Babylon 5 became more an excercise then a joy. I searched desperetly for the joy and pleasure I felt the first two times. And while Babylon 5 delivered on a number of occasions, I couldn’t help but sit and watch and just be frustrated.

Brian and I discussed this one day. Brian said that the first viewing is always tricky because television had never done that style of storytelling before: a five-year plan where nearly every plot line is connected either in a short way (episode 1 relates to episode 10) or in a large way (a plot point from year one connects to year four or five). Admittedly this is addicting and stimulating. It makes every episode feel like a treat and if one storyline doesn’t quite tickle your fancy then you know further plot lines might hit the spot.

And while I had forgotten many plot points of Babylon 5 throughout the years (especially years 3 and 4 where obsessive viewing creates an overflow of image and plot) I must say I wasn’t as wrapped up in the story this time around. The common thought process in my head was ‘okay, if I get through this little arc the next one will be good’. The problem was the arcs I ‘remembered’ were good were either mediocre or had too much anticipation to them so that they let me down (my fault, I guess). I, somehow, kept this thought process going even when episode 21 (out of 22) of season 5 (’Objects at Rest’) rolled it’s credits.

There are a number of reasons, technically, this show was disappointing. One, I watched a number of the episodes on my father’s high def TV on a Blu-Ray player (which, though not a Blu-Ray disc, plays the DVDs at very high def) and it looked like a mid-day soap. The production value, under this exposure, really took away from the show. You could tell many ‘crates’ were really painted cardboard boxes and the sets were made from plywood (not futuristic metal!). It really took me out of the experience and while that may seem arbitrary, Babylon 5’s weak budget asks you to suspend disbelief. I tried. . .and failed.

Technical aspects aside (and I have no problem with the visuals. They are unique and define the show and give it a one of a kind look that cements the show in the memory banks), the story is perhaps the largest let down. Much like the current incarnation of BSG, Babylon 5 works at a break neck speed for much of its running time. You are usually so wrapped up in the goings-on that you don’t stop to take a breath. While the writing manages to take you away in this strong breeze when you look back to actually feel something or embrace the ’small’ moments you realize you have very little to draw on.

It also doesn’t help that JMS’ compact, tight narratives from season 1 and 2 start to get pretentious and arrogant in season 3 and 4 (where he took EXCLUSIVE control of the show’s writing). By the dreadful season 5, every character has a speech accompanied by grand, sweeping music that makes the whole thing seem so melodramatic. And JMS manages to provide epic build up with little or no conclusion. The Shadow War was talked about for 70 bloody episodes! But when it finally happens. . .it ends in one very pathetic six episode arc that lacked any scope or power.

And other arcs, such as the truly awful telepath arc, which consisted of suave, Fabio-esque Byron leading a group of rouge telepaths in hunger strikes and Shakespeare quoting (even worse then Trek), in season 5, just couldn’t end! The telepath arc lasts 11-13 episodes and ends in the most cliched way possible with little sympathy for the ‘rebels’ who became both annoying and unlikable. And the sad thing was it took one ‘potentially’ interesting character in its wake (Lyta).

JMS’ greatest strength, perhaps, was the tiny character arcs that built over the course of the five years (and multiple movies). The characters of Londo, G’Kar and Garibaldi are, without doubt, some of the best written characters in television history. Londo, the tragic hero/villain played by the unsung genius Peter Jurasik, is handled with care. Starting out as a buffoon, then a tyrant and later a reluctant and sorrowful statesman gets his guts ripped out despite his very honest attempts at redemption. In the end his greatest wish, to be emperor, becomes his most haunting, life-ending nightmare. To witness this transformation from the pilot movie, The Gathering, to his final appearance in In the Beginning (if you watch that second to last before the finale ‘Sleeping in Light’) is an experience to remember.

G’Kar, played by the brilliant and now deceased Andreas Katsulas, shares a similar wrinkle. Though not a buffoon, G’Kar starts out as a war monger, then a lonesome traveler and eventually a reluctant Christ figure with a tender heart. Garibaldi, played by the shockingly excellent Jerry Doyle (and I say that because he had no or little acting experience before the show) brings Garibaldi into John McClane territory (odd, since he looks like Bruce Willis) by showing an average Joe thrown into epic situations and, well, failing. Garibaldi might become the galaxy’s richest and snarkiest CEO by show’s end but he understandably quits, fails or is forced out of almost every position he has during the show’s tenure.

And these three characters represent Babylon 5’s greatest power: the ability to relate. Garibaldi, as the everyman, experiences real-life scenarios. He’s a recovering and/or on/off alcoholic. But he’s also a tortured person whose loyalty is used against him (the storyline where Bester fucks up his brain and makes him betray Sheridan is heart wrenching) and sometimes costs him friendships (though Sheridan and Garibaldi make amends, they are never friends again after the ‘betrayal’). These kind of scenarios (tuned down of course: I haven’t helped set up a president of an interstellar alliance) make the show feel like it is a piece of future history.

The fact that major characters depart or die and aren’t shoehorned in in bizarre Trek-esque ways makes the show enjoyable. Unlike Spock, when someone like Marcus Cole dies or Talia Winters awakes from a sleeper-agent coma, they are GONE and you are left to mourn (or cheer) their passing. The Babylon 5 universe has consequences. . .and you can feel them.

But in the end, when I popped in ‘Sleeping in Light’ (the finale) and watched it, I felt kind of empty. In a weird way, I just expected it to keep going; B5 has that ‘lived-in’ feeling that makes you think the world exists outside of the TV. But I also felt kind of cheated. For arbitrary reasons: the show has a strange structure. After the episode ‘Objects ar Rest’ there are spin-off shows, a number of movies and numerous time shifts that detach you from the characters. If you just watched the show (and none of the extras) without a break then the final episode would still be a shock: it takes place 19 years after the penultimate episode and bases itself around a rather dubious plot line (Sheridan’s prolonged life from Lorien).

It is mainly these attempts to mine past the five year format that causes the issues. Of the four movies made (one of which (Thirdspace) takes place in the middle of season 4 but was released post season 4. . .confusing) only one is excellent (In the Beginning). Thirdspace is one of the worst science-fiction films in not just B5’s history, but in all history. River of Souls, despite the always reliable Martin Sheen, is a waste of time. And A Call to Arms is great as a pilot for a really awful show (Crusade) but is also about as intelligent as an episode of Airwolf.

The show also suffers from a massive case of sporadic quality. While the make-up and visual effects are top of the line, the already mentioned production design and directing can be all over the place. The acting, surprisingly, is the most tragic. While there are hidden geniuses in Jurasik, Katsulas and Doyle and fantastic performances from veterans Claudia Christian, Bruce Boxlietner and Stephen Furst, the rest of the acting ranges from bizarre (Michael O’Hare and Richard Biggs) to up and down (the truly mad Jeff Conaway, Andrea Thompson, Jason Carter) to bloody annoying (Bill Mumy and Mira Furlan who share all their screen-time together for double the fun) to plain awful (Patricia Tallman, a professional stunt woman and Tracy Scoggins). Often guest actors would come on an episode and act circles around the regulars, making you question the choices that were made (please note: Marshall Teague, John Vickery, Wayne Alexander, Kim Strauss, Robin Sachs and William Forward are QUALITY actors in bit but enjoyable parts). This, added on to truly horrific stand alone episodes that exist here and there, show Babylon 5′s weakness (watch the episodes called ‘TKO’, ‘Grail’ or ‘Grey 17 is Missing’. . .ouch).

If you’ve never watched the show: I recommend it for how easily it grabs you and carries you. Even with my disappointment, I watched this very quickly and fast because I was swept away by its pace and the sometimes brilliant moments. If you have watched and wanted a second look: it couldn’t hurt. But all in all I can’t say I’ll be watching this again any time soon. If my yet to be born daughter wants to make a run of it (probably not for 10-15 years) then I will gladly oblige. But for now, my visit to Babylon 5 was underwhelming and a bit disappointing.

***IF YOU DO WATCH THE SHOW FOR THE FIRST TIME***

1) Buy the soundtracks. Synthesizers are NOT dead and 2) Look in the mirror and with a Londo accent scream ‘Mr. Garibaldi!’ It will make you feel good.

I can’t help but post this video. . .it is so powerful and one of the only highlights of Season 5. Yes, the opening titles is one of the only highlights of season 5. What does that tell you:

Kara aka Smartylibrarian and Brian discuss the Watchmen movie and compare it to the book.

Download the show.

Smarty recommends: Death Note

Brian recommends: Sandman: Season of Mists, We3 and 20th Century Boys

For Will’s views on the Watchmen movie, read here.

For the first episode about Watchmen (episode 2: Watchmen), click here.

One Christmas, my parents gave me a copy of Dracula illustrated by Charles Keeping. These Frankenstein illustrations give a taste of what the illustrations felt like, but the Dracula ones were so much better. The Count looked old and appropriately creepy, and I stared at the picture of Renfield and his flies over and over again. (To this day, I hate flies.) I loved that book, and I read it and reread it.

The film adaptations of Dracula didn’t do much for me. The films cut Renfield, Mina, or Jonathan, and sometimes, they cut all three. I was solidly a fan of the book, and none of the films held up to it.

I don’t remember what spurred me to see Bram Stoker’s Dracula, but I was floored. Finally, a movie finally tried to faithfully adapt the book to the screen, and I fell in love. The Count looked like a scary old man in Transylvania. Lucy Westenra was delicate and tragic, and finally, we had a Renfield. I couldn’t stop gushing about this movie, but please forgive me, I was only 13. I was just happy to see something that looked like the Dracula that I knew.

I went back to have a look at Bram Stoker’s Dracula for the first time in years, and well… it’s OK. Most people complain about Keanu Reeves, and he’s not very good. But, Keanu isn’t the real weak link in the movie. After the first third of the the story, Jonathan Harker mostly serves as a exposition, and he’s not really that essential.

As far as the actors go, Winona Ryder’s performance harms Dracula more than Reeves. Her Mina doesn’t have any fire, and her accent fades in and out strangely. She pales next to the other actors losing the character’s strength in the process.

Anthony Hopkins’ Van Helsing presents a more complicated problem. He doesn’t express any of the kindly charm that Stoker’s Van Helsing has. Hopkins’ Van Helsing does not seem like a rational man who has come to the conclusion that monsters walk the Earth. He only embodies a sinister, anti-feminist religion. (Joe Hill taps into for his most excellent story Abraham’s Boys.)

Aside from that, The film loses the thread of the novel’s most important theme. In Dracula, nature works as force of corruption and evil, and the Carpathians some of the attractive vistas should look so beautiful. The heroes conquer Dracula through the power of civilization and Anglicanism, and Coppola’s England is just a little too real and a little too sinister. Dr. Seward’s asylum illustrates the films problems the case for it. The hospital is just too Bedlam for it, and John Seward is not enough of a rational scientist. The film emphasizes his weaknesses at the cost of the his basic rationality.

The themes are certainly contained in the book, but the problems romanticize Dracula. He’s not longer a monster; he’s a misunderstood hero from Transylvanian legend. The origin undercuts Dracula’s unexplainable evil by, well, explaining it.

Bram Stoker’s Dracula worth a watch for Gary Oldman, the costumes, and the complete lack of digital effects, which is somehow soothing and innovative. But, the acting and the thematic choices mar the overall movie.

Alas, we come to the end of my six-column run here on Secure Immaturity. Thank you Wil and Brian for the opportunity to write something interesting under deadline. It has been both a fantastic exercise and a pleasure.

As threatened in earlier columns, today we shall discuss interactive fiction. And by “discuss”, I mean we’re going to actually do it. Interactive fiction is essentially participating in the process of telling a story rather than reading a finished one. Continue Reading »

Hey y’all. Been a tiny, weeny while but here is a brand new episode to kick off year 2! The title kind of says it all!

• http://media.libsyn.com/media/secureimmaturity/Episode_27.m4a