I’m performing a menial and tedious task for the Winter Games. I am helping load buses with spectators, athletes and employees going from the city to the mountains in North Van, where there is no parking or accommodation. Once the games actually start I’m sure this job will be exciting and action-packed, but for the next three days it looks like I’ll be standing around on the streets for strangers for upwards of ten hours with nothing to do.

In one particularly boring stretch of time, a member of our group told a story about a hate crime that happened last summer on the Island. While telling the story he used hand gestures, as story tellers often do. A slow, fake punch perhaps would have been employed, given that he was relaying a tale of violence.

Not five minutes later we were approached by a fake-tanned white guy dressed like Eminem, with crazy eyes (you know the kind, Tom Cruise has them), who got extremely close to the Story Teller and started screaming at him. He called him a thug for “re-enacting what you did to somebody”, throwing around weird pseudo-gangster postures, and claiming that he had been videotaping the “re-enactment” from a promenade.

Crazy Eyes was the full package. He had about four puffy vests on, but his legs and arms were bare, and he had a sideways cap and lots and lots of bling. He was positively orange from self-tanning, and when he first started talking I honestly thought he was doing some kind of street theatre. I thought he would go on his rant, perhaps actually start to rap, and then give us flyers to his show. Unfortunately Crazy Eyes was for real. He said that normally he wouldn’t even approach somebody like the Story Teller (who I guess I should mention is black), but since the Story Teller was wearing a Games uniform, Crazy Eyes knew he wouldn’t be able to retaliate.

Anyways he went off eventually, screaming about how he has this video and he’s going to show the world.

It was a weird first day. But I am used to sadly unloved and unwell people wandering around in Lotus Land, and I have a feeling this is going to be bringing them out in droves.

Perhaps something beautiful will happen tomorrow.

Later I tried to buy Oregon Trail on my phone, but it wouldn’t work, and I’m pretty sure I still got charged. :-S

What’s it About?
A former CIA agent cleans up the streets and uncovers a conspiracy in this parody of 1970s blaxploitation films.

What’s It’s Bechdel Test Score?
1/3 – failure.

What About Minorities?
A.
Being a parody of blaxploitation films, the protagonist and almost all the other characters are minorities. Everybody’s stereotyped, but it’s all in good fun.

So…

Black Dynamite is certainly the funniest film I’ve seen so far in 2010, and it’s probably the funniest film I’ve seen in 2009 as well. My face hurt from smiling so much during the movie. Almost every single line was a joke – either in the context of the story, or as part of the parody. When there wasn’t a dialogue joke there was some visual gag, and the whole thing was so un-showy and un-self-conscious and it just got it right.

I had the good fortune to be able to see Black Dynamite as part of a Black History in Film Festival event at the Rio Theatre in Vancouver. I say good fortune because Black Dynamite never got a wide released in Canada, and from my understanding it didn’t reach many places in the United States. It did the festival circuit last year to great acclaim, even getting three stars from Roger Ebert. Yet, it as hard to find a distributor to send this to Canada because it is believed that there aren’t enough black people in Canada to see these movies, and that nobody else would be interested. There might not be as big a black community in Western Canada than in parts of the States, but there is certainly a large black community out East, especially Toronto. I really don’t think it would’ve sunk them to send a print to Ontario.

Anyways, this movie is crazy funny. The plot is pretty predictable, and completely over the top, and I didn’t care that much for the final twist in the conspiracy. But Black Dynamite himself is such an archetypal hero in such a high stakes, out of control situation that you can’t help but feel a little bit of hero worship. It speaks to that very simplistic side of us that wants someone big and strong and uncompromising to just sort all this shit out.

My favourite aspect of the film was all the meta film jokes and all the things that made this a parody of blaxploitation. There is a minor character whose actor reads out his action lines with his dialogue. There are a million strategically placed on-purpose continuity errors. The lyrics of the music spell out what’s happening on screen. The blue-screen driving scene is fantastic and hilarious. I haven’t actually laughed out loud at a movie that much in a very long time.

And it’s so lovingly done. I’m by no means an expert on blaxploitation films, but it seems like they came at a time where black representation on film was sketchy to nil, and here were these films that actually addressed problems black communities were having at the time that weren’t being addressed by mainstream films. They had charismatic archetypal heroes that people really needed in their own context, more so than they needed, say, Han Solo. So these movies were perhaps low budget and poorly made, they satisfied a need. It’s so easy to just laugh at them now, but I think Black Dynamite laughs at them in a very loving, gracious way.

While I’m sure there are reasons to dislike this movie, it’s just too fun and funny to worry about those. It delivers exactly what it promises, has some pretty great performances (it’s difficult to act badly on purpose), and never drags or gets too stupid. (I mean, it gets pretty stupid sometimes, but it’s in a good range.)

It’s obviously not for everybody. It is definitely not a great example of something with good female characters, but I can let that slide given what it’s a parody of. I still enjoyed it, a lot more than some other movies in the past few months. I only had a passing familiarity with blaxploitation – mostly from MadTV sketches – but I think if somebody had no familiarity with the genre, or actively disliked the genre, they probably wouldn’t get very much out of this movie.

For everyone else though, I’d totally recommend it. Here’s hoping you can get the DVD easily!

What’s Its Bechdel Test Score?
1/3. There are two woman characters but they are USELESS. If you want to see a film that respects women, or is even halfway realistic in its portrayal of women, do not see this movie. It also has one of the most egregious and blatant fridging of a woman I’ve ever seen in my life.

What About Minorities?

D. The world is fleshed out with a few minorities in the background, and there are one or two small speaking minority roles, but it is still a majority (and not believably) white world.

It’s ten years since vampires took over the world and turned most of the human population, totally transforming society.

Ethan Hawke plays a vampire named Edward (lol), who works for a pharmaceutical company that farms blood from humans. The humans are cattle stock owned by other companies and hunted by the military. The corporation is also trying to create a synthetic blood to alleviate/profit from the worldwide blood shortage as the humans have almost been hunted to extinction. Edward is a hematologist and is in charge of the synthetic blood program.

Edward has also, despite being a vampire for ten years, recently turned vegan gone off human blood. He feels sympathy for the human chattel and is generally morose and depressed about his place in the world. Naturally, the story lies in Edward teaming up with renegade humans humans to find a way to end vampire dependence on human blood.

Friends, as cheesy as this may sound, this movie is pretty deep. It’s prescient, what with food shortages around the world getting worse and supply lines getting all gummed up in recent years, ie, numerous food recalls, the rising cost of rice, etc. Set ten years in the future, it’s the story of the very real possibility of the West running out of necessary supplies, this West just happens to be populated by vampires.

The future vampire world is set up really well. The first few minutes show what happened to the world perfectly, without any words at all. The movie uses visual techniques entirely, not relying on any captions (except for news crawls), or narration. It’s smart and non-condescending. There is a really nice, gloomy film noir quality to the vampire world that I was digging, and I could live in that world forever – except for the vampires of course.

One of my favourite parts was an Uncle Sam sign in a train station saying “Capture Humans”, as it’s now one’s duty to society to report any errant humans and not sympathize with them. Later when the blood really starts to run out and the vampires are rioting, the sign is defaced to read “Captured all Humans, Now What?” What will we do when all the far away things we rely on run out?

So humans are hunted down by the military, who are apparently employed by private companies that own human “stock”. Edward, working with such stock, has existential angst about it, but his younger brother is a soldier who tracks down humans for a living.

The relationship between Edward and his brother was the core relationship in the movie, and I was so refreshed by this. The first human Edward meets is a young woman, and they become allies, but there is no trite romance or sexy angst. This is a movie about vampires, friends, not angsty pale emo saps in love. The strong emotional core of this antagonistic relationship Edward had with his brother, and all the twists and betrayals therein, was a really strong part of the film.

Edward’s boss is played by Sam Neill, who is probably the sexiest evil vampire I’ve ever seen. Twilighters can eat their hearts out.

It’s also pretty scary, and incredibly violent, and pretty damn good.

HOWEVER

Some of the film falls into a kind of bland cheesiness. Ethan Hawke isn’t giving the best performance of his life, and when Willem Dafoe showed up the movie kind of lost credibility for me. Dafoe is just so hammy and ridiculous in this. And it’s not even just his performance, the whole character design is kind of stupid. He was my least favourite part. The best performance was from Sam Neill, for sure. He was great.

The special effects left something to be desired – however, given that this was a fairly low-budget film (by that I mean, it’s not a blockbuster), it was a good effort. The makeup on the vampires and the bat-people was pretty fantastic, and the CGI elements of the city was really good. And of course, all the blood was great. But the effects when one of the vampires was exploding in the sun, for instance, were when the budget really showed.

The worst part, however, were the construction of the female characters. This is a very egregious example of what NOT to do with women in film. Totally useless. They both just existed to be plot points, and they didn’t even have strong or interesting personalities to make up for it.

And one of them starts out so strong! As the first human Edward meets, this woman sticks a crossbow in his face and is totally badass. From thereon out she’s just along for the ride, not even being particularly compelling, and in the third act is a damsel in distress about three times. Making her Edward’s love interest wouldn’t have made anything better.

And the other one! Has about ten minutes of screen time and is killed, really violently, just to teach some male characters a lesson.

The novelty and originality of this movie was enough to make me like it, but the invisibility of women as actual people was really grating. Sometimes it’s easier to ignore in a movie than others, but it almost ruined this movie for me.

I would possibly see a sequel to this movie but I would expect the woman character to be more active. My expectations would probably not be met.

What’s it About?
The most famous detective in English literature solves crimes and uncovers a conspiracy in 1890s London.

What’s It’s Bechdel Test Score?
1/3, which is incredibly good for Guy Ritchie films. Irene Adler is awesome, but neither of these things prevents the movie from failing this test spectacularly.

What About Minorities?
Since this takes place in 1890s London and I have no idea how many non-white people were living at the time, I’m going to give it the benefit of the doubt. There is an Irish “gypsy woman” but it didn’t come across as offensive to me or anything.

I’ve always more or less loved Guy Ritchie movies. I don’t think I’ve ever been disappointed by one that I saw. I didn’t see Revolver or Swept Away for that very reason. But man, Snatch and RockNRolla are definitely among my favourite films.

So I was very excited for Sherlock Holmes, and being excited about a movie is a dangerous place to be in. I usually try to avoid trailers and previews and reading reviews before seeing a movie to keep my expectations low or non-existent, which is a pretty good rule. But I have a feeling I would’ve loved this movie anyway.

It was awesome!

It is super fun, and gritty, and everything that makes Guy Ritchie movies great, with an added level of family-friendliness, believe it or not.

I went with my mother, who is a gigantic Sherlock Holmes fans, and she said it was very faithful to the original works. By taking the original short stories and novels as source and ignoring the thousands of hours of other productions, Ritchie and the writers created an honest, true Sherlock Holmes character that felt new and fresh to the world. They did a fantastic job with him, and Robert Downey Jr is great in that role. I was as skeptical as anyone else – why cast an American? – but he did a really fantastic job.

The structure of the movie is fantastic, the script is very strong and sound. And with three screenwriters (making a script based off a story with two entirely different writers), that is no easy feat. There is definitely an added benefit to working with old, beloved characters that are part of the modern mythology, but I was still really shocked when I saw the script had three different re-writers. Usually that’s a bad sign. Here it worked really well.

Guy Ritchie should definitely work on other people’s scripts more often – he brought his “cool”, fast-talking sensibility to a broader story than he usually works on. I just really can’t sum it up more than this. I loved his take on Sherlock Holmes.

For one thing, his image of historical London was real, far more realistic than previous incarnations of Sherlock Holmes I would watch on TV with my mom. It was filthy, there was dirt under everyone’s nails, people looked kind of sweaty under their elaborate layers of clothing, the sun glinted through smog. It was awesome, and I kind of want to go there and drink gin and get into fights or something. Showing Sherlock Holmes boxing for fun and getting into fights (instead of just referring to it off-screen like in many of the old movies) showed a sort of desperate, broken side of him. He was infinitely likeable, and charming, and real, and I just loved him.

I loved Watson too. Jude Law’s performance was great – though not as great as RDJ, although perhaps I need to watch it again to see if perhaps that is just Homes’ flashiness i’m talking about – but also the respect the character was given in the script, and the way he was complementary to Holmes instead of just supporting. They can only be whole together, which is one of the reasons Holmes is so upset about Watson finding love when he is so broken by love.

The male friendship (or bromance as I believe it’s called these days), between Holmes and Watson was probably my favourite part of the movie. In fact, the genuine male friendships that Ritchie shows in his films is one of the things I love most about his movies. Now of course I love it when male friendships get campy and I get slash fodder, but I love it even more when they’re true. One of the reasons why I think slash (fanworks depicted homosexual relationships between male characters) is so popular, or so easy to see in a movie or tv show, is that we as a society find it hard to show genuine platonic affection between males. In many American movies, male relationships often have to be diffused by the characters making a lot of gay jokes, for instance, being all uncomfortable about hugging after a moment when they had to hug. Or, if they are action heroes, they are firm-jawed and stoic and their friendships are more antagonistic than anything.

In Guy Ritchie films, the guys are more like real guys – often antagonistic, sure, but they also clearly care for each other, and when they do have to make physical contact they don’t have to pretend to be squicked out by it. They love each other, and because they are men they have difficulty telling each other that, and the fact that entire movie was basically Holmes begging Watson not to leave him but unable to do it verbally was just so honest and heart breaking and true.

I go on in this blog about how rarely women are represented in film, but I think it’s also true that men are rarely represented well or honestly. By some viewpoints I might be totally wrong about how Guy Ritchie handles it, but I just love the way he portrays male friendships and how honest it is. I think it’s hard to take people like Sherlock Homes or Doctor Watson and make them so real.

And speaking of women, while this movie fails the Bechdel Test, it’s definitely a big improvement when it comes to women being included in Guy Ritchie’s movies. They’re usually so minor, even if they are awesome (like the twins or the betting office worker in Snatch). RockNRolla has a female character who is actually a character who does stuff and is part of the plot, and Irene Adler is an improvement on that first step. Of course Ritchie didn’t invent Irene, and I wouldn’t really imagine that he’d be able to, but neither the writers or Ritchie reduced her the way other filmmakers could have. She is sexualized somewhat, but it was really not that bad, and Rachel McAdams gave her so much life that I never felt she was doing something just because the script said so.

In fact I don’t think I’ve seen a film this well cast since Star Trek.

I’m sure if I wanted to, I could see it again and think about it and find something to criticize, for sure. It was a little bit long-winded, and I’m sure if I really thought about the mystery part of it I could find some flaws. But the movie is just too damn fun to worry about stuff like that. I’m not big on mysteries as a rule, so for me, a good mystery film has to be all about character.

And Sherlock Holmes has got character in spades!

What’s It About?
A young woman in 1920s New Orleans gets turned into a frog when she kisses a “frog prince”, and has to find a way to turn back human in time to save her dream restaurant.

What’s It’s Bechdel Test Score?
100%! Tiana actually has a goal besides falling in love and talks to her mom about it.

What about Minorities?
A+! There are probably criticisms to be made about the portrayal of Cajun culture, the portrayal of Voodoo, and the lack of context about black poverty in Louisiana at the time/now, but I know precisely nothing about Cajun culture or Voodoo. And on the last point, I don’t think anybody expects Disney movies to be a history lesson. Shrug.

Where do I start with The Princess and the Frog? For a number of reasons, this movie had a lot to live up to. Disney’s return to 2D animation, and the first Princess movie in about ten years. Then, of course, was the fact that this would be Disney’s first black Princess, and no matter what, this would make it pretty historically significant and a symbol of something.

For such an ambitious movie, there were a lot of ways it would go horribly wrong. But I was incredibly impressed by it – it really exceeded any expectations I had.

Tiana, as a character, is probably the most realistic and well-rounded Disney Princess. Belle is smart, and motivated by love for her father as well, but she doesn’t have any plans besides “wanting more”. Jasmine is pretty cool, but her whole goal is to not get married.

Tiana is much more of a real human being. She has a concrete goal, something that she wants her life to be about – sure, it’s inspired by her father, but it’s still her own dream, and falling in love isn’t, at first, part of that dream. In fact, falling in love is one of the many things that gets in the way. As far as Disney Princesses go, she is the most like a real woman.

I love her struggle, the choice she has to make between love and her dream and the understanding that if you work hard enough and have a partner that supports her, you can, actually have it all. There’s no reason two people who love each other can’t support one another’s dream, and I’m really happy to see having both love and a life goal shown as an option.

And Prince Naveen! Swoon! With the exception of Aladdin, I don’t think I can remember a Disney prince that actually had any personality. Like, what did Ariel see in Prince Eric exactly? He was nice to his dog I guess.

But Naveen! He’s charming, and flawed, and through he’s loath to admit it, he wants to improve himself. I adored him. Of course they fall in love way too fast, but this movie is short, and it’s still way faster than Ariel fell in love with Eric. I was rooting for them as a couple so hard, and they are just so damn adorable together.

The best friend sidekick Charlotte! She totally charmed me. I absolutely love how a) there is a strong female friendship across class and race that is not broken up over a man b) they are both interested in the same man but there is never any jealously or bad feelings about it. I also love how a character can be somewhat spoiled and stupid but still totally loveable and good. Just because she’s rich and had everything given to her doesn’t mean she’s a bad person – her heart is completely in the right place, and it is gigantic.

The animal sidekicks are hit and miss. Ray the firefly is CUTE and AWESOME but can be a little bit much. Louis the gator is totally forgettable. I’m not quite sure why he was there, except to illustrate a theme of being yourself, if that was a theme? He wants to be human but learns that being a gator has its benefits too. I don’t know, that wasn’t very strong.

I bring up this possible theme of being true to yourself (even though the verbalized theme was more like “you need to work hard to make your dreams come true, but you should be open to fun and love as well”), because of the issue of Tiana spending most of the movie as a frog. It was a little bit of a slap in the face that the first black Disney Princess was not actually black for a great deal of the movie. She spends twice as much time as a frog than as a Princess.

But, narratively, it works – characters need to be taken out their world in order to discover their true selves, and in this case, the entire journey for both Tiana and Naveen was to find a way to become their true selves. The people they were meant to grow up to be – and in Tiana’s case she had to learn to be vulnerable and a little selfish, and Naveen had to learn to take responsibility and be a little selfless.

There are possibly better ways to tell that story than actually turning them into frogs, but taken on its own, the froggy part of the movie was still an enjoyable romp.

Before the movie came out, that was my main problem with it – that they chose The Frog Prince as the inspiration for the story. It’s still my main problem with the movie. First of all, that fairy tale has a pretty horrible moral, depending on which version you read. I remember having a version where the little girl never wanted to kiss the frog, and then never wanted to marry the prince, but had to as a punishment for her selfishness (in that, all she cared about was her golden ball). It was pretty horrific.

And then, why take a European story for the first black Princess? Are there not a plethora of African, or Caribbean, or African-American stories to tell? If you’re using Louisiana Voodoo as part of the plot, are there not other very rich stories in that culture you could tell? I don’t know, but apparently neither does Disney.

I also didn’t care for the design of Tiana when she was a frog. Naveen as a frog still had a lot of character in his face, while Tiana as a frog felt kind of… unfinished for me? There was a lot of character in her eyes and mouth (which are the most expressive parts of course), but it felt like she didn’t have any face to really convey her. If that makes sense. Tiana as a person was so pretty, in fact the design on all the human characters was so fun, that I felt a little cheated that we mostly got Tiana in frog form.

I’m of a mixed opinion about the music. In that, I didn’t really care for it either – but then, I hate Randy Newman. What an odd choice. I’m sure there would be at least one Louisiana jazz icon that would’ve loved to have taken part in this movie. Randy Newman is so bland!

Having said that, I’ve heard people complain that the songs didn’t advance the plot or reveal character and were just filler, but I definitely disagree with that. The songs were completely full of character, Mama Odie’s Gospel song was a defining character and plot moment for Tiana and Naveen, and Tiana’s “I want” song is the most solid “I want” song I can remember from a Princess. What did Belle want? “So much more than this provincial life.” What the hell does that mean? Ariel wanted “to be part of your world” defining herself by someone else.

Tiana wanted something concrete, something she actually had a plan to work towards. This is pretty ground breaking, you guys, it’s hard enough to find a female character like that anywhere, let alone kids’ films. Honestly, I suspect the people I’ve heard this complaint from just don’t like female characters that have goals besides men. Whenever a woman character actually wants something, people start saying she’s bitchy or unsympathetic. It is mind-breaking.

Anyways, I loved this movie. Go see it, it’s cute as hell and you’ll enjoy it.

What’s It About?:

This is going to be a hard logline to write.

First try: A marine employed as security for a mining company on a distant moon befriends the local native aliens and helps them in their struggle against the company.

Oh my god that is awful.

A marine stationed on a distant moon is used as an Avatar, disguised as a local native alien to gain their trust for a mining company’s nefarious purposes.
I think the “you can figure out the rest” is implied in that?

What’s it’s Bechdel Test Score?:
2/3 I think… there are some pretty cool female characters, but I’m trying to remember if any of them said more than two or three sentences to each other, and wondering if two or three sentences counts.

Minorities:
Oh god.
There is only Michelle Rodriguez (who is pretty cool in this) and a few backgrounders among the humans. It seems all the other minority cast members were playing the natives of the moon Pandora, the Na’vi. Which makes sense, I guess.
That isn’t really the issue though.
So, um, B+ for having minority actors, F for racism in the story?

I actually had no expectations in mind when I went to see this movie, but now I am chock full of things to say.

Can I get the obvious stuff out the way first? My Point A will be that this movie is pretty racist, my point B is that James Cameron needs a writing partner.  If you are the type of person who doesn’t want to read about the race stuff, skim along and I’ll put big font in when I’m talking about the regular movie stuff.

SO! Point A.

Wow, this movie turned out to be pretty racist! I was actually kind of okay with what was happening, giving the film the benefit of the doubt that something would happen differently, when we slammed into the third act and…

Okay, well. This isn’t really a spoiler because if you’ve ever seen Dances with Wolves or Fern Gully then you already know this story, and even if you haven’t seen those movies, you still know this story since it’s part of our western cultural narrative/cultural lie. But if you are really paranoid about it, just skip this paragraph.  In this particular manifestation of Noble White Man Saves Savages He Happens To Be Oppressing there is basically this dragon-type creature, and once every few generations, a particular Na’vi can tame this dragon in order to unite the tribes. The last time this happened was five generations ago, and it’s only happened five times in all of Na’vi cultural memory. Wow, whoever tames this dragon has got to be a pretty fantastic Na’vi, like, the best Na’vi ever. We’re talking like Na’vi Messiah territory, the Na’vi chosen one. OH! It’s some stupid white guy who had never even heard of these people before he came on this mission. And he figured it out after only hanging with the Na’vi for a couple of months. Man, this culture is so easy to figure out! Too bad those stupid Na’vi couldn’t even save themselves. Good thing a jarhead white guy, who is pretty stupid by earth standards, was there to show them how it’s done!

CUSS!

Why do we keep telling this story? The story of an oppressor culture bearing down on another culture, and one enlightened, (sometimes also downtrodden in his own way) soul taking compassion on the poor oppressed culture, and showing them not only how to be better at their own culture, but how to empower themselves? It’s a bullshit story. Sure, there are allies, historically there have been people who have switched sides. There are also scores more actual oppressed people empowering themselves. We just almost never get to hear that story.

The old story of noble white man helping out the savages and being a better native than the natives is part of our narrative consciousness because it’s one of the lies that allows our culture to continue. We can watch stuff like Dances with Wolves and think, wow, what a terrible tragedy happened in the past. I’m so glad we moved on. That one guy sure was enlightened for his time, how great that what he thinks is now the default. That sentiment is only true if the oppression is no longer happening, and in the case of Native Americans, I hate to break it to ya, but that oppression is definitely ongoing.

And even if it weren’t actively happening, in the case of disproportionate number of NA women who are murdered then non-NA women, or the disproportionate number of NA people who are homeless, etc etc, there is still a legacy of genocide and abuse from the residential/industrial schools. If your parents were in residential school and were beaten for speaking their own language (and worse), and now have an extremely valid distrust of public schooling and aren’t particularly inclined to support you in your education, that has a profound effect on your life. If your grandparents or great grand parents witnessed genocide, that still effects you. These things just don’t go away in one or two or three generations. Stories like that in Avatar just make it easier for us to brush it all under the rug. Oh we’re still capable of causing these awful things, but we’re also capable of helping the Other in their struggle against Us, by… what, teaching them to be more like us? Showing them how to be better Them because we instinctively just know?

And it’s disingenuous to say there is no parallel between the Na’vi and anybody on Earth. There are obviously influences from various aboriginal cultures in the design of the Na’vi – the most pruriently titillating influences, anyway. I can’t get too worked up about that, because nothing is created in a vacuum, there is no made up culture that doesn’t look somewhat like a culture that already exists. But it’s clear – the Na’vi are noble natives. James Cameron wanted to make a movie about natives whose land and culture was being encroached upon by white humans, and his solution for these natives was… to give them a white hero.

Rawles over at livejournal sums it up best: The movie needed to either tell the Na’vi’s story and have it actually be about them or not tell it at all. But, as ever, the choice they made was to instead co-opt that story and make the marginalized people whose story it actually is just a backdrop/accent to the story of a privileged person.

I don’t even want to get into the whole crap about his being reborn into a new body because obviously the body that was in a wheelchair was useless. Christ on a cracker.

One of these days I really just want a movie where the natives fight back and stand their own and don’t need help from some dipshit white guy. Where the empowerment of these natives doesn’t come at the cost of fetishizing them (and their ~*magical connection to nature*~), or making them a backdrop to the journey of the white character. When will we get the actual stories of the oppressed instead of the noble people helping the oppressed? In terms of science fiction, or stories where the natives are aliens, the only thing I can think of is the backstory of the Oddworld video games. Which are great.

SO! Now that that unpleasantness is out of the way, let’s talk about Point B.

This movie could’ve easily been about 45 minutes shorter. In the very beginning, there is this big monologue giving backstory that was totally unnecessary. One of the first things Sully (Sam Worthington), our hero, says, is something like “I can’t believe I’ve been in cryo for nine years” as you see him get out of his deep sleep on the spaceship. About five seconds later someone else says “you’ve been asleep for nine years.”

Christ, I thought. Is the entire movie going to be like this? A very basic tenement of screenwriting is that if you are showing something, or having a character say something, and also saying it in voiceover – then you don’t need the voiceover. Now of course he was speaking into a video log, but really – that was just a glorified device to have voiceover. We didn’t need that much constant recapping.

And for the first twenty minutes or so it continues on like this. The first few minutes Sully goes on about how his brother died, and he was asked to replace his brother on the mission. Okay, fair enough. After that, every time someone mentioned his dead brother – which was about four times – made that opening monologue redundant. How much more emotionally resonant it would’ve been if the first time we heard about it was when Sigourney Weaver’s character threw it in his face. How little respect Sully was given by James Cameron in revealing his entire emotional weakness right away, like he is not a real person at all who has any reason to hide these things.

Those are exhibits A and B in the case of James Cameron Needs a Writing Partner. There are more but they are small examples and I’ve forgotten most of them already.

A lot of the dialogue in this movie is fairly mediocre, but not exactly bad. But Sigourney Weaver and Zoe Saldana were acting their faces off, and a great performance can mask bad dialogue. Giovanni Ribisi also plays a really great bad guy, and I’d love to see him in more roles like that.

Zoe Saldana is actually so good in this it makes me feel bad that this movie is such racist garbage. She, and her awesome character, deserved better.

The supporting characters were all pretty varied and did what they needed to do – the ones I was supposed to think were likeable and cute I thought were likeable and cute, the ones I was supposed to hate I hated. Zoe Saldana’s character has a betrothed who is not treated with very much respect, so that kind of sucked, but who’s counting what sucks at this point.

So what IS worth watching in this movie, besides some stellar performances on the parts of Ms Sigourney and Saldana?

Well, you probably already know. Blah blah this movie looks gorgeous, the special effects are great. And they are. Nobody is disputing that. I totally want to live on Pandora. I could totally watch just, you know, scenes of Pandora constantly. I want to see more of that world.

I saw it in 3D and I felt I missed out on this “groundbreaking new method of filmmaking” that was apparently used because the 3D was so distracting. So if you still must see this movie, I’d recommend seeing it in 2D. The 3D adds nothing to it.

The CGI however, was pretty great – I was actually happier with the CGI scenes than the live action scenes, I wanted to stay in CGI land. It was amazing how much the Na’vi looked like the human actor who was portraying them, without falling into the Uncanny Valley. However, they still don’t look necessarily like convincing aliens – they look like cartoons. Gorgeous cartoons, but cartoons nonetheless.

I really can’t get over how beautiful Pandora is and how great the effects are. Honestly the only thing worth seeing about the movie is the special effects, which is a shame. There is absolutely no reason these fantastic special effects couldn’t have been used on a better story, actually groundbreaking story. A beautiful looking movie does not make a beautiful movie. It’s all just window dressing. But, hopefully this technique James Cameron has apparently invented will be used on better stories in the future.

Having said all that, I didn’t hate this movie? I wasn’t bored, I wasn’t so offended I couldn’t enjoy parts of it… but it really isn’t a good movie. I’m giving it a B- because I didn’t actually hate it, but I’m kind of ambivalent about it. I think James Cameron was the right guy to create this visual world, but not the right guy to tell this story. The movie, as it is, shouldn’t have existed. It could’ve been so much better.

I am somewhat gratified that a google image search for “Avatar” brings up mostly A:TLA pictures. But Christ, the story about THAT fail of a movie is a story for another day.

What’s It About?
A young man living in purgatory after his suicide goes on a road trip to find the soul of his girlfriend in life.

What’s it’s Bechdel Test Score?
1/3 – F!!!

What About Minorities?
Another F! There are virtually no POC in purgatory, which I could possibly buy if there had been any hand-waving about the world: ie, perhaps most of the suicides were white and atheist, or POC were less likely to commit suicide because of culture or religion or something? I don’t know. I imagine that they were geographically linked – this particular part of purgatory was the United States of purgatory, but I just think it was a little dishonest that all of the suicides in the United States were white. There was a little joke about an Arab taxi driver, and one of the characters mentioning that he hadn’t met any Arabs since coming to Purgatory, so the taxi driver must’ve been a suicide bomber.

And then I was pretty insulted by the character Nanuk. More under the cut.

I actually saw most of this movie back when I was still at university, when it was doing the festivals and I was working at a festival cinema in Edinburgh. I must have been a different person then, because I loved what I saw. I was probably (actually, I was definitely) some pretentious emo kid who was super in love with her own unhappiness. That’s why I liked this movie so much.

Watching it again a few years later, after doing some serious growing up? This movie was so disappointing.

But first, let’s discuss what’s right with the film. The basic premise, a road trip in Purgatory, is great. The world they build in Purgatory is fantastic. The filmmakers made a conscious choice to saturate or desaturate colours whether or not the scene takes place in Purgatory or the living world. Everything in Purgatory is just like it was in real life, just a little bit worse, and here one is surrounded by people just as miserable as they are, with no way to escape. You can see why this appealed to super-emo three-years-younger me.

Based upon an Israeli short story, the basic plot is definitely appealing. A young man commits suicide for whatever reason, thinking the entire time about how much his girlfriend will pay lip service to missing him, and then probably move on pretty quickly. He ends up in Puragtory, working at a shitty pizzeria and living with an asshole, hanging out with a “gypsy punk” (based upon the lead singer of Gogol Bordello), and generally being in the same situation he was before. He figures out somehow that his girlfriend in life committed suicide and sets out on a road trip to find her. (The geography of Purgatory seems to be somewhat congruent to the geography of Earth, with those who died in particular cities living in the not-as-great version of the same city).

It’s a fairly predictable script, with the two buddies heading out on the road and meeting a girl hitchhiker along the way – and of course the young man falls for the new girl, and learns that what he needs is what is right in front of him, not this thing he was searching for that was never really there for him in life anyway.

The problem is, this new girl is completely unbearable. Patrick Fugit does a good job, but Shannyn Sossaman is really not that great an actress. The character was totally one of those girls who has manipulated men her whole life and gotten everything she wants just because she’s pretty, and I kind of get the feeling Sossaman is the same way. Totally unlikeable, obnoxious, and definitely not worth Fugit’s character’s time. They have no chemistry. She is completely selfish and claims she is there by a mistake – she died of a drug overdose, not an actual suicide, which just makes me think she’s stupid. I know too many pretty, selfish party girls who expect everybody else to pick up after them to give a shit about Sossaman’s character. If she had at least committed suicide I’d have felt bad for her.

So this girl totally sucks and is not right for Fugit’s (admitted pretty shallow himself) character. They don’t really seem to fit together, I never felt a genuine attraction between them. And yet… he falls for her. Because she’s pretty? If that’s the case then Fugit’s character is an idiot and I don’t care about any of these people.

The Gogol Bordello man was a pretty compelling sidekick – his arc was also pretty predictable, (starts out as a womanizing dick, is really just lonely, finally meets the right person and settles down) but he was at least somewhat likeable and entertaining.

The best part of the movie took place in act 2.2, (the second half of act two, when things generally start to go to shit for all the characters), when they were at the Happy Camp. Tom Waits plays a sort of magic man who runs a camp for people out in the woods, and everybody there is capable of performing small miracles – the kind that happen when you aren’t thinking of them, that happen on their own. The Happy Camp and its followers are sort of at war with this King Messiah who lives in the woods (played by Will Arnett in a regrettably brief role). There is an allusion to a rivalry between the two camps, and this is where I really fell in love with the world that was created in this film.

If this part of the movie was a TV show, I would certainly watch it every week. Fucked up young people living in Purgatory, a place where there is an ocean hidden in the forest, where suicide cults and hippies face off and try to save souls? It would be friggin’ fantastic. The love story – the main part of this story – was the least compelling part.

The stuff I loved about Wristcutters – Tom Waits, the Happy Camp, the King Messiah, the endless potential in this muted, frowny world – I loved a LOT. The stuff I hated outweighed the stuff I loved though, especially since the hitchhiker girl/love interest was SO unlike-able. I actually actively hated her, and I rarely actively hate “good” characters.

And then! There’s Nanuk! Argh!

Nanuk lives in the Happy Camp, and is a mute throat-singer, that is, she is supposed to be Inuit. But she is white. (I believe the actress, who is also one of the producers, is Jewish, but either way she’s definitely not Inuit.) Nanuk wears a furry hat and furry boots and hangs out by a mini igloo, and died in a snow flurry. At first glance I thought Nanuk was a little girl, and I would’ve forgiven that if she was a quirky little kid who was obsessed with Inuit stuff or something, but she was a grown woman. And they’re always making references to how Nanuk comes “from so far away” like “the North Pole or wherever.” So… why is she not actually Inuit?

She also throat-sings, and the throat-singing sounded, I don’t know, decent I guess, but it obviously wasn’t her doing it. Besides the throat-singing, she is mute. She doesn’t say anything! She has no agency! Her whole plot is to do with the sidekick’s B-story and everybody else cracks jokes about how she only likes him because she can’t understand what he’s saying. Because Inuits apparently don’t speak English? In the 21st Century?

Now, I don’t really expect this smallish American film to find a pretty Inuit throat-singer to put in their movie, but I can, for the record, think of one off the top of my head – Tanya Tagaq-Gillis. So, okay. They didn’t know there were actual throat singers they could’ve gotten, or they couldn’t search for one, or whatever. The thing is, what is the point of Nanuk if she doesn’t even talk and it requires someone to totally fake being an oppressed minority? She didn’t really serve much of a purpose – the whole point of her was to get the sidekick to settle down, and seeing as Nanuk doesn’t even talk, he could’ve done that with anybody. There was no reason for someone to go out of their way to pretend to be Inuit when the character doesn’t even have a personality, any lines, or any discernible arc, except for a cheap laugh. It made me really angry.

So anyway. It should’ve just been Wristcutters, and not Wristcutters, a Love Story. The love story part of it was stupid and boring, the portrayal of Nanuk was shockingly offensive, but the other stuff was rad. Unfortunately, this is billed as a comedy, and it was not really that funny.

The music was good I guess.

Last Saturday evening I went along to Hot One Inch Action at the W2 Perel Gallery on Abbott and Hastings. The button-trading expo is now in its sixth year and was a welcome addition to the increasingly dark nights here in Vancouver. Fifty local artists design unique one-inch buttons (the kind you wear on your lapel) and they are displayed all along the walls at the gallery. There is a bar, a DJ, dancing, and for $5 you get a bag of five random buttons (entry is free). You can buy as many bags as you like, and trade the buttons with other button-traders to collect the ones you really want.

My buttons: I obtained among others the coveted family band portrait and ninja with a flower. My favourite is the hockey player, with the nonsensical caption “my kung fu is strong.” I had a few more that I gave to my friend later that night before I got a picture of all of them. I also have a doubles of the family portrait and the hockey player that I’m going to send to a friend. The one I’ve got the most use out of so far is the girl with the antlers, which I’ve worn to school and work and received lots of compliments on!

The last one on the bottom wasn’t part of the 50 original designs, but a button somebody sneaked in. I liked it anyway!

Some of the buttons quickly become the most popular and increase in value as nobody wants to trade them – the event was replete with people wandering around looking for the popsicles, or the elusive cat-head (a charming fellow with the head of a cat). You can see some of the buttons being made over at Vancouver Is Awesome.

Trading soon became an addiction, and I was eventually trading just for the sake of trading – I was looking for highly-prized buttons not because I actually wanted them but because I knew they were valuable. While the point of the evening was perhaps to socialize and meet new people in the arts scene in Vancouver, I ended up spending the night with my head down and staring at people’s palms, trying to strike a bargain. It was exhilarating! Now I know why stock traders do so much cocaine.

There was a great mix of people at the event, some even brought their kids who had a great time. The trading started at eight and went past eleven, and the time flew by. Hot One Inch Action is definitely set to be part of my yearly arts event schedule, and I can’t wait for the next one.

On Sunday, a gentleman caller and myself went along to The Project by Aaron Bushkowsky, playing down at Performance Works with the Solo collective.

The Project is a dark comedy about the film industry, and it’s far more comedy than it is dark. While the subject matter itself could be preachy and overbearing – a production company wants to do a film about “issues” in Africa, and their African contact quickly turns the tables on them, trying to use the company to finance a revolution in his country.
The characters are more like caricatures of various players in the film industry than complete, human characters, but they are fun, the dialogue is snappy and hilarious, and the actors all did a great job. It’s overall very enjoyable, and at $15 for students it’s certainly worthwhile. The Project continues tonight and tomorrow night.

Monday morning saw me trudge down rainy Granville Street to meet a friend for breakfast at the The Templeton, a downtown ’50s-style diner. My friend was visiting for a limited time only and we decided to have breakfast – since she was staying downtown, I googled downtown diners that were a bit more palatable than Denny’s, and I discovered the Templeton.

What an unexpected treat!

The Templeton is small and friendly, and the authentic ’50s decor is cute and charming. It’s more than just a conversation piece, however, there is a feeling of genuine community and friendliness in the diner. There is a weekly movie night, and the diner is fully licensed and also hosts a big old-timey jukebox (though I’m not sure if it works). There are lots of vegetarian options and the food is definitely a step-up from greasy spoon fare.

I got the blueberry-banana pancakes and my friend got the blueberry-brie bagel. It was one of those things where we both wished we had ordered the other’s dish, but were both very impressed with our own. Unfortunately my camera died after I took one lousy picture at Hot One Inch Action, so I couldn’t snap a picture of my lovely food.

Our waitress was sweet and very wisely cautioned me against ordering english muffins in addition to my pancakes, while a lesser diner would’ve let me spend the money. Our food was swiftly prepared and the service was fantastic. I would go back to the Templeton in a heartbeat and definitely plan to, the next time I have call to go that far for a breakfast, if only just to try that blueberry-brie bagel. I wish it were an all-night diner so I could head there after hanging out downtown!

Monday night found me going to the Rio Theatre‘s staff Christmas party at Grandview Lanes Bowling on Commercial Drive.

I haven’t been back to Grandview Lanes since before they renovated in the summer, and every time I’d been there before the place had been pretty dead. This evening it was full of families and friends, and the atmosphere was great.

Upstairs they have the glow-in-the-dark 5-pin lanes, and the alcohol was flowing. Since this was a staff party and everything was paid for, we had a tab on our alcohol, but they have a pretty wide selection and my experience there before was pretty good, price wise. The East Van crowd is a great crowd to bowl with – there’s a good blend of silliness, blue collar-ness and sportsmanship that makes bowling so fun to begin with.

Anyways, that was my weekend! The days afterwards were full of stress and trying to stay on top of assignments, and this current weekend will be spent doing likewise. Fun times!

Grade:
B+

What’s it about?
After the zombie apocalypse, a sensitive loner-type is one of the last survivors, due to his having no attachments to other human beings. (Wow, what an awful log line).
Try this: In the wake of the zombie apocalypse, a band of survivors have to get over their fear of vulnerability in order to survive.
Ugh these are more thematic than about the story. Trying again:
Zombies have taken over the United States. Some stoners are the only ones who survive.

What’s It’s Bechdel Test Score?
3/3 technically. A qualified pass. These girl grifters were awesome and kickass and had their own agenda, and were sadly still reduced to plot devices.

What About Minorities?
A few minority zombies, but it still didn’t ring true given the geography. I also liked the smash-up of the Native American Casino for what it meant thematically, but I’m not quite sure why they chose that particular location for that scene. Or what it meant by having a bunch of white people kill a Native zombie and then smash up a bunch of “Native” souvenirs. Failure.

So…

I’m going to jump right into what was best about this movie. It was character-driven and structurally sound. They could teach this script in screen writing class.

Columbus (Jesse Eisenberg), the hero, has been surviving in Zombieland – the post-apocalyptic United States – on a set of rules he rigidly clings to. Part of his set of rules, and a value which is shared by his first ally, Tallahassee (Woody Harrelson), is to never get close to people. This is what Dara Marks, the screenwriting guru, calls “the fatal flaw”. A survival mechanism that has allowed Columbus to get by in Zombieland so far, something that has never let him down.

When act two starts and Columbus meets the girls, Wichita (Emma Stone) and Little Rock (Abigail Breslin), and inevitably gets closer to Tallahassee, his survival mechanism stops working. It becomes harder to live by his rules. He has to learn another way to survive.

Zombieland is your pretty standard post-disaster movie. (I say disaster movie because structurally it’s not really a horror film, and I think the implications of zombies taking over the world transcends horror and heads into disaster territory.) It’s not particularly new and it can be pretty predictable, but even in it’s predictability, it’s satisfying, and it’s definitely fun. I think ever since Shaun of the Dead, there’s been a push towards disaster movies that are a bit more honest. By that I mean, we eventually got Zombieland.

As far as American movies go, it was really refreshing to have the heroes not be ex-marine strong-jawed men, but rather a stammeringly shy boy and a stoner loner. It still ended up a bit more “heroic” than I cared for – I mean, I can only suspend my disbelief so far, and one of the things I loved about Shaun of the Dead is that Shaun was actually a hero to nobody and couldn’t solve anything. But Zombieland is definitely a step in the right direction in terms of what makes a good disaster film, for me.

To elaborate on what I mean – I like a big disaster spectacle as much as anyone. But I like the stories of the characters even more. How great would The Day After Tomorrow been if the whole movie had just been a guy walking across a glacier to save his son (and probably failing)? Maybe that would make a better play than a movie, but I would totally see that play. You could still keep all the special effects, but just make the focus on the father rather than throwing in that emotional undercurrent as an afterthought. How good would the most recent War of the Worlds have been if the whole point of Tom Cruise’s arc – learning to be a good father – wasn’t made redundant by his son arriving at grandma’s alone before him? What a waste! (Actually it still probably wouldn’t have been any good, but at least it would make sense.) Anyway, I liked Zombieland for that. And I get that zombies are cheap enough that you can invest in a better screenplay, as opposed to other disaster films where the spectacle takes up more of the budget, but I think it would be worth it anyway. I could also use more disaster films with sad endings, where the hero fails. (But, you know, prove me wrong. Did The Mist do well or fail? I don’t remember.)

Abigail Breslin is such a great little actor. I look forward to watching her grow up and seeing all the great teen characters she’s going to play, and I hope she goes the Ellen Page route instead of the Lindsay Lohan route. Emma Stone did a good job as well. Although it was a shame how both of these really awesome kick-ass girl characters, who had their own agenda and a really good story all on their own, were both reduced to plot devices and also got really stupid as soon as they met a cute boy. This is obviously not the fault of the actors, though, who were both amazing. Also, they listen to Metric, of which I definitely approve.

Emma Stone’s make up was totally distracting. Again, I’m assuming this is not her fault. But, Wichita, why do you need to wear so much eye make up in a society-less post-apocalypse? I can understand when you were getting ready to scam some guys, but first thing in the morning when you’re alone with your sister? Logic fail.

I’m sure many young males will agree with me that Emma Stone would still be hot without all that makeup.

The boys were great too, and their whole half of the story. Jesse Eisenberg as Columbus is endearing, although I can see his schtick kind of getting old fast, like Michael Cera. I’m not a huge fan of Woody Harrelson’s acting, but this was a great character for him. I also didn’t mind the voiceovers so much and I usually hate voiceovers. My main problems came in the third act, when it got unnecessarily heroic and the girls were really reduced to nothing, overriding their previous awesomeness, instead of opting for a more of an ensemble hero moment which I would have enjoyed more.

Overall, it was fun, and it was satisfying. The opening visual sequence is pretty awesome. It wasn’t as laugh-out-loud funny as I was expecting it to be, especially since I had more than my standard “at least one drink” in me before I saw it. It was worth it, but maybe not full-price. If there’s a drive-thru or dollar cinema where you are, it’s definitely one for them. A night of bowling, drinks and Zombieland would be pretty amazing actually.