Wow, Sarah Jane Smith is dead. I can't believe it. She's been a part of my life for quite a while now and I need to do her justice.
I first met Lis Slade it was through Doctor Who, like so many people my age. She was the mom I always wanted and the person I want to most emulate when I grow up. Good bye Sarah Jane.
I know this isn't very timely or very well thought out. Honestly though, I can't compete with Tom Baker's post on his website. Go read that.
Thursday, April 28, 2011
Wednesday, April 27, 2011
Film Vs. Book I: The Princess Bride
As you've probably guessed by the title I'm starting a series of posts. These will be a comparison between books and their movie adaptations. These comparisons won't be a line by line dissection of differences between script and book, but a broader approach.
Major events and major dfferences in characterization are what I'm looking at. I probably won't be doing a thourough read through of each book before I start to try and maintain a big picture focus. At the end of the comparison I will say which works better over all and I'm not always going to side with the book or always with the movie. I plan on keeping things even. I'm not going to be overtly negative when I do these reviews, just an analysis (unless something doesn't work at all), after all I'm doing these for fun, not to be an angry little whiner. I'll also gladly admit bias when I write these reviews.
That being said, lets begin.
Many people are familiar with the classic film The Princess Bride. A movie released in 1987 directed by Rob Reiner it's witty comedy and memorable characters propelled this film deeply into the minds of the people who have seen it. It's not the most popular film ever, but those who have seen it are generally huge fans of it.
What many people don't realize is that is based off a novel of the same name. Released in 1973 this book offers a different look on the characters we've all grown up knowing.
I'll admit I've been watching the film since I can remember, but I only discovered the book a few years ago so I'll be biased toward the movie.
Without further ado here are some of the major differences:
Backstories: Everyone knows Inigo Montoya's back story. Hell, his most memorable line is, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." I'm not going to say this isn't in the book. That would be a lie, however after Inigo's story about his father's death the book goes into detail about all the fencing masters he studied under and why he was driven to drink and why he joined Vizzini. Similarly, Fezzick is given more of a backstory as well. His story tells us about his wrestling career and how everyone hated him because he was too strong. He turned to taking on large groups of ruffians and people warmed up slightly. He eventually joins Vizzini as well. This was not in the film, only hinted at with the line, "It's been a long time since I've had to fight just one person." While having these additional scenes is interesting, like learning something about a old friend, they would have bogged the film down considerably, and they bog the book down slightly as well. Here I prefer the movie. However one added piece of backstory certainly adds to the experience. I always wondered why Prince Humperdink wanted to attack Guilder so bad other than it being "Florin's sworn enemy." Well, in the book, Prince Humperdink was supposed to marry Guilder's Princess, however calls it off when he finds out she's completely bald. Feeling tricked, and now not getting his giant kingdom, he deciedes to attack them at his earliest convienence. That scene clears this subplot up immensely. It might not have worked in the film, but I fully enjoy it. It is one of the funnier parts of the book, so I'm going to go with the book on that. You get a little more info on Buttercup and Wesley too, but it doesn't really add that much for me, it mostly just shows Buttercup realizing she loves Wesley when Count Rugen's wife starts eyeing Wesley up and down when she and the Count happen to be riding by and pop in to see the pretty boy and girl working on a farm. Buttercup confesses this to Wesley and then he decides to go to America to seek his fortune to provide for her. This scene makes the romance make more sense and the scenes actually give Buttercup and Wesley slightly more depth than their film counter parts, while I acknowledge this scene may not have worked in the film I enjoy it too much so my first point goes to the book.
The Zoo of Death: If you haven't read the book, you're probably wondering what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where Wesley was kept when Count Rugen and Humperdink were torturing him. In the book Wesley is in the bottom floor of a secret underground facility (because what other kinds are there?) where ferocious beasts are kept. One level has a snake, one has bats, one is completely empty except for the venomous spider hidden on the door on the other side and the final floor was empty until Humperdink met his greatest adversary, Wesley. There are other floors, but I've forgotten them. Inigo and Fezzick fight there way through all the levels. It's really awesome set of scenes that let you see fan favorites kick ass and take names. While it may have bogged down the film it is an awesome addition to the book, so book gets the point.
Framing device: Obviously in a book one cannot have a grandfather reading the story to his grandson in quite the same way. And in fact the book has a COMPLETELY different framing device all together. The book tells the (also fictional) tale of William Goldman (author of both book and screenplay) having this book read to him by his father, then sending a copy to his son, only to find out that his father edited the story as he read it, the actual book being weighed down by social commentary on the ruling class of Florin and essays on trees. William takes it upon himself to edit the book down to the 'good parts.' I have to side with the movie on this one. No one really reads the Princess Bride for the framing story, but the one in the film is just so much more touching though we see less of it. The Grandfather truly cares about his grandson and takes his feelings into account. Meanwhile Goldman just sort of "takes a book" and picks out what he remembers.
Ending: When I say ending I mean from the wedding on. As I mentioned before William Goldman wrote both the book and movie and as such there is still a surprising amount of changes, even in the ending. When Goldman wrote the screenplay he patched up one major plot hole the book had. In the book when Humperdink marries Buttercup the characters just sort of hope he dies and run away. By the time William Goldman got around to the screenplay he figured out a better way of ending it and so just changed it. The film works a hell of a lot better. Similarly, the book ends on a cliff-hanger with everyone suddenly getting screwed at the last minute. There has been a sequel has been in the works for years and doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon. The film has resolution (mostly) and feels like a good ending for all the characters. So the film wins this as well.
Minor things: Here and there, as necessary with every adaptation little things get lost or added in the process. Some I can remember are: The book provided a helpful map. Shrieking eels are creepier than sharks. The first chapter to the sequel (dedicated to Andre the Giant) is nice and poignant. No matter how character decriptions varied from their movie appearances I still pictured them. Little things are a draw.
So my final verdict is: A Tie. While the film is a classic and no one is disputing that, the book is a nice addition to any collection, especially if you are a fan of the movie. The novel works as a novel and the film works as a film, what more can I say?
Major events and major dfferences in characterization are what I'm looking at. I probably won't be doing a thourough read through of each book before I start to try and maintain a big picture focus. At the end of the comparison I will say which works better over all and I'm not always going to side with the book or always with the movie. I plan on keeping things even. I'm not going to be overtly negative when I do these reviews, just an analysis (unless something doesn't work at all), after all I'm doing these for fun, not to be an angry little whiner. I'll also gladly admit bias when I write these reviews.
That being said, lets begin.
Many people are familiar with the classic film The Princess Bride. A movie released in 1987 directed by Rob Reiner it's witty comedy and memorable characters propelled this film deeply into the minds of the people who have seen it. It's not the most popular film ever, but those who have seen it are generally huge fans of it.
What many people don't realize is that is based off a novel of the same name. Released in 1973 this book offers a different look on the characters we've all grown up knowing.
I'll admit I've been watching the film since I can remember, but I only discovered the book a few years ago so I'll be biased toward the movie.
Without further ado here are some of the major differences:
Backstories: Everyone knows Inigo Montoya's back story. Hell, his most memorable line is, "Hello. My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." I'm not going to say this isn't in the book. That would be a lie, however after Inigo's story about his father's death the book goes into detail about all the fencing masters he studied under and why he was driven to drink and why he joined Vizzini. Similarly, Fezzick is given more of a backstory as well. His story tells us about his wrestling career and how everyone hated him because he was too strong. He turned to taking on large groups of ruffians and people warmed up slightly. He eventually joins Vizzini as well. This was not in the film, only hinted at with the line, "It's been a long time since I've had to fight just one person." While having these additional scenes is interesting, like learning something about a old friend, they would have bogged the film down considerably, and they bog the book down slightly as well. Here I prefer the movie. However one added piece of backstory certainly adds to the experience. I always wondered why Prince Humperdink wanted to attack Guilder so bad other than it being "Florin's sworn enemy." Well, in the book, Prince Humperdink was supposed to marry Guilder's Princess, however calls it off when he finds out she's completely bald. Feeling tricked, and now not getting his giant kingdom, he deciedes to attack them at his earliest convienence. That scene clears this subplot up immensely. It might not have worked in the film, but I fully enjoy it. It is one of the funnier parts of the book, so I'm going to go with the book on that. You get a little more info on Buttercup and Wesley too, but it doesn't really add that much for me, it mostly just shows Buttercup realizing she loves Wesley when Count Rugen's wife starts eyeing Wesley up and down when she and the Count happen to be riding by and pop in to see the pretty boy and girl working on a farm. Buttercup confesses this to Wesley and then he decides to go to America to seek his fortune to provide for her. This scene makes the romance make more sense and the scenes actually give Buttercup and Wesley slightly more depth than their film counter parts, while I acknowledge this scene may not have worked in the film I enjoy it too much so my first point goes to the book.
The Zoo of Death: If you haven't read the book, you're probably wondering what I'm talking about. I'm talking about where Wesley was kept when Count Rugen and Humperdink were torturing him. In the book Wesley is in the bottom floor of a secret underground facility (because what other kinds are there?) where ferocious beasts are kept. One level has a snake, one has bats, one is completely empty except for the venomous spider hidden on the door on the other side and the final floor was empty until Humperdink met his greatest adversary, Wesley. There are other floors, but I've forgotten them. Inigo and Fezzick fight there way through all the levels. It's really awesome set of scenes that let you see fan favorites kick ass and take names. While it may have bogged down the film it is an awesome addition to the book, so book gets the point.
Framing device: Obviously in a book one cannot have a grandfather reading the story to his grandson in quite the same way. And in fact the book has a COMPLETELY different framing device all together. The book tells the (also fictional) tale of William Goldman (author of both book and screenplay) having this book read to him by his father, then sending a copy to his son, only to find out that his father edited the story as he read it, the actual book being weighed down by social commentary on the ruling class of Florin and essays on trees. William takes it upon himself to edit the book down to the 'good parts.' I have to side with the movie on this one. No one really reads the Princess Bride for the framing story, but the one in the film is just so much more touching though we see less of it. The Grandfather truly cares about his grandson and takes his feelings into account. Meanwhile Goldman just sort of "takes a book" and picks out what he remembers.
Ending: When I say ending I mean from the wedding on. As I mentioned before William Goldman wrote both the book and movie and as such there is still a surprising amount of changes, even in the ending. When Goldman wrote the screenplay he patched up one major plot hole the book had. In the book when Humperdink marries Buttercup the characters just sort of hope he dies and run away. By the time William Goldman got around to the screenplay he figured out a better way of ending it and so just changed it. The film works a hell of a lot better. Similarly, the book ends on a cliff-hanger with everyone suddenly getting screwed at the last minute. There has been a sequel has been in the works for years and doesn't seem to be going anywhere any time soon. The film has resolution (mostly) and feels like a good ending for all the characters. So the film wins this as well.
Minor things: Here and there, as necessary with every adaptation little things get lost or added in the process. Some I can remember are: The book provided a helpful map. Shrieking eels are creepier than sharks. The first chapter to the sequel (dedicated to Andre the Giant) is nice and poignant. No matter how character decriptions varied from their movie appearances I still pictured them. Little things are a draw.
So my final verdict is: A Tie. While the film is a classic and no one is disputing that, the book is a nice addition to any collection, especially if you are a fan of the movie. The novel works as a novel and the film works as a film, what more can I say?
Monday, April 18, 2011
I Can't Believe I Watched the Whole Thing...
So last night my boyfriend and I were flipping channels wating for our new favorite show The Borgias and Twilight was on. Normally I would have kept flipping through but my boyfriend, who has no real knowledge about Twilight other than what I've told him, said, "Oh, lets watch it for the hell of it."
I think he began to regret that decision almost instantaneously. Thankfully I knew what to anticipate. A little too well. I hate being able to quote movies I've only seen once. In fact one quote I made during the evening was, "I'm doing lines of Twilight....Is that like doing lines of crack?"
It really started with Edward's line of "I feel very protective of you." This line came before they even started dating and before she began to like him in that fashion. Later, Skippy (the boyfriend) started throwing a fit (about 2.5 on the Dune film scale) about Bella wandering off into the woods with Edward when she doesn't even trust him and is pretty sure he's going to kill people and has no reason to trust him.
He started asking why Bella was doing such stupid shit and I had to answer with the in-book correct answer, "She loves him." He seemed confused so I continued, "She's known him for a month and is head over heels in love with him. They're soulmates." Now I don't buy into this at all, I have mad my disdain of these books clear, but this was the intent.
We went the rest of the night making snarky comments about the questionable quality of the "Twilight Saga" (which is in no way a saga, but I digress). Mostly he questioned, "Why are things moving so fast?" "What was the point of that?" "Why aren't these valid claims being listened to?" "What happened to their powers?" To which I had entirely too much fun providing the 'in book logic' "Because it's meant to be!" "To show how "silly" they (the normal humans she shirks off) are." "Because that character is blonde, therefore a bitch." "Hell if I know. That wouldn't have worked in the book."
Yeah, on top of being based off a shitty book Twilight is an even shittier movie that defies it's own 'logic' quite frequently and if possible makes the rest of the plot even worse. Without the purple prose giving a false sense added time the movie moves at breakneck pace truly demonstrating the wrecklessness of the characters. God knows what this is going to do come Breaking Dawn.
This quickly turned into a fun comparison game between Twilight and the Borgias (most definitely not what Stephenie Meyer would approve of), which I will demonstrate thus:
Edward Cullen gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' (The afore mentioned "I feel protective of you" line.)
Rodrigo Borgia gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' ("She needed my help!")
Edward Cullen is an American played by a British actor, Robert Pattinson.
Rodrigo Borgia is a Spaniard played by a British actor, Jeremy Irons.
Edward Cullen is a man from the early 1900's caught in a modern world and is an outsider, who could easily rule the world.
Rodrigo Borgia is a man from Spain caught in the city states of Italy and is an outsider, who is the POPE back when that mattered.
Edward Cullen is a Vampire.
Rodrigo Borgia is a priest (same thing).
One of these men is romanceable, with reasoning behind his motives and an interesting, if flawed, character that allows you to question your morality and faith. The other is Edward Cullen.
Which really shows, if you are trying to create a romantic lead, he shouldn't be comparable to a borgia unless that's your intent (meaning intentionally creating a questionable figure, not creating a questionable figure and claiming he isn't.)
I think he began to regret that decision almost instantaneously. Thankfully I knew what to anticipate. A little too well. I hate being able to quote movies I've only seen once. In fact one quote I made during the evening was, "I'm doing lines of Twilight....Is that like doing lines of crack?"
It really started with Edward's line of "I feel very protective of you." This line came before they even started dating and before she began to like him in that fashion. Later, Skippy (the boyfriend) started throwing a fit (about 2.5 on the Dune film scale) about Bella wandering off into the woods with Edward when she doesn't even trust him and is pretty sure he's going to kill people and has no reason to trust him.
He started asking why Bella was doing such stupid shit and I had to answer with the in-book correct answer, "She loves him." He seemed confused so I continued, "She's known him for a month and is head over heels in love with him. They're soulmates." Now I don't buy into this at all, I have mad my disdain of these books clear, but this was the intent.
We went the rest of the night making snarky comments about the questionable quality of the "Twilight Saga" (which is in no way a saga, but I digress). Mostly he questioned, "Why are things moving so fast?" "What was the point of that?" "Why aren't these valid claims being listened to?" "What happened to their powers?" To which I had entirely too much fun providing the 'in book logic' "Because it's meant to be!" "To show how "silly" they (the normal humans she shirks off) are." "Because that character is blonde, therefore a bitch." "Hell if I know. That wouldn't have worked in the book."
Yeah, on top of being based off a shitty book Twilight is an even shittier movie that defies it's own 'logic' quite frequently and if possible makes the rest of the plot even worse. Without the purple prose giving a false sense added time the movie moves at breakneck pace truly demonstrating the wrecklessness of the characters. God knows what this is going to do come Breaking Dawn.
This quickly turned into a fun comparison game between Twilight and the Borgias (most definitely not what Stephenie Meyer would approve of), which I will demonstrate thus:
Edward Cullen gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' (The afore mentioned "I feel protective of you" line.)
Rodrigo Borgia gives bad reasoning for falling 'in love' ("She needed my help!")
Edward Cullen is an American played by a British actor, Robert Pattinson.
Rodrigo Borgia is a Spaniard played by a British actor, Jeremy Irons.
Edward Cullen is a man from the early 1900's caught in a modern world and is an outsider, who could easily rule the world.
Rodrigo Borgia is a man from Spain caught in the city states of Italy and is an outsider, who is the POPE back when that mattered.
Edward Cullen is a Vampire.
Rodrigo Borgia is a priest (same thing).
One of these men is romanceable, with reasoning behind his motives and an interesting, if flawed, character that allows you to question your morality and faith. The other is Edward Cullen.
Which really shows, if you are trying to create a romantic lead, he shouldn't be comparable to a borgia unless that's your intent (meaning intentionally creating a questionable figure, not creating a questionable figure and claiming he isn't.)
Never Have..
I admit I haven't done everything out there. I am sad to admit that many things on this list are considered classics so I thought I'd list some things I haven't seen/read/played but know I should. Just to say I'm human too. I want to see/read some of these some day, but until then they'll stay on this list.
Mostly these are things I want to do eventually.
Movies:
Citizen Kane
Casablana
Brazil
Dream Girls
Ponyo
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Pulp Fiction
Books (*also includes books I started but haven't finished):
To Kill a Mocking Bird*
Hamlet
Phantom of the Opera*
Pride and Prejudice*
Les Miserables
Anything by Mark Twain (seriously have NEVER gotten through an entire book of his)
Musicals:
Mame
Hairspray (on stage)
Lion King
The Unsinkable Molly Brown
TV shows:
Babylon 5
Arrested Development
More Classic Doctor Who
Swiss Family Robinson
Video Games:
Any Final Fantasy Installment
Portal
Fable
World of Warcraft
Mostly these are things I want to do eventually.
Movies:
Citizen Kane
Casablana
Brazil
Dream Girls
Ponyo
Fear & Loathing in Las Vegas
Pulp Fiction
Books (*also includes books I started but haven't finished):
To Kill a Mocking Bird*
Hamlet
Phantom of the Opera*
Pride and Prejudice*
Les Miserables
Anything by Mark Twain (seriously have NEVER gotten through an entire book of his)
Musicals:
Mame
Hairspray (on stage)
Lion King
The Unsinkable Molly Brown
TV shows:
Babylon 5
Arrested Development
More Classic Doctor Who
Swiss Family Robinson
Video Games:
Any Final Fantasy Installment
Portal
Fable
World of Warcraft
Thursday, April 14, 2011
Public Interaction
Don't think you haven't suspected that someone talking to their friends isn't genuine. I know I promised no personal posts, but this was just a thought I had. I didn't actually make this poll, but if you want to give your opinion.
I see so many people having these public interactions that I can't genuinely believe are real. When I want to talk to friends I call them or text them. If I have to use facebook for something important I try to use private ]message first to not be public. Or do people really having meaningful interaction this way?
Is this actually a personal post? I'm not talking about any one and as you see by large black squares I'm protecting my friends. I also apologize for the wonky format, I'm having trouble getting it to cooperate.
Wednesday, April 13, 2011
Oh My God, Name Change!
I changed the name and description of my blog. There are many reasons for this so I thought I'd share them.
1) Yarsian Talks About is a hell of a lot more google-able than that previous mouthful of a name I had before. Seriously you'd have to get like 30 words to make sure your search went well. You also might want to invest in a good luck charm of some kind, to be sure.
2) While the previous name was fun and snarky it doesn't reflect that many of my posts anymore. I've slowly been transitioning to a more thoughtful and easily approachable blog. It's become less personal and less whiny over the past couple of months so I thought I needed a new title to fit the new format. If I can find a clever name for that accurately describes the new changes I'll change it again, in the mean time it stays "Yarsian Talks About..."
3) It was about time. I was getting tired of the old title about a few months after I changed to it. So now that it's been a long time after that I think its as good of a time as any.
With a new title comes bigger changes too. From now on I'm going to focus soley on TV shows, movies, and books (and songs when I can think up enough material and video games I guess, when I can). My personal posts are done. Occasionaly I may ask some hypotheticals around my life as it is, but for the most part I'm going to keep things supremely vague when it comes to my personal life. If I want readers I need to get word out, and right now that means going to friends and family. I can't have friends and family reading my old whinings and expect to keep my followship up. So I'll probably delete/hide some of the older ones. If anyone actually has a problem with this, let me know. Silence is agreement in this case so speak up. I may save back ups of these somewhere, but don't count on it. They'll be gone by this time next week if all goes well. Besides the personal posts were really self-therapy anyway and I've found better ways to channel my emotions (well, at least more private ways). The only recurring character other than me will probably be my current boyfriend, because many of the things I watch I watch with him so his opinion will probably be heard a lot throughout this blog.
So how will this new format work? Pretty similar to what I've already been doing for the past couple of months. I watch/play/listen to/read/random verb something and then I talk about whatever strikes my fancy. It could be a simple review, basic rundown followed by my thoughts on it. I could occasionally get a little more in depth about why I think these thoughts (Like saying Speed Racer is underrated). I could analyze it more in depth (Like I did with Friday). Or I could go and create a zany, yet intellectual analysis (The Room). Similarly, I could just talk about something I like or dislike in general when it comes to movies (my least favorite cliches).
If my blog's popularity goes up soon I'll probably add advertisements to it, that way I'm actually getting paid for these as they take a fair amount of work. I'm not whining or asking anyone for money, I'm just saying that it takes about a while writing a decent post. And I'm hoping these will be better than decent.
1) Yarsian Talks About is a hell of a lot more google-able than that previous mouthful of a name I had before. Seriously you'd have to get like 30 words to make sure your search went well. You also might want to invest in a good luck charm of some kind, to be sure.
2) While the previous name was fun and snarky it doesn't reflect that many of my posts anymore. I've slowly been transitioning to a more thoughtful and easily approachable blog. It's become less personal and less whiny over the past couple of months so I thought I needed a new title to fit the new format. If I can find a clever name for that accurately describes the new changes I'll change it again, in the mean time it stays "Yarsian Talks About..."
3) It was about time. I was getting tired of the old title about a few months after I changed to it. So now that it's been a long time after that I think its as good of a time as any.
With a new title comes bigger changes too. From now on I'm going to focus soley on TV shows, movies, and books (and songs when I can think up enough material and video games I guess, when I can). My personal posts are done. Occasionaly I may ask some hypotheticals around my life as it is, but for the most part I'm going to keep things supremely vague when it comes to my personal life. If I want readers I need to get word out, and right now that means going to friends and family. I can't have friends and family reading my old whinings and expect to keep my followship up. So I'll probably delete/hide some of the older ones. If anyone actually has a problem with this, let me know. Silence is agreement in this case so speak up. I may save back ups of these somewhere, but don't count on it. They'll be gone by this time next week if all goes well. Besides the personal posts were really self-therapy anyway and I've found better ways to channel my emotions (well, at least more private ways). The only recurring character other than me will probably be my current boyfriend, because many of the things I watch I watch with him so his opinion will probably be heard a lot throughout this blog.
So how will this new format work? Pretty similar to what I've already been doing for the past couple of months. I watch/play/listen to/read/random verb something and then I talk about whatever strikes my fancy. It could be a simple review, basic rundown followed by my thoughts on it. I could occasionally get a little more in depth about why I think these thoughts (Like saying Speed Racer is underrated). I could analyze it more in depth (Like I did with Friday). Or I could go and create a zany, yet intellectual analysis (The Room). Similarly, I could just talk about something I like or dislike in general when it comes to movies (my least favorite cliches).
If my blog's popularity goes up soon I'll probably add advertisements to it, that way I'm actually getting paid for these as they take a fair amount of work. I'm not whining or asking anyone for money, I'm just saying that it takes about a while writing a decent post. And I'm hoping these will be better than decent.
Monday, April 11, 2011
Cliches That Bug Me
Doug Walker, as made famous portraying The Nostalgia Critic, released a video stating his most hated cliches in movies (that can, usually, be applied elsewhere). This gave me the idea to talk about my least favorite cliches.
The Belief that popular=good looking & the corresponding losers=ugly. I've never been what anyone would consider popular, however I'm not ugly by any means. To prove this I'm going to take a picture of myself right now. No, seriously, right now in the middle of this post.
 |
| Seriously just took this. No make up. No Photoshop. Just hair dye. |
While I'm not proclaiming I'm hot shit, I know it's not my looks that determine my social status. They might have done so in the past, but it's also my behavior, which I'll get into in a moment. I used to have braces and I didn't have contacts therefore I wore glasses, but I wasn't popular during the few years I had both. I also wasn't popular before I got my braces (I got glasses young enough it didn't matter) and my popularity didn't shoot up the day I got contacts or the day my braces were removed. Part of the reason Mean Girls (which is still one of my favorite movies despite this) 'works' is because Lindsay Lohan is far more 'beautiful' than the other losers in her highschool who she initally hangs out with. In movie-land this immediately keys the audience that she'll be climbing the social ladder soon enough. However as I hinted already there's another cliche that bugs the crap out of me.
Geeks like Star Trek and Star Wars and are all Science Nerds . In several films/TV shows/books/ect. the second most defining feature in geeks/nerds is that they are all really into science and math and classic literature. The few pieces of pop culture they are familiar with are generally nerdy shows and movies (and generally bad ones at that). Now, I like shows like Doctor Who, Star Trek, and X-Files over shows like One Tree Hill, Jersey Shore and True Blood. I like that type of show because I like that type of show. My social status never affected my interests, except for maybe giving me more time to enjoy the things I like. But I also shows like Glee, House and Say Yes to the Dress. These are all popular shows that normally 'nerdy' people like me wouldn't like in Movie-world. Also, my science and math grades are not what a normal geek would get. I'm right brained, therefore I'm better at art and more subjective things. Yes I like classic literature, but that's because I'm an English major (or I'm an English major because I like classic literature...) but it's my love of books I've had since I was a child that drives this. On the flip side, there have been plenty popular people I know who have done much better than me in certain classes. I knew people who were popular who were really into weird shows which were loved as equally by people less popular than me. Interests in real life have nothing to do with social standing. Again Mean Girls shows that the easiest way Cady is a "geek" is because she's good at Math, however her love interest is in the same math clas and while he's not great at it he obviously was smart enough to get into advanced math.
Geeks have No idea whats going on in pop culture. Just because I don't like Jersey Shore doesn't mean I don't know what it is. I may not be able to give a synopsis of everything that's happened, but I know who Snooki is and that she got punched in a bar one time. I also know what's going on in the world right now, probably more so than popular people. I don't know that many people who are considered 'popular' who regularly watch or read or listen to the news, but this may just be personal bias on this subject matter. However, I do know that many memes start in corners of the internet most non-geeks don't know about. Geeks were rick-rolling way before Oregon's state congress did it. Similarly, the V mask (or rather Guy Fawkes mask) has been the mark of anti-Scientology protests for quite a while, but I doubt any 'popular person' knows either what it is or where it came from. Or that it is actually Guy Fawkes.
Geeks are Loners. While we don't have quite the insanely busy social schedule as other people Geeks are not depressed and lonely (no more so than the average). While I do like to sit at home and read a good book or watch Myazki Films I like to go out and have fun too. I like to dance and act goofy with my friends as much as the next person. One of the nerdiest traits you can give a person in a movie is to have it come out they play Dungeons and Dragons. In the land of fiction this means they are loners. However, as any real D&D player can attest to, this is not true in the slightest. Dungeons and Dragons is played in a group, of at least 3 people but generally 4-5 is an ideal size. You hang out with friends, eat junk food, go on adventures and connect with your friends on different levels. This isn't what Hollywood thinks it is, but I think it's just an honest "We haven't played, we've only heard the name" misunderstanding and nothing malicious.
And now I'd like to try and move off this topic of Geeks vs. Popular people because honestly I don't know what popular people do.
The Completely Out of Touch Parent. This Cliche is all about parents 'who just don't understand.' Whether they be overprotective or just plain clueless as to what's going on with their child's lives. Apparently, in Hollywood a good parent doesn't exist. I know there are just as many examples of good parents in films, but they aren't as common. While I treat the threat of abusive parents seriously I feel that this kind of fictional parents are just plain neglectful. Whenever I see a film where the child has to be an adult because the adult is more like a child but the child seems completely normal and adjusted just mature it feels off. Just because I wanted to be an adult I still regularly relied on my parents for almost everything and they're still helping me out today (I am only a freshman in college). The only book I've seen handle this type of parent well was The Hunger Games. Katniss positively freaks out when her mom checks out and goes through all kinds of hell just scraping by caring for her and her sister and her mother. Similarly, the overprotective stereotype and the clueless stereotype are just that stereotypes to make the young protagonist look better in a lazy way.
The Spoiler Credit. This one mostly applies to TV so books/movies get a pass (generally). Back when I actually watched Heroes it was really obvious when certain characters would pop up because their actor would be listed in the opening credits. Like I don't mind if someone is in the credits and then they're in the episode for a while actually doing stuff in that episode. It gets annoying when credits list someone who is in an episode and the character showing up is a surprise/twist at the end of an episode. Yeah, there isn't a lot to say about this (I don't know if this is a cliche) but it sucks when this takes me out of an episode/movie series (maybe?) when a character is a twist that shows up in the credits. I realize you want to credit your actors and stuff, but seriously spoiling a twist is a pain in the ass. The only way this works is if you show flashbacks elsewhere in the show where you can hide it. Oddly, Heroes did this too, but too many times it didn't work right.
I'm having trouble thinkinging of cliches. I can think of the type of stories that bug me, but it's not the same as a cliche, but that's another post.
Like I hate Mary Sues, but who doesn't? I also hate title dropping (or in other ways alluding to other) great works of literature, especially when the author gets it wrong (Stephenie Meyer, I'm looking at you). I also hate seeing the same plots over and over in my films.
Friday, April 8, 2011
Just for Fun
So I was just goofing around on facebook when I saw my friends were playing with this Einstein picture manipulator. I thought it was kinda funny, so I went meta with the whole thing and made this image:
Grammar issues aside I thought it was a clever little thing and will probably use it when I'm an RA next year.
But this wasn't the fun image I made. There's a side link for a dumbledore image manipulator. I clicked on it, and it was Richard Harris's Dumbledore. I had too much fun making this image:
Oh Camelot, will you ever stop kicking ass? I don't think so. So yeah, not serious post is not serious, but at least I'm not whining about my friends.
Thursday, April 7, 2011
One of the Most Underrated Movies Ever (Speed Racer)
If you did a double take at the title of the blog post you are exactly the kind of person who needs to be reading this post. Well, maybe not needs, but strongly encouraged to read and understand.
Speed Racer is (originally) an anime from 1967. Because it was one of the earliest Japanese programs brought over to the US, it has left an indelible mark on it's culture. This is perhaps assisted by the delightfully cheesy dubbed dialogue (that rarely matches the lip flaps and is ridiculously fast paced and contrived) as well as insane plots. In Japan it was called Mach Go Go Go! If you have ever seen an anime parody that featured terrible dialogue (that didn't match lip flaps at all) featured a ridiculous plot and had bad animation and it was before the big anime boom it was probalby making fun of Speed Racer.
On top of all of this: it was awesome. Warning: Spoilers past this point for those who don't want to know the plot.
The plot centered around a young man by the name of Speed Racer. He wants to be a race car driver, but his father is strongly against it because Rex Racer (Speed's elder brother) was in a terrible crash that he miraculously survived. Pops was furious and forbade him from ever racing again. Rex, having none of it, ran away and adopted the secret identity of Racer X, Speed's chief rival (who, just in case the viewer forgot, had narration every time he came on reminding the audience that unbeknownst to Speed, Racer X is secretly Rex Racer). Through out his career as a professional race car driver Speed faces many interesting foes, such as Snake Oiler, Captain Terror, and other gimmicky names. The races themselves were always dangerous with rain, snow, and collapsing rocks.
An interesting feature of this show that is impossible to ignore would be the cars the races took place in. Speed Racer drove the most popular car, the Mach 5. Not only could these cars hit ridiculous speeds and looked nothing like normal cars, they could also do amazing stunts. The Mach 5 had jump jacks, a homing pigeon robot, bullet proof dome, the ability to go under water, super grip tires, saws that popped out the front and seat two people comfortably and fit a child and chimpanzee in the trunk! There was rarely an episode where Sprite and Chim-Chim, Speed's little brother and his pet Chimp, snuck into the trunk of the Mach 5. Racer X drove the almost as iconic Shooting Star, which is the most masculine yellow car ever. Perhaps the true second most iconic car was the mammoth car. It was nearly as long as a train and made ominous noises, on top of this it was driven by mobsters. It was later revealed the car was secretly made of...get this....solid gold. You find this out after it crashes and catches on fire. Have you figured out what kind of show this is yet?
The show was slightly more violent than many other cartoons at the time (dealing with violent car crashes and mobsters trying to fix races). People actually died and would stay dead. Guns were fired (thus the need for bullet proof glass).
This show was delightfully cheesy the way Doctor Who used to be (and to some still is, but that's another post) delightfully cheesy. If delightfully cheesy isn't your thing then I cannot help you. You'll always hate Speed Racer.
In 2008 the Wachowski Brothers, of Matrix fame, released a live-action adaptation. And they meant Live-Action adaptation of Speed Racer.
The plot of the movie is slightly different than the description of the anime above. Speed is a rookie driver who is taking the World Racing League by storm driving a car of his father's creation, the Mach 6 (the Mach 5 is a street car in this continuity). He is offered a spot on the Royalton Racing Team by corrupt corporate excutive, Royalton, himself. After Speed turns him down Royalton reveals that racing has been fixed for years and that since Speed is turning his back on a corporate sponsor he's giving up the ability to win a race ever again. Speed begins to believe Royalton after he fails to finish his next race, just as Royalton had predicted. Shortly afterward Speed is approached by Racer X and a fellow driver named Taejo to race in the rally, Casa Cristo 5000, the same rally that killed Speed's elder brother Rex after he stopped racing for Racer Motors. IF Taejo can win this race, he'll testify that Royalton fixes races. Pops forbids Speed from driving in the race. Trixie and Speed sneak off to compete in the race anyway and are soon found out by his family. They agree to let him finish the race. After many dramatic race scenes, as well as a fight with a ninja, Speed, X, and Taejo win the rally. Taejo's father then sells his company for a lot of money, and Taejo reveals he was never going to testify. This pisses Speed off and he drives around the track Rex used to take him to. He meets X there and X reveals he is NOT Speed's brother.
Shorly afterward, Speed almost leaves his home the way Rex did when Pops tells him Speed is always welcome back (a flip from what he told Rex all those years ago). Taeko's sister, until now a fixture in the background, gives Speed a ticket to the Grand Prix (the big final race). Despite having a MILLION DOLLAR price on his head he not only gets tied for first in record time, he then restarts his car, through just sheer will power and WINS the race! Racer X watches the whole thing and reminisces about how he had plastic surgery and had to leave his family behind, his family being the Racers, duh. Speed changes racing forever and Royalton goes to jail. YAY!
That right there is just like the TV show. Sure the plot isn't a masterpiece, but it was fun and had energy. The way it slightly tweaked the formula of a Speed Racer plot worked and updated it for a modern audience. The race scences were dramatic and had lots of fun especially the insane visuals that happened during them. Every character was true to form and yet highly enjoyable. Even Spritle and Chim Chim who I didn't like that much on the TV show.
The amazing parts though are the editing and the visuals. I think I'll tackle the editing first. All exposition and various edits are done in a full rotation. The camera will start on a character and it will rotate to either back story, or a different view. It is handled particularly well especially in cases of exposition. It shows how the flash back actually is affecting the character having the flash back. It is spread out enough it doesn't feel weighty and yet it comes quickly enough you don't feel left out.
And now to the visuals. The visuals were stunning, if a little overwhelming at first. The colors are hyper saturated. The sky is blue. The clouds are white. I realize this all sounds incredibly obvious, but this film is colorful and fully uses the brightest colors it can. The world is a live action cartoon minus actual cartoon characters, so basically it was Avatar before Avatar (James Cameron not Nickleodeon). The world draws you in and blinds you for looking at it. I know words are failing me here, it's just very hard to describe Speed Racer without seeing it. All I can say is that is is a live action cartoon with all the silliness that generally happens in this type of cartoon.
In many ways the Avatar comparison works really well. Both had immersive, fully CG worlds. Both would benefit from 3D technology (Avatar is better in 3D and Speed Racer is the one movie that may actually be improved with Hollywood's 3D obsession.). Both have more focus on the visual over plot. Both plots are old and used. The problem is Speed Racer was slightly ahead of it's time.
So, if you like fun movies with cheesy plots or if you just want to see the insane visuals I cannot recommend Speed Racer highly enough. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I love Speed Racer for what it is. That's why I love the movie.
Speed Racer is (originally) an anime from 1967. Because it was one of the earliest Japanese programs brought over to the US, it has left an indelible mark on it's culture. This is perhaps assisted by the delightfully cheesy dubbed dialogue (that rarely matches the lip flaps and is ridiculously fast paced and contrived) as well as insane plots. In Japan it was called Mach Go Go Go! If you have ever seen an anime parody that featured terrible dialogue (that didn't match lip flaps at all) featured a ridiculous plot and had bad animation and it was before the big anime boom it was probalby making fun of Speed Racer.
On top of all of this: it was awesome. Warning: Spoilers past this point for those who don't want to know the plot.
The plot centered around a young man by the name of Speed Racer. He wants to be a race car driver, but his father is strongly against it because Rex Racer (Speed's elder brother) was in a terrible crash that he miraculously survived. Pops was furious and forbade him from ever racing again. Rex, having none of it, ran away and adopted the secret identity of Racer X, Speed's chief rival (who, just in case the viewer forgot, had narration every time he came on reminding the audience that unbeknownst to Speed, Racer X is secretly Rex Racer). Through out his career as a professional race car driver Speed faces many interesting foes, such as Snake Oiler, Captain Terror, and other gimmicky names. The races themselves were always dangerous with rain, snow, and collapsing rocks.
An interesting feature of this show that is impossible to ignore would be the cars the races took place in. Speed Racer drove the most popular car, the Mach 5. Not only could these cars hit ridiculous speeds and looked nothing like normal cars, they could also do amazing stunts. The Mach 5 had jump jacks, a homing pigeon robot, bullet proof dome, the ability to go under water, super grip tires, saws that popped out the front and seat two people comfortably and fit a child and chimpanzee in the trunk! There was rarely an episode where Sprite and Chim-Chim, Speed's little brother and his pet Chimp, snuck into the trunk of the Mach 5. Racer X drove the almost as iconic Shooting Star, which is the most masculine yellow car ever. Perhaps the true second most iconic car was the mammoth car. It was nearly as long as a train and made ominous noises, on top of this it was driven by mobsters. It was later revealed the car was secretly made of...get this....solid gold. You find this out after it crashes and catches on fire. Have you figured out what kind of show this is yet?
The show was slightly more violent than many other cartoons at the time (dealing with violent car crashes and mobsters trying to fix races). People actually died and would stay dead. Guns were fired (thus the need for bullet proof glass).
This show was delightfully cheesy the way Doctor Who used to be (and to some still is, but that's another post) delightfully cheesy. If delightfully cheesy isn't your thing then I cannot help you. You'll always hate Speed Racer.
In 2008 the Wachowski Brothers, of Matrix fame, released a live-action adaptation. And they meant Live-Action adaptation of Speed Racer.
The plot of the movie is slightly different than the description of the anime above. Speed is a rookie driver who is taking the World Racing League by storm driving a car of his father's creation, the Mach 6 (the Mach 5 is a street car in this continuity). He is offered a spot on the Royalton Racing Team by corrupt corporate excutive, Royalton, himself. After Speed turns him down Royalton reveals that racing has been fixed for years and that since Speed is turning his back on a corporate sponsor he's giving up the ability to win a race ever again. Speed begins to believe Royalton after he fails to finish his next race, just as Royalton had predicted. Shortly afterward Speed is approached by Racer X and a fellow driver named Taejo to race in the rally, Casa Cristo 5000, the same rally that killed Speed's elder brother Rex after he stopped racing for Racer Motors. IF Taejo can win this race, he'll testify that Royalton fixes races. Pops forbids Speed from driving in the race. Trixie and Speed sneak off to compete in the race anyway and are soon found out by his family. They agree to let him finish the race. After many dramatic race scenes, as well as a fight with a ninja, Speed, X, and Taejo win the rally. Taejo's father then sells his company for a lot of money, and Taejo reveals he was never going to testify. This pisses Speed off and he drives around the track Rex used to take him to. He meets X there and X reveals he is NOT Speed's brother.
Shorly afterward, Speed almost leaves his home the way Rex did when Pops tells him Speed is always welcome back (a flip from what he told Rex all those years ago). Taeko's sister, until now a fixture in the background, gives Speed a ticket to the Grand Prix (the big final race). Despite having a MILLION DOLLAR price on his head he not only gets tied for first in record time, he then restarts his car, through just sheer will power and WINS the race! Racer X watches the whole thing and reminisces about how he had plastic surgery and had to leave his family behind, his family being the Racers, duh. Speed changes racing forever and Royalton goes to jail. YAY!
That right there is just like the TV show. Sure the plot isn't a masterpiece, but it was fun and had energy. The way it slightly tweaked the formula of a Speed Racer plot worked and updated it for a modern audience. The race scences were dramatic and had lots of fun especially the insane visuals that happened during them. Every character was true to form and yet highly enjoyable. Even Spritle and Chim Chim who I didn't like that much on the TV show.
The amazing parts though are the editing and the visuals. I think I'll tackle the editing first. All exposition and various edits are done in a full rotation. The camera will start on a character and it will rotate to either back story, or a different view. It is handled particularly well especially in cases of exposition. It shows how the flash back actually is affecting the character having the flash back. It is spread out enough it doesn't feel weighty and yet it comes quickly enough you don't feel left out.
And now to the visuals. The visuals were stunning, if a little overwhelming at first. The colors are hyper saturated. The sky is blue. The clouds are white. I realize this all sounds incredibly obvious, but this film is colorful and fully uses the brightest colors it can. The world is a live action cartoon minus actual cartoon characters, so basically it was Avatar before Avatar (James Cameron not Nickleodeon). The world draws you in and blinds you for looking at it. I know words are failing me here, it's just very hard to describe Speed Racer without seeing it. All I can say is that is is a live action cartoon with all the silliness that generally happens in this type of cartoon.
In many ways the Avatar comparison works really well. Both had immersive, fully CG worlds. Both would benefit from 3D technology (Avatar is better in 3D and Speed Racer is the one movie that may actually be improved with Hollywood's 3D obsession.). Both have more focus on the visual over plot. Both plots are old and used. The problem is Speed Racer was slightly ahead of it's time.
So, if you like fun movies with cheesy plots or if you just want to see the insane visuals I cannot recommend Speed Racer highly enough. I'm not saying it's a perfect movie, but I love Speed Racer for what it is. That's why I love the movie.
Tuesday, April 5, 2011
Shameless Pimping, Away!
One of my favorite TV shows growing up was a little show called "Whose Line is it Anyway?" every Thursday night at 8 on ABC. Yeah, I go that far back with Whose Line. It is honestly one of my favorite shows. I love it so much I still watch reruns either on ABC family at 11 o'clock or I'll watch some of my favorite clips over and over on Youtube.
There was a British veion and later an American version. I'm obviously talking about the American version, though the clips of the British version I've seen are also really funny. I'm only going to be talking about the American version today.
The show featured great comedians doing improved scenes. The show was hosted by Drew Carrey (during the time that The Drew Carrey Show was popular) and featured some great improvers. You may know some of their names from other shows or films. Here is a small smattering of their names: Colin Mocherie, Ryan Stiles, Chip Esteen, Wayne Brady, Greg Proops and even Stephen Colbert himself was on an early episode.
Why am I going on and on about this old show that hasn't put out a new episode in years (Not counting Drew Carrey's Green Screen Challenge, which sadly was on TV when I couldn't watch it)? Because a new show is coming to GSN called "Drew Carrey's Imrov-a-Ganza" and I'm so excited for it.
I really want this show to succeed. I love improv and I love Whose Line so I want it to succeed so badly. If I have any followers at all, and if I can ask you to do me a favor: Please watch this show. I promise you'll find something funny, or at least something that impresses you. After all, "Everythings made up, right off the top of thier heads."
There was a British veion and later an American version. I'm obviously talking about the American version, though the clips of the British version I've seen are also really funny. I'm only going to be talking about the American version today.
The show featured great comedians doing improved scenes. The show was hosted by Drew Carrey (during the time that The Drew Carrey Show was popular) and featured some great improvers. You may know some of their names from other shows or films. Here is a small smattering of their names: Colin Mocherie, Ryan Stiles, Chip Esteen, Wayne Brady, Greg Proops and even Stephen Colbert himself was on an early episode.
Why am I going on and on about this old show that hasn't put out a new episode in years (Not counting Drew Carrey's Green Screen Challenge, which sadly was on TV when I couldn't watch it)? Because a new show is coming to GSN called "Drew Carrey's Imrov-a-Ganza" and I'm so excited for it.
I really want this show to succeed. I love improv and I love Whose Line so I want it to succeed so badly. If I have any followers at all, and if I can ask you to do me a favor: Please watch this show. I promise you'll find something funny, or at least something that impresses you. After all, "Everythings made up, right off the top of thier heads."
Monday, April 4, 2011
Another Friday Analysis
Hey Guys! I found yet another analysis of Rebecca Black's 'Friday' online and I thought I'd share it with you all: Friday Analysis.
My thoughts on this analysis are as follows: I thought my analysis was dark, but this one beats mine. Hands down. Even my second look at the song. It dove much deeper into the darker themes then I had and found new ones. Kudos. I enjoy dark and depressing things so I throughly enjoyed this analysis. Yeah, it may be a joke, but I think it hits on stuff that is in the video and music video whether their intentionally or not. Probably not, but still.
I also just want to reiterate something thay may have been lost: I don't hate Rebecca Black. I don't think this song was her idea. I think she's just a victim of a particularly evil corporate machine (I'm also not saying all businesses are evil, but ARK Music group....) and parents paying $2000 to try and raise a star. If it was her idea, then I apologize to her parents. I would also like to say I never thought she herself wrote the song. As seen in my analysis I fully blaimed some coprorate executive.
That's all I'm going to say about Friday for now. If more stuff comes up, I may talk about it, but until then. Toodles.
My thoughts on this analysis are as follows: I thought my analysis was dark, but this one beats mine. Hands down. Even my second look at the song. It dove much deeper into the darker themes then I had and found new ones. Kudos. I enjoy dark and depressing things so I throughly enjoyed this analysis. Yeah, it may be a joke, but I think it hits on stuff that is in the video and music video whether their intentionally or not. Probably not, but still.
I also just want to reiterate something thay may have been lost: I don't hate Rebecca Black. I don't think this song was her idea. I think she's just a victim of a particularly evil corporate machine (I'm also not saying all businesses are evil, but ARK Music group....) and parents paying $2000 to try and raise a star. If it was her idea, then I apologize to her parents. I would also like to say I never thought she herself wrote the song. As seen in my analysis I fully blaimed some coprorate executive.
That's all I'm going to say about Friday for now. If more stuff comes up, I may talk about it, but until then. Toodles.
Lisa Was Justified (The Room)
April Fool's day was not to long ago and for those in the know that meant marathon showings of the infamous film, "The Room" from Tommy Wiseau on Adult Swim.
For those of you who don't know: "The Room" is an independent movie that was first released as a drama in 2003. After being critically panned and also reviled (or more often than not, loved for it's terribleness) by audiences director/producer/star/executive producer/writer (as listed in the opening credits) Tommy Wiseau attempted to rebrand this terrible movie as a "Black Comedy" and fooled no one but maybe himself. I say maybe because he still reacts poorly when anyone is making fun of the film without 'permission' despite reviews and parodies being covered under Fair Use Laws. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I get some take down notice or request for writing this analysis.
For an excellent review of this film I suggest the Nostalgia Critic's as he nails several of the key points of fail and provides a better summary of the film.
Here's a synopsis for those who haven't seen "The Room": Johnny (who is totally not Tommy's Mary Sue) is a 'sucessful' 'banker' who is engaged to Lisa who's 'computer job' cannot support her on her own. Johnny is also helping their neighbor Denny pay for school because his parents are MIA (we assume because NOTHING is said about them). Lisa gets bored in her relationship and has sex (repeatedly) with Johnny's best friend Mark. Eventually, after about a million and a half pointless scences and random subplots that go no where, at Johnny's surprise birthday party Johnny figures out Lisa is sleeping with Mark. Johnny goes nuts and destroys his apartment before turning a gun on himself. The next day Mark, Lisa and Denny find his body and scream at eachother while deciding what the fuck they'll do now because they have nothing. Fade to black as police sirens wail.
However instead of rehashing some of the same parts every other review has done ("You're Tearing Me APART, LISA" or "I did not hit her, I did not. Oh Hi Mark!"), in my brief viewing of a few scenes of "The Room" on Cartoon Network I noticed something different than all that. This was about the character Lisa (Johnny's fiance).
The main thing I noticed is (as you've probably guessed by the title) is that Lisa's affair is almost completely justified, albeit in an accidental sort of way. You can tell from the dialogue that Lisa is supposed to be the supreme evil being in this film, barely passing for human. Her stated justifications for her affair are that she's bored and she doesn't love Johnny anymore. In movie and TV land, these are generally unacceptable reasons for divorce, much less cheating therefore, for this movie, she is evil. She states she's unhappy in this relationship and wants out of it and is willing to manipulate Johnny and Mark as well as a few of her other friends to get what she wants, even if it's just this vague idea of 'interesting' she keeps going on about.
However, the clumsy writing of the script actually gives Lisa far more justification that Wiseau ever intended. Oh Literary Criticism, I love how at times you can just throw out authorial intent. Almost every character who talks to Lisa about the affair talks about Johnny and his feelings. The secondary and minor characters thoughts are all variations of, "You can't do this Lisa, you'll hurt Johnny's feelings." This applies to Mark and Claudette (Lisa's mother) as well. Mark has to constantly remind Lisa that he is Johnny's best friend, even after their first time together and then he's still blase toward her feelings and enjoys screwing with Johnny more than loving Lisa. Claudette is the only person to remotely consider Lisa's feelings and her thoughts are, "Love doesn't matter, money does. You just have to put up with it" and then she too joins in defending Johnny and his feelings.
Lisa is trapped in an unfair relationship. Everyone loves Johnny and will do anything to make him happy, even if it includes trapping her where she doesn't want to be. The universe's fixation on Johnny leaves Lisa completely sidelined. Most real world relationship advice boils down to, "do what's best for yourself" and no one ever tells Lisa this beyond 'get his money first.' Every one focuses on Johnny and how he feels (or would feel) about the situation. No one is looking out for Lisa but herself. This is what drives her to do some of her more questionable acts (Making out with Mark at the party, slow dancing with him, saying she's pregnant when she's not) she's calling out for attention to herself and not Johnny for once since they started this relationship. Hell, I bet that if we would've seen much more of this some characters would say things like, "This pregnancy is going to be great for Johnny! He'll be such a good father." and other such bullshit.
Other evidence for the "crying out for attention' theory can be found when Lisa (falsely) accuses Johnny of hitting her after getting drunk. Claudette's first instinct is to immediately state, "Johnny doesn't drink." This shows Lisa her mother is more interested in Johnny's well-being than her own daughter's. I mean really, her daughter may be in danger from physical harm and her first reaction is that her fiance is uncapable of doing such things. If Lisa inherited her mother's drama queen tendencies it explains things, but still you take violent threats seriously. This is is even more troublesome when later in the film he pushes her down into a chair during an argument.
Hell, the entire cast takes Denny's encounter with a drug dealer more seriously than her own personal struggles, even her own mother. She has to repeat her her problems with their relationship over and over to try and get through to people, but it's to no avail. The lie about the pregnancy was infact the final straw for Lisa. It was probably her final experiment before going public with her affair in the way she did. It was proof to her that she wasn't nearly as important as Johnny in the relationship and therefore needed out in anyway possible. Cue self-destruction at the party by jumping all over Mark and then after the party calling him while Johnny can here.
Whether her intention or not, Johnny's suicide gives her that independence she wanted, however she then clings straight to Mark because she still honestly can't take care of herself (or believes that because of the reinforcement of identity issues).
Now, I'm not advocating infidelity. Lisa went about things poorly and really hurt people with her actions (including causing Johnny's death). I do think she should leave Johnny if she's obviously that miserable which I believe she is. Her life was not her own and she took ownership of it. It's like Tommy Wiseau accidentaly wrote a horrible update of Madame Bovary.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours?
For those of you who don't know: "The Room" is an independent movie that was first released as a drama in 2003. After being critically panned and also reviled (or more often than not, loved for it's terribleness) by audiences director/producer/star/executive producer/writer (as listed in the opening credits) Tommy Wiseau attempted to rebrand this terrible movie as a "Black Comedy" and fooled no one but maybe himself. I say maybe because he still reacts poorly when anyone is making fun of the film without 'permission' despite reviews and parodies being covered under Fair Use Laws. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if I get some take down notice or request for writing this analysis.
For an excellent review of this film I suggest the Nostalgia Critic's as he nails several of the key points of fail and provides a better summary of the film.
Here's a synopsis for those who haven't seen "The Room": Johnny (who is totally not Tommy's Mary Sue) is a 'sucessful' 'banker' who is engaged to Lisa who's 'computer job' cannot support her on her own. Johnny is also helping their neighbor Denny pay for school because his parents are MIA (we assume because NOTHING is said about them). Lisa gets bored in her relationship and has sex (repeatedly) with Johnny's best friend Mark. Eventually, after about a million and a half pointless scences and random subplots that go no where, at Johnny's surprise birthday party Johnny figures out Lisa is sleeping with Mark. Johnny goes nuts and destroys his apartment before turning a gun on himself. The next day Mark, Lisa and Denny find his body and scream at eachother while deciding what the fuck they'll do now because they have nothing. Fade to black as police sirens wail.
However instead of rehashing some of the same parts every other review has done ("You're Tearing Me APART, LISA" or "I did not hit her, I did not. Oh Hi Mark!"), in my brief viewing of a few scenes of "The Room" on Cartoon Network I noticed something different than all that. This was about the character Lisa (Johnny's fiance).
The main thing I noticed is (as you've probably guessed by the title) is that Lisa's affair is almost completely justified, albeit in an accidental sort of way. You can tell from the dialogue that Lisa is supposed to be the supreme evil being in this film, barely passing for human. Her stated justifications for her affair are that she's bored and she doesn't love Johnny anymore. In movie and TV land, these are generally unacceptable reasons for divorce, much less cheating therefore, for this movie, she is evil. She states she's unhappy in this relationship and wants out of it and is willing to manipulate Johnny and Mark as well as a few of her other friends to get what she wants, even if it's just this vague idea of 'interesting' she keeps going on about.
However, the clumsy writing of the script actually gives Lisa far more justification that Wiseau ever intended. Oh Literary Criticism, I love how at times you can just throw out authorial intent. Almost every character who talks to Lisa about the affair talks about Johnny and his feelings. The secondary and minor characters thoughts are all variations of, "You can't do this Lisa, you'll hurt Johnny's feelings." This applies to Mark and Claudette (Lisa's mother) as well. Mark has to constantly remind Lisa that he is Johnny's best friend, even after their first time together and then he's still blase toward her feelings and enjoys screwing with Johnny more than loving Lisa. Claudette is the only person to remotely consider Lisa's feelings and her thoughts are, "Love doesn't matter, money does. You just have to put up with it" and then she too joins in defending Johnny and his feelings.
Lisa is trapped in an unfair relationship. Everyone loves Johnny and will do anything to make him happy, even if it includes trapping her where she doesn't want to be. The universe's fixation on Johnny leaves Lisa completely sidelined. Most real world relationship advice boils down to, "do what's best for yourself" and no one ever tells Lisa this beyond 'get his money first.' Every one focuses on Johnny and how he feels (or would feel) about the situation. No one is looking out for Lisa but herself. This is what drives her to do some of her more questionable acts (Making out with Mark at the party, slow dancing with him, saying she's pregnant when she's not) she's calling out for attention to herself and not Johnny for once since they started this relationship. Hell, I bet that if we would've seen much more of this some characters would say things like, "This pregnancy is going to be great for Johnny! He'll be such a good father." and other such bullshit.
Other evidence for the "crying out for attention' theory can be found when Lisa (falsely) accuses Johnny of hitting her after getting drunk. Claudette's first instinct is to immediately state, "Johnny doesn't drink." This shows Lisa her mother is more interested in Johnny's well-being than her own daughter's. I mean really, her daughter may be in danger from physical harm and her first reaction is that her fiance is uncapable of doing such things. If Lisa inherited her mother's drama queen tendencies it explains things, but still you take violent threats seriously. This is is even more troublesome when later in the film he pushes her down into a chair during an argument.
Hell, the entire cast takes Denny's encounter with a drug dealer more seriously than her own personal struggles, even her own mother. She has to repeat her her problems with their relationship over and over to try and get through to people, but it's to no avail. The lie about the pregnancy was infact the final straw for Lisa. It was probably her final experiment before going public with her affair in the way she did. It was proof to her that she wasn't nearly as important as Johnny in the relationship and therefore needed out in anyway possible. Cue self-destruction at the party by jumping all over Mark and then after the party calling him while Johnny can here.
Whether her intention or not, Johnny's suicide gives her that independence she wanted, however she then clings straight to Mark because she still honestly can't take care of herself (or believes that because of the reinforcement of identity issues).
Now, I'm not advocating infidelity. Lisa went about things poorly and really hurt people with her actions (including causing Johnny's death). I do think she should leave Johnny if she's obviously that miserable which I believe she is. Her life was not her own and she took ownership of it. It's like Tommy Wiseau accidentaly wrote a horrible update of Madame Bovary.
Those are my thoughts, what are yours?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
