There’s a particular exchange from the movie Ice Age that I think rather illuminates why intimidation does not draw people closer to God. I know…deep, right? Here’s the actual passage:
MANFRED: You…check for poop.
SID: Why am I the poop-checker?
MANFRED: Because returning the runt was your idea, because you’re small and insignificant, and because I’ll pummel you if you don’t.
[pause]
SID: Why else?
MANFRED: Now, Sid!
Now imagine how that would play out if you replaced the character of Manfred with God, Sid with a typical person, and changed some of the wording.
GOD: You…repent.
PERSON: Why do I have to be the one who repents?
GOD: Because eating the fruit in the garden was your idea, because you’re small and insignificant, and because I’ll pummel you if you don’t.
[pause]
PERSON: Why else?
GOD: Now, Sinner!
Not quite as funny, at least to me, because I’ve actually heard some of the above arguments used, on occasion. Persuasion by intimidation may yield warm bodies, but it doesn’t yield followers. There, I’m putting my soapbox away.
The hubby and I saw The Lightning Thief last Friday. Now I know what Debra Dixon was talking about, that you’ll never be able to watch a movie again without picking it apart. Gah. I was GMCing all the characters AND trying to determine where the hero was on the hero’s journey at any particular moment. (Well, that movie was classic hero’s journey, so…that wasn’t really hard.) It was an enjoyable movie…I liked it. I have to say that now, because I’m fixing to tear it apart. I also need to say that I have not read the Percy Jackson books yet, although I probably will now. So this is just my thoughts on the movie alone.
First of all, my general reaction is that I no longer really like this kind of story.
There are essentially two kinds of hero. There are “safe” heros, the Percy Jacksons. Kids like these heroes, because they are generally nobodies who discover that they are somebodies, and despite their initial reluctance and bumbling around, they end up saving the world and everyone goes home safe. (And as this story is geared tower a middle school audience, I’m not saying this is a bad thing.) These heroes walk through hell, and come out the other side changed, but mostly unscathed, and with the quest item in hand. They get themselves into perilous situations left and right, but in the end, they win the battle without losing anyone or anything really important to them. The friend in danger always gets rescued, and anyone left behind somehow makes it out alive. Good and evil are clean cut, for the most part, and when the hero is given a choice, it is clear which choice he should make.
Then there are heroes like Zuko from Avatar: The Last Airbender. These are the ones who have to scratch and claw their way to what they want, who must struggle for every inch of ground they gain in both their inner and outer battles. They win, but at a very high cost. They get themselves into perilous situations, and get out, but each one takes away a little piece of something that they can’t get back. They walk into hell with five comrades, and stagger out with their last living comrade on their shoulders, his life bleeding away…and then they discover that they left the item that can save the world back in the tunnel. So now they have to choose between saving their last friend’s life, or saving the world…and then they have to live with the knowledge that they could have saved that friend’s life. The hero must pick between a bad situation and a worse one…and he doesn’t always know which is which.
I would have left Percy’s mother with Hades, or killed her off in the end. But that’s because I like the latter kind of hero better, as a writer. I like victory to carry a price tag, the higher the better. Percy Jackson didn’t really emerge from his conflict a changed person…a little more mature, and aware of his parentage, perhaps, but still pretty much the same guy. Also, I find that it bothers me when a hero is able to instantaneously master powers and skills that take everyone else years to learn. Especially when it’s clear that the hero isn’t a prodigy or a genius. Prodigy I can deal with: Aang was a prodigy. But even when he was faced with mastering all four elements in a matter of months (when it normally takes years), he had trouble. Earthbending gave him trouble. Firebending was a disaster the first time he tried it. And he never really did master the Avatar state!
Percy Jackson learned how to use a sword competently in a matter of hours, it would seem (and yeah, I know they compress time for movies, but still)…and after partaking of some of Daddy’s superpowers, he was able to whoop the butt of a girl who’d been training her entire life. And only because Poseidon is a bigger and badder god than Athena…nothing to do with the hero’s own merit or whatnot. If I’d been writing the story, Percy would have lost that battle, and learned a lesson from it.
What else. I was really liking the way the story modernized many of the Greek myths, showing how things like Medusa and the Lotus Eaters had evolved over the centuries. Even the underworld had a modern “feel” to it, and both Hades and Persephone would not have looked out of place on the streets of NYC. But then, when they finally got to Mount Olympus and the gods’ court, the ancient Greek dress and the armour and the decor just killed it for me. I wanted to see that in a modern context as well…being transported back to ancient Greece was jarring. It made the whole scene feel irrelevant, and almost cheesy. The hubby made a good suggestion, though: that perhaps the Greek gods have wrapped themselves in the trappings of their “golden age”, when men still worshiped them and they were a force in the world…and that they are unwilling or unable to let that age go. I’ll buy that; it’s a good theory. I wish the story had made that clear, however.
Ah: one major myth fail in the movie. The heroes travel to the underworld and meet Persephone, Hades’ wife, who is clearly unhappy with her lot. That’s fine. The problem is, this story is supposed to take place in midsummer. The movie is one big countdown to the summer solstice. If you know the story of Persephone, you know that because she partook of the food of the underworld, she has to stay there for half the year; the other half she spends with her mother, Demeter, and the world prospers. While Persephone is in the underworld with Hades, Demeter grieves, and that’s why we have winter. Thus, Persephone would not have even been in the underworld during the summer! The story could have just as easily taken place over the winter solstice, if they had to have a solstice…so I just don’t get how that detail slipped by everyone.
One last major thing: they screwed up the major antagonist’s GMC, and thereby spoiled any chance of three-dimensionality in his character. First of all, I knew who the lightning thief was almost from the moment we met him onscreen…which was satisfying at the time, but totally ruined the “big reveal” moment towards the end. And then, lightning bolt in hand, they had him give this totally cliche villain speech…and that’s where the mistake was. (Forgive me if I don’t get the quotes exactly right…I’ve only seen the movie once, and several days ago now.)
“Why did you steal the bolt?” Percy Jackson asks.
“Why else?” the thief says. “For power. The gods have ruled long enough; I think it’s time for the second generation to take over.”
No, no, no. G=/=M. Power is not a motivation. It is a goal. Something (motivation) has to drive a person to seek power (goal). Not to mention that the whole I-want-power thing really did not jibe with the rest of Luke’s character. Luke’s inner struggle is that his father, Hermes, abandoned him, as all the gods must abandon their mortal children, and that just never sits well with him. He’s the sympathetic voice for all the lost demi-god kids in this world. “We’ve all got Daddy complexes, don’t we?” he asks at an earlier point in the movie. This is how that scene should have gone:
“Why did you steal the bolt?” Percy Jackson asks.
“Because I want to watch the gods destroy themselves in this war they’re going to start,” the thief says. “Why should we care? They abandoned us; they never needed us. So I say, we don’t need them!”
Now Percy Jackson has something in common with the villain: both have been abandoned by their fathers. Luke might even press the point and try to sway Percy to his side: “Why are you helping them? They don’t care about anything but themselves.” Percy’s choice about whether to return the bolt to Zeus is suddenly a whole lot less obvious, and the conflict is a whole lot more interesting. And Luke becomes a much deeper, more human character.
But…that’s not how they did it. Oh well. Maybe the book does a better job. But overall, an enjoyable movie.
I just happened across a new trailer for The Last Airbender (M. Night Shyamalan’s take on the awesome Avatar series that Nickelodeon put out). Looks pretty cool, though I worry that Aang looks way too serious.
Posted by nightphoenix on Dec 22, 2009 in Movie Mondays
Saw the movie Avatar on Saturday night. I suppose I could go on for hours, googly-eyed, about the special effects and the world and pretty, pretty stuff…but I think the movie critic community has beaten me to it. Never mind the CG; we all know it’s new and state-of-the-art and whatnot. The world Pandora itself was awesome, simply from a worldbuilding point of view. (At first I was a bit irritated that they called the world something loaded like “Pandora”, but in the context of the story and the creatures that live on that world, it actually makes a kind of sense. “Unobtanium”, on the other hand…ah, no. Too cheesy. Fail.).
It was a cognizant, consistent world, where every creature, no matter how bizarre, made biological sense and looked like it had a place in the ecosystem. Most of the oddities of Pandora ran consistently across the gamut of species, like bio-luminescence, nostrils on the chest, two sets of limbs in front and one in the back, and of course, the string of filaments that allowed them all to connect with each other and with the plants. Seriously, I am convinced within myself that the movie plot did not do justice to that world…you could do so much more with a place like that. I actually hope they do.
The plot was formula. Dances with Wolves, The Last Samuri; how many “going native” stories exist out there now? Can’t do too many variations on that theme. It was also a definite action flick; lots of battles and plot moving and running around, not much introspection and character development. (Okay, admittedly, it was a kickass action movie, but it’s still not my favorite genre). Cardboard classics: the hard-bitten military man; the corrupt, weaselly capitalist; the nerdy but purehearted scientists; the classic (and flagrantly FALSE) stereotype of the noble savage. I particularly hate it when enemies have no depth, no particular reason for what they do. I want to know why. I want to know what drives them to act like that.
But it had moments. The flying scenes were awesome. Every time the natives got rallied, those were stirring moments. The whole Pandora-kicking-butt part at the end was awesome, even if one could see it coming a mile off. Both Narnia and LOTR had moments like this: Gandalf rushing down the mountainside with Eomer and his men, the Narnians charging at the Witch’s forces, etc. I think brave charges and last stands stir something very primal in the human spirit…and that’s something that’s very hard to mimic in writing.
Of course, the ending of Avatar made me raise an eyebrow because I thought to myself, “Oh sure, you’ve scared Earth away for now, but they’ll be back. You’ve humiliated them. What are you going to do when they return with the REALLY big guns, the nukes, the weapons that could probably blast your whole planet apart?”
Also, I know the tribes were all at peace, and probably somewhat connected via Eywa’s roots…but still, I thought Jake’s character convinced them to join forces just a little bit too easily. Even if he was flying a whatchamacallit. The tribal people were too idealized, too much of the “noble savage” stereotype, to really be a real people. Honestly, they were probably the least believable aspect of Pandora. They weren’t different enough, and let’s face it…human enough for me to buy them. There was no unique Na’vi culture…it was just a mish-mash of Native American, African, and other native cultures, without all the blood and feuds and not-so-noble stuff that those people have in their history. Watching the avatars play basketball was more real, in a sense, than watching the natives hold arms and sway around the Tree of Souls.
I walked away from Avatar with the same sense I get after riding a roller coaster: a great ride, but ultimately, now I go on with my life like nothing happened. Eeeh…I appreciate a ride, but I feel like fiction ought to do more than that, you know? Maybe that’s just me.
Posted by nightphoenix on Dec 6, 2009 in Movie Mondays
Well, the hubby and I finally went to see New Moon…only about two weeks past the hype. First of all, whoever they have directing these movies definitely knows how to capture the general mood of the books, which I appreciate. Even with movies like Narnia and LOTR, there was an initial period where I had to adjust my memories of the book to fit what I was seeing on the screen. When I watched Twilight, and again when I watched New Moon, the world and the mood left me in no doubt I was in the wet, dreary, mysterious Twilight version of Forks, WA.
I chuckled for most of the movie, honestly. Partially because there were a lot of roll-your-eyes cheese moments, but also because of the people watching the movie. Seriously, when Jacob’s character pulled off his shirt for the first time, there was a collective “Oooh…” from half the female audience in the theater. It was hilarious. Teenagers. Oi.
Bella and Charlie had a few deadpan moments that were absolutely great, and there were a few other snarky moments I enjoyed. They nailed Jacob and the wolves, and not just because of the abundance of pectoral muscles (though, I must admit, those were pretty impressive). Overall, the movie stayed pretty true to the book; they might have left a few things out, but they didn’t add much and they really didn’t change anything major (that I noticed).
Okay, on to the things I didn’t like. Two words: Robert Pattinson. Maybe he’s the only one they found who could even remotely pull off Edward Cullen, but gods, he’s just not carrying that character at all. First problem: visually, he’s not all that attractive to me. He’s thin, kind of hairy, and he has that really square jaw that I’ve just never liked on guys. Not Edward Cullen beautiful at all. I may be biased, but if I’m not even remotely attracted to the guy, I have a hard time empathizing with Bella’s obsession with him. Really, there were points during the movie where I was thinking, “Dude, Bella, why are you pining over the freaky skinny guy who left you when you’ve got a very hot Indian right there who worships the ground you walk on??”
You know, on a similar note, I don’t think the actress playing Rosalie is nearly drop-dead gorgeous enough for the role, either. Maybe I just have a peculiar taste in people.
Edward Cullen has a sort of magnetic charisma in the books that Pattinson isn’t pulling off onscreen, IMO. His attempts to seem mysterious or sexy come off as either cheesy, dorky, or just plain pathetic. (I’m thinking the Shakespeare reciting scene here, for those who’ve seen the movie). You know, where they slow down his walk and try to make his entrances look all “whoa, hot guy coming through”…trust me, I wasn’t sighing; I was cringing. He’s not carrying the part, and every attempt to make him seem sexier than he is just falls flat. I’m almost embarrassed for the guy, but then all the girls are staring at him like he’s the most delectable thing they’ve ever seen. The contrast is so bad it completely breaks me out of the story. In fact, I think I cringed every time Pattinson came onscreen and opened his mouth.
Jacob…I could understand being attracted to him, although he’s a little buff for my personal taste, and his teeth were unnaturally white. Oh, and trust me, nobody in the theater moaned with delirium when Edward took his shirt off. It was a whole lot more like, “Eh…someone cover him up, now, please?”
Unfortunately for me, Cullen is the crux of the story, and the whole movie suffers when I can’t stand the hero.
Okay, what else. Bella’s nightmares were absurd. They didn’t look like nightmares at all, really; it looked more like someone was using the Cruciatus Curse on her. Really, screaming in pain just because your boyfriend ran off? That’s a little bit too over the top, even for teenaged angst.
Also, I wished they’d made the vampire eyes a little more subtle. I think it was worse, this movie. The Cullens’ yellow ones weren’t so bad (except Alice’s, sometimes), but the Volturi were just like, how do they move around in normal human society at all? It wasn’t the red irises, really; it was the way they kind of seemed to pop out of the sockets, like all vampires are slightly bug-eyed or something. And there was none of the shading to indicate thirst level. On an amusing note, the hubby did not recognize Dakota Fanning as Jane. I wonder if I would have, had I not known in advance to expect her in that role?
Overall, not a bad movie. Any plot fails or character flaws are probably the result of the source material, not the moviemakers. Except for Pattinson. Epic fail on getting Edward Cullen right.
Posted by nightphoenix on Aug 11, 2009 in Movie Mondays
Last Friday night, the hubby and I watched The Knowing. Here it is Tuesday, and I’m finally getting around to writing down my thoughts. Efficient, Nightphoenix. Very efficient. Oh well.
I had seen previews for this movie in the theaters, and thought it looked mildly interesting. Only somehow it didn’t seem to stay in the theater very long, and we missed the window. I kind of forgot about it until the hubby’s parents lent the DVD to us.
The hubby said that doomsday movies are overdone, and I tend to agree with him. There are only so many ways you can destroy the world, or almost destroy the world. All the plausible ones (and most of the implausible ones, for that matter) have been explored in film. Plus, everybody already knows the ending before they walk into the theater. The notable doomsday movies are only notable because of some other element within them. Independence Day worked because Will Smith and Jeff Goldbloom carried it. Armageddon, Deep Impact, and similar movies fly because the romantic subplot is interesting enough. Etc.
The Knowing was good for what it was. I have yet to see a Nicholas Cage movie I really dislike, however, so I may be a little biased. The title plays on your expectations, which I appreciated. You think that it’s about “knowing” about these major disasters ahead of time, and it is, but on a deeper level it’s also about “knowing” there’s a purpose to everything that happens. The interpersonal plot was done pretty well. I wish they had devoted a little more time to Abby’s character, because in that scene where the kids are taken away, she seems less like a character and more like a prop. I didn’t care about her the way I cared about Caleb.
This must be a result of having a child of my own, but the moment in the movie where I was the most tense was when the two adults went into that creepy house at night and left the kids sleeping in the car. Alone. With the creepy, still-as-yet ambivalent “whisperers” out there somewhere. I was so worried about those children that I could barely concentrate on what the adults were doing. I’m not sure if that’s what was intended, since what they were doing in the house was kind of important.
I did enjoy the EE = Everyone Else reveal, on the underside of the bed. That was a delightfully creepy moment.
My major problem with this movie is that I ended up disagreeing with the basic premise: aliens foresaw every horrible human event, and our eventual demise, and warned select people so that some of us could be taken to another world and the human race would survive. I can buy the idea that a human might be able to predict the future. I can even buy the idea that an alien could predict the future, and would care enough to intervene. But it would have to be because the alien is sensitive on that level, not simply because he’s an alien. No amount of superior technology can predict future events (especially since a large number of the events predicted, like 9/11, were not caused by natural disasters, but by human free will…what technology can possibly foresee that?)
When it first became obvious that there were aliens involved in the movie, and in the number puzzle, I assumed at first that the aliens were causing all these disasters. I just have a hard time accepting that they could have known about the tragedies unless they were behind them. My credulity was seriously strained when they weren’t. Another human being might be sensitive enough to pick what Osama Bin Laden was planning before 9/11 out of the ether and make a prediction, but an alien? Pick out the time, the place, the number of people who would die? That suggests a familiarity and intimacy with us and our thought patterns that I’m not convinced was there.
It seemed like these aliens could see the future simply by virtue of being aliens. I think maybe you were supposed to assume that they were psychic, since they could “whisper” and stuff, but really, the movie just made them plain creepy. Alien. I was not made to feel they could see the future because they were psychic…I was made to feel they could see it because they were more advanced than us and thus they just “knew” these things. The difference is perhaps minimal, but it did bother me.
Plus, only the last few disasters had anything to do with the solar flare, and that last event. Why would the aliens even bother warning the girl in the beginning about the other disasters, if it was all in preparation for the final one?
I would have been more convinced if the aliens had actually been angels or something like that. The move had them playing that role anyway…why not just make them what they’re pretending to be? Are the producers afraid that angels aren’t “culture and religion-neutral” enough, and aliens are? Does it HAVE to be aliens?? They are so cliche.
The movie also had the problem of a lot of doomsday stories. After the characters discover that the whole planet is in danger, and that there’s nothing that can be done, and that time is running out…then what? The excitement comes from the characters being presented with a problem and then going about trying to solve it. However, in this particular doomsday flick, once the tension of figuring out when and how everyone is going to die is over, the excitement grinds to a halt. Since the characters can do nothing to actually stop the doomsday, someone much more powerful has to save them, or everyone has to die. The storyline practically demands a Deus Ex Machina or a totally depressing ending, neither of which is very satisfying. (Actually, The Knowing employed both types of ending. The children are saved by the powerful, benevolent aliens, and everyone else dies. It still wasn’t completely satisfying.)
Overall, it wasn’t a bad movie. But I think I must be one of those people that are easily amused. I’ve liked a number of movies that the critics have torn to pieces.
I can enjoy a mediocre story for what it is, if it’s entertaining enough. (I just don’t want to write them )
I also need to say that I have not read the Percy Jackson books yet, although I probably will now. So this is just my thoughts on the movie alone.
)