Friday, 31 August 2007

Review - Spartacus (1960)





Spartacus, based on Howard Fast's popular novel, is Stanley Kubrick's glorious masterpiece about a slave uprising in Rome in 70 B.C. A young and ambitious Kirk Douglas apparently did not care to lose the title role of Ben-Hur to Charlton Heston. On the policy that outdoing rivals is the best revenge, Douglas plotted a new project. A best selling novel on a Roman slave revolt, light on history but heavy on drama, was written into a screenplay by a writer blacklisted as a Communist sympathizer. A nearly all-star cast was assembled, which included Laurence Olivier (who reputedly thought he would perform better in the title role than Douglas, and only grudgingly accepted a secondary role). The original director of the project was fired, and in his place was brought the artistic Stanley Kubrick (whose eye for dehumanization clashed with Douglas' humanism). The Spanish army was enlisted to ape Roman legionaries, and an epic score was composed to bring orchestral notes. The result, whether foreseen or not, was one of the best films Hollywood ever produced. But it is not about history, and never was.

Douglas' Spartacus is born into slavery and spends his miserable life dreaming of the death of the institution. He believes in honesty, fair play and equality. He would rather be a singer and poet than a fighter. He wants to understand the natural world and the way it works rather than rely on hokey mythology. In short, he presages the humanism and intellectualism of modernity. As he hangs on his cross at the end, watching his now free wife and son leave Rome behind, we are to anticipate... what exactly? The coming of Christianity and a new breed of morality? A proletariat revolution? The end of Hollywood blacklisting? Perhaps all the above.

As a piece of historical validity, the movie is bollocks. Spartacus was not born into slavery, but sold into it after deserting the Roman armies. He sought not the end of slavery, but merely to turn the tables on his former masters. Nor was he crucified, but presumed dead on the battlefield.

Spartacus is a movie that firmly establishes pagan Rome as an Evil Empire, against which either Judeo-Christian morality or post-industrial humanism may be contrasted. The opening dialogue in fact offers some of the worst over-the-top moralizing in history of cinema; something about the evils of pagan Rome which the future religion of Christianity shall cleanse. I am not altogether convinced the theocracy and serfdom of Medieval Christianity was any more virtuous than the paganism and slavery of Ancient Rome.

In a sense, though, this is all beside the point. Spartacus is not about history, but aesthetics. We have superb customs and scenery (for 1960). We have a memorable score; the haunting love melody between Spartacus and Varinia, and the harsh martial blasts that announce Crassus. We have the Spanish army offering a shivering impression of what a Roman legion must have looked like marching into the field of battle. And we get a sense, thanks to the training school of Capua, of the rigors of gladiatorial study. The movie won four academy awards, three of which are in these technical areas and are all well deserved.

But most of all, we have superb acting. Forty-seven years later, Olivier's shining performance as Crassus still sets the standard for the self-aware dignitas and gravitas projected by a Roman patrician. Indeed, in the modern age one assumes a Roman patrician should have a cultured British accent. Olivier should not have suffered any insults for playing second banana to Douglas, for his commanding presence steals all the scenes in which he performs. His harangue of the Roman Senate and army before the showdown with the rebels should be required viewing for orators. Olivier is also perhaps the only actor that can convincingly deliver such lines as: 'Rome is an eternal thought in the mind of God.' Too bad the historical Crassus was neither so conservative nor as dignified (oh, but I need to remind myself this is not about history).

Charles Laughton plays another kind of patrician, one that every American frat boy trains to imitate: a senator given to looser morals and more corpulent pleasures. Laughton is delightful as the kind but wily Gracchus, lover and beloved of the people, guardian of Rome's left wing.

The real ham, and the one who actually won an academy award, is Peter Ustinov. Lentulus Batiatus is a fawning middle class Roman lanista, forever seeking profit and ingratiating advancement at the hands of his patrician betters. Crassus and Spartacus both offer, in their own ways, ideals that mean little to Batiatus' business minded pragmatism. Watch Ustinov scurry about at this deliciously pathetic “sesterci” pincher, displaced by his former slave's revolt and groveling before the sinister Crassus and benevolent Gracchus! It is one of the wonders of Hollywood's Silver Age.

Then we have Tony Curtis, perhaps best known in the modern age for contributing one half the chromosomes that created the wondrous body of Jamie Lee Curtis. But before that, the Bronx native was apparently a star in his own right. He plays Antoninus, a house servant trained in Greek culture. He finds his way into Crassus' employment. The conservative Roman senator sneers at this product of Greek aesthetics, and could find better uses for the handsome slave. The famous scene has Curtis cringing before Olivier's veiled hints of bisexuality. (In the historical world, a Roman patrician would not have had to justify his bisexuality to anyone, least of all a lowly slave, but I seem to forget this movie is not about history). In any event, Antoninus escapes to join the slave army, and becomes the educated foil to Douglas' illiterate rebel leader. The cultured slave and the warrior slave wish they could be like each other. In them we are supposed to see embodied the refined peace and just war promised by the slave revolt.

The one downside in the acting cornucopia is the fellow who played Glaborus. I am not sure of his name, but it is best forgotten. I have seen better acting from street vendors.

I should mention something about the famous scene where the survivors of the slave army stand up and shout 'I am Spartacus!' to prevent the actual Spartacus from being identified. They are, indeed, all Spartacus. For Spartacus is no longer a man; he has become an ideal, etched into the souls of all freedom loving people, breathed into the life of the yearning masses straining from oppression. I guess, once again, it is not about history.



Thursday, 30 August 2007

The Poison Of Religion




I hate the polarizing effect of organized religion and the fact that if you aren't of _____ religion then you're going to hell or some other eternal damnation. If you think Ganguly is arrogant, how arrogant is a man who professes to speak on behalf of some make-believe God or professes to be able to help save your "soul"? No wonder the Church went on the great Crusades and killed thousands of Muslims who now kill thousands of others or backward ass religious leaders who burned witches at the stake. Remember The Inquisition? I've never heard of a group of realists/humanists/reasonists committing atrocities like that. Thank God I was never an altar boy that had to play Mr. Stinky Finger with a catholic priest.

I have nothing against religious people. 99.9% of my friends claim to belong to this religion or that. I don't think religion makes them good people though. I think they'd be good people without religion. Hell, how many murderers, rapists, child molesters, etc were members of a religion before they committed their crimes? Jim Jones anyone? How about Pope John XII? Religion didn't make them good people. People are people and good or bad has nothing to do with religion. But, the pendulum swings and whereas religion doesn't make you good, many religious people I know believe that a lack of religion makes a person bad. I suppose people believe in only certain parts of their own religion because some in the Christian/Catholic religions forget the part about "Judge not lest ye be judged." A friend a while back who was going through a rough time told me "If you found God, you'd find happiness." Well, I replied with... "I am happy. I don't need an imaginary force to rely on. I'm happy every day and I haven't been angry in a couple of years and I haven't been sad or depressed in many years. You evidently have found God and you're crying your ass off every day for a week. Where is that happiness?" It should be noted I wasn't knocking my friend because of his/her religion. I was only defending my beliefs because for some reason he/she thought I was unhappy. Quite the contrary.

The unfortunate side is that my "lack of religion" has caused one of my relationships with girlfriends to fall apart. Funny.. A person claiming to be a Hindu and has premarital sex and drinking and smoking most nights of the week gets upset with me because I don't go to temples or churches or mosques or believe in a higher power.

Amazing...

I should mention one thing. I don't totally negate the possibility of a higher power. I only wait to see physical evidence (proof) of said higher power and in that event, I'll shut the hell up.

Just yesterday my best friend (who is catholic) and his girlfriend (who is catholic) were here in the office. She told me that I HAD to believe in something or I would never find happiness. I told her as I've told everyone else "I am very happy." I went on to tell her "I believe in you, I believe in Joe, I believe in myself. If YOU fuck me over, it's not because of God or Satan or Mars, it's because of YOU." She shut up after that.

It's unfair in so many ways that an atheist is looked down upon no matter that the person may be kind, decent, fair, family oriented, responsible, etc.

Many of my atheist type friends prefer the term "Skeptic" since "atheist" seems more polarizing. I think religious folks should be the "skeptics". Why is a person who believes in science and can see proof of what the world is, where it came from, how old it is and what makes up the galaxy be a skeptic? The person who doesn't believe in proven science should be the skeptic. They base their lives on some religious text and mythology and can't prove any of it yet they aren't the skeptic?

There is something decidedly wrong with that.



Wednesday, 29 August 2007

Apocalypto (2006) --- Review




Apocalypto brings out what's unique and gripping in Gibson as a director. It's pure adrenaline -- a tremendously exciting chase movie, shot in Mexico, that just happens to be set in ancient Maya with dialogue spoken in Yucatec Maya, with English subtitles. Heck, you lived through Latin and Aramaic in Gibson's Passion of the Christ, so don't be a wussy. Actually, you'd better not be gore-shy, because Apocalypto is one brutal and bloody ride.

The plot, cooked up by Gibson and Farhad Safinia, focuses on Jaguar Paw (Rudy Youngblood), a braveheart if ever there was one. Even women and children are killed when his village is attacked by another tribe. After hiding his pregnant wife and young son in a cave, Jaguar goes on the run experiencing adventures that would give Indiana Jones the screaming meemies. The movie flies by fast enough to cause whiplash. Youngblood, 25, is a Comanche and Cree Indian from Texas, and he holds the screen every treacherous inch of the way, suffering penitential hardships from spears, snakes and tribal rulers intent on removing his heart while it's still beating.

This being Gibson, there's more to the film than the rush. It's impossible not to see parallels to our own cultured civilization, one that knowingly destroys its environment and sends troops to Iraq as human sacrifices. Gibson has made a film of blunt provocation and bruising beauty -- it's breathtaking to watch a jaguar racing in the jungle alongside the man who is named after the beast. Say what you will about Gibson, he's a filmmaker right down to his nerve endings.

Having said all this, I have this to say - the movie's not violent enough. Okay, so it's gruesome, with the mano-a-mano scenes where one bashes the other's head in. But today's audience really is quite used to that, and Mel Gibson knows enough not to push the point - so in fact the sequence of the ransacking of the village was rather tame. You know people are being killed but you don't really see it and you don't hear a lot of bone-crunching sounds. Gibson pushes the violence where it counts - when it gets personal.

You see, people simplistically associate Gibson with violent movies. They think that what he really likes is to make violent movies. Idiots. Watch closely. The one consistent motif is the feeling of desired vengeance it arouses in the audience. Gibson is very good at setting up conflict between characters, but not just any conflict, it's one specific type of conflict - where the bully unreasonably heckles the protagonist and destroys his life around him so very completely, arousing the desire in the audience to want to reach in and choke the bully ... but ah, that's not what movies are supposed to do. Movies are for the protagonist to go through trials, gain his strength - and then launch into what is known as 'payback time'. That's what Gibson has always done in his movies and what he does best.

As for the whole Mayan civilisation thing, well it doesn't really involve too much of the Mayan (as in, the city dwellers) themselves. The thing is I love movies that are set in ancient times. Unfortunately those movies almost don't exist. They don't make them coz the public is too stupid to watch them. Or it's just that I'm weird and unique in a lonely sense, the same way that Alexander was lonely because no one understood him or his vision and ambitions. (I plugged in lonely coz so many people come up with the rebuke "everybody's weird", which is also saying that nobody's weird. Which defeats the point.) Which is why I'm glad Gibson went ahead to make this film, and in a forgotten/dying language as well - he is the only one with the money to do so (big fat money from The Passion Of The Christ, yeah!) and the interest in it as well. The only one. Other directors are hired to make movies like Troy or King Arthur.

Now I'm getting to why I don't think the movie is violent enough. You see, I got really fascinated when watching a documentary/reading an article about the Aztecs (who are different from the Mayans, who are different from the Incans ... but how could you guys tell? I can't), about how they have this sacrificial ritual (annually?). They line up up to 20,000 prisoners captured from neighbouring villages, along the way up the largest ziggurat in the middle of the capital, with the entire population descending into trance as high priests rip out the hearts of the prisoners, drink their blood, and chop their heads off and fling it off the ziggurat, then the body as well. Now, when I imagined that scene, I imagined it with the ziggurat filled with blood from top to bottom, the blood slowly flooding the bottom of the ziggurat, moving through the feet of those closest to the ziggurat, the stench of the blood pouring from the bodies, the flop-flop sound of the bodies being flung off the ziggurat going down the stairs, the squeezing of the half-beating hearts to squish out the blood, the messiness of it all, and the entire population with their eyes going up into their heads. Anyways, archaelogists today try to explain the fall of the Aztecs by the fact that their thirst for prisoners for the sacrifice forced them to ravage village upon village which, understandably, causes undue resentment and eventually the neighbouring tribes co-operated with the impending conquistadors to bring down the Aztecs. But that's beside the point.

The point is, I actually imagined the ziggurat sacrificial scenes, and thought, wow, if I could make a movie like that ... no one would watch it. People would be too pussy to watch it. Heck, I'm scaring myself - it's a really scary sight.

You don't get that in Apocalypto. No. Apocalypto is a movie designed for 21st century audiences - it's too barbaric to stage it as bloody as that, plus people might not believe it. Some might even have thought that Gibson did that purely for violence's sake. The sacrificial sequence in the movie is still scary. It's just that I'm the only person in the world who thought he didn't go far enough.

Now, to the characters - wow, they set it up pretty well. The actor who played the main character, Jaguar Paw (which I'm sure sounds a whole lot better and a whole lot less contrived in the language they speak), is surprisingly charismatic. Even though it's almost entirely a physical role, in the beginning we see him as this pensive person, the only one who goes into his mind, and it takes his father and his wife to call him back. In effect he's the modern hero - one who is physically adept as well as mentally agile. As for the rest of the characters, it's kinda hard for them to screw it up, since it's pretty on-the-nose - they're either trying their very best to kill someone, or trying their very best to survive. Such are the times in (what is apparently) 15th century Central America.

Visually - wow. I'm guessing that is hi-def. Thing is, the whole movie is shot with the Nat Geo look - for the film students, what we have here is pretty deep depth of field. It took a while to get used to it. At any case it is a beautiful film to look at. The costume design and make-up departments deserve kudos as well, they were so well done that it suggests a certain level of complexity in the social structures, plus incredibly detailed textures on the men's bodies.

Now, because this is a Mel Gibson film it still requires suspension of disbelief. Some of the scenes are a little over-the-top - not too much, just a little. But I enjoyed it.

Just this. Please, do yourself a favour. Don't go watch this film when you're in the mood for something more like The Queen, and then come out of the cinema saying the film sucks. Assholes.



Tuesday, 28 August 2007

Words Are Not Offensive, People Are




Words and speech are powerful tools of communication. Combined with inflection and body language, they are used to convey information from one person to another. This is done directly (the literal translation of the words) and indirectly (the context of what is being said). Though it doesn't seem particularly obvious to us at most times, words, when spoken or read, have two separate meanings – the meaning intended by the speaker/writer, and the meaning understood by the listener/reader. The distinction between the two is very important, because the greater the difference there is between what is meant and what is understood dictates how effectively we are communicating. Our goal, then, is to close the gap between what is intended and what is understood. Only then can a free and meaningful exchange of ideas occur, such that real consensus can be reached.

It is with that goal in mind that I address the issue of offensive speech. There are currently words in the English language that are considered offensive. The commonality between them is their association with offensive objects and/or offensive ideas. Thus, society treats these words as taboo – they are avoided in many social and professional contexts and are banned from use by children and general access media. Some words are considered so bad that efforts are made to ban their use completely. What seems to be forgotten, however, is that though these words are concise symbols of offensive things and ideas, they are just that – only symbols – and thus they are not necessary for the expression of such objects or ideas. I can be quite offensive to people by using strictly acceptable words. Remember too, that for a word to be offensive, it requires someone to consider it offensive – if the receiver of the message did not consider it to be offensive, then despite the best efforts of the communicator, the message would be meaningless.

This brings me to my point – why can we not simply stop being offended by words, and thus take away their meaning and power? When trying to be offensive, the goal is to evoke a negative reaction from the receiver of the message. If no such reaction is garnered, then the act is meaningless. We would be effectively robbing bigoted people of a very simple and effective tool. It would be different if banning offensive words actually contributed to a decrease in offensive behaviour. However, only education and understanding can make such a contribution. Ironically, the banning of offensive words only increases the negativity of these words, increasing their power and effectiveness. Additionally, banning words can be counterproductive in that it can provide the illusion that the decrease in the use of the words might equal a decrease in offensive ideas in society and progress in the fight against ignorance and prejudice. It would seem that any benefit in banning offensive words would be purely superficial; the bad clearly outweighs the good.

I realize that ceasing our negative reactions to offensive words is easier said than done, but I do believe that with practice, it is achievable. But then again, what do I know? I’m just some retarded, incessantly rambling faggot.



Before Sunrise (1995) - Review



This is a sweet romantic movie I have seen in a very long time.

Director Richard Linklater, with BEFORE SUNRISE, has created a special dialogue-driven dating movie. Throughout, most of the film, the intrinsic story follows a cute young couple through a long, first date. A French graduate student, Celine (Julie Delpy), and an American boy, Jesse (Ethan Hawke), meet on a Budapest-Vienna train. It starts with a contingent encounter in the afternoon on the train, and goes throughout the night and until the early morning, turning into a 14 hour date.

Considering that Linklater's previous films were SLACKER and DAZED AND CONFUSED, BEFORE SUNRISE is a surprisingly mature work. One of the film strengths is that it captures the flavor and fluid structure of a first date, hooking the audience with "intriguing conversations" and the couples' spontaneity. You get to know the characters as they get to know each other, just like a first date, "as the two share in their love for the unrehearsed and their appreciation for the unexpected as they explore in a powerful meeting of hearts and minds."

The well cast movie has cute romantic moments. My favorite scene, takes place early on in the film, on a train. Charming young passenger, Hawke, makes an amazing pitch for Delpy to spontaneously get off the train with him, involving time travel and her future regret about missing an opportunity to spend time with the "right guy." It's the kind of crazy pitch that only a young guy would try, and only a young girl would go for. Oh to be young!

Lee Daniel did a terrific job with the cinematography, especially with his effective lensing of the atmospheric Vienna locations, which enhances the viewing experience.

BEFORE SUNRISE must be popular with people who enjoy romance films, that are unpretentious and grounded in realism. Although the pacing is slow at times, it's congruous, creating the right overall mood of the all-night date. "Before Sunrise" even has suspense, making the viewer guess if the couple will end up with each other. Romantics will be well satisfied by the ending.

We then see them condense the entire course of a relationship into less than 24 hours, with all the usual landmarks (the initial goo-goo eyes, the first kiss, the first fight, etc.) played out against the sumptuous Viennese backdrop. Hawke is engagingly goofy and Delpy, despite a tendency to overplay the intellectual waif card, is more than a match for him. See it with someone you love. Even better, see it by yourself and pick up a total stranger in the lobby afterwards. :)



Monday, 27 August 2007

The Best Is Yet To Come

It's not too late.
It's not too late at all.
You're young.
You have many years to go.
Why do you lament your finite moments
When so many more lie ahead?
If it's college degrees you want,
You can have a dozen or more.
If you want a career,
You have decades to have several.
Why lament the current status quo?
You know one thing,
Or else you're just pathetic.
You will be alive.
So what does that mean?
It means you'll get through whatever the hell comes
And you will be alive.
So you will have the time.
The time to control your own destiny.
You aren't through with options yet.
Oppurtunity is a grain of sand
On the infinite beach if time.
Implementation is the bitch.
That's the true test of the power of your spirit.
Can you make it happen?
Or are you just a dreamer and a spectator?
We're young, you and I.
We can, and will, eventually rule the world
And all reality as we know it.
Let's take a deep breath,
And focus on growth.
The best is yet to come !