Wonder what people with Master's Degrees do while they are "writing their screenplays" in the hopes of a great job in Hollywood? The Back of the Class are rapping Truth to Power in this video.
Friday, February 20, 2009
Thursday, February 19, 2009
Jhoom Barabar Jhoom: Once the Inertia Takes Hold, It's Hard to Stop Swaying to the Rythm
2007's Jhoom Barabar Jhoom was a financial flop in India. The film cost Rs 25-crore (250 million rupies -- slightly more than $5 million) to produce and was unable to reach the bar necessary to stay in release after its first week in Indian theaters. It had made around Rs 6-crore after its first weekend -- including international sales -- a figure close to $1.2 million and less than a quarter of the film's production costs. The film's lack of financial success, in India at least, didn't stop those critics who reviewed the film from raving over the entertainment value of the film. It's Tomato Meter rating is 83% fresh (with only 6 reviews), and the two critics who have rated it for Metacritic give it a 70 (not great, but good). The users on Metacritic haven't been as kind as the reviewers -- though none of the users have commented regarding why they rated the film as they did.
So we are given two distinct representations regarding JBJ's entertainment value. American critics giving one opinion and the domestic Indian reaction providing evidence of a disconnect between the American critical reception and popular opinion. What's going on here? Cinerati's trusted source on all things Bollywood David Chute thought highly of the film and his opinion was the primary reason that cinerati viewed the film in the security of our Sanctum Sanctorum recently. The film was a pleasurable combination of romantic comedy, physical comedy, and musical. As Chute puts it, "Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is light entertainment so gratifyingly well crafted that it’s uplifting."
He's right, but then why the disconnect between certain audiences? What is it about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom that critics, and cinerati, found so engrossing that many viewers missed? Or is about "missing" something at all? What are the roots of the differing viewpoints? There seem to be three where the critic would find a film (especially a foreign one) enjoyable, while native and mainstream audiences might find the film wanting. These include, a slow first act, a passing engagement with the conflict between Pakistan and India, and a "Western" feel.
Jhoom Barabar Jhoom opens with Bollywood veteran Amitabh Bachchan as a kind of Gypsy Storyteller/Greek Chorus fusion. As he sings and dances, in his vibrant costume, he sets the stage and stakes of the narrative. The setting is nothing less than a classic lovers introduction, straight out of Shakespeare, where the destined lovers from vastly divergent backgrounds encounter one another in what begins as a mildly antagonistic situation. Nothing new about this setting, we've seen it a hundred times or more. It works when the characters are charming and it fails miserably when the characters are flat.
In this case, our fated couple are Rikki (Abishek Bachchan) and Alvira (Preity Zinta) and they meet at London's Waterloo Station. He's a borderline con-man from India, she's a born Brit from the middle-class with Pakistani heritage. On a typical day class and racial issues would prevent them from even greeting each other pleasantly, but today is different. Today the train station is so crowded that the only place Rikki can find to sit is next to the lovely Alvira. At first, she is uncomfortable tells Rikki that she is waiting for her fiancé to arrive on the Birmingham train. After he reveals that he too is engaged, the stage is set for conversation and romance...But wait, they're engaged right...or are they?
To pass the hours, Rikki and Alvira share stories about how they met their respective fiancés. Rikki's story comes first, and so does the films first and third problems.
It takes almost 15 minutes to get through the story's set up, and it seems to take forever for Rikki to tell the story about how he and his fiancé Anaida (Lara Dutta) met in Paris. There are several attempts at slapstick comedy during his tale, but most of them fall flat and one begins to wonder how Abishek Bachchan was cast in this film in the first place. The written jokes are dull and the narrative drags until the act ends with a spectacular dance number on the streets of Paris that incorporates the Arc de Triomphe, the Eiffel Tower, and the Louvre.
The dance number recaptures any waning audience interest. Jhoom Barabar Jhoom seems to have approached the introduction of the first full dance number with baby steps, as if it were educating an unfamiliar audience to a new form of entertainment. It is during Rikki's story, and the build up to it, that one begins to think that Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is attempting to introduce "Western" eyes to Bollywood storytelling. It doesn't work. All it does is make the first act take far too long. Like the more Western parts of Bride and Prejudice, the attempts at making the storytelling style less dramatic only make the story less entertaining. Thankfully, once the film begins to "dance" the enjoyment begins to rise.
Alvira's tale about her fiancé Steve (Bobby Deol) is hilarious, but it is also the tale where the underlying cultural and racial conflicts come most to the fore of the narrative. In her tale, we find out that Alvira has made a promise to God to never marry a dark-skinned man. It is a promise she modified when she "fell in love" with Steve, but the scene where she makes the promise is simultaneously amusing and disturbing. Imagine a similar scene in an American film where race is one of the underlying relationship barriers and you can begin to see the problem. One can imagine that Indian viewers might not appreciate the lighthearted way that this subject was treated. They might not have found it disturbing at all, but it isn't hard to imagine it rubbing the audience at least slightly the wrong way.
Aside from this glitch, Alvira's story is wonderful -- especially for those who are comic book fans. Steve, you see, has saved Alvira from being crushed by a wax dummy of Superman. Her rescue is followed by a wonderful magical number which features wax caricatures of several members of the Justice League and Bobby Deol's physical presence and charisma is undeniable. One finds oneself visually drawn to him during the number, even though one of the most beautiful women in the world is standing right next to him.
Continuing on the roll of engaging narrative, following Alvira's tale Rikki tells his second tale. This tale is an imagining of what Rikki and Alvira's future would be if only they weren't each already engaged. There is little dialogue, though much song, in this sequence and it is one of the most romantic examples of visual storytelling ever to be filmed. The "what if" Rikki and Alvira live an entire lifetime in the tale, and the segment ends with a soft touch of romantic pathos as this romance suffers the inevitable fate of all romances.
While one can imagine that the attempts to appeal to Western viewers, the cursory addressing of cultural/racial tensions, and a slow first act could make some view the film as less enjoyable, one finds it almost incredible that anyone who has watched the last half-hour of the film could do anything other than rave about Jhoom Barabar Jhoom.
The final half-hour is one long dance number during which our secondary couple "Anaida" and "Steve" are introduced to one another and also when all the plans of our fated lovers completely fall apart. The music, the dancing, and the costume changes are fantastically enjoyable leaving the audience with the desire to dance. Bobby Deol's presence once more steals the scene as he dances with power and conviction. The only flaw in the act is that the dance number fails to fully simulate the "bed trick" during the number. There should be, and sadly isn't, a discreet section of the number where the dancers change partners only to find they are more comfortable with their new partners than with the partner they arrived with. This is a small quibble, but it is significant. This number should be an allegory for the entire film's narrative, and it is but for the one flaw.
Overall, Jhoom Barabar Jhoom is an engaging romantic comedy that stumbles a little, but gets its audience to a fulfilling ending.
Thursday, February 12, 2009
Is the Geek Sexy Star of The Guild Felicia Day a Griefer?
Will Hindmarsh, of the excellent game design discussion website GamePlayWright, posted the following excerpt from Jimmy Fallon's late night show. In the piece, sweet and innocent Felicia Day -- star of THE GUILD and Dr. Horrible (among other things) -- decides to help Jimmy Fallon in his quest to become a better MMORPG player. The bit is humorous, and was obviously intended to be, but it touches upon one of negative aspects of online gaming...that of the griefer -- the person who likes to run around killing n00bs.
Watch the video below to see if you catch what I am referring to.
Did you notice her reaction when Fallon mentioned that he called his character Davarnon? She shows an understandable amount of revulsion at the childish name (though it's better than Lothar of the Hill People -- see below -- an actual Mike Myers D&D character), but she also expresses that the name may be why Fallon is griefed so often when playing the game. The implication, from the limited representation of her gaming style in this video, is that she would have griefed him as well.
One of the major drawbacks of MMOs is the tendency of some players to take great enjoyment in killing new players over and over again...for laughs. As a gamer, it can get irritating when one is on the victim side of the equation, and we find of Player vs. Player action to be juvenile at best. MMO companies have yet to find good solutions to this style of play, as those who most enjoy it will pursue ways around any in game fixes. A famous example would be when Asheron's Call veterans, unable to attack less experienced characters directly, would antagonize some large beast, have it chase them, and then run by some newer player leaving the new players character crushed by the monstrosity.
The Fallon piece, and Hindmarch's comments, also makes clear the distinction between the fanciful suspension of disbelief of the new player and the pragmatic "assumed systemic" worldview of the veteran. The veteran seems to no longer be participating in a narrative fantasy simulation experience, rather they are viewing the experience through the rational systems underlying the mechanical functions of the game universe. This usually occurs gradually as the experienced player discovers the limitation of the given simulation and adapts their expectations to suit the mechanical framework. In a computer simulation, this is the only possible response, other than complaining to the programmers to expand the scope of the simulation.
One of the advantages of table top gaming is that it need not suffer from this problem. If a table top game's systems cannot emulate a given desired narrative situation, the players and game master can make up the difference through player interaction or Game Master fiat. This can be one of the more rewarding experience in a table top game, the crafting of new rules on the fly. You cannot do that in a computer simulation, you must accept the systemic framework you are given.
The jadedness of such limitations may be partially explanatory for the griefing phenomenon, but given Felicia's recent tweets regarding a D&D game she is playing in as a Death Knight...I am thinking that she vents her frustrations on the console/gaming table. That's something that both tabletop and computer based gaming can offer...stress relief.
It breaks our heart to think that Felicia Day might be a cruel griefer, we'll chalk it all up to stress relief.
Michelle Nephew has some words about role taking in gaming environments in her dissertation, we'll have to pull that out for a post on role playing as wish fulfillment on a later post.
Watch the video below to see if you catch what I am referring to.
Did you notice her reaction when Fallon mentioned that he called his character Davarnon? She shows an understandable amount of revulsion at the childish name (though it's better than Lothar of the Hill People -- see below -- an actual Mike Myers D&D character), but she also expresses that the name may be why Fallon is griefed so often when playing the game. The implication, from the limited representation of her gaming style in this video, is that she would have griefed him as well.
One of the major drawbacks of MMOs is the tendency of some players to take great enjoyment in killing new players over and over again...for laughs. As a gamer, it can get irritating when one is on the victim side of the equation, and we find of Player vs. Player action to be juvenile at best. MMO companies have yet to find good solutions to this style of play, as those who most enjoy it will pursue ways around any in game fixes. A famous example would be when Asheron's Call veterans, unable to attack less experienced characters directly, would antagonize some large beast, have it chase them, and then run by some newer player leaving the new players character crushed by the monstrosity.
The Fallon piece, and Hindmarch's comments, also makes clear the distinction between the fanciful suspension of disbelief of the new player and the pragmatic "assumed systemic" worldview of the veteran. The veteran seems to no longer be participating in a narrative fantasy simulation experience, rather they are viewing the experience through the rational systems underlying the mechanical functions of the game universe. This usually occurs gradually as the experienced player discovers the limitation of the given simulation and adapts their expectations to suit the mechanical framework. In a computer simulation, this is the only possible response, other than complaining to the programmers to expand the scope of the simulation.
One of the advantages of table top gaming is that it need not suffer from this problem. If a table top game's systems cannot emulate a given desired narrative situation, the players and game master can make up the difference through player interaction or Game Master fiat. This can be one of the more rewarding experience in a table top game, the crafting of new rules on the fly. You cannot do that in a computer simulation, you must accept the systemic framework you are given.
The jadedness of such limitations may be partially explanatory for the griefing phenomenon, but given Felicia's recent tweets regarding a D&D game she is playing in as a Death Knight...I am thinking that she vents her frustrations on the console/gaming table. That's something that both tabletop and computer based gaming can offer...stress relief.
It breaks our heart to think that Felicia Day might be a cruel griefer, we'll chalk it all up to stress relief.
Michelle Nephew has some words about role taking in gaming environments in her dissertation, we'll have to pull that out for a post on role playing as wish fulfillment on a later post.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Cinerati Lexicon #2: Gothtentious
Last August we presented our first Cinerati Lexicon entry. That entry focused on what we like to call filmic cultural selectivity. It has come time once again for the Cinerati blog to share another definition with you based on our movie going/appreciating experience.
Like most film fans, we have a flixter account and are fond of examining how closely our "friends" and our tastes match up. In the past, this has led to some pleasant surprises. Not the least of which is that Anne Thompson's opinions match Cinerati's so well that we are considered "Soul Mates." This is true even with our vast disagreement on Pretty Woman. She likes it a lot and we think that it overly debases the Eliza character from My Fair Lady and is thus only worthy of scorn. We must admit though that the recent episode of Flight of the Conchords had a compelling review/interpretation of Pretty Woman. Suffice it to say, that the close proximity of our film tastes will make Cinerati more likely to trust Thompson as someone who likes the films we like.
Other comparisons have been less rewarding. During our most recent foray into the flixterverse, we encountered something we thought impossible. One of my flixter friends, who shall remain nameless in order to protect their life, rated The Incredibles a meager 1/2 star out of five. We had believed that such a rating was only possible when the reviewer lacked this little thing we call a soul. Alas, it appears that this misguided individual does in fact have a soul -- and is a pretty good reviewer to boot -- so their must be some other explanation. Cinerati has yet to discover what affliction this individual suffers from that makes them hate The Incredibles, and makes them believe that Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds is better than The Matrix, while simultaneously having a proper love for YouTube videos featuring Bettie Page photographs and music by The Cramps.
Our initial suspicion was that this individual was extremely Gothtentious.
What do I mean by Gothtentious?
Gothtentious is a neologism combining the words Gothic and pretentious.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (in a March 2008 Draft Addition), Gothic can be defined as: "Of or designating a genre of fiction characterized by suspenseful, sensational plots involving supernatural or macabre elements and often (esp. in early use) having a medieval theme or setting."
Additionally, Gothic may be defined as (OED Additions Series 1993): "A style of rock music, and the youth culture associated with this, deriving originally from punk, and characterized by the dramatically stark appearance of its performers and followers, reminiscent of the protagonists of (esp. cinematic) gothic fantasy, and by mystical or apocalyptic lyrics."
The most common definition of pretentious, according to the OED, is: "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed; making an exaggerated outward display; ostentatious, showy."
Thus gothtentious would be when someone is "attempting to impress by affecting a demeanor which disdains all that is not suspenseful and macabre. Especially, the gothtentious person reserves particular disdain for lighthearted and bourgeois entertainments. The individual will also praise material that is otherwise lacking in merit for the mere fact that it contains an appropriate amount of macabre or suspenseful content."
The gothtentious person would often be willing to take a position of disdain for a particular entertainment vehicle merely to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Such opinions may be driven by a narcissistic desire for attention, even negative attention, from others, or from an underlying sense that one is held in similar disdain by society at large. In these cases, the gothtentious person is acting out against society either for attention or as revenge.
An example of this kind of gothtentious would be the following:
Another example might be found within Michael Moorcock's excellent Wizardry and Wild Romance:
As Moorcock demonstrates, the gothtentious person could also be described as a kind of social provocateur who -- when in possession of a serious intellect -- forces other individuals in society to examine what it is about a particular entertainment vehicle they find so rewarding. Gothtentiousness need not be a character flaw but it can certainly be irritating when it is done without the wit and sophistication of a writer like Moorcock. One should also point out that when Moorcock was writing Wizardry and Wild Romance he was drafting a polemic which argued for a new form of fantasy fiction. Specifically, it was arguing for the style of fantasy that Moorcock himself was writing. This is no small coincidence and is evidence of the gothtentious nature of the work.
Like most film fans, we have a flixter account and are fond of examining how closely our "friends" and our tastes match up. In the past, this has led to some pleasant surprises. Not the least of which is that Anne Thompson's opinions match Cinerati's so well that we are considered "Soul Mates." This is true even with our vast disagreement on Pretty Woman. She likes it a lot and we think that it overly debases the Eliza character from My Fair Lady and is thus only worthy of scorn. We must admit though that the recent episode of Flight of the Conchords had a compelling review/interpretation of Pretty Woman. Suffice it to say, that the close proximity of our film tastes will make Cinerati more likely to trust Thompson as someone who likes the films we like.
Other comparisons have been less rewarding. During our most recent foray into the flixterverse, we encountered something we thought impossible. One of my flixter friends, who shall remain nameless in order to protect their life, rated The Incredibles a meager 1/2 star out of five. We had believed that such a rating was only possible when the reviewer lacked this little thing we call a soul. Alas, it appears that this misguided individual does in fact have a soul -- and is a pretty good reviewer to boot -- so their must be some other explanation. Cinerati has yet to discover what affliction this individual suffers from that makes them hate The Incredibles, and makes them believe that Tom Cruise's War of the Worlds is better than The Matrix, while simultaneously having a proper love for YouTube videos featuring Bettie Page photographs and music by The Cramps.
Our initial suspicion was that this individual was extremely Gothtentious.
What do I mean by Gothtentious?
Gothtentious
Gothtentious is a neologism combining the words Gothic and pretentious.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary (in a March 2008 Draft Addition), Gothic can be defined as: "Of or designating a genre of fiction characterized by suspenseful, sensational plots involving supernatural or macabre elements and often (esp. in early use) having a medieval theme or setting."
Additionally, Gothic may be defined as (OED Additions Series 1993): "A style of rock music, and the youth culture associated with this, deriving originally from punk, and characterized by the dramatically stark appearance of its performers and followers, reminiscent of the protagonists of (esp. cinematic) gothic fantasy, and by mystical or apocalyptic lyrics."
The most common definition of pretentious, according to the OED, is: "Attempting to impress by affecting greater importance or merit than is actually possessed; making an exaggerated outward display; ostentatious, showy."
Thus gothtentious would be when someone is "attempting to impress by affecting a demeanor which disdains all that is not suspenseful and macabre. Especially, the gothtentious person reserves particular disdain for lighthearted and bourgeois entertainments. The individual will also praise material that is otherwise lacking in merit for the mere fact that it contains an appropriate amount of macabre or suspenseful content."
The gothtentious person would often be willing to take a position of disdain for a particular entertainment vehicle merely to distinguish themselves from the crowd. Such opinions may be driven by a narcissistic desire for attention, even negative attention, from others, or from an underlying sense that one is held in similar disdain by society at large. In these cases, the gothtentious person is acting out against society either for attention or as revenge.
An example of this kind of gothtentious would be the following:
Films like The Incredibles are a perfect example of Hollywood, and America's, obsession with bourgeois morality tales. In it, the dichotomy between hero and villain is clear and even the "children" of the tale can act without fear of any real consequences. We all know how the story is going to end...happily. It is time to move beyond these stories and grapple with the underlying sense of despair intrinsic in the human condition. It would be much better to devote storytelling resources to narratives like insert Neil Gaiman, China Mieville, or Poe reference here.
Another example might be found within Michael Moorcock's excellent Wizardry and Wild Romance:
I think my own dislike of J.R.R. Tolkien lies primarily in the fact that in all those hundreds of pages, full of high ideals, sinister evil and noble deeds, there is scarcely a hint of irony anywhere. its tone is one of relentless nursery room sobriety: "Once upon a time," began nanny gravely, for the telling of stories was a serious matter, "there were a lot of furry little people who lived happily in the most beautiful, gentlest countryside you could possibly imagine, and then one day they learned that Wicked Outsiders were threatening this peace...." ...That such nostalgic pre-pubescent yearnings should find a large audience in England is bad enough, but that they should have international appeal is positively terrifying.
As Moorcock demonstrates, the gothtentious person could also be described as a kind of social provocateur who -- when in possession of a serious intellect -- forces other individuals in society to examine what it is about a particular entertainment vehicle they find so rewarding. Gothtentiousness need not be a character flaw but it can certainly be irritating when it is done without the wit and sophistication of a writer like Moorcock. One should also point out that when Moorcock was writing Wizardry and Wild Romance he was drafting a polemic which argued for a new form of fantasy fiction. Specifically, it was arguing for the style of fantasy that Moorcock himself was writing. This is no small coincidence and is evidence of the gothtentious nature of the work.
Monday, February 02, 2009
Funicular is Fun to Say: Waiting to Ride Angel's Flight Isn't
Last month Cinerati was chatting with Kevin Roderick of LA Observed about the various hidden treasures that can be found in Los Angeles. Eventually, the conversation turned to Los Angeles' famous funicular Angel's Flight. The funicular has been closed since February 1, 2001 after an accident resulted in one death and 7 injuries, but it has been an iconic LA landmark featured in a number of films and television shows. One might argue that no visit to LA is complete without a quick ride up the funicular.
Sadly, Cinerati has never had the chance to ride this historically important attraction. We have desired to ride the funicular since seeing the Burt Lancaster noir film CRISS CROSS, and the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY, in both films the inclusion of the funicular added greater verisimilitude to the atmosphere of the film.
Cinerati moved down to Los Angeles in August of 2000 and by the time we had settled into the city and could make the time to visit the funicular, it had been closed down due to the aforementioned accident. Thankfully, this may soon be remedied. According to LA Downtown News, the famous funicular might open "soon." How long soon is isn't exactly clear, but one can guess it is less than the 8 years we have already waited to ride the contraption. In a city as automobile centric as Los Angeles is, there is something special about being able to take a quick ride on something that has been around since 1901.
Note: The image at the start of this article is from the 1955 version of KISS ME DEADLY. The screen capture came from Electric Earl's ANGEL'S FLIGHT IN THE MOVIES PAGE. Check out the page and buy Images of America Angel's Flight book.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)