Tag Archives: Movies

Should a woman play James Bond?

That may look like an easy question, but I think it is the wrong question. There are deeper levels and assumptions that need to be teased out to find the right questions. The next level question is really:

Can a woman play James Bond, for is the answer to that is no, the ‘should’ never comes into it.

Clearly ‘can’ does not refer if a female actor has the ability to learn the lines, the blocking and such because only a fool would think otherwise. No, the can in that question pertains to the nature of gender and the character, and thus leads us deeper to another question that requires answering first.

Can the character of James Bond be a woman?

In the strictest cannon sense one would think the answer is no, but that same sense you could never remove Bond from an immediate post WWII setting. therefore I reject a strict cannon based answer. That hardly means the answer is an automatic yes. What we’re closing on is:

Can the essential characteristics that make James Bond who he is be also present if the character was a woman?

Ahh now we are getting into the meat. I know there are people who feel that a male author can never justly write a female character and there are those who disagree and believe that men can write believable and credible female characters. This divide and where you fall on it is the real answer to the question of casting a female actor to play the role of James Bond. (But I suspect that some will not follow through to the logical conclusions of their stand on men writing women.)

Start with the assumption that Men and have core characteristics they derive from their sex. (That is a highly debatable to assumption and not one I am putting forth as necessarily true, but it is essential to this discussion.) You can think of it as a Venn diagram, a red circle for men a blue one for women (or vice versa, the colors are meaningless.)

In your mind how much do the circles overlap?

Not at all? are Men from Mars and Women from Venus and they are so different in core characteristics that no man can credible get into the head space of any woman? If that is the case and the circles do not overlap then James Bond could not possible be a woman as the core characteristics of the character would not be found in a woman. But if that answer makes you happy it also means that if you are a man you can’t write women. They are alien to you as any being from a distant star.

Perhaps the circles overlap a bit. That there are characteristics found in both men and women, but by and large the defining characteristics are unique to each sex. If that is the case James Bond can be woman, and played by a woman, but only if his characteristics are found in that sliver of overlap between the circles.

Maybe you think the circles overlap a great deal and that differences between the sexes are primarily culturally generated. That at heart men and women are human beings sharing more in common with each other than not. If that is the case than certain the character of James Bond could be credibly written as either sex and could therefore the portrayed by an actor of either sex.

What I find curious in the thought experiment are the people I think who lis ikely to be dead-set on one answer or another. Many of the people I know who that insist that men cannot write women I suspect would jump at a female portrayed James Bond, and yet I don’t see how you square that circle about the core characteristics to make it plausible. Conversely those who would insist that James Bond must be a man, no women allowed at all in the job, would also be insistent that they can get into a woman’s mind-set easily and as such work from an assumption that there is no real difference.

It is a curious thing to ponder.

Share

Firearms in Space

I do not think I am getting much fiction writing done tonight. A doctor’s appointment threw off my schedule and here in the early evening I am utterly knackered. So In a few I will go veg in front of the television and stream something mindless.

Given that I am going to be about 500 words short of my target today I will write a bit on a subject recently brought to my mind. On Sunday my sweetie-wife and I watched the MST3K version of Moon Zero Two. For those who do not know this is a 1969/1970 Hammer production billed as the first space western. Before you go getting vision of Firefly stuck in your head it was nothing like that show. I had very vague memories of seeing this movie when I was younger. Actually it is not terrible and gets more science right than many sf films today.

One of the things the film depicts is the use of pistols. gunpowder firearms, in the vacuum of space. Contrary to what Joss Whedon would have you believe in the Firefly’s episode “Our Mrs. Reynolds” firearms do not require atmosphere for combustion; the oxidizer is packed in the with charge in the cartridge. Think about it, that bullet and cartridge are sealed together there is no avenue for the atmosphere to participate in the charge combusting.

So, if the cartridge will fire, are there any real issues with pistol packing spacemen? There are.

First off there is a serious issue with heat. Guns get hot and here on Earth a handgun relies on the air to carry away the heat by convection. Even then it is possible to fire the weapon so fast that the metal overheats, expands and jams. (This was apparently a factor in the British Army’s defeat at the Battle of Islandlwana.) A gun fired in the vacuum of space will have few options of dumping its heat. There will be no atmosphere for convection, the spaceman is unlikely to volunteer to do it through conduction and that leave just radiation which works best once the metal starts glowing. of course by then jamming will be only one of many problems.

Another issue is lubrication. Guns use a variety of lubricants that allow the moving and sliding parts to smoothly work. Unless you select lubricants for a vacuum setting I think it is likely you are going to find that they may freeze is in shadow or boil away if directly exposed. Either way it bears ill for the proper operation of your gun.

The last significant factor in my opinion is one determined by setting. If you are in a gravity field, say the moon’s, you’ll need to adjust your sighting to compensate for the change in gravity, but that’s merely technique. However, if you are in free space, floating free you have a new problem. No, not that the gun will kick you around like a jet pack, the force from a tiny slug going very fast is still going to be much less than what is required to move a person. No, I think the trouble will come from off-balanced forces. It is unlikely that the vector of the shot will pass cleanly through the marksman’s center of mass and that means the marksman is likely to start tumbling.

None of these issues are insurmountable. Perhaps vacuum rated guns could be designed with gasses to carry away the heat, and finding the right lubricants is an engineering issues I will wager has already been solved. The off-center force is most easily solved with small jets on the pressure-suit that would be slaved to the gun and fired to produced a counter-force with each round shot.

Well, that’s my essay for the night.

Share

Sunday Night Movie: Gun Crazy (1950)

As many people already know I am a fan of film noir though there are many, many movies of that genre I’ve yet to see and Gun Crazy was one of those. Based on a short story Gun Crazy is about a pair of lovers, pistol trick shot artist, who enter into a life of 1-gun crazy001crime and hold-ups. It is surprisingly accurate to the short story, with only mild modifications. Made in 1950 when the production code remained in effect this film still manages to be a fairly straightforward piece that attempts to capture the addictive thrill of crime and anti-social behavior.

In the best tradition of the genre the plot is driven by a femme fatale, in this case the character if Anne Laurie Starr, a woman who has a vast appetite for an expensive life, action, and lethal undercurrent of anger in her personality. Doomed from the moment he met her is Barton tare. Presented in the film as the only man who has outshot Annie the film’s title actually references Barton and not Annie. It is his story that we really follow and his obsession with guns never has a clear genesis but if the defining characteristic of his personality — that and his inability to use a gun to kill. This deadly mix, a woman with an explosive anger and sharpshooter unable to fire on a living thing, place themselves in the worst possible life choices, becoming stick-up artists. They are likable but flawed characters, and the film is deeply engaging. Though produced on a modest budget the director Joseph H. Lewis manages a number of craftily staged pieces including a bank robbery that is shot in one continuous take and solely from a vantage point inside the get away car.

Of course a film made under the production code cannot end well for criminals. The Code required that all characters who engaged in crime met a just end by the film conclusion. Sometime that created forced endings, but with Gun Crazy the ending has the right tone and does not come off as moralizing. Rather like Lord and Lady Macbeth Bart and Annie are characters doomed by their natures and their choices.

Share

Movie Review X-Men Apocalypse

Okay this has not been a particularly fun week for me. My arthritis has been flaring making my toes and finger joints very painful. My knees – damaged more than 20 years ago by poor martial arts instruction – were also hurting. Just top it off though Bryan Singer’s latest X-Men film disappointed.

1-xmenWhere X-Men: First Class was set in the 60’s, and X-Men: Days of Future Past was a 70’s period piece, X-Men Apocalypse is set in a parallel early 80’s. The first Mutant – Apocalypse – (It’s really stupid to call him ‘The First’ as mutation is a constant and evolution.) has risen from his slumber since his last heyday during the time of Ancient Egypt (and since Ancient Egypt covers a span of time more than 10 times longer than US history, it sorts of begs the question *which* ancient Egypt?) and is out take over a world far more complex than one of stone and bronze. Of course it is up to our plucky hero mutants to band together and stop him.

After my sweetie-wife and I walked out of the screening I called the film so-so. As the days have passed my judgement has turned harsher. Truly this film is spectacle over story. There is not real character story being driven here. There are hints of some, but never fleshed out and made real. There is a twenty minute diversion into an action plot that serves only to give Wolverine his screen-time but advances the plot not one millimeter. Cut it out and the film isn’t changed at all. It screamed that the studio demanded a Wolverine scene and this was how they shoe horned it into the script. (One credited writer, but six credited with ‘story.’)

This film also take a turn into what Man of Steel pioneered – Disaster Porn. Great destruction is visited upon cities around the world. Huge building laid waste, entire area devastated in fantastically rendered CGI scenes. And none of it mattered. There was not one character moment within that destruction and without characters there is no emotional connection. Look to 1982’s Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan. Every single time a starship is hit the very next shot is people being killed, wounded, and paying the price for the battle. This is no accident, it is a master director keeping the human POV present and because of that keeping the audience emotionally engaged in what is really just special effects.

While this film was not the insult to intelligence that WB foisted upon us with Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice, it was merely fight, fight, and more fight without character, story, theme, or purpose.

I cannot recommend.

Share

Movie Review: Captain America: Civil War

In2008 with Iron Man Marvel studios took what many considered to be their second string heroes and started an ambitious project; a shared cinematic universe of superhero films. (Some call it a first, the shared universe film set, but Universal did the same, though not by initial design, with their classic horror films.) The successes of the project have remade the movie-going business and continue to this day with the release of MCU movie # 13, Captain 1-iron-man-and-captain-america-civil-war-4k-wallpaperAmerica: Civil War.

It is amazing that this film, so deeply indebted to the storytelling that proceeded it, is so truly marvelous. Carrying on with the character of Steve Rodgers AKA Captain America after Marvel’s The Avengers: Age of Ultron, CA;CW though studded with massive battle set pieces, is ultimately a story about the small character beats, choices, and conflicts that drive people and teams apart.

The world is reacting to the presence of enhanced individuals and the enhanced threats to safety and security that they represent. While on the surface those appear to be the issues dividing the Avengers, what is really driving them are their own psychological needs and problems. This is a far better way of telling a story that simply a big bad with a big bad plan. Make no mistake. there is a villain in this piece, but unlike Loki, Ultron, the Red Skull, or Hydra, the threat is not about global destruction but about the personal costs and choices in such a universe.

There is a third act reveal that I should have seen coming but I was so suckered into the characters and their lives that the filmmakers managed a blindside that made me actually gasp out loud. No really, in full on cliché mode my hand went to my lips and I gasped. It was so obvious, so perfect, and so devastating.

Another area where this could have failed spectacularly is the sheer number of characters. With a cast of speaking roles so large it would have been far too easy for most of the characters to lose their sense of individuality and become nothing more than plot points and exposition. That did not happen, the writers, the directors, and the actor all utilized their briefs amounts of screen time to imply and inform the audience as to who these people are. It is amazing.

The new additions to the MCU, Spider-Man and The Black Panther, are handled well and with slowing or stopping the film to explain them Everything feels natural and organic. I even approve of the reinterpretation of Aunt May.

I think, but I can not be sure, that a person coming in cold to the film, having seen none of the other, would still enjoy and understand it, but I also wonder how long can that be maintained. At what point does the weight of cinematic history make any one movie incomprehensible to a novice viewer to the MCU?

Only time will tell, but it isn’t here.

This film is good. Go see it. In theaters.

Share

Movie Review: Rubber(2011)

Okay this is a very odd film; before I launch into my thoughts it will probably be best to watch the trailer if you are unfamiliar with this movie.

youtube placeholder image

Okay, are you ready?

Yes, this film is about a psychokinetic tire that rolls around a small town killing animals and people. A pretty out-there concept for a film. But this movie is also about movies, what it means to make them, what it means to watch them, and the fusion that occurs between the people who make the movies and the people who watch the movies.

To give you an impression of what this film is like I am going to reference two other filmmakers; David Lynch and Alejandro Jodorowsky. If you put Lynch’s Mulholland Drive at one end of the a spectrum of art house films and Jordorowsky’s The Holy Mountain at the other, Rubber is closer to The Holy Mountain than it is Mullholland Drive. The writer/director of Rubber, Quintin Dupieux, sets up this movie from the opening scene. We watch a sheriff climb out of the trunk of a car and approach a group spectators. he explains that all great films have an element of ‘no reason.’ Where things happen or take a certain form for no reason at all. He then charges the people to remember that as they watch this film. The spectators sort of act as a chorus, commenting on the action, but unlike a chorus they influence the story and they themselves are changed by it.

I am not convinced that Quintin knew exactly what he was doing or trying to say, but this film is about something and I am glad I gave it a spin. Your mileage, however, may vary depending on your tastes for European styled art house projects.

Share

Casting Ethnic Characters

In the last few weeks, there have been two points of conflict in the geek and geek-adjacent film communities over casting of characters in upcoming movies.

This November we get a movie I have been really wanting, Doctor Strange, my second favorite Marvel Superhero. (Iron Man has always been by tops.) In the source material Strange learns his arts from an old Asian fellow known as The Ancient One. In the film this part has been gender-flipped to a woman and is being played by Caucasian actress Tilda Swinton.  Some have been upset by an character that was clearly Asian suddenly becoming Caucasian.

Frankly this one has bothered me that much. The ‘character’ of the Ancient One was dreadfully close to stereotype and over the line as a cliche. Moving away from cliche is an improvement. I know that there are many who disagree with me and I understand their sincerely held position, but I am not convinced. A cliche is bad writing and I’m happy that we have hopes of avoiding such things in this film.

The second storm is centered on a live-action version of the well-known Japanese Anime Ghost in the Shell. I have never seen the original, but I am open to it, it’s just my exposure to Anime in general is rather limited. However what we have here is Japanese source material, with Japanese characters, now being made with the lead character, Kusanagi, being played again by a Caucasian, this time Scarlett Johansson. I have nothing against Scarlett, she is a talented actress and I have seen her deliver a number of very interesting performances but there is no reason to ignore the ethnicity of character in the casting.

Producers and Directors generally defend these casting decisions as being forced by the financing forces beyond their control. Stating that without a big star they can’t get big budgets to make these epic films. This is true – as far as it goes, but there is a lie of omission here.The banks and

The banks and investor group that fund these project DO want big stars attached to the projects. The signing of major stars signals serious resources and commitment to a project. Without that, it is very hard to raise the fund for a massive budget. I would say beyond hard and nearly impossible. But nowhere is it written that the big star have to have the lead role. That is the dirty secret they would prefer you not recognize.

Here is a famous case to prove this: Superman The Movie. When the producers signed a negative pick-up deal with Warner Brothers to make them film, that put them on the hook to raise the funds the make it, and this was not going to be a cheap movie. They needed stars who were ‘bankable’ and indicated a level of serious artistic commitment. Kids at this point that did not sign relative new-comer Christopher Reeve as their lead, they signed Marlon Brando and Gene Hackman. That, coupled with star writer Mario Puzo, brought in the funds to make the movie.

This argument – oh we can’t have a Japanese actress the lead because we won’t get funding – is a dodge, don’t fall for it. They made the call to cast it the way they did, their call not something forced and beyond their power to counter. (There’s also been an excellent argument made elsewhere that Asian actors haven’t been given the chance to build up to star power the way other have been. Look at the long line of credits Scarlett has before she exploded to a top line budget item. That matters too.)

So in short, Doctor Strange I am fine with, less cliches is better, Ghost in the Shell I call shenanigans.

Share

Double Movie Review: The Witch & Eye in the Sky

So it has been my pleasure to see two really good movies with 24 hours of each other. Here are my brief thoughts on each.

The Witch. When the trailers for this film appeared on my radar it intrigued me as a movie that I may want to see. Sadly anything you get into the horror genre 1-The Witchyou almost certainly get stuck with dreck, garbage, and only occasionally, gold. The Witch is gold. I was convinced to risk the theater prices when in an email conversation with one of my agents discussing the 1972 The Wicker Man, (It’s the first day of spring today so that means The Wicker Man is tonight’s movie.) she highly recommended The Witch.

The story and setting are simple. A mid 17th century Puritan family in new England is exiled from their colony and struggle to survive on the edge of a vast forest where an evil force possibly lurks. The periodness of this film looks perfect to me. The language, the characters, the modes of thought all strike me as dead one. The film works on what is suggested versus what is shown. It is a story steeped in atmospherics and mood. It is not for every and it is not an ‘accessible’ movie. If you go expecting lots of gore, combat, and special effects you will be very disappointed. If you liked the original The Wicker Man as  a thoughtful film about culture and religion, then this may work for you.

One final thought on The Witch. The story approaches witches and witchcraft from the perspective of Puritan Christians. There is no neo-pagan aspects to this story or its presentations and those inclined towards that path for their spirituality are likely to be offended by the film and its presentation of the subject matter.

Eye in the Sky. My wife and I went to see this film principally because it is one of the final feature films with the late Alan Rickman. Going into it a film cold is 1-Eye In The Skysomething I have not done in a very very long time. I think the last film I walked into without seeing a trailer was The Hudsucker Proxy. As with The Hudsucker Proxy, I was thoroughly happy with the result.

This film is about the modern war on terror, how it is fought, and the very difficult questions that arise from that conflict. It is not an action film. This is not about Heroic figures defying death and saving the day with a well-placed spray of bullets. This move is very realistic, dealing with a difficult situation in which there are no easy answers. The screenwriter played fair, no one is presented as a strawman, from enlisted military personnel to the high ranks of government people are drawn as fully realized characters with compelling points of view. The cast is uniformly fantastic, Helen Miren, Alan Rickman, Aaron Paul, and many many others bring you into their characters with performances that realistic and grounded. The technology is as far as I can tell spot on. The details of how such mission work are well presented and the cost for everyone involved is laid bare.

If you like your modern film filled with serious questions, no easy answers, and real people grappling with nasty choices, then this film is for you.

Share

Little Shop of Horrors and the Importance of Knowing Your Ending.

Last year I picked up the blu-ray release of the musical film Little Shop of Horror and with than I owned copies of every film version (Original, Theatrical Cut, and Director’s Cut) of the story. The original film was a very low budget affair, written and shot in just a few days. It is notable for the first film appearance of screen legend Jack Nicholson, it is an amusing dark comedy. The film spawned a stage musical and that begat a film adaptation of the musical. When Director Frank Oz screened the film for test audiences they hated the dark ending and he rushed to film and edit a ‘happy’ ending for the movie. The movie never did big box office though it found a small devoted following and the original ending remained unseen at large until this blu-ray release. Now it is possible to view both versions, theatrical and Director’s cut, judging the merits of each. Spoilers follow, naturally.

In the stage and Director’s Cut the principal character die and the monstrous blood eating plant wins, taking over the world. Frank Oz has said that the film taught him the power of the close up and that audiences after living so closely with the characters were unforgiving of their callous deaths, but I think he learned the wrong lesson when they rejected his first cut. It is not the close ups that doomed his vision, but a lack of commitment to the ending and what that ending demands from the characters throughout the story.

If you purchase the original motion picture soundtrack for the musical there is a key song that differs quite a bit from the film version, The Meek Shall Inherit. During the course of the song the main character Seymour realizes that achieve his dream and maintain his sudden financial success he will have to participate in an unending stream of murders and mutilations. At first he rejects this, bt then quickly reverses himself believing that without riches he can never hold on to the lobe of the woman he adores. Committing himself to a future of murder he signs away his conscience as the songs intones ‘The meek are going to gets what’s coming to them.’ The song Foreshadows that Seymour will pay a terrible price for his decision. In neither version, the Theatrical or Director’s cut, is this crucial character turn present. Without this the character’s death at the end is needlessly cruel.

I remember reading in interviews at the time that the production had admitted to filming the deaths and murders in such a way to keep Seymour innocent preserving an alternate ending where he does not die, but they makes the entire premise weak.

As a writer I must know how my story is going to end before I write it. It is in the ending that the themes and plots are resolved. If your story has several different ends possible then your themes are muddled and you are less likely to strike a strong emotional cord with your readers or audience.

One other aspect also seriously damages the Director’s Cut ending – seven minutes without a single named character is the climax of the film. Everyone we have followed and cared about is dead and for seven very long minutes we are treated to a kaiju movie without a plot or a purpose. People engage in a story by engaging with the characters. Remove the characters and you left with very little.

Share

Latest Blu-Ray Acquisition

So people have seen me write about this film before, and I will not defend it as a well made or well written film. However, Xanadu is my personal emotional favorite film. There are wonderful associations tied to seeing this film in the theater, I adore the music, and the theme that Dreams Don’t Die, We Kill Them is a guiding principle for me. Now, just this week, we got a blu-ray release. Spare on the bonus materials, but with lovelyt picture and sound. That is enough to make me happy.

1-Xanadu (1980)104643_f

Share