Office View in Braamfontein

http://thamimzolo.tumblr.com/post/59570023048/joburg-at-noon

Wordslinger Apprentice

Movies and Sequels: the evolution of a genre

We view movies on their merits and this should be case with most movies, but I think the movie scene has evolved (and continues to evolve) in a way that the lines between stand-alone movies and serials have been blurred if not completely merged. This has perhaps produced a new type of ‘movie’ a sub-genre that has merged with a genre. The Lord of The Rings is a good example of this. We knew while watching the first one that this was a series of movies and so were content with questions not answered in the first movie because we knew that they will be answered in the next one or the one after that. Harry Potter is of course another example.

You may say I’m being disingenuous here because those two have source material which was already written as a serial form. This is true, but does the existence or non-existence of already constructed source material make this form of film making exclusive? I think not. Think of Nolan’s Batman franchise. This is what he did in Batman Begins. Let’s look at the suit. Only in the second movie is Batman able to turn his head. The suit evolves into a ‘final’ product by the third movie. The Batpod is introduced in TDK and the Tumbler (or The Bat) in TDKR. Iron Man is another example. Iron Man is an origins story. It evolves into more in IM2 and the picture is complete by IM3.

The traditional way is that a stand-alone movie is made. It is shown to the public, feedback is received and then the movie makers decide to make a sequel or two. Even this has changed slightly. We now have movie studios deciding to make a sequel even before they get feedback from the public. You’ll hear that a sequel is being planned even while the movie is in production. So what happens when a studio plans to make two movies or a trilogy from the beginning? Do we expect that the entire story will be told in the first one leaving nothing for us to discover in the movie 2 and 3? More likely that we will travel the journey with our heroes and discover things about them as they do. In TDKR we Bruce Wayne discovered he had a limit, and we discovered this with him. But he also learnt he could rise above it, and so did we.

So we get a treatment of an origins story and we learn the things that have shaped and formed the character of a man (or woman). We learn the reasons for the predispositions and what their beliefs are built on. So when we see their actions in subsequent films we know the reasons and the depth of their characters. We understand what a person has to overcome to perform a certain act; we know what makes them human and yet sets them apart from the rest of us. And as apart as they are we also know that there is hope that we may aspire to be like them with all of our own faults and regrets.

It’s worth noting that this is not something new in the world of literature. Tolkien’s The Lord of The Rings is a very good example as are the Harry Potter books. Stephen King did this with The Dark Tower books and to a lesser degree The Green Mile.

Man of Steel is the first of a trilogy. And as such I regard it as one of the best in the category. If you’re not happy with the underdevelopment of characters like Louis Lane I ask that you consider Pepper Pots in Iron Man (the first one), Alfred in Batman Begins, Frodo’s friend Sam in TFOTR or even Jane Foster in Thor. Each of these characters grew with each movie (no doubt we will see more of Jane Foster in Thor: The Dark World).

So these are no longer single movies and should not be viewed as such exclusively. It is also more than a franchise in that although they can each be enjoyed individually they need to be viewed in their complete set for the full picture. This is how they are different to The Godfather. The Godfather was a complete story which was added to later. These are incomplete stories and the sequels need to be watched for the complete picture to be appreciated (paradoxically this means they cannot be called sequels). They are separate pieces of art that must be put together for the viewer to get a full appreciation of what they are seeing.

Kal-El and Zod: why people had to die

If you haven’t seen Man of Steel then you probably don’t know that there has been a bit of an outcry with the way it was done. Movie critics were not very happy with Superman’s portrayal in the film. This was the case with a lot of fans as well. Others loved it and were happy with the new direction the movie had taken. I was one of those.

There are a few things that are quoted as being wrong about the movie. The fact that it doesn’t have the heart of the old Donner films; the treatment Louis Lane’s character received; the mass destruction caused by Superman fighting General Zod and his lieutenants and the final act of killing Zod by snapping his neck.

I think sometimes people forget that this is a form of art. It is not a documentary. As an artist this is the story I want to tell, whether it’s through music, a painting, a sculpture, a novel or a movie.

Think Picasso (and I am by no means saying Snyder is a Picasso here, and I’m not saying he’s not either 🙂 ), his earlier works were a lot more ‘real’ than his later works. He is still drawing a man but his interpretation of that man has changed drastically. I think Snyder and co did something similar here, except the other way around. They took something which was greatly unrealistic and they made it ‘real’.

The Donner films as great as they were (not sure about the third one though) were not very realistic (just because I have glasses on the woman I love doesn’t recognize me?) and that was Donner’s interpretation. Snyder’s film is a lot more realistic (but still not all the way there, fine the woman can now recognize me but the other guys at The Daily Planet don’t?). So when you’ve set out to tell a much more realistic story of Superman how do you prevent collateral damage and people dying without compromising yourself as an artist?

I applaud the studio for allowing Snyder’s artistic integrity to stay intact. It could’ve been so easy to follow The Avengers route and have aliens attack without a single person dying, to have the chitauri land into building and not kill a single person. It would have made the masses happy and no doubt MoS would have made one and half times what it did. But they didn’t. And I’m glad they didn’t.

However, this answers the comparison to the Donner film and the mass destruction to some degree. What about Louis Lane and the killing of Zod? The Louis Lane is a bit easier so let’s start there. I agree that they could’ve done a better job with her. But I somehow feel that a big part of this was done intentionally (see my other post). I think Amy Adams was great in the role.

What about the killing of Zod? We all know that Superman does not kill. Ever. He is a symbol of all that is good in our society. Strength with responsibility and a vast sea of compassion. You’ll be shocked to learn that he has killed Zod before in one of Richard Donner’s films, but let’s leave that for now. Let’s rather ask the question why does he never kill? Where does this no kill policy come from? Good people kill all the time to save their loved ones. If a bad guy was about to kill me and the only way Superman had of stopping him was to kill him I sure hope he does!  Is it unfathomable that the very act of having to kill Zod is the reason for his deep rooted hatred of killing? Is it too much of a jump to think that the destruction and therefore death of thousands of people during his fight with Zod was enough to make him not want to take another human life? Should he have tried to negotiate with General Zod or move the fight to another less populated locale? And of course Zod would have understood perfectly and welcomed the suggestion to fight somewhere else. Ridiculous to say the least. For the sake of the movie and artistic intent it’s a good thing it happened. It has given us incredible insight into what man Superman is and becomes.

What’s sauce for the Goose…

Interesting topic on radio today. A woman in Kenya has agreed to share two husbands. She has been with each one for four years now. When they found out about each other and confronted her she says that she cannot be without either of them. So instead of fighting it out they have decided to sign a contract that will allow them to share her and live with her alternately as husbands and wife. This is the same as polygamy except that the roles are reversed, it’s called polyandry.

The two female DJ’s on the station immediately and vehemently said that they would never do it and one of them said that she can almost guarantee that no woman in South Africa will want it either. This was before they received a number of tweets and calls from ‘anonymous’ women saying that they would definitely go for it.

There are two points that are worth mentioning here:

1. The two female DJs being against it and with much conviction.
2. The response from the women listeners.

The first issue tells me that as much as they may think they are champions for women’s right they have clearly missed the mark here. Women being equal to men must be without condition or exception. What is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. All the time. Not when one group feels like it. If polygamy is ‘acceptable’ so too should polyandry. Or else what, are we saying women cannot handle more than one partner and men can? Are we not equal when it comes to this particular aspect? This is similar to the whole Wimbledon situation (more on that later). Had they argued on the principle of multiple partners by either sex then that would be a different story, and I would support them.

The second point tells me it is just a matter of time until this equality is reached. There are women who are evolving as they fight for men to evolve and accept them as their equal. Let me explain. If I am to treat you a certain way when I have not for the last 2000 years there is a change I need to go through to enable me to do this. Specifically, there are two things that must change, I must have the ability to treat you the way you expect and I must be willing.

The willingness part is easy. You either are willing or you are not. The more we evolve the more willing we will be. It is assumed that I have the ability already to treat you as my equal as that requires that I treat the way I would want to be treated. That’s easy right? Well, it gets a bit tricky when you refuse to be subjected to the same things I am (again Wimbledon). As a man when I hear that there is a woman out there who is practising polyandry I immediately think “Ok good. She is not being discriminated against because she is woman”. When I hear other women commenting that it doesn’t make sense as a woman and no woman wants to do that, I get confused. Why not, I ask. Because she’s a woman, isn’t that what you want, to be treated the same as men? The answer is again the evolution of the very women who want men to evolve and treat them a certain way.

Some women still only see this equality of the genders only the surface. They have not yet appreciated how deep it goes and what the consequences are. They become apparent when you are on your own and not in a public forum. And for real change to take place you accept it both in public and at home. Because gender equality is NOT a one way street.

The Ben Situation

Do you get the same sense that I get that social media is for whining and bitching? Someone should do a survey, just a sample mind you; to see what percentage of everything posted there is about complaining or making fun at someone versus acknowledging something or someone good. I think you find the majority will be the former. I don’t know what percentage but it will not be a close one.

Last week Thursday an announcement was made that Ben Affleck will play Batman in the Man of Steel sequel. Immediately there was uproar not seen since OJ was found not guilty by a jury of his peers. Every man and his penguin went onto twitter to complain about it. At least 70% of all posts about it were negative. I have a favourite movie site that I visit occasionally. It was full of comments about how the only failure bigger than Affleck playing Batman in the 2015 movie is the decision to cast him in the first place. He hasn’t even acted a single scene as Batman or Bruce Wayne. Did all these people travel into the future to see the movie and then come back to present day to tell us how bad it was?

What is funny is that there was an almost exact reaction to Heath Ledger being cast as The Joker in The Dark Knight. What is funnier is that the naysayers are now denying that there was any negativity to Heath Ledger’s casting. And even funnier than that is that when proof of this was presented the rhetoric changed to well you can’t compare the two, its apples and oranges etc. Someone even wrote back in 2008 that they didn’t believe that was Heath Ledger behind the make-up. They thought the studio or director or someone had gotten another actor to play The Joker. We all know what happened after the movie came out.

Regarding the 70% negative on twitter, I choose (perhaps naively) to believe the people who think he’ll be ok, or are reserving their judgement until the movie comes are not interested in throwing their gauntlet in the ring and sharing their opinion. Mostly because they have no idea how he will do! How can they when the movie hasn’t been shot yet.

When I go into see what topic is trending, once every ten times the topic is positive or neutral the other nine times they are making fun of someone or posting negative comments about something. This is what social media has become. A tool for the unhappy to express their frustrations and anger. A weapon for the bullies to use to inflict pain and spread negativity.

I look forward to the sequel to Man Of Steel. I look forward to seeing the chemistry between Affleck’s Batman and Cavill’s Superman.