house of the spirits....again....i don't know what happened to the orginal review

Don't mess with him, apparently he can use a bazooka




I thought I already put this one up, but it appears to have vanished, so here it is again. Anyways, i am back from vacation at last, and this time I'm actually going to be working on a week long article on the paladin class, so no weekly updates until Friday/Sat if my computer doesn't screw up

The House of the Spirits

The House of the Spirits by Isabel Allende is considered a classic of South America literature. It tells the story of a whole family over the course of four generations This allows the author show events from many different viewpoints, but the long span of time can make the reader feel detached from the events and characters . In order for a multigenerational book to work, the characters and storyline must be interesting . The House of the Spirits fails in this because the characters feel more like devices, the writing is unemotional, and the book provides a very biased perspective in all of the events in the novel. In short, the novel makes a series of amateurish mistakes when it comes to telling a moving story.

An essential element to any fictional story is to show rather than dictate the events within the story, so that the reader feels almost as if they are experiencing the events themselves. In The House of the Spirits, however, all of the events are dictated by a distant third person narrator, who simply tells the reader how each character feels, what happens and what they are thinking. An example of is when Ferula is confessing her love for? Clara to her priest, an infatuation that might be lesbian in nature. (100) Ferula, a deeply religious person, hasn’t yet come to terms with her love. Her confession could be a moment of drama and suspense as reveal more about her personality. Instead: “Ferula could spend half an hour on the details. She was a gifted narrator who knew exactly how to explain without too many gestures, painting a scene so true to life that her listener felt as if he was there.” (100) What did she feel when she spied upon Clara and Esteban together having sex, did guilt or doubt plagued her? And if she is supposedly such a good storyteller, why does the narrator let the reader judge her story telling ability based upon what she says and the priest’s reactions? Compare this to a critic remarking, “Mark Anthony makes a very good speech where he gains the public support for his cause” vs. actually showing the Mark Anthony’s speech on the murder of Caesar.

Another painful example of this is the romance of Blanca with Pedro Tercero. Considering the unusual circumstances surrounding their relationship, the details are what can make the readers become involved in the lives of the two characters. How do they talk to each other, how does there relationship grow, what are some of the arguments/conversations they have? But instead, we are just told events. “During the time that they were separated, Blanca and Pedro Tercero exchanged burning letters,” which tells us nothing. What makes them “burning”? How are they written, what do they say? These are the defining traits of the characters, but they are just events dictated to us, with about as much emotional impact as a history textbook.

How an author treats her characters can tell a lot about her. Characters exist to play a role within a story, all of them are made for a specific reason but a good author is able to create the illusion that the character exists as his or her own person while fitting them within their role. Jim in Huckleberry Finn obviously exists to serve as a device to drive the plot, as well as a metaphor for African Americans who are searching for freedom, and yet, within that role, he has his own distinct personality, shown in his interactions with other characters. Aaron in “Titus Andronicus” exists to serve as a ruthless antagonists of the play who cause chaos and suffering, and yet, despite that, he displays some very human characteristics, such as his love for his son and disgust at the Roman people. A good character is one that feels like a real human within the context of the story, but the characters in The House of the Spirits are so obvious in their existence for the sake of the plot that they are totally unappealing, both from a metaphorical and physical standpoint. Esteban is the most obvious example of this, serving as a metaphor for capitalism, the upper class and oppression, and serving as the main antagonist for the story. Every personality trait, almost every action he takes, is just to raise more antagonism towards him, every single time he appears in the book he is presented in a villainous manner, with the exception of his final meeting with Soto. For example,

Esteban had bouts of despair because Clara treated him with the same kindness she displayed towards everybody else…At times he would lose his patience an furiously shake her awake, shouting the most furious accusations he could think of then he would end up weeping in her lap and begging for forgiveness (129).

Even in the passage explaining his motives, Esteban is show as brutish and out of control, his last out birth seems almost as if Allende added it to prevent him from becoming too sympathetic. This makes hating him easy, a nice simplistic divide between good and evil, black and white, because every character apart from Soto views him as villain. Esteban could be a more multilayered character. For example, if Esteban was actually understanding of his wife, and never hurt her, but simply couldn’t understand her or her magic, he would be a frustrated and conflicted character held back by his own pride and lack of creativity rather than just a brute who can’t control himself. Or if he was a gentlemen with men of his class, well read, funny, intelligent-- but a horrible person when allowed to use the power he had, it would be more realistic, as many dictators and oppressors were said to be reasonable in person (Napoleon, Louis XVI, Genghis Khan, and Julius Caesar being just some examples). The class dynamic is simplified, as well, down to Communist=good, Capitalist=bad. You have to use a strong hand on the poor devils--that’s the only language they understand. The minute they get soft, they lose their respect, but I’ve always been fair…How are they supposed to know politics if they don’t even know where they live? They are capable of voting for the Communists, just like the miners in the North, who might push the whole country over the brink with their strikes….What I would do is send in some troops and let some bullets fly to teach them a lesson.” (64)

With this speech, Esteban explains his motives, and what reader would not sympathize with the Communists as a result? This political strawman portrayal is really simplifying the issue, as in real life, almost every Communist government was just as oppressive as the capitalists, just against different people -- China, the Soviet Union, and Cuba being prime examples. Instead of making a valid assertion of the political situation of South America, Allende allows her personal bias to dominate her writing in making her book totally one-sided.

The book is feminist in outlook and represents the oppressions that women are up against, and yet it handles the issue in a one-sided and heavy-handed way. While the female characters are all idealized as heroes, most particularly Clara, Blanca and Alba, the male characters are shown as fundamentally flawed and inferior. Ferula and Esteban, for example, are compared in their relationship with Clara and who else?. Both are consumed with lust and passion, and both are jealous of the other, but Esteban is made into a devil while Ferula becomes a saint.

“Ferula had come to love Clara with a jealous passion that resembled that of a demanding husband more than that of a sister-in-law. With time she lost her prudence and began to let her adoration show in many ways that did not go unnoticed by Esteban. Whenever he returned from the country, Ferula managed to persuade him that Clara was in what she called “One of her bad spells” so he would enter her room rarely, and then only briefly. She would buttress her arguments with recommendations from Dr. Cuevas, which later, when he was asked point-blank, turned out to have been made up. She found a thousand ways to come between husband and wife” Quote? (126).

Ferula is acting just as jealous as Esteban does later in the chapter (130-131 reveals Esteban’s feelings of frustration) and is just as devious as Esteban in tyring to have Clara all to her else, and yet no character calls her out on this, nor does the narration make not upon this. While both of the siblings are jealous and aggressive, Esteban is the one who is reviled for it. While Esteban is cursed to die alone and unloved, Ferula dies a saint who died living along helping the poor.

One of the principal ideas of drama is that the audience doesn’t know what is going to happen, and is dramatic tension when the events unfold. However, all of these events are blatantly told early in the narrative, such as when the book introduces Clara’s pet dog, Barrabas: “It was said he would never stop growing, and if a butcher’s cruelty had not put an end to his existence, he would have reached the size of a camel.” The dog’s murderer is revealed, and this ruins any suspense about his murder. The relationship between Pedro and Blanca can bring about a sense of suspense, because their relationship is forbidden. However, any doubt of the outcome is banished in the chapter of Pedro Tercero’s introduction:

Blanca tore of her clothes and ran out naked to play with Pedro Tercero...When they found them, the little boy was on his bad on the floor and Blanca was curled up with her head on the round belly of her friend. May years later, they would be found in the same position, and a whole lifetime would not be long enough for there atonement. (105)

This passage sums up the entire relationship, essentially quashing any suspense before it builds.

In the end, the narration within the book fails to be appealing because the book isn’t being written for pleasure, it is being written to make a point. This isn’t in itself a bad decision. Animal Farm and 1984 are deliberate attacks upon Communism, but Orwell doesn’t sacrifice the plot and the characterization. What makes this book suffer is that its entire point is to make a political message, and all of its characters and events focus upon proving its point, from the Poet/Candidate to the Tress Maria’s metaphor as part of the country. Allende’s personal background, with her uncle being the democratically elected communist leader of Chile, over thrown in a US military coup, has understandably given her a strong personal bias, which is extremely evident within the book’s writing, as it presents an extremely slanted view political commentary on South America, as we are the supporters of the communist ideals are shown as heroic martyrs.

The character of the overly-glamorized president is the most blatant example of this as his role within the unnamed countries’ politics is just like that of Allende’s own uncle in Chile When the Fascists attack the government, “Jamie threw himself to the floor with everybody else…only the President was on his feet. He walked to the window carrying a bazooka, and fired it at the tanks below.” The president acts like a Mel Gibson action hero, showing no sign of fear or any other natural human reactions, and simply attacks the tanks directly. This is hero worship, much like American descriptions of George Washington fighting the British without ever making any strategic mistakes. The Poet’s funeral is also shown romantically. “Suddenly, someone hoarsely cried out the Poet’s name and in a single voice everyone replied, “Here! Now and forever…..The Poet’s funeral had turned into the symbolic burial of freedom.” (388) Again, while this is an obviously reference to Pablo Neruda, an admittedly great man, the book essentially turns him into a martyr.

The House of the Spirits does present a complex and elaborate plot, and a large cast of interesting characters. Despite this, it all come to naught because the novel fails to inspire an emotional response because Allende dictates the events. It’s the actual interactions between the characters that makes the readers become emotionally invested in the story. Allende fails to inspire to any real emotional attachment to the characters or events because there roles as devices in her promotion of communist is too painfully obvious .

from

EE

13th warrior

Compared to this, even the Vikings look civilized

Now the first question I’m going to get is where the hell have I been? Well the answer is, well, vacation. But not I’m back and I have computer access, to an extent at least, so I’m going to review a B-movie I saw over the weekend. Now I doubt most people have seen this movie, and I’m not exactly recommending it in the conventional sense of the word, but let’s just get on with it.
The film is based after “Eaters of the Dead’ a book by John McTiernan (wrote Jurassic Park), the story of which is about a Baghdad Noble named Ahmad ibn Fadlan, sometime during the 9th century, who gets in trouble with the Caliph, and is banished to the north as an ambassador…IE the worst job in the Muslim Empire other than food tester. Up north, he meets up with a band of Vikings, who he converses with in Latin. However, apparently there is a village to the north being attacked by some sort of monster, and a local shaman is called for advice. She uses her magic to determine that 13 warriors must go to aid the village, but one of them must not be a Viking. As of such, Fadlan finds himself drafted into the mission of fighting in some small remote village, and if you’re noticing the Seven Samurai similarity that just means you’re paying attention. They go the village and are attacked by these monsters, called Wendols”, which are said to be, bear men. In reality, they look like primitive men dressed in bear fur, possibly some other species of humanoid, like Neanderthals (they have Venus figures, which is very interesting). And combat ensues.
Now let me make this clear, this isn’t what I’d call a good movie by any standard. The camera work is shoddy, the directing is clumsy and the dialogue is painful, the fights are laughable, and whoever wrote the script might not actually be literate, and yet, I liked the film. Well I was amused by the film. Well I didn’t cry during the film. What I liked is that, despite all of its numerous problems, there was a real genius in the story, a diamond within about half a ton of rough. First off, I like the Dark Age feel of it. Ok, maybe the prop and set department were just given a crappy budget, but I like the film because everything in it is really decrepit and fallen apart or primitive, much like the dark ages. With the exception of Fadlan himself, all of the characters look filthy, unwashed, and like well…they come from the dark ages. The village is a broken apart dump and the monsters look like really primitive guys who wear bear skins. I like the idea of the supernatural just being things people couldn’t explain, it’s implied that the monsters are subhuman who have entered a berserker rage and are cannibals. And I liked in the fight scenes how everybody is so clumsy and disoriented within the fighting. There is something to be said about a more realistic fight scene.
The movie also deserves credit for having a sympathetic Arabic character, something that Hollywood really lacks sadly. Fadlan is shown to be a very intelligent and culture character, for more than the barbarians around him, and while he is mocked for his small size and his inability to fight well, his great horsemanship earns there respect, as the Arabs were famously (or infamously if you were fighting them) good horsemen, and the movie avoids all of the demeaning serotypes often associated with Arabs. He is also played by Omar Sharif, which is just badass right there, he has some really funny expressions when he realizes not only do these people not bath, there understanding of medicine is horrible.
In essence, I think the film itself is bad, but think of what it could have been. The idea I think is wonderful, it could have been like seven samurai, but with the Grendel aspect thrown in. Personally I’m a big fan of the realistic/gritty view of the dark ages, such as the film Beowulf and Grendel or the French Excalibur, because that kind of dirty view of the time pretty accurate, and like the idea of the monster s not being actual monsters but just primitives in scary cloaks. With the modern movie industry the way it is, I really thing there needs to be a remake of this, because you could get a real masterpiece out of this storyline and setting. In short, I like it, not for what it is, but for what it could have been.
From
EE

Delay, and requrest, but a shining future ahead

My week has been delayed because my main computer has been really been screwed up, so my articles have been slowed because i needed to fix the damn thing. That being said, my Bioshock review is going along nicely, and i'm still trying to recover my Exalted review, which was sadly lost. However, that is just a matter of time and searching, and should work out nicely. But until then, does anybody know how to solve a problem with Baldur's gate. I can install the first game fine, but the second on is resisting my efforts. Every time I try to install it, this message appears

"Error installing iKernel.exe: (0x10000), and i have no idea how to fix that, dispite looking on the internet. If anybody could give me a hand, that would be great.
thanks
from
EE

Meh, an essay i had to do for psych class, might as well

The psychology City Slickers

Now recommending City Slickers is a rather odd movie to recommend, because when one simply explains the plot it sounds like yet another corny modern day American that preach hollow messages about finding one’s true nature while lacking any real depth. And it does follow the same format as most of those mediocre comities, the difference here is it does it well. It is using a standard model, but it is adding a very mature directing style to it. The humor is not only funny and clever, it feels realistic, like real people. And the message is presented in a way that feels really realistic in how they reach there conclusion. But there is also this great psychology aspect to it about the mid life crisis aspect to it, as well as touching into the themes of masculinity and childhood trauma.
Three men named, Mitch, Phil and Ed are going on a cowboy styled cattle drive, as part of a two week vacation. Mitch is coerced into it by his wife, who thinks he needs to unwind and refocus his life, Phil is trying to get over the divorce with his horrible wife, and Ed does this as yet another example of his need for excitement and adventure. All three characters are really trying to find themselves, as they are lost and confused looking for some sort of meaning to life, and they experience a good deal of development over the course of the film. While non of them miraculously change there personality forever and become totally new people, all three start to understand themselves better and find a moral center to life.
Mitch the main character is the one who’s change at heart is most obvious over the course of the film. In the beginning he is depressed and bored at his job, lost both spiritually and emotionally. He is most likely having a mid life crisis, as he is questioning weather he is a useful member of society and if he is really successful or happy at his job. When he is exposed to the cattle drive and the hard work involved in that, he starts to appreciate himself, and his work, effectively getting over his mid life crisis. Mitch’s moral development is mixed however. Before his trip he tries to provide for his family, but does so purely out of a sense of moral obligation, and is the character most focused on justice, such as saying he would never cheat on his wife even if she would never know, standing up for the women being harassed and protecting his calf. However if it is after the trip that he starts to find the purpose of his moral ideals, so he moves to the next step, becoming more enlightened about how his life is actually being run. His issues stem also from his mid life issues, worrying about how successful he is in terms of material wealth, rather than his own mental state, basically generatively vs. stagnation, and morally he is He mentions in the film that he has had a bad relationship with his parents, and is trying to be more honest with his kids, but mostly he is trying to feel alive again.
Ed’s case is similar, but unlike Mitch he need to find a reason to settle down, instead of looking for excitement. Ed is always trying to find excitement in life, or to “Prove” to himself. His issues come from his dad, who cheats on his mother and doesn’t seem to care for his family, and has no attachment to anybody, with Ed eventually driving him out of the house. However Ed never seems to want to settle down, always running from one adventure to another, or one women to another. Mortally he is focused primarily upon pleasure first, pleasure later, but eventually he grows to learn to take care of his family. His main issue however is Intimacy versus Isolation, as he is trying to choose between settling down and ending his adventure days or choosing instead to keep up with his way of life until he gets to old to keep it up.
Phil’s problems are the most obvious, and oddly enough the easiest to fix. Having always been somewhat of a “GoofBall’ he also had issues with his father, who we gathered was disapproving and distant from him. His marriage was nothing short of horrific, but he lacked the ability to stand up to his wife until she caught him cheating on her. To him the vacation is both an improvement from his life, and a new start/a way to recuperate, so his issues stem from that in part, his desire to start a new life, and to find happiness again. He is dealing with a new fear of commitment, and eventually leans to not worry about things so much and to live his life to an extent.
In short, City Slickers, despite its rather mellow plot and storyline, contains a good deal of deeper psychological meaning to it hidden under its more casual movie design. Its blend of realistic feeling comedy and human reactions to their situation it can really make the audience feel in touch with the characters and there problems. So it is a good movie, if your into a simple mid life crisis tale

from
EE

Coraline

Is this my soul....oh gods

Now if you are anything like me, you aren’t easily impressed by children films. My generation is the last to grow up in the “Golden Age” of Disney, where there was actual originality in the kid’s movies, or at least the pretense of originality within it, not just an endless series of sequels reusing the same jokes in a desperate attempt to get cash., so we tend to be much more sympathetic to kids films, because we fondly remember the films of our youth rather than the current generation’s memories of money grubbing dribble. Ever the contrarian, I tend to be even harsher on kids shows then most people are, and so I tend to feel angry when watching them. I’m also not a fan of Tim Burton. He has made some really good stuff in the past, and he should be commended for it, but I don’t really go “Oh my god, its Tim Burton”, especially after his horrible Charlie and the Chocolate Factory/Michael Jackson rip off film. So it is with rather stunned pleasure I present to you my Coraline review, saying that not only is it “Not bad” its actually a legitimately “Good Movie”. I’m going to generally assume you know what is going on for this review.

Coraline is an animated film, but unlike most that we imagine, its going for a totally different imagery. The set feels very much like Wallace and Grommet Clay animation, except with a far more darker them to it. The landscape has this great surreal creepy feeling to it, giving the world a very nice sense of being haunted or spooky”. The people are rather out of proportion, but there movements are really well done, it makes them resemble dolls in motions while still looking human enough to be sympathetic. I actually like the main character’s blue hair, which is saying something because I tend to be against freaky colored hair in general, so this says a lot. The story does have this great doll theme going for it, as the scenes which involve people being created are really cool in design. The “Otherworld” deserves credit too through, both for its normal image, but also in how it falls apart until nonexistence and unreality.
The story is something you can pick up from the trailers, so I won’t bore you, but what shocked me was how adult the themes were. I mean, the story is basically talking about abuse, neglect, and the dangers of domination power relationships. Coralline’s parents are neglectful and have skewed priorities, with there daughter not being on the top of those. However the dynamic in the “Other world” touches upon a lot more darker themes, which can see in the trend of feminine imagery. Before going into that, I will like to say that I really like that the movie had a strong female protagonist. And not strong in the sense of “oh look at her, she has a spine, but needs a male character to help her” way that Disney likes to do (Damnit Snow White), but Coraline is always the most dominate character in most of the scenes, and feels actually legitimately strong willed. Going off that, the Beldam (a term I actually knew before watching this….which is crazy), is the main villain and ultimate controller of the “other world” (as opposed to the Other Father, who is little more than a puppet). So the movie is very much focus on a female perspective of things (wow that sounds patronizing doesn’t it?) which I think is really cool. The other mother, apart from being a giant spider monster, is dangerous in her relationship to Coraline, as she can be seen as a metaphor for both a kidnapper and as an abusive parent. The kidnapper angle can be see in her angle in getting Coraline’s love, and seems to be the more obvious metaphor, so I’ll get it out of the way quickly. She puts on a façade, appeal to a child’s need to be dotted upon, to draw her in, then destroys her after drawing her into her web. Yeah, that angle is a little obvious. But the abusive parent angle I think is interesting. The Beldam wants more than anything Coraline’s love, but not love in the conventional sense, but love only so far as to boast her own ego. She demands submission in return for favors and treats, and while she is generous with her gifts, its all part of a ploy to fulfill her own neediness. While she is kind and “loving” to get Coraline’s trust, she also demands a total submission from her child, and when Coraline tries to assert herself in any way, she begins to lose herself. The Beldam wishes to have a love more to the form of worship, and in doing so drains her victim’s personality, and eventually there lose, reducing them to ghosts of there former selves. This is think is a reference to abusive parent relationships, not in the traditional sense of the word (or how people traditionally imagine it) through domestic violence, neglect or fights, but more in how a domineering mother can really ruin a child’s life, just through dominating there child’s life. Coraline is neglected by her real parents, who mean well, but her imagination still exists. Her real mother has that mitten conformist scene, but eventually gives in and allows her have the mittens, while her “Other Mother” hopes to completely stifle her creativity. Also how many abusive parents simply want to be love, but don’t understand or don’t care about a child’s need to exist outside there parent and have there own personality. The spider’s web is a trap in how the Beldam is dominating every aspect of the child’s life, with her standing in the middle.
Abuse themes aside, there are a lot of sex and birth imagery going in there, particularly with the two actresses…..yeah if you’ve seen the movie I don’t need to explain that part. But there is a cool scene when she is trying to get the soul of the cocoon and the umbilical cord/womb imagery later in the movie. So watch out for those, you will have a blast (long passage, the well, the garden, what does it all mean). But honestly, it is a really dark, at least as far as kids films go, and I mean that in a good way, in the sense that it has obviously been deliberately thought out and planned to be disturbing, in a sense that who ever made it really put a lot of effort into it and really cared for it. In this current age of endless mediocrity, it is nice to see somebody who actually cares for his work. ( But in short, it was a really good movie, shockingly so considering what I expected, and I will really recommend it. If you aren’t a kid movie fan, then I recommend you watch it as an adult movie using childhood as a them. If you love kid movie, then it is as good as Wall-E, lets leave it at that.
from
EE

Javert the character

                                                 Napoleon isn't dead kids, he just got a new job

  

 

For all those musical fans, I’m sure you are aware of Les Miserables, so you can skip the opening paragraph.  For those that don’t know, it was an old French written after the Revolution about the prison system, redemption, and poverty within the nation.  Jean is arrested for stealing a loaf of bread and is put in jail for 20 years (most of that is from escape attempts).   After his realize, he runs away, but eventually reforms, becoming a mayor and a businessman of a town who cares for everybody and an all around good person.  However a police man with some truly remarkable memory is sent after him, Inspector Javert, who is  more interesting as a character than Jean himself.  He is a man who was born inside a jail, but through some absurd hard work, worked his way into the law system.  He says that he has never broken a law and follows it to the letter, never allowing any injustice to slide.  

I’d say this was a complex and in-depth issue but um…LE.  Yeah.  Not much to say there.  He is Lawful by definition basically and while you might dub him LN, the system he supports is a pretty evil one and supports an unjust and unfair law system. 

Well that was a pretty simply article actually, so lets move on a bit from there into the character a bit more about the nature of the character.  I always liked the idea of Javert, an obviously antagonistic character whos total commitment to the law makes him a rather admirable character simply for his devotion, to the law and the idea of a perfectly “honorable” character in that he puts the law before anything else.  However this fails to strike a cord in a modern audience however, because quite frankly he lacks nobility.  The French law system at the time is so slanted and corrupted that it is really hard to feel conflicted for a guy who’s “law” is basically an oligarchy’s way of keep power.  What would make this character more interesting?  If he was supporting a more well, valid system I might feel a little more sympathy for him and more conflicted over who I should be rooting for (well I rooted for him anyways because Jean is kinda annoying but still).  For example, what if we had say….the same story in America.  Jean is like an African American who grew up in a horrible environment, (yeah I’m tapping a stereotype I know, but it is one that is based upon reality) with no father, a mother who had him while young and is involved in drugs and grows up without any proper education (because of the current American education for the poor is basically a huge “Fuck you”), and the people he grows up with are almost all involved with drugs, crime, prostitution, and gangs.  A generally good kid, who tries to help his folks, but not perfect, he does something stupid, as kids always do and find himself in jail for like 15 years.  After being realized, he reforms and starts trying to fix up his community.  The Javert character is either an FBI agent or some other sort of law enforcement who is trying to track Jean down and  bring him back to jail.  The difference here is that he follows American law to the letter, including getting warrants for ever address/search and making sure that no abuse is done to people below him.  In short, ensuring that while he does serve the role of the antagonist, he goes out of the way to make sure he upholds the law, so much as providing the main charater a fail trial.  That would be a lot more interesting I think, also if this Javert too came out of poverty and still was able to never break a law.  I don’t know, I thin the dynamic would be more interesting if you had a more kind legal system.

from

EE 

Alignment of Askeladd

".........I hate all of you" 

Alignment of Askeladd

To take a break from all of the Watchmen fuss, I’ve decided to do another Alignment review, as WG finishes his fallout review and I work on my Exalted. So a short and sweet one for today, from one of my personal favorite/unappreciated comics, Vinland Saga, possible the second best manga out there (first being FMA of course). And because I have limited time, lets go with it. Basically what I like about Vinland Saga is that it has one of the best balances in showing “real” people doing horrible things, but still being sympathetic. The Vikings tend to be portrayed either as mindless savages, or noble warriors in fiction, with little in-between, but this series really does manage to pull off a realistic portrayal. The Vikings are shown in there interactions with each other as kinda fun guys, they are friendly, most are supporting a family, and are brave in the face of danger (that isn’t universal of course, but they are pretty hardcore). We see there comradely, there jokes and there support for each other. We also see them slaughtering innocent English villages, raping women, killing children and selling who is left to slavery, looting an entire village and then killing them to feed there own troops, and generally acting like a bunch of psychotic raiders…..just like real life. And yet they are still able to be enjoyable characters, even as the reader sees there more brutal actions, which is a hard step to take and really does say a lot about this comic’s quality. Askeladd is a good example of this, he is very friendly, easy to get along with people around him and is a pretty fun character to read about. Unlike his Danish comrades, he has a long term goal, of a unified and organized Britain, which some can see as something worth fighting for. And yet, he has murdered anyone who dares get in his way, is in charge of the more brutal raids of the Danes, and kills his own men. So evil. I’d peg him as NE, because while he is Lawful, only when it suits him. Thors on the other hand, is a very good example of Lawful Good

from

EE

Watchmen

Do it, end the film now. DO IT

Now I’ve mentioned that I’m a fan of Watchmen and I went into the film with a pretension of detached pessimism, but in reality filled with surprised anticipation. When I emerged blearier eyed, exhausted into the pissed of sunlight, I learned a very good message about trusting the crowed and accepting popular option about a films quality. Don’t do it, you will only set yourself up for disappointment. Now the film wasn’t bad and I didn’t leave the theater feeling like my brain had been violated in some way (well apart from the headache from the many flashing lights), but I do actually regret those three wasted hours (not joking, I could have done some really cool things in that time). Now let it be known, I am a fan of Watchmen the comic book, because I think it has some really good stories/characters (unlike say, anything Frank Miller has ever done), and I like the Grey vs. Grey portrayal of American Society. And I really hate Zack Snyder, who I think is one of the worst directors in film history, and I don’t say that sarcastically. 300 was literally the worst film I’ve ever seen in my life, and I’ve seen Deep Space Nine, and Nazi films (actually if you’ve seen “Birth of a Nation” then don’t bother). 

And all of the cinematic elements (If not the massive racism, the homophobia, the thinly veiled political propaganda, the black and white setting, the simplistic portrayal of a much more complex historical event, the moronically stupid characters, the juvenile writing and the unoriginality), that I didn’t like about 300 return here with a vengeance, most noticeable being the absurdly stupid slow motion action scenes, extremely loud combat music and absurdly stupid over the top fight scenes. In fact, the film is chalk full of massive fight scenes, almost every encounter has some guy beating the crap out of somebody else.

 Now that is not to say that that didn’t happen in the book, but in the book the fighting was more realistic, like it was a bunch of guys literally just beating the crap out of each other while wearing masks, very realistic in a brutal sort of way. This feels like Kun Fu Hustle without the parody/good directing, the people are smashed around like rag dolls in a manner. 

In fact, every fight scene is almost the same, one guy throws a punch, the other guy effortlessly blocks with his fists, flips him, smashes him through a near by object, the other guy throws them back, they exchange these really forced and fake sounding punches until one of them ether is launched 50 feet away or bends out of shape. Which touches upon the biggest problem with Watchmen from a purely cinematic point of view, the artificiality of it all. My dad, who has never read the comic said it felt like a typical comic book movie, just loud and silly, which I find really ironic as Alan Moore wrote Watchmen in response to critics saying ‘It has a comic book plot”, hoping to prove them wrong by making an in depth graphic novel. 

The movie really does feel like a set, because all of the locations are either animated or so fancy and high text that it looks artificial and unreal. What I liked about Watchmen was the gritty realism that made it feel like real life, and nothing ruins that more than absurd explosions, men smashing each other through marble tables only to stand back up, and places that look absurdly organized and clean when they shouldn’t be are not realistic. A good watchmen movie would be designed like a Law and Order set (back in the old days when it was good of course), a feeling of actual building being run by real people. Also the fight scenes, unrealistic aside, are really graphic and that’s saying alot. I mean, I don’t mind violence in film really, but I like it to serve a purpose, such as showing how brutal real combat often is, but this served no purpose other than essentially shocking the audience often for no good reason. The fight with the vaguely Asian gangsters for example, our hero’s beat them to pieces with shocking brutality (actually I don’t think they kill them in the book) that serves no real purpose other than shocking the audience. The cutting of the man’s arms in the jail riot scene is another example of this, brutality for the sake of brutality, and graphic imagery that seems to be just brutal for its own sake. In short, the movie feels fake and I lack any empathy with the characters, ironically the exact opposite of what the writer intended. The movie presents an orgy of explosions, flashing lights, broken bones and artificial sounds, with dialogue thrown in almost as an after thought. On that note, lets talk about the dialogue its self actually. If you’ve read Watchmen, you should most likely recognize the lines from the comic book are repeated almost verbatim, which is actually not a good idea. Accuracy is wonderful, but it has to feel real, when watching Shakespeare I don’t get warm sense of happiness inside just be recognizing the speeches, I like to see how the actors say them and what creative licenses the director takes with the role and Snyder takes non here. All of the conversations, in fact all of the character interactions are presented in this stiff, wooden sort of way as they read there lines, as if they are trying to convey as much information as possible to the audience as quickly as possible. 

Even the most epic and fascinating speech (as I said before, Alan Moore is a very good writer) comes off as trite and tiresome, because the actors feel like they are going through a script rather than being real characters. I feel like when the director gave acting cues, he didn’t tell them “Ok, your father is the a ruthless Nazi who attempted to rape your mother once, how do you react” instead saying ‘Hey can you imitate this comic book scene?” The sets and chorography (apart from the god awful fight scenes) are almost copied frame by frame from the book, and that actually limits the scene, Rorschach’s various actions throughout the film are imitated to what he does in the comic book, and the actor doesn’t feel like a person so much as a dummy taking various poses. 

The movie is emotionally dead really, its not so much a film in its own right as a near endless list of moving photo shoots, and is so constricted by its imitation that it just comes of as hollow. The movie doesn’t really bring anything to the story, it just re-shows it. I don’t know about other fans, but I didn’t watch the movie thinking “Wow, it would be so cool if I could see this frame but acted out”, I more was looking forward to an interesting and engaging storyline, and having people who would otherwise never read the book be able to experience a really cool and interesting plot. Instead Zack’s single minded devotion (oh in my option, lack of any actual talent), just stagnates any real feeling of fulfillment from this. In fact this is typical of Zack who did this method of copying in 300, and here is the thing, that actually isn’t very impressive. In the modern age of computer graphics and advanced cameras, there is little that is actually impressive about copying a comic book’s pages, its like taking a picture of the Mona Lisa, congratulations I hope your impressed. The real art in directing a movie is taking something somebody has done and remaking it into something engaging, like the Godfather, Last King of Scotland, or Maltese Falcon. They were based after books certainly, but they added new life to the story and had there own spin to the events, it wasn’t just mindless copying. The acting varies, through there are no really impressive people, most of it just comes off as mediocre, because of their limited room in there roles, and the director’s choices just renders the acting talents impotent.
The only real changes I noticed in the movie apart from the added violence (And the WTF ending)was making Rorschach and the Comedian look slightly less evil. Now in any other movie I wouldn’t care, but knowing the radically right wing (and racist) message of 300, its worth looking into a tad bit, through to be fair some of this might just be in favor of time. The Comedian’s face isn’t horrible ruined, so when he opens fire upon protesters he isn’t wearing that creepy gimp mask that inspires a feeling of “Hey Nazis”, and he is shown as a little less brutish and more badass in this version, through its most likely just me touching upon minor details. Rorschach through comes off as a lot less, well, pathetic. His voice sounds a lot like Clint Eastwood, and some of his details are changed. While still the son of a prostitute, it kind of misses the point of explaining his back-story. The idea is that Alan Moore is averting the “total badass stoic who never losses his cool, never looks bad” idea by showing him as emotionally traumatized, and one thing I found interesting was his fear of women and women’s clothing, and the highly hinted at sexual frustration within him, which is dropped, possibly due to time or because it makes the radically right wing character look less cool. I know his more controversial scenes were dropped, such as his torturing random people until he gets the right information (opposed to the one torture of an actual evil dude), as well as his more controversial dialogue. For example, in the book when Ozymandias calls the Comedian a Nazi, Rorschach goes into a rather interesting triad about how the Comedian fought and died for his country, and that if he is a Nazi, then so must Rorschach, drawing a parallel between that sort of far right wing extremism/paranoia and fascism, as they are directly related (in the same way the really far left can move into communism), and that is dropped, as his comment about the Comedian “moral lapses” (see also attempted rape). Also the child killer he murder is much more obviously guilty, where in the book its kind of vague, I mean it could have been coincidental (unlikely but hey), and as of such, the serials killers demands for an arrest seem just stupid, as if the director is trying to drain any sympathy from him so his brutal murder doesn’t look so bad (yes I know he is most likely a child murderer but I’ve seen “M”, I don’t believe murder is right even to those people). It might just be my paranoia, but it is interesting to note nonetheless
My final note of complaint is the pacing. For a film that has so much grounds to cover, it sure wastes a lot of time doing flash backs. I mean, it makes sense in a comic to do a flashback after each chapter, because it can take a while to read through that, but I don’t need to see the Silk Specter 1 parent argument 4 fucking times within a movie. Doing each part of the movie in terms of character segments may sound cool, but when you realize how fast they go by it feels more like your just showing a series of scenes rather than telling a story.
Now I didn’t really feel horrible watching the move and when I walked out I wasn’t filled with revolution, and there were plenty of parts I enjoyed, but I realized that the parts I actually enjoyed were the parts that I had forgotten from the book. The rest of it felt like I was reading the comic book but with flashy lights and loud noises. Was it an accurate adaptation? Yes I suppose, but it in doing so we just got a stagnant production. Through it did prove an important point, Watchmen is not “unmakable”. You can do a film of watchmen, and can do it very well, it just requires a good screen writer. So basically if you haven’t read the book and don’t plan to, then I recommend the movie, it’s a nice way to get the basics of the story without reading the book. And if you felt that the book needed just a wee bit more blood and gore, then by all means watch the movie. But if you’ve read the comic and really enjoy the story and want other people to understand why you love it without reading the book, then spare yourself 3 hours.
From
EE

Baldur's Gate Request/Mods/Patches

Not that i've fixed my computer, i have to re install all my games, and i figured this would be a nice time to replay the entire Baldur's Gate Series. This time I figured it might be nice to have some added content Mod/Patches wise, and i wondered if anybody knew any really good ones you'd recommend?
from
EE