Should we stand for the National anthem before a movie screening in the Jamaican cinema?

This commentary is addressing a pretty small scale issue in the Jamaican cinema landscape: the playing of the national anthem before a movie.

I recently went to watch Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol at the palace Cineplex located in the Sovereign mall in Liguanea. Again the national anthem was played and I refused to stand. Prior to the national anthem there was the voice of Brigitte Foster-Hylton, on recording, saying that she is proud of her nation and that we should all stand for the anthem as a sign of respect. Everyone rose ceremoniously not realizing that the film they were about to view was an average and forgettable one apart from the stunt work. The way the people rose in unison suggested that the national anthem would enhance their experience of the movie.  Those who rose in unison must unconsciously believe in this patriotic act for a film screening however they and the owners of the palace amusement company, who runs the cinema chain in Jamaica, do not realize that they are instead suffering from the disorder of patriotic malaise. This is a disorder where the love of nation is forced upon people to the point where it rings false. If they do not suffer from it then I certainly do for with the increasing commercialization of film standing for a national anthem before a screening appears downright absurd and pathetic and is reflective of a backward, pretentious ideal that seems yet to be discovered by the populace: what it means to be Jamaican? We seem to be still at odds with the issue and our politicians always seem to be emphasizing this issue of unity due to our fractious and at times barbaric political system. The barbaric political system is not only a result of the violence but of the demagogic and shallow base of political ideologies which are sententious. The hypocrites in politics call for unity while preaching the downfall of one sect of society because they support a particular party. This is the glory of democracy.  This incessant call for unity is a bourgeois hypocrisy and caters only to the lackeys of the ruling class who spend more of their time in the United States, Canada and Europe than in Jamaica. The playing of the national anthem is a reflection of that putrid sentiment and false sense of security: in other words an illusion; however why should it be played before a movie? The answer is: ????

There is no simple answer. The only justification is our backward approach to film. Jamaica rarely premiers its own films and probably when we were granted the honour of having our own movie houses, which shows these exquisite productions from the United States, we got so caught up in this great honour that it has become a staple of our movie going experience. I am not sure when it actually started and I am not prepared to say that it is a colonial tradition although it is in keeping with the pomp of ceremony in Jamaica, inherited by the English,  where every event is graced by the national anthem'God save our noble Queen'. Whether  or not we inherited it from the English it is clear that to watch a national anthem before a film, which you may not like, is a sign of abject patriotic malaise. Film going experiences are not like the old days when the Majestic and the Odeon cinemas and drive ins would cater to a certain lifestyle of the audiences. It is no longer an event to go to the movies. That is rare nowadays unless it is a major new creative thrust in the industry.  The film executives have realized this which is why they have introduced the 3D and IMAX formats so as to make the experience of watching a movie larger than life itself.  A national anthem before a film is a crass way of saying that we Jamaicans should be grateful for being able to host these wonderful creations of the developed world. It is innovations in technology which will enhance the film going experience not a national anthem. The only question is: Do you stand for the national anthem when you watch the same film on DVD or Blu Ray in your private home? Do you stand for the anthem when you watch it on local television? Would you still stand for the national anthem should a cinema that only premieres pornographic material be made available to the public?

You are made to feel guilty sometimes when you don’t stand especially when you go with someone else who does not share your vision. I never stand so I know the feeling. I once heard a buffoon sitting behind me say ‘people no longer respect the national anthem.’ The national anthem does not logically add to the movie experience. I either like the film or do not. I suppose that in the older days you were forced to stand by some form of persuasive coercion and in some other poor nations you probably have the military combing the aisles ensuring that you stand. Now we have the attendants that tear your ticket stubs and flash their light bulbs in the aisles trying to identify empty seats for latecomers to the show and identify those trying to use camcorders to record the film to distribute as pirate DVDs. The social pressure to stand for the anthem is overbearing for some and I remember a particular female pleading with me to stand and I suppose she felt isolated from the crowd by going to a movie with a man who will not stand for the national anthem prior to the screening of a film.  She eventually forgot the incident since she did not like the movie and was actually disappointed despite the playing of the anthem which is designed  to enhance the film going experience by instilling some sense of pride in being able to consume this noble product, this precious import. I cannot emphasize too much how this pompous ceremony is ridiculed by foreigners who snicker while it is being played. They find themselves in the uneasy position where they are not sure if they should stand or sit. It is an act of buffoonery on the part of the palace amusement co. to keep this practice going. It is similar to the archaic presentation of coming attractions, which they thankfully revamped, which was hampered by poor audio quality. They kept the poor audio for at least a year even though it screeched and scratched in your ears. Competition from another formidable entity would  ruin the palace amusement co.

The national anthem also reflects a certain high handed/patronizing attitude of the managers who seem to be caught in the scramble for social gratification by portraying themselves as highly moral beings which predicate their attitudes based on the oppressive values of the church and the notion that we were just born as a nation.  This pompous attitude can be a source of aversion for some although, as a result of the social pressure in the cinema, they will not admit it. It is a reflection of us as a people who continue to exalt this practice as if it is still a privilege to watch the movies in the cinema handed to us by those mighty movie executives from above. Most of the movies released in the US are available online before they reach Jamaica.  I know the managers are highly moral for when a film is rated pg-13 in the US it is given a pg-16 rating by the palace amusement co.

If it was an event where Jamaica was competing internationally then there would be a need to play the national anthem to keep spirits high and identify ourselves as jamaican however we only seem to be glad to premier American films and  one or two Jamaican films. Should we really stand for the national anthem prior to the screening of a movie?

As Jamaica is not a fully capitalist nation and still has its agrarian influences which are reinforced by religion I am not surprised by the practice. When Jamaica becomes fully industrialized and commercialization comes in the form of competition to the palace amusement co. then we will eventually see the removal of the national anthem.

Until then I refuse to stand.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol **½ /5: Superficial bourgeois espionage thriller with some good stunt work

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol is a good espionage thriller. It is still unable to escape the trappings of the genre and fails to reinvent it. It tries to gloss over this fact by including daredevil escapades which include some implausible set pieces. It is also a globetrotting adventure featuring states such as India, Dubai and Russia. The plot is stretched thin and you realize that the story could not keep pace with the globetrotting. The characters are all over the world so as to inject the story with life. It is obvious. It is not closed because had it been it would be a drag for the audience. The moments of quietude in the film fail to resonate and it is clear that the characters are caricatures much like the organization they work for: the IMF (Impossible Mission forces). This film is a justification for American intervention in other states and their security concerns. It seems America must never fear since they have the IMF to defend their borders. There are good elements in the film such as the pacing and the concept of the ghost protocol although you realize that it is nothing new. How the characters come together is also quite interesting. The technology on display is certain to excite some audience members as well as the attempts at humour which are predictable.

The film is about the IMF being implicated in an attack on the Kremlin. The President immediately shuts it down for there are fears that this will ignite a nuclear war with Russia. The plan known as Ghost protocol is put into effect which means that only a special team of four, headed by special agent Ethan Hunt (Tom Cruise), can restore the good name of the IMF by finding the true culprit who was responsible for the Kremlin bombing and who is prepared to start a global nuclear war between the US and Russia.

What’s good about this film?

The film has a lot of good things going for it despite its trappings.  I liked the pacing of the film and the action sequences particularly the fights. It is escapist fiction so one can tolerate the implausibility of some of these set pieces such as Tom Cruise hanging outside the Burj Khalifa in Dubai, the tallest building in the world. It was also good to see how the characters came to form some fellowship which highlights that there might be some life in the franchise following this one. You are aware of this by the end when the individual team members go their separate ways.   The idea that wars between nations are being fought underneath instead of on the surface where every attack is played down as a malfunction etc is realistic to an extent that information is being transmitted to people. The idea of ghost protocol was pretty well developed as it is a safe measure for the IMF when things get awry. It was also a good concept since it dealt with the issue of there being no one left to make a stand apart from a few or that the life of an entity is balancing on a thin thread. These individual members are supposed to represent hope for espionage carried out by the United States. The jokes are supposed to make audiences chirpy throughout as well as the technology on display.  The film seems like a materialist/bourgeois fantasy at times or as justification for their right to rule. It seems pathetic at times especially when a Indian business mogul is featured. As pathetic as it looks sometimes this will appeal to the members of the bourgeois class, their lackeys and parasites. The film also does a good job as a travelogue by featuring two members of the BRICS: India and Russia as well as Dubai of the UAE in the Middle East.

All that was discussed previously is not unique for it has been done before in many espionage thrillers and so it is no wonder that the production team try and rely on the set pieces to be so distinctive and this would explain their use of environments of foreign countries for it seems more grandiose and less intimate than other thrillers in this genre.

There is some reference here to Dr. Strangelove Or: How I learned to stop worrying and Love the Bomb? Code name: cobalt. This reminded me of the Cobalt thorium G in Dr. Strangelove.... You can’t get more superficial than that. It seems that the character Strangelove can now walk and run.

What’s bad about this film?

This film is hardly special and will be forgotten in a couple of months. It is hardly resonant particularly in the quiet moments. The attempt to generate emotion was lost here since the production team assume that the audience cares about the characters. There will be members of the audience that will wince when some actors start to look weepy because it does not seem essential. The relationship between Hunt and his wife for instance was pretty hollow and he is supposed to be some form of a dark knight when he walks off shrouded by the mist. If you did not watch the previous mission impossible installment you will wonder what all the fuss was about especially with the character William Brandt (Jeremy Renner). Instead of having his own story he has to be tied into the story of Ethan Hunt. Why is that since what you are trying to emphasize is that the members of the team have different backgrounds?

The set pieces in the film are clearly contrived and too coincidental to seem organic. A straightforward plan is always disrupted because Tom Cruise has to show that he can do his own stunts. This occurs in the scenes at the Burj Khalifa and when he is outside a hospital window. It seems like a desperate ploy to manipulate the audience and their sensibilities. Who is going to believe the implausibility of some of the fight scenes, particularly the final one in a high tech parking lot?

The IMF seems like a dummy corporation for it to be subject to a ghost protocol. It seems as if the organization is limited to one individual: Ethan Hunt. What does this say about the institution if one mishap can send it crashing down? One individual slips up so how is it connected and how was it disabled for this particular measure to be taken. The acronym is also misleading since its mandate as an organization is not explained.

The thematic elements in the film do not stand out from most espionage thrillers. It seems to rely on the scale of the set pieces to be distinct. As a result the story will be forgotten and the audience will only come to expect good stunt work when they watch this film. All the film boils down to is tracking the main suspect; a suspect who is highly intelligent and capable of making an escape. The villain seems to work only with his crony and there is no account of him as an individual or what he thinks. He is caricaturized. In fact most of the characters are caricatures which is why humour is essential so as not to lose the interest of the audience. The audience will never care for them; that I can guarantee. A t least the Bourne series made you care about Jason Bourne however this series is all about stunts.

The technology on display seems to cater to the crass bourgeois/materialist crowd and is too flashy to seem intrinsic to the schematics of the plot. You have a nice car with touch screen here, you have some fancy computers (apple) and you have some very handy gloves. People will no doubt say wow. I am justified in my statements based on the centres where the action takes place. In Dubai it takes place in the tallest building in the world where rooms are an average $ 4000 a night. In India the action takes place at state of the art facilities and in the home of a pathetic business mogul. It seems more like a bourgeois fantasy rather than a film that has some necessary statements about espionage. The actors speak foreign languages and that seems to be enough.  The globetrotting experience also stretches the story too thin since it is never really explained why it is necessary for the characters to visit all these lovely locales. A business man in India owns this so lets go to India. An Arms dealer in Dubai has access to things lets go and check him. How is it that they are asked to invade the Kremlin? It would have been more accurate to establish something about the tension between the two nations: the US and Russia as opposed to having some mad scientist try and blow up the world for no apparent reason. What is fuelling the conflict? I suppose all espionage thrillers must have this globetrotting experience to be validated? There is no proper methodological construct here and this is why I am convinced that this film is a bourgeois fantasy. Maybe we can get Cruise to do some stunts in Jamaica.

The nature of espionage is not explored at all. It seems to be taken for granted and I was thrown off from the beginning of the film. Espionage is more intricate than how it is presented here in such a superficial manner. If you work for the IMF it seems as if you work for the Mafia. What is the mandate of the organization which would make it seem credible in tackling the notion of espionage and subversion? Why do they see espionage as a credible in world affairs at the moment? As the notion of espionage is not developed the film rings hollow.

Just give Tom Cruise the wire and let’s call it a day.

Hugo (2011) ****/5: This is one of the year's best films

Hugo is one of the best films of this year because the story is structured in a coherent fashion and it offers a fresh visual palette to the eye that is uniquely its own. There were some predictable elements but the themes of the story were clear and it was manifested accurately through each character. The story, set in Paris 1931, is about the young individual Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield), who resides in the clock tower of the train station where he keeps the clocks ticking, seeking to complete the reconstruction of a mysterious automaton discovered by his deceased father who worked in the museum where it was discovered before it was engulfed by flames. During his reconstruction of the automaton he encounters a mysterious toy maker, from whom he steals parts, working in the station’s toy shop named George Melies (Ben Kingsley) who we eventually learn was once a pioneer in filmmaking. Through the construction by Hugo of the automaton and his urge to discover the message which is supposedly left by his father we come to discover the original magic of the cinema. Along the way he encounters several important characters such as the station inspector (Sacha Baron Cohen) and Isabelle (Chloe Moretz). The film may be seen as a call for the preservation of the older generation of films however one can still see it independently as the birth of a movement and how this movement can be preserved despite the possibility that it would fade into existence. ‘Hope lives’ seems to be the message promoted by the film. The film deals accurately with the themes of decline vs. descent for it highlights that although Melies decline as a filmmaker resulted in the end of his career the only possibility for it to be discovered was through this young boy. The line of descent becomes firmly established in this film and so from this perspective it does not necessarily have to be viewed as a children’s film. There comes a time when everyone will become old and you become concerned with the legacy you will leave behind. The film will be seen as one for children especially as the source material is based on  the popular children’s book The Invention of Hugo Cabret however the thematic elements will make it relevant to future audiences especially as it has a visual texture enhanced by 3D that seems truly original and is one associated with the passage of time. The  effective use of visual textures to convey thematic elements is better than most films released this year.  The concept of the machine is also highlighted effectively and demonstrates the extent that each piece in the puzzle is relevant to the construction of the whole. This is more of a functionalist philosophy and this is debatable especially as it used to justify emotional expressions in the film. I have witnessed firsthand how individuals can be forgotten and how their legacy hangs by a thread because of the lessons passed on to a youth or how the youth discovers something in the past that will ensure the survival of that particular idea or object. There is the notion that most of the great works in science, technology and art in the past are subject to new interpretations which will result in new formulations for the betterment of mankind. In this present day humans are unable to move beyond the abstract debates of the past with regards to human nature and notions of the universe. Most of our experiences are apocryphal and do not result in any new formulations about human nature that were not already known.  Our practical applications have only expanded in the form of technology but not in its essence i.e. what technology is used for. This can be seen with the current release The Artist (2011). This also makes a strong claim regarding the value of art.

The subjective development of film as a medium to expand the possibilities of what we can imagine is still relevant today and will be for whatever art form emerges. The concept of a legacy is more of a central theme as opposed to the preservation of film.  If one removes the personal association of director Martin Scorsese the objective elements of the film must be discussed based on the thematic elements on display. This is done when the construction of the machine and the objective framework is assessed.  This film is a good swansong for the master Martin Scorsese.

What’s good about this film?

The first good thing about this film is the coherent structure of the story. This is one of the few times I was able to just sit back and watch a film without wondering about loopholes in the story or inconsistencies in the plot. The film exposes its many layers very well with some surprising moments. This is what good films do anyway and you are supposed to sit back and relax. I also appreciated the visual textures of the film enhanced by the 3D effect. The opening shots and some during the middle emphasize this. We see the camera swooping down over Paris in 1931 and then there is a sudden explosion of light to suggest the movement of time or busy life in the city. This is well done because it is not superfluous. It seems like a image unique to the Hugo universe. Hugo is eventually located as he stares outside from the clock tower which he is responsible for since his guardian, following his father’s death, the drunken uncle, who is usually responsible for the clock, has vanished. The film has another fantastic shot of the city when Hugo takes Isabelle into his secret abode in the clock tower explains to her the way he sees the world. We see the city looking ordinary and then there is that sudden burst of energy in the form of dazzling light which shows the passage of time. This shot alone should see it nominated for best visual effects and cinematography. The 3D does help this film particularly to enhance the visual images. For instance when Hugo is building the automaton and he discovers a missing piece in the puzzle a 3D shot comes to the fore to enhance it and give it a sense of importance. This reinforces the skewed functionalist philosophy that every piece has its place in the grand design of mankind.  When they discover the locked away sketches of Melies we see them flash before the screen  after there is an accident and they are sent flying in the air, there is a sequence in the sketches involving a dragon and as it unfold during the air it comes alive based on the visual enhancement afforded by 3D. These are just examples and it should not be spoiled since people still have a chance to go and experience it for themselves.  There is one last shot I would like to discuss however and it makes a strong argument for the use of 3D in film. The train crash sequence which is supposed to re create the sensation of the Wright brothers’ famous clip where audiences, seeing a movie for the first time, thought that the oncoming train was going to hit them and so they leapt from their seats. In these days that kind of shot would not even stir a child. With the use of 3D on the other hand one can at least attempt to give the audience that sort of sensation which was one of the early wonders of the movies. Imax and 3D does this because it presents things on a larger scale. There are some people unaccustomed to 3D who will be moved in their seats with the right sort of shot and Scorsese attempts to do that here. This was one of the reasons why 3D is here to stay especially since people still want to be immersed in these fictional worlds. I saw people jump during the screening of Avatar and I never realized until watching this film that this was the same sensation of those experiencing movies for the first time in plain 2D in the late 19^th century. This was a positive for me as a young man.

The thematic elements were well developed in this film along the lines of decline vs. descent. This notion of decline vs. descent also has various subtexts such as the objective vs. the subjective and so on as well as the true value of art.  These thematic elements are discussed when we encounter the character of George Melies the pioneer in filmmaking. He remained forgotten while other shared in his creations. His most famous one seems to be the rocket which landed in the eye of the moon.  When it is discovered that the automaton belongs to him it is poignant to hear him say that he put his heart and soul into the machine. This suggests that through his subjective imagination he was able to create an objective creation which would influence future generations in the form of Hugo Cabret. When Melies says that happy endings only occur in the movies we realize that through the lines of descent associated with the objective influence of one’s creation on later generations one’s essence is likely to be preserved. This is the notion of your legacy. Even if he died and passed a forgotten man in the flesh his creation of the automaton and the pioneering films which he created would add to the objective framework of filmdom. He would live on among the host as they say. It is only sad when the person is forgotten by the crowd who relish in his discovery which is why when we first encounter a worn Melies he feels that his work, which was an extension of his mind or soul, has faded without any form of recognition. When he discovers the line of descent through Hugo Cabret we understand his jubilation. This is why although there is a decline there is still a line of descent; those that get caught up in the decline of their way of living will not be able to see the line of descent that inevitably follows. In the moments of decline you must therefore seek that line of descent to ensure that there is some form of continuation (check my Decline of the Old South series).

This film also speaks to the true value of art. When we hear Melies story you come to realize that making a film requires a significant investment of capital unlike the performing arts where you only pay for the talent of the actor and the theatre building with the stage. The transition from the stage to film is well documented here for Melies was first a magician with his wife as an assistant before he saw the Wright brothers in action. He sold everything he had to invest not only in a Glass theatre House but in Cameras and props used in the recreation of environments you will never find in the theatre. This is why the scope for the imagination is increased. The level of investment is significant when creating a film because it is an investment in technology which is a source of objective/constant capital. It is because of this investment why Melies works remains preserved. When the Great War hit and people became less interested in his films he was forced to melt down his prints which became a chemical source for the raw materials used in the creation of shoe heels. This is sad but it shows you Art is valuable when you look at it from the perspective of film. It is also valuable when it comes to the imagination for this film demonstrates particularly with the train sequence that the audience has to be continually challenged by the so called auteur that will enhance our understanding of a particular subject from an artistic point of view. There are things I can imagine now that I would not be able to in the 12^th century and this has only occurred through the expansion of the mediums used to express art which has culminated, so far, in film/the movies. This film shows you the extent to which our imaginations are determined in some cases by individuals who dared to dream. It' s the same with religion for instance when Jesus came he inculcated the glories of heaven etc to his disciples and this ensured that his legend would live on. The many interpretations of god can be seen as an essence of the imagination. This was further enhanced by science and technology which would reach deep into the frontiers of space.

There is also the notion at the end that Hugo has surmounted his obstacles associated with the machine and has fully embraced the mystery of creation or the process of something being born.

The film also has a good supporting cast which adds some added dimensions to the film. There is the station inspector on the lookout for orphans probably because he was one himself; an experience which hardened him to the world’s fortunes. Hugo’s fate is tied in with this station inspector as he might as well be considered an orphan. There is the courtship between the inspector and the flower girl, Lisette, which helps to soften him somewhat. There is the expert on books played by Christopher Lee and the lady with her dog who constantly bites any man who tries to approach her master. There is also Isabelle whose fixation on having an adventure Hugo indulges.

What’s bad about this film?

The main downside to this film was that despite the ornate imagery I was not moved as I should have been probably because the story has been told in some way like this before.  I could predict the outcome of several scenes particularly the ones designed to evoke emotion. This is due more to the screenplay.  It lacked the kinetic, fast paced impact I have come to expect from Scorsese. This was probably because Scorsese and his famous  editor, Thelma Schoonmaker, felt that the film should have been slowed down.  This is why people have been complaining that film seems like a drag. I do not share this view but this is why a more fast paced film would have connected better with some audiences. Goodfellas, for instance was  2and a ½ hours yet it flew by in a flash. This is why the other supporting actors did not resonate with me as much as they should have. Some members of the supporting cast also seem redundant as a result. They should have been better incorporated into the life of the station for instance when Hugo takes Isabelle into the clock tower he should have highlighted them for her and their stories. We are only able to take visual cues and this would make it seem forgettable. The courtship between the station inspector and the flower girl could have been more magical and it would have been in keeping with the mood of the main narrative.  In the end we see Isabelle go into some form of overhead narration; maybe this would have solved the problem had it been included from the beginning. When she speaks at the end it seems a bit unnecessary since we get the gist. Her concluding words should have been at the beginning for instance.

The functionalist view that everyone has a role to play regardless of how small is skewed. This is a fault of the source material and not necessarily the film. It does not take into account the surplus population left on the fringes of society that will never find a place due to the expansion of capital and the inevitable impoverishment of the underclass groups who are cast out into the void. It is credit to Hugo’s optimism that he can see himself that way but that is not the true reality of existence in today's world. In a capitalist society not everyone will be deemed necessary to the whole.

All in All one of the year’s best films.

The Adventures of Tintin (2011) ***/5: A superficial adventure yarn with very good animation and 3D effects on display

The Adventures of Tintin is a good yarn although a superficial one. The film appears to have all the elements of a good adventure and yet it appears empty. The adventure is a retread of familiar tales and one feels as if one is indeed watching a comic serial unfold. This is good especially if you see it within the context of B movie style fiction. If so it does a good job although at the same time you will be wondering do you need another tale such as this.  This film makes journalism seem like a fun profession although we never see Tintin actually engage with the elements associated with that profession (although we see his scoops and awards). He appears to be more of a treasure hunter in the vein of Indiana Jones. It is a well made film and has some interesting shots that does service to the world of animation with the motion capture technology utilized to capture real live movements of individuals so as to make the characters seem more believable. The animation in this film is sure to insure that it is nominated for the best animated picture award. It seemed a bit too pristine for my taste because of the style of animation used in this film. I understand that a favourable rating must be maintained however. There are good set pieces in this film that adds to the film’s ephemeral appeal. The downside is that without these set pieces the film does not have a moral or philosophical basis to make it distinctive apart from the familiar phrases associated with the never give up attitude. There does not seem to be much of a context apart from the adventure. There is no proper build up which would suggest that Tintin must go on this adventure for he seems to have no ties in the world apart from his dog. He can simply become a globetrotter, albeit unintentionally at times, with no form of care in the world. We know nothing of Tintin apart from his insatiable need for a scoop and that he is knowledgeable about treasure hunting. These two elements could have been developed so as to evoke some form of emotional attachment from the viewer. This film will not be universally praised as a result. It will be seen as superficial and it will be seen as a montage of good set pieces. It also seems incomplete simply because there is a next installment to be directed by Peter Jackson following his work on The Hobbit. It makes you wonder why not much effort was put in to making this film more appealing to the audience and so make them yearn for the next tale of adventure which is to come. This is why you should never underestimate the emotional element in this film. I suppose the drunken captain offers some sort of comic appeal as well as the two inept police officers. The film is good enough to keep you interested while you’re in the cinema.  

This film is about the adventures of Tintin and his dog as they go in search of the secrets of the doomed Unicorn ship captained by the famous Haddock. This is a classic globetrotting adventure which features locales such as Morocco, the Sahara desert and the stormy seas. There is the villainous Red Reckham who seems to have a score to settle with Haddock’s descendants the current captain Haddock who is a drunkard. He holds the key to the mystery and so Tintin must join forces to solve the mystery before Reckham does.

What’s good about this film?

The film does feature some good animation and some of the shots are seamlessly integrated which is not surprising considering that a master director is at work. The 3D motion capture technology used here makes the animation rival that of Pixar. Pixar has some decent competition at last. This is good news for animation. The film is also good enough to make a statement that should more people get vested in this new style of animation associated with this company then the animated film industry should get a further boost. When Pixar does not feature a film for a while the market looks a bit small and the efforts from the other companies do not seem to be able to generate the appeal audiences are looking for from this type of film. Pixar has been on a good run creating event after event almost year after year. It is good that Amblin entertainment is making a statement concerning the gap to be filled. The Adventures of Tintin is a good film from this perspective. Look out for scenes that have a seamless transition to the next such as puddle becoming a sea or a arm becoming a dune in the desert. These are good shots which I can’t recall seeing in animation films. I may have missed it. These shots show how the simplest thing can be fashioned into the largest sort of physical space. There is also the notion that the imagination can be manifested out of anything as you will see with the scenes featuring captain Haddock.

The source material which involves the search for the secrets of the Unicorn which lead to a hidden treasure may not be as endearing to the younger member of the audience  but the elements of the story related to the adventure seem pretty interesting for all its worth within the limited context. The elements seem to piece together conveniently in the end. It appears inscrutable because the material is not familiar and so you will have to assume that what they are saying is correct as the movie goes along.

The film does try and speak about the notion associated with family legacy through the eyes of Haddock and Reckham. This is the most philosophical element as the drunken captain haddock being the sole survivor of the family tries to live up to he tlegacy established by his forefathers. When the end comes around however one element of tension with another family could have been manifested in various ways as you will say. It could have been made clearer throughout the film how the tension between the Haddock family and the other one (no spoilers) developed over generations apart from the sole episode featured in the film which is related to the mysterious treasure. This would have added some weight to the true burdens faced by the captain. His constant drunken state could actually be justified apart from being a source of comic appeal. This was a sort of missed opportunity and it seems to be as a result of the constant set pieces in the film.

There are small moments that do develop well such as the pick pocket and the two inept police men on his trail. The element of the globetrotting should appeal to some members of the audience.

These set pieces are well choreographed and scripted. It does defy logic but it is all in the form of B movie entertainment and so you welcome the romp. The high speed chase in Morocco or the scene where they are wading through the stormy seas are pretty well animated and do add an element of danger to the mix that will keep audiences interested. These set pieces also represent a downside of the film however.

What’s bad about this film?  

The only real bad thing about this film is the superficial adventure yarn in this film that has been spun so many times before so that you would not expect, even with a new title, something differently this time around. They compensate for this with the stylistic animation and the set pieces however it does mask that there is not a really solid foundation beneath the surface. There is nothing to make this film stand out from all the other adventure yarns out there. The screenwriters never established a suitable context involving the life of Tintin and the legacy of the drunken captain Haddock. These elements would make them more identifiable with the audience as opposed to being simple caricatures. The only profound elements are when they say you must never give up. This has been heard so many times but had the context been properly established it would have resonated more.

The elements of the adventure do seem a bit hard to follow. This will more than likely wear out the younger audiences. These hard to follow moments come from the internal logic of the story. This is not necessarily bad however there are moments when the viewer, particularly in the earlier stages, will not be able to visualize what it is Tintin and the others are speaking about. They make up for this in the scenes featuring Haddock since he is supposed to be a gateway to the past. It is only then that it starts coming together. What I am saying is that initially we see Tintin making these statements regarding the ship yet there are few visual cues established independently which would allow us to visualize what he is speaking of as we get later on with Haddock. These investigative elements will be lost on some viewers as a result. It makes you wonder if Tintin would go after the ship had he not been taken captive. Why is this so important? The other quirk I found is that we understand so little about Tintin and his motivations and he does seem like a caricature or simply transplanted directly from the comic serials. We are merely to assume that this person will be driven on to adventure because he is a journalist. There is nothing wrong with this except that he seemed more like a treasure hunter rather than a journalist. This is made clear by the end for instead of giving perspective to Haddock in some report he simply sails on another adventure. What do his editors think? Does he keep them informed?  I am not familiar with Tintin so I could be wrong about him. What makes Tintin distinct from the other adventurers? Indiana Jones had his whip and hat and the inability to think that far ahead or making things up as he goes which was a source of excitement when he was clashing with the enemy. What does Tintin have? He is a journalist to be sure but it was never made clear to me. He could be any other reporter in my mind. Does anyone ever consider once the insatiable drive of a journalist in this film? No. Maybe the comics develop his background some more. Maybe it’s the hair. Maybe it’s the name. I already mentioned that the legacy of captain Haddock could have materialized more effectively in this film especially when considering the twists and turns in the story and the legacy at the heart of the film. One could explain why the other family members succumbed and why the family was on the brink of extinction.

These elements make the set pieces seem hollow despite their entertainment value and it might not resonate well with audiences when the credits roll especially as it is a incomplete story. The reason people were so upset with the end of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001) was the emotion they invested in it.  They expected the film to keep going. I remember how they complained saying that they didn’t like how it ended and you knew it would be a worldwide phenomenon as a result. It remains to be seen if Tintin’s adventures will appeal to audiences in such manner. Firstly, many will not be aware of the source material and it does not seem that the film caters to those ignorant of the story. While in the cinema the pleasure of each set piece will fade the instant it is over simply because you will be one of those who will not be emotionally invested in the characters.

I chose to see this film as globetrotting romp in the park.

J. Edgar (2011) **½ /5: This film is too excessive in its portrayal of the rumours about Mr. Hoover and it loses some credibility.

J. Edgar could have been a better film especially as it is speaking of the history of security in the United States of America through the eyes of John Edgar Hoover, the 48 year director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation (F.B.I). The film starts promisingly as Mr. Hoover tries to explain the formation of the Bureau from the year 1919 and its progression through to the year of Nixon’s ascendancy to the presidential post in the early 70’s. It falters however for it seems to stop midway, by focusing on the kidnapping and murder case of Charles Lindbergh’s daughter, and then switches to an older Mr. Hoover who is caught up in his isolation due to the machinations of power and his homo erotic relationship with his male partner associate director Clyde Tolson. It should have stuck to the issue of crime and security and then Mr. Hoover would have seemed to be more of the enigmatic and influential individual that he was for that 48 year period as head of the F.B.I. By the end however they make Hoover seem wiser than he really was in his prediction of the future insecurity of America. This is done by having Hoover make prescient statements that many Americans or those culturally aligned would be able to identify with. I am sure Hoover did not make these statements but it is done in an effort to make him seem relevant. The film is not very objective or does not strive to be especially as it has Hoover narrating his own history to several clerks or interns that transcribe his words on the type writer. The film lost its way by focusing increasingly on Hoover’s approach to crime and avoided highlighting the approach of the criminals to his organization such as the mafia etc. The impression you get is that Hoover strengthened the F.B.I by being involved in the famous Lindbergh case and allowing federal jurisdiction over all kidnapping cases however it does not emphasize how the criminals responded to this new development and how it forced Hoover to adjust. One would expect that the criminals would have to adopt new techniques when breaking the law especially as local law enforcement, limited to the state, was always more than insufficient in tackling subversive elements in the state.  

The film does feature a strong performance from Leonardo Dicaprio as Hoover however he will not win the Oscar (probably get a nomination) for this or he should not because his performance does  not blend sufficiently with the film. The focus on Hoover by the screenwriter (who scripted Milk) and all the personal elements, such as his domineering mother and his so called lover associate director Clyde Tolson, in his life does not allow for an appreciation of what made this man truly famous. One would get the impression that Hoover was a sort of mysterious godfather to certain political and social elements however this fascination is not created for the viewer. You are therefore able to see Leonardo Dicaprio under the makeup because you are not seeing him immersed in the environment. A proper context should have been created so as to make Hoover loom over that landscape despite being attached i.e. he would standout based on his abilities as head of the bureau and the mystery of his personal life.

The film could also done well with some diffusion that is making other characters give their views about the character or having someone opposed to him such as the criminal network especially with regards to his hold on power and the increasing shallowness of his vision.

The verdict is still out as to Hoover’s sexuality and his cross dressing craze. In this film it is clear that he was a homosexual although those claims have not been substantiated. This is where the screenplay misfired for instead of creating the mystery around his apparent homosexual relationship with Clyde Tolson and his apparent cross dressing there could have been an air of mystery created which would add to the legend while still leaving clues that he could have or could not have been. The screenplay capitulates and indulges in these rumours without suggesting otherwise. In this film it is claimed that he is a homosexual and that he was a cross dresser. This film loses credibility because of this. Why would they get the man who scripted Milk to do this film? In this film everyone is a homosexual even J.F.K. (where did the film come up with this information especially as most of Hoover’s secret files were never found) This film is too libertine in its approach and not even Clint Eastwood could save it.

What’s good about this film?

The performance of Leonardo Dicaprio as Hoover is the best element in this film. Dicaprio plays him with his usual verve and with the aid of make up so that he can portray an older Hoover. As an older Hoover he is less convincing because it becomes too clear that he is wearing makeup and the fact that we never a get a sense of the passage of time from the young Hoover to the Older Hoover that narrates the events. There is a missing link here and so we are not immersed as we should be in Dicaprio’s performance especially the older version. He may get nominated for the Oscar but he will never win because of these flaws. We are not even sure if he is actually portraying Hoover as he really was since there is no historical footage in the film to support Dicaprio’s claim, as an actor. The supporting cast does fairly well particularly Naomi Watts as Hoover’s permanent secretary,  Armie Hammer as Clyde Tolson and Judi Dench as Hoover’s mother. His performance is unduly influenced by some moments of caricature and this only serves to undermine his portrayal of Hoover.  The scene with the lovers’ quarrel is one such scene between Hoover and Tolson is one such example.

The other more important element is crime fighting for which Hoover is known for. Hoover interested me since he was the one responsible for gathering evidence against Marcus Garvey on a charge of mail fraud for which he was deported back to Jamaica. The sources in this film speak about him gathering information on Martin Luther King Junior as a so called subversive element but the precedent was set when he investigated Marcus Garvey. Garvey might not have been mentioned but his defeat by the authorities was instrumental for people such as Hoover and his ascendancy in the ranks of the Bureau of Investigation. Garvey’s deportation is mirrored in this film because Hoover is responsible for the deportation of several key individuals accused of being communist rebels some who are even United States citizens. It was a cost Hoover was prepared as he acted on behalf of his superiors. The suppression of the so called communist element sees Hoover climb up the ranks until he is appointed director by the Attorney General. It was good to see the initiatives introduced by Hoover in making police crime investigations more effective through scientific methods such as the development of a forensic lab and the creation of a finger print database. His dealing with Lindbergh case is also well done as it shows how Hoover was able to make the Bureau of Investigation become a federal institution as a result of the public outcry over the kidnapping.

There are other notable elements that are historically accurate regarding Hoover’s reputation. Hoover was not responsible for the actual arrest of the notorious criminals brought down by the F.B.I. He was jealous of other agents who took the spotlight as a result. His relationship with Clyde Tolson is mentioned although it is given too much weight and then becomes excessive. The truthful elements are mentioned however such as the two men attending the horse race circuit, the nightclubs and going on vacations together. Whatever else is mentioned in the film is false or cannot be proven. This could have added to some mystery about the character. His relationship with his permanent secretary Helen Gandy is developed however questions as to whether he asked her to marry him after a few dates is suspect and this seems to be a common element in the film: misrepresentation. Hoover clearly did create a lot of files on prominent public figures and used this as a tool for bribery and so forth. There is an astonishing claim made in this film that J.F.K was a sodomite caught having sex with a German communist. I never heard of that before although it has been suggested in the film J.F.K (1991). The only issue that I had was the issue of Hoover’s files not being found after his death. This suggests that most of the claims made in the film are conspiracy based and nothing more. It may or may not be true.

What’s bad about this film?

There are a lot of bad things about this film particularly the screenplay which is very excessive in its portrayal of Hoover. I will not dwell long on this issue however his portrayal as an homosexual robbed the film of any sort of mystery considering that the verdict is still out as to whether he was or not. The script could have included elements where it could be suggested that Hoover was a homosexual and elements that would suggest otherwise. Instead they have Hoover and Tolson engage in a cat fight that seems pathetic. There should have been some level of tension generated between the two which would give the performance some depth. These instances of subtlety are missing and so Dicaprio’s performance comes off as a caricature in some parts. There is also no proof for the use of the tapes as a means of bribery since this is all based on conspiracy and that most of his files were never found. It can only be assumed so instead of having Hoover state outright that he caught J.F.K having sex with a German communist it could be implied in some scenes where Hoover would enter the  office of the attorney general who happens to be the brother of J.F.K and the nature of what is said remains a mystery. They did this when he goes in to see Nixon but when he goes in to see Franklin Roosevelt he comes out saying that he frightened him with tapes about his wife’s purported lesbian liaisons. When it comes to homosexuality this film holds nothing back and everything is laid on the table with no hint of subtlety especially as the files were never found. This is the same with Martin Luther King jr. who is accused of attempting to organize a sex party. Most of his tapes seem to be focused on who was a sodomite since homosexuality was a taboo subject during this period. This is why Hoover should have been challenged about his sexual orientation and have him debate whether he is or not or what he saw himself as etc. He is only forced to address these issues when he has a cat fight with Tolson. The views of other characters should have been taken into account so as to give the issue some perspective which would include what others thought of the issue. It would be more balanced and add a sense of mystery to the issue. The film is so plain that gives in to the rumour that Hoover was a cross dresser simply because he missed his departed mother. After his mother’s death he puts on her clothes which is probably in homage to Psycho (1960). As this was not proved it could have been implied so instead of having him put it on you could simply have him press the dress against himself such as one who wants to see if a certain pair of clothing will fit without trying it on. Have someone  come and see him with the dress pressed against him, but  not really sure of what they are seeing since this is the mighty Hoover. It could implied in such a fashion instead of having him literally dress up as a female.

The focus on the homosexual elements takes away from the focus on actual crime fighting and the F. B. I as an institution. After the Lindbergh  case there is no more insight into the procedures adopted by the F.B. I when tackling crime. There is mention of the mafia but there is no insight as to how the F.B. I tackled them. It is only assumed that the mafia is defeated and as a result when they jump from the Lindbergh case to Hoover as an old man there is a sense that some intermediate link is missing and so the back and forth pacing does not add anything new to the Hoover story with regards to crime fighting. I would have liked to see how he tackled the mafia or how he became increasingly removed from crime fighting duties and became obsessed with power. There is no sense of his upbringing that would reflect on his attitudes towards certain things such as the communist element. The issue with regards to Hoover’s accumulation of power is not sufficiently addressed although it is mentioned when one of the clerks, narrating his account of past events, asks when the institution is no longer defined by the man. Hoover response is that the man makes the institution and then the institution makes the man (something like that). This should have been developed some more however it is a missed opportunity because it is here other views could have been taken into account such as J.F.K who considered dismissing Hoover or anyone else that could have spoken more about the nature of power. It could be in the form of an omniscient narrator but one should give a proper perspective to Hoover’s aspirations. This is why Hoover narrating his own history seems suspect. There is nothing wrong with him narrating his own history however there needs to be a balance in the form of another perspective: it could be in the form of a criminal network headed by the mafia or in some one that challenges his perspective which would make us realize how full of himself he was. While he is narrating the omniscient narrator could have said Hoover was obsessed with leaving behind a noteworthy legacy which is why he would exaggerate his memories. It is implied here but not fully developed.  The film also tries to add to Hoover’s legacy by having him make prescient statements such as the need that America must defend itself from internal and external threats. I am sure Hoover never said it in such a fashion. It is said in such a way that he could predict that Americans would become too lax in their defenses thereby exposing themselves to the enemy. He also makes some of these prophetic statements concerning individuals such as Nixon.

This film could have been so much better.

The Tree of Life (2011) ***½ /5: Good film but it is too bloated when considering the subject matter at its core.

The Tree of Life is a good film although it is a bit disjointed and fails to meet the ambitious plans of director Terence Malick. This film is supposed to give the viewer a notion about the mysteries of the universe however it recycles theories associated with theology and evolution that are already known. Malick tries to balance the two by first accepting the big bang theory along with the concept of a divine being. This is all done against the backdrop of a domestic suburban drama in the 1950’s where a family is rocked by the death of one of its members. On the level of the domestic drama the film is more or less complete and I found my emotions stirred; whereas on the other level, where there is an attempt at melding abstract theory with this domestic drama, it seems a bit excessive and unnecessary. It is difficult to imagine that most middle class families act so dramatic when a death in the family occurs. Death as a concept in this film should have been more far reaching with regards to humanity for millions (not only humans) die everyday yet we are to believe that when one dies the family experiences such frivolity with regards to spirituality. I was upset because it seems that this is a model for petty bourgeois excess in  justifying its right to be seen and heard. This film reminds me that the middle class is a bit too enamored with its significance as a social group. They are lackeys and nothing more for the hegemony of the ruling classes.  There are two movies here: the notions of god and the universe and the plain, unremarkable middle class domestic drama that is more about teen angst rather than any profound belief in the universe. God plays an omniscient, impervious character in this film who is unmoved by the family’s plight while setting them on the path of self discovery. This film undermines itself by not focusing solely on the domestic drama with the tree of life as a reflection of the family’s struggle. That is where it should have limited itself. Instead Malick provides shots of the universe that are not at all original. This film can only be compared to 2001: A Space Odyssey because it is a farcical version. 2001: A Space Odyssey worked because it is clear that man himself went on a journey to discover the source of our inspiration to thrive and become who we are. Kubrick never faltered in his discussion about man as a species and highlighted that we were always exposed in some way to the divine, mysterious monolith which pushes us on into the frontiers of space. We saw humans on a quest into space and so it remained highly identifiable because you were asked to imagine the possibilities of this discovery by man. Kubrick’s film was about man as a species with no recourse to petty dramas that is why the film is largely significant. Now that Malick limits it to a petty middle class drama the high handed imagery seems largely insignificant. The opening of 2001: A Space Odyssey was thrilling because I felt I could identify with my own species being born into existence. This is not a great film. Some critics seem to love this film because it seems very artsy but it is also too abstract and it is no surprise that the film failed at the box office because the audience will feel as if that this is for an exclusive class as opposed to being a movie event for the ages such as 2001: A Space Odyssey or E.T: The Extra Terrestrial.

There are good elements here however stemming from the performances of Brad Pitt as Mr. Obrien head of the family household who considers himself a failure since he was not able to become the great musician of his dreams and young Hunter MacCracken as the young Jack Obrien. Their relationship is affecting but that is all. This relationship does lose its force when it stumbles against the vastness of eternity. This review is favourable solely because of this relationship between father and son.

What’s good about this film?

The petty domestic drama is very affecting in this film and it is only too bad that it begins so late into the film. The relationship between young Jack Obrien and his parents and siblings, particularly the brother that died, is affecting emotionally but it is unlikely to resonate with me simply because there are other domestic dramas of such high quality. As a domestic drama the film is not unique in anyway and this is why the motif of the Tree of Life should have been developed further. The tree that is planted in this film should have been the source by which the life of the family is perpetuated and strengthened. I thought that the tree of life was in reference to man as a species that conceives his offspring who branch off into various paths and form their own variants that eventually become species. This evolutionary motif associated with Darwin would have made for a more serious discussion regarding the experience that we go through every generation or so. A tree of life seems to try and reveal the essence of life as opposed to the experience of man and our migratory patterns whereby we establish a new tree of life. When a child dies a father feels his legacy diminish for his bonds with the earth become ever more strained and it increases the chance that he will be forgotten. The more that man is able to perpetuate his line the more is he able to secure a chance of belonging to the earth like a tree even though he as an individual might perish. I thought this was the direction that the film would take and to some extent it does meet the criteria of my expectations for it is clear that the young Jack Obrien comes to the discover that he is more like his father despite the hate he feels. He feels as if he hates him because his father transmits his essence into him by taking him under his arm (literally and figuratively). This was not just the loss of innocence but the perpetuation of the father into the son. This is why we find him imitating his father by working for a big firm as we see the older Jack (Sean Penn) caught up in his reminiscences.

 This is why I would have liked to see more scenes with the older jack and how his life mirrored that of his father. This is not forthcoming since he only tries to reconcile the loss of his younger brother. The death should have been secondary for we see a young jack, in his father’s absence, try to fill his shoes while hating him at the same time. He gets some strange romantic urges for his mother, which a critic rightfully says reminds one of Oedipus Rex without the sex. We see him trying to influence the younger brother that dies based on his father’s attitude towards him. The young Jack shouts at the father  ‘He loves me more than you.’ which suggests that he is in competition with his father for the affections of the family. There is another touching scene where he says ‘It’s  your house. You can throw me out when you want to. You want me dead.’(Not exact quote) Mr. Obrien thought he was strengthening his son when in fact he was transmitting his own failure as an individual.   Jack hates his father because he becomes more like him as he grows: a person dissatisfied with his existence and with a constant urge to prove himself. Jack’s younger brother is portrayed as an innocent individual who is very artistic and very in tune with his emotions. This contrasts with Jack, who as an elder, is taken under his father’s arm and instructed on how to be tough. The younger brother is the only one who seems to be outside of the father’s influence when he tells him to be quiet one day at the dinner table. This sends the father into a frenzy, since it is only in his home where he has any power, and so he attacks the young boy. Everyone else felt his influence apart from jack’s younger brother which is why he said what he said. When jack’s younger brother dies it is another means of escape from Mr. Obrien’s influence.

I also liked the episode where Mr. Obrien comes to the realization that he is nothing (because he does not have money).

These elements were well done and so I must give the film credit for I was able to understand some elements of the tree of life.

What’s bad about this film?

It is pretty obvious what is bad about this film: the abstract nature of the art design which is supposed to reveal the nature of god and the vastness of the universe. This is ambitious but it does not work because I could predict these sequences with ease. If you are going to put something of this magnitude on screen then you must at least try and be original. He recycles a lot of theories here. With regards to the evolutionary progression of life on earth I was able to predict the various stages based on my own reading of Darwin’s works On the Origin of Species and The Descent of Man. I was therefore not impressed with this sequence because it follows the arguments to a tee. The notion of the tree of life was popularized by Darwin who said that every species descended from one source as it branched out to create variants that were dispersed to varying geographical regions. All these elements are here and so Malick is not as ambitious as some critics assume. When the mother, Mrs. Obrien, and Jack Obrien try to speak to god we are treated to several images about the vastness of God and the universe. It assumes nothing apart from our own insignificance and this has been done before in film. I understood what Malick was trying to do but he should have focused solely on the concept of the tree of life. He tried to branch out too far without making anything stick. He should have shown the transitions that take place between father and son and then branch out into it as he goes along so as to form a parallel with past evolutionary developments of existence. A omniscient narrator who does not have to be god could have given people a clue on what it is they are viewing. An actual delineation of the philosophy would have made it palatable to average filmgoers for they would be more willing to accept what it is Malick was trying to say. His artsy images cannot resonate since we have seen them in some shape like this before. A notion of man’s existence should have been articulated. His only theoretical justification is the question of our insignificance as human beings. Does god relate to us in anyway? Has he abandoned us? Are there mechanisms, such as nature, that he leaves behind so as to regulate our behavior and further hide his nature from us? These are good questions to answer and we understand the notions of the life force but Malick should have focused on the tree of life and then regurgitate the many theories of existence. He spends close to 40 minutes on the subject of god’s vastness which could have been reduced to 15. Instead of interspersing it he should have stuck with his initial opening that questions the vastness of nature and grace (a subjective human concept). Instead of allowing it to unfold naturally through the experience of this family it is superimposed on them. They do not come to any self discovery that seems reasonable. In the end there is a beach where people passed on before are preparing to return to the sea from which the first animals came according to evolution. The question is: how did the older jack come to these conclusions from the perspective of the objective realities of earth? His only reasoning seems to be that man has gone to the dogs based on our greed. Man has always gone to the dogs based on this sort of reasoning.

Malick seems to be trying to emphasize the spirituality within us however there is no material determination for this apart from the tree. The question is how far can the tree branch out before it begins to rot? If he did away with these generic images and focused on the concept of the family then he would have made a more interesting film. These grandiose images seem pompous when it is limited to a petty bourgeois family. These grandiose images should have been applied to man as a species. Had he focused on the family he would limit himself to a more palatable and refreshing look at humanity through this microcosm. I understand what he was trying to say however but it seems a bit too far fetched for one family. The music that goes along with these images on screen was generic with its choral arrangements and high pitched opera sound. Stanley Kubrick utilized the music more effectively in 2001: A Space Odyssey.

The film will appear too bloated to many and therefore unnecessary. It will seem farcical because there is no justification for Malick to try and recreate evolutionary theory through images.  It is because of this that the character of older Jack appears frivolous and the domestic drama is exposed as a shallow enterprise which is reflective of bourgeois ideals associated with money. The father grumbles a lot because he does not have money.  If he had money would he be in such a state? It does not seem significant therefore so why try and make it bloated by making it more than what it is. If he wanted to make it significant Malick had to find a way to discuss humanity as a whole and not just a simple bourgeois family. When people die everyday because they have no money to survive how does that tie into these postulations about life? How does he account for murder and the carnivorous type? How does he account for the fact that our existence is determined by each other and not just god? It seems petty in this instance and not far reaching. Why is this family singled out because of one death in the family? Is it a simple bourgeois tragedy that must be treated with the utmost significance by being tied into the cosmos? Does everyone who deals with death come to the same conclusion that we are all wandering on a beach? Kubrick came to some of these conclusions regarding evolution but the focus was always placed on that mysterious monolith that drives man on into the unknown.

Marx was right history repeats itself first as tragedy or a larger than life person or event and twice as farce. 2001: A Space Odyssey was a film larger than life when exploring the destiny of man and Malick tries to make it large but cannot because it is grounded in a pretty insignificant episode. 

Drive (2011) ***/5: A good film which will not resonate because of the lack of a proper context.

Drive is a good film although it is not transcendent. One must view the film as a production that does everything right but is unable to appeal to the emotions in any significant way apart from the shock associated with the bloodletting in the final half hour. The film is not entirely clear on how the main unnamed character (Ryan Gosling) is to be portrayed and it is for this reason that the film denies itself any poignant revelations about humanity. There are good moments however that do point to the nature of this character and these scenes speak to his emotionally distant approach to events. The story of the film is pretty basic with only a few twist and turns to make all the characters major players. This small circle of characters highlights that everyone is connected in some way. The story revolves around a mysterious, emotionally distant driver who does illicit jobs such as providing a getaway for robbers and a legitimate stunt man job for the movies who grows attached to a woman named Irene (Carey Mulligan) and her child while the father is in prison. After several events go awry with the father, who is indebted to the mob, the life of Irene and her child is at stake and it is left to the mysterious driver to ensure their safety. I was reminded of The Transporter series and No Country for Old Men (2007). The latter film is superior for reasons I will not go into here although it has to do with the several layers of the film manifest in three different characters caught up in the drug trade along the U.S .A/Mexico border: The Sheriff, the Villain and the Cowboy caught in the middle. Drive would have resonated if it had such layers to the film. We are asked to identify with this character and cannot understand him apart from his emotional expression. The other characters in the film are second tier and there is no sympathy generated for them.  The title for the film also has a lot to do with the character however it is not truly defined in any significant way. We never understand why driving is such a significant part of this character. We only know that he is a good driver. I appreciated the soundtrack however it seemed to be trying to explain the film for the viewer as opposed to the film coming to these conclusions. I was not convinced by this emotionally distant character who is trying to play a dark knight role. The production values of the film are the stand out here such as the low pulse in the soundtrack (which sounded like elements used in the soundtrack fort The Dark Knight) the editing which streamlines the narrative in such a manner to generate a kinetic effect with regards to the action and the acting which is good but hardly resonant. There is never a sense that there is anything mysterious or something inscrutable apart from the driver however is this character worth knowing that much about?

What’s good about this film?

This film has good things going for it and this is all attributed to the understated performance of Ryan Gosling as the unnamed driver. His performance is one of restraint and this makes his violent flurries more poignant. The opening scene best explains his character who acts as the axle on which everything spins. His character contrasts with the others since they are extroverted or they are more social individuals capable of interacting with humanity. Characters such as the driver represent those individuals who anchor the extroverted types who are subject to the whims and fancies of the world of man. These whims and fancies are either one of tragedy or cause for celebration. When the mood is celebratory then these extroverts are so caught up in the moment they ignore characters such as the driver however when the times become tragic and the number of friends dwindle it is then that the emotionally distant introvert becomes recognizable. These individuals are instrumental to these extroverts when times become rough because it is then that they will have to grapple with staying in the dark alone. The introverted character is the one who can guide them through the dark since being emotionally distant normally implies that this is his domain since he is capable of handling isolation. This all depends on whether the introvert or emotionally distant character is interested in helping the extrovert through these troubled times that are normally brought about by tragedy. If the extrovert or socially acceptable person does recover from this tragedy it is more than likely due to the so called emotionally distant/or unknown character that aided in their regeneration. When I speak of tragedy I am speaking about a significant fall from grace not something that ‘a few vitamins can cure’. Few people experience tragedy in their lifetime. If someone is able to spend time with you during your time of tragedy then it implies that he or she is not engaged sufficiently in a social life. It is difficult for out and out extroverts to commit to the needs of others experiencing tragedy since it is difficult for them to sympathize with this plight which involves bringing them down into a morass of despair. In some cases they take advantage of the individual’s plight if they can so as to advance up the social ladder which means moving more into the spotlight. Individuals such as the driver are normally never forgotten by those who they help in times of grief; the help that they offer to these individuals reminds them of the possibilities of falling into the morass again and having no one to save you. They are also reminded that in times of joy there is normally one waiting in the wings should they fall. They call characters such as this guardian angels etc and they are the subjects of songs sung mostly by females who are hung up on their own pain. Most men in fact act as this sort of buffer for females in the spotlight. In any case it is not surprising that the driver helps a lady with a child whose husband is in the jail. When the mob demand repayment of their debt accumulated by the husband  in prison through the robbery of  a pawn shop which has a large stash of cash it is no surprise that the driver steps in to help him as a means to secure Irene who he has feelings for. You wonder at first why he is drawn to her and we see her being playful with her son and this belies some melancholy and it is clear that he senses a need for help and so he offers his assistance and plants himself in their lives like a solid immovable rock. It is no surprise that Irene misses him so dramatically by the end after he has saved her near the end. This character reminded me of the batman in The Dark Knight. These sort of emotionally withdrawn characters can be brutal which implies that they can do good but to do so they have to be bad while they do it. Anton Chigurh in No Country for Old Men showed how unfeeling a character such as this can become since he usually has no sympathy for anyone. These chilling moments in Drive are revealed when the mysterious driver goes into his violent outbursts to protect the woman he has feelings for. He does this in a particular scene where he stomps on a man’s face repeatedly until the facial bones shatter.

 Irene is not the only person who needs his help for there is the mechanic, Shannon, played by Bryan Cranston who took the driver in as an assistant and who provides whim with opportunities to score some cash as a getaway driver for robberies. There is one memorable scene where the loan shark, Bernie, played by Albert Brooks sensing the withdrawn element in the driver’s character informs him about the tragedy of Shannon who has never had much luck or is a down and outer which is why his leg is slightly handicapped. Bernie recently gave Shannon a loan to put a car on the race track with the driver as the driver. You sense here that the driver sensed a need in Shannon’s life and decided to step right in; you only grasp this as the movie progresses. It is a good element in the film that adds range to the portrayal of this character by not limiting him to the female.  When the ultimate tragedy, known as death before your time, strikes Shannon you do feel something for him. You can also understand why the driver is frustrated with some ill timed moves by Shannon for it must be true that he is always down on his luck. The driver must be frustrated that he cannot help him and it is clear that his moments of frustration arise out of these moments of helplessness. This film therefore does balance these elements very well.

Well it is not really established why he is so emotionally distant but this is more than likely due to the fact that he has no fear. We sense this in the first scenes of the film where his knowledge of the 100000 streets in Los Angeles serve him well in getaways. This film does highlight that things do not always go according to plan and this normally puts the driver in a quandary as it exposes his uncertainty which is the precursor to outright fright. He is also assured of his job simply because he works according to a tight schedule that lessens the possibility of failure; failure normally occurs when things go off course.

The elements of the mob are also well developed through the characters of Bernie and Nino although they are not so definitive and can be classified as caricatures in the best sense

The soundtrack is a good element in the film particularly the low pulse that occurs in moments. The editing is also pretty good and generates a kinetic effect particularly in the violent moments. They were also able to condense the film into a suitable running time of 97 minutes.

What’s bad about this film?

This film is not as resonant as one may think because most of the characters are not developed beyond the caricature type. It is true that the actors deliver good performances for they are instantly identifiable but it does not necessarily hold as the film progresses. This applies also to the driver. This is due to a certain smug air assumed amongst most of the males and a self assuredness that crumbles and is not maintained throughout. When things crumble they become violent and this does not hold for there is not a premise that holds these characters together. They are not established early enough as integral to the plot and so as it goes along these characters conveniently become essential to the plot without being absolutely necessary for their stories need not intertwine. No Country for Old Men did this exceptionally well by highlighting the three leads early on in the story thereby showing that different agendas lead them on the same path. No Country for Old Men maintained the suspense for the paths of the three leads never collided. The suspense/menace comes when there is a possibility of an encounter rather than the encounter itself. This film is devoid of much mystery or menace as everything comes to a head in the usual conflict associated with lesser action flicks. You know that the good guy will seek revenge and will eventually defeat the villains. There is no real sense of the impact of the violence in this film or the wider struggle associated with fate. In No Country for Old Men the premise was that there are no clean getaways and by the end of the film you understand what they are saying. This film does not have a clear premise unless it is the song that states that the driver is capable of being a human being.  He helps a lady for sure but does he really have an agenda. He acts quiet all the time and when things go awry when the mob come with a vengeance he is forced to leave his shell and so kiss the  female or tell her why he is doing the things he is doing. By limiting the story to the female you wondered if this driver has more to him than this whimsical love interest. He drives and that seems to be the only way he can express his feelings so why is he so drawn to cars and driving and why do they represent his absolute in life. Why is it symbolic? Is it because driving suggests that you keep moving or limitless possibilities? Is it a state of limbo? When he wants to show the lady a good time he drives and makes you wonder whether they are taking a cue from Tracy Chapman’s song ‘Fast Car’. Why not take her on a walk? Or is he conditioned by his existence as a driver? What is his drive? (no pun intended) This emotionally distant character does not seem so mysterious when we see him pouting because of the news that the lady’s husband will be released from prison soon. He threatens to kick a man’s teeth in. In this scene he loses his cool and his mystery so why would they make him so mysterious in the first place. This is also revealed in his violent outbursts where he has little or no control over his rage and you wonder if this is the same person who keeps his cool all the time. Instead of showing him adapt to certain situations and maintain his absolute nature of coolness they lower him bit by bit throughout the film because of the girl. There is no sense of a wider struggle for it is all too convenient that every character in the film is intertwined when this should have been established earlier on in the film. Why would they slowly reveal this to us and then throw the narrative into a downward spiral that loses momentum? The film is not essentially speaking about how humans collide or are forced onto the same paths in meeting the same goal it only obscures this issue; the main reason for this foul up was the focus on the driver himself and the fact that there is not much associated with his character apart from his need to fill the void in people’s lives. It is understandable what his role is as a guardian angel but it is not clear what constitutes a guardian angel. Is it a personal vendetta? And if so what does that say when the vendetta of his is settled? He has saved the girl and he drives off into the night but we are still left with a character that has no essential purpose but to pout when things do not go his own way. There is not a suitable framework which could have provided a vehicle for him to express himself. These elements are relegated and only become clear later on in the film. No Country for Old Men for instance made it clear early on that the wider context that determines these three men’s interactions was the drug trade along the border that divides the U. S.A and Mexico. This film does not establish any particular context apart from the mob that loom over the lives of everyone however we only discover the mob later on. It would have been more appealing if the driver came to blows with the mob itself as opposed to its lackeys in the form of Bernie and Nino. This is not necessarily a negative criticism but the context we eventually discover to be the mob  should have been repositioned in the film to speak about its nature and how the lives of ordinary individuals are caught in the mix of its nefarious underworld. The driver would represent the absolute that the mob would never be able to control. They hint at it in the film but it will never be made clear to the average viewer what the issues truly are. It seems pasted on for some semblance of finality especially as the individuals of the film did not need to be intertwined. Even if they did the screenwriters never give  a plausible reason for this. When Shannon inadvertently reveals to Bernie that he knows where the driver lives he, the driver, is taken aback and pouts again. He was supposed to remain an absolute but now that they know your contact details you become flustered. Is he really absolute? If he was then  Shannon would not know where he lives? The Joker, in The Dark Knight, for instance was not intimidated by the mob because no one knew where to get to him; he had no identity where he could be traced. He was so hidden that batman was at a loss. Is he really that mysterious? It is not clear why he is so brutal and where he learned his craft as a fighter. The other characters are perplexed by him because he acts mysterious not necessarily because he is mysterious. He is like any other quiet American with a mysterious past which we will never know about. Is that a good thing especially as he has no essential purpose apart from driving? His greatness as a character can only be determined by his interaction with others like himself. There is none like him in the film and so I was at a loss as to why he is so distinctive. Is he the only one that performs these sort of heists? The film also missed the chance to discuss urban alienation which is perhaps what he suffers from. Is he a Taxi Driver like the one played by De Niro in the Scorsese classic (look out for review of Taxi Driver)? If so what does that say about his mental state? He cannot be the only one and so by trying to make it appear that way does not really serve the purpose of the filmmakers.

The songs in the musical score were certainly imposing and ruined that slow steady pulse of the earlier scenes. They seemed to be giving cues in order to understand the character by saying that he is capable of being a human being but what does it mean to be human. He pouts a lot in the final scenes of the film that must mean that he is human.

All in all a good film but more was needed to be done to make this film essential viewing.

Theatre vs. Film or the Old and the New in Art

Lights, Camera, Action

As I did reviews of Annie Hall and All About Eve I thought I should try and put into a more theoretical perspective the theatre vs. the film industry or the Old and the New with regards to the art form.

There are a few things to note however when comparing a theatre piece to a film: A film is a compilation of moving images on a large scale whereas a play is allowed at times to come to a standstill thereby leaving room for the actors to demonstrate in an excessive manner so as to drive home a point. This simply means that a play viewed on stage is drama at its most elevated state or in its least inspired state when it lurks in the morass. That is basically the difference between a good theatre piece and a bad one. In theatre the abstract i.e. drama takes centre stage therefore everything is heightened or excessive such as poetic symbols (words, character representations, material objects etc), the performance of the actors and the set design; all of this because there are noticeable limitations. Everything has to standout on stage in excess as a result of the minimalist setting so as to achieve the desired result. It is not the story that takes centre stage but the abstract known as drama or the production values. The story while necessary is oftentimes basic  so that  the production values can be enhanced  whereas the inverse occurs in film  i.e. the story takes centre stage because of the larger scope it acquires and the production values only serve to tell it (the story) in a particular way.  This is why there are more liberties with theatre. Actors are allowed to flex their muscles and perform since they are the ones that bear the load. On stage the actor has more time to imbue (in excess) all the joys and sorrows of the character and this can either elevate the production or stunt it in the form of bathos.    Just like a film everything in theatre has to contribute to the story in some way however the scope is much smaller therefore everything( the production values) is exaggerated and unrealistic most of the times and it is this that you remember most of all.   In film whenever the moving images encounter breaks or stoppages that overwhelm the entire piece then it fails. These breaks and stoppages can be attributed to the most basic elements of film production: bad editing, an incomplete screenplay and a director that cannot put the pieces together. In theatre however these breaks and stoppages are welcome especially if you need to drive home a particular point.  In film it is hard to disregard the external elements involved within the plot because every action causes a reaction much like life itself therefore everything has to add up within the context of the story itself without seeming superfluous. This normally means that the scope is larger than that of the theatre. In a good/great film no element of the story is disregarded or incompletely developed. If an element of the story is not developed in such a way to stand out then its place in the film is negligible and the director does not get to emphasize his point.  In film once you mention it in the story you have to make it count and make it count quickly because you do not have the luxury to break off to emphasize your point; normally there are a lot of points that need to be elaborated. This is why subtlety is more important in film.  In theatre you can take these liberties because the audience immediately understands the limitations particularly when it comes to technology. In theatre you can mention things in an excessive manner and get away with it. This does not happen in film to any great extent unless it is a musical (no wonder there are so few nowadays. The musical in film can simply be seen as a literal reflection of the  action that takes place in the theatre only with a more expanded set design).In film interactions between characters are diluted or more realistic as opposed to the poetic grandeur normally seen in plays. When dramatic theatre pieces are made the subject of film one must always pay attention to the excessive elements that are diluted and why some of these theatre pieces are not successfully adapted to the film format is simply because of this imbued and oftentimes fanatical excess.

This would also explain why films are more successful commercially and why the dramatic works of the theatre are more successful artistically. This is discussed in my review of All About EVE (1950) where the theatre becomes a reference point for the film industry when seeking to enhance its artistic appeal. This is why several actors in the movie industry  were once required to prove themselves by first performing on stage. The commercial success of the film industry in Hollywood has relegated the theatre to a backdoor alley for the privileged few who can appreciate its excesses. With the advent of Hollywood commercial success in the performing arts has been measured by it ever since. It is more convenient for how often can individuals be performing the same material at the same standard over and over as is done in the theatre. When it does come to an end the play is almost forgotten unless the theatre houses run the show all year round. In film an actor shoots for a couple of months and then is immediately released to play other parts for now it is preserved in print for as long as is possible and it can be viewed when the time arises with the advent of the VHS cassette, the  DVD and Blu ray. The theatre is not dead but it has been sufficiently relegated to an exclusive elitist element that relishes its own decadence. As stated before the theatre remains relevant solely because an actor is still judged by his or her ability to command a live audience. The average man of today will not be so captivated by theatre productions once the film industry takes hold unless it makes him laugh. Wherever theatre production now thrives it is a sign of poverty in the arts industry. The film industry offers more opportunities for actors to ply their trade. The television is an offshoot of film which is captured on print but is supposedly performed before a television audience. Some of these television shows dance to their own tune oblivious of the cynicism and contempt that they breed. With crass commercialism, associated with the film industry and television, the theatre still holds its own since audiences seek the cushion of the bygone era when the abstract that is drama thrived. Commercialism in the arts also relegates some films that pride themselves on expressing solely dramatic qualities inspired by the art form developed in the theatre. If all else fails one should do like the song in Singin’ in the Rain says and ‘Make ‘em laugh’. This is why films can no longer be so bogged down by pathos that they do not give the audience some cheer or a proper reason for such an excessive portrayal; this comes in the form of a context that is a bit removed from the tragedy and moves on with or without it (the personal situation of the character). You will no longer have plays speaking about a man who accidentally has sex with his mother and then goes blind as in the play Oedipus Rex or the character of Greek hero who would murder his children as a result of madness cast upon him by the gods as in the tales of Heracles. Shakespeare, today,  seems to be famous for the wrong reasons. His bloated poetry presented in the form of dialogue for the characters onstage is one reason why plays appear so excessive and burdensome to the average man of today such as me. Shakespeare is praised as being one of the greatest writers of all time however that was only for his time when the theatre was the sole form of amusement for patrons of the arts and the madding crowd. As highly regarded as he is anyone with Shakespearean aspirations and style of delivery would crumble and appeal to only the most decadent of patrons. If you do not appreciate Shakespeare today you are seen as common or lacking in refinement by the ruling classes who like the ruling classes before them saw only salvation in the past and were so unprepared for the future.  One benefit of commercialism is that it refines the dramatic element and makes it more accessible. Shakespeare in Love (1998) featured the bloated poetry of Shakespeare but the context of the film was developed outside of the theatre and so we were able to understand that the body does not lie despite sententious phraseology that rarely has much meaning but to appeal to one’s spiritual side. Poetry which preceded the performing arts must have been viewed in the same light for it too seemed a bit excessive until it was refined by the performing arts who assumed that the basis of human expression was in the form of poetic oeuvre. Works by Homer and Virgil or the poets of Asia would have been revered in their time but  as time progressed the theatre arrived in a form that simultaneously preserved and advanced the mode of expression especially as the crowds became larger; some with only a passing interest in the art form. One can imagine being in the old days hearing a orator recite Homer but how many people would that attract but a small group. The skills of the orator or storyteller would forever be revered although it is a profession attributed solely to more mature individuals. If one was able to set up a stage with actors playing the parts of characters in the poem and then place them on a platform before the crowd one can just imagine how the passersby would gravitate to this landing and so the poetry of Homer became more accessible. This is why Shakespeare adapted his plays from famous stories and expanded it and gave them more detail through visual cues. He along with his other playwrights still clung to the poetic tradition which only faded over time when people began speaking plainer language. With the advancement of capital the need to preserve the performing arts came with the growth of the film industry and with photography. When it is preserved it can be manipulated and so add to the manipulation of the audience who will get the impression that this form is more reflective of a fictional world. The novel in prose ran counter to poetry as well however it was limited since not many would be able to identify with the descriptive elements of the plot which are visual cues. It still has an abstract element that can only be visualized more accurately by the average man onstage or in the cinema for the visual abstract created by the author is given a more distinct palate by the filmmakers or the theatre production. Film too can be abstract however being abstract is the essence of art. If it were not abstract art would be too plain to be distinguished as a medium especially as it is determined by a subjective interpretation of an objective element. If art did not have an abstract or a mystery then it would not make our world seem that mysterious. If the truth becomes known then there will be no need for the abstract. The abstract suggests that something is subjected to various interpretations and these various interpretations can cloud the truth. Art is impressionistic and so film too will not be able to tackle all the issues of reality. There will always be those that are simply not taken with art because it merely clouds the issue however most subjects in history, philosophy, religion and science are subject to different interpretations which suggests that there is always an inscrutable element that can never be resolved into objective truth. The same applies to the performing arts. Artists have been known to exaggerate their environment and so cloud the truth for dramatic effect; this also apples to film and the theatre as an art form. This inscrutable element is mostly linked to the infinite which cannot be fathomed by the finite possibilities of mankind. This theme was brilliantly explored in 2001: A Space Odyssey. The infinite results in the defeat of many art forms since the infinite always imply the possibility of expansion. When something can no longer expand it has accepted its limitations and will therefore stagnate and fade. The infinite is why film has been able to reach a wider audience than the theatre for the environments it creates promises an added dimension for the imagination to explore. This inscrutable element is therefore essential because it still requires the audience to imagine. Without the imagination therefore art is dead. It is the imagination that has resulted in our greatest failures and greatest successes. When film builds upon the premise of the theatre it must therefore still reveal its own limitations with regards to a particular subject yet still add a new dimension to art’s possibilities. The imagination trumps logic when you are unable to predict the future, comprehend the present or accurately portray the past.

Film was a distinctive art form because one must always have a storyboard with a layout of how the story will progress. This storyboard comes in the form of sketches, photography or in the form of a screenplay modeled off practices in the theatre. The urge to make this storyboard roll over and appear as if it is seamless is the essence of filmmaking. Writing on a piece of paper and having people simply recite onstage is no longer enough. The still art form also becomes influential film and you get to understand how dynamic film really is as it absorbs all other art forms. The crafts of old must be expanded through its preservation in another medium that is less reliant on bloated dialogue, stand up comedians, high pitched singing and individual dilemmas that only reinforce that tragedy is the essence of man’s existence. For this to be seamless a larger context must be recreated so that an audience can get a sense of the characters true place in an environment without it being forced down their throat by a soliloquy etc. The art form of the live performance will not die it will simply be subsumed under film. There was a time when action for a film took place on the sets created on the studio lots. Overtime they shot films in open locations so as to expand the potential of the art form and  provide a more suitable backdrop for the environment. I recently did a review of Annie Hall and one can see how Allen uses dramatic techniques of the theatre to make you feel as if you are a part of the performance as they would do in a play as he speaks directly to you the viewer. The context however was not the stage but his own mind or the movie would not make sense. If these experiences were ever to resonate with the audience then he had to personalize it in the form of ‘mental masturbation’ and this personalization had to be given a context where it can be accessible to the average moviegoer through visual images. It takes place in his mind because his mind is the most logical place for the action to take place as he is recollecting moments in his life with a humourous twist. The only moments when Alvy, the lead, appears onstage is when he is doing an act for a live audience.

 It is the same with film since the theatre cannot reach everyone once populations start to increase and people demand a more vivid recreation of the surroundings. In time film will be replaced by something that can capture our imagination more effectively. It remains to be seen what that art form will be. It will occur in a fashion similar to how film replaced the theatre: film will not appeal to everyone or people will only have a passing interest in the art form. The better quality of some dramatic films will become a treasure trove for none but the aficionados who will appear to be affected by dotage in praising a dead art form which will only serve its purpose by influencing the birth of a new art form. People are now gravitating to expressing their own subjective interpretations of the past or contemporary society. The idea that art is subjective is beginning to take hold. No one person can presume to have a stake to another one’s imagination. When film came along it was seen by the purists in the theatre as an exercise in futility or a vulgar expression for those with no artistic credibility. The question is: Will filmgoers now pass judgment on these art forms that are emerging which will eventually supplant it? Film however remains much more dynamic for technology is involved and technology is constantly changing.  Film will soon be shot exclusively in 3D and HD. Film has shown that it is capable of absorbing the essence of other art forms which are too bloated to be absorbed by the average individual such as the dramatic elements in the theatre.  As I will say again: the imagination trumps logic when you are unable to predict the future, comprehend the present or accurately portray the past.