… in light of the spree killing tonight at Emanuel A.M.E. Church. I am only just reading reports now — the victim count is unclear; the gunman is still at large.
Charleston’s people are absolutely wonderful. I went there a couple of times during my college days, and I do remember Calhoun Street, where the church is located. I was amazed at how genteel and goodnatured the city’s residents were.
CNN: Charleston church shooting: 9 killed in what officials call a hate crime
So I received an e-mail yesterday from my Mom in New York — she said she and my sister were on their way to a “goat farm and shoppe.”
Uh … okay.
Precisely what should such a proprietor offer that would interest my family? What does the “shoppe” sell? Goat-themed products? Like t-shirts and mugs? The goats themselves? Does the archaic spelling of “shoppe” suggest that these are medieval goats?
I mentioned this on Facebook, and a whole bunch of Virginia friends “liked” the status. Apparently goat farming and shopping are things with which they can identify?
PLEASE do not suggest that my mother may have brought home a baby goat.
Photo credit: “Chevreau”. Licensed under CC BY-SA 2.0 fr via Wikimedia Commons – https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Chevreau.jpg#/media/File:Chevreau.jpg
Dear Lord, Charlize Theron is a fantastic actress. It’s amazing what she can communicate with just her facial expressions and line delivery, even when her dialogue is sparing and simplistic. She’s also a superb physical actress, has great scene presence and is stunningly beautiful. Why not simply call this movie “Furiosa?” It’s really that character’s story; the titular “Mad Max” says and does little that is plot-relevant. He is a superfluous character who is here only to attract the fanbase for the original “Mad Max” movies.
Theron is one of two things that “Mad Max: Fury Road” has going for it. The other is pure spectacle. I don’t love this movie the way that everyone else seems to (I’d give it a 7 out of 10), but I really did enjoy the action, special effects, costume, prop and set design. This is like a modern “Ben Hur” (1959) on acid — the characters, weapons, sets and vehicles look great. This movie is like a really good heavy metal album cover made into a feature-length film.
My attention wandered, though. The action is often difficult to follow, thanks to too much Michael Bay-type directing. Tom Hardy is really just a one-note character as Max, despite efforts to render him in depth with cliche flashbacks of a lost family. And I liked this guy a hell of a lot in “The Dark Knight Rises” (2012); I thought he made the masked Bane a great villain with physical acting that compensated well for an obscured face.
I submit that this is a somewhat brainless movie that barely qualifies as science fiction. We have a sparse opening montage that tells us about world-ending wars for resources, and then the rest of the movie is really just an extended gladiator battle in the desert with baroquely costumed bad guys. It’s like a monster truck rally.
It’s sometimes fun, but it doesn’t make a great film. The good guys are too thinly drawn to engender viewer sympathy; the bad guys are too cartoonish to be scary. You also need to turn your brain off, lest certain questions occur to you:
1) Doesn’t gasoline degrade over time? I don’t think it would be worth warring or bartering for after a year or so, unless there are oil rigs and complex refineries to seek and develop it. We see evidence of neither.
2) What do people eat, out here in the never-ending desert? The disappearance of “green places” is a plot point; there is no arable land.
3) How often does this dictator (“Big Joe” or something?) give his subjects water? Once per day? I thought dehydration killed or immobilized people fairly quickly.
4) Where the heck are we? I hear a lot of United Kingdom accents.
5) I’m pretty sure that blood transfusions don’t work like that. And even if they did, you’d see a hell of a lot of opportunistic infections in such unsterile conditions.
6) Why does one young woman immediately fall in love with a sleeping barbarian whose teeth are spray-painted silver?
Whatever. I’m not saying that this is a bad movie; I’m just suggesting that it’s a little overrated given its current accolades by fans. It’s fun enough, if you’re in the mood for a “Mad Max” movie.
[WARNING — THIS POST CONTAINS MAJOR SPOILERS FOR SEASONS 2 AND 3 OF “HANNIBAL,” AS WELL AS STEPHEN KING’S “THE DARK TOWER” SERIES. READ AT YOUR OWN RISK.]
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
This could be overeager nerd eisigesis, but something jumped out at me immediately in the second episode of this summer’s “Hannibal.”
When Will Graham greets Abigail Hobbes at the beginning, he wonders about “some other world.”
The doomed young Abigail responds: “I’m having a hard enough time dealing with this world. I hope some of the other worlds are easier.”
That’s “worlds,” plural — not “another world” or “the next world.” It sounds a hell of a lot like the doomed Jake Chambers’ famous line towards the end of “The Gunslinger,” before he falls to his fate: “Go then. There are other worlds than these.”
Graham goes on the discuss string theory: “Everything that can happen, happens.” This dovetails perfectly with the idea of the nearly infinite parallel universes that comprise different levels of “The Tower.”
Then other story parallels occurred to me:
1) Both Abigail and Jake are children of surrogate fathers who are on a crusade (Graham’s pursuit of Hannibal Lecter, the Gunslinger’s quest for The Tower).
2) Both are specialized, cold-blooded killers by training (Abigail’s bizarre tutelage by her serial killer biological father, Jake’s training by the Gunslinger).
3) Both are willingly sacrificed by their surrogate fathers. (NBC’s show makes it clear that Hannibal is also a father figure to Abigail.)
4) Both characters were sacrificed by the show’s/book’s title character.
5) The memories of both haunt the stories’ protagonists as a recurring motif. Both appear to drive the heroes insane.
6) Both characters are ostensibly dead at some point, and then are quasi-resurrected by a surprise plot device. (Abigail has been secreted away by Hannibal; Jake is returned from a parallel universe to which he was consigned.)
7) The loss of both characters are tied to themes of forgiveness. (Jake forgives the Gunslinger for letting him fall; Graham explicitly forgives Hannibal for Abigail’s loss as part of the show’s overarching theme.)
It would be fun and perfectly viable to imagine that the show’s events transpire on a “level” of The Tower. The differing continuities of the original books and feature films could even comprise other levels. King makes it clear that “twinners” are character analogs living in different universes.
But I am probably just imagining things. I also thought that Hannibal’s reference to his “person suit” in this season’s first episode was a reference to “Donnie Darko” (2001): “Why do you wear that silly man suit?” And, in retrospect, that seems like a coincidence.
“It is a strange world, a sad world, a world full of miseries, and woes, and troubles. And yet when King Laugh come, he make them all dance to the tune he play. Bleeding hearts, and dry bones of the churchyard, and tears that burn as they fall, all dance together to the music that he make with that smileless mouth of him. Ah, we men and women are like ropes drawn tight with strain that pull us different ways. Then tears come, and like the rain on the ropes, they brace us up, until perhaps the strain become too great, and we break. But King Laugh he come like the sunshine, and he ease off the strain again, and we bear to go on with our labor, what it may be.”
— from Bram Stoker’s “Dracula,” 1897
“Jurassic World” (2015) was raptortastic and T-Rexific. It was also fun in another way, but I can’t think of a pun for “Indominus Rex.” I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
Seriously — this was a fun monster movie. (I, for one, maintain that these are horror-sci-fi movies at heart, and not the family adventure films that others seem to take them for. Even the theme music for this entire franchise seems to insist that a zippity good time was had by all, after dinosaurs devour adults and traumatize lost children.)
The kid in me thrilled to this movie’s great special effects and abundance of monsters. Those raptors are the coolest movie monsters since Aliens and Predators.
The action sequences were good. Did anyone else think the initial attack/ambush was an homage to the initial attack/ambush in “Aliens” (1986)? They have the heart rate monitors and helmet-cams and everything. I kept waiting for Corporal Hicks to yell, “DRAKE, WE ARE LEAVING!!!”
The aerial attack by the winged dinosaurs was outstanding. (I don’t know the difference between pterodactyls and pteranodons. Besides, one of them looked like it had a T-Rex head, and I’m not sure that was even was a thing.) The plight of one plucked victim was pretty damn creative and horrifying — I think that entire sequence was an example of some pretty inspired horror filmmaking.
And all of those things are good, because I honestly don’t think this film has much going for it without them. This really is … pretty much the same story as “Jurassic Park” (1993).
Smart people do stupid things. I got a “C” in biology freshman year, but even a guy like me immediately doubts the wisdom of the Raptor Recruiting Plan. I also have no military experience, but I know what “cover” is, and I know what a “kill zone” is, and I wouldn’t rush from the former to stand stationary in the latter.
Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas HowAboutADrinkLater are both very good actors; this movie’s script has them rattling off humorous lines that are typical of a mediocre sitcom. The character concept for Pratt’s hunky-extreme-sportsman-naturalist raptor-whisperer is kind of silly. Bryce Dallas HowDoYouJustKeepGettingPrettier plays another stock character — the uptight corporate princess who needs to be taken down a notch. Their banter is like the dialogue of a lackluster episode of “Friends,” and it insults the viewers’ intelligence.
The movie’s two most interesting characters are the two young brothers. Their dialogue was actually touching — this movie would be far better it had focused almost entirely on them. (And, yes, that is young Ty Simpkins from “Insidious.”)
I keep seeing articles on the Internet alleging that the technology depicted by these movies will soon be possible, but I pretty much don’t believe anything I read on the net anymore. Because I totally bought into that Mars One fiasco, and now I feel like an idjit.
Thank you, Jaine Sirieys, for sharing this! 🙂 (Nobody crack that “Why so Sirieys?” joke, because I sprang that one on her already, and she’s heard it before anyway.)
She should have died hereafter;
There would have been a time for such a word.
— To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day,
To the last syllable of recorded time;
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life’s but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more. It is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury
Signifying nothing.
from William Shakespeare’s “Macbeth”
Photo: “Elisabeth Ney – Lady Macbeth – Detail,” by Ingrid Fisch at the German language Wikipedia. Licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0 via Wikimedia Commons.
If you catch up with “Hannibal” via DVR or NBC.com, I might actually suggest you begin with the amazing and beautiful second episode, and not the Season 3 premiere. I enjoyed the season opener, but not quite as much as everyone else did. (Seriously, guys, if you think I am alone in lauding this program, google a few reviews.) The first episode falls firmly for me into the “good, but not great” category; I’d give it an 8 out of 10.
We’ve got an interesting basic story that pays very close attention to Thomas Harris’ source novels and Ridley Scott’s 2000 film treatment, and we’ve got great directing, cinematography and acting. Gillian Anderson shines, outperforming even the terrific Mads Mikkelsen in the title role.
It was creative and different, with dramatic changes in point of view, tone and setting, as Hannibal absconds from Baltimore to Florence with the extorted Bedelia du Maurier. It held some nice thematic surprises, as the script humanizes Hannibal unexpectedly — and this is helped by flashbacks in which we actually get to see Eddie Izzard’s bad guy from Season 2 get one up on him in some verbal sparring. (I am entirely unfamiliar with Izzard’s comedy performances, but damn if he doesn’t make a sweet super-villain. The guy’s got perfect diction and line delivery, and can be damned frightening when he wants to be.)
But, for me, this episode failed in terms of momentum and tension. It does very little to move the overarching narrative forward — so little that I suggest it could be seen as ancillary material appropriate for a webisode or DVD extra. (Yes, I do realize that Hannibal “missing” Will Graham is important in setting up themes and character relationships for the rest of the season, but … whatever.) This is really a kind of … “milieu” episode that establishes his arrival in Europe and the means to arrive at his cover identity. The fates of the victims of the Baltimore massacre? They’re unknown to us.
We can’t feel too much tension — of Hannibal’s two murder victims, one is hardly known to us, and the other is flat out unlikable. We can’t identify with them. Nor can we take any pathological satisfaction in Hannibal’s modus operandi. He kinda shows up and says “Bonsoir” a bit undramatically, and we cut to another scene.
I had the occasional nitpick as well.
1) The viewer is asked to identify with Bedelia. For some reason this character has never worked for me. It certainly isn’t Anderson’s fault. She’s fantastic. Maybe the problem is me.
2) I actually do really like Mikkelsen. But his stoical approach to the character is nowhere near as satisfying as Anthony Hopkins’ iconic, nuanced, expressive, darkly charming take on the character.
3) We live in an age of Google image search. Does no one in Florence notice that “Dr. Fell” looks nothing like an online photograph?
4) After the climax of Season 2, shouldn’t Hannibal be easily recognized as the world’s most infamous fugitive and alleged serial killer? Is his image nowhere on CNN.com?
5) What about facial recognition software? If a photo of Faux Fell is ever uploaded, might Interpol or the FBI locate him at once?
6) Seeing Dana Scully (sorry — BEDELIA) sexually harassed at the dinner table just makes me angry. Fox Mulder needs to appear and kick some ass. Actually … scratch that. Send John Dogget.
7) I don’t like seeing Hannibal appear with even a putative “spouse.” He’s a lone wolf, to me, anyway.
8) The dialogue, yet again, is occasionally too overly stylized for me. Even ingenious people communicate prosaically in their everyday lives. Do these people sound like Shakespeare when they say “Pass the salt,” or ask what time to set the alarm clock for the next day?
9) Once or twice, the dialogue is just … bad. Bedelia: “Your peace is without morality.” Hannibal: “There is no morality — only morale.” (You can’t call it Shakespeare if it’s trying too hard.)
10) The symbolism and the references to the feature films are maybe a little too heavy-handed. I’m talking the hand-on-the-shoulder during the lecture, and seeing one character bashed over the head with a bust of Aristotle. (“When Academics Attack.”)
Don’t let my compulsive griping get to you if you are a fan of the show, however. This wasn’t a bad episode, just not the best. And the second episode of Season 3 is goddam PHENOMENAL.
Thanks, ANNA MARTIN.
“Come back you fools!! DOGS AREN’T DANGEROUS!!”
And it’s past midnight!!
I remember the film adaptation’s voiceover saying near the end that “General Woundwort’s body was never found.” I’m not scared. I have a certain rapport with the truly most terrifying fictional “rabbit” of all time, Donnie Darko’s “Frank.” (He appears in my mirror from time to time.) That tall prognosticating hare would PWN Woundwort and his entire Owsla.
Pictured: BROMANCE.
I’m quite happy to say that the good folks over at Aphelion Webzine today featured my poem, “Iphigenia’s Womb,” in their wonderful free online magazine for fantasy and science fiction fans. The poem can be found here:
http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/poetry/2015/06/IphigeniasWomb.html
“Iphigenia’s Womb” was first published over in Dead Snakes in January 2014. I am grateful to Poetry and Filk Editor Iain Muir for allowing me to share it today in Aphelion, as it might now be enjoyed greater numbers of fans of Greek mythology.
The piece is an allegory to the death by burning of Iphigenia, daughter of Agamemnon. He sacrificed her to the Gods to appease them after an offense, as the deities had sent strong winds to beach the Greek warships ready to set sail against Troy. (Of course, the poem is also about other things.)
If the imagery of the burning girl bothers you, then consider this — there are various versions of the story. In one, a giant bird appears from the heavens to dive down and rescue young Iphigenia clean away. It’s the kind of deus ex machina we occasionally see from winged saviors in fantasy; think of both the eagles in J.R.R. Tolkien’s “The Lord of the Rings,” as well as the wayward seagull in Richard Adams’ “Watership Down.” (“WHERE’S YOUR WHITE BIRD, *NOW*, BIGWIG?!?!”)
Thanks again to Mr. Muir and the Aphelion community! 🙂
Eric Robert Nolan, Author 
