Arrival vs Passengers

After seeing Arrival, we especially wanted to go see Passengers, since we thought that these two films would be pretty compatible. This is actually our first versus - post where the films come from almost the same genre. Sci-fi mixed with romance is something rarely seen, and both of these films fall under this category. It's a straightforward comparison, but in the latter we refer to the previous (which we found the superior movie).


Arrival

This was hands down the best movie we've seen the whole year. So the comparison is going to be a little unfair, since the gap in quality is so apparent. Science fiction often has an element of mystery to it and leaves the viewer pondering philosophical questions. In both of these departments Arrival absolutely delivers. Previously, we haven't been the biggest fans of sci-fi, but this film was everything  we would ever want from a science fiction movie. It succeeded in those things that left us disappointed with Interstellar. Mainly the fact that the film lets the viewer make the connections instead of having the plot explained to them like to a little child. It's a visual medium, don't treat it like a book. The device they use to further the story is something we haven't seen used before - at least in mainstream movies. It's a gimmick, but the filmmakers wield it so expertly that it never turns into one of those "surprise!" - plot lines that so many purely plot driven movies indulge in. And the reason we think  it works so well, is because of the film's characters. Although it might seem that the movie's premise is larger than life, it's actually quite intimate. For example, while the flash forwards give you the information why the aliens are there, the more important information they reveal is about the main character herself. 

We absolutely loved it that the main character was such a grounded character. She was complex and her internal struggles were at the center of the film. None of the minor characters suffer from stereotyping either, though we don't get to know them as thoroughly as we do the protagonist. That is, of course, supporting characters' function. The relationship between Louise and Ian progresses naturally, there's nothing forced in it. You're completely invested in it, and the pay off is both beautiful and bittersweet. The only thing that left us wanting was the music - but since we had seen Sicario, our expectations in that regard wasn't the highest. The sound design was absolutely superb though, and the soundtrack argument is not even a real complaint, we just miss classical music in movies. As pacifists, we appreciated that the film promoted dialogue, diplomacy and communication over warfare and militarization. 


  Passengers

   
Dear god, where do we even start from? Some perspective here to begin with, it's not the worst movie we've ever seen, by far! It just pales in comparison to Arrival in all respects. Even the music was better in Arrival, because at least it fits the film's atmosphere and environment. This movie was so 'meh', that we find it hard to focus long enough to write a review. The story was clearly inspired by Sleeping Beauty. More on that later, let's first compare the two. There is no element of mystery in Passengers; the mystery is that something simply malfunctioned. It's too straightforward, which wouldn't be problematic if the rest of the movie was interesting. Namely, the characters and their relationship. Holy fuck, is that boring as hell as well. And creepy. So creepy. 

The romance is unbelievable, and that is because it's from a fairytale. Name one fairytale in its original form that is romantic, we dare you. Beauty & The Beast : passive-aggressive guilt tripping. Cinderella : dude is so 'in love' that he sends his servant to find her because obviously he wouldn't recognise her, plus child abuse. The Little Mermaid : the choice between murder or suicide. And finally, Sleeping Beauty : an already married king tries to wake up a pretty girl sleeping, and when she doesn't he rapes her, and she wakes up giving birth to his twins. Lovely, right? That is pretty much the main problem with the romance. The writers had no idea how to address the source material, they probably thought about the "cute" Disney animation (she's Aurora, duh) but didn't realise the implications that come with the story the way they have presented it. The storyline they went for is the original fairytale, ie. the guy is a dick and takes her ability to choose away from her. That premise is actually good, it's simply the execution that lacks depth and understanding which are required to handle this kind of subject matter. Unlike in Arrival the film never addresses the ethical and moral dilemmas of their situation or his actions. Sure, she's mad at him and even beats him up, but all of that is undone by the ending. Because, you know, true love etc. What could have improved the film was that in the end she would've chosen to go back to sleep. Because it was so implausible for her to suddenly forgive him after being so furious for most of the film's duration. The pay off was so unsuitable and underwhelming considering the material. Visuals weren't that bad. The first 10-15 minutes were pretty entertaining. Sigh, what a waste of Michael Sheen.

Worst Austen adaptations

This is part one of two. Obviously, the second will be about best adaptations. There are plenty of lists floating on the internet that have been devoted to give you the best Austen adaptations. Most of these don't exclude films that were only inspired by Austen's stories. And a lot of these lists, simply put, suck. The main problem seems to be that people assume that Jane Austen is chick lit and thus include on their lists insipid fluff pieces instead of actual adaptations of her work. Since we're puritanical about Austen, we stick to the period. Don't worry though, we will definitely write about productions "inspired" by Austen. This list isn't only about butchering Austen's work, it's that these versions don't even qualify as good or entertaining media for us.  

1. Pride & Prejudice (2005)
Of course we abhor this adaptation the most. We really don't feel the need to explain further, since we've already done a pretty detailed account of this abomination. We also considered including BBC's horrific 80's series of Pride & Prejudice, but while it's bad, it's not infuriating enough to land on this list.

 

2. Sense & Sensibility (1981)
 In the 80's BBC's period drama art was still in its infancy, so if you really wanted to see a quality production of a period drama, you watched Merchant & Ivory. This would just be one of those bad theatrical and emotionless 80's productions by BBC that you could simply forget having seen, if it wasn't for a couple of things. Namely, Edward being a total asshole and Marianne almost dies, because, and we're being literal here, she is LOVESICK! What the fuck people who wrote this crap!?!?!??!?!?! This is beyond offensive - it's downright sacrilegious. 

3. Mansfield Park (2007)
This film suffers from very poor casting choices. Like, horrendous. Nobody seems to know the part they play in the story, probably because the script is also horrendous. That is the film's biggest issue, 'cause the book itself is Austen's most serious work and no version to date has really given it the magnitude it requires.

4. Emma (1996)
Oh poor Mr. Knightley, what have they done to you???? This is a really clumsy adaptation. Davies adapting Austen doesn't often let you down, but when he does, he really does. ITV might have had something to do with it as well.

5. Northanger Abbey (1987)
These writers must have been high. Jane Austen and the supernatural do not mix. You have Brontë or Montgomery for that. And the music - God! Some new age crap trying to imitate Enya - this is not a fairytale, folks. The whole point of the story is that none of that fairytale/gothic romance shit is real. Plus what kind of a weirdo kisses with their eyes open onscreen? That just does not happen. 

 

Disney, retrospectively

The Lion King (1994)


This is the last film of the Disney renaissance which we religiously watched numerous times as kids. These four movies pretty much defined our childhood (along with Star Wars, Aliens, Back to the Future and Die Hard). As with the previous three, The Lion King's beginning will suck you in with its animation and music. This film has more problems with its story and some characters rather than tone or ignorance about minorities and non-Western cultures.

Characters
Simba: He has a promising character arc that will disappoint you. Simba doesn't annoy us as much as Aladdin. However, unlike Aladdin, Simba's promised personal development goes nowhere. He's better as a child, because immaturity suits children more and is completely unattractive in any adult.  
Scar: Starts off as a great villain. The song is good, the attitude is good, it's all good! Until he's in power, and that's when he becomes uninteresting. He's just a whiny bitch, and not even a good one. He pales in comparison to Disney's Prince John.
Mufasa: The best dad Disney's had so far, so of course he has to go.
Nala: She has a distinctive personality as a child, but once she turns into an adult, that personality seems to have been completely eradicated. Her function annoys us even more than that of Jasmine. Although Jasmine did nothing, at least she had personality. Nala is shown to be physically more capable than Simba, but in the end, she is nothing more than emotional support for him. Frustratingly,  even that support has really no influence on him, one way or the other. No, you need a dude to return from the dead as a ghost to do that.
Minor characters: What makes this movie is its minor characters, much like Genie makes Aladdin. They are fuckin' hilarious. Timon & Pumba are our favourite cartoon skeptics. Rafiki, the random cryptic baboon who can do martial arts. Who wouldn't love that? The minor characters are funny because of their characteristics and interactions with others, not because they constantly allude to modern phenomena, which is probably the reason why the humour is more balanced than in Aladdin. Aladdin does take more chances with its humour, though.
 
 















Story
To this day the Lion King's story must be the most ambitious and epic undertaking when compared to other Disney movies. The idea is downright mythological in scope, and for the most part it works quite well. Apart from the last conversation between Simba and Scar, which is where the film gets a flat tire. Because that discussion alone destroys the whole character arc they had been trying to build with Simba. Way to cheat your audience out of a satisfying ending, Disney. We thought Simba was about to prove that he had learnt an important lesson, but then you decided to simply let him off the hook. It wasn't integral for his character development to learn the truth about his father's death. We would argue that he would have been a better character without that scene. In addition, we wouldn't have that ridiculous cheesefest 90's slow motion fight sequence. And by all means, show children that their friends won't stand by them when they've made a mistake. There are some other incongruities as well, like the relationship of Simba and Nala as adults. They just swore eternal love to each other (via the sappiest Disney love song ever) and then right after they get into a massive fight. Boy, that's a promising start for a relationship. True love, eh?

Miscellaneous 
So Mufasa's polygamous, right? 'Cause he totally has a frigging harem of lionesses surrounding him. Guess that comes with the job description (or that they're animals). 19th century Mormons would have loved this movie, just sayin'. Clearly, Disney wasn't ready to address that aspect any deeper in the film, though. It does bring a somewhat disturbing perspective to the equation when Simba says about Nala: I can''t marry her, she's my friend. Apparently, Mufasa left his son in the dark about certain things. Ooops! For once, Hans Zimmer delivers with the original score and Elton John's pop music works much better than bland Broadway pop.

The "Suffragette" Syndrome

First, let's explain how we came up with the title. We don't want to give the impression that we think that the word suffragette is negative, because those women kicked ass hardcore. To us these women were true pioneers, people ahead of their time and a group that we really look up to. They wanted freedom from oppression and to be able to decide their own fate. They defied convention. Our made up term "Suffragette Syndrome" is about how the media sometimes fails to depict those kind of women. The inspiration for the name came from Parade's End. This syndrome is present in genres that rely on conventionality, although it's pretty ubiquitous. Women who want to control their life and want more than what they have been given or who fight against rigid gender roles are presented as bad and degenerate. In order to make a suffragette relatable and non-threatening is to have them say that they want those things, but to make it lip-service because deep down, they still want the oppression. We'll discuss three aspects of this syndrome: how "bad women" don't deserve happiness, women can't have characteristics or goals that are deemed unfeminine and finally, the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress.

The first example we have from anime. Mainstream anime is full of stereotypes, particularly the female characters. Kagura (check the previous post) breaks free from all stereotypes. Because she is neither a villain nor a hero, all she wants is freedom. She is a woman with a questionable moral character, therefore she does not deserve to live out her freedom. The minute she decides to break from the villain she has to pay the price for her past actions with her death, as if death would give her the freedom she so craved. We don't know what upset us more, the fact that she died or that her death was used as motivation for a male character. There are way worse females in anime than Kagome or Sango but they still won't ever compromise their morals. There's no shade in them, and that makes them boring. In addition, those two are too concerned with boys. Kagura couldn't give less of a shit about that, her objective was to be free in order to do whatever the fuck she wanted and not just to be with some dude.

Our second point about unfeminine goals and traits is illustrated by the altered and "improved" Éowyn from Lord of the Rings. Anyone who has read the books knows what she was really supposed to be like. Now, we don't like the softening of her character in the end by Tolkien either, but that was not uncommon for male authors at the time (eg, Far from the Madding Crowd). However, the movies changed her personality entirely. Because according to the writers, her character from the books would not have been relatable as such, especially to the female audience (as if women were a monolith). This sentiment was a personal insult. In the book Éowyn is cold and hard as steel. The reason she rides to Pelennor is to die as a warrior in glory, to be respected and remembered as a hero. She's ambitious and driven. None of these things mean that she would be devoid of compassion because clearly she feels for Merry and obviously she loves her uncle, her brother and her people. How could we possibly not relate to wanting more than what has been dealt to us in life? Because nowhere do women face obstacles from which they want to break free (insert sarcastic tone here). Basically Peter Jackson and co. transformed this fearless warrior into a generic Disney princess. 

In our final point, angel vs. seductress we will discuss in two separate paragraphs. We will use two different shows as examples. This is the culmination of The Suffragette Syndrome. The first show is The Musketeers and the contrast is between Milady and Constance. Yeah, Constance is supposed to be the woman you're rooting for. The other characters describe her as kind, strong and independent (which is apparently the perfect mix). FALSE. She can do jack shit. She couldn't be more clingy to the guy and she has to be rescued constantly. She occasionally tries to have some attitude but always falls short, and comes off as a whiny, immature girl. Whereas Milady is described literally as the devil, manipulative and even a whore. They don't see anything redemptive in her. In reality, she's the one with independent spirit and gets herself out of any trouble or danger. Furthermore, her attitude comes to her effortlessly. 

The other show we chose was, of course, Parade's End. This is where it gets ironic. The whole point of the show is that the protagonist, Christopher, leaves behind his stuffy, conventional, stiff upper-lip Englishness to enter a more modern era. His wife, Sylvia, represents the past and his new "suffragette" girlfriend, Valentine, the future. Sylvia though, couldn't be more unconventional if she tried. She also evokes real passion in Christopher, breaking him free from the shackles of his stiff shell. She contradicts and challenges him. Life with her is not simple or easy, like in a real relationship. Also, she's depicted as an indecent woman. Valentine on the other hand talks big about women's liberation, but is willing to worship the ground the guy walks on. She couldn't be more conventional. She always defers to Christopher and brings out nothing controversial or interesting in him. She evokes sexual feelings in him but not passion. Although she's supposedly this strong and independent suffragette, all she dreams about is the protagonist and their perfect life together. That is all she aspires to. Choosing a clingy schoolgirl whose world revolves around you over a woman who can stand on her own and who doesn't need you but wants you; How is that leaving your traditions behind? WTF, BBC??!! Unless it was meant to be irony. We doubt though that most male authors of the time were ever self-aware enough to create such irony. And God, what a waste of Benedict Cumberbatch.

A few good "suffragettes": Daniel Deronda manages to steer clear of the false dichotomy of angel vs. seductress. Both Gwendolen and Mirah are great characters. The book does way more justice to Gwendolen though and is altogether superior. George Eliot, duh! Winslow Boy and Hysteria both have delightful suffragettes (in the true meaning of the word) who actually stand for what they believe to be right. Wanting independence and freedom from oppression does not disqualify someone from being in love or wanting to be with someone. For us, it simply means not losing your self-determination to this other person or that your whole existence won't revolve only around that one person.

Complicated evil

We don't generally like anti-heroes because they often don't possess any redeeming qualities. We didn't want to include characters that do things purely for self-gratification, because there is a difference between self-expression and selfishness. We see anti-heroes more as people who do something reprehensible or even commit horrendous acts, yet retain some part of their humanity and vulnerability. Therefore, you might not find some of the more famous anti-heroes from this list. We had to share the #1 spot 'cause both of those characters are so good and very different as well.


1. Catwoman in Batman Returns. What can we say about this woman that we haven't already expressed? She's our favourite character from any superhero film we've come in contact with (and we've seen all the major ones) and Michelle Pfeiffer plays the hell out of this character. In addition, she's in charge of her sexuality, an active subject (much like Kate Bush in The Sensual World), instead of just being an object to ogle at.

1. Michael Sullivan in Road to Perdition. Man, what a departure for Tom Hanks this movie was. This was the first time we saw him play a character whose place in the good vs bad - spectrum is ambiguous. Leave it to Tom Hanks to make a morally compromised assassin one of the most sympathetic protagonists of modern cinema. His altruism, in contrast with his ruthlessness, is baffling.

3. Kagura in Inuyasha. We continue to be embarrassed by our 90's anime past (apart from Trigun), but HOT DAMN if she is not the best thing to come out of it. For some reason, anime is full of bratty teenagers and Kagura is a refreshing deviance from all those lovesick schoolgirls. She manages to be delightfully snarky and rude, especially considering that she is, in fact, a slave. Her sole objective is to be free (which we related to as repressed teenage girls). The creator treated her like shit, though. Which is something that she has in common with our next entry.

  

4. Milady in The Musketeers. We've already introduced her in length in a previous list, so there's no need to say anything more than that she kicks ass, in every sense. The reason why this didn't turn into a four-way-tie for 1st place, is because we were incredibly disappointed with the hand that both Kagura and Milady were dealt by their creators. Not to mention both of these characters deserved to be in much better series.

5. Longbaugh and Parker in The Way of the Gun. We couldn't separate the two, because they're a package deal. The movie wouldn't work with only one of them. What makes these two particularly intriguing, is that they have their own singular moral code which they follow. Although they are cold-blooded killers, they still possess some form of compassion and desire to protect those weaker than them. 

    

6. Lady Susan in Love & Friendship. She's probably the most eccentric on this list, not only because she doesn't steal, maim or kill anyone but also she's a truly unique Austen creation.  She's a ton of fun and such a bitch. But, by God, what an enjoyable bitch she is! Her redeeming quality would have to be her sense of humour since she pretty much puts her ego first. This is the kind of woman who could've been content with her life during Austen's time period.

7. The Punisher in Daredevil. Right, we don't read superhero comics, so we have no stake in how superhero material is adapted to the small and big screens. We actually wound up liking his character the best in this whole show, though we have enjoyed the series in general as well. He brings much needed contrast and moral dilemmas for the protagonist of the show, without turning into a villain. You sympathise with this man's tragic past, while simultaneously being horrified by some of the things he does.

 

    

8. Vito Corleone in Godfather Part II. We admit, we are not big fans of this trilogy, mainly because we don't really connect with the characters or the story, apart for the younger version of Vito Corleone. And that has lot to do with the actor who's playing the character. He is very good portraying calm and collected people, who have their own set of ethics. This character, though sharing some similar qualities with Michael in Road to Perdition is decidedly more cold-blooded and ambitious. Also, altruism is a foreign concept to this guy.

9. Marnie in Marnie. In Marnie's case, much like with the Punisher, it's her past which transforms her into an anti-hero.  This film though, does not lack in characters devoid of human decency (we're looking at you, rapist husband played by Connery). In the end, she probably became less of an anti-hero, since she began moving forward from her childhood trauma. Although she is a thief and a liar, you sympathise with her motivations much better once you find out about her past.

   

10. Napoleon in Assault on Precinct 13. He's the most superficially introduced character here, since the film is so short and action-driven. Still, he comes across as a pretty cool personality and provides the best one-liners in the movie. What makes him interesting is that he is a death-row convict who has killed people for some undisclosed reasons, yet he accepts the consequences of his crimes and is still willing to help others.

 

Overtones, overtones, we already have overtones

This post is going to be somewhat peculiar in comparison to our previous ones. We're pretty sure that most of you know (since we assume that our readership is mostly our friends) that we were raised Mormon. So we grew up seeing quite a bit of movies produced by the church. Here's the thing: we hated them, especially when we were full-on believers (now we're just indifferent). This isn't about creating controversy between our position now and what the religion teaches though. We understand that religion is a very sensitive topic for a lot of people, and we will try our best to be discreet. We acknowledge that we're not impartial in the matter, observing from afar. This is also our history and our identity that we're exploring. So this is a departure from our normal format; while we will be discussing one movie in particular, we will be looking at it in the context of all LDS (Latter-Day-Saint) movies (especially those of the historical nature). 

The movie in spotlight is called Legacy. The film revolves around Eliza whose family was among the first converts to the Mormon church. The main characters are fictional, but the story is based on the church's history. The family has to flee from one place to another because Mormons are persecuted and unwanted. Their mother dies and the father is sent to preach "the word of God" to England. While there, he converts an eligible British bachelor, David (whose English accent is as convincing as Kevin Costner's a la Robin Hood). David joins Eliza's father back to America to congregate with the rest of the church (this is pretty much what all Mormon converts did back then - travelled to America to be with the main body of the church so they could build Zion, or whatever). Eliza is engaged to bald and bespectacled Jacob, so obviously she's with the wrong guy. After some manouvering Eliza and David end up getting married. Then the church's founder, Joseph Smith, is murdered and few years later they're forced to leave their homes again. David volunteers to join an army battalion, leaving Eliza and their family to travel from Nebraska to Utah, which is an arduous journey. These people are called pioneers in Mormon circles. It ends happily ever after with David returning to Eliza and their family unscathed.

The reason we took this movie is because we know it pretty well, it was one of the few "movies" Mormon missionaries were allowed to watch in a missionary training center (if you're wondering what the hell that is, there's always Google - this isn't about us explaining Mormon religion). We're going to discuss three things that we find problematic with Legacy and/or this kind of religious media in general. The first of these issues is the double standard in the love-triangle. As is common in religiosity, loyalty in romantic relationships is emphasized with vigour in Mormonism. The doctrine of the church teaches that when you make a promise, that promise is binding (and marriage is the highest status within Mormonism). So here we have this church funded film that contradicts its own teachings. And not even for good reasons, eg. a personality mismatch, consenting to marry Jacob out of gratitude or duty etc. No, it's because David is constantly harassing her even though she asks him not to. So marry your stalkers, people! Because that is the conclusion to which you will arrive when you analyse the romantic aspect of the movie. In addition, there is some really disturbing, deep-rooted and inherent sexism that is dressed up to look like romance.

Secondly, the historical whitewashing is an issue for us. In Legacy, it only glorifies and exaggerates, unlike, say, Joseph Smith: The Prophet of the Restoration where there are serious omissions and downright falsehoods (that's not to say that Mormons didn't face some serious persecution and violence). Presenting a false narrative wouldn't be so problematic to us if these films weren't used as education about the church's history to children, teens and prospective members. Furthermore, if these movies were any good, we would care much less. There are many movies that are glaringly inaccurate history-wise that we love (eg. Gone with the Wind, Last of the Mohicans, The Mission). But they're good movies, and they care about character development. These films are just plain bad. They're naive, clumsy and without proper storytelling. First of all, Mormon history has a plethora of fascinating human beings and stories of which we would love to see material that was faithful to that history. That unwillingness to present accurate history leads to our final point. 

This is to illustrate the early Mormon migration, for those who are confused

Lastly, these movies are religious propaganda. We understand that, because obviously when the church funds these things they have a conflict of interest. Of course you don't want to promote the fact that Joseph Smith practised polygamy with teenagers or that the church was racist. Other religions, and institutions and even countries partake in this practice, it's not uncommon and we're not making the Mormon church into a scapegoat. Propaganda is quite ubiquitous. The reason we're writing about Mormonism is because we were immersed in the religion. So imagine having been taught this narrative as the unequivocal truth and that these historical figures were next to only Jesus and then finding out that's not the case. Not even close. That's some serious cause for disillusionment and identity crises. Although we're agnostic, we don't take issue with movies that are even heavily religiously themed; The Ten Commandments is still one of our favourite films.  However, when you camouflage a commercial for a specific religion as a movie, we do take an issue with that. What we would really love to see, is a film about Mormonism and its history by someone who has no stake in the religion, one way or the other. Ultimately these events deserve to be presented as human stories, because that's what they are. These people should be depicted as complex human beings, and that is our biggest beef with LDS church funded films and also, we think, their greatest failing. 


PS. if you want to watch a historical pro-Mormon movie that isn't blatantly trying to convert you or whitewash the history, you could do worse than watch 17 Miracles. It wasn't directly church funded or distributed though. Mind you, don't expect to witness cinematic history.