Blog Archives

Military as the Enemy: Anti-Proceduralism in 28 Weeks Later

3/31/2021

by Samantha Shuma

The plan of restoring a country ruined from a zombie apocalypse is executed by the American military. As procedures are followed, mistakes are made, their plans quickly backfire. With no good evacuation plans, horrendous mistakes and poor planning, the death of thousands of people and the resurgence of the population diseased, man eating monsters happens. All of the pitfalls lead to horrific events, and the military is all to blame. This is the main story in 28 Weeks Later (Jaun Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007), showing the world the damaging implications of having the military in charge of a rescue plan. Seeing how incompetent the military’s procedures are, a clear idea of anti-proceduralism is established. This perspective frames the film, letting us know that the military is wrong and that the lives of who we see on screen really mater.

This analysis contains spoilers for 28 Weeks Later, which contains topics that may be disturbing for some readers. Discretion is advised.

Defined by the Encyclopedia of Global Justice, proceduralism justifies procedure over making moral choices. It’s an act of orders over goodness, that the ‘right’ thing to do in the moment is what has been laid out by law or some government power. Although procedures can be tedious and sacrifice time, energy and livelihood, it instills a system and creates order. Proceduralism rejects moral decisions for some unforeseen ‘greater good.’ The procedures that the U.S military follows in 28 Weeks Later will result in the death of hundreds of people for no visible justification.

A disease called the rage virus took hold of the population of Europe. It created a kind of ‘zombie,’ not interested in eating human flesh, but used biting as a means of spreading the virus. Eventually, only a population of infected remained, causing the infected to die of starvation and dehydration. It was at this point, the U.S military came in to dispose of all of the corpses. When it seemed that no infected remained, civilians were brought back to live inside a military base. Once the main characters were established, the military base collapsed. A new zombie outbreak took hold, leaving the civilians defenseless and all the decisions to the military. As the virus spread, the ultimate choice was made; total and utter annihilation.

As it became impossible for infected and survivors to be distinguished through a sniper scope, Code Black was put into effect. The military’s procedures lead them to mass genocide, using snipers, fire bombing and chemical warfare as an attempt to stop the spread. The main characters aren’t only running away from the infected, but evading the tactics of the military to avoid certain death. Most of the soldiers are compliant with these methods except for Sergeant Doyle, one of the rooftop snipers. He chooses his moral compass over orders, helping the remaining survivors to safety. It is in his actions that we see the problem with procedure. If it was justifiable, why would a soldier choose to abandon their post? By Doyle leaving, he is demonstrating the morals go beyond procedure, contrasting the compliance of his comrades and commanding officers. If Doyle was complicit, this anti-proceduralist perspective would not land as well. The perspective would become less anti-proceduralist and more anti-human, giving points to a process that resulted in the death of thousands of people.

That being said, there is a reasonable point to make for proceduralism; through mass genocide, the military is ending the spread of the virus and saving the whole world of being swallowed by the infected. Without seeing the film, it’s a sound argument, it brings back this idea of the ‘greater good.’ However, there are two main ideas in the film that prevent this procedure from being justified in this way. Firstly, the plan doesn’t work. By the time the procedure is put into effect, the infected go underground and thus avoid all forms of military attack. The infected flea the drop zone and continue to spread the virus. If all the infected were destroyed, we could say that civilians were sacrificed for the rest of the world and things can go back as they were. However, seeing how their plan backfires, civilians lost their lives in vain.

Secondly, the setting of the film completely detaches audiences from seeing that larger scope. The film is set in smaller areas, with most of the film being self contained within the military base. There is no tv coverage or any sense that there is a bigger world beyond what we see. It can be inferred, but the idea of a population bigger than what we see on screen is purposely avoided. 28 Weeks Later wants us to focus on the smaller picture, to relate to the characters and situations of the here and now. It distracts us from this idea of the ‘greater good,’ leading us to emotionally believe that this is all there is. The audience becomes so detached from the outside world of 28 Weeks Later that we end up not caring if the world lives or dies. Instead we care more about the people on screen and how they are being needlessly killed by the military.

The military is the enemy of this film. It is the power at be that is forcing in this idea of procedure and order. By doing your jobs and following your orders, everything will be okay. The soldiers and commanding officers live for this idea of proceduralism and see it as the only way to live. Even if people die, following the process will be the right call. The film itself, along with the protagonists, are the ones pushing back against these ideas. This small scale portrayal of events supports the protagonists’ will to live. Through character action and setting, we learn to see the protagonists as the most important element. Their survival becomes more important than procedure. Regardless of the harm they could cause, their survival is what keeps us on the edge of our seats. 28 Weeks Later is anti-proceduralist, antagonizing the military because of their strategies and ideals. Typically, the army is an organization to respect. Those who serve put their lives at risk for the livelihood of the nation. However, when placed under extreme pressure, bad things can happen. They chose to act on orders other than morals, villainizing the military’s efforts. Other zombie movies look at how zombies destroy the world, including the military. That their sheer force in numbers brings down society. Although the zombies are a destructive force, the real enemy throughout this film in the U.S military.

Work Cited: Rocheleau J. (2011) Proceduralism. In: Chatterjee D.K. (eds) Encyclopedia of Global Justice. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-9160-5_367

1 Comment

You, The Living: Continuing Roy Andersson's Exploration of Humanity

3/26/2021

1 Comment

By Ravi Ahuja

Swedish director, Roy Andersson’s film Songs From the Second Floor impressed me when I watched it a few months ago. Somehow it found a way to tie together a few dozen short vignettes into a meaningful and compelling film, albeit a very unusual one. I was a little wary that the sequels to that film would not be able to strike the same balance between comedic and depressing, or if Andersson could find a way to keep his formula of surreal vignettes as fresh and as interesting as his first film. You, The Living (2007) is the second film of his so called “Living” trilogy, following the same style and formula of Songs From the Second Floor, and I’m entirely pleased that my fears did not come to fruition. Rather than lose direction or ideas, Andersson only found ways to improve upon the recipe that made Songs From the Second Floor unique.

The structure is still built around short static vignettes following a few loosely connected threads, but now the more important scenes include two or three different shots rather than have every scene take place in a single wide. Although the camera still remains largely static, there are also at least a few occasions where it moves. Like the only camera movement in Songs From the Second Floor, the camera only moves for slow tracking shots, but when used in You, The Living, it affects the frame and shot composition much more, essentially transforming the initial wide shot into an entirely new frame. This slight increase in flexibility with the shots helps emphasize the most important scenes and make the narrative easier to follow while still maintaining Andersson’s trademark style. His characteristically drab but meticulous set design also returns, looking as if Wes Anderson wanted to do a movie using only beiges, greys, and sickly greens. The majority of the vignettes are still static one shots and are used for standalone little stories, mood setting, and transitioning between more important scenes. While their purpose is not always obvious, they are critical in setting a foundation for the style and thematic content of the film.

A brass band practices while it rains outside

For example, one recurring setting is a bar during closing hours serving the last drinks of the night. Sometimes the bar is just a place for a character to exist in. Other times it is the focal point of the scene, and the emotion and mood of the bar is the whole point of the vignette. Regardless, the repeated use of the bar locale and the seemingly perennial last call for drinks serves to reinforce several of the themes of the movie. One of those themes is a quote that comes up several times throughout the different stories: “Tomorrow is another day”. This quote is repeatedly used to comfort a character going through a tough time, or someone who has just made a mistake. No matter how difficult the present circumstances are, there will always be tomorrow as a brand new opportunity to reinvent the day. The quote, like the film, is an odd mix of uplifting and depressing. It reminds us that we can do better, that even in our worst hour there will always be another day to try again. However, in the context of vignette after vignette of regret and pain, closing hour after closing hour at the bar, it seems like an empty hope. Tomorrow is another day yes, but what reason is there to believe it will be a better one? The crowd of patrons anxious to get a last drink every night when the bar is closing certainly give the impression that more likely than not, tomorrow will be the same as today.

A window washer looks at a man pointing out a missed spot

Another common theme throughout the film is the feeling of loneliness and being misunderstood, with the opening vignette introducing a woman who tries to push away her boyfriend with self-pity, repeating again and again, “Nobody understands me”. This cry is echoed and carried on by other characters throughout the movie, including a man who brings flowers for the same woman from the beginning only to be rejected. While most characters do not explicitly repeat the same line, a large portion of the vignettes deal in some way with the themes of loneliness and alienation. A teacher breaks down crying in her class because her husband called her a hag that morning. Elsewhere, her husband vents about the hard day he’s been having, having fought with his wife and been called an old fart. Both are more comfortable turning to strangers to talk about their problems than each other. In another set of vignettes, a girl has drinks bought for her by a guitar player who she falls in love with, although he gives her the wrong address. Later, she tells other patrons at the bar the dream she had of marrying him and having everyone in town love her. The patrons, being at a bar, listen patiently.

Drug use and abuse are also recurring themes, especially used as a form of medication. The bar patrons all seem desperate to be drunk every night, and combined with the bleak set design of the bare, sickly green bar, it becomes a rather sad setting every time it is shown. Drug use also returns as a theme in the vignette of the psychiatrist. After 27 years of work, the psychiatrist is worn out and can no longer bear to give advice to his patients when most of them are simply mean, ungrateful people. Instead, he now just prescribes pills, “the stronger the better”. While these two vignettes seem to cast judgement on the act of using drugs as a form of escapism, there are also moments that have a little more sympathy for drug users. The misunderstood woman from the first scene is also an alcoholic, and gets angry at her boyfriend’s mother for serving non-alcoholic beer with dinner, yelling “Is this what's best for me? Enduring this damned existence... with all the shit and deceit and wickedness and staying sober? How can you expect or even want a single poor bugger to put up with it without being drunk? It's inhuman.” Andersson deliberately avoids choosing either side of the argument, choosing rather to show what truths he sees on both sides and letting the audience decide for themselves.

A man runs on a treadmill while a child watches

While there are a host of other themes one could pick out of this movie, the centralizing connection between all of them, and the thing that truly makes this film a sequel to Songs From a Second Floor, is the honest exploration of what it means to be human. Andersson provides a look at the mundane, the ugly, the problems of human life. In one scene, a woman prays on her knees as a congregation leaves a small church, asking for God to forgive “those who are greedy and cheap… those who are dishonest and false… forgive newspapers and tv channels that mislead… forgive those who bomb and destroy cities and villages,”. The woman continues like this for over a minute, listing many of the horrible things humans do or face. By the end of the scene, there is a general feeling of uneasiness and discomfort at the rapidfire presentation of so many of the world’s wrongs. Being a human is tough business. But You, The Living is not just concerned with pointing out problems, but also how to live through them. Throughout the film, there is an undercurrent of a call for a return to morality. This is not necessarily a religious morality (although there is a fair amount of religious imagery), rather Andersson is calling for people to just respect each other. There were parts of You, The Living where it seemed like Andersson was throwing his hands in frustration and telling the world to ‘just be nice for once’. The psychiatrist points out that most of his patients are egocentric, selfish, and ungenerous while also demanding to be happy, that “they are quite simply mean, most of them”. This seems to be the state of the world in Andersson’s films, and likely how he sees the state of our real world.

A girl dreams of a whole town celebrating her marriage to a famous guitar player

For all of the depressing scenes and set design, Andersson also has a way of making his movies seem uplifting, if only just a little. The woman having a breakdown in the first scene has a few more recurring vignettes after that, showing her relationships with her boyfriend and his mother. Despite her constant attempts to push people away from herself, the self-absorption and self-pity she demonstrates, she still has enough self awareness to apologize for her actions and be accepted by those around her. The individual players of the band seem a bit lonely, unwanted, and out of place when practicing alone, but fit perfectly with each other when they get together to play. And while tomorrow may seem just as grim as today, you never really know what it will bring. While the cyclical nature of the vignette structure can make a better future seem hard to hope for, it also always leaves some sense of possibility and therefore hope. It is true that most of the vignettes showcase suffering and loneliness, but not every scene is a painful one. Some moments are just peaceful, and some scenes are even beautiful. As long as the possibility exists, so does hope, and the bad times become easier to withstand because there is a hope for the future.

A crowd of people wait for the rain to stop

Like the previous film before it, You, The Living presents a grim but beautiful exploration of humanity through snapshots of ordinary city life in Sweden. Incredibly foreign and bizarre in presentation, but still deeply familiar and personal, Roys Andersson succeeds again at tying together slice of life filmmaking with something very theatrical, meticulous, and thought-provoking. You, The Living is streaming now on Kanopy with certain library memberships, and is a great film for anyone looking for an odd but accessible entry point into European arthouse.

1 Comment

Nomadland: A Review

3/26/2021

1 Comment

By Mason Leaver

There was a movement in Italian cinema beginning in 1945 called “Italian Neorealism”. The movement focused on realistically capturing the small, intimate details of life. Filmmakers in the neorealist movement hired nonprofessional actors, filmed on location, and focused on simplistic, character driven stories about everyday life. This emphasis on “true to life” narratives has continued to this day, being reflected in various cinematic movements, like the French New Wave and Cinema Verite. Nomadland, directed by Chloé Zhao, follows in this long standing tradition of realistic cinema. Nomadland is a film about the small details of life, using a mixture of narrative and documentary style, which creates a unique tone amongst the films of 2020.

Frances McDormand as Fern

Nomadland is the story of Fern (Frances McDormand), a woman who has lost everything in the Great Recession. We watch as Fern begins her life of living in a van, and starts a job at Amazon. She decides she wants to live a nomadic lifestyle, moving out into the desert and joining a nomadic community. As the film progresses, she travels in and out of various nomad communities, taking various jobs and connecting with various unique individuals. Ultimately, Fern is forced to confront her fear of attachment, and is faced with a decision to either settle down or keep moving with her life on the road. The film’s ending leaves us to debate Fern’s ultimate fate and what she will decide. This ambiguous conclusion forces us to reflect on the meaning of the film overall, questioning what we believe Fern ought to do and what we believe she will in fact do.

Frances McDormand has had an incredible career, giving a variety of terrific performances in Fargo, Moonrise Kingdom, and Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri. Her performance in Nomadland is extremely impressive, even in a career as densely packed with strong roles as McDormand’s. Her performance as Fern feels improvisational and vulnerable- her lines of dialogue and movements feel genuine and unrehearsed. One begins to wonder how much of Fern is a pre-written character and how much is McDormand expressing herself on screen. McDormand has been nominated for Best Actress in a Leading Role at the Oscars this year, and I would not be surprised if she takes it home.

Frances McDormand and director Chloé Zhao

Besides the terrific performance given by McDormand, one of the most impressive aspects of the film is the cinematography. Director of Photography Joshua James Richards and Director Chloé Zhao have managed to pull off an incredible feat. Certain sections of Nomadland are not difficult to capture beautifully- shots of various picturesque locations; vast desert landscapes, snow capped mountains, and rushing rivers. Even the smallest, least interesting places are rendered magnificently- they make fast food restaurants and the inside of Fran’s van look beautiful. For a film with such a simple story, the cinematography is still astonishing.

The beautiful cinematography in "Nomadland"

One of the aspects of Nomadland which most makes it stand out from other films released this year is it’s hybridization of fiction and documentary filmmaking approaches. The narrative of the film is fictional, but many of the characters within the film are real people, portraying themselves on screen. For instance, Swankie, one of the nomads Fran meets on her journey, is a real nomad. In fact, almost all of the nomads that are featured in the film are actual nomads, living in the desert. This approach to capturing life as accurately as possible gives the film a feeling of realism and honesty. It very much follows in the wake of the realist movements of the past- focusing on non-professional actors and a simplistic story.

From left to right: Frances McDormand, Chloé Zhao, Charlene Swankie, Linda May

Nomadland is an exploration of the real-life situations of many nomadic Americans. In post-recession America, many people have been forced to live in these situations, working draining and sometimes dangerous jobs for poor pay just to scrape by as they live out of a van. Of course, others have willingly chosen the nomad life, preferring freedom to security. Nomadland seeks to document the lives of these individuals by filming real-life people, and inserting them into a fictional, but true to life story. It is beautifully executed at every level- the acting, cinematography, editing, and dialogue of the film are all exceptional. The pacing of the film may be a bit slow for some viewers, but the film is much more character driven than plot driven. As such, it takes it’s time, focusing on exploring Fran’s psychology and character rather than any elaborate plot. It’s certainly worth a watch.

Viewers who enjoy “Nomadland” may also enjoy “Into the Wild”, “Captain Fantastic”, and “Leave No Trace”

1 Comment

A Performance Analysis: Authenticity and Uncle Frank

3/22/2021

1 Comment

by Emilie Rush

This analysis contain spoilers for Uncle Frank, reader's discretion advised.

In a world of Lady Bird and Call Me By Your Name, at first glance Uncle Frank (Alan Ball, 2020) doesn’t seem like the revolutionary coming of age story we needed at the end of 2020. But it’s the unexpectedly powerful performance of Paul Bettany that makes this film one to watch. The movie follows a simple country girl named Beth (Sophie Lillis) travels to the big city, and is introduced to the world through the lens of the relationship of her cool Uncle Frank (Paul Bettany) and his partner (Wally). Their family back home in the south reacts to this new revelation about his lifestyle! Luckily, all is revealed after the death of the beloved family patriarch softens the blow of all the devastations, and in fact brings them all closer together in a true nostalgic American family tale. This is not a traditional story, where Beth would be the one navigating her coming of age journey. No, it’s Frank who comes of age, giving this emotionally heavy film the unique deposition of flipping conventionally on it’s head.
Recently, the world of acting has been plagued by an ongoing conversation surrounding what exactly an actor's job is. Is an actor person who steps into the shoes created for him by a writer, and sculpted by the director, leaving him to be only the clay in the performance? Is an actor himself the scribe, bequeathed with inspiration from a script, and illuminated by lights and a camera, writing and establishing a character like pulling a rabbit out of a hat? How much agency does an actor have? Does he possess permission to stand on stage or on set, and transform himself into someone else, perhaps a different race, sexuality, or creed. And if he does not, who does? And why not?
In the conversation of authenticity in the world of acting, director Russell T Davies, creator of Queer as Folk, remarked “I feel strongly that if I cast someone in a story, I am casting them to act as a love, or an enemy, or someone on drugs, or a criminal or a saint...they are not there to “act gay” because “acting gay” is a bunch of codes for a performance.” Queer as Folk was one of the first shows to showcase and talk about the LGBTQ+ experience on television, and it featured straight actors in playing gay roles.

Neil Patrick Harris remembers how much that moment meant to him, both personally as a gay man and in his career, “It was one of the real true turning points for me as examples of sexy guys behaving as leads in something of import, not as comic sidekicks. I think there’s something sexy about casting a straight actor to play a gay role, if they’re willing to invest a lot into it. There’s a nervousness that comes from the newness of it all. To declare that you’d never do that, you might miss opportunities.”. Harris’ biggest career moments come from his performances in shows like How I Met Your Mother, where he played a straight character.
Like many other LGBTQ+ actors, making the decision not to take straight roles would be especially damming. Although the tide is changing for marginalized communities onscreen, the amount of these characters available is still small. Although Davies and Harris have differing opinions, the conversation about performance authenticity has the potential to spur big change in Hollywood.
Enter Paul Bettany. He is an icon in the making, especially in 2021, and it’s so interesting to see this performance right off the heels of the newest episode of Wandavision, which most people may recognize him from. The MCU has been criticized for its lack of acting, pacing, depth, but here Disney proves that they have a good eye for talent. Some people spend years waiting for the spotlight, for their big breaks, but Bettany has had multiple. Reinventing himself before the camera time and time again, he’s an actor with as much chameleon-esque bravado as Johnny Depp. In 2001 he was in A Knight’s Tale and A Beautiful Mind. In 2006 he was in The Da Vinci Code. For the past twelve years he’s been routinely in conversation as Jarvis/Vision, and he even hopped franchises and did a stint with Solo: A Star Wars Story.
But how does Bettany and Uncle Frank fit into this the conversation of performance authenticity? Bettany is straight, but Frank Bledsoe, the title character of the film, is gay, and it’s the developing characteristic of the main plot line in the movie. Bettany’s performance justifies Harris’ argument that it’s not about the actor really identifying as gay or straight at all, rather it’s about the passion, humility, and cadence brought to the craft that matters.

In Uncle Frank, Bettany plays Frank Bledsoe with humble and charming confidence. He fits into the 70s’ like a ball to a glove, like an old man reliving his prime. He wears his mustache with pride as he struts among the cast, weaving in his own blend of humor and the passion of someone who is in love with their work. The linchpin of it all, is that Bettany is a fantastic actor and he’s ridiculously believable.
When Frank holds back Beth’s hair at the apartment party scene, as she vomits, I believe his performance, which is always easier said than done. One of the hardest relationships to act, to fake, is the relationship between family members. The more intimate the script forces them to be, the harder the job it becomes. But looking into Bettany’s eyes it looks natural, as if he himself is Frank Bledsoe and Paul Bettany is just an illusion, not the other way around. Bettany himself has a young daughter (and son), which probably helped him build the foundation arguably the central, and the most changing, element of the film. It's hard to act out something that is completely unfamiliar to you, and a lot of times when an actor has nothing to pull from, weakens their performance and severs the link between the character and an audience, which is why performance authenticity matters.
Russell T Davies worried about the invisible codes used to portray a gay character, and how they might pull the audience out of suspended disbelief if done in correctly, if done by someone who had to fake it. The difference between Davies’ fear and Bettany’s performance is that this transcendent possibly futuristic view of sexuality and love that allows a person to be a human first, and who they love isn’t inherently a personality trait. The audience gets confirmation that Frank is gay within the first thirty minutes of the film, but considering how his family acts towards him at the film’s opening, it’s no surprise. Still after the big reveal, Bettany does not revert to the old-fashioned coding and performance stereotypes of portraying a gay man. Bettany pulls on love, unacceptance, and fear to create his performance, he loves Wally, and he loves him the same way, and with the same capacity that any human loves another. This is authenticity.
Paul Bettany as Frank Bledsoe is the best performance that Uncle Frank has to offer. Bettany spirals from a man living divorced and in contempt of his family, to one that is tortured by his past and present. The art of being Frank Bledsoe is so well crafted that it seems like it would fit better on stage, rather than the small screen of an indie movie.

1 Comment

Pacific Rim Review

3/22/2021

1 Comment

By Aaron Argot

If a film about giant robots fighting giant monsters for the sake of humanity seems like your kind of movie, then look no further than Pacific Rim (Guillermo del Toro, 2013). This film has everything you could want from a summer blockbuster. It has stunning visuals, from the CGI to the practical effects. It’s got an entertaining and simple story, a superb score by Ramin Djawadi, and great acting. Most of all, it’s a fun movie, which is arguably one of the most important things about a film. With Pacific Rim: The Black coming out this month, this film is a great place to start understanding the story.

This review contains spoilers for Pacific Rim, reader discretion advised.

The plot is quite simple but really enjoyable, giant monstrous aliens, dubbed Kaiju, have begun to invade Earth from a breach at the bottom of the Pacific ocean, and go to attack coastal cities of said ocean. The humans build giant robots, dubbed Jaegers, to fight the Kaiju. The Jaegers are carefully piloted by two people due to their size, and the pilots have to go through a mind-melding process called “The Drift”. In the film, they say it is based on DARPA jet fighter neural systems, and that the better the bond that you have with someone, the better you will fight. These giant mechs and their pilots represent the resilience of humanity and how we need to work together to get through hardship. Both of those things are explored in the film.
The film starts with immersing the audience into the world at threat by the Kaiju, and how humans are fighting back. In doing so, it introduces the main character, Raleigh Becket. Pacific Rim follows Raleigh as he loses his brother in a fight with a Kaiju, leaves the Jaeger program, and is asked to return for a final effort against the Kaiju, in a war that humanity is losing. The film also follows Mako Mori, a second protagonist, who lost her family to a Kaiju attack and is working toward becoming a pilot herself. Most of the movie is humanities final pushes toward victory against the Kaiju.

This is not one of Guillermo del Toro’s most critically acclaimed films. Although, he has said that (at least at the time) it was the only one he directed where he was excited to go into work everyday, and it definitely shows. The visuals are incredible and have so much detail, the CGI in particular. All the visuals have held up even after almost ten years. The Kaiju look very biological, and the Jaegers have lots of moving parts, things that you would see if a robot that huge actually did exist. Del Toro’s directing only adds to the realism and immersion by making each step and each blow dealt by either party have real weight. It becomes more clear when you compare it to Pacific Rim: Uprising (2018), a film Del Toro did not direct, where the movements fail to capture the full spectacle of the Jaegers and Kaiju. The Kaiju in this movie are also frightening, much like how the dinosaurs from the Jurassic Park franchise. There are also a surprisingly large amount of practical effects in the film. All of the suits the Jaeger pilots wear, as well as the large cockpit area, were all built for the movie. So most of the spinning and moving parts in the cockpit and on their suits are real and not special effects. The cockpit even moves and jerks around when filming fight scenes. All of the intense jerking around in certain scenes makes it so that the actors have more realistic reactions, as it would be much harder to get into that sort of role without it.
What really adds to the emotion of the film is the amazing soundtrack. Ramin Djawadi makes the Kaiju seem daunting and monstrous, and hypes up the fights to the max level. Whenever a kaiju destroys a jaeger or is about to destroy a city, you feel as though you are a citizen of the city and your life may be at risk. Whenever a jaeger stares down a kaiju and engages in battle with it, your heart is pumping and you're excited for what’s about to happen. This is largely in part to the work that Ramin Djawadi did in creating the score for this film.

Pacific Rim is a monster movie that still has a strong human element to it. Oftentimes, films like this are criticized for not having a good story about the human condition because it is focused on the monsters/robots most of the time. This is primarily a monster and robot movie, but there are a lot of fleshed out characters. That is mainly in part to the fact that there is a huge section of the film in the middle where there are no Jaeger and Kaiju fights, and it introduces and explores the main characters. That was a great choice, because other films like this will go back and forth pretty steadily between monster, human, monster, human, which usually ends up being fine for the monsters, but leaves the audience wanting more of the human element. The whole idea of connecting neurally is one of the things that really adds to the characters. How losing someone you were figuratively and literally connected to affects someone, and what kind of relationships can form through always being in someone else’s head while piloting a Jaeger.
Pacific Rim is del Toro’s love letter to the anime and the kaiju and mecha movies of his childhood. He put a lot of heart into it, and I appreciate every second of time devoted to this film. I have often considered this a perfect movie, since it has a bit of everything, does everything right. This film has elements of noir, the main robot is modeled to resemble a John Wayne type cowboy, and it is said to have the flow of a sports movie. This film has everything, there are elements of so many kinds of movies that there is something for everyone. There’s a good story that is simple enough yet has a deep lore to look through if you so choose. The characters in the story are fleshed out and likable enough to not be overshadowed by the spectacular beasts and mechs. The visuals, including CGI and practical effects, are beautiful to look at and a testament to the kind of detail that went into it. The soundscape helps even more with the immersion in the film and helps get you into it emotionally. Pacific Rim is also great at one of the most important things when it comes to films, and that is for it to be a fun movie to watch and experience.

Works Cited:
Del Toro, Guillermo. Audio commentary. Pacific Rim. Dir. del Toro. Warner Bros. Pictures,
2013. DVD

1 Comment

This Documentary Really Makes You Look : A Review

3/14/2021

1 Comment

by Samantha Shuma

We work throughout our lives to build successful careers. It can be rewarding, but how stable are the towers we have built for ourselves? Can everything come crashing down in an instant? The career of one of the most prominent art sellers and the oldest art gallery in New York came tumbling down as the world discovered their involvement in the biggest fine art scandal in U.S history. This true story about the dealings of fake art is presented in the documentary Made You Look (Barry Avrich, 2020). The use of archival footage and interviews bring the story to life. There is so much interesting information and invaluable details that let you see the bigger picture.

This review contains spoilers for Made You Look, reader discretion advised.

There is a lot of mystery concerning the intention of those involved. Specifically the art dealer, Ann Freedman, who was the middle man between the forger and the art collectors. Between all of those who were interviewed, they believe that Freedman knowingly sold artworks or that she was too gullible to see through the lies. The documentary brings in so many voices on the matter, from those who were directly involved; collectors, Ann herself, Ann’s associates. Also those who were not directly involved, but have looked at the evidence and are giving their own opinions; lawyers, psychologists, art critics. None of them have enough evidence to prove they are right or wrong. Having this many voices gives the audience something to think about, providing so many perspectives to explore and create their own opinion on the matter. This documentary has given us the tools to critically think about the scandal, while also not giving us enough to truly lean one way or another. This lack of catharsis keeps us from ending the story in our minds, making the events and those involved linger far after the credits have ended.

The different perspectives that have gone into creating Made You Look are just one element that illustrates the scope of this film. From the interviews, locations and research, there is so much enthralling information. There is education beyond the scandal, we get interesting moments where industry professionals talk about how paintings are authenticated, going as far as doing forensic work on the painting’s pigments. Seeing how far one has to go to have a painting authenticated, it is understandable that fake paintings could have been believed to be real. Considering locations, the filmmakers leave no stone unturned to find answers. They go so far as to track down the artist that forged the works in China, with the painter’s wife coming to the door wondering how they (the documenters) found her address. The amount of hard work and detail that has gone into this documentary is astonishing, and it further enforces how important a scandal like this can be.

While there are many people involved in this film, the more you hear, the more you see the lack of unity in the art collecting community. With everyone having their own opinions and believing themselves to be in the right, no conclusions will ever be made. None of them, besides Ann Freedman, give into the fact they made mistakes. There would always be some detail that would put the blame back onto Freedman (or Glafira, the provider of the forged paintings). This is also prevalent in the cinematography, where each shot is presented in a new way and those who are interviewed are never filmed in the same location. It seems that the filmmakers went to those being interviewed (shooting in their offices/homes) rather than inviting them to a set or single location. All the interactions feel separate, showing how these people never come together. This lack (and seeming reluctance) of meeting each other shows that this lack of unity will never be solved while they are reluctant to come together.

Made You Look is a documentary that gets you invested in what is going on. You learn about what is going on, what has happened, and what the opinions are on what went down. There is extensive information in terms of interviews, research and archival footage, and all of it is presented in an appealing and comprehensive way. More than just learning about the scandal, there is a gained understanding and appreciation for art collecting and art authentication. the documentary caught my attention right away and kept me engaged all the way through. Even for those who are not usually interested in documentaries, Made You Look is worth a watch.

1 Comment

The Philosophy of the Sunset Limited

3/1/2021

3 Comments

by Mason Leaver

The Sunset Limited (Jones, 2011) presents a simple structure but great philosophical depth. The film is directed by Tommy Lee Jones, and is an adaptation of the stage play of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. The film takes place in a single room, and is one conversation between two men, referred to as Black and White, played by Samuel L. Jackson and Tommy Lee Jones respectively. The two men are sitting in Black’s kitchen, having a conversation about whether or not White should kill himself, but the conversation broadens to God, atheism, nihilism, and purpose. The discourse between Black and White is representative of a much larger dialogue in existential philosophy. Black can be seen as a representation of the views of Søren Kierkegaard, and White can be seen as representing a synthesis of the views of Friedrich Nietzsche, Arthur Schopenhauer, and Albert Camus. The Sunset Limited is a discourse on the nature of existence that comes from existentialist philosophy, and the views expressed by Black and White can help us to have a greater understanding of what the purpose of life is and what it is to be human.

White and Black sitting at Black's kitchen table

“Happiness is contrary to the human condition”- White

White’s philosophy seems to be heavily influenced by the pessimist Arthur Schopenhauer. I’ve previously discussed Schopenhauer in my analysis of True Detective, but I’ll review briefly before moving on to analyzing White’s use of Schopenhauer’s philosophy. Schopenhauer was a German philosopher that focused on the philosophy of Pessimism. He believed that there was a tension between human Reason and human Will. Reason is our ability to do things like philosophy or logic, and it’s also what we use when we engage with art. White reflects this when he discusses how he values culture and art. However, Schopenhauer believed that the fundamental human problem was that our Reason was limited by our Will. Schopenhauer believed that our only direct access to the world as it is in itself is through the Will. Only through the Will can we know the world as it is in itself. And the Will is devoid of reason. The Will is the sum of all of our base instincts and urges- that hunger for satisfaction and pleasure that’s never filled. We are slaves to our Will, and at the end of the day we’re always left with our Will hungry for more. White also seems to believe in this idea. First, White says that he values art, literature, and culture, but that “the things I love are very frail. Very fragile. I didn't know that, I thought they were indestructible. They weren't…”. Here, White realizes that the Will robs us of the finer things in life. His values were frail- they couldn’t stand up to scrutiny. As such, White is never satisfied. White seems to consider satisfaction or fulfillment to be synonymous with happiness. But since the Will can never be satisfied, happiness is contrary to the human condition. This realization leads White to attempt to take his own life.

“Banish the fear of death from men's hearts and they would not live a day... If people could see the world for what it truly is, see their lives for what they truly are without dreams and illusions, I don't believe they could offer the first reason why they should not elect to die as soon as possible.”
- White

Albert Camus famously said that “there is only one really serious philosophical problem, and that is suicide. Deciding whether or not life is worth living is to answer the fundamental question in philosophy. All other questions follow from that”. This also happens to be the central conflict of The Sunset Limited- should White kill himself? Historically, most philosophers have answered “no”. However, there are several philosophers that at least entertained the idea of suicide that White is clearly inspired by. Camus was an existentialist philosopher who is best known for describing life as “absurd.” Camus agrees with White’s initial analysis of life - it is a cruel place to live, and man can easily be driven to kill himself. Camus found our condition so horrible that it was almost funny, what he described as the Absurd. Camus thought that people choose to kill themselves because they “judge life is not worth living”. The challenge, then, was for Camus to find a way to judge his life to actually be worth living. Here, Camus introduced his idea of the Myth of Sisyphus, the Greek mythological figure who was forced to push a boulder to the top of a mountain for all eternity. Camus thought that our lives were like that of Sisyphus- we have a great weight of existential dread and pain (analogous to the boulder), which we must struggle through all our lives (pushing the boulder up the mountain). However, Camus said that “one must imagine Sisyphus happy”. Camus suggested that the meaning in our lives was in embracing the struggle, the Absurd, and in so doing we could generate meaning for ourselves.
However, not all existentialist philosophers were willing to disregard suicide. Nietzche seemed to be much more open to the idea. One of Nietzche’s core philosophies, which he unpacked thoroughly in The Gay Science, was that most philosophers reason out of weakness, rather than strength. Most people, Nietzsche claimed, are too weak to face the cold hard truths of life: that there is no purpose in the world, that the strong eat the weak, and that God is a delusion. Nietzsche advocated that philosophers ought to philosophize out of a place of strength- coming to terms with the way the world is, and embracing it to make the best life for yourself that you could. Here, Nietzsche suggests that suicide would be a weakness- the weak man’s way of escaping from the reality of the world. However, in his later work, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, he spends some time discussing “voluntary death,” which he holds to actually be a great strength. To decide the time and method of one’s death was a decision that Nietzsche admired. Nietzsche had two conceptions of suicide: from weakness and from strength.
Is White’s attempt at suicide one from weakness or strength? Black and Nietzsche will agree that White’s desire for suicide comes from weakness. For Nietzsche, White’s desire to escape the cruelties of the world is an example of weakness. He would be strong if he was able to recognize the purposelessness of the world and continue to live despite it. For Black, White’s attempts at suicide come from a refusal to accept God’s love and an obsession with skepticism. White doesn’t desire to find the truth, instead, he is hellbent on doubting. As Black puts it, “a questioner wants the truth. A doubter wants to be told there ain't no such thing.” However, White disagrees with both of these men. He sees his desire for suicide as an act of strength, a denial of his biological programming. He thinks to desire death is to be seeing clearly. This is one of the fundamental points of White’s personal philosophy, and it is one area which creates a gulf between White and Black.

“If you don’t have any pain in your life, how do you know you’re happy? As compared to what?...
Sometimes faith might just be a case of not havin’ nothin’ else left.”- Black

Black’s philosophy seems to be closely tied with the work of Kierkegaard. Kierkegaard was a Christian existentialist philosopher, well known for his work Fear and Trembling. However, Kierkegaard is not a “standard” Christian philosopher. He is known for facing existential dread head-on, and he often gives surprising accounts of what it means to be a person of faith in the world. Black seems to be a man heavily influenced by Kierkegaard’s thought, as he frequently recognizes how difficult living in the world can be. To understand the quote above and how it is influenced by Kierkegaard, we have to understand Kierkegaard’s idea of the Hero, and his Knight of Faith.
Kierkegaard claimed that if there was no God, one must embrace nihilism as White does. One would expect him to then go on and say “But there is hope, because God exists!” But Kierkegaard’s solution to the problem of nihilism is not so simple. He says that the solution to suffering is found in part by the fact that God fashioned the Hero, who is capable of greatness. For Kierkegaard, Greatness came from three categories (a trichotomy of trichotomies). There was love; of the self, of others, and of God. There was expectation; of the possible, the eternal, and the impossible. And there was striving; with the world, with oneself, and with God. Each of these trichotomies represent a three-tiered notion of Greatness. The Hero was one who could ascend each step, and conquer them all. And the Hero can only do this in a world which includes suffering and evil. Then, Poets, like Kierkegaard himself, could write of the great deeds of these Heroes, and in doing so we could generate meaning and purpose in the world, through this striving and praising. Black reflects a similar idea here- how would one know that they’re happy if they’ve never suffered? Black takes inspiration from Kierkegaard, asking how one’s life could be fulfilling if one had never strived to overcome an obstacle? He suggests that pain is actually necessary for our growth.
Kierkegaard had a similar three-tiered notion of people, or three ways to live one’s life. At the bottom of this trichotomy was the Philistine. The Philistine loves what’s pleasurable and Earthly. He loves food, drink, and entertainment. White could be seen as a Philistine, with his love of the arts and culture. Then, there is the Knight of Infinite Resignation. This is the man who gives up what he has in order to sacrifice it to God. The Knight of Infinite Resignation is like a monk, giving up everything to strive for Godliness. Kierkegaard thought this was good, but it led someone who attempted it into misery, and that there was a better way to live. So, there was the Knight of Faith. The Knight of Faith is the man who gives up everything for God, and having given it up, holds all the more tightly to it. Kierkegaard’s archetypal example was Abraham, who was able to sacrifice his son to God, but after God relinquished his request for Isaac’s life, Abraham was able to love his son even more deeply. Black seems to be another example of the Knight of Faith that Kierkegaard describes. He has no concern for his material possessions, and is willing to let addicts take whatever they like from his house, and he delights in simple pleasures. Black has given everything up (as he puts it, faith is “not havin’ nothin’ left”) and now is free to hold on to and love things all the more strongly. There is a paradox at the heart of this philosophy, but both Kiekegaard and Black are fully aware of this. It is both letting go and holding on simultaneously that allows Black to live a life free of attachment, yet at the same time deeply love and care about White and the addicts in his tenement, and still trust God when it seems no good has come about from helping the addicts, or when he appears to have failed to save White. It’s a paradox!

Black and White can be seen as representatives of the Existentialist movement. White represents the views of many atheistic existentialist philosophers, pulling from Schopenhauer (a predecessor and inspiration of the existentialist movement), Nietzsche, and Camus. These men focused on how it could be possible to have meaning in a meaningless world. Black can be seen as a representative of the theistic side of the existentialist school of thought, borrowing much of his thought from Kierkegaard. Cormac McCarthy has packed deep philosophical complexity into a short runtime. The Sunset Limited is a film that should be recognized for its philosophical and artistic merit, and it’s well worth giving it a watch.

Works Cited

“The Sunset Limited.” IMDb, IMDb.com, 12 Feb. 2011, www.imdb.com/title/tt1510938/.

Schopenhauer, Arthur, et al. The World as Will and Representation. Cambridge University Press, 2020.

Camus, Albert. The Myth of Sisyphus. Vintage International, 2018.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm. Thus Spoke Zarathustra. Bibliotech Press, 2020.

Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, et al. The Gay Science. Dover Publications, Inc., 2020.

Kierkegaard, Søren, et al. Fear and Trembling ; and, the Sickness unto Death. Princeton University Press, 2013.

Wicks, Robert. “Arthur Schopenhauer.” Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, Stanford University, 11 May 2017, plato.stanford.edu/entries/schopenhauer/#Bib.

3 Comments