Change Your Image
Nietzsche-1984
Reviews
Lucky Hank (2023)
Solid, realistic (in some ways) satire
What can I say, as an English PhD with over ten years' worth of teaching experience, but that I can relate to some of this work's aesthetic representations. A Marxist critic would have much to say about the traditional sex role of a wife doing most of the cooking (I'm sure Hank's roast took time and effort, as well). I'm not a Marxist critic.
There are some problems, of course, but they're easily bypassed. The acting skill is there (wow). It's just in need of more sophisticated, technical writing in places.
This is overall a good and promising work, I think, and in many respects, because it speaks to the decadence of our times. I mean, what would Nietzsche say about such characters simply living their lives with maximal prestige and no lasting intellectual input (in print, at least, because these are fictional characters--meant, we can imagine, to target real individuals, such as extant academics in humanities departments going about their business, today).
All this speculation shows how the subject area has great potential. Just me feeling upset by the work, on many levels, and wanting to talk about it is a good thing, as I see it.
My suggestions: this could have several seasons and become more interesting over time (and relevant to the current situation), if it also (a) represented (aesthetically but also from an empirically informed vantage) academic life as less socioeconomically contingent upon, and revolving around, the upper classes--i.e., the landed gentry, the lawyer's kids' needing something to do, as well as the real philosophy that's ongoing in many departments); (b) got deeper into real humanities subjects and ongoing debates, in philosophy and literary theory (as opposed to some imaginary philosophy professor's sexual explorations, which would be--I imagine--an anachronism, if it happened in the original novel, which I have read, in part, but that I know is highly outdated, simply because this character's sexual interests aren't really representing philosophy proper, in my mind, but rather more along the lines of what some professors might do with their free time, if they had that much free time, such as the likes of Distinguished Prof. Prinz, whose works I admire yet find fault with on moral and empirical grounds, in places); and (c) tried to depict the backbone problems intrinsic to academic function, these days, as they currently operate at the state and private levels, in both cases, that is, as incorporated bodies behaving like businesses, with funding concerns, lobbying, race-based-economics (a dean at University of New Mexico is unlike one at Princeton, we might imagine), class-based economics (lower classes getting the poorest showing and the most pushback, hiring committees' nepotism, classism, culture war dogmatism, as well as related fiefdoms, etc., along with, I should stress as a type of (d) depicting the socioeconomic burdens placed on adjunct faculty, sexism, culture waring nonsense, etc.).
Dark Matter (2015)
If you like Firefly and Stargate Universe, this is for you
The actors care; the characters make sense and fit; the writers have self-referential awareness of sci- fi conventions and norms and make good use of them, and they seem to have a mind to developing themes that unfold over time. I'm engaged. I'm enjoying the show. I look forward to what's going to happen next.
My only hope: the writers develop themes in the midst of action; otherwise, DM (after awhile) will become just another space soap-opera, just another 'wait and let's see what's going to happen next' action drama without any lasting value. Let's all, together--writers and fans-- not let that happen; let's not let the world-building mean nothing; make it into a theme in itself, as it is in Firelfy (the world means what the situation is like--it speaks to the way of life and shifting norms). Let's not let the writers (or those directing the writers) think little of philosophic themes--e.g., existential agency over habitual norms; confronting cynical instinct when morality seemed the norm, etc.--as if these kinds of ideas can just float in the background and not come to fruition. There's so much potential here for good things that I can't help but have high hopes, and the technical skill of the production, set, and the ability of the actors to make things work--all this makes it easy to feel optimistic. My ranking of 9 is provisional and conditional but based on an 'educated guess.' Please, don't let this show turn into a mere workaday thing; let it find its transcendental niche!
Review UPDATE 1: After episode 6: that was the best episode yet--great sci-fi elements, bringing in material that allows for thematic exploration (existentialism vs. embodied memory determinism); characters having past experiences that they care about, from embodied memory, but that have their own new consciousnesses--there's heaps of potential here for thematic focus/representational value (understanding how to be a better human, what being human means, etc.) over Falling Skies soap opera one- episode-to-the-next formatting (which has its perks, to be sure, but can't stack up qualitatively to true works of art, which Dark Matter has the potential to offer).
After Episode 7: still holding strong. Sometimes I worry music is used too much to create a sense of cohesion between sequences, but at least I like the music.
UPDATE after season one: Dang, didn't see that coming! Mole revealed (and I was sad to find out who it was, though I'd be sad whoever it was, really, because each character has been developed sufficiently to care about their individuality). Cool to see Will on there, with beard; he's an old role model from growing up on STNG. Clearly he can act. Hope David Hewlett's character gets more integrated into things (he was my favorite character from Stargate Atlantis).
Well, what can I say? There's much that's set up for interesting thematic developments, come season two, and I think the writers have hinted at how those themes might gain clarity and depth. But I still can't measure thematics until they happen, in full, if they do. Most of the emphasis has been on world-building and mystery/identity development, and that's fine as long as it goes somewhere. It'll be a long wait to see if it does, but I look forward to getting into the mix of what's to come, and I can only hope future episodes give the philosophic problems introduced, in passing, the attention they deserve.
Will there be mini-webisodes from now until next season?
Horrible Bosses (2011)
a vacation film for the actors, an enormous waste of time for the viewers
There should be moral prohibitions against making films that have no consequence for its viewers whatever, and especially against films serving as vehicles for "having fun" or providing set-therapy for its more senior or notable actors (i.e., Spacey). There were a few forced laughs, but the characters and scenes were weak in every respect--there is nothing to care for in these characters, in the plot, nor in the design of the film; it's essentially a romper-room for grown men behaving like mindless teenagers, with a plot that bears only superficial relation to probable frustrations and how we might confront them (even comedies deserve some element of realism).
It's these types of films that make me think: "If only we could take all the money that went into this film--both during its making and from its profits--and divert it to humanitarian aid." That's not an economically sound way to think about distribution of wealth, but it's still worth pondering, all the same.
Rise of the Planet of the Apes (2011)
Lacks development but compensates with suggestive nuance
It's surprising how engaging segments of this film can be, despite its over-reliance on non-verbal display, linear plot developments, and stock personalities; it's precisely the detail lent to non-verbal display, however, that makes the film worth seeing. Primate dominance hierarchies and play behaviour, meticulously rendered emotions—fear and its autonomic signatures (shallow breathing, dilated pupils, etc.--and consciousness-raising depictions of Alzheimer's disease and its impact on loved ones, all go a long way to make the film seem "round" rather than "flat." Surprising touches of nuance pervade the film, actually. Caesar, the intelligent chimp and protagonist, displays his perceptiveness and inward-looking grasp of his circumstances, uses a Chinese fable about strength in numbers and weakness in division to reveal his organizational aspirations, is self-restrained and morally sensitized, etc. Then you have ironically ape-like zookeepers revealing themselves in different ways to be more primate-like than the primates they hold in captivity, etc. One zookeeper, with a simian mien, becomes mesmerized by an evangelical commercial, yet happens also to be more sensible than his stereotypically aggressive colleague.
So the film has its merits and holds attention, but it also has serious weaknesses common to most Hollywood fair, such as an unwillingness to develop characters, inexplicable plot jumps and unrealistic moments defying belief, etc. We should demand more from sci-fi, since the genre is such an excellent vehicle for thought experimentation, and can explore certain social problems in ways non sci-fi can't. So I should think a truly penetrating look at human nature may come from a Planet of the Apes follow-up feature, a film outranking its classic original in psychological depth and structural control. But whether such a production could meet marketing expectations is doubtful by today's standards. Animated chimps and blue humanoids wielding bows and arrows are expected to appeal to the masses, largely for the sake of making money and not telling a rich, philosophically focused story. I can be hopeful, all the same, can't I?
One must, after having watched a film, take stock of its overall 'value' for viewers, despite how a film has made us feel; insofar as lasting value is consideration, Rise of the Planet of the Apes achieves little, because its characters and events lack mimetic relation to experiences in life, as realistically developed over time, as opposed to ample stimuli that we can't help but emote to, since we're viewing primal displays that prompt automatic response. There's little impetus for introspection in this film. Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, by contrast--and I use this as an example merely because the title shows up briefly in the film for the namesake of the protagonist chimp--has much more command over the psychological sphere, over what we're experiencing and how we judge others, and what we ought to do about how we feel, within a complex social structure. I was hoping the filmmakers would bring more from Julius Caesar's themes into the film--and the follow-up film may very well evince this, with a chimp revolt of some sort against their leader--but I would expect any relation, at this point, to be only superficial.