Robocop

I just got done watching Robocop for the first time. Good movie. Fun movie. Slight movie. Actually, I was kind of amazed how insubstantial the plot was; the film only clocked in at 104 minutes, which compared to something like The Dark Knight, around 150, is pretty short for an action movie. I mean, the movie is basically about a guy who dies in the line of duty and then becomes and empty cyborg, get revenge on his killers and reclaims his identity, even though he has no real contact with it. There really isn't much plot, just a bunch of setting that subtly satirizes modern America. The kind of critiques that, unfortunately, are still very very valid, although probably a bit simplistic for our times. There is definately room for a sequal, which I think is written by Frank Miller, and I kind of want to see, since I saw it already, but years ago, and I remember liking it, although I think it didn't get the best reviews. It's just that the first movie doesn't really do much other than setup, though in an enjoyable way, and you leave it kind of wanting to see more of the concept.

Unrelated to anything, I got kind of a cyberpunk feel off of the issues raised in it, or at least in the issues that could have been raised by it, but were really just kind of hinted at. The whole mind-body kind of thing, and what is the self: could it be downloaded, or is there something more emepheral about it? What makes a person a person, and not just a robot? That kind of thing.

Shit. Now I need to start watching that Ghost in the Machine series.

The Dark Knight

I saw it back on opening weekend, and saw again last Tuesday, and have been meaning to write a post on it, once I got my thoughts together, but nothing got in the way. Some points:

—This was the most realistically set Batman movie yet. Begins was set in a substantially more realistic world than the Burton-Schumacher films, with their art-deco city models and candy-colored villains, but even Begins has an ancient secret society, fear-inducing flowers, fancy e-trains and a cityscape that is obviously invented. This film, on the other hand, is just completely filmed in Chicago. (I remember thinking during the opening shot, when the camera draws in close on a large, black monolith of a building, how this must be a symbolic portant of the coming tradegy of the story or something, and remember that I have seen that building before, while driving around Chicago.) The characters are drawn as professionals working within the halls of power in an incredibly corrupt city, with the shadings such real people carry, not as broad caricatures. There are no secret societies mentioned, the fear-compound makes only a brief cameo in the beginning, the Joker as portrayed, has none of the science fiction elements from the comics. No white skin and naturally green hair, or lethal laughing gas leaving a rictus grin. Just a psycho with knives, guns, and bombs. With all these changes the major casting change, replacing Katie Holmes with Maggie Gyllenhal, didn't really bother me at all. the films almost seemed to be taking place in different worlds.

—There has been a lot of writing trying to pick apart the films message or politics, which is fun and all, but I think that reading the film has having any kind of positive suggestions about society misses the point of the story. The film isn't political, but personal; it is a tradegy. The plot of the movie is: three guys try to take on a force of chaos, and fail. That's it. In fact, though a first viewing kind of obscures this, the conclusion of the movie is the moment [SPOILERS!!!] where the bombs go off in the warehouse, and Rachel Dawes dies. In fact, if I were to pin the climax to any one moment, it is the shot of the Joker sticking his head out of a cop car in the dawn light, with redlights flashing behind him. Not only has he won, destroying all that the characters care about, but he has gotten away with it. Everything that happens after that shot is denoument; just the characters sorting out the after effects of the Joker's victory. Dent goes insane and accepts the chaos, Gordon realizes he is impotent, even with his newfound powers, (he can't even save his family) before it. But Batman, to his credit, and making him the ultimate hero of the story, decides to just keep on battling the chaos anyways, even if he can't stop, and just might be destroyed by it. It's less a story about political systems than the cruel whims of fate, set within the halls of power.

—Ah, the Joker. Like just about everyone, I think Ledger was amazing in this movie, and totally deserves the Oscar for Best Supporting Actor, if not just Best Actor. Damn, he is good. Every choice he made was sublimely creepy, and he still managed to be funny while menacing, which doesn't seem like it is possible. I have replayed the pencil trick in my head hundreds of times now. Also, Nolan did just a superb job in shaping the character. This Joker, while differing from the comics version drastically in surface details, still managed to fit in all the thematic touches of the Joker of the comics. There was the Joker as needing the Batman as a reason for being (which I think comes mostly from Dark Knight Returns), Joker as psychoterrorist trying to drive the world as crazy as he is (Killing Joke), Joker wearing ridiculous costume while on assignment. They got that the Joker's entire shtick is doing things that are violent and cruel, while using the rhythms of comedy to suggest they are supposed to be funny. Sometimes it is funny, like with the pencil trick, and then sometimes it just seems mean, which is really all it ever is.

Argh!

The problem with being a mercurial bastard is that you can go a long time not doing anything because you are too busy devoting time to doing everything.

Deep Thought

Providing everything goes as planned this November, by late January, the three most powerful people in The United States government will be a black guy, a woman, and a Mormon.

"with a comprehensive strategy for victory."

I think comprehensive is one of those words which has lost all meaning to me. It just always seems to be an empty adjective used in polspeak to mean that something is double-plus good, but I never hear it used elsewhere.