Moon

The cratered satellite looms over us every day, a strange glowing apparition. We call this celestial body, simply enough, the Moon. Perhaps one of the most universal symbols of wonder, our Moon has been a consistent subject of artistic exploration since the beginning of human understanding. In 1967, the United Nations decreed the Moon (and the entirety of outer space, for that matter) a "province of all mankind." Despite its vast grandeur and all encompassing symbolic meaning, even our large lunar comrade is subject to the evils of corporate greed, at least according to the premise of Duncan Jones's 2009 film Moon.



I watched Moon last night, and after a good day of letting it sink in, I have to say this is a great film (and I had pretty high expectations after seeing the trailer.) Moon has a very ambitious philosophical scope. While the film addresses issues that are starkly practical in current day politics (namely corporate deception,) at a time when the word "identity" has become cliche' and meaningless, this film delves unblinkingly into the true nature of the self. Moon was also manages to be aesthetically beautiful even while capturing the gritily rustic aspect of the often romanticized lunar landscape. I was slightly let down by the conclusion of the film--only because things were wrapped up just a little too neatly for my tastes. Truly brilliant performances by Sam Rockwell and Kevin Spacey, however, more than make up for any personal discrepancies I had with the plot. I strongly reccomend this movie to anyone who considers themself a fan of hard-hitting science fiction.

Faces of Frankenstein

Thought this would be a disturbingly appropriate segway into a few bits of my paper on the 1931 film Frankenstein. Sorry if it reads a bit too academic for ya.



Maslow’s hierarchy of needs dictates that after basic "deficiency" needs have been satisfied, the strive for self actualization becomes a priority. Call it a will to power if you’re a fan of Friedrich Nietzsche. The need to fulfill one’s potential, the need to create—this is what makes the human condition a constant subject of thematic exploration throughout the world of cinema. It’s this constantly underlying theme that is central to the film Frankenstein (1931,) directed by James Whale. Indeed, Dr. Frankenstein’s desire for self actualization is what motivates him to create his monster. Frankenstein pleaded with those who called him mad:

“Have you never wanted to do anything that was dangerous? Where should we be if no one tried to find out what lies beyond? Have you never wanted to look beyond the clouds and the stars, or to know what causes the trees to bud? And what changes the darkness into light? But if you talk like that, people call you crazy. Well, if I could discover just one of these things, what eternity is, for example, I wouldn't care if they did think I was crazy."

The gratification of scientific curiosity seems to be the primary sentiment here; however, to what extent is Dr. Frankenstein merely feeding his ego by attempting to create a man in his own image?

A rather strange dynamic occurs between Frankenstein and his monster. On one hand, the being is the peak of Dr. Frankenstein’s scientific achievements. The monster represents Frankenstein’s hopes and highest ambitions, and with its death, so comes the demise of Dr. Frankenstein’s dreams. And yet, when the monster is dehumanized by society, the doctor immediately shuns his creation, and even leads the mob that kills the monster. This makes Dr. Frankenstein arguably the most complex character in the film. As obsessive as Dr. Frankenstein becomes, he is still able to recognize the consequences of his actions. Implicit in the film is a prescription regarding morality. There is something very unseemly about the manner in which Frankenstein’s monster is created. With the doctor gradually acquiring various body parts from different corpses, the dichotomy between the natural and the unnatural is exemplified. Frankenstein seeks scientific enlightenment through means that most people would consider to be perverse and downright wrong. Even one of Frankenstein’s fellow scientists is horrified by what he is doing. From this, the film seems to suggest a moral code by which knowledge ought to be sought, lest there be disastrous consequences.

The story itself ultimately succeeds through its thought provoking ambiguity. The film promotes so many different levels of interpretation, oftentimes in a contradictory manner. While it presents us with the pitfalls of technological advancement, the film also blurs the distinction between good and evil. Perhaps where Frankenstein fails is not taking that ambiguity a step further. The monster’s character ought to have been more fully developed. The film merely hints that the monster may have a human side. For me, a film is appreciably successful when it is able to question the very concepts and prejudices it has set up for itself. As such, Frankenstein is inherently flawed, since it is not able to substantially challenge its own philosophical foundations; however, it certainly is a step in the right direction.

Much Much Less Than Meets the Eye

REVENGE OF THE ROBOTS FROM SPACE THAT WE THOUGHT DIED IN THE FIRST ONE BUT CAME BACK AND NOW SHIA LEBEOUF HAS TO RELUCTANTLY SAVE THE WORLD AGAIN.

The second installment of Michael Bay's Transformers series did not get my engines revving.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again: Michael Bay is just a large child with some very expensive toys. I went to a prescreening for Revenge of the Fallen in IMAX, and all I really can say about the film is that it's dazzling, yet retarded. The story runs along the lines of something a four year old could come up with whilst fiddling with his action figures. There's no hidden depth, no interesting dynamics, nothing below the surface of this film. Flashy camera work, crazy special effects, and borderline racist depictions of jive-ass, ghetto robots are no substitute for a well thought out and interesting plot.

This captures the gist of what I'm trying to say, albeit in German.

Watching this movie was, quite simply, a mind numbing experience. The film nullifies all the senses, creating an intellectually passive audience. And I think that's my biggest problem with Michael Bay. His films perpetuate complacency. Nothing about this movie challenges viewers to think about what they're watching--and I don't mean to be a snob, but god damn it, that's what a film should do. You shouldn't just be able to sit back and quietly accept everything you're presented with, especially with a film that most people would categorize in the science fiction genre. There is no ambiguity here. The movie has only one, very basic overarching theme: robots are cool. That's it.



Another problem I had with Revenge of the Fallen, and well, the entire Transformers film franchise in general is that it's just not believable. No, I'm not talking about the giant alien robots that can transform into cars. That part I bought hook line and sinker. What I didn't believe was that someone as hot as Megan Fox actually agreed to go out with a bumbling fuck like Shia Lebeouf. What kind of world are we living in?!

**SPOILER ALERT: Sam Witwicky gets AIDS and dies**