Films
Frost/Nixon is Rivetting
07/12/09 06:03
What an idyllic way to spend an evening. A blanket of
snow has fallen on New Brunswick, making my evening
walk with Marlee Marie a wonderful stroll through the
quiet streets, with the Christmas lights twinkling
and bouncing off the surface of the snow and the
sweet-smelling smoke from a dozen wood fires drifting
in and among the falling flakes.
Not to mention the crunch of our feet on the snow!
The snow came before I had the chance (okay, got off my lazy bottom) to get gas for our monster new snowthrower so I had to use the shovel again. Fortunately, it was only five centimeters or so, meaning I probably wouldn't have used the monster anyway.
No writing to speak of recently (sorry) but we have been watching movies. I slept through most of Seven Pounds (no shot at Will Smith, I'd simply had an exhausting week) but enjoyed Frost/Nixon immensely the following night. It's a rivetting film by director Ron Howard, which is kind of amazing considering the main story line involves a series of interviews between the foppish British talk-show host and the disgraced President. Great stuff and well worth watching, for the entertainment as well as for the history. The fact that there are strong parallels between some of what Nixon did (and was forced to resign for) and what George Bush did more recently (with no negative consequences) is strongly brought out in the film as well.
Writing will happen soon, I promise. I've got my December 31 deadline for a first draft of The Silent Goodbye clear in my head. I intend to get it done.
Not to mention the crunch of our feet on the snow!
The snow came before I had the chance (okay, got off my lazy bottom) to get gas for our monster new snowthrower so I had to use the shovel again. Fortunately, it was only five centimeters or so, meaning I probably wouldn't have used the monster anyway.
No writing to speak of recently (sorry) but we have been watching movies. I slept through most of Seven Pounds (no shot at Will Smith, I'd simply had an exhausting week) but enjoyed Frost/Nixon immensely the following night. It's a rivetting film by director Ron Howard, which is kind of amazing considering the main story line involves a series of interviews between the foppish British talk-show host and the disgraced President. Great stuff and well worth watching, for the entertainment as well as for the history. The fact that there are strong parallels between some of what Nixon did (and was forced to resign for) and what George Bush did more recently (with no negative consequences) is strongly brought out in the film as well.
Writing will happen soon, I promise. I've got my December 31 deadline for a first draft of The Silent Goodbye clear in my head. I intend to get it done.
Some Kid and the Half-Blood Prince
21/07/09 17:05
I have been wrestling with myself over how to write
my review of the recent David Yates movie, entitled
Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince,
since I saw the film on Sunday. My major issue seems
to be that, after seeing the movie, I'm feeling,
well, despondent.
I am a huge fan of Rowling's seven Harry Potter books. I have also been favourably impressed with the movie adaptations of those books, even when they slowly devolved into mere "highlight reels" of the books, showing only the action sequences and little of the character development or plot complexity. Even then, the movies stayed true to the original and gave us a "Coles Notes" type review of Rowling's books.
Watching the film versions of Rowling's fourth and fifth books (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) was, to me, like watching the highlights of a fantastic baseball game on the eleven o'clock news: you see the big hits, a defensive gem or two, just enough to get the general idea of what happened.
When a game finishes 1-0 with both pitchers in top form and little in the way of hitting, the TV highlights end up shorter, with more focus on the pitchers. But what do the film makers do when the author pitches a no hitter?
That's what Rowling has handed them in her sixth novel. A gem of a book for literary purists. The book focuses on how Dumbledore sets about preparing Harry Potter for the task of defeating, fully and finally, Lord Voldemort in the seventh book. It is filled with interesting scenes and great writing, some fun character development as the three main figures reach and react to their new-found interest in romance, and very little action.
In fact, in Rowling's book, there are only two real action scenes and they come, one hard upon the other, at the end of the book. The other six hundred or so pages represent well-written back-story and character development.
It truly is the equivalent of a no hitter. If you want action, you'll hate it. If you like to see the craft of writing at its best, to read interesting character development and fascinating scenes, then you'll love it.
Director Yates, screen-writer Steve Kloves and their movie studio apparently hate well-pitched games. So they took Rowling's sixth book and said, "Yikes," then basically chucked it out the window.
Oh, they start in the same place: the wizarding world has finally accepted that Voldemort is back and at full strength. And they end in relatively the same place, with a major character dead and a war breaking out.
But everything inbetween they make up on their own. Honestly. Everything.
They invent scenes (including the first two and one already controversial one in which Bellatrix Lestrange burns down the Burrow, screaming "I killed Sirius Black", an echo of the previous movie). They revise scenes that Rowling wrote so as to completely change the motivations, tensions and long-term impacts of those scenes. They change things that do not need to be changed to translate the book into film.
It's like they're the sports editors for the eleven o'clock news and, when presented with a no-hitter, they decide to insert a couple of home runs from other games, just to make the highlights more exciting.
I might have ruined the movie for myself by seething through scene after scene that is neither based on Rowling's writing nor true to the tone, themes and characters she has worked so hard to create.
I am despondent because this movie is NOT Harry Potter. If I had not expected it to be Harry Potter, I probably would be writing right now that it was a lot of fun, filled with action and romance, great gags and some fantastically beautiful images. I would probably be writing about the pacing of the story, the camera work and framing of the action. Because all of that was exceptionally good.
But it's simply not Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It's Some Kid's Big Adventure.
If you are a Harry Potter fan and don't mind a few spoilers, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following points:
In the book, Harry hides his potions text in the Room of Requirement very carefully, so that he can find it back. He places it under a bust upon which he sets a strange tiara-like thing as a way to remind himself where he left it. This becomes very important in the seventh book because the tiara-like thing turns out to be the lost diadem of Ravenclaw and one of Voldemort's horcruxes. Harry finds it because, once he knows what the diadem looks like, he remembers seeing it. In the movie, however, it is made very clear that Harry does not want to find the book back, takes no steps to mark its place and, in fact, closes his eyes while Ginny hides it so that he won't be tempted to find it back. He never sees nor handles the tiara-like thing that turns out to be the diadem. So how will he find it in the seventh (or eighth) movie?
In the book, after they arrive at the top of the Astronomy Tower, Dumbledore takes a moment to immobilise Harry before Draco Malfoy bursts onto the scene. That decision by Dumbledore keeps Harry out of the picture as Dumbledore faces his fate but also allows Malfoy to disarm Dumbledore in his first act upon arrival at the top of the tower. Harry feels guilty later that Dumbledore chose to protect Harry rather than himself but this is part of the pattern that Harry (and later Voldemort) focus on: so many people have sacrificed themselves for Harry. In the movie, however, Dumbledore simply orders Harry to hide and not intervene. What does this do to Harry's level of guilt (now he could have acted but chose not to) and our perception of Dumbledore's character (he attempts to draw his wand later in the confrontation, in a much more aggressive move)?
And it is a key point in the six and seventh books that Dumbledore told Harry to involve Ron and Hermione in the Horcrux search, putting the three of them in a strong moral position to resist the interference of others. The filmmakers clearly make a conscious decision to leave Dumbledore's instruction to Harry out, making Ron and Hermione's participation in the Horcrux quest a voluntary matter. How will this impact the seventh movie?
There are many many more such issues but those are three that stand out for me. What do you think?
I am a huge fan of Rowling's seven Harry Potter books. I have also been favourably impressed with the movie adaptations of those books, even when they slowly devolved into mere "highlight reels" of the books, showing only the action sequences and little of the character development or plot complexity. Even then, the movies stayed true to the original and gave us a "Coles Notes" type review of Rowling's books.
Watching the film versions of Rowling's fourth and fifth books (Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire and Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix) was, to me, like watching the highlights of a fantastic baseball game on the eleven o'clock news: you see the big hits, a defensive gem or two, just enough to get the general idea of what happened.
When a game finishes 1-0 with both pitchers in top form and little in the way of hitting, the TV highlights end up shorter, with more focus on the pitchers. But what do the film makers do when the author pitches a no hitter?
That's what Rowling has handed them in her sixth novel. A gem of a book for literary purists. The book focuses on how Dumbledore sets about preparing Harry Potter for the task of defeating, fully and finally, Lord Voldemort in the seventh book. It is filled with interesting scenes and great writing, some fun character development as the three main figures reach and react to their new-found interest in romance, and very little action.
In fact, in Rowling's book, there are only two real action scenes and they come, one hard upon the other, at the end of the book. The other six hundred or so pages represent well-written back-story and character development.
It truly is the equivalent of a no hitter. If you want action, you'll hate it. If you like to see the craft of writing at its best, to read interesting character development and fascinating scenes, then you'll love it.
Director Yates, screen-writer Steve Kloves and their movie studio apparently hate well-pitched games. So they took Rowling's sixth book and said, "Yikes," then basically chucked it out the window.
Oh, they start in the same place: the wizarding world has finally accepted that Voldemort is back and at full strength. And they end in relatively the same place, with a major character dead and a war breaking out.
But everything inbetween they make up on their own. Honestly. Everything.
They invent scenes (including the first two and one already controversial one in which Bellatrix Lestrange burns down the Burrow, screaming "I killed Sirius Black", an echo of the previous movie). They revise scenes that Rowling wrote so as to completely change the motivations, tensions and long-term impacts of those scenes. They change things that do not need to be changed to translate the book into film.
It's like they're the sports editors for the eleven o'clock news and, when presented with a no-hitter, they decide to insert a couple of home runs from other games, just to make the highlights more exciting.
I might have ruined the movie for myself by seething through scene after scene that is neither based on Rowling's writing nor true to the tone, themes and characters she has worked so hard to create.
I am despondent because this movie is NOT Harry Potter. If I had not expected it to be Harry Potter, I probably would be writing right now that it was a lot of fun, filled with action and romance, great gags and some fantastically beautiful images. I would probably be writing about the pacing of the story, the camera work and framing of the action. Because all of that was exceptionally good.
But it's simply not Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince. It's Some Kid's Big Adventure.
If you are a Harry Potter fan and don't mind a few spoilers, I'm interested in your thoughts on the following points:
In the book, Harry hides his potions text in the Room of Requirement very carefully, so that he can find it back. He places it under a bust upon which he sets a strange tiara-like thing as a way to remind himself where he left it. This becomes very important in the seventh book because the tiara-like thing turns out to be the lost diadem of Ravenclaw and one of Voldemort's horcruxes. Harry finds it because, once he knows what the diadem looks like, he remembers seeing it. In the movie, however, it is made very clear that Harry does not want to find the book back, takes no steps to mark its place and, in fact, closes his eyes while Ginny hides it so that he won't be tempted to find it back. He never sees nor handles the tiara-like thing that turns out to be the diadem. So how will he find it in the seventh (or eighth) movie?
In the book, after they arrive at the top of the Astronomy Tower, Dumbledore takes a moment to immobilise Harry before Draco Malfoy bursts onto the scene. That decision by Dumbledore keeps Harry out of the picture as Dumbledore faces his fate but also allows Malfoy to disarm Dumbledore in his first act upon arrival at the top of the tower. Harry feels guilty later that Dumbledore chose to protect Harry rather than himself but this is part of the pattern that Harry (and later Voldemort) focus on: so many people have sacrificed themselves for Harry. In the movie, however, Dumbledore simply orders Harry to hide and not intervene. What does this do to Harry's level of guilt (now he could have acted but chose not to) and our perception of Dumbledore's character (he attempts to draw his wand later in the confrontation, in a much more aggressive move)?
And it is a key point in the six and seventh books that Dumbledore told Harry to involve Ron and Hermione in the Horcrux search, putting the three of them in a strong moral position to resist the interference of others. The filmmakers clearly make a conscious decision to leave Dumbledore's instruction to Harry out, making Ron and Hermione's participation in the Horcrux quest a voluntary matter. How will this impact the seventh movie?
There are many many more such issues but those are three that stand out for me. What do you think?
Miscellaney
21/06/09 08:35
It has been an interesting week. A very good
conference at my home institution has taken up a lot
of my and Patti's time, filling it with interesting
new people, much-missed old friends and fascinating
discussions.
And the birds have been active too. We had a Ruby-Throated Hummingbird come to one of our new creeping vines and an American Redstart at the feeder. Too bad on both occasions the camera was not within reach.
And I actually sat down a couple of times at the laptop to work on the Harry Potter Concordance. I'm near the beginning of The Goblet of Fire right now, which means Harry and his friends are at the Quidditch World Cup. Lots and lots of characters flit on and off stage here, many of whom never reappear but, for thoroughness' sake, I have to catalogue them all. I spent an hour and completed only four pages of the novel.
Whenever I'm conducting a mundane task (like cooking or doing dishes), I set up my portable DVD player and watch an episode of The Original Series (TOS) of Star Trek. I've watched the entire first season and eight episodes of the second so far. It's interesting to see the arc of different television series and how long it takes them to hit their stride. I think the latter half of the first and early part of the second seasons are by far the best of TOS: with the characters established and most of the technology settled, the stories are stronger and deeper.
I have also been watching out for quotes I can use in my "Star Trek on Women" film-clip montage and there is no shortage of stuff (note, these are paraphrases, not direct quotes):
1) "Brain and brain, what is brain!" from "Spock's Brain";
2) Kirk despairing about how his good female officers all leave the service once they find husbands in "Who Mourns for Adonais?";
3) The highly respected, very successful Federation peace envoy who finally admits that her life is empty without the love of a good man in "Metamorphosis"; and
4) Spock telling a visiting computer that Uhura is a woman, which explains why the computer finds her erratic and emotional.
I have to admit, when I start to line up the evidence like that, I wonder how I could possibly watch the show at all. And it was considered advanced in the 1960s.
Meanwhile, we have rain in the forecast for the next week so I may find myself with more indoor time to write or work on other creative projects. The lawn is going crazy but the garden is, for the most part, looking great.
And, of course, the US Men's Open Golf Tournament is on this weekend. Watching golf always makes me miss my Mom even more. We'd watch golf together and marvel at the greatness that is Tiger Woods or take shots at Phil Mickelson or just wonder at the beautiful weather. This is my first US Men's Open without her, the first of many other such firsts I'll have to endure.
And the birds have been active too. We had a Ruby-Throated Hummingbird come to one of our new creeping vines and an American Redstart at the feeder. Too bad on both occasions the camera was not within reach.
And I actually sat down a couple of times at the laptop to work on the Harry Potter Concordance. I'm near the beginning of The Goblet of Fire right now, which means Harry and his friends are at the Quidditch World Cup. Lots and lots of characters flit on and off stage here, many of whom never reappear but, for thoroughness' sake, I have to catalogue them all. I spent an hour and completed only four pages of the novel.
Whenever I'm conducting a mundane task (like cooking or doing dishes), I set up my portable DVD player and watch an episode of The Original Series (TOS) of Star Trek. I've watched the entire first season and eight episodes of the second so far. It's interesting to see the arc of different television series and how long it takes them to hit their stride. I think the latter half of the first and early part of the second seasons are by far the best of TOS: with the characters established and most of the technology settled, the stories are stronger and deeper.
I have also been watching out for quotes I can use in my "Star Trek on Women" film-clip montage and there is no shortage of stuff (note, these are paraphrases, not direct quotes):
1) "Brain and brain, what is brain!" from "Spock's Brain";
2) Kirk despairing about how his good female officers all leave the service once they find husbands in "Who Mourns for Adonais?";
3) The highly respected, very successful Federation peace envoy who finally admits that her life is empty without the love of a good man in "Metamorphosis"; and
4) Spock telling a visiting computer that Uhura is a woman, which explains why the computer finds her erratic and emotional.
I have to admit, when I start to line up the evidence like that, I wonder how I could possibly watch the show at all. And it was considered advanced in the 1960s.
Meanwhile, we have rain in the forecast for the next week so I may find myself with more indoor time to write or work on other creative projects. The lawn is going crazy but the garden is, for the most part, looking great.
And, of course, the US Men's Open Golf Tournament is on this weekend. Watching golf always makes me miss my Mom even more. We'd watch golf together and marvel at the greatness that is Tiger Woods or take shots at Phil Mickelson or just wonder at the beautiful weather. This is my first US Men's Open without her, the first of many other such firsts I'll have to endure.
The Dark Knight
13/06/09 18:12
We finally got around to watching The Dark
Knight this weekend. Well, actually, we
watched about a third of it before agreeing it was
one of the worst movies we've seen in a long time. So
we turned it off. Then I went back
yesterday to watch the rest, thinking it must
get better.
Nope.
Terrible throughout. In fact, it got worse. Convoluted plot, terrible acting, characters you just don't care about and the introduction of a ridiculous moral tone by the end that makes you just want to vomit. Awful awful awful awful. Worse than that.
And what is it about the Oscar-winning performance of the late and lamented Heath Ledger as the Joker that reminded me so much of "Deal or No Deal" star Howie Mandel as a very young comedian ("what? what?")?
This film should have ended at the 90-minute mark (if it had to be made in the first place) when they had the Joker in jail. But no, they have to go on for another hour with the most violent, silly plot I've ever seen. And the amazing thing is, dozens of people die and no one seems to notice. Cops in helicopters. Cops in cars, trucks and buses. And the hospital that the Joker blew up there in the middle? Gotham General, I think? Didn't it look a little too much like a parking garage as it blew into bits?
What a piece of garbage movie!
We had watched Woody Allen's quirky latest, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, the week before. Now that was a good movie. Worth every minute. Fun and weird and interesting. Great performances. Interesting characters. Well written and witty.
Kind of makes me wonder why we bother getting these high-price action flicks at all!
Oh, and by the way, check out the "Feathers In Fredericton" page of this website for a nifty new addition.
Nope.
Terrible throughout. In fact, it got worse. Convoluted plot, terrible acting, characters you just don't care about and the introduction of a ridiculous moral tone by the end that makes you just want to vomit. Awful awful awful awful. Worse than that.
And what is it about the Oscar-winning performance of the late and lamented Heath Ledger as the Joker that reminded me so much of "Deal or No Deal" star Howie Mandel as a very young comedian ("what? what?")?
This film should have ended at the 90-minute mark (if it had to be made in the first place) when they had the Joker in jail. But no, they have to go on for another hour with the most violent, silly plot I've ever seen. And the amazing thing is, dozens of people die and no one seems to notice. Cops in helicopters. Cops in cars, trucks and buses. And the hospital that the Joker blew up there in the middle? Gotham General, I think? Didn't it look a little too much like a parking garage as it blew into bits?
What a piece of garbage movie!
We had watched Woody Allen's quirky latest, Vicky Cristina Barcelona, the week before. Now that was a good movie. Worth every minute. Fun and weird and interesting. Great performances. Interesting characters. Well written and witty.
Kind of makes me wonder why we bother getting these high-price action flicks at all!
Oh, and by the way, check out the "Feathers In Fredericton" page of this website for a nifty new addition.
Film Projects
08/06/09 22:10
So now I've gotten into movie making. With iMovie on
our new iMac, our digital camera and other stuff, I'm
starting to enjoy working with moving pictures and
sound, creating interesting effects.
The only problem is, it's really time consuming. A file of my writing takes a second or so to save or print or travel by e-mail. A movie file (especially one that's in reasonable quality with sound) takes forever to do anything. Just moving a two-minute movie from our camera to iMovie takes several minutes. E-mailing it takes even longer. I'll have to learn patience, I guess.
I've even created a Youtube Channel for my creations: I'm "markwwnb" and I hope soon to be uploading little bits of film for people to enjoy. I am planning to make a trip down to McAdam soon to film a tour of the station and hotel there, for example, and I'm also thinking of creating some fun short films using clips from existing movies and TV shows.
For example, I was watching the Star Trek episode, "Who Mourns for Adonais?", and I realised it might be fun to package up all the ridiculously sexist things characters on the original series say about women. In that particular episode, Kirk bemoans losing useful female officers when they decide to get married and (of course) leave Star Fleet to take care of their husbands and babies. Later, the god Apollo says a female lieutenant is very intelligent "for a woman". And then there's "Turnabout Intruder", an interesting episode that centres on Janice Lester's frustration at being denied a starship command on the basis of her sex: a seemingly pro-woman plot is undermined by the insulting portrayal of Kirk's body as inhabited by Lester's soul.
The problem is, this new fascination with film-making is taking time away from my writing. And then there's gardening and birding.
So much to do with so little time!
The only problem is, it's really time consuming. A file of my writing takes a second or so to save or print or travel by e-mail. A movie file (especially one that's in reasonable quality with sound) takes forever to do anything. Just moving a two-minute movie from our camera to iMovie takes several minutes. E-mailing it takes even longer. I'll have to learn patience, I guess.
I've even created a Youtube Channel for my creations: I'm "markwwnb" and I hope soon to be uploading little bits of film for people to enjoy. I am planning to make a trip down to McAdam soon to film a tour of the station and hotel there, for example, and I'm also thinking of creating some fun short films using clips from existing movies and TV shows.
For example, I was watching the Star Trek episode, "Who Mourns for Adonais?", and I realised it might be fun to package up all the ridiculously sexist things characters on the original series say about women. In that particular episode, Kirk bemoans losing useful female officers when they decide to get married and (of course) leave Star Fleet to take care of their husbands and babies. Later, the god Apollo says a female lieutenant is very intelligent "for a woman". And then there's "Turnabout Intruder", an interesting episode that centres on Janice Lester's frustration at being denied a starship command on the basis of her sex: a seemingly pro-woman plot is undermined by the insulting portrayal of Kirk's body as inhabited by Lester's soul.
The problem is, this new fascination with film-making is taking time away from my writing. And then there's gardening and birding.
So much to do with so little time!
Star Trek Lives
10/05/09 18:27
My thoughts on Star Trek (2009), the new
re-booting of the Star Trek franchise,
directed by J.J. Abrams.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.
Executive Summary
While I was watching and immediately thereafter, I loved the movie. Every minute of it. It was exhilarating, interesting, fun, neat, cool, wowee. I came out of the theatre breathless. Since then, however, little things have started to bother me. Thoughts have occurred, concerns have been raised, worries have arisen.
Disclaimers
I am a Trekkie. Or a Trekker. Or a nut, a geek, a weirdo. I am committed to Star Trek (The Original Series that is, hereinafter referred to as “TOS” to differentiate it from later TV iterations) and the films that flowed from TOS. The Kirk/Spock/McCoy stories.
I have watched the 79 TOS episodes enough times that I am pretty confident in my knowledge and understanding of them. I can answer most trivia questions, as long as they are not too inane or petty (I can’t name the planets visited in each individual episode, for example). I could probably recite a pretty close approximation of the dialogue from most of TOS movies, especially II, III, IV and VI, to the point where I annoy the heck out of my partner and any one else who might watch one of the movies with me.
I don’t particularly like Star Chat: The Next Conversation, Star Trek: Deep Sleep Nine or Enterprise. Voyager had its moments. I believe that Brannon Braga and Rick Berman destroyed Star Trek by straying immediately and significantly from Gene Roddenberry’s original vision as soon as he died and I do not support their contention that TOS’s optimism would not play to a 80s or 90s audience. I think it was their commitment to making Star Trek “real” by making it dark and pessimistic that drove audiences away.
Star Trek (2009) as a Movie
This movie has it all and is well-deserving of the praise being heaped on it by professional and amateur reviewers across North America. It moves, from the first frame to the last. It features well drawn characters and surprisingly good acting performances across the board.
People who are new or fairly new to Star Trek will have no problem following the very simple plot: bad guy attacks, new recruits get called into action on an understaffed ship to repel the bad guy, people die. Lots of action, lots of funny bits, not too heavy on the message.
People who know Star Trek, once they get over their initial aversion to the new actors in well-loved roles, will like it because, while it truly re-starts the whole Kirk/Spock/McCoy story on a new track, the characters and their relationships are, for the most part, true to the original.
And it’s a darn good, entertaining story.
Actors and Roles
Simon Pegg’s Montgomery Scott is the only real miss among the re-casting of the roles. It may not be Pegg’s fault. It may just be the writing. But I can find nothing in the Montgomery Scott of the original series that suggests the laugh-a-minute character Pegg portrays.
In the cases of all the other roles, the re-casting and reformulating work for me. I like Spock as a passionate young man, caught between the two worlds. This is a Spock who still struggles with the decision to join Star Fleet and upon whom the dire events of this movie have the most significant impact. In light of his new reality, it should not surprise us that this Spock shows more fire. And Zachary Quinto is more than up to the task of this new, fiery Spock.
I very much liked how Spock's relationship with his father is consistent with the series — Sarek's absolute disdain for Spock's decision to forsake the Vulcan Science Academy for Starfleet comes through beautifully in early scenes — yet is affected in a realistic and believable manner first by the death of Amanda, Spock's human mother, and second by the destruction of the planet Vulcan and about six billion of its inhabitants: in this case, the relationship between father and son is appropriately strengthened, the anger over Spock's decision quickly vanishes, and Sarek allows his own emotional side to show much much earlier in this new reality than in the original series.
Chris Pine as Kirk works well too. Pine has that youthful arrogance, that brash confidence that Shatner’s Kirk seemed to lament losing in the movies. I can see Pine as the younger version and I think he captures the essence of James T. Kirk well.
Karl Urban is, in my opinion, slightly less effective as Leonard McCoy. His first appearance on screen comes across a bit “over the top” but he settles in nicely into the role of the folksy doctor, not entirely comfortable with technology nor with military power structures, who pledges his loyalty early to Kirk and the gang.
Zoe Saldana is a revelation as Uhura. I always liked Nichelle Nichols and her portrayal of the efficient communications officer but Saladna is given more to work with and she works it well. She’s like the uber-Uhura: smarter, more capable, more confident, sexier even. Too bad they reduce her to the trophy by the end of the movie.
John Cho does a heck of a job with the part of Sulu, another of my faves from TOS. George Takei was amazing in the role and Cho carries the torch well. As Takei did way back when, Cho plays his scenes with the big boys as an equal and he compares favourably with them. More Sulu, please.
The final regular role picked up from TOS is Anton Yelchin as Pavel Chekov. Well, to be honest, it really is Anton Yelchin as a Chekov/Wesley Crusher blend. I don’t mind Yelchin in the part but I just don’t like the part. Leave Wesley out of it, please. We don’t need a smart-alecky teenager on the bridge!
Star Trek (2009) as Star Trek
This section is not for the faint of heart nor, probably, for non-Trekkers.
First, Star Trek (2009) is Star Trek: The Wrath of Khan re-done with new actors, better effects and a brighter ship. It’s that simple. Same basic plot, similar gang of rookies, same outcome.
Second, while I accept fully (and actually embrace) that the arrival of the villain from the 24th Century on the date of Kirk’s birth in the 23rd Century changes the timeline irrevocably from that date onward, I cannot understand how the script writers could completely and totally erase Kirk’s older brother, George Samuel (see TOS episode “Operation: Annihilate”) who would have been born before the time line changed. As a result, he would exist in the movie world and should at least have been dealt with somehow (how’s that for Trekkie pickiness?).
Third, I like very much that the writers incorporated so many references and homages to TOS episodes and movies. It helps the new movie feel right. From the explanation for McCoy’s nickname to the original Spock greeting the new Kirk with “I have been and ever shall be your friend” to “I’m a doctor not a…” to Scotty crooning about coaxing more power out of the engines, there is a lot there that the Trekkie could love but that would slip right past the casual viewer. There is even a scene between Kirk and Spock that, in goal, tone and flavour, is lifted right out of TOS episode “This Side of Paradise”. And the last look we have of Christopher Pike has the great captain in a wheelchair, an interesting foreshadowing of his future fate. All good stuff.
Fourth, I agree with several critics who complained that the Enterprise is almost invisible as a character in this movie. The ship looks great but the audience is rarely treated to a full shot of this beautiful spacecraft. I am willing to admit to a certain feeling of awe as the new-look Enterprise rose majestically from the rings of Saturn halfway through the movie but that was about it for wow shots of the ship.
Fifth (and final, I promise), I like the fact that the villain, Nero, is just your average Romulan (well, just your average Romulan whose appearance resembles the villain from Star Trek: Nemesis, who wasn’t even Romulan, rather than any real Romulan we’ve ever seen). Nero is the run-of-the-mill commander of a run-of-the-mill drilling ship. In the 24th Century, he’s really a nobody. When he accidentally finds himself in the 23rd Century, however, suddenly he’s in command of the most modern ship around. It’s the technology that makes him scary, not any particular trait of his own. In fact, he’s quite banal as a person and the filmmakers don’t try to make him anything more. A refreshing change and I think a reference back to such TOS episodes as "Charlie X", "The Squire of Gothos", and even "Devil in the Dark", where the villain is just an average, flawed being trying to cope with the life he, she or it has been presented.
One Last Issue
It bothers me that Star Trek (2009) is completely lacking in strong female roles. We counted a grand total of five speaking roles for women in the entire movie: Kirk’s mom, Spock’s mom, the green woman, the Starfleet officer on the shuttle early in the movie, and Uhura.
Kirk’s mom gives birth, then disappears both from Kirk’s life and from the movie. Spock’s mom emotes, then disappears as well. The green woman is portrayed as a dim-witted sex-pot; the officer on the shuttle puts McCoy in his place and then disappears.
Even Uhura, who gets a distinct bump up in her role and expertise over TOS, ends up being little more than a prize in the on-going competition between Kirk and Spock.
It’s scary. I wondered for a while whether this seemingly deliberate choice was intended to be ironic – a send up of the lack of representation of women in leadership roles in TOS and even in TNG and the other series. I wish I could believe it. The fact of the matter is, Star Trek (2009) is a very male film. Male in flavour, male in attitude, male in on-screen representation. It’s sad, really.
Flickers of Life
05/05/09 07:14
My mind is slowly making its way back to my writing.
It's not a conscious thing: I'm not sitting around
forcing myself to think about Phillip Gold or Abigail
Massey or the Rowling world and what should happen
next to poor George. Instead, as I go about my
business, my mind is starting to go there on its own,
mostly to Gold and The Silent Goodbye.
I have been thinking about the character himself: Phillip Gold, the lone wolf, the lawyer turned investigator who does more for his clients than simply representing them in court. I like this character very much. Physically, he's based on my former law partner, Derek Fazakas, as handsome a man as you're going to find in the legal profession. Emotionally, he's more the Marlowe or Spade, a loner with his own sense of what's right and what's wrong, of justice and fairness and all that could be good in the world.
The idea for Gold sprang out of a thought I had about 15 years ago as I pondered Marlowe and Spade and the fact that it was so important to their success that they were alone in the world. I wondered to myself: has anyone ever written the story of how the loner found himself without friends, without family? As a result of that line of thinking, I sketched out a story, which eventually found the light of day as A Fleck of Gold, of how my newly minted character loses his last surviving family member, his mother, as a result of one of his own cases.
What has occurred to me recently is that I haven't done much to sketch out Phillip's current character, his interests and habits. He's not a whole person at this point, a rounded character in whom the reader can take a personal interest, can identify. I'm not asking myself to indulge in long-winded expositions on the man and his mind; I just feel I need to add a nugget of info here and there, a personal philosophy, a couple of habits, that kind of thing.
What does he do when he's nervous, for example? Does he tap his fingers, lick his lips, blink maybe? I'm not sure but my mind, at least, is working on it.
In the meantime, sore from the gardening work, I've taken time out to watch a couple of recent movies. Slumdog Millionaire first, then Marley and Me. I found Slumdog rivetting, with an interesting narrative structure based around the questions in the game show. Truly entertaining, with the opening of a suspense thriller and the finale of a romantic comedy. Neat. Marley, well, we're still trying to get through it. Owen Wilson is definitely a turnoff and the movie doesn't focus enough on the dog. We had it in the DVD player last night and have now taken two extended breaks (the second still on-going) in the middle. Clearly, we're either not that interested or we're in the wrong mood for this movie. Too bad, I was looking forward to it.
Meanwhile, my partner is helping to build the excitement around the opening of the new Star Trek movie this weekend. My brother-in-law and two nieces got the chance to see it at a sneak preview and loved it. The early reviews are all not just positive but absolutely glowing. I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend.
I have been thinking about the character himself: Phillip Gold, the lone wolf, the lawyer turned investigator who does more for his clients than simply representing them in court. I like this character very much. Physically, he's based on my former law partner, Derek Fazakas, as handsome a man as you're going to find in the legal profession. Emotionally, he's more the Marlowe or Spade, a loner with his own sense of what's right and what's wrong, of justice and fairness and all that could be good in the world.
The idea for Gold sprang out of a thought I had about 15 years ago as I pondered Marlowe and Spade and the fact that it was so important to their success that they were alone in the world. I wondered to myself: has anyone ever written the story of how the loner found himself without friends, without family? As a result of that line of thinking, I sketched out a story, which eventually found the light of day as A Fleck of Gold, of how my newly minted character loses his last surviving family member, his mother, as a result of one of his own cases.
What has occurred to me recently is that I haven't done much to sketch out Phillip's current character, his interests and habits. He's not a whole person at this point, a rounded character in whom the reader can take a personal interest, can identify. I'm not asking myself to indulge in long-winded expositions on the man and his mind; I just feel I need to add a nugget of info here and there, a personal philosophy, a couple of habits, that kind of thing.
What does he do when he's nervous, for example? Does he tap his fingers, lick his lips, blink maybe? I'm not sure but my mind, at least, is working on it.
In the meantime, sore from the gardening work, I've taken time out to watch a couple of recent movies. Slumdog Millionaire first, then Marley and Me. I found Slumdog rivetting, with an interesting narrative structure based around the questions in the game show. Truly entertaining, with the opening of a suspense thriller and the finale of a romantic comedy. Neat. Marley, well, we're still trying to get through it. Owen Wilson is definitely a turnoff and the movie doesn't focus enough on the dog. We had it in the DVD player last night and have now taken two extended breaks (the second still on-going) in the middle. Clearly, we're either not that interested or we're in the wrong mood for this movie. Too bad, I was looking forward to it.
Meanwhile, my partner is helping to build the excitement around the opening of the new Star Trek movie this weekend. My brother-in-law and two nieces got the chance to see it at a sneak preview and loved it. The early reviews are all not just positive but absolutely glowing. I'm looking forward to seeing it this weekend.