Warning: I don't know what you've heard about this one, but the following review contains spoilers.
Overrated. Groundbreaking? I don't think so. It's clever, no doubt. A good idea. But a good movie? As a horror fan, watching it is like getting a slap in the face. As a member of the horror audience, I am not so stupid as to not have already figured out that horror movies are fantasies constructed by dev teams, and not realistic portrayals of the world and the way people interact (usually). I also understand, already, that people who watch horror movies demand certain things - like sex and violence. That's the point. Telling us that we're pitiable for it is an insult.
Also, as a horror fan, though I am not overly critical of horror cliches (else why would I be a horror fan?), I am not a mindless zombie. I appreciate movies that deviate from formula! If anything, the "ancient gods" represent not the horror fan but the mindless consumer, and this whole movie is a parody of consumer entertainment, happening to focus on the particular genre of horror (by incidence). People who complain that horror is schlock are just as annoying as the people who complain ceaselessly that rock is dead (instead of, you know, writing some songs and starting a rock band). Anyway, it's not a good horror movie (although I don't think it was trying to be) because it's neither insightful nor scary.
The back story of the Buckner family? Fascinating! Too bad it was only a device to introduce another boring set of zombies (the monsters were all cheapened by their disposable, interchangeable, commodified quality). I would enjoy a movie about the Buckner family before they died (and why were they zombies anyway?). Sure, horror movies about inbred rednecks are a dime a dozen, but the sexual overtones that hint at extreme sadism? It just seems like topics like these are treated as cliches, but nobody has the balls to deal with them seriously - or at least noone with the talent to pull it off.
An underground facility that traps all sorts of horror monsters, dishing them out to people based on associated relics in the cabin's basement? Another fascinating idea! But we only get to see one iteration, and when all hell breaks loose, it's just a craptastic CGI fest. Although, the unicorn was pretty awesome. And when the merman crawled through the haze to finish off the one suit - poetic justice. Now if the movie had more of that - people meeting their personal nightmares (or, more likely in this case, the monster of their dreams - something every experienced horror fan has) - it would have been a whole lot more entertaining. Those are good ideas.
Character tropes annoy me as much as anyone. Marty would have been an awesome trope inversion (as would most of the cast) in a serious horror film. I get it - people don't fit into neat little labeled boxes. And anyway, do friend groups really diversify that much? Isn't it more accurate that the stoners hang out with the stoners, the jocks hang out with the jocks, and the nerds hang out with the nerds?
I understand this movie is pointing out the flaw in that logic, but as an audience member, I'm one of the people complaining about those tropes! If anything, the 'ancient gods' are the studios, and the stupid advertising teams, that may know with some accuracy what it takes to turn a profit, but don't know shit about good art (because fans are not the same thing as consumers). I would be much more comfortable, as a self-respecting horror fan, taking this movie as a send-up to Hollywood, and not the mass audiences who view these movies.
I don't know. It's hard for me to know how to feel about this movie. As I said, it's a clever idea, but I'm not sold on the execution. And the implications it makes are strong but not entirely clear. I guess it could successfully sell itself as a critical or parody film, and it certainly had no shortage of humor, but as a horror film, I'm not satisfied. And if it's trying to make some kind of statement about the state of the horror genre, I find it more than a little bit presumptuous.
There's nothing about reality TV or torture porn at all that spells out 'bad horror' - it's people who don't have their hearts in it copying other people who do to make a profit. And while The Cabin in the Woods may be a more or less original idea, it doesn't break new ground by rehashing all the ideas we've seen before. I don't want to watch a movie telling me what's wrong with movies, I want to watch a movie that shows me - whether any other movie has shown me in just that way before or not - what it is about the movie medium that's so magical and entertaining. In other words, I want to see a good movie, not watch some navel-gazing meta amateur attempt at allegory.
But wait, there's more!
Friday, October 26, 2012
Wednesday, October 24, 2012
Carrie (1976)
Carrie is a movie I had seen before, but so long ago, it seemed due for a reappraisal, especially in light of the new remake starring Chloe Moretz that's rumored to be in development. It's a great Stephen King story, and a classic of the horror genre. Interesting is the fact that pretty much all of the villains are female. You have Carrie, who is a sort of anti-hero, with her emerging adolescent psychic abilities, and her mom, a rabidly sex-negative religious fundamentalist, and the bullies at school who are predominantly female. There are some guys who are jerks, but they're pretty much along for the ride, the girls are the ones in charge. You'd almost be tempted to call it a feminist movie, except that few of the characters are genuinely likable.
And for a movie where the horror generates almost exclusively from sexual anxiety, the opening scene in the girls' locker room is refreshingly idyllic (at least until Carrie makes her unfortunate discovery). It may be heavily inspired by male fantasy - young girls giggling and playfully teasing one another, half-dressed or naked from just stepping out of the group shower - but I don't care, I appreciated it greatly. And the willingness of Sissy Spacek - who is just fantastic in the role of the awkward (but not unattractive) titular teen - to bare all (or most) for the role enhances my appreciation of the movie (and respect for the actress) enormously.
Carrie's psychotically religious mother is played well by Piper Laurie, although it occurred to me that she might be even more horrific if she played a more realistic portrayal of a religious lunatic. It's just a thought, but true religious fanatics may be rare (I would hope), but I could imagine a more believably devout character being just as abusive toward Carrie, especially in matters of sexual education, given our culture's great shame on that topic.
One strike against the film that I have is the too-heavy reliance on the shrieking sound effect that was famously utilized in Psycho. It's a good device, but too much of it just draws your attention to it. And it dates the film a bit, although that's not the only detail that contributes to that. Still, the climactic scene where Carrie explodes at the prom is just such an iconic and almost archetypal (in totally relatable fashion) expression of high school bully revenge fantasy, that despite the dating, it is oh so satisfying to watch. Still, even though I'm usually wary of remakes, I think this is one movie that could do well to be updated for a modern audience, provided it's in good hands. Though perhaps my appreciation for Chloe Moretz as an actress (I love her fearlessness in the face of doing horror roles) is influencing that opinion. ;-)
And for a movie where the horror generates almost exclusively from sexual anxiety, the opening scene in the girls' locker room is refreshingly idyllic (at least until Carrie makes her unfortunate discovery). It may be heavily inspired by male fantasy - young girls giggling and playfully teasing one another, half-dressed or naked from just stepping out of the group shower - but I don't care, I appreciated it greatly. And the willingness of Sissy Spacek - who is just fantastic in the role of the awkward (but not unattractive) titular teen - to bare all (or most) for the role enhances my appreciation of the movie (and respect for the actress) enormously.
Carrie's psychotically religious mother is played well by Piper Laurie, although it occurred to me that she might be even more horrific if she played a more realistic portrayal of a religious lunatic. It's just a thought, but true religious fanatics may be rare (I would hope), but I could imagine a more believably devout character being just as abusive toward Carrie, especially in matters of sexual education, given our culture's great shame on that topic.
One strike against the film that I have is the too-heavy reliance on the shrieking sound effect that was famously utilized in Psycho. It's a good device, but too much of it just draws your attention to it. And it dates the film a bit, although that's not the only detail that contributes to that. Still, the climactic scene where Carrie explodes at the prom is just such an iconic and almost archetypal (in totally relatable fashion) expression of high school bully revenge fantasy, that despite the dating, it is oh so satisfying to watch. Still, even though I'm usually wary of remakes, I think this is one movie that could do well to be updated for a modern audience, provided it's in good hands. Though perhaps my appreciation for Chloe Moretz as an actress (I love her fearlessness in the face of doing horror roles) is influencing that opinion. ;-)
Monday, October 22, 2012
Paranormal Activity 4 (2012)
As far as I'm concerned, Paranormal Activity 4 was a flop. The first entry in the series was brilliant, and gave me nightmares. The second entry accomplished the nigh impossible task of living up to the reputation of its predecessor, and I recall sitting through that one in the theater with a constant adrenaline buzz. The third entry was a misstep, taking a wild left turn in the department of plot development, but still had some genuinely scary moments. This fourth entry in the series, however, offers very little in terms of good scares, and in the process of trying to develop the plot further, really screws itself over.
Paranormal Activity was good, because it was extremely simple. A young couple is haunted by paranormal activity in their house. And the point of the film was to display some of that paranormal activity and scare the crap out of the audience - which worked, because that stuff is genuinely terrifying (unless you're the kind of person who just isn't scared by that sort of thing). I understand that you can only do the same thing so many times before people get bored (although the advertising for these Paranormal Activity movies is dreadfully repetitive), and I actually welcome the approach of giving the series some mythology and plot development through the sequels.
The revelation at the end of PA3 was pretty wild, but it didn't turn me off completely. The problem with PA4 is that it doesn't make any damn sense. The plot's becoming too convoluted, with not enough expository information, and it really seems to me that the people working on these later sequels do not know how to tell a story. Why was Hunter adopted? Who the hell is Robbie? Is there one demon or two? Is Katie possessed, and if so, by who, if not the demon (or can he possess multiple people?), and if not, where does she get her supernatural powers? They hint at a lot of this mythology with the whole "witches coven, circle in a triangle symbol" (brief) dialogue, but they don't give any answers.
Things like this are fascinating when you can put the pieces together, not when you don't know what the hell's going on. And I understand that there is definitely some value - especially from a horror standpoint - in confusion and uncertainty, and a film shouldn't give all its secrets away too soon, but when you throw in certain plot points that don't make sense - either you give the audience some way of working it out, or it's just plain bad writing. I don't think the filmmakers necessarily did anything absolutely wrong in terms of the direction they're taking this story, but I just get the impression that they're just not very good at what they're doing.
On the other hand, they made the excellent choice of casting a gorgeous blonde teenager (who may or may not play the role of the sacrificial virgin) in one of the main roles in this movie. She was a delight to watch on webcam. I realize this is pretty much exploitation of a pretty girl for ratings (intentional or not - but I'm not that naive), but hey, who am I to complain about a pretty face? Given that PA4 works so poorly as a Paranormal Activity movie, I would have been more satisfied if they had just named it Normal Activity and stuck to voyeuristic shots of Alex in her bedroom.
Paranormal Activity was good, because it was extremely simple. A young couple is haunted by paranormal activity in their house. And the point of the film was to display some of that paranormal activity and scare the crap out of the audience - which worked, because that stuff is genuinely terrifying (unless you're the kind of person who just isn't scared by that sort of thing). I understand that you can only do the same thing so many times before people get bored (although the advertising for these Paranormal Activity movies is dreadfully repetitive), and I actually welcome the approach of giving the series some mythology and plot development through the sequels.
The revelation at the end of PA3 was pretty wild, but it didn't turn me off completely. The problem with PA4 is that it doesn't make any damn sense. The plot's becoming too convoluted, with not enough expository information, and it really seems to me that the people working on these later sequels do not know how to tell a story. Why was Hunter adopted? Who the hell is Robbie? Is there one demon or two? Is Katie possessed, and if so, by who, if not the demon (or can he possess multiple people?), and if not, where does she get her supernatural powers? They hint at a lot of this mythology with the whole "witches coven, circle in a triangle symbol" (brief) dialogue, but they don't give any answers.
Things like this are fascinating when you can put the pieces together, not when you don't know what the hell's going on. And I understand that there is definitely some value - especially from a horror standpoint - in confusion and uncertainty, and a film shouldn't give all its secrets away too soon, but when you throw in certain plot points that don't make sense - either you give the audience some way of working it out, or it's just plain bad writing. I don't think the filmmakers necessarily did anything absolutely wrong in terms of the direction they're taking this story, but I just get the impression that they're just not very good at what they're doing.
On the other hand, they made the excellent choice of casting a gorgeous blonde teenager (who may or may not play the role of the sacrificial virgin) in one of the main roles in this movie. She was a delight to watch on webcam. I realize this is pretty much exploitation of a pretty girl for ratings (intentional or not - but I'm not that naive), but hey, who am I to complain about a pretty face? Given that PA4 works so poorly as a Paranormal Activity movie, I would have been more satisfied if they had just named it Normal Activity and stuck to voyeuristic shots of Alex in her bedroom.
How's that for a scary movie? :p
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Stone Unturned
The impetus for this compilation was a comment I made about the excellent tracks in The Rolling Stones' discography that weren't popular hits, which came out of a discussion over the tracklist of the Stones' Forty Licks, a pretty decent two-disc collection of their greatest hits, spanning pretty much their entire catalog, at least up until the year it was released, 2002 - before A Bigger Bang, incidentally. So I went through my collection of Stones albums (not complete, by any stretch), and picked out my favorite songs that do NOT turn up on the tracklist of Forty Licks, and that I don't think were ever big hits on the charts (although some of them may have had some play on the groovier radio stations).
One thing I realized when putting together this compilation, which I have dubbed 'Stone Unturned' in reference to the Stones songs that don't get as much attention (with relative obscurity balanced reasonably by quality - that is, I wanted a collection of great songs, not a collection of the most obscure songs), is that I'd like to fill in my discography between the Stones' first few albums that I have, and the golden era that covers Beggars Banquet through about Goats Head Soup. After that, I'm less enthusiastic, because quite frankly, the Stones' output has never been quite as good since the mid-'70s (although 2005's A Bigger Bang was a breath of fresh air).
I felt that Little Red Rooster, being one of my favorites, was enough representation of the early era, because I wanted to save lots of space for the Stones' golden age. That the albums most represented on this comp are Let It Bleed and Sticky Fingers just goes to show the quality of those albums. Then, of course, there is Exile on Main St., but I've always had a hard time extracting tracks from that record, because it works so well on its own, with the songs in their context. But with so little of it mined for pop hits (the exceptions being only Happy and Tumbling Dice, a measly two from a double album during the Stones' heyday), it was rife for some representation on my compilation.
Fingerprint File is as much representation as I need from the Stones' latter genre-experimentation period (disco and '80s and all that), being an excellent song and no later than 1974. I threw in Cocksucker Blues at the end just for fun. All in all, I think it's a pretty awesome mix of music, although the perfect Stones comp would blend tracks like these with the best of their pop hits, because sometimes - even I have to admit - the masses do appreciate things that are genuinely good (somehow). But for its limits, I think this is a pretty damn good disc to listen to!
Here's the tracklist, for your consideration:
1. Little Red Rooster
2. Stray Cat Blues
3. Love In Vain
4. Midnight Rambler
5. Monkey Man
6. Sway
7. Can't You Hear Me Knocking
8. Sister Morphine
9. Dead Flowers
10. Rocks Off
11. Rip This Joint
12. All Down The Line
13. Dancing With Mr. D
14. Star Star
15. Fingerprint File
16. Cocksucker Blues
Crazy Horse Tour 2012
They say you can never predict what Neil Young's next move is going to be. A conventional Crazy Horse tour is certainly not what I was expecting at this late stage in the game, but it sure was a long time due, and is much (much!) appreciated by this Neil Young fan (who happens to consider Neil's Crazy Horse output the best of his extensive recorded catalog). The last time I saw Crazy Horse was an almost unbelievable nine years ago for the Greendale Tour - and while that was an unforgettable experience (like seeing Pink Floyd tour for The Wall), it didn't leave much room for Crazy Horse to do their typical thing - which, essentially, is huddle together on stage and just jam on some classics.
Along with the tour comes not one, but TWO new Crazy Horse albums! The first, that has already been released, is a concept album called Americana, on which the band put their usual spin on a number of traditional American folk tunes. The concept is brilliant, although - given the source material - I wasn't super impressed with it on first listen, and I felt it lacked what Crazy Horse does best - that is, long, meandering instrumental jams. Of course, over time, the album has certainly grown on me, and I can really appreciate the way Neil and the Horse have taken these old songs (songs like Oh Susannah, and Oh My Darling, Clementine) and really made them sound like their own, and also turned them into very suitable rock n roll tunes.
The other album the Horse is releasing is called Psychedelic Pill, and is due out by the end of the month, I believe. It's supposed to be a more traditional Crazy Horse album, with original material and even some long meandering jams! Needless to say, I'm looking forward to hearing it. And in fact, it is the album Crazy Horse is more directly supporting on their live tour, one night of which I had the great fortune to attend. My enthusiasm for seeing live bands on tour has waned somewhat after outliving the novelty of the experience around the 5+ year mark, and with my talent at playing guitar leading me to a stage where I'm more enthusiastic about playing music than watching others play it. However, being one of my favorite rock bands of all time, Crazy Horse was absolutely worth driving out of my way to see.
With my small band of dedicated Neil fans, we arrived at the venue, and skipped out on the opening act(s?) to take in the sight of the crowds milling about the indoor events center. To my surprise, there were actually a lot of younger people (as in, young adults) in the audience, despite Crazy Horse totally being a bit of an old hippie band. I wonder how much of that is due to Neil's influence on the younger generations (that would be exciting), and how much is due to the concert taking place on a university campus. Either way, it was fun to watch the people, and also see the different band and tour shirts people were wearing. I didn't see a single other person (beside myself) wearing a Greendale t-shirt (although that doesn't mean they weren't out there).
I imagine some people must have been disappointed at the Greendale show, since Neil only had time for about three classics, after doing the whole Greendale stage show thing. I would have to agree that I would have liked to have heard more classics (part of the reason I was at this show tonight), with the caveat that it was more than worth it to sacrifice that for the once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to see Neil Young perform Greendale - one of my favorite albums of all time, not just in Neil's discography - live and in person. But this time things were to be a little more traditional (at least as far as Neil's antics can be considered traditional).
We entered the stadium to the sound of the national anthem, and saw the huge amp props on the stage, and the eclectic mix of characters front and center, and the Crazy Horse emblem hanging on a backdrop at the back of the stage. This show was going to be equal parts Rust Never Sleeps, Weld, and Year of the Horse, Neil's most iconic live tours with Crazy Horse. The giant amps on the stage immediately recalled the cover of the Weld live album, while the roaming mad scientists and roadies dressed like construction workers revived a little of the spirit of Rust Never Sleeps. And with the band huddled together center stage to jam on their first song, with the Crazy Horse emblem at their backs, it felt like this was the Year of the Horse all over again - and certainly, it was a fantastic place to be at a fantastic time to be a Crazy Horse fan.
The first song they played was one of my favorites from Ragged Glory (also represented live on Weld) - Love And Only Love - an excellent jam track. God, seeing those sights, and hearing those sounds, it was incredible - I almost couldn't believe that was Neil Young and Crazy Horse up on stage, doing just what they were legendary (among fans) for! I really appreciate hearing Love And Only Love, and I felt it was an excellent song to open the show with. They followed that up with Powderfinger, which is another really good song - this one from Rust Never Sleeps, although one of the few I had heard live once before at the Greendale show. Still, it's a great song, one that I even like to play on guitar.
Peppered throughout the setlist that night was a healthy helping of tracks from the upcoming Psychedelic Pill album. The first of which was a tune called Born In Ontario, which sounds like a bit of a biographical song, in which Neil sings proudly of his Canadian heritage - though not without appreciation for his more-or-less adopted hometown of the U.S.A. One of the (over-priced) tour shirts on display at the merch tables was an image of the Statue of Liberty's face with makeup painted over it, and the Canadian flag design underneath, with the text "alchemy never works". On the contrary, I think Neil's adoption into the culture and politics of the U.S.A. is working extremely well, and I love him for it.
The next song was another track from Psychedelic Pill, a monster of a tune called Walk Like A Giant. Reviewers have described the album and its songs as a bit of a look-back on the idealism of the sixties, and the direction we've headed since then, potentially a sort of companion to Neil's new retrospective memoir, Waging Heavy Peace. I'll wait till I get the album to dig too deeply into the concepts, but musically, Walk Like A Giant was a great Crazy Horse piece. The best part was at the very end, when the band went into a sort of musical trance, using their instruments and extreme feedback to mimic the sound of a giant's colossal footsteps crashing rhythmically through the land. It was fantastic.
With the feedback squealing by the end of it in almost apocalyptic fashion, I thought to myself, it would be just perfect if Neil broke into the lyrical lead guitar melody that opens Like A Hurricane on Live Rust just then. That turned out to be a little too optimistic as next Neil went into a short acoustic set. I wouldn't have expected it, given that Crazy Horse is all about being Neil's electric band, though in all fairness, the iconic Rust Never Sleeps was half solo acoustic in addition to being half rockin' Crazy Horse. Anyway, I think it was an excuse to play an acoustic number from their new album, a song called Twisted Road which I recall to have the cliched lyric "let the good times roll". But before that, we heard the very familiar sound clip from Woodstock about the rain, which Neil used all the way back during the Rust Never Sleeps tour (just more to evoke memories of Crazy Horse's history) which led into Neil playing The Needle and the Damage Done.
I wasn't too miffed about Neil slipping in a song from Harvest during a Crazy Horse concert - that is a good one, after all - and the acoustic set was thankfully brief. After that, it was back to long, meandering jams, with another track from Psychedelic Pill - a tune called Ramada Inn, which seems thematically to be about what a reviewer has called "mature love". I suppose it ties in to Neil's mindset, especially with the whole memoir/looking back thing. One thing I noticed about this concert is that Neil seems very unselfconscious, which I think is great. Back on the Greendale tour, he made some cryptic comment about taking his hat off, that I interpreted to be self-consciousness about starting to go bald (which could itself be a symbol for growing old). In any case, Neil seems proud to be exactly who he is today, and it shows in the enthusiasm for his playing with his old familiar band, which ironically makes him seem younger!
Apparently, the track Ramada Inn is a good 17 or so minutes long. It definitely seemed to go on for a while, but I pretty much chalked that up to Neil stretching it out in a jam context. Actually, I'm excited to learn that it's really that long even in the studio version, which I heard on YouTube and think sounds great. It was long at the concert, but in a way that didn't feel overlong. Appropriately long, I guess. After all, these are largely all long jam-type songs. It didn't even feel like it had been a whole two hours after the band was finished, especially given that the longer songs means a smaller setlist. But before getting to that point, the next song up was a short one but a good one, digging all the way back to Crazy Horse's first album with Neil Young - Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere. And the song was Cinnamon Girl (unfortunately not Down By The River or Cowgirl in the Sand, both of which I'd love to hear live), a true classic.
Fuckin' Up (another one from Ragged Glory) is a really good song, and one with a catchy riff that sounds great played live. I could tell the band was having fun on this one. At one point towards the end, Neil walked up to the microphone and announced to us that they'd fucked up the ending. In another context, that might be annoying, but this was Crazy Horse - a jam band. Part of the fun is going with the flow and the energy of the song and seeing where it takes you. Watching Neil play with this band, I can imagine it's a whole lot of fun. It doesn't surprise me that he keeps coming back to them - the thing that surprises me is that he doesn't play with them more often. Nine years between tours? Neil could probably tour yearly or semi-yearly with this band, and get plenty of people to come and hear them do his classics. Of course, Neil doesn't like to be stuck in a rut, no matter how comfy that rut is, and that's part of what makes him such a brilliant artist, so I wouldn't have it any other way.
The set nearly finished with the title track from Psychedelic Pill, which sounded like a more or less traditional straight-up song, that Neil introduced as a song that pretty much sounds like so many others. It's that "all one song" mentality again. I guess some people would get annoyed at that, too, but I view it as Neil embracing the truth of human creativity instead of trying to pretend it's anything more than it really is. He's one man, with a certain style, and of course a lot of his songs are going to sound similar. That doesn't necessarily mean they're repetitive, although if they are, so be it. Take the ones you like, and leave the rest. And human expression itself so frequently aims for the same old themes - think of how many songs there are about love and, as Neil explained this one, beautiful women. If you don't like it, then what the hell are you listening to music for? Just another thing I love about Neil's approach, that makes him such a genuine artist - the kind that's down-to-earth and approachable, not the upscale hoity-toity kind.
The very last song of the set was the classic Crazy Horse cruncher, introduced on Rust Never Sleeps and represented again on Weld - Hey Hey, My My (from the Into The Black album :p - just kidding). This is a song with a fantastic riff, and an appropriate closer for the show. Minus the encore, of course. Which is really less of an encore than a "give the band time to pee before coming back and doing their last song", but again, so be it. Descending from the rafters was that iconic and curious keyboard, decked out like a wounded dove or a bleeding angel or some such. The same one we saw in the rafters after the Greendale show - that the band didn't use. The flying keyboard that indicated the band was going to play Like A Hurricane.
After Greendale, when I realized the band had been prepared to play that song but didn't, I was devastated. That's one of the greatest songs in Neil's entire discography, and a Crazy Horse staple. What's more, that show ended early, without even an encore. Well, tonight was the time for retribution. I finally got to hear Neil Young & Crazy Horse play Like A Hurricane - starting with that iconic lead line. After the band's final jam, they bowed out and the mad scientists and construction workers took the stage to box up the oversized stage amps. The lights came on and the crowds began to filter out. It was a fantastic experience, well worth the trouble of making it out there.
Setlist:
Love And Only Love
Powderfinger
Born In Ontario
Walk Like A Giant
The Needle And The Damage Done
Twisted Road
Ramada Inn
Cinnamon Girl
Fuckin' Up
Psychedelic Pill
Hey Hey, My My
encore: Like A Hurricane
Along with the tour comes not one, but TWO new Crazy Horse albums! The first, that has already been released, is a concept album called Americana, on which the band put their usual spin on a number of traditional American folk tunes. The concept is brilliant, although - given the source material - I wasn't super impressed with it on first listen, and I felt it lacked what Crazy Horse does best - that is, long, meandering instrumental jams. Of course, over time, the album has certainly grown on me, and I can really appreciate the way Neil and the Horse have taken these old songs (songs like Oh Susannah, and Oh My Darling, Clementine) and really made them sound like their own, and also turned them into very suitable rock n roll tunes.
The other album the Horse is releasing is called Psychedelic Pill, and is due out by the end of the month, I believe. It's supposed to be a more traditional Crazy Horse album, with original material and even some long meandering jams! Needless to say, I'm looking forward to hearing it. And in fact, it is the album Crazy Horse is more directly supporting on their live tour, one night of which I had the great fortune to attend. My enthusiasm for seeing live bands on tour has waned somewhat after outliving the novelty of the experience around the 5+ year mark, and with my talent at playing guitar leading me to a stage where I'm more enthusiastic about playing music than watching others play it. However, being one of my favorite rock bands of all time, Crazy Horse was absolutely worth driving out of my way to see.
With my small band of dedicated Neil fans, we arrived at the venue, and skipped out on the opening act(s?) to take in the sight of the crowds milling about the indoor events center. To my surprise, there were actually a lot of younger people (as in, young adults) in the audience, despite Crazy Horse totally being a bit of an old hippie band. I wonder how much of that is due to Neil's influence on the younger generations (that would be exciting), and how much is due to the concert taking place on a university campus. Either way, it was fun to watch the people, and also see the different band and tour shirts people were wearing. I didn't see a single other person (beside myself) wearing a Greendale t-shirt (although that doesn't mean they weren't out there).
We entered the stadium to the sound of the national anthem, and saw the huge amp props on the stage, and the eclectic mix of characters front and center, and the Crazy Horse emblem hanging on a backdrop at the back of the stage. This show was going to be equal parts Rust Never Sleeps, Weld, and Year of the Horse, Neil's most iconic live tours with Crazy Horse. The giant amps on the stage immediately recalled the cover of the Weld live album, while the roaming mad scientists and roadies dressed like construction workers revived a little of the spirit of Rust Never Sleeps. And with the band huddled together center stage to jam on their first song, with the Crazy Horse emblem at their backs, it felt like this was the Year of the Horse all over again - and certainly, it was a fantastic place to be at a fantastic time to be a Crazy Horse fan.
The first song they played was one of my favorites from Ragged Glory (also represented live on Weld) - Love And Only Love - an excellent jam track. God, seeing those sights, and hearing those sounds, it was incredible - I almost couldn't believe that was Neil Young and Crazy Horse up on stage, doing just what they were legendary (among fans) for! I really appreciate hearing Love And Only Love, and I felt it was an excellent song to open the show with. They followed that up with Powderfinger, which is another really good song - this one from Rust Never Sleeps, although one of the few I had heard live once before at the Greendale show. Still, it's a great song, one that I even like to play on guitar.
Peppered throughout the setlist that night was a healthy helping of tracks from the upcoming Psychedelic Pill album. The first of which was a tune called Born In Ontario, which sounds like a bit of a biographical song, in which Neil sings proudly of his Canadian heritage - though not without appreciation for his more-or-less adopted hometown of the U.S.A. One of the (over-priced) tour shirts on display at the merch tables was an image of the Statue of Liberty's face with makeup painted over it, and the Canadian flag design underneath, with the text "alchemy never works". On the contrary, I think Neil's adoption into the culture and politics of the U.S.A. is working extremely well, and I love him for it.
The next song was another track from Psychedelic Pill, a monster of a tune called Walk Like A Giant. Reviewers have described the album and its songs as a bit of a look-back on the idealism of the sixties, and the direction we've headed since then, potentially a sort of companion to Neil's new retrospective memoir, Waging Heavy Peace. I'll wait till I get the album to dig too deeply into the concepts, but musically, Walk Like A Giant was a great Crazy Horse piece. The best part was at the very end, when the band went into a sort of musical trance, using their instruments and extreme feedback to mimic the sound of a giant's colossal footsteps crashing rhythmically through the land. It was fantastic.
With the feedback squealing by the end of it in almost apocalyptic fashion, I thought to myself, it would be just perfect if Neil broke into the lyrical lead guitar melody that opens Like A Hurricane on Live Rust just then. That turned out to be a little too optimistic as next Neil went into a short acoustic set. I wouldn't have expected it, given that Crazy Horse is all about being Neil's electric band, though in all fairness, the iconic Rust Never Sleeps was half solo acoustic in addition to being half rockin' Crazy Horse. Anyway, I think it was an excuse to play an acoustic number from their new album, a song called Twisted Road which I recall to have the cliched lyric "let the good times roll". But before that, we heard the very familiar sound clip from Woodstock about the rain, which Neil used all the way back during the Rust Never Sleeps tour (just more to evoke memories of Crazy Horse's history) which led into Neil playing The Needle and the Damage Done.
I wasn't too miffed about Neil slipping in a song from Harvest during a Crazy Horse concert - that is a good one, after all - and the acoustic set was thankfully brief. After that, it was back to long, meandering jams, with another track from Psychedelic Pill - a tune called Ramada Inn, which seems thematically to be about what a reviewer has called "mature love". I suppose it ties in to Neil's mindset, especially with the whole memoir/looking back thing. One thing I noticed about this concert is that Neil seems very unselfconscious, which I think is great. Back on the Greendale tour, he made some cryptic comment about taking his hat off, that I interpreted to be self-consciousness about starting to go bald (which could itself be a symbol for growing old). In any case, Neil seems proud to be exactly who he is today, and it shows in the enthusiasm for his playing with his old familiar band, which ironically makes him seem younger!
Apparently, the track Ramada Inn is a good 17 or so minutes long. It definitely seemed to go on for a while, but I pretty much chalked that up to Neil stretching it out in a jam context. Actually, I'm excited to learn that it's really that long even in the studio version, which I heard on YouTube and think sounds great. It was long at the concert, but in a way that didn't feel overlong. Appropriately long, I guess. After all, these are largely all long jam-type songs. It didn't even feel like it had been a whole two hours after the band was finished, especially given that the longer songs means a smaller setlist. But before getting to that point, the next song up was a short one but a good one, digging all the way back to Crazy Horse's first album with Neil Young - Everybody Knows This Is Nowhere. And the song was Cinnamon Girl (unfortunately not Down By The River or Cowgirl in the Sand, both of which I'd love to hear live), a true classic.
Fuckin' Up (another one from Ragged Glory) is a really good song, and one with a catchy riff that sounds great played live. I could tell the band was having fun on this one. At one point towards the end, Neil walked up to the microphone and announced to us that they'd fucked up the ending. In another context, that might be annoying, but this was Crazy Horse - a jam band. Part of the fun is going with the flow and the energy of the song and seeing where it takes you. Watching Neil play with this band, I can imagine it's a whole lot of fun. It doesn't surprise me that he keeps coming back to them - the thing that surprises me is that he doesn't play with them more often. Nine years between tours? Neil could probably tour yearly or semi-yearly with this band, and get plenty of people to come and hear them do his classics. Of course, Neil doesn't like to be stuck in a rut, no matter how comfy that rut is, and that's part of what makes him such a brilliant artist, so I wouldn't have it any other way.
The set nearly finished with the title track from Psychedelic Pill, which sounded like a more or less traditional straight-up song, that Neil introduced as a song that pretty much sounds like so many others. It's that "all one song" mentality again. I guess some people would get annoyed at that, too, but I view it as Neil embracing the truth of human creativity instead of trying to pretend it's anything more than it really is. He's one man, with a certain style, and of course a lot of his songs are going to sound similar. That doesn't necessarily mean they're repetitive, although if they are, so be it. Take the ones you like, and leave the rest. And human expression itself so frequently aims for the same old themes - think of how many songs there are about love and, as Neil explained this one, beautiful women. If you don't like it, then what the hell are you listening to music for? Just another thing I love about Neil's approach, that makes him such a genuine artist - the kind that's down-to-earth and approachable, not the upscale hoity-toity kind.
The very last song of the set was the classic Crazy Horse cruncher, introduced on Rust Never Sleeps and represented again on Weld - Hey Hey, My My (from the Into The Black album :p - just kidding). This is a song with a fantastic riff, and an appropriate closer for the show. Minus the encore, of course. Which is really less of an encore than a "give the band time to pee before coming back and doing their last song", but again, so be it. Descending from the rafters was that iconic and curious keyboard, decked out like a wounded dove or a bleeding angel or some such. The same one we saw in the rafters after the Greendale show - that the band didn't use. The flying keyboard that indicated the band was going to play Like A Hurricane.
After Greendale, when I realized the band had been prepared to play that song but didn't, I was devastated. That's one of the greatest songs in Neil's entire discography, and a Crazy Horse staple. What's more, that show ended early, without even an encore. Well, tonight was the time for retribution. I finally got to hear Neil Young & Crazy Horse play Like A Hurricane - starting with that iconic lead line. After the band's final jam, they bowed out and the mad scientists and construction workers took the stage to box up the oversized stage amps. The lights came on and the crowds began to filter out. It was a fantastic experience, well worth the trouble of making it out there.
Setlist:
Love And Only Love
Powderfinger
Born In Ontario
Walk Like A Giant
The Needle And The Damage Done
Twisted Road
Ramada Inn
Cinnamon Girl
Fuckin' Up
Psychedelic Pill
Hey Hey, My My
encore: Like A Hurricane
Friday, August 3, 2012
Batman Marathon
All this Batman talk got me thinking about the older Batman movies. I'd seen Batman and Batman Returns many years ago as a kid, and sat down much later to watch Batman Forever at one point because I wanted to see The Riddler in movie form (although I wasn't very impressed). Then I realized, I'd never actually seen Batman & Robin. Of course, its reputation is generally terrible, and that probably has something to do with it, but I've always liked Mr. Freeze, and when I noticed (from the cover) that Poison Ivy and Batgirl both are in it, I figured, as a Batman fan, even if it's terrible, I have to watch it at least once. And having just marathoned the newer Dark Knight trilogy this past weekend, it seemed a perfect opportunity to go back and marathon the rest of the old Batman movies, too, in prep for seeing Batman & Robin. I'll record some of my thoughts about the movies as I go through them.
Batman (1989)
Batman hasn't aged very well. The movie has more of a fantasy feeling, especially in contrast to Nolan's Batman trilogy. The newer Batman saga seems as if it could be a more mature version of the story, made for adults who grew up with Tim Burton's Batman movies (and therefore, perfect for me). I remember really liking Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker, even to the point of being hesitant to like Heath Ledger's new Joker in The Dark Knight, but now going back again, my appreciation for Heath Ledger's Joker has grown so much that Jack Nicholson can't hold a candle to him. Jack's got a great laugh for the character, and he plays up the whimsical joke side well, which is probably more in tune with some other interpretations of the character, but honestly, I really like the more serious Joker of The Dark Knight (guess that's proof that I've grown up).
Casting for Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent in this movie reinforce the feelings I have about how good the casting for those characters is in Nolan's trilogy. I didn't even realize that was Gary Oldman (hello, Sirius Black) playing Gordon in the new Batman movies - he just looked so perfectly like Gordon, that I didn't even consider him as an actor! And Aaron Eckhart made an excellent Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight - handsome, charismatic, just the kind of public face you want to trust. Ironic that watching this old Batman movie just makes me think about how good the new Batman movies are, but that's how it goes.
Batman Returns (1992)
I like Batman Returns a lot better than Batman. I think I always have. It doesn't feel quite as dated, has a more interesting story line, and the Penguin, as envisioned here, is an excellent villain (who, unlike Jack Nicholson's slapstick Joker, possesses my kind of intelligent, cynical humor). Christopher Walken makes a fiendish Max Shreck, and Michelle Pfeiffer turns in a wonderful performance as the mentally unbalanced Catwoman. With her it goes without saying, but I'm surprised at just how blatantly sexual the innuendo in this movie is, between Catwoman's obvious wiles and the Penguin's shameless perversity. Actually, there's an interesting scene where Catwoman turns down the Penguin's sexual advances, and he tries to kill her out of spite, that to my academic mind just screams an excellent example of victim-blaming (if you look and act all sexy, like the Catwoman does, then any man you come across is gonna think he's entitled to your body, and god help you if you don't give it to him). Gosh, Catwoman - sexy, and a feminist! That warms my heart. <3
Batman Forever (1995)
Batman Forever definitely has a different feeling from the previous two films, what with Tim Burton passing off the directorial duty and Val Kilmer (somewhat odd choice) stepping into the role of Batman. But I'm not sure I can articulate what that difference is - it's less gothic, more cartoony, I guess. There are parts that are really not all that bad (damn, Nicole Kidman is hot!), but so much of it has me rolling my eyes. Like, there are way too many stupid jokes that just aren't funny. And villain-wise, Two Face hardly has any background at all, except via a short TV spot that you could almost miss, long after he's been introduced. It's like, you're just being handed these villains without having them built up for you - and while any Batman fan worth his salt will already know the story, it doesn't contribute to a very engrossing or moving tale.
The Riddler, on the other hand, gets a full build-up, but I don't know that I like his characterization here. He's way too manic, instead of being a cool, detached genius - I suppose Jim Carrey wasn't the best casting choice, in hindsight. And it's too bad, because The Riddler has always been one of my favorite Batman villains (in the old days, I liked him even better than The Joker, despite The Joker's greater popularity). That's probably partly why I was so eager to see Nolan tackle The Riddler in his Batman trilogy - I wanted to see justice done to the character - but, alas, it was not to be. Both of the villains in this movie laugh way too much, by the way - it's ridiculous. With The Joker, that's normal - he's supposed to laugh a lot. But that's not supposed to be the prototype for all Batman villains. It sounds like Two Face and The Riddler are perpetually high on laughing gas...
Batman & Robin (1997)
Batman & Robin is way too flashy. It's beginning to feel like just another flavor of the week film and not a movie with real substance. If Val Kilmer was an odd choice for Batman, George Clooney is stranger still (I can see him as a cool psychopath a la From Dusk Till Dawn, but here he's too calm and fatherly, there's no dark side, he's not intimidating as The Batman). Mr. Freeze is an awesome villain, though. Unfortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger's relentless action hero quips and terrible puns really undermine and cheapen the tragic nature of his character. This movie plays a lot like a silly Blockbuster vehicle to deliver cheap laughs and unrealistic action scenes (and push product lines), and that's disappointing. Cloud surfing? Really? "Cowabunga?" Seriously?
I could say this about Batman Forever, also, but though Robin acts like a stereotypical teenage brat, he sure doesn't look like a teenager. I was really excited to see Poison Ivy in a Batman movie, but Uma Thurman oversells it to an embarrassing degree. Her antics would be charming in a 12 year old girl, but she's a grown professional. She doesn't have to act like a sexy woman, she could just be one. And I had high hopes for Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. I would have thought she'd be a perfect match for the role (she was totally sexy and sassy in those Aerosmith music videos), but, alas, her performance fell rather flat. It's no surprise at all that this movie sunk the Batman franchise (although it wouldn't have surprised me, either, if it had been a financial success, and spawned yet more crappy sequels - so too often goes public opinion/marketing directives); thank heavens for Christopher Nolan stepping in to reboot the series and begin anew with a much higher quality product. As for this stinker, I'll just leave you with four words: fluffy pink gorilla suit.
Batman (1989)
Batman hasn't aged very well. The movie has more of a fantasy feeling, especially in contrast to Nolan's Batman trilogy. The newer Batman saga seems as if it could be a more mature version of the story, made for adults who grew up with Tim Burton's Batman movies (and therefore, perfect for me). I remember really liking Jack Nicholson's portrayal of The Joker, even to the point of being hesitant to like Heath Ledger's new Joker in The Dark Knight, but now going back again, my appreciation for Heath Ledger's Joker has grown so much that Jack Nicholson can't hold a candle to him. Jack's got a great laugh for the character, and he plays up the whimsical joke side well, which is probably more in tune with some other interpretations of the character, but honestly, I really like the more serious Joker of The Dark Knight (guess that's proof that I've grown up).
Casting for Jim Gordon and Harvey Dent in this movie reinforce the feelings I have about how good the casting for those characters is in Nolan's trilogy. I didn't even realize that was Gary Oldman (hello, Sirius Black) playing Gordon in the new Batman movies - he just looked so perfectly like Gordon, that I didn't even consider him as an actor! And Aaron Eckhart made an excellent Harvey Dent in The Dark Knight - handsome, charismatic, just the kind of public face you want to trust. Ironic that watching this old Batman movie just makes me think about how good the new Batman movies are, but that's how it goes.
Batman Returns (1992)
I like Batman Returns a lot better than Batman. I think I always have. It doesn't feel quite as dated, has a more interesting story line, and the Penguin, as envisioned here, is an excellent villain (who, unlike Jack Nicholson's slapstick Joker, possesses my kind of intelligent, cynical humor). Christopher Walken makes a fiendish Max Shreck, and Michelle Pfeiffer turns in a wonderful performance as the mentally unbalanced Catwoman. With her it goes without saying, but I'm surprised at just how blatantly sexual the innuendo in this movie is, between Catwoman's obvious wiles and the Penguin's shameless perversity. Actually, there's an interesting scene where Catwoman turns down the Penguin's sexual advances, and he tries to kill her out of spite, that to my academic mind just screams an excellent example of victim-blaming (if you look and act all sexy, like the Catwoman does, then any man you come across is gonna think he's entitled to your body, and god help you if you don't give it to him). Gosh, Catwoman - sexy, and a feminist! That warms my heart. <3
Batman Forever (1995)
Batman Forever definitely has a different feeling from the previous two films, what with Tim Burton passing off the directorial duty and Val Kilmer (somewhat odd choice) stepping into the role of Batman. But I'm not sure I can articulate what that difference is - it's less gothic, more cartoony, I guess. There are parts that are really not all that bad (damn, Nicole Kidman is hot!), but so much of it has me rolling my eyes. Like, there are way too many stupid jokes that just aren't funny. And villain-wise, Two Face hardly has any background at all, except via a short TV spot that you could almost miss, long after he's been introduced. It's like, you're just being handed these villains without having them built up for you - and while any Batman fan worth his salt will already know the story, it doesn't contribute to a very engrossing or moving tale.
The Riddler, on the other hand, gets a full build-up, but I don't know that I like his characterization here. He's way too manic, instead of being a cool, detached genius - I suppose Jim Carrey wasn't the best casting choice, in hindsight. And it's too bad, because The Riddler has always been one of my favorite Batman villains (in the old days, I liked him even better than The Joker, despite The Joker's greater popularity). That's probably partly why I was so eager to see Nolan tackle The Riddler in his Batman trilogy - I wanted to see justice done to the character - but, alas, it was not to be. Both of the villains in this movie laugh way too much, by the way - it's ridiculous. With The Joker, that's normal - he's supposed to laugh a lot. But that's not supposed to be the prototype for all Batman villains. It sounds like Two Face and The Riddler are perpetually high on laughing gas...
Batman & Robin (1997)
Batman & Robin is way too flashy. It's beginning to feel like just another flavor of the week film and not a movie with real substance. If Val Kilmer was an odd choice for Batman, George Clooney is stranger still (I can see him as a cool psychopath a la From Dusk Till Dawn, but here he's too calm and fatherly, there's no dark side, he's not intimidating as The Batman). Mr. Freeze is an awesome villain, though. Unfortunately, Arnold Schwarzenegger's relentless action hero quips and terrible puns really undermine and cheapen the tragic nature of his character. This movie plays a lot like a silly Blockbuster vehicle to deliver cheap laughs and unrealistic action scenes (and push product lines), and that's disappointing. Cloud surfing? Really? "Cowabunga?" Seriously?
I could say this about Batman Forever, also, but though Robin acts like a stereotypical teenage brat, he sure doesn't look like a teenager. I was really excited to see Poison Ivy in a Batman movie, but Uma Thurman oversells it to an embarrassing degree. Her antics would be charming in a 12 year old girl, but she's a grown professional. She doesn't have to act like a sexy woman, she could just be one. And I had high hopes for Alicia Silverstone as Batgirl. I would have thought she'd be a perfect match for the role (she was totally sexy and sassy in those Aerosmith music videos), but, alas, her performance fell rather flat. It's no surprise at all that this movie sunk the Batman franchise (although it wouldn't have surprised me, either, if it had been a financial success, and spawned yet more crappy sequels - so too often goes public opinion/marketing directives); thank heavens for Christopher Nolan stepping in to reboot the series and begin anew with a much higher quality product. As for this stinker, I'll just leave you with four words: fluffy pink gorilla suit.
Thursday, August 2, 2012
The Dark Knight Trilogy
In the immediate wake of viewing a blockbuster film like The Dark Knight Rises, my usual instinct is to want to write up a review. But honestly - and I swear this is entirely unrelated to the fact that I've gotten out of the habit of writing reviews regularly these past few months :p - I'm not sure I could write anything substantially different or more interesting than what a thousand other reviewers are probably already writing, and it almost seems pointless to write anything if all it consists of is "awesome movie, P.S. Catwoman was hot". But, I did just re-watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight in preparation for seeing the conclusion to the trilogy, so I thought maybe it would be the perfect opportunity for me to - briefly - consider Christopher Nolan's Batman saga as a whole, and explain what I liked about it (as I did, very much, like it).
(Spoilers ahead!)
First and foremost, I like that Nolan approached the saga from a very serious perspective, with an emphasis on realism. Batman was always on the grittier and more serious end of the superhero spectrum (and is largely the reason I've liked him above and beyond most superheros), and so it's quite fitting. But even beyond that, it's fascinating to see Batman and Gotham City's charismatic villains interpreted as if they were real people with relatively realistic means and motives, as opposed to a campy caped crusader fighting colorful cartoon criminals.
Batman Begins (2005)
The beauty of Batman Begins is largely in the psychological background that provides Bruce Wayne's motivation to become Batman, as well as his psychological struggle against his fears, and his desire for justice. Fear (and overcoming it) is the overarching theme, reflected also in the character of The Scarecrow, whom I enjoyed very much seeing for the first time in a big screen Batman movie. Another of the successes of Nolan's Batman franchise was his successful combination of more and less popular Batman villains - creating a balance between the faces Batman fans wanted to see, and some of the less popular villains that nevertheless suited the movie's themes most perfectly.
Take Ra's al Ghul, for example. I hold no claim to diehard Batman fandom, not being an avid comic reader, but I'd like to consider myself more than just a casual fan, having grown up with the live action TV series and the acclaimed animated series (as well as the previous movie adaptations), but Ra's al Ghul doesn't stand out in my mind as being one of the quintessential Batman villains (maybe he just wasn't iconic enough). Yet in Batman Begins he takes on a position of primary importance, featuring prominently in Batman's origin arc, and setting up the conflict that bookends the movie series - that of Gotham vs. the League of Shadows. It works really well, and it also serves to give the movie a flavor of authenticity - "we're using the villain that suits the story, not just the one who's the flashiest."
The Dark Knight (2008)
That having been said, you can't have Batman without The Joker, and the second movie in the trilogy, The Dark Knight, features two of the saga's most iconic villains (the other one, in this case, being Two Face). The beauty of The Dark Knight, in my opinion, is in the ideas it confronts, both in the comparison between Batman, The Dark Knight, and Harvey Dent, Gotham's White Knight, and also in the character of The Joker himself. All hype aside, Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is excellent, and the villain's role in the series is unique. He is the wild card, the psychotic who does not desire money or power or notoriety - he just wants to watch the world burn, and not for allegedly altruistic historical reasons, but just to show that it can. Batman Begins tackles the political philosophies of crime and justice, while The Dark Knight confronts anarchy, and the darkness within the hearts of all men.
Meanwhile, Harvey Dent's meteoric rise as a political celebrity after making unprecedented headway on cleaning the streets of Gotham City throws Batman's own vigilante actions into doubt and suspicion. Gotham needs a hero with a face, accountable for his actions, while Batman is willing to become a villain in the eyes of the public because he needs the advantages that only being outside the realm of law can provide. This theme is revisited in The Dark Knight Rises, as Batman's unknowing protégé, Officer "Robin" Blake, eventually comes to the same conclusion about the obstacle that rules present in the way of justice.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
But the purpose of The Dark Knight Rises is to conclude Batman's story arc, and in that process we're treated to a revival of the League of Shadows subplot, in the midterm aftermath of the late Harvey Dent's effective cleansing of Gotham's streets. But under those streets a new threat is growing, in the form of Bane, another less than iconic Batman villain (impressively constructed in this adaptation) who nevertheless poses a major threat to Gotham City, and who is able to go so far as to overpower an aging and weary Batman in sheer brute strength, and very nearly succeed in his plan to raze Gotham to the ground, after already turning the city's political order on its head.
Batman recruits some doubtful aid, however, in the form of a truly iconic Batman character, the not-quite-hero, not-quite-villain Catwoman. Here she is played to excellent effect by Anne Hathaway, who manages to do the character full justice, without stepping on the toes of (or trying to outdo) Michelle Pfeiffer's unforgettable previous performance in that role. Eventually, the loose ends are tied up, Gotham is saved once more, and Batman retires (for good this time) and starts a new life away from the troubles of his hometown. The city finally recognizes unambiguously the service Batman has paid to them, and a new light shines with a promise of protection from potential future threats.
The trilogy finished, I am left partly satisfied, and partly desiring for more. There are so many other iconic characters to tackle! The Riddler, The Penguin, Poison Ivy, Batgirl, Harley Quinn (I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal, who played Rachel Dawes opposite The Joker in The Dark Knight, would have made a perfect Harley Quinn, and so was considerably disappointed when the movie failed to go that route). I realize that if they kept pumping out movies just for the sake of bringing these characters to life, the quality of those movies would probably suffer, and that that's probably largely what destroyed the previous Batman movie franchise (that, or Tim Burton's lack of involvement in the latter sequels). But my desire to see these characters reinterpreted in a new age, from the serious and realistic perspective that Nolan has brought to the saga, is strong. I may have to go back and re-watch those older movies just to satisfy my craving, for whatever good that may do...
(Spoilers ahead!)
First and foremost, I like that Nolan approached the saga from a very serious perspective, with an emphasis on realism. Batman was always on the grittier and more serious end of the superhero spectrum (and is largely the reason I've liked him above and beyond most superheros), and so it's quite fitting. But even beyond that, it's fascinating to see Batman and Gotham City's charismatic villains interpreted as if they were real people with relatively realistic means and motives, as opposed to a campy caped crusader fighting colorful cartoon criminals.
Batman Begins (2005)
The beauty of Batman Begins is largely in the psychological background that provides Bruce Wayne's motivation to become Batman, as well as his psychological struggle against his fears, and his desire for justice. Fear (and overcoming it) is the overarching theme, reflected also in the character of The Scarecrow, whom I enjoyed very much seeing for the first time in a big screen Batman movie. Another of the successes of Nolan's Batman franchise was his successful combination of more and less popular Batman villains - creating a balance between the faces Batman fans wanted to see, and some of the less popular villains that nevertheless suited the movie's themes most perfectly.
Take Ra's al Ghul, for example. I hold no claim to diehard Batman fandom, not being an avid comic reader, but I'd like to consider myself more than just a casual fan, having grown up with the live action TV series and the acclaimed animated series (as well as the previous movie adaptations), but Ra's al Ghul doesn't stand out in my mind as being one of the quintessential Batman villains (maybe he just wasn't iconic enough). Yet in Batman Begins he takes on a position of primary importance, featuring prominently in Batman's origin arc, and setting up the conflict that bookends the movie series - that of Gotham vs. the League of Shadows. It works really well, and it also serves to give the movie a flavor of authenticity - "we're using the villain that suits the story, not just the one who's the flashiest."
The Dark Knight (2008)
That having been said, you can't have Batman without The Joker, and the second movie in the trilogy, The Dark Knight, features two of the saga's most iconic villains (the other one, in this case, being Two Face). The beauty of The Dark Knight, in my opinion, is in the ideas it confronts, both in the comparison between Batman, The Dark Knight, and Harvey Dent, Gotham's White Knight, and also in the character of The Joker himself. All hype aside, Heath Ledger's performance as The Joker is excellent, and the villain's role in the series is unique. He is the wild card, the psychotic who does not desire money or power or notoriety - he just wants to watch the world burn, and not for allegedly altruistic historical reasons, but just to show that it can. Batman Begins tackles the political philosophies of crime and justice, while The Dark Knight confronts anarchy, and the darkness within the hearts of all men.
Meanwhile, Harvey Dent's meteoric rise as a political celebrity after making unprecedented headway on cleaning the streets of Gotham City throws Batman's own vigilante actions into doubt and suspicion. Gotham needs a hero with a face, accountable for his actions, while Batman is willing to become a villain in the eyes of the public because he needs the advantages that only being outside the realm of law can provide. This theme is revisited in The Dark Knight Rises, as Batman's unknowing protégé, Officer "Robin" Blake, eventually comes to the same conclusion about the obstacle that rules present in the way of justice.
The Dark Knight Rises (2012)
But the purpose of The Dark Knight Rises is to conclude Batman's story arc, and in that process we're treated to a revival of the League of Shadows subplot, in the midterm aftermath of the late Harvey Dent's effective cleansing of Gotham's streets. But under those streets a new threat is growing, in the form of Bane, another less than iconic Batman villain (impressively constructed in this adaptation) who nevertheless poses a major threat to Gotham City, and who is able to go so far as to overpower an aging and weary Batman in sheer brute strength, and very nearly succeed in his plan to raze Gotham to the ground, after already turning the city's political order on its head.
Batman recruits some doubtful aid, however, in the form of a truly iconic Batman character, the not-quite-hero, not-quite-villain Catwoman. Here she is played to excellent effect by Anne Hathaway, who manages to do the character full justice, without stepping on the toes of (or trying to outdo) Michelle Pfeiffer's unforgettable previous performance in that role. Eventually, the loose ends are tied up, Gotham is saved once more, and Batman retires (for good this time) and starts a new life away from the troubles of his hometown. The city finally recognizes unambiguously the service Batman has paid to them, and a new light shines with a promise of protection from potential future threats.
The trilogy finished, I am left partly satisfied, and partly desiring for more. There are so many other iconic characters to tackle! The Riddler, The Penguin, Poison Ivy, Batgirl, Harley Quinn (I thought Maggie Gyllenhaal, who played Rachel Dawes opposite The Joker in The Dark Knight, would have made a perfect Harley Quinn, and so was considerably disappointed when the movie failed to go that route). I realize that if they kept pumping out movies just for the sake of bringing these characters to life, the quality of those movies would probably suffer, and that that's probably largely what destroyed the previous Batman movie franchise (that, or Tim Burton's lack of involvement in the latter sequels). But my desire to see these characters reinterpreted in a new age, from the serious and realistic perspective that Nolan has brought to the saga, is strong. I may have to go back and re-watch those older movies just to satisfy my craving, for whatever good that may do...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)