Every single piece of Avengers hyperbole you've heard is entirely accurate.
It's a ridiculously great spectacle, which if your name is not Chris Nolan is all you should be aiming to make when you helm a superhero movie. It draws from the best of Marvel traditions, with worlds colliding and massive battles and classic inter-squad squabbles. It benefits hugely from not having to be any kind of origin film: the only new element we hadn't seen in the previous installments of the Marvel filmiverse is the Chitauri, and you don't really need to explain their motivations or where they came from. They're just Loki's ugly evil invading force.
It also did something else though: it made me understand why people went apeshit over Superman in 1978.
Superman's never really connected with me for a couple of reasons, but the main one was that I didn't grow up reading DC comics. Sure, I knew who Supes and Bats and the rest were, but they weren't my scene as a kid. I made mine Marvel. And so, while so many other people were all "Oh wow, I never thought I'd ever see this on the big screen" with the Donner Superman, I was just kinda "Yeah, that's cool, I guess."
Avengers, far moreso than any other Marvel filmiverse entry to date, made me go "Oh wow, I never thought I'd ever see this on the big screen."
I'm not just talking about finally getting a version of the Hulk everyone can get behind. I'm talking about the real Marvel fanboy elements. We get to see the SHIELD Helicarrier!!! We get to see Hulk vs Thor and Thor vs Iron Man slugfests!!!! The obligatory Marvel post-film teaser contains fucking [spoiler redacted]!!!!!! Is it a perfect film? Of course not. Neither was Superman. But in every crucial way it's the big superhero team-up film I've always carried around in my head, and it's now escaped from my head.
And that's what makes it the second-most important superhero film ever after Superman. Just as Superman laid the groundwork for thirty years of superhero movies, suddenly Avengers has given us a template for the next thirty. Suddenly, there's hope for a Justice League movie. Suddenly, I'm actually glad that X-Men 3 fucked up the Phoenix Saga, because solid as Singer's set-up for it was in X2 there's now a way that it can be done properly in the inevitable next iteration of the team. Hell, suddenly really crazy stuff like the Secret Wars and [redacted; see redacted spoiler above] and a Teen Titans Trigon movie and, I dunno, a Valiant universe is on the table. Suddenly, the idea of a sprawling cosmic superhero epic isn't just a pipe dream. (And incidentally, the lack of ambition in that pathetic excuse for a Green Lantern movie looks even worse in comparison.)
In short, as they did in 1978, the rules just changed on what can be accomplished with superhero movies. Full credit to Marvel Studios and Joss Whedon for pulling off something that once upon a time I thought could never be done.
Now let's see who picks up that gauntlet...
April Travesties
Between having a job I actually take semi-seriously and my fragile innards, looks like the teens are the new standard... just 14 songs belted out in April.
All Right Now - Free
Black - Pearl Jam
Boys Are Back In Town - Thin Lizzy
Dream Weaver - Gary Wright
Goodbye Stranger - Supertramp
Inner City Blues - Marvin Gaye
Jackson - Johnny Cash & June Carter (duet w/Laura)
Night They Drove Old Dixie Down - The Band
Sweet Home Alabama - Lynyrd Skynyrd
Tom Sawyer - Rush
Valerie - Zutons
Wild Horses - Rolling Stones
You've Got To Hide Your Love Away - Beatles
Young Americans - David Bowie
Scratch Rubio Off Your Romney Veep Lists
Fallows reports that Rubio committed a cardinal conservative sin... admitting that the Obama administration might have gotten something right:
In this new century, more than ever before, America should work with our capable allies in finding solutions to global problems. Not because America has gotten weaker, but because our partners have grown stronger. It's worth pointing out, that is not a new idea for us. Our greatest successes have always occurred in partnership with other like-minded nations. America has acted unilaterally in the past - and I believe it should continue to do so in the future -- when necessity requires. But our preferred option since the U.S. became a global leader has been to work with others to achieve our goals. So yes, global problems do require international coalitions. On that point this administration is correct.
Romney's going to have enough trouble keeping the peons rabble GOP rank and file in line without having a running mate prone to saying non-inflammatory things about the Kenyan-in-Chief. Of course Rubio might be just smart enough to realize that, and decided to sabotage his chances of being asked rather than having to officially turn down the opportunity to wear Romney's doomed run like an albatross around his neck for the rest of his career.
We Protect Our Own
So a couple of days ago, a story did the rounds about a couple who were held at gunpoint by their new neighbours in Georgia after purchasing a foreclosed home:
Jean Kalonji came over to America from the Congo. The local George Zimmerman wannabes, of course, didn't.
The Newton County Sheriff's Office has apparently come to their senses on this one, though:
The Kalonji family had just closed on a foreclosed home and were told by their real estate agent they should go over to the house and change the locks.
But when Jean Kalonji and his wife, Angelica, started working at the home, an armed man and another person who appeared to be the man’s son allegedly confronted them.
“He say to put the hands up and get out from the house, otherwise he would shoot us,” the husband told Channel 2.
The neighbors didn’t believe the couple when they told them they had bought the home and called the Newton County Sheriff’s Office. The Kalonjis didn’t have the closing papers with them, so deputies arrested them, charged them with loitering and prowling and took them to jail.
Jean Kalonji came over to America from the Congo. The local George Zimmerman wannabes, of course, didn't.
The Newton County Sheriff's Office has apparently come to their senses on this one, though:
A Newton County man and his son who authorities said held a gun on the new owners of a neighboring home were arrested Monday night and charged with aggravated assault, false imprisonment and criminal trespass.Porterdale resident Robert Canoles said he has no second thoughts about interrupting what he thought was a robbery in progress Thursday night at his neighbor's house -- though he is now facing criminal charges just days after deputies lauded his armed response.Hooray, I guess? It's hard to get too excited when the armed folk were allowed to walk while the unarmed folk were arrested by the officers on the scene, especially given the pictures of each couple at that second AJC link, but at least someone eventually made the right call. This is the part that made me sick to my stomach though:
Canoles said he and his teenage son heard noises from the once-foreclosed home next door, vacant for seven months. They grabbed their AR-15s and snuck up behind a man and woman fiddling with the front door lock.
"I don't know what they can charge me with," Canoles said late Monday afternoon, before the interview with authorities. "This is my Second Amendment right. Look, this is the country out here, and we protect our own."You can try to read that as neighbours watching out for neighbours. You can try to assume that if Jean Kalonji had actually been Jan Kruger, a white middle-aged immigrant from South Africa, he would have gotten the same reception from Canoles. But it's a very difficult assumption to make.
Eris Works In Chartreuse Ways
For once, I have a smidge of faith in modern education. (h/t Boing Boing)
Of course parents are reacting with "horror" to a little bit of chaos being introduced into their nice orderly testing system. How dare their children be exposed to anything creative? How dare they be made aware of the fact that there's anything going on outside the box?
Of course parents are reacting with "horror" to a little bit of chaos being introduced into their nice orderly testing system. How dare their children be exposed to anything creative? How dare they be made aware of the fact that there's anything going on outside the box?
“I think it’s weird that they put such a silly question on a state test. What were they thinking?” said Bruce Turley, 14, an eighth-grader at Lower Manhattan Community Middle School.
The important thing is what you're thinking, Bruce, not what they're thinking. That one question probably did more to prepare you for life than the entire rest of the test.
Also, the person at Pearson who decided to sneak even some watered-down Daniel M Pinkwater into that test deserves a raise. And then should probably be let go. And then get another raise.
Cabin In the Woods: Third Viewing Thoughts (More Spoilers)
Yeah, I know, I'm pathetic.
Two things, specifically, jumped out at me this time:
- the rank incompetence of the American team. The Ancient Ones cause a minor earthquake immediately after Hadley marks Marty's "kill", but they don't take the hint or investigate why the gods might be displeased. The tunnel doesn't collapse as scheduled, but the demolition team doesn't think to tell anyone about it. Marty ends up getting rid of the doctored weed, and they doesn't find out until it's too late to do anything about it. It never occurs to them to put fake stars under the dome to allay suspicion, or install cameras in the elevator shaft. Etc etc. Sure, to some extent these are 'necessary' lapses to drive the plot, but they also serve as a critique of bureaucracies... and, by extension, the difficulties in keeping everyone motivated and focused during the filmmaking process. In any large organization working on a project for a long period of time, it becomes so easy to cut corners and half-ass things that it's sometimes a wonder anything ever gets accomplished.
- if you were going to assign the roles of Virgin, Whore, Athlete and Scholar to the following kids, who would get which role?:
Virgin/Whore: the smart, funny girl in a committed relationship, vs the girl who just had an affair with her professor who says she "knew what she was getting into"
Athlete/Scholar: the sociology major versed in Soviet economic theory, vs the football team's star wide receiver
The film deliberately sets up that each male/female pair eventually embody the opposite role from what you might expect based on their introductions, and yet we end up more or less accepting the way they act at the cabin: more in the case of Dana and Curt, less in the case of Holden (where did those glasses come from, anyway?) The glorious exception is Jules, who with repeated viewings has become my favourite character of the five. She completely subverts her 'Whore' role, from her over-the-top parody of a makeout session with the wolf head, to the sheer amount of 'coaching' she needs from Downstairs to finally be willing to have sex in the woods and fulfill her role in the ritual. Plus, she gets so many good lines at the beginning of the film, from "Unworthy of global positioning" to the note-perfect "I learned it from watching you!" play-fight between her and Curt which brilliantly sketches out the nature of their relationship in about ten seconds. Anna Hutchison deserves major, major props for her performance. It's not as showy as Fran Kranz's Marty, but it's arguably just as important to the movie in terms of prepping the audience for the deeper genre deconstructions to come. It's a hell of an introduction to the world for a former Yellow Cheetah Ranger.
Joss, please find work for Hutchison in your next project, whatever it is.
Two things, specifically, jumped out at me this time:
- the rank incompetence of the American team. The Ancient Ones cause a minor earthquake immediately after Hadley marks Marty's "kill", but they don't take the hint or investigate why the gods might be displeased. The tunnel doesn't collapse as scheduled, but the demolition team doesn't think to tell anyone about it. Marty ends up getting rid of the doctored weed, and they doesn't find out until it's too late to do anything about it. It never occurs to them to put fake stars under the dome to allay suspicion, or install cameras in the elevator shaft. Etc etc. Sure, to some extent these are 'necessary' lapses to drive the plot, but they also serve as a critique of bureaucracies... and, by extension, the difficulties in keeping everyone motivated and focused during the filmmaking process. In any large organization working on a project for a long period of time, it becomes so easy to cut corners and half-ass things that it's sometimes a wonder anything ever gets accomplished.
- if you were going to assign the roles of Virgin, Whore, Athlete and Scholar to the following kids, who would get which role?:
Virgin/Whore: the smart, funny girl in a committed relationship, vs the girl who just had an affair with her professor who says she "knew what she was getting into"
Athlete/Scholar: the sociology major versed in Soviet economic theory, vs the football team's star wide receiver
The film deliberately sets up that each male/female pair eventually embody the opposite role from what you might expect based on their introductions, and yet we end up more or less accepting the way they act at the cabin: more in the case of Dana and Curt, less in the case of Holden (where did those glasses come from, anyway?) The glorious exception is Jules, who with repeated viewings has become my favourite character of the five. She completely subverts her 'Whore' role, from her over-the-top parody of a makeout session with the wolf head, to the sheer amount of 'coaching' she needs from Downstairs to finally be willing to have sex in the woods and fulfill her role in the ritual. Plus, she gets so many good lines at the beginning of the film, from "Unworthy of global positioning" to the note-perfect "I learned it from watching you!" play-fight between her and Curt which brilliantly sketches out the nature of their relationship in about ten seconds. Anna Hutchison deserves major, major props for her performance. It's not as showy as Fran Kranz's Marty, but it's arguably just as important to the movie in terms of prepping the audience for the deeper genre deconstructions to come. It's a hell of an introduction to the world for a former Yellow Cheetah Ranger.
Joss, please find work for Hutchison in your next project, whatever it is.
Cabin In the Woods: Random Spoilery Thoughts
Seen the film? Read my spoiler-free review yet? I hope the answer to both is yes because I'm not going to re-hash what I said in the review, and there's a couple of very specific things I want to say about Cabin that require revealing things that should not be revealed in advance.
Seriously, you've been warned.
Last chance, Turn back now. The next paragraph will lead with a HUGE SPOILER. OMG THIS WILL RUIN THE MOVIE IF YOU READ IT FIRST.
Actually that was a total lie. But there will be spoilers coming very soon.
- Having now seen it twice (and likely going back for a third shot in a few days) I think I understand why the film isn't going to be a huge box office hit. The fact of the matter is, Cabin In the Woods is a lousy horror movie.
Now, don't get me wrong. It's a great movie, one that's amazingly clever and that works on multiple levels, filled with outstanding performances and ideas. But on its most basic level, as a horror movie, it falls flat. It's neither particularly scary nor very gory.
Consider the scene where Jules gets her head sawed off. It's classic soft sell editing: quick shots between her face in close up looking terrified and that of Curt being forced to watch, with the saw blade then coming into camera in front of her face, then a reverse shot and a spray of blood. You don't even see the saw cut into her flesh, much less the actual decapitation. And while that might be an artistic choice, it undercuts one of the major themes of the movie - namely that the slaughter is being done for the titillation of an audience (whether the Ancient Ones themselves, or the typical horror film demographic). We get the obligatory 'boobies' shot, but the nuts and bolts money shots of a horror film, the kills themselves, are mostly lacking. Of course there's the unleashed mayhem of the final act to help make up for that, but even then other than things like the awesome death-by-unicorn scene very few of those kills are shown in much detail.
That's the main reason, I think, that the audience reaction is lagging behind the critical one (81% vs 93% on Rotten Tomatoes as of last night). Horror fans going in expecting nothing more than a horror film with a twist ending, which is what the ad campaign is promising, could very well be hugely disappointed by the actual movie they get, which is a comedy-thriller about horror films and not a horror film itself.
- In addition to being a film about horror films, Cabin is rapidly on its way to being one of my favourite films about filmmaking. Don't pretend you're shocked by that interpretation. They call Sigourney Weaver's character the Director, for pity's sake. Jenkins, Whitford, Acker et al are clearly the crew and special effects team, while Dana and crew are the cast. And as I noted above, all the dialogue referencing the fact that 'someone's watching' play just as well as applying to the asses in the seats watching Cabin as they do to the gods Downstairs.
- It's been ages since I've seen a proper Snake Plissken ending. So much of the movie hinges on free will and choice, and the fact that Dana and Marty choose to let the world end was the only possible ending that would have been satisfying. Had the film been French, I could have seen it ending with Dana plugging Marty after all, then a flash-forward to the next ritual where she's now filling one of the control chairs, but that would have been an even more cynical conclusion than the one we actually got.
It also ties in neatly with one of the sneakiest undercurrents to Cabin, which is that's it's not just a "love letter" to horror movies but an actual defense of their place in the cultural sphere. Think about it: from a purely plot perspective, in Cabin horror films (or at least horror film-like scenarios) are saving the world, and the world will come crashing down if they cease to perform their prescribed function.
Which of course begs the question: what is that function? Cautionary tale? Catharsis? Sublimation? If there's a specific equation to the paying audience for the film with the Ancient Ones, are we the ones being kept asleep/dormant by horror movies? The film ties those horror film scenarios to older forms of ritual sacrifice, explicitly to the killing of young people, and from that angle one could easily also bring in things like fairy tales (Hansel and Gretel to pick an obvious example) which also tend to feature young folk being imperiled, if not eaten. The big difference, of course, is that in fairy tales the kids usually survive, whereas in horror films they mostly don't. The morality of fairy tales also tends to be a lot more complex than the basic "good girl lives, sexed-up teens gets offed" horror template that Cabin riffs on.
- visual quotes I've caught so far, above and beyond all the in-jokes on the white board and among the monsters:
1) the opening crane shot up to Dana's room at the beginning is clearly a Scream lift
2) the cabin itself is obviously the one from Evil Dead
3) Papa Buckner rising back out of the lake by the dock is very Jason/Friday the 13th-esque, but I don't have the series memorized so I can't tell you which one specifically it's from (assuming it's not all of them)
4) as I saw someone on Twitter point out, Curt's green #88 dirt bike is from Pumpkinhead
5) I'm almost positive Mordecai's run-down gas station is also modeled on something specific the way the cabin is, but my brain is refusing to provide an answer
- speaking of Mordecai, character actor Tim de Zarn owns the movie in his all-too-brief screen time. In prior decades a role like that might have gone to a Brion James or a Tobin Bell, and I'm hoping de Zarn finds his career moving up to that kind of level after this.
- one relatively minor question that I find inordinately interesting. Do horror movies actually exist in the universe of Cabin In the Woods?
There's two schools of thought here. One is that they don't, since none of the characters make remarks like "Hey, this looks just like the cabin from Evil Dead!" or "Hey, stop reading that Latin incantation! Haven't you ever seen a horror movie before?" The other is that they do, but the chemical and subliminal control being exerted on the characters prevents them from recognizing that they are in a typical horror movie scenario. I'm inclined to believe the latter, simply because in a movie about horror movies it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if horror movies didn't exist in that universe, but I can see it both ways.
I can totally understand why Whedon and Goddard would have kept those kinds of references out of the film though, both to avoid explicit Scream comparisons and to try not to jar the audience (any further) out of the moment.
- speaking obliquely of Scream, there's a line right at the beginning of the film that mentions that the last time the US team failed in their ritual (which was the fault of Acker's Chem department) came in 1998. I initially thought that was a Scream nod, but then realized later that Scream came out in '96, not '98. So then... what "failure" are they referring to? I can't figure it out. Here's what Wiki lists as American horror releases in '98:
Bride of Chucky
Deep Rising
The Faculty
Halloween H20
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
Phantoms
Van Sant's abortion of a Psycho remake
Species II
Urban Legend
OK, so it was a really shitty year for American horror movies, but it looks like that was just a throwaway line and not a reference to anything specific.
Seriously, you've been warned.
Last chance, Turn back now. The next paragraph will lead with a HUGE SPOILER. OMG THIS WILL RUIN THE MOVIE IF YOU READ IT FIRST.
Actually that was a total lie. But there will be spoilers coming very soon.
- Having now seen it twice (and likely going back for a third shot in a few days) I think I understand why the film isn't going to be a huge box office hit. The fact of the matter is, Cabin In the Woods is a lousy horror movie.
Now, don't get me wrong. It's a great movie, one that's amazingly clever and that works on multiple levels, filled with outstanding performances and ideas. But on its most basic level, as a horror movie, it falls flat. It's neither particularly scary nor very gory.
Consider the scene where Jules gets her head sawed off. It's classic soft sell editing: quick shots between her face in close up looking terrified and that of Curt being forced to watch, with the saw blade then coming into camera in front of her face, then a reverse shot and a spray of blood. You don't even see the saw cut into her flesh, much less the actual decapitation. And while that might be an artistic choice, it undercuts one of the major themes of the movie - namely that the slaughter is being done for the titillation of an audience (whether the Ancient Ones themselves, or the typical horror film demographic). We get the obligatory 'boobies' shot, but the nuts and bolts money shots of a horror film, the kills themselves, are mostly lacking. Of course there's the unleashed mayhem of the final act to help make up for that, but even then other than things like the awesome death-by-unicorn scene very few of those kills are shown in much detail.
That's the main reason, I think, that the audience reaction is lagging behind the critical one (81% vs 93% on Rotten Tomatoes as of last night). Horror fans going in expecting nothing more than a horror film with a twist ending, which is what the ad campaign is promising, could very well be hugely disappointed by the actual movie they get, which is a comedy-thriller about horror films and not a horror film itself.
- In addition to being a film about horror films, Cabin is rapidly on its way to being one of my favourite films about filmmaking. Don't pretend you're shocked by that interpretation. They call Sigourney Weaver's character the Director, for pity's sake. Jenkins, Whitford, Acker et al are clearly the crew and special effects team, while Dana and crew are the cast. And as I noted above, all the dialogue referencing the fact that 'someone's watching' play just as well as applying to the asses in the seats watching Cabin as they do to the gods Downstairs.
- It's been ages since I've seen a proper Snake Plissken ending. So much of the movie hinges on free will and choice, and the fact that Dana and Marty choose to let the world end was the only possible ending that would have been satisfying. Had the film been French, I could have seen it ending with Dana plugging Marty after all, then a flash-forward to the next ritual where she's now filling one of the control chairs, but that would have been an even more cynical conclusion than the one we actually got.
It also ties in neatly with one of the sneakiest undercurrents to Cabin, which is that's it's not just a "love letter" to horror movies but an actual defense of their place in the cultural sphere. Think about it: from a purely plot perspective, in Cabin horror films (or at least horror film-like scenarios) are saving the world, and the world will come crashing down if they cease to perform their prescribed function.
Which of course begs the question: what is that function? Cautionary tale? Catharsis? Sublimation? If there's a specific equation to the paying audience for the film with the Ancient Ones, are we the ones being kept asleep/dormant by horror movies? The film ties those horror film scenarios to older forms of ritual sacrifice, explicitly to the killing of young people, and from that angle one could easily also bring in things like fairy tales (Hansel and Gretel to pick an obvious example) which also tend to feature young folk being imperiled, if not eaten. The big difference, of course, is that in fairy tales the kids usually survive, whereas in horror films they mostly don't. The morality of fairy tales also tends to be a lot more complex than the basic "good girl lives, sexed-up teens gets offed" horror template that Cabin riffs on.
- visual quotes I've caught so far, above and beyond all the in-jokes on the white board and among the monsters:
1) the opening crane shot up to Dana's room at the beginning is clearly a Scream lift
2) the cabin itself is obviously the one from Evil Dead
3) Papa Buckner rising back out of the lake by the dock is very Jason/Friday the 13th-esque, but I don't have the series memorized so I can't tell you which one specifically it's from (assuming it's not all of them)
4) as I saw someone on Twitter point out, Curt's green #88 dirt bike is from Pumpkinhead
5) I'm almost positive Mordecai's run-down gas station is also modeled on something specific the way the cabin is, but my brain is refusing to provide an answer
- speaking of Mordecai, character actor Tim de Zarn owns the movie in his all-too-brief screen time. In prior decades a role like that might have gone to a Brion James or a Tobin Bell, and I'm hoping de Zarn finds his career moving up to that kind of level after this.
- one relatively minor question that I find inordinately interesting. Do horror movies actually exist in the universe of Cabin In the Woods?
There's two schools of thought here. One is that they don't, since none of the characters make remarks like "Hey, this looks just like the cabin from Evil Dead!" or "Hey, stop reading that Latin incantation! Haven't you ever seen a horror movie before?" The other is that they do, but the chemical and subliminal control being exerted on the characters prevents them from recognizing that they are in a typical horror movie scenario. I'm inclined to believe the latter, simply because in a movie about horror movies it wouldn't make a whole lot of sense if horror movies didn't exist in that universe, but I can see it both ways.
I can totally understand why Whedon and Goddard would have kept those kinds of references out of the film though, both to avoid explicit Scream comparisons and to try not to jar the audience (any further) out of the moment.
- speaking obliquely of Scream, there's a line right at the beginning of the film that mentions that the last time the US team failed in their ritual (which was the fault of Acker's Chem department) came in 1998. I initially thought that was a Scream nod, but then realized later that Scream came out in '96, not '98. So then... what "failure" are they referring to? I can't figure it out. Here's what Wiki lists as American horror releases in '98:
Bride of Chucky
Deep Rising
The Faculty
Halloween H20
I Still Know What You Did Last Summer
Phantoms
Van Sant's abortion of a Psycho remake
Species II
Urban Legend
OK, so it was a really shitty year for American horror movies, but it looks like that was just a throwaway line and not a reference to anything specific.
Bringing The War On Women Back Home
(h/t BJ)
The 'War on Women' thing is gonna have me in stitches all the way up to the election. Not that what the GOP has done and would like to do legislatively and culturally isn't fucked up, and not that I don't want to transanally ultrasound every last fucking one of their medieval, hypocritical, patriarchal idiot asses, but the fact that the party of Alpha Males and John Wayne and a 'kill 'em all and let St Ronnie sort it out' philosophy is waging a war on the (cough) "weaker sex", and is losing, just cracks me up. It reminds me so much of The Prophet Bill Hicks' bit on the War on Drugs:
George Bush says we are losing the War on Drugs. Well, you know what that implies? There's a war going on, and people on drugs are winning it! Hahahahahaha! What does that tell you about drugs? Some smart, creative motherfuckers on that side. They're winning a war, and they're fucked up! Lot-a y'all don't even know you're fightin', do you? You're sitting there... "Fuck, I'm watching Saturday Night Live". (tokes) "Are we winning? I feel like my flank is covered." (tokes) "Honey, bring me a beer. Got a war to win!"(In the album version of that routine he compares it to Redcoats fighting Indians, but I like this riff better).
Everyone just needs to remember that there's no truce or cease-fire possible here. Anybody on their side smart enough to see the writing on the wall defected a long time ago. The only people left on the GOP side are the Kochs and Romneys and Aileses, those with a vested economic interest in maintaining the status quo (if not pushing things farther into the dark ages), and the Bill Donohues and Tony Perkinses, those who have abandoned any pretense of true Christian spirit and just become miserable trolls feeding on hate. There can be no negotiation with people like that. They will cling to the power they have with their last breath, and we will simply have to keep pushing forward, house by house, town by town, state by state, lie by lie, piece of bullshit legislation by piece of bullshit legislation, until the war is won.
This election can't just be about the White House. Romney is such a terrible candidate, it would pretty much take an act of God to put him over Obama. This election needs to be about the downballot races - pushing the Dems over 60 in the Senate, retaking the House, and winning back as many state legislature seats as possible. Their side is feeling the boot on the back of their heads and tasting concrete, and they are panicky and desperate. For once the left cannot let up and play nice. That boot needs to come down hard in 2012.
An Open Letter To Rex Reed
Mr. Reed, while we've never met (although I believe we have been in the same press screenings at TIFF in the past) I have heard nothing but kind words spoken about you as a person. As one of the elder statesmen of film reviewing, you have earned and can command a great deal of respect. Which is why I was so shocked and disappointed in your recent review of Cabin In the Woods, and why I am imploring you to issue some sort of retraction and public apology.
I'm sure that by now you've been made aware of the complaints stemming from that review. We genre fans tend to be a superstitious, cowardly lot, to misappropriate a phrase, and you likely think the vast majority of the criticism directed at you and your review is simply sour grapes, that we are circling the wagons and protecting one of our own. I assure you that is not the case. Genre fans are used to "our" films being misunderstood and scorned by 'mainstream' reviewers (see, for instance, another 'open letter' directed towards Roger Ebert regarding his review of the recent action film The Raid: Redemption) and if you had simply disliked the movie and given it a one-star review, as Ebert did, there would have been little furor. Even the level of juvenile contempt you displayed (your "writing under the guidance of crystal meth" line directed at Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon, for instance), which would typically be more appropriate for a venue like Ain't It Cool News than the New York Observer, wouldn't have occasioned too much comment. In fact, I suspect it would have been seen as something of a badge of honor in some circles.
Nor is the fact that your review contained glaring spoilers (specifically with regard to a cameo towards the end of the movie) the focus of the criticism. Again, spoilers are par for the course in the world of the modern cinema fan, especially since the explosion of social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Had you merely written a negative review containing spoilers, there would have been some grumbling but mostly shrugged shoulders and a resigned attitude that you "didn't get it."
No, the extreme criticism directed at you and your Cabin In the Woods review comes almost exclusively from the fact that it contains numerous, glaring factual inaccuracies. Taking them in the order in which they appear:
1) "...the creaking door to a cellar of corpses". There are no corpses, animated or otherwise, in the cellar of the cabin. Perhaps you were confused by the wedding dress on a stand which one of the characters is drawn to, or perhaps this was intended to merely be a colorful phrase rather than a literal description of events.
2) "Zombies rise from the swamp and eat the sexy chick’s flesh." No, actually, the zombies in the film don't eat their victims. Nor is there a swamp in the film for them to rise from.
3) "Vampires circle the moon and suck the hot stud’s blood." This is a complete figment of your imagination. There are no vampires in the film, circling the moon or otherwise. In fact, the "hot stud" character (I presume you are referring to Chris Hemsworth) doesn't get killed by a monster at all, whether vampire, zombie, or something else.
4) "What they fail to notice is the hidden cameras." Actually, the "reefer-smoking doofus" you mention in the previous sentence does find the hidden cameras. Which makes your later line about the characters "Somehow miraculously managing to figure it all out..." nonsensical, as that deduction is not the least bit miraculous.
5) "It’s all part of an elaborate video game that allows paying customers to watch real people slaughtered according to the horror of choice. The five kids in the cabin are innocent pawns to test the mechanics of the game..." This, also, is a complete fabrication on your part. There is nothing in the film, either stated or implied, to indicate that what is taking place is any kind of video game, or indeed a game at all. This is not a matter of differing interpretations, Mr. Reed. You invented an entire plot point in your review that does not exist in the film. It would be as if you claimed the main obstacle to Rick and Ilsa's romance in Casablanca was that Rick had a wife back in America, because at one point in the film you see him fiddling with a ring on his finger. It's not just untrue, it directly contradicts the actual contents and themes of the film.
6) "The game ends only if the virgin survives." Putting aside your 'video game' fabrication for a moment, Richard Jenkins' character explicitly says that the survival of the 'virgin' is immaterial to what is taking place. What matters is that the others all die before her, that she is the last one standing. (Also, as is made clear in the first five minutes of the movie, the character of Dana is not a virgin, as she recently ended an affair with her professor. As she is filling the archetypal 'virgin' role in the proceedings, however, referring to her as such should not be counted among the inaccuracies in your review.)
7) "...the stoner and the brainy girl (who is also a virgin)" OK, now it has to count as a separate inaccuracy.
8) "...if the virgin doesn’t survive it will mean the agonizing death of every human soul on the planet." I believe you meant to write if she does survive here. Again though, her survival is irrelevant. She is not the one being threatened in the final act, she's the one pointing the gun trying to decide whether to kill another character or not. This is not a subtle point that might have eluded an inattentive or confused viewer, Mr. Reed. It's something that's made very clear and explicit in both dialogue and action.
While you might claim that some of these inaccuracies are mere nitpicks, or examples of me taking turns of phrase too seriously, the sheer volume of them should be alarming to both you and your editors. The general impression given is that you didn't actually watch the movie you claim to have reviewed. Perhaps you saw the beginning, left the theater in disgust and only caught snatches of the rest through the door. Perhaps you weren't feeling well and slept through great portions of the film, and tried to guess at what happened while your eyes were closed. Whatever the reason, it's clear to anyone who has seen Cabin In the Woods and then read your piece on it (I can't in good conscience any longer call it a review) that you either did not watch the entirely of the film, or that you for whatever reason thought it appropriate and professional behavior to make things up about it.
I don't know what would have prompted you to do this. Elvis Mitchell was rumored to have been dismissed from Movieline not that long ago for a similar but far more trifling offense, as he merely mentioned in passing a character's personal affectation that was in an early draft of the script but didn't make the final cut of the film. You, either through ignorance, embarrassment or some other motive, deliberately misinformed your readers as to the contents of the movie you were supposed to be reviewing.
You violated the trust of your readers, Mr. Reed. This is not a matter of your opinion being suspect, it's now a matter of your veracity and integrity being called in question.
You've been in this game a long time, Mr. Reed. You of all people should understand how important those traits are to a film critic. If people no longer believe you are willing to at least accurately tell them what a movie's about, then your opinions on that movie becomes meaningless, and worthless.
This is not a controversy that is likely to go away quickly. Other critics have already noted your unprofessional behavior in your piece. Given the speed at which social media spreads an idea, it may not be long before your reputation and legacy as a critic are in serious jeopardy. For that reason if no other, I think it would be in your best interest to provide your readers and the general public with both an explanation for the multiple inaccuracies in your Cabin In the Woods piece, and an apology.
to: rreed@observer.com
cc: editorial@observer.com
I'm sure that by now you've been made aware of the complaints stemming from that review. We genre fans tend to be a superstitious, cowardly lot, to misappropriate a phrase, and you likely think the vast majority of the criticism directed at you and your review is simply sour grapes, that we are circling the wagons and protecting one of our own. I assure you that is not the case. Genre fans are used to "our" films being misunderstood and scorned by 'mainstream' reviewers (see, for instance, another 'open letter' directed towards Roger Ebert regarding his review of the recent action film The Raid: Redemption) and if you had simply disliked the movie and given it a one-star review, as Ebert did, there would have been little furor. Even the level of juvenile contempt you displayed (your "writing under the guidance of crystal meth" line directed at Drew Goddard and Joss Whedon, for instance), which would typically be more appropriate for a venue like Ain't It Cool News than the New York Observer, wouldn't have occasioned too much comment. In fact, I suspect it would have been seen as something of a badge of honor in some circles.
Nor is the fact that your review contained glaring spoilers (specifically with regard to a cameo towards the end of the movie) the focus of the criticism. Again, spoilers are par for the course in the world of the modern cinema fan, especially since the explosion of social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter. Had you merely written a negative review containing spoilers, there would have been some grumbling but mostly shrugged shoulders and a resigned attitude that you "didn't get it."
No, the extreme criticism directed at you and your Cabin In the Woods review comes almost exclusively from the fact that it contains numerous, glaring factual inaccuracies. Taking them in the order in which they appear:
1) "...the creaking door to a cellar of corpses". There are no corpses, animated or otherwise, in the cellar of the cabin. Perhaps you were confused by the wedding dress on a stand which one of the characters is drawn to, or perhaps this was intended to merely be a colorful phrase rather than a literal description of events.
2) "Zombies rise from the swamp and eat the sexy chick’s flesh." No, actually, the zombies in the film don't eat their victims. Nor is there a swamp in the film for them to rise from.
3) "Vampires circle the moon and suck the hot stud’s blood." This is a complete figment of your imagination. There are no vampires in the film, circling the moon or otherwise. In fact, the "hot stud" character (I presume you are referring to Chris Hemsworth) doesn't get killed by a monster at all, whether vampire, zombie, or something else.
4) "What they fail to notice is the hidden cameras." Actually, the "reefer-smoking doofus" you mention in the previous sentence does find the hidden cameras. Which makes your later line about the characters "Somehow miraculously managing to figure it all out..." nonsensical, as that deduction is not the least bit miraculous.
5) "It’s all part of an elaborate video game that allows paying customers to watch real people slaughtered according to the horror of choice. The five kids in the cabin are innocent pawns to test the mechanics of the game..." This, also, is a complete fabrication on your part. There is nothing in the film, either stated or implied, to indicate that what is taking place is any kind of video game, or indeed a game at all. This is not a matter of differing interpretations, Mr. Reed. You invented an entire plot point in your review that does not exist in the film. It would be as if you claimed the main obstacle to Rick and Ilsa's romance in Casablanca was that Rick had a wife back in America, because at one point in the film you see him fiddling with a ring on his finger. It's not just untrue, it directly contradicts the actual contents and themes of the film.
6) "The game ends only if the virgin survives." Putting aside your 'video game' fabrication for a moment, Richard Jenkins' character explicitly says that the survival of the 'virgin' is immaterial to what is taking place. What matters is that the others all die before her, that she is the last one standing. (Also, as is made clear in the first five minutes of the movie, the character of Dana is not a virgin, as she recently ended an affair with her professor. As she is filling the archetypal 'virgin' role in the proceedings, however, referring to her as such should not be counted among the inaccuracies in your review.)
7) "...the stoner and the brainy girl (who is also a virgin)" OK, now it has to count as a separate inaccuracy.
8) "...if the virgin doesn’t survive it will mean the agonizing death of every human soul on the planet." I believe you meant to write if she does survive here. Again though, her survival is irrelevant. She is not the one being threatened in the final act, she's the one pointing the gun trying to decide whether to kill another character or not. This is not a subtle point that might have eluded an inattentive or confused viewer, Mr. Reed. It's something that's made very clear and explicit in both dialogue and action.
While you might claim that some of these inaccuracies are mere nitpicks, or examples of me taking turns of phrase too seriously, the sheer volume of them should be alarming to both you and your editors. The general impression given is that you didn't actually watch the movie you claim to have reviewed. Perhaps you saw the beginning, left the theater in disgust and only caught snatches of the rest through the door. Perhaps you weren't feeling well and slept through great portions of the film, and tried to guess at what happened while your eyes were closed. Whatever the reason, it's clear to anyone who has seen Cabin In the Woods and then read your piece on it (I can't in good conscience any longer call it a review) that you either did not watch the entirely of the film, or that you for whatever reason thought it appropriate and professional behavior to make things up about it.
I don't know what would have prompted you to do this. Elvis Mitchell was rumored to have been dismissed from Movieline not that long ago for a similar but far more trifling offense, as he merely mentioned in passing a character's personal affectation that was in an early draft of the script but didn't make the final cut of the film. You, either through ignorance, embarrassment or some other motive, deliberately misinformed your readers as to the contents of the movie you were supposed to be reviewing.
You violated the trust of your readers, Mr. Reed. This is not a matter of your opinion being suspect, it's now a matter of your veracity and integrity being called in question.
You've been in this game a long time, Mr. Reed. You of all people should understand how important those traits are to a film critic. If people no longer believe you are willing to at least accurately tell them what a movie's about, then your opinions on that movie becomes meaningless, and worthless.
This is not a controversy that is likely to go away quickly. Other critics have already noted your unprofessional behavior in your piece. Given the speed at which social media spreads an idea, it may not be long before your reputation and legacy as a critic are in serious jeopardy. For that reason if no other, I think it would be in your best interest to provide your readers and the general public with both an explanation for the multiple inaccuracies in your Cabin In the Woods piece, and an apology.
to: rreed@observer.com
cc: editorial@observer.com
Review (Spoiler-Free): Cabin In the Woods
If there's one thing that pretty much all successful modern horror films have in common it's that they acknowledge their formulaic roots. Sometimes they crank the formula up to 11 (Evil Dead), sometimes they deconstruct the formula (Scream), sometimes they play it straight for a stretch before blowing the formula up and creating something entirely new (Martyrs) but in every case the filmmakers let the audience know that they, too, are in the club. The formula acts as both signifier ("Hey", the filmmakers are saying, "we're fans just like you") and safety net (no matter what crazy shit happens on screen, the audience knows that as long as the formula is being followed the journey will at least be somewhat familiar.)
Cabin In the Woods manages to be both a worthy heir to that tradition, and an entirely new iteration of it. Yes, it follows the usual formula... but it turns out to be not exactly the formula you thought it was. As the film unfolds it makes a compelling case that the horror movie formula itself is just an echo of something older.
Without going into spoilery specifics, that's obviously a very fine line to walk. What's being attempted here is nothing less than movie alchemy. Co-writer Joss Whedon and co-writer/director Drew Goddard use all the familiar elements of a horror film to try and transmute the very meaning of "horror film". Yes, there's an obligatory group of young folk who go to a isolated location, awaken something evil and get taken out one by one. Yes, all the young folk seem to conform to certain stereotypes or even archetypes. Yes, they sometimes do incredibly stupid things to facilitate that awakening and subsequent slaughter. At the same time though, Cabin layers another story on top of the formula that looks at those tropes from a completely different perspective. The movie doesn't just put the formula (and characters) through their paces like show dogs, it addresses the hows and whys of the formula itself from every conceivable angle: plot-centric, thematic, metaphoric, political and probably a half-dozen others that will hit me upon repeat viewings (of which there will probably be at least a few).
In fact the only line Cabin doesn't cross, which films like Scream and its abominable spawn did with gleeful, unspeakable abandon, is openly acknowledge that its "only" a movie. There are plenty of winks and nods to and about the audience, including a couple which thin-skinned viewers might interpret at indictments, but they're all subtextual. There's a geeky stoner character in the Jamie Kennedy mold, sure, but at no point does he turn to anyone and say "Doesn't this place look just like the cabin in Evil Dead?" or, worse, "Hey! Don't do that! Haven't you ever seen a horror movie before?" And Cabin is by far the better for it. That basic respect for the story, the characters and the universe they're in earns the film the right to go way over the top as it hurtles towards the finish, whereas in a movie that poked you every five minutes to say, "Didja know you're watching a movie? Huh, huh? Didja?" that moment of glorious chaos would have felt more like a studio-requested set piece than karmic justice.
Cabin isn't perfect, of course. The only truly perfect movies are unambitious ones, and Cabin's ambition is boundless. The low gore quotient makes it clear the film is aiming for a mass audience, and while that's not inherently a bad idea (although it will put off the hard-cores who won't want to share the movie with the plebes) it does rob at least one kill of its impact, and due to the nature of that layered second story there's very little in the movie that you could really call a good scare. And while Topher... err, Fran Kranz is phenomenal as Marty the stoner geek, and Thor... err, Chris Hemsworth is awesome as Curt the jock, Woman Reading On Beach in The Happening... err, Kristen Connolly doesn't really elevate Dana the spunky girl beyond the Neve Campbell level of adequacy. Also, all things considered, and this will only make sense after you've seen the movie, I would have preferred a tentacle to a hand. Just sayin'.
Those are basically quibbles though. The host of other name actors and Whedon alum all provide a solid foundation of humanity to the mayhem, with veteran character actor Tim De Zarn getting a golden moment in the sun as Mordecai, a role that in another time and place might have gone to a Brion James or Tobin Bell and which will hopefully lift De Zarn up to that kind of career level. Seriously, he's in all of about three minutes of the movie, on and off camera, and almost steals the whole shebang. The dude's amazing. The effects are good, the sly references play across the whole spectrum of horror history, Jodelle Ferland makes her inevitable appearance as the Creepy Girl, and really the whole thing is such as obvious product of fanboy enthusiasm that you can't help but be swept up in it if you have any affection at all for the genre. Even if you've got no use for the Big Ideas scurrying under the surface, Cabin is seventeen flavors of fun. It's a glorious love letter to horror movies, written in eldrich runes of blood on parchment made from human skin that might in the end be nothing more than a Kick Me sign stuck to the monster's back for shits and giggles.
Cabin In the Woods is a tremendous piece of work, a great movie made both for people who require some kind of excuse or justification for liking a horror film, and for those who wear their love of the genre like a gruesome badge of honor. Full props to Messrs. Whedon and Goddard for pulling off what in lesser tentac... err, hands might have been a train wreck or at best a failed experiment. Instead, it's an instant classic.
Cabin In the Woods manages to be both a worthy heir to that tradition, and an entirely new iteration of it. Yes, it follows the usual formula... but it turns out to be not exactly the formula you thought it was. As the film unfolds it makes a compelling case that the horror movie formula itself is just an echo of something older.
Without going into spoilery specifics, that's obviously a very fine line to walk. What's being attempted here is nothing less than movie alchemy. Co-writer Joss Whedon and co-writer/director Drew Goddard use all the familiar elements of a horror film to try and transmute the very meaning of "horror film". Yes, there's an obligatory group of young folk who go to a isolated location, awaken something evil and get taken out one by one. Yes, all the young folk seem to conform to certain stereotypes or even archetypes. Yes, they sometimes do incredibly stupid things to facilitate that awakening and subsequent slaughter. At the same time though, Cabin layers another story on top of the formula that looks at those tropes from a completely different perspective. The movie doesn't just put the formula (and characters) through their paces like show dogs, it addresses the hows and whys of the formula itself from every conceivable angle: plot-centric, thematic, metaphoric, political and probably a half-dozen others that will hit me upon repeat viewings (of which there will probably be at least a few).
In fact the only line Cabin doesn't cross, which films like Scream and its abominable spawn did with gleeful, unspeakable abandon, is openly acknowledge that its "only" a movie. There are plenty of winks and nods to and about the audience, including a couple which thin-skinned viewers might interpret at indictments, but they're all subtextual. There's a geeky stoner character in the Jamie Kennedy mold, sure, but at no point does he turn to anyone and say "Doesn't this place look just like the cabin in Evil Dead?" or, worse, "Hey! Don't do that! Haven't you ever seen a horror movie before?" And Cabin is by far the better for it. That basic respect for the story, the characters and the universe they're in earns the film the right to go way over the top as it hurtles towards the finish, whereas in a movie that poked you every five minutes to say, "Didja know you're watching a movie? Huh, huh? Didja?" that moment of glorious chaos would have felt more like a studio-requested set piece than karmic justice.
Cabin isn't perfect, of course. The only truly perfect movies are unambitious ones, and Cabin's ambition is boundless. The low gore quotient makes it clear the film is aiming for a mass audience, and while that's not inherently a bad idea (although it will put off the hard-cores who won't want to share the movie with the plebes) it does rob at least one kill of its impact, and due to the nature of that layered second story there's very little in the movie that you could really call a good scare. And while Topher... err, Fran Kranz is phenomenal as Marty the stoner geek, and Thor... err, Chris Hemsworth is awesome as Curt the jock, Woman Reading On Beach in The Happening... err, Kristen Connolly doesn't really elevate Dana the spunky girl beyond the Neve Campbell level of adequacy. Also, all things considered, and this will only make sense after you've seen the movie, I would have preferred a tentacle to a hand. Just sayin'.
Those are basically quibbles though. The host of other name actors and Whedon alum all provide a solid foundation of humanity to the mayhem, with veteran character actor Tim De Zarn getting a golden moment in the sun as Mordecai, a role that in another time and place might have gone to a Brion James or Tobin Bell and which will hopefully lift De Zarn up to that kind of career level. Seriously, he's in all of about three minutes of the movie, on and off camera, and almost steals the whole shebang. The dude's amazing. The effects are good, the sly references play across the whole spectrum of horror history, Jodelle Ferland makes her inevitable appearance as the Creepy Girl, and really the whole thing is such as obvious product of fanboy enthusiasm that you can't help but be swept up in it if you have any affection at all for the genre. Even if you've got no use for the Big Ideas scurrying under the surface, Cabin is seventeen flavors of fun. It's a glorious love letter to horror movies, written in eldrich runes of blood on parchment made from human skin that might in the end be nothing more than a Kick Me sign stuck to the monster's back for shits and giggles.
Cabin In the Woods is a tremendous piece of work, a great movie made both for people who require some kind of excuse or justification for liking a horror film, and for those who wear their love of the genre like a gruesome badge of honor. Full props to Messrs. Whedon and Goddard for pulling off what in lesser tentac... err, hands might have been a train wreck or at best a failed experiment. Instead, it's an instant classic.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)