"From each according to ability, to each according to need."
Although this passage is commonly attributed to Karl Marx, the phrase was actually (per most histories) coined by Louis Blanc, about a decade before Marx really climbed to the pinnacle of his soap-box. Blanc himself offered the phrase as a revision of a comment from a French utopian socialist (Henri de Saint Simon) who had the audacity to suggest that workers should be paid according to how much he works.
But although the line doesn't actually appear in the Communist Manifesto (1848), it is a principal underlying point of nearly every mainstream communist/socialist movement, philosophy, or ideal. Which I mean to include any time a tax dollar gets paid for the benefit or advantage of someone who doesn't pay taxes, or who otherwise fails to support themselves. Use of warm fuzzy "moral" arguments to argue that it is the responsibility of the capable to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable. Which is not something that I'm overwhelmingly adverse to. There are people who legitimately need charity, and there are a great many who can afford to give to charity. My objection comes when the idea becomes institutionalized to the point that the capable are REQUIRED to provide for the comfort and benefit of the incapable, whether they like it or not, and where there's only questionable differentiation between "incapable" and "disinterested."
But returning to the communist ideal expressed above, this was an idea that Americans railed against 50 years ago, universally and violently. You couldn't get a job in this country if you were associated with any sort of communist/socialist party. Wars were waged with little more justification than being part of the "war against communism." Aversion to this idea, and belief that a person was entitled to the benefit of their labor, was fierce, to the point that the United States went to the brink of nuclear war, and contemplated ending the existence of meaningful human civilization on this planet, rather than accept the concept.
So I think it's hilarious that "from each according to ability, to each according to need" has become a central tenant of American political thought and governmental efforts. We don't use those words, of course. Even if it were politically correct to call a duck a duck, we're much more sophisticated than to use the same failed slogans while we attempt to re-enact the same failed policies.
Because that is what we're doing. Lets make the successful pay higher taxes, BECAUSE THEY CAN. It should be their obligation to support the health and welfare of the HALF OF THE POPULATION that doesn't pay taxes at all. Fuck this whole privatized industry thing: lets get the automotive industry under Federal Control. Throw some more regulation on the banking industry. Oh, and about that whole health-care thing; successful people should be barred from paying their own money for procedures. Lets make the taxpayers buy coverage for everyone. Play some games with the billing structure so we can fit 30 million additional people into the healthcare system, regardless of whether they can pay. Never mind that the former Soviet Union - where living conditions are currently nearer to downtown Mogadishu than they are to downtown Chicago - should be lesson enough for any rationally thinking political scholar to write off Marxism/Leninism as a catastrophically bad idea. Never mind that there are five entire European countries on the verge of bankruptcy (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain) from following these exact policies, Barack knows better. And, after all, he is NOT a communist. Just ask him. And of course, he'd never endorse the Marxist language, which remains anathema, even as he trumpets the Marxist ideal.
Fifty years ago, the administration was willing to destroy the world to protect us from this idea. Now, the administration is enacting this ideal, pretty much regardless of whether people want it or not.
*Sigh.* We have met the enemy. And he is us.
Tuesday, September 28, 2010
Wednesday, September 15, 2010
Addendum re: Shitty Sequels
After she read the prior post, CB (yes, the significant other has been assigned a code-name) pointed out to me a spectacular example of the trend I was describing. And it was a better example than any I used. Specifically, the Die Hard movies.
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Again, we were talking about how some ideas and storylines are so good they become cultural icons. We were talking about how storylines can evolve when people who care about the storyline are given creative authority to develop the storyline. And we were specifically talking about how things absolutely fall into the shitter when creative authority is turned over to some pop-culture asshole who cares more about pandering to the masses than about developing the storyline.
Now. Die Hard. Remember John McClane from the first (1988) movie? Got invited to a party by mistake by his wife's boss. Didn't even know for sure if he was welcome at his wife's house. Regular guy, shitty job that he can't help loving, with some every-day marital problems. Yeah, the storyline was no better than the typical action move flick, but it managed to not violate the laws of physics overmuch. Alan Rickman was great as the iconically sleazy Hans Gruber. Willis and (director) John McTiernan managed to plausibly sell the idea that McClane was just a regular guy doing the best he could, which ended up being good enough. And - notably - by the end of the movie, McClane could barely walk because he feet were so shredded.
Good shit.
Of course, by the time the fourth movie rolled around (directed by Len Wiseman, whose fame is based almost entirely on how good his wife looks in skin-tight leather), McClane was knocking helicopters out of the sky by jumping cars into them - he was out of bullets - and wrestling jet planes with his bare hands. Really? REALLY? But hey, those one-liners sure were great, weren't they? And those crashes and explosions? Wow. CGI has really come a long way since "Tron."
As for his own efforts regarding furtherance and/or damage to icons, McTiernan himself should probably be killed for his 2002 remake of "Rollerball" (which is unwatchable for the entirety of the movie that doesn't feature a naked Rebacca Romjin-Stamos). But McTiernan himself has sparked several other Hollywood icons ("Predator," and the Tom Clancy Jack Ryan movies), and I personally think his 1999 remake of "Thomas Crown Affair" was better than the (1968) original. And he undoubtedly believed in John McClane as an every-man character, doing his best to deal with extraordinary events.
Wiseman, not so much.
The fact that "Live Free or Die Hard" was a commercial success and was at least fun to watch doesn't change the fact that it was as completely divorced from reality as was "Batman & Robin." Neither does it change the fact that it was as removed from the McTiernan original as "Generations" was from "Wrath of Khan." Rather, and as with certain Star Trek movies, the commercial success came from the quality of the original, rather than the quality of the sequel. But at least commercial success means that Wiseman won't have to publicly apologize for his conduct.
Unfortunately, Wiseman has already won new gigs as a director, and was penciled in to do the film adaptation of the Xbox "Gears of War" game. Fine and good, since this was unlikely to do any damage to extant Hollywood movie icons. Alas, Wiseman walked away from the project after he realized that "Gears of War" would go the way of the "Resident Evil" flicks: fun to watch, but utterly devoid of both reality and intellectual content. While Wiseman already has that style down pat after his personal Die Hard foray, he apparently conceded inability to make a successful movie when denied a $200-million budget, the "Die Hard" name, Bruce Willis, and/or Kate Beckinsale in tight outfits. Fingers crossed for him to stick to the "Underworld" thing. Although even his wife has departed from that franchise, which really speaks for itself, doesn't it?
Wednesday, September 8, 2010
Cultural Evolution. Through IP Theft.
Hollywood has never been shy about stealing shit that looked good, and trying to make it into something better. I generally support this trend, although even an idiot would have to concede that the results are sometimes mixed, at best. But I suppose it needs to be, given the scope of the ongoing theft of intellectual property. How many of Shakespeare's plays have been "adapted" into modern cinema? How many different versions of Dangerous Liasons have been made? There's a bunch of generally shitty movies (notably "A Fist Full of Dollars" and "Last Man Standing") that are bad remakes of a great film called "Yojimbo." (By the way, the greatest writer-director who ever lived was not named "Lucas," "Spielberg," "Hitchcock," or "Cameron." Rather, he was a Japanese guy named Akira Kurosawa.)
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Obviously, the transition sometimes doesn't take very well, since Hollywood packages things into 2-hour packages. The goal is usually something that's easily digestible by the lowest common denominator movie-goer, who's idea of non-movie entertainment is "Jersey Shore." Two hours is a good space of time to tell a story, yes. But it's not nearly enough time to build a world, a practice which will ever remain the province of the novelist. I contend, for example, that NOBODY builds worlds like Glen Cook. But none of his stuff would make a good movie.
Similarly, the greatest graphic novel of of all time is, in fact, "Watchmen." Which was a high-budget B-movie, devoid of nearly all of the impact and insight of the printed work. The greatest anime artist is Masamune Shiro ("Appleseed," "Ghost in the Shell,"). None of his works made a decent transition onto the big-screen, and for pretty much the same reason: too much depth. While there are undoubtedly success stories (with "Lord of the Rings" at the top of the list of converted books, and "300" headlining the graphic novels-turned-movie field) those tend to be the exception, rather than the rule. Its the same reason that movies based on books almost always suck. Hell, just read Dean Koontz' "Watchers," and then watch any of the several movies the book has spawned. Or better yet, just read the book.
All that having been said, I'm a big believer in the recycling of characters and of storylines. First of all, it works. Even if the most recent 'Star Trek' movie had totally sucked (which it distinctly didn't), people would have seen it in droves, just because it's Star Trek. (I am glad that it didn't suck. After "Undiscovered Country" and "Generations," I was genuinely worried that Star Trek might need to be retired for a decade, before another decent movie would get made.) But aside from commercial success, recycling of storylines allows the storylines to EVOLVE.
Continuing the the Star Trek example: An entire generation of nerds was raised on that shit. Some of those kids aspired to be screenwriters and directors. Some of them succeeded. Then another generation came along watching Next Generation. That generation had its aspiring screenwriters and directors as well. Some of them succeeded as well. Of course there were some hitches and mis-steps along the way ("Voyager,") but by and large, the best and the brightest of the Trekkies (read: Rick Berman) were given leave to develop the world presented to the public. Kids raised on that shit were allowed to develop that shit. To add depth. To fill in the grey areas. To take something that was an idea to their predecessors, but was a way of life for them, and to present it again, or anew. Development. Refinement. The best stuff being preserved and added to, while the questionable points (Deltans) were NOT included in the reprisals. Refinement. Development. Evolution.
You see the same trend in the Nolan "Batman" films. Did you ever watch the original (1966) Batman movie? It featured an exploding shark for example, hanging from a helicopter. Really. There's a reason nobody took another run at the character until 1989, and then it took a loopy guy like Tim Burton, and had Mr. Mom playing the lead. But whereas the original was really just an extra-long episode of the intentionally campy TV show, the Burton version pioneered a trademark of the modern superhero film: the backstory. Rather than just having the hero solve the crime, a la a Sherlock Holmes mystery, we see WHY Bruce Wayne became Batman. We get depth. We get ART. Kids who grew up taking comics seriously (and rest assured that little Timmy Burton read some comics in his day), making comic characters into something serious.
Of course, and predictably, the success didn't last for long, since it turned from sub-culture into pop culture. When the pop culture crowd took over, the sub-culture crowd that was driving the evolution and development of the storyline got drowned out. As is the nature of almost all sequels (watch the latest "Mummy" movie to catch this point), creative authority left the people who believed in the characters, and vested in people who were more interested in pandering to the lowest common denominator. End result: one-liners and explosions were written in where the original film had depth and dialog. With Batman in the 90s, it started going bad with "Batman Returns," when the villains went over the top unbelievable. The Penguin as a deformed and psychotic foundling was fine and good. Promising even. But people should have realized that it was time to go in another direction when the end of the movie included his corpse being reverently carried off by giant water-birds.
Alas, the movies didn't go anywhere but further down that road. Remember "Batman & Robin"? Of course Arnold Schwarzenegger couldn't be expected to make any artistic contribution, but still. The combined tit and ass superpowers of Uma Thurman and Alicia Silverstone couldn't pull that shit out of the fire, notwithstanding skin-tight superhero/villain outfits. Seriously, how do you manage to fuck that up? Give me that cast and a $140 million budget, and I guarantee you I'll make a movie that doesn't suck, even if I have to squeeze Ahh-Nold in there somewhere as well. But most germane to today's point: the reigns of a cultural icon were turned over to someone who was clearly not a devotee of the icon, and shit tanked. "Batman & Robin" director Joel Schumacher was not a scholar of the subject, and was NEVER the right guy to add depth and development to the Dark Knight genre. So he tried to make up for his ignorance of the Batman mythos by throwing in big stars and action. Even though he did actually apologize for the movie, Schumacher got off easy by being allowed to still show his face in public.
But the game wasn't over. There was the release of "Batman Begins" in 2005, which (rightfully and thankfully) pretended that there had been no Batman movies since 1966. In the decade (or more) between decent screen outings, Batman had been kept alive in animated shows and features, but director Chris Nolan really came out of nowhere. And what did we get? A movie where Batman doesn't even appear in costume until more than halfway through the movie. Depth and development. Human heroes with human failings, and human villains with human inhumanity. Perhaps best of all, a story that doesn't routinely violate the laws of physics or physiology. And - not coincidentally - almost no one-liners. It was a runaway success, both critically and financially.
Of course, it was followed (in 2008) by the consensus greatest comic-book move ever made, "The Dark Knight," which is also one of the highest-grossing non-James Cameron movie of all time. ("Avatar" blows everything away. It's not close, including "Titanic." Second place: "Titanic" blows away everything except "Avatar.")The success was predictable: the iron was hot, and the work was both darker, and more polished. Batman continues to be humanly conflicted, subject to pain and injury, and only minimally capable of bending the law of physics. It also helped that Heath Ledger's performance as the Joker... Yeah, you know what I mean. (I could write a bit about the Joker; let me know if you're interested.)
In any rate, Batman, Superman, James Bond, and so forth continue to be recycled by Hollywood. Sometimes, it doesn't go over so well, typically when the project is headed by someone who is not really that into the subject matter. But you put J.J. Abrams in charge of a Trek movie, and look what you get (interesting point: Abrams had stopped watching Trek movies after First Contact, on the basis that they had disconnected from the genre's roots). Put a nerd like Pete Jackson in charge of a Tolkien film, and look what you get. Good things happen when people who are passionate about a subject are given leave to do something with that subject. That's the real genius of Hollywood: allowing creative licence to people who will not just tell a story, but who will revolutionize the materials. Cultural evolution!
It's only when someone who either doesn't know what they're doing or doesn't care what they're doing is put in charge that things go awry. Alas, there are always a lot more idiots and assholes in the workforce than there are qualified experts. Other than ensuring that Joel Schumacher never directs again, there's not a lot we can do about this.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)