who notices?

I watched Collaterallast night, with Tom Cruise and Jamie Foxx. I found it interesting but a little thin. I appreciated the existential undercurrent more than anything; even that was a little underdeveloped. As thrillers go it was a great premise, and Tom Cruise was good if a little clipped. Jamie Foxx was lauded for his part as Max when it came out; I thought he was very solid but wish he could have been a little less transparent. As his character is put under more and more pressure he cracks, then gets it together, then cracks and gets it together again. I wish he could have cracked a little harder; really lost it at least once. Even the scene that was supposed suffice for that particular plot result fell a little flat and unexciting. The best part of the dynamic between Max and Cruise’s killer Vincent was during the final scene as Vincent tries to find Max and Annie (Jada Pinkett Smith) -- the subtle suggestion that they are thinking along very much the same lines as one tries to escape and one continues to pursue is portrayed effortlessly. Director Michael Mann’s signature is to pit two men against each who differ only slightly: one good but flawed, one really really smart but really really bad. He likes to blur the line, but it’s always pretty clear who is the good guy and who is the bad guy. The contest is also always on a slightly higher level than your typical action movie, the main characters are usually intertwined in lots of ways that are obvious as well as subtle.

This movie approached existentialism (and the flaws of existential thought) from the standpoint of a couple of familiar routes: life as meaningless unless chosen and acted upon, as well as the idea that existence is subjective and that certain people could justifiably be murdered for the greater good. Vincent leans on this philosophy a little, more to keep Max engaged the mission Vincent is trying to carry out than as a real philosophy. Vincent obviously is a symbol of entropy and chaos, for which no justification is necessary. At first Vincent seems to be reacting to Max’s squeamishness with firm orders and justification in order to keep Max moving; later in the movie he actually becomes engaged with Max’s protests and tries to justify his actions in some other context other than “just do what I say or I’ll shoot you.” It leads to some interesting comments, if not real discussion between Vincent and Max. “Guy gets on the subway and dies. Think anybody’ll notice?” Unfortunately it also leads to the predictable “Oh yeah, you’re gonna shoot me? Well, shoot me, then!” bullshit.

The movie had a couple of gaping plot holes that almost ruined it for me. Vincent himself is visually completely unbelievable. His grey suit and hair are unforgettable; as in, witnesses are not likely to forget that guy. Wearing sunglasses in places where normal people wouldn’t is also an attention-grabber. I’m not a professional hitman, but I would assume that the idea is to NOT be noticed. Eventually the Feebs and local PD figure out what’s going to happen next and go after Vincent and Max (who they think is Vincent) with air support, and yet when Vincent and Max manage to escape after a huge shootout, the helicopter has disappeared. The whole point of calling air support is to track criminals on the ground when the ground forces can’t; yet Vincent and Max get away, in a cab that has been identified, to go on to the final conflict and chase without any interference from law enforcement. Another flaw is the premise that ANY cab driver ANYWHERE does not have their own cell phone, no matter how idiosyncratic, idealistic, short-sighted, or unfulfilled. Just does not happen. I also get sick of people who are being portrayed in life-or-death situations TALKING to each other during the one moment they have to kill the other and get away. I always think back to a scene in Best Seller with James Woods; two pros fighting each other in the dark in complete silence (in suits and ties no less), not wasting time or energy, just trying to survive by killing the other as quickly as possible.

I think the filmmakers also missed a huge opportunity to develop Mark Ruffalo’s character a bit more; he is the catalyst for the law enforcement characters to treat the situation with a little higher level of suspicion but is left as a minor character, too weak to effect real change. He makes the kinds of logical leaps that normal folks like us like to see our cops make, connecting the dots in a way that inspires the audience to root for him even though nobody else in the movie can see it or believe it. He is the vehicle for the classic law enforcement “hunch” to be played out in the movie; I like that kind of non-linear thinking and would have liked to see it played up and make a bit more of a difference in the outcome.

Overall, I like a thriller that has a little brains and a little guts. This one has both; I think where it falls flat is avoiding predictability and really delivering on the “thrill” part. A for effort; C for results. Totally worth a rental.

trying to stay up

“I am a leaf on the wind; watch how I soar” - Hoban 'Wash' Washburn, Serenity, 2005

I am whirling in the wind and want out, want control... I can see positive outcomes on the horizon, but it’s hard to stay positive in the meantime and focus on what to do next. I keep thinking of that quote because it has some optimistic confidence to it. Couple of problems with that sentiment, but it’s stuck in my head at the moment.

*Spoiler alert; don’t read the next part if it’s going to ruin the movie Serenity for you*

First of all, that character says that line right after managing to pilot a ship that is falling apart through a shitstorm of competing enemies into a hostile environment where none of his compatriots have much time to prepare for a fight, let alone much hope of surviving it. The next moment, he gets harpooned by a crude (but gigantic and effective) ballista and dies. Absolutely lovely touch on the part of the storytellers; Joss Whedon probably lost a bit of sleep over that one but it really is a perfect symbol of his own trials and tribulations with regards to Firefly the TV show. Do your job no matter what. Put everything you’ve got into just making it to a place to land, no matter what’s coming next. You save as much as you can, but pay the price. You end up where the wind takes you.

So, secondly, it’s a hard philosophy to get behind if you think about it a bit. A leaf on the wind is NOT in control. You could argue that none of us are, and that would be the point of the quote. I prefer to adhere to the sentiment that I think I learned from the TV series Kung Fu when I was a kid: “ I am a reed in the wind”, because it implies that I am flexible but will stay put and spring back up when the tempest is over.

ok, ok

So I’m reading Winslow In Love by Kevin Canty.

I love and hate Canty in the same...uh, breath (maybe stroke?); since he writes things that sound surprisingly close to things I should have or would have written, except he got there first. Naïve, I know, considering the tired old conversation about nothing being new under the sun, blah blah blah, but funny considering that his character Winslow has the same problem.

I should say his character Winslow is the one with the perceptions that sound so close to mine. However, the way Canty writes I am constantly trying to examine the writer behind the character of the writer. It is absorbing enough to follow the story, but writers as a breed are obsessed with examining their internal dialogue, and even though I am not a professional writer, I am no exception. So, to try and watch someone else do it through a fictional character brings up layers of reaction that are hard to manage. I like the story a lot. I like the character a lot; he is a poet who is washed up in a way that makes you want to root for him and his occasional bursts of brilliance. The likable loser, almost the archetype of the likable loser, someone who can’t enjoy success but certainly finds cynical humor and familiarity in screwing it up. I also enjoy the pace at which Winslow experiences his cycles of brief perception and sharp insight. Feels comfortable; again reminds me of the way things occur to me as I go about my day. However, it also makes me consider how meticulously Canty must have examined his own thoughts over the course of this book, in order to portray Winslow’s thoughts in such a genuine way.

Having anything at all original to say is tough. Winslow is paralyzed by the assumption that he does not have anything original to say, and most readers will probably be able to see both sides of that coin: everyone seems to have something unique to say, it’s just that nobody can manage to find anything original to say. So, what are writers doing, anyway? Trying to find something to write about that will resonate with most readers so that they have a vehicle for expressing their unique point of view.

I guess.

:)

untying

what drives us to write? A bit of despair, to be sure. I have not had the most wonderful year. I won’t bore you with the details, but it has been getting progressively worse. I was driving and feeling a bit desperate, teeth clenched and stomach tight, when it occurred to me that a lot of shit was going through my head and needed to be laid out in some kind of order. Writing helps.

Don’t get me wrong; my desperation does not compare to folks with major grief and pain. I am fairly lucky, overall. I think the first whiff of desperation comes when you begin to worry about losing what you’ve gained... again, writing helps.

I read a lot, too, which can be good and bad. I attribute a large part of my overall knowledge and personal perspective on the fact that I read constantly. I am not a literary scholar but can appreciate good work. Lately I have been realizing that I can spend too much time reading -- reading occupies my mind with information assimilation (regardless of what I’m reading) instead of exploring my own imagination and creativity.

So I’m getting in here and untying some knots. I’m using a program called MacJournal -- if you’ve never heard of it, you should check it out:

MacJournal

let's begin

Where to start? My dialogue is mostly internal. I suppose this is the next best thing... iPOST and the thin air responds (maybe?). Usually my discussions are imaginary; I make shit up as I imagine how it might be in certain situations with certain people as I go about my day. They are not always productive and sometimes turn into stern rebukes of myself for imagining things will go badly when in fact they have not (yet).

Why do this? I avoid these things like the plague, usually. I think most people write to express themselves to themselves, but with the hope that somebody else will read their "secret" words and be impressed. I certainly did when I was young. Got most of my girlfriends that way... letting them read my journals, my poetry, etc. That explains the blog explosion, anyway -- instant validation for people who share too much for something they should have probably kept to themselves. There's a formula, now; what's on the iPod? what did you eat for breakfast? where are your fucking flickr photos? what's your fucking myspace name?

So am I a hypocrite? I kinda feel like one, but I think I am safe for now since I don't want to share all that shit with you. I just want to leak some of the internal dialogue into thin air. We'll see where the discussion goes.