Ok, so this is probably the first documentary i've reviewed and incidentally, the first movie i reviewed i really really liked. So, before i get into the details, here's an overview:
The Trap is a three part documentary made by Adam Curtis and produced by the BBC. Now, i'm not normally a fan of documentaries nor the BBC in general since i find documentaries are typically deeply flawed and the BBC tends to be quite a bit more biased than the idiotic "i love everything british" fan-boys think (yes, it's no CNN, but a three legged weasel is still a weasel). But The Trap is different.
The Trap, like many of adam curtis' works, looks at the rise and effects of neo-liberal policies and practices since the second world war (arguably the starting point for all this madness). The Trap specifically analyzes the rise and effects of laissez-faire capitalism, negative freedom and game theory and how they shaped our current economic mindset (specifically those of the us and uk).
The film talks about how governments and groups like the Rand Corporation worked to build an economic theory that they thought was logical and intelligent, simply because their theory was internally mathematically consistent. This theory was built on the mathematics of game theory and would later lead to the ever proliferating ideology of Libertarianism (a form of mental disorder that spreads like a virus and effects grossly ignorant people). According to their theory, all individuals acting, in what's called a "rational self interested way", will invariably benefit not only themselves, but those around them as well. Basically, the idea that the invisible hand of the market can and would correct for any mistakes through the power of economics where governments had failed in the past.
This theory isn't "new". It was first proposed by the likes of adam smith... and even HE didn't invent it (adam smith only observed the economic structure in operation at the end of the 19th century in britain... then wrote a book about it). However, new or old, this theory is strewn with many flaws and the need for the "invisible hand" should act as an indicator of such. The Trap discusses many of these flaws, using expert testimony from credible sources, including the father of economic game theory, dr john nash himself in a thorough and convincing fashion. Of course, i'd like to point out that while libertarians believe in the model of the "rational self interested" human, the very existence of libertarians themselves should at least be proof that the "rational" part is completely wrong.
Ironically, the best thing about The Trap is the part that i found most aggravating about it. For the entire first hour, hour and a half, The Trap comes off (to me) as almost completely unwatchable. So how is it that i'm able to still give it a glowing review? Well, it's because this is exactly what a documentary SHOULD do! While other documentaries, like Sicko and Bowling for Columbine (say) are well received from beginning to end, the only ones doing the receiving are michael moore's dedicated personal fan club. The Trap doesn't do this "preaching to the choir" as it were. It starts off with a detailed look at all the benefits of game theory and how it rose to popularity. So, while people like me (ie, intelligent people) will be put off by the paranoid rantings and ravings of a schizophrenic dr nash, the very people who SHOULD be watching the documentary (ie, libertarians) will be completely sucked in, only to find, later on, that dr nash is his own worst enemy. It's a completely new way of conducting a documentary, but it is, in my view, the right one. As aggravated as i was with the first hour, its purpose is to fully explore how such nonsensical theories came to light and how the most foolish of us were misled to believe their own bullshit.
Now, i'd like to end on a bit of a different note. While i don't want to be repeating the points of the documentary, there's one point i'd like to drive home here, and that's the point of the "invisible hand". While libertarians and capitalists in general view the market as a totally infallible god-like entity (hence the "invisible"-ness) capable of manipulating society into the best point of equilibrium, this all stems from a fundamental misunderstanding of how capitalism works. Capitalisms proponents state that the system works because each and every individual will exchange something they don't want for something they want (whether that's goods for cash or vice versa). The object you acquired you clearly wanted more than what you gave up for it and in time, the system will adjust and correct to create an equilibrium that best serves the sum of its parts.
This theory works great... so long as the transactions are dealing with "non-required" goods/services. However, once the transaction is for a good or service that you require (like, say for example, healthcare) the theory fails as there's nothing a person isn't willing to give up for a necessity of life (no amount of cash) and so the self interested aspect catered to in a purely capitalistic society ends up delivering a veritable Hell onto the sum of its parts; a far cry from the utopia predicted by myopic libertarian philosophy. An important part of capitalistic theory, ignored by many of its proponents, is that the theory ONLY WORKS if the option to opt out of a transaction entirely exists as part of your consumer choices. No amount of "competition" can replace this option and once it's removed the theory breaks down and you end up with the "utopian paradise" of the third world.
In other words, as adam curtis so elegantly put it, "the invisible hand of the market is invisible because it isn't actually there."
Saturday, January 26, 2008
Friday, January 11, 2008
Pirates of the Caribbean, At world's end
Pirates 3.
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Wow, i must love punishment. I mean, watching a sequel is pretty much asking for crappiness anyways, but why is it that the third movie is invariably always the worst? Godfather 3, Spiderman 3... Pirates 3. It's not like it can't be done well; i liked Return of the Jedi and Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade was quite exceptional. But i digress, Pirates of the Caribbean was an ok series and, maybe it's just me, but i actually liked the first two. However, the third one falls way short of this mark.
I guess the main thing that's wrong with this movie is that it sort of muscles through the plot devices as if subtly is out of fashion. The movie starts in Singapore (which the heroes go to sans boat, apparently), then goes to somewhere in the antarctic and then ends up in the afterworld, all in the span of about 20 minutes. Even the scenes in the underworld where Jack Sparrow has himself and his ship rescued make no sense. At one point, a veritable sea of rock-crabs wash jack and the black pearl back to the shorelines of the afterlife. But, where these rock-crabs come from and why they're helping him is left as a complete mystery (at least for now) and you, as the viewer, just have to accept that this is how things unfolded.
The other thing wrong with this movie in general is that they seem to be struggling to keep alive all the characters of the previous movies. while the film predominately focuses on the crew of the Black Pearl, we are shown brief snippets of Norrington and Elizabeth's father before both are quickly dispatched after what must've been 10 minutes of total screen time combined.
I guess it's ok that they killed them off. After all, they really did serve no purpose and it would've been distracting if they'd not been included at all. However, to see such major characters from the previous films just "vanish" really does them no credit, particularly since Norrington, a master swordsman by his own rite, was killed by a lowly member of the Flying Dutchman without so much as having a harsh word thrown.
Meanwhile, the film sticks to the previous formula (if you can call it that) of having a completely new villain, this time filled by the leader of the East India Trading Corporation. I forget what his name is, but the plot is that he has Davey Jones' heart and hence commands the Flying Dutchman to do his biddings. As far as badguy's go, he's not bad (as in, decent), but his plan is so nonsensical that even the writers felt embarrassed by it. As a result, the film's major focus is on constant battles between the Flying Dutchman and her crew and the Black Pearl and hers. By the end of the movie, you're so detached from the actual plot of the film that you don't care that it doesn't seem to actually resolve itself.
While it's true that the action scenes eclipse the plot, it's not because they were spectacular. In fact, compared with the previous movies, they kind of suck. Where were the epic sword fights with 2 or more combatants that keep switching sides? Those were the best parts, damnit! And this movie didn't have them!
Another thing that falls short is the comedy. The previous films had loads of comedic scenes in a variety of fashions from the visual comedy of seeing Jack on a shish-kebab to the concept humour of Jack freaking out about Elizabeth burning all the rum to make a smoke signal. However, the best this film can do is a delusional jack seeing dozens of himself manning all sorts of rolls. At first it's funny, but by about the third time, it's played out and you just want to see something different for a change.
All in all, the movie itself's not horrible, but it's not good either. It's definitely far weaker than its previous installments and while it does end on a note that leaves it open to sequels, you find yourself hoping that they just let this franchise die. But then, if writers knew when to kill the bastard offspring they produce, we wouldn't all be watching the 19th season (or whatever we're at) of the Simpsons, now would we?
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix
Aka, Harry Potter 5.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
This time i'm reviewing Harry Potter and the Order of the Phoenix, the movie. Now, it's not actually a movie i'd recently seen, but instead a movie i'd recently REseen. As a fan of the books, i've so far made it a point to see each film as they came out in theatres. Recently, however, my parents had rented Harry Potter 5 for my nephew to watch while he was over for the holidays and so i decided to sit in and see it again for myself. But i digress. Let's get on with the review, shall we?
As it is an adaptation from a book, it's impossible to discuss it without comparing it to the book. I'll try to be as fair as possible, though, as any movie adaptation, no matter how well done, is typically worse than the book it was based off. That being said, this movie is no different.
Since the movie is adapted from a 600 plus page book, the plot barrels forward like a freight train on steroids; subtlety and nuance be damned. The result of this is many characters who had failed to appear in the film they were supposed to are dumped in now without any introduction and for no other purpose than contrived plot devices:
"It's a good thing that witch who lives across the street from the Dursley's shows up when she does, otherwise Harry and Dudley would've been in real trouble. Of course, it would've been even MORE convenient if she had appeared 3 films earlier when she was actually supposed to."
Now, something directors often do when they have to emphasize a subtle point is have characters outwardly vocalize their thoughts because they can't internally soliloquize. To a degree this is necessary. However, sometimes a director has to trust that his or her audience isn't composed entirely of morons and that they WILL pick up on the strongly hinted at occurances without the need of an on screen character pointing it out for them. Apparently, the director/writers of Harry Potter don't know when this is appropriate and when it's not. As a result, throughout the movie, Hermoine serves the role of outward soliloquizer, pointing out all the giant pink elephants in the room as we go because apparently you have to be a genius to get this stuff.
"What's going on?" Ron mutters upon hearing the ministry-appointed, Professor Umbridge cut off the Hogwarts' headmaster and insert her own ministry-approved spiel.
"The ministry's interfering at Hogwarts!" Hermoine declares.
Ron and Harry look dumbfound.
Phew, it's a good thing she straightened that out for me. I NEVER would've figured it out. Or maybe it was for the onscreen characters only. Harry and Ron can be quite thick sometimes.
Another thing people do in book adaptations is change some elements of the story. Again, sometimes this is necessary. Unless the movie were 8 hours long, it'd be incredibly hard to be truly faithful to the book. So, to a degree, story changes are a necessary evil. Yet, for some reason, directors take this liberty to an insane level and often end up changing story elements into completely different story elements for no obvious reason. I remember Fred and George Weasley rebelling and using some kind of magical garden spell on the school. Why was this changed to fireworks in the movie? Did it add anything? Did it save time? As far as i can tell, the only reason it was done is because fireworks "go boom" and plants do not. At any rate, story-wise it felt like something was taken away from me.
Another thing they did was have Percy Weasley make a non-speaking appearance near the middle of the film. I guess this was to remind the audience he's not dead (despite having an important role in the first movie and none since). But it still makes me wonder. After all, if you're not going to introduce the growing rift in the Weasley family or have them even mention his name, why have Percy show up at all? This, ironically, would be the perfect point to have characters outwardly soliloquize their feelings on the topic. But we, as the audience, are left with it as an "easter egg" and nothing more. I suspect we'll see more of Percy in the coming movies, but if we do, it'll be awkwardly explained how he and his father had had a falling out.
All in all, the movie wasn't too bad. I think upon my second time through i found it more entertaining than before. Of course, my blood alcohol level was also significantly higher (it WAS the holidays). Either way, if you're a fan of the books, you'll probably want to see it, regardless; if you're not, you won't. So i guess this review was a total waste of time (like my others aren't?). Ah well, we all make mistakes. Let's just hope our mistakes don't all get turned into movies.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)