The Farce is Strong in this One

I love Star Wars.  It's one of my all time Fantasy/Sci-fi series.  Yes, from a sci-fi perspective people can point out loopholes and cite technological inconsistencies, but what the hell, I enjoy the hell out of it.  I'm going to state a ton of opinions here, so be very warned.  To paraphrase, the nastiest,dirtiest war is the one fought among nerds in the trenches of Reddit and comment section of gossip blogs.   And this will piss off a ton of those nerds.

I loved the star war prequels.  I never said they were perfect, but I haven't come across a perfect movie, yet.  The original Trilogy was just as flawed, but it is just as awesome.  Yeah so it is different.  Like Top Gun is different from The Matrix.  But I still love both those movies.  Yes, the drastic change in tone is not an issue for me.  I was always intrigued by the concept of exploring different themes in the same universe.  So yes, Breaking Bad may not co-exist with the screwball carefree world of Friends, but it's like music (I assume).  You use notes and instruments that complement each other, even if different, not those that contradict and throw each other out of sync.  So maybe not Spaceballs but maybe the next trilogy could have explored a different tone, maybe a little noir, maybe a new genre.  Given how much the prequels expanded on the originals, bringing new worlds, concepts, creating a rich background and history to the mythos of Star Wars, here was a chance for the sequel trilogy films to dive even deeper, explore new worlds and new themes.  After all, there was an entire galaxy at their disposal.

But they weren't making a new film.  They were just making something "not-prequel".  If only they had taken their time and energy and invested it into making a good movie.  But they were pursuing a far more important aspect of the movie than something as stupid as a story.  MARKETING.  Yes, we now live in an era where movies are the new Coca-Colas and Pepsis.  The manufacturing budget is just a fraction of the marketing budget.

From the beginning, The Force Awakens has banked on nostalgia and love for the Original Trilogy and purported itself as a return to glory for the franchise, going back to roots.  No divergence in tone, theme, effects, feel, hell even the same actors.  (speaking of diverging tones in the same universe, a fashion based mockumentary in C.S. Lewis' world?  Fashion in Narnia:  They Lying, The Bitching and The Wardrobe.  Sorry, rambling again.)  It masqueraded as a justice in Imax format, for those nothing better to do'ers who happened to be imprinted to their very soul with the Original Trilogy when they were young and had no space in their tiny minds for anything different.  Setting things right for those who had their "lives" and "childhood" ruined by the Prequel Trilogy.  Hell, even the first line of the movie is a giant middle finger at George Lucas (This will begin to make things right, says an old man).  It convinced people, this is what they needed.  Flashes of images, tone conveyed in brief trailers, the incessant harping on "practical effects" the original actors' return, all led people to believe this is what they had been waiting for.

People began to get pre-emptively positive and optimistic about the movie.  It snowballed into a movement that penetrated mass consciousness, convincing everyone in its wake of its imminent greatness, taking no prisoners.  And then they painted themselves into a corner.  By the time the movie rolled around, not liking it, or voicing their opinions about not liking it was not an option.  It was always going to be a box office phenomenon.  But it ended up high on critics list.  Critics who had already resolved to be in love with it.  It didn't matter that it recreated the tone of the original, had nothing new of note, except superficial novelties and basically rehashed the plots of the Original Trilogy.  It may take some time for the euphoria to wear off, and some people to realize that they've just been part of one of the greatest magic tricks ever witnessed.  The magic, sadly wasn't in the movie.  It was surrounding its release. Some of course, really did want just more of the same, and they will continue to like it.

So yes, the new Star Wars is perfect.  It has taken movie and event marketing to perfection.  It has elevated hype creation and buzz generation to an art form.  Such sad use of such an incredible power.  Like using the force to change channels on your TV.

In Process (not Progress)

It's a hard knock life, they say!  So various elements of society have taken it upon themselves to make things simpler, but building more complexity to aid the simplification.  Complex machines, complex programs, complex software... its like a cow chewing and predigesting its cud before swallowing.  Y'know, if the cow built a ultra-complex cold fusion powered food processor that fits into its gullet, to predigest the food.

The concept of processed, predigested information is good, (interestingly, most concepts are good, as a concept/  Processing conceptually removes the concept of a concept in its rush to concise and abridge the finished form.  Yes, I think that one got away from me a bit) but like many concepts, flawed in the execution.  Because processing isn't just about the core idea of something being filtered, but its about it being spiced and flavored with biasness and unwanted opinions.  In the same way that processed food isn't about filtering down the nutrients and maintaining the essence and healthiness of something.  The rush to be jack of all trades and dipping our toes into everything leaves us no option but to have the cliff notes version of everything in life instead of focusing on one good thing and enjoying an in depth equation with it.

Hey, maybe it's the new path to world peace, you know.  Give the same processed information to everyone, generating similar emotions and opinions, ensuring overall consensus and fewer dissents and arguments (I refer to you, the new Star Wars movie).  But here's the thing.  There is dissent and chaos and anarchy still prevailing.   Here's where it gets complicated.  Both sides manufacture a processed, made simple for the proletariat, version of their assessment of events.  So now we have people fighting  and arguing on borrowed points, saying things they don't understand themselves (politics to net neutrality, every raging debate holds true to this theory.  (Also, Star Wars debates.  Meanness before correctness for Nerds).

It's really a byproduct of our mentality of meddling in everything.  wanting to butt into every debate and offer our two cents.  Just that our two cents are Canadian coins, or Sri Lankan rupees (you pick).  We take ready-made opinions, put our force behind it and peddle it.  Free marketing for those opinions.  It's a new trend anyway, to let idiots do your promotions for you.  Nerds or bloggers, or commentators or hobos.  The principle is the same.  That should be a new year resolution, maybe.  Have fewer opinions.  But original ones.  Here's hoping we survive 2016 (yeah, new goals.  Lower standards).

The Journeymen

How do you define a good movie?  Does it have to be great through and through?   If it starts of bad, but regains its footing, to finish off on a high, you would consider it good.  If you found it slacking or losing steam in the middle but good otherwise, it would be good.  

But here’s the thing.  The entire movie drives towards one thing.  The conclusion.  So what if a movie is great right until the final minutes, where it completely puts you off with a thoroughly underwhelming end?  Would you consider it a good movie still?  How would you feel about the entire experience?  How would you describe it to someone else who asks your opinion of it?

That, I feel is the philosophical difference between those who focus only on the conclusion and those who can hold good memories of the journey.  For the rest, the journey is like the gas station fast food you probably had on your journey.  Either all gone soon, or gone to a bad place.

There are some of us, then, who will evaluate our lives based solely on the goals and achievements we managed, letting everything else fade into significance, especially in instances of goals not achieved.  We let our entire memories of all that transpired get colored by the filter of what we ultimately achieved.  Much like auteur directors using their favorite filters to suit the mood of the movie.  The rest can look back and sort out and bank on the happy memories of their mixed journey and can chose to relieve the happy moments.  Lucky them.

Epic Fail

Every TV show around you makes references to other TV shows and movies.  They are full of jokes referring to current flash in the pan celebrities some of whom may wash out before you are done reading this.  Within the generational context, these are tantamount to Inside Jokes.

This stems partly from a sense of being unanchored.  Chaos exists in our current world in a multitude different ways.  But considered individually they all appear unworthy of defining an entire epoch.  We are too easily distracted and at a loss to prioritize.  So we are an age defined by several things but nothing really stands out.  

To Quote Tyler Durden “We're the middle children of the history man, no purpose or place, we have no Great war, no Great depression…”  We have become these feckless and cynical creatures, drifting rudderless, allowing ourselves to be fed on a steady junk diet of pop culture.  Ironically, reading and watching about purposeful heroes and antiheroes who do anything but drift; pitting our one lives against those with double lives.

And so we anchor and chain to each other, blind leading the blind.  But there will always be the risk that everything we claim to stand for, everything that we identify ourselves with will fade away, in one big domino chain reaction, each cultural anchor losing significance and therefore, dragging everything around it with itself.

SymFunny: A Mozart in the Jungle Review

Mozart in the Jungle is a TV show.  A TV show set in modern day New York.  A TV show with music as its theme.  It has the office set up of revolving around the lives of a group of people working in a particular organization.  All conventional cliches.  Together, you might assume the combined cliches may offer a few opportunities for brief moments of novelty.

You couldn't be further away from the facts.  The organization involved in this situation-based comedy, is the New York Philharmonic orchestra.  The music is pure classical music.   The novelty of this being one of those new-fangled instant steaming binge watching shows combined with the aforementioned idiosyncrasies alone would make it a pedigree watch to boast and brag about, even if you secretly weren't altogether impressed by it.

But the show is brilliantly scripted.  With wonderful performances, led by Gail Garcia Bernal as Rodrigo, the eccentric, novelty itemized new conductor.  The sitcom delves into the lives, passions and music of these people, also giving occasional moving-spotlight like focus on the broader alternative performance art culture that is now a core of New York’s soul.

All in all, it’s a well-acted, well-scripted incredibly funny show (they do not overuse or play fast and use with the musical instrument based sex metaphors.  I am awaiting some musician/performance artist type and political inclination based allegories though).  And it has one of the most amazing score you will witness in a TV show.  

Self-reverential

So I was in New York City on Christmas Eve (yes, I managed to not only bring that into this one-sided conversation, but started off with that.  Deal with it) when my entire definition of “personal space” came crashing down around me.  A man was actually annoyed when I bumped into his extended appendage aka his selfie stick.  Yes that abominable contraption that enables one to freely engage in base narcissism against a variety of backdrops.  Few years down the line, the question “What’s your background?” will invite a whole new answer.  It does not augur well for society that men and women are content to just leave their gaping face as an imprint upon society.  A selfie must not be a substitute for impact.

Don’t get me wrong.  I love photos.  Especially those that are not contaminated by my presence.  Hell, I genuinely wish I had been in New York City on New Year’s Eve just so I could caption my album “Naya Saal, Naya York.  Photos have been a documentation of society. In the case of the selfie however, the true documentation of the breakdown in society lies in the moments between the selfie arm or stick being extended and the photo being clicked.  The variety of weird faces that people make before settling on one.  This is one instance where the “Making of” featurette is more interesting and valuable than the final movie.  And of course, like any abomination created by the new age millennials, hypocrisy is an integral part of it.  People mock and laugh at the selfie stances and poses of others, seconds before sucking in cheeks and puckering lips to initiate their own “masterpiece”.

It reflects a larger failure of a self-obsessed and self-centered generation.  The more we focus on the individual, the more we crumble as a society.  We stay apart in everything else and mostly come together in moments of cruelty.  The mass uprisings and coming together in support of something are but mere flashes in the pan.

It also speaks to the larger insecurity of having to document one’s own life and journey.  It reflects the deep rooted insecurities we have of our place in the world, our path in life and the impact we will leave in this world.  The selfie is just a natural progression from opinionated blogs and essays (yes, yes.  I sense the irony) that have their say and clutter up space without having any real benefit.  The selfie stick, is a barrel.  The barrel of a gun.  A gun that society has squarely aimed at itself.  We are well on our way to selfie remotes and perhaps even selfie drones.  Ironic that in spite of all the images we take of ourselves, we fail to truly take a good hard look at ourselves.  And our duck faces.  We are literally screwing ourselves over with this.  To wit: “Kya kar raha hai, bhai?”  “Selfie le raha hoon.”  “Selfie bole toh? Hindi mein matlab?”  “Bole toh, KHUKDI le raha hoon.”

Touching upon Feelings, Touchy-Feely Style

It’s good to be in touch with your sensitive side they say.  But that often gets confused with being touchy and sensitive.  Being in touch with your feelings is one thing.  But touching upon a feeling or feeling a touch for your feeling (stay with me, now) and fumbling around it like a blind man, presuming to know it based on what tiny glimpse we have or what edge we pass our fingers through can lead to mistaking them. 

Our feelings are not really our feelings but others’ opinion of our feelings.  The information age is also the mis-information age.  And we are unable to hide from it.  Information consists of facts.  Mis-information of opinions.  Nothing is reported opinion free or tinged with subjectivism.  What we feel, how we feel, when should we feel and how to categorize and box them is based on what we see and are told around us.  Every act is labeled by someone already.  And as such, we tend to use those labels whether they be right or wrong.  So infatuation combined with loneliness becomes love, practicality becomes cowardice.

It’s like with music, books and movies.  We tend to lean with the majority reviews.  Hating what we would’ve objectively liked, even if as a guilty pleasure and liking what we did not enjoy, or understand, or both (*cough..Hunger Games, Inheritance of Loss, rap music…cough*).  And so it goes with our feelings and emotions.  We tend to box them into categories described by others.  And we tend to suppress or embrace them accordingly.

So how about this for a resolution.  Not just to be in touch with our sensitivity.  But to not be affected by the sensitivity of the touchiness ascribed by others while being sensible in sensing the depths and touchpoints of our true emotions.  Or something to that effect. 

Interstellar Review: Space Tripping, Nolan style

So this is not going to be a conventional review.  I am going to be raging against a lot of other Interstellar review, and against the Marvel film franchise.  I am going to abuse my position as a late entrant reviewer to be a little non-objective here.

Little disclaimer:  I am more of a DC Comics guy, and all the Marvel characters that I do like, are either not with Marvel Studios, or they aren’t doing much with them.

But first let’s talk about Interstellar.  The trippy intellectual movie by Chris Nolan.  Trippy in some of its visuals and its dialogues.  In fact, I dare imagine, it would be a great movie to watch when high.  The discussions and arguments about the theories explored in the movie would play out much more interestingly if held among “stimulated” individuals.  But us, on our normal plane of thought and existence, we need to work for it. Nolan aims for something unique, mixing sci-fi visuals juxtaposed with high concept theories that make for some compelling arguments while stopping just short of proselytizing.

A lot of the reviews out there have been unfair to this movie.  Some overhyped the IMAX aspect during the prerelease and were disappointed when the movie failed to live up to their internal expectations.  They probably expected another bombastic, sci-fi adventure featuring a cowboy anti-hero and possibly lasers.  Lots of lasers.  Or perhaps they expected the high-concept aspect to be tempered and dumbed down into something as simple as time-travel or parallel dimensions.

The film’s third act conflict, is a human one, fitting in retrospect considering the earlier dialogue between McConnaughey’s Cooper and Hathaway’s Brand about the lack of evil to fear on their upcoming adventure.  Evil is essentially a trait unique to human nature.

But back to the expressed disappointment.  This is where I hate Marvel.  They have spoilt the movie going experience with their “Big, Inter-Connected Plan”.  The constant gratification provided to fanboys.  We need to go in knowing everything.  Who is Ultron? Does Hawkeye die?  Is Loki still in play? Will Star Lord throw down with Cap? 

You see it in the fanboy articles raving about every step, wink, nudge thrown at them by the Marvel machine.  They who turned on Christopher Nolan, for an ALLEGED remark made about Marvel post credit hooks.

We hate surprises now.  In an age where the entire final act is practically given away in the trailers, we tend to fill in the gaps when information is withheld and blame the movie for being unable to manage our expectations.

Interstellar is certainly not about gratification.  It is about making you think.  People will disagree with the conclusions drawn in the movie perhaps.  But that’s good.  Debate is good.  But I fear, the debate aspect will be skipped and we will move onto the generic humor and ridicule that bloggers are so prone to.

In my view, Interstellar aims really high.  It sets a bar and asks us to join it up there.  If you do feel disappointed, chances are you bought a Salman Rushdie novel expecting a Chetan Bhagat level of gratification.  Keep aiming Mr. Nolan.  I, for one, am with you.

P.S.

Marvel, with their phases extending right into the next millennium certainly has no plan to go gently into the good night.  Christopher Nolan, meanwhile, will be exploring his next unique endeavor, trying to outdo himself and setting expectations, not managing them.