Review: The Martian (2015)

Review: Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh (2014)

Rating: 8.2 of 10

Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh is one of those rare products of Indonesian movie industry: a science-fiction! 

Supernova is about Dimas (Hamish Daud) and Reuben (Arifin Putra), two people who met on a fleeting chance and instantly clicked. On a trip (which means, ehem, on drugs) they vowed in the future to write a magnificent opus of science and romance. They invented the characters Ksatria/Knight (Herjunot Ali), Putri/Princess (Raline Shah), Bintang Jatuh/Shooting Star (Paula Verhoeven), and Supernova—an omnicient cyber entity. Their lives, in the most unexpected way, soon intertwined.

The movie is based on the megahit Indonesian novel of the same title, written by Dee Lestari. It was also the first book of the series Supernova which is now down to the fifth book (it's been rumored that it'll continue and be concluded on the sixth book). 

My first impression is that Supernova has excellent visuals; from aerial view of cities and oceans; spacious offices; and rustic loft with strategically placed items; to the trippier parts of the movie, it was all basically perfect. There were galaxies, rocks, and random close-up of objects that any self-respecting philosophical sci-fi movie would have (and I mean that sincerely). Every scene is a vision, and I especially liked the visual of Putri with her perpetually white clothes and pearly white skin, like a proper princess of the heavens untouched by earthly dirt. I also liked the universe that the movie created, like a heightened reality—or as the movie called it, pseudo-Jakarta. The music, whether the songs sung by Nidji or original soundtracks by Tiesto, accompanies the scenes beautifully as well.

The grand idea of human and humanity in this movie is infinitely interesting, but superimposed with a love triangle drowned in tropes and cliches. The story only picked itself up after the twist, but dampened somewhat by the fact that Bintang Jatuh or Diva is such an underdeveloped character. She should be the most interesting character, an enigma, a paradox but instead is the most paper-thin. She has the potential of being the critical voice of us humans, but I guess the three "story" characters (Ksatria, Putri, Bintang Jatuh) were always meant to be stand-ins so were not developed enough. Watching Dimas and Reuben alone discussing Schrodinger's Cat and whatnot indefinitely might be more fulfilling, because maybe after 2 hours they'd solve the Theory Of Everything already or something. That's not to say that the script is atrocious, I for one think it's well done enough from the source material, but I have a feeling some of the Diva's scenes were left on the editing room floor for time or continuity reasons, like things sometimes would.

TL;DR I think by its nature Supernova must end in a somewhat unfulfilling note, because it was always meant to ask questions, not provide answers--and definitely not provide an answer (the fact that it is the first installment of a 6 book saga might tell you something). But in the end, the movie was well worth the effort and honestly I'm just delighted to see the story brought to the big screen.

Review: Frank (2014)

Rating: 9.2 of 10

What do you do when you cast Michael Fassbender in your film? Not cover his face for the entirety of the film, unless your film is Frank.

Frank follows the story of an amateur keyboardist, Jon (Domhnall Gleeson), as he becomes the newest member of experimental rock band The Soronprfbs, lead by titular character Frank (Michael Fassbender) who wears a fake big head and never takes it off.

It's a bizzare concept to begin with (which was actually inspired by a true “big head” musician), but the movie, somehow, felt normal. Despite its heavily unusual premise, Frank isn't avant garde at all--it's just a drama about a few weird people intermixed with a few weird songs, and basically that's about it. And it's not a bad thing at all. Frank is honest, a little disarming, but an ultimately charming film. In a weird way, Frank is about what it feels like to be a mediocre artist--and in another way, about how it’s like to be with the mentally ill.

The most important thing to be discussed about Frank, for me, is the acting and/or casting. Domhnall Gleeson is cast quite often as an "everyman" type of character, and for good reason. He's not only got the range, he also is able to infuse unexpected shades of personality into his characters. Jon is wide-eyed as he is misguided, a visionaire as he is a cynic, and hopeful as he is selfish.

But Michael Fassbender as Frank, is definitely something special. We can't see his face, but we emote to him instantly. With every way he stands, sits, talks, and twitch his hands, you'd never once at lost as to how he is feeling. It's a beautiful performance that we almost never think twice about, which is a hard feat considering he wears a literal fake giant head. But my favorite part of him is (mild spoiler alert) actually how his demeanor changes when he doesn't wear the head. It's subtle acting that definitely makes a movie. Even Maggie Gyllenhaal is kind of restrained in her role as the troublemaking band member, Clara.

But acting isn't the only thing that works in this film. Its score was a delight, especially in the early part of the film which sounds so whimsical and airy--almost kid adventure-like--sending Jon off into his journey. In general, the movie Frank is filled with restrained but effective directorial choices, without trying too hard or being too muted (which for me, is the case with a lot of indie films). It’s a wonderful film to watch.

"Road to fame" band films are a dime in a dozen, but TL;DR Frank, with the help of few amazing performances from its actors, brings a new twist worth seeing.

Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?

The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?

To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.

Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.

SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.

Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.

The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?

The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.

But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.

There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.

I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).

There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.

Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.

I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.

That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.

But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.

Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).

But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).

Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.

Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.

Review: Fantastic Beasts And Where To Find Them (2016)

Rating: 8.8 of 10

Five years after the last Harry Potter movie, and fifteen years after the first, Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is the first cinematic continuation of the universe that does not directly include Harry Potter himself.

In the center of the movie is Eddie Redmayne as Newt Scamander, a mild-mannered beasts expert from the British Ministry of Magic. He has this demeanor about him—a little hunched back, soft spoken, never really look at people straight on—that is so endearing you’d never want to take your eyes of him whenever he’s on screen. He befriends Jacob Kowalski (Dan Fogler), a wide eyed No-Maj who dreams of something bigger; Tina Goldstein (Katherine Waterston), a quirky yet determined MACUSA employee; and Queenie Goldstein (Alison Sudol), Tina’s sister and coworker and a bubbly mind-reader. Fantastic Beasts is full of fun and memorable secondary characters that help make the universe felt so rich. 

Also, we get to see the culture of wizardry in the US and the workings of MACUSA  (US’s version of Ministry of Magic), that includes an Auror played by Colin Farrell (he is unexpectedly perfect as a wizard, and also has the coolest outfit. Although I may or may not want to steal everybody’s wardrobe from this movie). The titular wild creatures are also infinitely weird, cute, and strangely endearing. 

Fantastic Beasts is not a perfect movie, but honestly, you won’t really care. The second act should feel draggy and aimless, but the whole time you’d be too busy being mesmerized by all the wonders and charm the movie, the beasts, and the characters had to offer. By all means, Fantastic Beasts will definitely fill that Harry Potter-shaped void in your heart.

There are 2 major plots in Fantastic Beasts: Plot A is about Newt and his friends running throughout New York to find his missing beasts, while Plot B is about Grindelwald and the Second Salem movement that will eventually tie into the rise of Voldemort in later years. They both have very different atmostphere about them, and it’s pretty amazing that they didn’t feel disjointed at all. Newt’s subplot with the creatures and his friends is cute and charming, while the Second Salem goes way, way darker than you’d expect.

Ultimately, Fantastic Beasts is a fluff piece. It’s cute and light and whimsical (when it’s not directly tied to Grindelwald) but I wouldn’t have it any other way. As of now, there are talks for sequels that will focus further into the story of Grindelwald, and less into Newt Scamander. That makes me sad, really, because it’ll be a shame to say goodbye to these lovable characters and creatures.

TLDR; Fantastic Beasts and Where To Find Them is as whimsical as you'd expect from Harry Potter universe, and indeed, fantastic. (I regret nothing writing that.)

Review: Predestination (2015)

Rating: 8.8/10

Sometimes science fiction delves deep into what it means to be human, sometimes it's just a healthy mindfuck, and that's okay. Predestination is a time-travel tale based on Robert A. Heinlein's story "All You Zombies." I quite lament the fact that they dropped the book's title because I like how tangential it is but I understand that the title is kind of vague for a movie. It did, however, got referenced the film. (FYI I've never actually read the book but I fully intend to after this.)

This movie was directed by Spierig Brothers who also made post-human, vampire-society movie Daybreakers with Ethan Hawke. With Predestination, I came for Ethan Hawke (he never really stood out for me in his acting, but he does make interesting choices in his acting career in the likes of Daybreakers and Gattacca) but I stayed for newcomer Sarah Snook. Snook was ah-ma-zing. She played a central character called Jane, and also the male version of the character. She was the hook of the movie and the reason the movie worked at all. The big premise of the movie is about a time-travelling agent sent to investigate a terrorist, but in its heart Predestination truly is about a heartbroken little girl. Snook completely sold this emotional part of the film, telling stories of her insane life experiences to a random bartender. She had this silent rage as a man, and dejecting brilliance as a girl. Everything the first act of the movie was, worked because of Sarah Snook.

That's not to say Ethan Hawke was bad, he did brilliant job with an understated and underrated character. Maybe that's why he never stood out for me, he tends to be understated and grounded in all of his characters. I need to pay more attention to Ethan Hawke in the future.

It's hard to explain anything about this movie without resorting into spoilers, because everything that's special about it came from the plot (aside from Sarah Snook, but we've covered that). With a brief 97 minutes, Predestination is basically a plot machine (Heinlein actually wrote All You Zombies in a single day as a proof-of-concept that he can write the closed-est closed-loop time-travel story of them all), but TL;DR it is a brilliant plot machine with a very strong emotional core. Right now, you just have to take my word that this is an awesome movie. I might also have to add that that does not mean Predestination is empty or devoid of meaning. Far from it, it provides a study of how home, a sense of purpose and belonging, and gender identity tend to define us all.

That said, Predestination is not perfect. I called out the major plot twist early on, up to the point where I was surprised when I realized they were still treating it as a mystery. But it didn't matter because the movie handled everything very smoothly. And anyway, with time-travelling stories some things just came with the territory. But strangely, with all of its mindfuckery, Predestination didn't feel particularly groundbreaking and there's an interesting theory of why: the fact that the movie was fitted into a thriller mold to make it more contemporary and audience-friendly, in the way that the book wasn't. It certainly broaden its appeal to a wider audience, but for me that's what makes Predestination is still one step away from reaching a cult status. But that's okay, I can live with it. Not every movie had to be Primer.

TV Shoutout: Mr. Robot

Mr. Robot is a fresh new show, but it quickly captured our attention and we don’t want you to miss it!

What it is about: Elliot Alderson (Rami Malek) is a socially-challenged cyber-security engineer who moonlights as a hacking vigilante, and discovers a hacking group with a mysterious endgame.

Why you should watch it: Plenty of things, from big to small details, set Mr. Robot apart from other courses we usually have on TV. Firstly, it is one of very few shows on TV that accurately portrays hacking—and the life and technology around it (Sam Esmail, the creator, was a coder I believe). For the ones who care, it is a very big deal since the portrayal of technology in most TV and movies has generally been... questionable.

Secondly, Mr. Robot explores the ongoing, and very relevant, fight between 99-percenters vs 1-percenters. Which might sound too vague and nebulous for some, but Mr. Robot smartly keeps the focus small—focusing on Elliot and the people he encounters instead. To keep things short, I’d just say Elliot himself is also a very interesting character, brought to life by Rami Malek’s intense talent.

Mr. Robot is also a very beautiful show to watch with a cinematic flair, and there are little touches that makes the show feel inherently progressive. Although definitely not in any significant roles (except one, for now), an Indian man, a Chinese, a gay, and young woman with hijab had all been portrayed during the total 2 episodes that had aired. It also recognizes the presence of misogyny in the tech world, and in general Mr. Robot is a very prescient show.

And it’s a damn good thriller.

Who should watch it: The ones who enjoy psychological thriller—especially Fight Club in regards to Elliot’s psychological state and Mr. Robot’s nihilism (and fans are calling it, there might be Tyler Durden-esque twist coming!)—or just general thriller, really. The techies. The paranoids, the secret anarchists, and just general TV/movie lover.

Where you should start: It’s been only a couple of episodes, so yeah, from the start. You can jump ahead to whatever episode airing, but you’ll miss the brilliant, movie-like pilot.

Status: 2 of 10 episodes already aired, and second season has been greenlighted due to strong buzz!

Bonus: The first 4-minute clip of Mr. Robot, watch!

Music Shoutout: Mark Ronson - Uptown Special

No one could escape the popularity of Uptown Funk. No one. Hand delivered to us by featuring artist Bruno Mars, it was one of those popular singles that came out of left field--entirely unexpected in today's music climate, but devoured by all.

English musician, DJ, and record producer Mark Ronson is the man behind the album, Uptown Special. And Uptown Special is nothing if not a groovy work of art.

In actuality, Uptown Funk is my least favorite song of the album (I know, right?). Not because it’s a bad song--it’s an excellent song--but because for me, that particular song aims for “flashy” in the ways that the other songs from the album don’t try to be. The rest are less flashy (but in absolutely no way are less funky) and they show how meticulous the actual production were.

A smoothie of R&B, funk, and soul with contemporary touch, Uptown Special is filled with guest stars of famous and lesser names alike: Bruno Mars, Stevie Wonder, Mystikal, Kevin Parker of Tame Impala, Andrew Wyatt of Miike Snow, Keyone Starr, Jeff Bhasker, and Ronson treated each of them as crucial ingredients in each of their songs--but never outshines the song itself. 

Highlights of the album, excluding Uptown Funk. for me are I Can’t Lose (ft. Keyone Starr), In Case of Fire (ft. Jeff Bhasker), and the many versions of Crack In The Pearl. While the album was definitely derived from aforementioned genres, it’s amazing how versatile and ageless the album is, but I definitely think the album is best consumed in its entirety. Basically if Mark Ronson is a curator of talents, then Uptown Special is a museum that you can dance into. Weird analogy, I know, but I’m perfectly okay with that.

Mini-Review and Rant: Monsters University, Anti-femininity, and Some Other Stuff

So, this time I am going to have a little rant. I always think that feminism is important, but I usually try not to hit my readers over the head about it. But not today. Because oh boy, I have a lot to say about Monsters University.

I am not sure why Monsters University particularly irritated me. Probably because it’s Pixar, and I do expect better from them. Pixar is famous for producing high-quality, critically acclaimed children’s animation movies, some of which are my absolute favorites. They are also usually excellent at handling femininity and masculinity, and the majority of their movies are non-gendered (neither a girl’s film or a boy’s film). The second reason is probably because I just finished Pop Culture Detective’s thoughtful video essay about “The Complicity of Geek Masculinity on the Big Bang Theory”, so the topic about masculinity and femininity is fresh in my mind.

Anyway, let’s review Monsters University! (Includes spoilers for Monsters University and Monsters Inc.)

Monsters University (or MU for simplicity in this review/rant) is a prequel to Pixar’s Monsters Inc. (or simply Inc). MU tells the story about how Mike Wazowski and James P. “Sulley” Sullivan met in university, way before they worked for Monsters Inc. In MU, Mike is not a scary monster, but he is determined to be a Scarer and works hard for it. Sulley, on the other hand, is a preternaturally gifted Scarer and serves as Mike’s rival for most part of the film.

MU, on its own, is a good film. It has good set up, a definite arc, and satisfying conclusion. It has characters we care about, and it’s pretty funny too. But it’s when we think beyond the scope of the film that things start to get… shakey. First of all, the story arc of MU is immediately undermined by Inc. MU is about how Mike works to achieve his dream to be a Scarer in the company, but we know in Inc that Mike does not even get to be a Scarer. In Inc, Mike serves as Sulley’s partner, which is basically an assistant. So during MU’s runtime, we already know that all of Mike’s hard work in MU eventually will never pay off and he will forever live in Sulley’s shadow.

Also, Inc’s whole premise is about how Mike and Sulley revolutionize their industry by retiring Scream Energy and switching to Laugh Energy instead, because they met Boo. But instead, all of MU is about glorifying the act of scaring. I know, the events in Inc happens after MU, so Laugh Energy is not a thing yet, but there are ways to incorporate a more cohesive theme throughout the two movies. Probably one of their friends from Oozma Kappa could make an off-hand remark about how they wish there’s another energy source other than children’s scream–just something to foreshadow what will happen in Inc. But there’s no such thing in MU, instead MU is laser-focused at idolizing the scaring industry. Which, again, is fitting when we think about Mike’s arc in just MU, but completely falls apart once we consider the broader theme from Inc. 

And that’s all I can say about MU, from the filmmaking standpoint. From here on out, I want to discuss about the representation of social themes in MU. Let the rant begin!

Our protagonist is Mike. Kind, small, with big round eyes, and is underappreciated for his whole life. While the antagonists, the fraternity brothers of Roar Omega Roar or ROR (pictured above)--and also Sulley to a certain degree--are big and muscular, cocky, aggressive, and intimidating. I think it’s safe to assume that ROR is meant to represent the ultimate form of masculinity (they’re fraternity bros, for starters), and, as a consequence Mike and the Oozma Kappas (pictured below) represent a more feminine form of masculinity. You might accuse me of “reading too much into it”, which I think is fair assessment if every other little thing does not reinforce my point.

I also know what you’re thinking: Isn’t it a good thing for feminism, that our protagonists (Mike and the Oozma Kappas) are the more feminine of the bunch? Not in MU, because their whole arc is that they really, really want to be like Sulley and ROR. Also, the movie is relentless at making fun of characters for their femininity. In fact, baking and hospitality, which is usually viewed as a part of femininity, was literally spelled out loud as “L-A-M-E” by the movie. When the movie wants to make fun of a character, they used glitter, flowers, stuffed animals, heart signs, and dream journals with unicorn and golden stars.

The message of Monsters University is clear: masculinity is coveted, while femininity is viewed as lesser and deserves to be made fun of.

I think it’s no coincidence that there’s no notable female character in MU, aside from Dean Hardscrabble. Hardscrabble is one of the good things in MU–she’s legitimately scary, firm, but kind. Other smaller female roles are Squishy’s mother (who is mostly used as comic relief), and sorority groups HSS (the goth one, pronounced “hiss”, who I don’t even think has any speaking role) and PNK (pronounced “pink”, because they’re girls. GET IT??). PNK consists of six non-descript, identical cheerleader-type girls, because…. GURRLS, am I right?

In a comedy movie, it’s important to ask ourselves, “Who do we laugh at and, and who do we laugh with?” Answer: We laugh at the Oozma Kappas. Always. So eventhough Oozma Kappa eventually wins the Scare Games, the takeaway is that they won despite their more feminine form of masculinity, not because of it.

Which is a shame, because none of that animosity towards femininity exist in Inc. No character in Inc is outright masculine or feminine, except the ultra-feminine and flirty Celia (Mike’s girlfriend) but she’s never shown in a particularly negative light. Sulley in Inc is not even particularly masculine. In fact, his defining characteristics in Inc are his kindness and his paternal relationship with Boo.

And I want to emphasize that even though I am here to talk about the portrayal of femininity in MU, it is not about the women. It is about the men. With MU as example, it is clear that feminism is not just a woman’s fight–it’s everybody’s fight. Look at how miserable Mike’s life is in MU. Even though he is kind, smart, and works hard, he is belittled because he does not fit the standard definition of masculinity. Mike is only miserable because of the arbitrary societal rule of “how men should be like". So it is clear that misogyny not only affects women, it affects men too. As Emma Watson once wisely said (paraphrased) about feminism, we can only be truly free if women are allowed to be strong and men are allowed to be sensitive. But even in the end of MU, Mike and the Oozma Kappas still end up conforming to the idea of toxic masculinity.

There’s another thing that I want to discuss about MU. I did point out that the entire plot of MU is about glorifying the scaring industry, which is fine in itself because it fits Mike’s arc (a Scarer is not a real career choice anyway). But the movie also goes out of its way to depict other geekier career choices like scream-can architect, or more creative ones like dancer, as–for lack of better word–lame. So MU basically teaches children who watches the movie that a career in STEM and in Arts is neither an important nor fulfilling career choice (Direct quote from the Dean, “Scariness is a true measure of a monster. If you’re not scary, what kind of a monster are you?”). That’s totally not cool, Monsters University, not cool. (I could add a paragraph’s worth of rant about how MU depicted Scarer as an ultimate “masculine” career choice, but I digress. The article is as long as it is.)

So… yeah. This rant/review is all over the place because I have a lot of things to say, but I hope this will give you a new perspective. Pixar, you could do better.

Review: Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016)

Rating: 4.0 of 10.0

I have to be honest, and I’m going to drop the bomb this early in the article: Batman V Superman: Dawn of Justice is the single most boring movie I’ve ever watched in the theater in a long time–and I’ve endured A Good Day To Die Hard. Even that movie still wins favors from me for being a quick 90-minute movie with an earnest desire to be as simple and as loud as possible. BvS, on the other hand, is 2 and a half hours long and the studio themselves proudly stated that (I paraphrase, but I kid you not it’s true) “there will be no jokes in this movie”. They lied, by the way. There were a couple of jokes, maybe 3, but none of them were remotely funny. Maybe that’s what they meant. Of course not every movie should be witty–but when a movie is bad and you can’t even laugh, that’s when a movie-going experience becomes a torture.

BvS, actually, had a promising beginning. It still insisted to have a scene of the Wayne’s parents death and of little Bruce’s fall into the cave, which I am so tired of. Okay, I get it. Bruce’s parents were murdered in front of him as a child and that’s his origin story, but that’s how it’s been in every iteration of Batman. We don’t need to be retold the same story all over again, particularly because this version of Batman had been around the streets for 20 years. But if you must have the scene for the simple fact that your movie has Batman in it, I made peace with it. The next scene though, was quite excellent and actually gave me hope that this would be a great movie (I was wrong). It was of Bruce Wayne (Ben Affleck), in the exact moment of Man of Steel’s final battle when Superman (Henry Cavill) and General Zod (Michael Shannon) destroyed half the city–and apparently, a Wayne building. To see the effects of the battle from a pedestrian perspective was genuinely terrifying, and that created an understandable motive for Bruce Wayne to hate on Superman.

In fact, Batman is the only decent thing to come out of this movie. Ben Affleck actually makes a pretty good Batman, at least as good as the movie lets him be. Admittedly his motive on hating Superman might not be the most logical (after all Superman is the person who saved them all, city-wide destruction notwithstanding), but experiencing that much destruction in front of your eyes might do something to you. Honestly though, Batman is kind of insane in this movie. He has repeating nonsensical nightmares, is fixated on killing Superman on an unhealthy level, and brands criminals with his logo for no apparent reason. But, his solo fighting sequence is the only interesting one compared to the rest, and the simple fact that Ben Affleck is a better actor than Henry Cavill makes him the better half of the bunch.

Superman is where it all falters. First, I’d like to point out that I actually kinda liked Man of Steel, which is the prequel to BvS. Zack Snyder, who directed both movies, takes the idea of Superman, an all-American hero, and turned it on its head with MoS. What if, he asks, Superman is not regarded as a hero but as an alien threat instead? It was a compelling question, and one he began to answer in MoS. But in order for MoS to work (which is an origin story), it has to be followed by a rather traditional Superman movie, otherwise MoS would be pointless. Instead with BvS, Snyder continues to try to subvert the idea of Superman, but he hasn’t earned any of it. BvS tries to discuss the dichotomy between “Superman as a savior” vs “Superman as a monster”, without first establishing the savior part of Superman at all (neither in MoS or BvS). The result is a gritty Superman movie that both rings hollow and violates the very idea of Superman itself.

The messages telegraphed about Superman in this movie is all over the place. Alfred (Jeremy Irons) spouts two opposing opinions on Superman at two different times. Also, at one time Clark Kent/Superman talks about how he wants to do good and save people to honor his father, while in my recollection Pa Kent basically told him in MoS (I exaggerate, but still), “Don’t save the humans, they don’t deserve it.” It’s clear that the movie itself isn’t sure on how to handle Superman. Also, Henry Cavill’s acting that only ranges from brooding to grimacing (coupled with Snyder’s obsession of having Superman suspended mid air to hammer-in the idea that he is a god), just worsens it all.

How about other characters? Jessie Eisenberg’s Lex Luthor, that one I can’t understand. The less I can say about him the better, so I’m actually gonna chalk it out to taste. Perhaps, his Lex Luthor just isn’t my taste. One thing I know for sure though, his character is as annoying and as perplexing as he appeared in the trailers, so if you hate him there you’ll want to burn him in the actual movie.

I don’t have any special thing to say about Wonder Woman (Gal Gadot). She doesn’t have much to do in BvS (yet. She’s having her own movie and she’ll also appear in upcoming Justice League movie) and doesn’t have much time to build her character, so I can’t say anything worthwhile yet. I’m not fond of her costume from practical perspective, but that’s hardly the worst thing in BvS.

Alright, maybe you’re thinking, what if I only want to watch the movie only for the action? I’d just warn you that any kind of action only begins halfway into the movie (probably maybe even way into the third act), and the ride leading to it was excruciating. Even the titular fight between Batman and Superman is wildly lackluster, purely because of the fact that you just know how stupid it is. When you want to avoid a fight, definitely the first thing you do won’t be throwing your supposed opponent 10-feet into a building. When you don’t have time to talk, then you shouldn’t have time to keep saying you don’t have time to talk. The conclusion of the fight is also pretty stupid ("Martha," anyone?). To tell you the truth, the titular fight really is boring. The final fight, featuring Wonder Woman, is slightly better, but only if you like those kinds of heavily CGI’d fight.

The story itself is incomprehensible. Fortunately there’s something resembling a plot, but it has no apparent arc aside from the obvious question the writers ask themselves: HOW DO WE GET BATMAN TO FIGHT SUPERMAN. And that, ladies and gentlemen, is not what a good writer should do. Obviously, there’s a certain kind of art about a movie that builds quite and slow suspense that leads to a satisfying climax. Some movies though, just draaaaags, and BvS is the latter. I’m not a person with the shortest attention span and I certainly don’t need an explosion every 5 minutes to keep me engaged, but I just couldn’t care for BvS and I was bored. out. of. my. mind. With clunky pacing, disjointed edits, and worthless dream sequences, BvS is basically an incoherent rambling of Zack Snyder.

While we’re here, let’s talk about the title. “Batman v Superman” doesn’t really mean anything outside the court of law, which certainly has nothing to do with the movie. Even “Dawn of Justice” is kinda meaningless unless if you think it’s a clever enough pun for Justice League. And since the movie does not talk about the actual justice itself, and certainly doesn’t end in any way that implies justice is served, it simply is a misnomer. Basically the title was just a collection of things that Snyder thinks would sound cool, which ironically is a fitting description of the entire movie.

Honestly, the only thing I liked about this movie is the fact that practically anybody could figure out who Superman is; because when your disguise is a pair of glasses, then you’re not really trying to fool anyone.

My TL;DR is this: Do yourself a favor and skip this movie. Just watch literally anything else; Kung Fu Panda 3, Nolan’s Batman Trilogy, Supergirl, your high school graduation video, anything. Treat yourself with a decent lunch. Just don’t pay for this movie, unless you’re prepared to be disappointed.

Web Shoutout: Actors on Actors

Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here).

This time I want to talk about Variety’s Actors on Actors series on Youtube. These days, I think most people seem to forget that acting is an art--and a very challenging one at that. It’s easy for us to forget about that and get lost in the glitz-and-glam part of a celebrity life, because they don’t really get to talk much about the craft of acting. Most interviews that we see are either promotional interviews or a 5-minute conversation in a talk show (that undoubtedly will include a cute random trivia). Which, they’re not inherently bad but they always leave me wanting more

Distinguishing itself from those kinds of interviews, I find Actors on Actors incredibly delightful to see, if only because it brings me so much joy to see a conversation between two people that relate and respect one another. Obviously, we also get to hear in-depth stories about their experiences as an actor, the roles that they picked, and how they do their craft. I’ll just leave you a with several videos to enjoy, and also don’t forget to take a look at their channel and Actors on Actors playlist.

1. Ryan Reynolds and Taraji P Henson - Full Conversation

2. Andrew Garfield and Amy Adams - Why Playing Spider-Man Broke Andrew Garfield’s Heart

3. Octavia Spencer and Dev Patel - Full Conversation

4. Benedict Cumberbatch and Edward Norton - Full Conversation

Subscribe to Variety’s channel.