Amoeblog

'Z' for Zionist? The Horror in World War Z (2013)

Posted by Charles Reece, July 22, 2013 09:30am | Post a Comment
world war z poster matt ferguson

To me, about the only interesting aspect of the latest zombie film, World War Z, is how it dealt with a certain notion that it shares with all post-apocalyptic narratives, namely that the politics we (many liberals and leftists, at least) find iniquitous in the real world might find a moral purchase in the dystopian fantasy. (The film itself is arranged like a video game, where Brad Pitt goes from scenario to scenario, completing each mission, only to be told by the Side Character Who Knows that the possible solution lies at the end of another mission set in another context with its own set of possible actions.) That actions can produce different moral outcomes depending on context shouldn't be all that surprising, though, since most everyone is surely familiar with the adage about how even the most heinous of political systems might at least keep the trains running on time. That is, if you simplify the public good enough, like the purpose a junkie finds in addiction, one can find an advantage to any system. In the context of a zombie apocalypse, the desideratum is, of course, surviving one more day from the undead plague.

So, one thing a totalitarian regime like North Korea is ably suited for is to marshall all of its forces into closing off its borders and making sure none of its citizens is able to spread the disease should he or she become infected. Ideally, the advantage to martial law is to circumvent time-consuming debate during an emergency. This automatically gives an advantage to a totalitarian regime over a democracy, since only the latter has to bother calling for martial law, the former having already been operating under a military state preceding the emergency. Likewise, because North Korea recognizes no inalienable rights to selfhood, current Supreme Leader Kim Jong-un can put his state apparatus to efficient use by removing all the teeth from his entire citizenry. Not that infection was all that probable, since the country was living in a bubble at the time of the outbreak.

Continue reading...

Only Superman Forgives: Man of Steel (2013)

Posted by Charles Reece, July 1, 2013 12:50pm | Post a Comment
man of steel mondo poster mark ansin

I was recently working my way through Jonathan Hickman's run on Fantastic Four and it struck me how explicit the reference to the destruction of New York was made during the proceeding alien invasion storyline. Sue Storm (the super-mom of the group) demands that her fellow heroes move the battle with the invading Kree from the city's skyline to the ocean (why the ruler of the oceans, Prince Namor, has no problem with this is, I guess, because he's all googly eyed over Sue). And after the battle, the superheroes are shown helping rebuild the damaged city. This kind of real world destruction was so unimportant to superhero comics in the past that it became a central joke for a miniseries made back in the 80s called Damage Control about who actually does all the cleaning up. That's what the terrorists did to us, made it impossible to imagine a fantasy where real people aren't being hurt by collateral fallout from cataclysmic battles between superpowered beings.

Contrariwise, Slavoj Zizek has suggested 9/11 was a soporific, that it placed us in slumberland where American fantasies could take hold once again ("virtualization," he called it). The terrorists gave us real nefarious villains to which we could be safely opposed. The prominent media reaction, as he took it, like that of the typical superhero narrative, dehistoricized the attacks, setting them in the perpetual present of an endless comic book (or Hollywoodian virtual) world, where the action becomes one of pure villainy for villainy's sake, motivated by nothing but pure evil ("they hate our freedom," etc.). As Dan Hassler-Forest puts it in his book, Capitalist Superheroes:

Continue reading...

Fun and Games until Someone Loses a Life: Louder than Hell, the Definitive Oral History of Heavy Metal (2013)

Posted by Charles Reece, June 9, 2013 11:55pm | Post a Comment
louder than hell cover

This book was pretty hard to put down. Here are a few choice quotes:

gary holt

Gary Holt and Exodus do some charity work: We left a party once in San Francisco, and a few of us were heading to my friend's car and we saw a bunch of guys jumping some dude. At first we ran up to help the guy and it turned out the guy was just some crazed lunatic homeless guy. So we ended up joining in on the fun and next thing you know the cops showed up and we scattered into Golden Gate Park and hid until the cops left. I guess we kind of encouraged violence. [p. 242]

chuck billy

Testament's Chuck Billy shows compassion: On our first tour ever we were out in a van, and me and [guitarist] Alex [Skolnick] got a couple of ladies in our van in Richmond, Virginia, and we were hammered on Jack Daniel's. One of the girls started mouthing off to me and I got pissed off. We were parked right on the boat dock so I opened the door and flung her into the water. It was about a twenty-foot drop into the bay, with no stairs to get up. So she's holding on to the wooden pier. The water's hitting hard. She's crying. She keeps getting rubbed up and down, and she's getting slivers all over her arms and her chest. She's getting cut up. So we got ropes and hauled her out of there. She was so pissed, and all the fans were around the van cheering us on. [p. 258]

harley flanagan

Continue reading...

Iron Deficiency: Iron Man 3 (2013)

Posted by Charles Reece, May 21, 2013 10:06am | Post a Comment
Iron Man 11 cover mandarin

I decided not to see Iron Man 3 because it seems a return to old way of adapting superheroes to the screen: focus on the star, not the costume (e.g., Stallone's Judge Dredd); throw away most everything ever established in the comics about the character and/or his villains (e.g., just about any TV adaptation from the 70s on, such as Spider-Man); and those behind the adaptation are more interested in making the superhero more "believable," which is another way of saying they're not particularly interested in the character but in "telling their own story" (e.g., Ang Lee's exploring what went into Bruce Banner's rage in Hulk, or Superman giving up his powers in Superman II to live a boring bourgeois life with Lois for 30 minutes of screen time). That is, we get a Tony Stark pondering what makes him Iron Man (Robert Downey, Jr., is tired of wearing the suit, basically), a funny kid sidekick for him while he's hanging out in Tennessee, and the Mandarin becomes just another white guy in a business suit. It's not that I'm some purist about the comics, which are often quite terrible, but these alterations tend to come from people who are less imaginative than the comics creators, believing they can improve upon the original by throwing out the more outrageous and fantastic qualities that served to make the comics distinct.

Before the influence of movie studios, the comics industry used to practice the Jack Kirby Rule: a ridiculous premise is always better if realized with a cosmic roundhouse from some brute in a colorful costume. There's nothing particularly interesting about Tony Stark questioning his status as a superhero. It would, at least, be weird if he were doing this in a soliloquy while wearing his armor in the middle of a space battle, though. Otherwise, it's just some normal looking dude worrying about a problem that has no relevance to anything in life. So why would anyone want to sit through that?

Continue reading...

The Iceman Loveth! (2013)

Posted by Charles Reece, May 12, 2013 10:33am | Post a Comment
iceman poster

I didn't know much about Richard Kuklinski before seeing Ariel Vromen's The Iceman (named after the former's sobriquet as a contract killer for the mob). It's a solid enough movie: an interesting story competently executed though solid performances and an unintrusive camera. It's watchable, probably more so than most of what's currently out there, but what bugged came up after the film during a Q&A with the director. Someone asked him why he left out the spousal abuse. As an example, I found this interview with Kuklinski's family from a 2006 episode of Larry King Live where guest host John Roberts asks Kuklinski's wife of 25 years, Barbara, about that very topic:

JR: Barbara, you have said of Richard "There were two Richards. I never knew who would be walking in the door. He could be generous to a fault or the meanest man on earth." Tell us more about that.

BK: That's true. He was kind, considerate. You know he would have done anything for all of us, very generous gifts and flowers and the best dinners and nice wine. But when whatever twisted him, whatever happened, it didn't matter how good those times were because the bad was so bad then.

JR: And he abused you physically?

BK: He certainly did.

JR: What did he do?

BK: Stabbed me, broke my nose, lost consciousness many times, strangled me, would wake up, you know, at two o'clock in the morning with a pillow over my face and he would tell me that he decided that was the day I die.


Some pretty intense shit, right?, which says a lot about who this guy was and what it was like to live under his domination. Vromen's answer to why he left all of this out was that it would make half the audience walk out -- that is, inhibit our ability to identify with Kuklinksi. But the man was a casebook example of the sociopath, a person who can't identify, or can't empathize, with the feelings of another. So understanding through identification is a pretty stupid reason for making this film. How Vromen creates identification is by manufacturing a pressure-cooker setup for Kuklinski's behavior. When his mob boss (Ray Liotta) suspends him, Kuklinksi becomes increasingly agitated at home, blowing up at his wife, though never striking her. He soon apologizes, saying that she and their daughters (their son was left out of the film) are all that's important to him. It's okay in this fantasy land to slaughter a hundred men, but punching your wife in the nose or traumatizing your children is just going too far, despite his family's being around to tell the tale. Furthermore, by using the pressure cooking theory and mostly just showing the "generous side" of Kuklinski at home, the slaughter of all those men becomes perversely justified in the film as a quid pro quo for his distaff half. He kills for his love and the protection of his wife and daughters. You'd have to go back to the classic days of Hollywood crime flicks to see this level of mythologizing towards murderous psychopathic gangsters (or at least to Penn's Bonnie & Clyde). Ironically, it makes Kuklinksi's family accomplices to his crimes, rather than victims. His wife didn't care what he did as long as he brought home the bacon and made her feel like a princess. But as a fantasy, it's entertaining enough, I guess.
BACK  <<  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  >>  NEXT