Well, all this collecting of other people's reviews should be ending soon now that most English-speaking countries have had their release (only exception is Australia, so I'm sure they'll be another flurry of catches middle of September). That means I can start back on the blog stuff I was working on before this movie came out, caught me completely unawares and then totally consumed my blogging time for a month. It's only about every ten years that a movie like this comes out that just messes me up good. Darn that Pixar. They finally got into my top 5. I never thought they would.

I was just reading one Wall·E review (not one to keep since it basically just says the same stuff all the gushers say), but the author did make one point that made me think a little: He states that at the end of the film, Wall·E “sacrifices himself for the humans.”

I was kind of taken aback by that because I hadn’t seen it that way. I interpreted Wall·E’s actions as just doing what he had to do to get home before he powers down completely. But, after reading this comment, I thought about it a little more and now believe that I was wrong and missed a crucial part of Wall·E’s transformation.

In the climax sequence, Wall·E doesn’t act in his own interests – he allows himself to be destroyed just as the reviewer above observed. He surely knows what’s going to happen if he wedges himself in between the floor and the plant compartment. If he was acting in his own interests, he wouldn’t have put himself in such an obviously deadly situation for a robot as badly damaged as he is by this point. (“He’s dying,” choked a person sitting behind me in the theater during the previous sequence when Wall·E is almost chucked out with the garbage.)

However, I don’t agree that Wall·E does this because of the humans. He certainly is respectful toward humans which is most likely part of his programming and certainly in his nature. And I guess you could argue that his programming might push him to do whatever the humans – in particular, the Captain of the Axiom – had instructed him to do. But I don’t think we’ve spent the whole movie being shown Wall·E’s feelings and loyalty toward one particular thing just to switch us to another.

From the very first time he sees her, Wall·E’s only focus is Eve. We’ve watched him go from a personal (arguably selfish) fascination with her to a (sweetly unselfish) devotion to her. And once he learns what truly matters to her – her “directive” – he does everything he can to help her meet her goal -- which includes putting himself in harm’s way and setting his own desires aside. (I just mentally counted two times that Wall·E purposely refused her offers of affection so that he could show her something crucial to her goal. Putting himself in danger happened so often I don’t think a count is necessary.)

The ironic thing is that the first few times Wall·E puts himself into the thick of trouble on the Axiom for Eve’s sake, his actions go horribly wrong and cause Eve to assume he’s just a troublemaker -- which drives her farther away from him and subsequently makes him try even harder to please her. Only as he begins to be more successful does she start to come out of her self-centered focus and begin to appreciate his self-sacrificing spirit. And when her “directive” is finally complete, she steps back and is hit full in the face with proof of the suffering he has put himself through for her sake.

So when Wall·E makes the supreme sacrifice, I don’t think he does it for the humans (who have never been the focus of the story anyway). I believe he does it for Eve. Her life and her goals are what matter to him. She needs that compartment open to fulfill her assignment. So he is going to make sure it stays open . . . even if he does it as a crushed mass of metal.

And coming to this understanding makes the final sequence all the more touching for me. Especially considering all he ever wanted from her in return was to be allowed to hold her hand.

Today (June 1st, 2008 ) is Superman's 70th birthday. I thought I'd take this opportunity to discuss the character a little bit, and tell you guys what I think of ol' Blue.

It cannot be argues that Superman is one of the greatest superheroes out there. Power-wise there are not many who can go toe to toe with him (and that's part of the problem, more on that, in a bit). He's also the one who brought about the "age of heroes", it was due to Action Comics selling so well that DC started putting out books like Detective Comics, and the Marvel (then Timely) super-hero books would never would have seen the light of day were it not for him. But does Superman, as a character, work in today's day and age?

Honestly, I don't think so. I don't read any Superman books, I find him boring. Superman's ideals of "Truth, Justice and the American Way" are all well and good, but today's society is not the society that was around 70 years ago. First off, the global village is drawing ever nearer - so shouldn't it be "the earthly way" or "the global way". Secondly, there's the matter of powers. Superman is a god among men. He can do anything. The biggest problem with Superman, and I'm not the first (nor am I the last) to say this, he cannot be challenged. That's why people keep resorting to that stupid green rock. That stupid, moronic rock. When people realized they couldn't just keep resorting to the green rock, they brought in a red one. Great.

But sitting here and complaining is all well and good, but everyone can complain. Here is how I would go about Superman, given the chance. There are two things I will address - the first is the "Truth, Justice and the American Way" thing. I will take each of those values and examine them, really examine how they pertain to Superman and the world around him. Is Superman really following his own ideals? I'm not going to go into specifics here, I am still a writer planning on writing comics, so these are story ideas I would actually be interested in doing. I really think that there is a story to be had by taking these ideals and examining them with a 21st century mindset.

The other way to explore Superman stories is not to focus on Superman. Focus on the world around him and how they react to having a god among them. Superman has a great supporting cast around him - Perry White, Jimmy Olsen and most importantly, Lois Lane. What's it like being married to a god? How does it feel going to bed knowing the world's most powerful man lies next to you? These are where the stories are. But it's not just Superman friends - his villains should also make fascinating stories. You see, mainstream audience don't know this, but Superman does indeed have a rogue's gallery. Quite a good one, too. It's not just Luthor and the rock. Brainiac, Parasite, Metallo. Hell, even semi-ridiculous villains like the Toyman and
Mr. Mxyzptlk can all pose interesting dilemmas, as long as you make the story about them rather than the Big Boy Scout.

It seems that is the way the Super-Books are going now, with the Zod arc which finally completed a couple weeks ago, and Geoff Johns upcoming Brainiac arc. We'll see how things shape up.

So - Happy Birthday Kal-El, may the next 70 years be just as good (hopefully without dying this time around).

If you haven’t had time to pop in your fresh copy of GTA IV and don’t want a single blood-spattered moment ruined for you, don’t read further. Though this article won’t go deep into the plot or contain any major spoilers, I will be talking almost exclusively about a character encountered a good two hours into the game. You’ve been warned.

At first, I had trouble connecting with GTA IV’s narrative. A few months ago, I saw Ken Levine speak about Bioshock, and he stated that designers must consider that the majority of buyers are meatheads who want to fire first and get story later. He may be right, because I couldn’t help it, but feel that the guns and guts weren’t coming soon enough. After a half-hour, I Googled “GTA IV cheats” to find the weapons, health, and spawn codes.

Then, for another half an hour or so, I went on a massacre across greater Liberty City—helicopter duels at the statue of liberty, grenade tosses on the highway, and, a new favorite, rocket-jumps off the Empire State Building.

With that out of my system, I returned to the campaign’s narrative, and have since been able to enjoy the game at a leisurely pace, even undertaking the wide variety of side-missions with my dealer, Little Jacob, my cousin, Roman, and my girlfriend, Michelle. Yeah, we’re so dating.

When I drunkenly drove Michelle to her house after drinks at Steinway Beer Garden, she announced we were an item. She then flew out the passenger window as the vehicle careened into the tale of an ice cream truck.

A similar event happened, again out of the blue, when I met a peculiar, wealthy man roaming the streets. I walked up to him, and the game entered a cinematic where he criticized my European heritage, then flattered himself by forking over a fresh one hundred dollar bill. Strapped on cash and in desperate need of health, I gladly took it. Then, as a symbol of true good fortune, I spotted a hotdog stand across the street—two steps forward and a garbage truck blindsided me.

What I’m getting at is GTA IV’s narratives, intentional or unintentional, are dark and brutal.

That’s why Brucie Kibbutz is both a breath of fresh air, and, for me, the cherry-on-top of a carefully crafted story sundae. Brucie’s a steroid-popping, car-thieving maniac. As a cliché, a stock version of the same character would play a lot like Biff. Instead, he’s highly likable and surprisingly wise, all because of one well chosen character trait: Brucie’s impenetrable confidence both in his existence and his role in Liberty City. He’s a dude. He’s a ‘roider. He’s a racer. And he’s definitely “alpha.”

But best of all, those labels are never a problem for Brucie, because he’s always the first to identify himself. He’s resolute and so is his image.

How Brucie Kibbutz pulls back the curtain of GTA IV's mechanical world after the jump...

GTA IV’s remaining core characters struggle to identify themselves. Immediately, you’re introduced exclusively to people fueled by their inability either internally or externally to meet labels they’ve assigned themselves. Rather than recognize their true identity, they aggressively set out to change it. It’s this pursuit that makes Niko both a hero and tragic (and possibly a tragic hero). Niko craves the American Dream, but Liberty City’s hard external reality interferes. But he will not be satisfied as a mob driver, and lusts for success. Even the supporting casts’ pursuits to re-label themselves makes them feel both pathetic and yet earnest. Mikhail Faustin believes he’s the city’s great gang boss, but his paranoia inhibits success time and time again. Still, he truly wants to do right—often less-worried about the mob’s business, than keeping hushed for his wife to watch TV.

But Brucie does not openly pursue a new image nor a new role in society. That’s not to say Brucie avoids advancement, rather Brucie recognizes the cause and effect his personality has to his success. He’s aware he’s a naturally successful person, and surrounds himself with similar people, like Niko. This is perfectly encapsulated in this small bit of dialogue.

Niko: Hey Brucie, what’s up?

Brucie: H-hey, Niko B! Come here. Show me the love man-hug style!

Niko: Woa, enough all right.

Brucie: Woa, woa, what are we about here, you and me?

Niko: I don’t know.

Brucie: What are we about, boy?

Niko: I’m an immigrant and a hired gun. And you’re a steroid junkey, but we get along.

Brucie: No, not that stuff. That’s superficial. I’m talking about the real shit.

Niko: What?

Brucie: We’re winners, man. Fucking winners. That’s how we roll.

Niko can only see the first-level of his reality, but Brucie pulls back the curtain and reveals the truth not only of the scene, but the truth of the entire game. Niko, the protagonist, is the hero of a videogame, and he will always win (just as heroes do in films, and just as, some of us may hope, heroes do in real life.) Brucie, too, is naturally a winner, but what make Brucie unique, truly special, is his ability to see the world’s mechanism. He sees how the clock works, and it’s so evident, so clear to him, that to everyone else he’s a moron. A fool.

At the end of the video, Niko completes a death-defying high-speed race and Brucie hollers with excitement. For Brucie, he saw the finish ling coming all along. While Niko, the player, will complete this race--you have to if you want to progress—both the player and Niko are under the illusion that success may never come. The game pressure’s you to succeed in this narrative, but the truth is there’s no real failure in GTA IV. Even if you never complete the narrative, you can always get the codes. You could spawn the helicopters, the weapons, the health and enjoy the city, but you’ve chosen to become the bigger character, the victor. It’s the path of Niko.

The curtain can be pulled back; success can be had at any time. And when I met Brucie, it was suddenly evident: the city’s already mine.

-Chris
Image: Source

We didn't do very much during the one-hour session. She told me to bring in various plays where I had found interesting monologues. I did three cold readings, and she said that the last monologue (Catherine's) in Tennessee Williams' "Suddenly Last Summer" fit me the best. She seemed very excited about it.

I do feel a connection with Catherine and did enjoy the play, but I am hesitant to audition with a Tennessee Williams monologue. I was hoping to find something more recent, more fresh, and less likely to have been seen many times over. While "Suddenly Last Summer" is not one of Williams' best known plays, he is still a prolific playwright. So I'm afraid that this monologue may be considered one of those "overdone" monologues that auditioners have seen hundreds, maybe even thousands, of times and of which they have grown tired. My coach was deciding between using this one or the monologue in the middle of the play where Catherine talks about the Mardi Gras ball. We both agreed that one was too safe. So hopefully this other monologue, from the very end of the play, will bode well for me.

Soon, I'm going to order a batch of new plays (ugh, it is so annoying not having any access to an English language library). This time, I will be searching for a comedic monologue. It seems that finding a comedic monologue is a difficult task, because so many of the female monologues I've found or pieced together are dramatic. I'm open to any suggestions and am wondering where to find a quality comedic monologue for a female (roughly) between the ages of 16 and 25. I am also going to keep an eye out for more dramatic monologues (due to my reservations with the Catherine monologue) but am limited by my small budget.

I have some reservations about my coach, but I can't place my finger on why precisely. I think I'll see how our second meeting devolves. Today, we did cold readings, a few exercises, etc. She gave me homework. I have to do a bunch of character analysis before our next session and want to finish reading A Dream of Passion by Lee Strasberg.

My Larry Shue monologue has been my go-to piece for so long now that it feels weird working on something else. A part of me wants to use it. Another part of me finds it way too stale. If I can get a better handle of it and freshen it up, then I might show it to her. I really should re-read the play.

I want to do good work. And I want to get into this one particular acting class at school that you have to audition for. Getting into these drama classes can be a feat, especially since the teachers tend to choose students they've worked with or taught in the past. I know that I need training at this point, and I am really hoping that I can come up with at least one good contemporary monologue so that I can get into that class. If I can do that, then preparing three additional monologues for an MFA or conservatory program should be no problem.

So let's do this.

I need to get rid of this rust.

Along with my favorite Harry Potter series, I also like the Narnia series of C.S. Lewis, The Chronicles of Narnia. I already completed the whole series, which, like the Potter series, has seven installments. My personal favorite book in the Narnia series is The Horse and His Boy, but I can’t deny that I also like Prince Caspian book.

I’m so happy because following the first Narnia film from Walt Disney and Walden Media, The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, Prince Caspian movie adaptation will be premiering this June 4 in the theaters. This is very good news for the fans of the Narnia series.

I first read the series when I was in high school, and finally completed them when I just started my first year college. I admit that it was really hard to be involved in the story readily (unlike Harry Potter) but later on, as you pursue reading the other books, you’ll find that you just can’t help but love the Pevensie children and their adventures. But the exciting thing about this is that there is something deeper in the whole Narnia series, and I noticed that when I finally read the last book. C.S. Lewis is really good and very subtle in injecting his ideas in the children’s books. If I’m going to look deeper through the character of Aslan, then it feels like he is like God. To critically analyze this, is a very good idea. Ha-ha! The rest of this exciting mind work will be your quest. ;-)

The movie was directed by Andrew Adamson.

]]> http://animanachronism.wordpress.com/?p=412 Thu, 08 May 2008 21:18:39 +0000 The Animanachronism http://animanachronism.wordpress.com/?p=412

The funny thing is, wildarmsheero is right: Code Geass doesn't have a pretentious bone in its body. It's the fans who are the pretentious ones. The show is just noise and pictures, and it's the fans who shove the meaning on it. We've been here before, and we don't need to say anything about Code Geass at all - it can just be enjoyed. Nevertheless, some of us find it even more enjoyable if we do say things about it, so, while we don't need to talk about Kallen, I want to. It's viewer's prerogative time.

As I noted in my last entry on the show, Kallen's resemblence to Domon Kasshu has become something of a running joke. To briefly run through the main similarities, both have the same hairstyle, both pilot mecha which are the last, best hope for (Neo) Japan, both are attracted to potential partners who have white-haired fathers, both use a burning-right-hand-of-death as a signature attack and both are hotblooded. Indeed, certain /m/en have decided that Kallen is the daughter of the hotblooded King of Hearts and Rain Mikamura, part of Domon's rather large speculative family (that image is only one version). I've no idea if this similarity is intentional or not - though I suspect it is - but then that's not the issue; we see it and that's what matters

Badass mother.

The key thing, as I see it, is how the hotbloodedness - the shouting, the assertiveness, the red mecha - is out of place in Code Geass. Omo pins Kallen down: she's '[h]ardly a paragon of competence, [. . .] the contrast to that “JUST AS PLANNED” hook some Code Geass viewers dig'. Domon Kasshu's not exactly the sharpest knife in the drawer in G Gundam; much of the show's plot, such as it is, is built around him not spotting important things. But that's ok, because the world of G Gundam is one where hotbloodedness and martial skill win the day. (Winners in the hands of a Gundam God, as it were.)

This is not the case in the world of Code Geass. I'm not sure it's even correct to conceive of Geass's conflicts as things which are won or lost, but in any case if they are won they're won by supernatural powers, preternatural intelligence and pure rhetoric. So, while Domon was the hero in his show, Kallen is the hero's tool in this one. And I think Code Geass rather points this out with Kallen's tendency for endearingly o'er-hasty actions, like interrupting a diplomatic discussion while wearing only a towel.

In fact, Kallen provides a lot, though by no means all, of the fanservice in the show - being seen about her ablutions (three times so far), wearing a bunny-girl costume and of course piloting a mecha with a motorcycle seating system and camera angles to match. [According to a biking relative of mine, motorbikes were one of the first spheres in which Japanese engineering really kicked in. This may be relevant to the Guren's design.] Kallen is the writers' Mikuru, which perhaps provokes ‘fourth wall moe’, a desire to protect a character from something outside the show itself.

The other thing about Kallen, of course, is that she's a half. Or a double. Or rather, she's really neither a half nor a double, just a human being, but as far as her fellow Britannians are concerned she's a half (hence Milly's efforts to conceal the fact). Indeed, she has four names; naming conventions being what they are, we could arrange them in a pleasing chiasmus, as Kallen Stadtfield Kozuki Karen. I'm using 'Kallen' because of Wikipedia (a good example of said website's not-always-positive ability to establish orthodoxy) and because it's what appears on her friends' phones when she calls.

The ninth episode of Code Geass, 'Refrain' is Kallen's episode, and it focuses on complicity, in the form of Kallen's mother and the hotdog vendor, both of whom serve Britannians and both of whom turn up later as Refrain addicts. Given how several of the other refrain users are reliving Area 11's time as a free country ('Nippon! Nippon!'; 'Japanese technology is the best in the world!') I'd say the episode is also jabbing at some people with a nostalgia habit (here in Narnia you'd make a killing selling Refrain at the Last Night of the Proms).

UPDATE: Lelangir's produced a lengthy essay on the positions Kallen and Suzaku occupy.

This entry, like many others, began as one of 'those' comments on someone else's blog; you know the type, a comment which makes you run Notepad so you can save drafts and print proofreading copies, a comment which stretches down the narrow comment field like the ever-rolling stream of time itself. The blog in question was iniksbane's. His remarks on Kaiji and Lelouch prompted me to once again enter the field wearing Code Geass's token.

Kaiji and Lelouch both seem to defy categorisation - almost always a good thing, when it comes to characters - and I hadn't considered comparing them. I think iniksbane neatly nails down Kaiji's character: Kaiji has a clearer vision of the choices he's faced with than the other debtors, hence his realisation that pushing someone off his girder and then apologising is stupid, but he's incapable of being the cold bastard that he'd like to be (and perhaps that the yakuza would like him to become too). In fact (extemporising here) part of Kaiji's appeal is that Kaiji sometimes manages to fight his oppressors' dehumanising systems by becoming more rather than less heroic in his behaviour.

Normally I try to restrain myself from looking too closely at characters, but I'm not so sure I agree with iniksbane about Lelouch. I've struggled to describe Lelouch in the past, but I'll take another wild stab at my own understanding of him here (spoilers ahead, of course).

Lelouch is plagued by a contradiction between his motivations and his method. Lelouch's motivation is familial affection (viz. his vision when he thinks he's about to be shot in the first episode), and Lelouch has two goals: to avenge his mother and to protect Nunally. Lelouch's chosen method, the amoral and Machiavellian manipulation of an entire country, requires him to become the inhuman character, Zero. (What is a zero but an absence? What is his mask but, unlike the masks of many other heroes, the total absence of a face?)

Zero - the Zero that Lelouch wishes to be - has no emotions, so that he can 'spend people's lives like chess pieces', which is (as far as Lelouch is concerned) the best way to fight a system which spends people's lives like chess pieces (the Britannian form of social Darwinism). Of course, Kaiji would see things differently, but then (although he starts out as a loser), Kaiji is a (physically and mentally) more mature character. Lelouch is very intelligent, but he's also a teenager, and very intelligent teenagers have a tendency to overlook things, like the ability of a childhood friend to run along a wall while dodging an auto-targeting machine gun despite the fact that said childhood friend claims to be 'only in the engineering corps'.

Another important thing that Lelouch overlooks is the paradox of wanting to become Zero. He wants to become Zero in order to pursue the goals of familial affection, but in order to successfully be Zero - spending people's lives like chess pieces - he has to abandon affection of all kinds. Zero's not a human being, he's an existence dedicated to getting more power. In fact, Zero's insane. It's the relatively familiar idea of the hero who sacrifices what he's fighting for in order to fight at all, although it's packaged very well. A third thing that Lelouch overlooks is the problem of if or when his Geass might grow in strength enough to be an inconvenience. Am I allowed to say things like 'hubris' and 'hamartia' yet?

[For this and other reasons, my one and only prediction for the second season is that Lelouch will lose either his left eye or both of his eyes. Predictions are a mug's game, but I can't resist making this one.]

When the human excrement impacts on the rotating, ceiling-mounted air-cooling device in Episode 23, we see Lelouch successfully abandon Zero, only to have his success undermined by that third oversight. And for a while in the two closing episodes it looks like he's become closer to Zero than ever before (and considerably less sane, too). But when finally faced with the difficult choice that he's set up for himself - be Zero, abandon Nunally and conquer Tokyo, or be Lelouch and rush to Nunally's rescue - he chooses his ends over his means and abandons the Black Knights to their fate at the hands of the resurgent Britannian garrison.

I don't know what's more confusing, the placement of a flower-wielding, wasp-waisted bishonen among fanservicely beauties, or the fact that the New Boy appears to be dancing in the background

Unfortunately by the time of the final Mexican standoff the dramatic preceding events have made it much harder for Lelouch to unmask himself, to divest himself of Zero quickly and easily. This is why we are presented with Lelouch as an arrogant, almost-incoherent, manic walking bomb in the closing scene. Reality repeatedly pointed out to Lelouch that he couldn't have his cake and eat it too - be an inhuman, unfeeling monster (a Machiavelli) in order to be a loving brother (a siscon)¹ - and Lelouch ignored reality. The result is a tragic parody of a human being, a masked actor who's become the part he thought he was playing. (And there certainly are a lot of actors in Code Geass, which is a very self-consciously theatrical series all round. But that's a topic for another day.)

So I suppose where I differ most from iniksbane is that I never thought Lelouch especially cared about what happened to Japan, except as far as it affected his own plans (to defend Nunally and kill his father). Lelouch did form some attachments to the Black Knights but not, I feel, very many, and he was prepared to abandon them when Nunally was at stake. But I think the idea of recapturing emotional distance is a useful one, although I would remove the 're': Lelouch is constantly trying to capture an impossible emotional distance.² Lelouch is an emotional teenager seeking to be Death Note's Light. But Light really is inhuman, though not infallible, and is motivated by far more abstract ideals: Lelouch hates his dad and loves his sister, but Light hates crime. [Also, Death Note has too much exposition and too few mecha. Talking makes my brain hurt.]

Anyway, roll on the second season (and here's hoping the earlier timeslot doesn't blunt Taniguchi's bombastic pen).

Notes

1. I'm intentionally misusing 'Machiavelli' and 'siscon' here. Machiavelli wasn't as evil as his detractors would have you believe, and (doujinshi excepted) there's no real evidence that Lelouch loves Nunally in any non-fraternal way. 'Siscon Machiavelli' seemed like a good, if hyperbolic, way to sum up his attempt to combine affection and emotionless pragmatism.

2. This is a good example of someone kicking reason to the curb when he really shouldn't.