Sunday 21 June 2015
Thursday 11 June 2015
Monday 13 October 2014
New Website: therealjoeboon.com
Hi all, I have decided to go with the greater customisation available through an official website, built with wordpress.
The contents of this blog have been imported into my new site, so you will lose nothing by going over there. It means that I can do more than I can here. So please head over to therealjoeboon.com and continue to enjoy lively commentary, political news and information, and film and book reviews.
Cheers!
The contents of this blog have been imported into my new site, so you will lose nothing by going over there. It means that I can do more than I can here. So please head over to therealjoeboon.com and continue to enjoy lively commentary, political news and information, and film and book reviews.
Cheers!
Thursday 9 October 2014
Sin City, A Dame to Kill For (REVIEW)
I watched the first Sin City on my Ipod video back in 2006, and even on the tiny screen with unacceptably low resolution (by contemporary standards) I was utterly enthralled. The long awaited sequel has been released ten years after the original, and I was apprehensive as to its promise. The attempts by sequels to both relive and better the glories of the initial product have so often failed that its remarkable that the studios remain committed to doing them.
A Dame to Kill For is not better than the original film. In fact I would venture to say that Sin City in 2004 had a much more revolutionary impact. It was among the first live action films to be entirely shot before a green screen, and prepared audiences for further acclaimed Graphic Novel adaptations like 300, and Watchmen. That there were also poorly received flops like The Spirit says little more than the genre is subject to the same commercial risks as more mainstream genres.
Sin City seemed to come out of nowhere. The stylisation of the cinematography (in particular the famous colour-pass technique) resurrected the 'film-noir' sub-genre from long term obscurity, and the quality of the characters -- not to mention the actors behind them -- gave the film a raw power to which no amount of b movie action sequences can match. Playing Marv reinvigorated Micky Rourke's career, which had languished in the 90s with action flops and a underwhelming segway into boxing. The latter left him with a botched facial reconstruction and an empty bank account. With Marv he returned to top of audiences demand, which is evident in A Dame to Kill For as his role was inflated by being a crowd favourite. He is fantastic in this film though, despite not really having his own story.
I'm not going to try and go through the whole cast, as I know that online film reviewers can often commit the sin of capitalising on the lack of an editor -- the best use for such reviews is to induce sleep. But deserving a special mention is Jessica Alba, who seems untouched by the last decade and does a good job as Nancy struggling to accept the suicide of John Hardigan (Bruce Willis) and obsessed with vengence. Powers Boothe is even better this time as Senator Roarke, understandably so as he really only had one scene in the first movie. This time he is the main villain after Eva Green's eponymous dame. They both are convincing 'heavies' and though Eva is as frequently topless as she is fully clothed, I am not going to complain.
Josh Brolin takes on the character of Dwight McCarthy who was played by Clive Owen in Sin City. He does a good, solid job, but I can't deny that I miss the more psychological Owen. The sinister chauffeur and master at inflicting pain Manute is played by Dennis Haysbert, who replaces the late Michael Clark Duncan. Haysbert gives his character a tad more depth as to his motivations and background, but Manute remains a rather mysterious figure.
Almost finally I want to say that Joseph Gordon-Levitt is just as watchable as you might expect. He plays the interminably lucky gambler and 'city-slicker' Johnny. His card skills are brilliant, and his story has a fair bit of emotional power.
The women of A Dame to Kill For carry the film and give it the emotional depth needed to equal the previous instalment. The one in particular I want to mention is the 20 year old Julia Garner who plays Marcy. She is one of the girls working in Katy's saloon and accompanies Johnny on his gambling spree. Garner seems to have walked out of cinemas golden age. She has a timeless beauty and curly hair that reminds me a little of Shirley Temple. But to trawl deeper than the cosmetic, Garner has an authentic presence, there is not a hint of falseness to her character, and Marcy is fully a part of the sinister world of Sin City, while being a naive and innocent part. Garner's career is still in its early stages but she has been in a few other films already, including a starring role in Jim Mickle's We Are What We Are. Watch out for Julia Garner, she is going to go far.
 |
| Julia Garner |
Capricious Minds
George W. Bush has been criticised heavily for taking the United States to an open ended war in Iraq. The joint resolution which was supported and then regretted by the likes of Hillary Clinton and John Kerry (Barrack Obama was saved by not being elected to the senate until 2004) passed in October 2002. It was employed by President Bush to authorise the invasion in March 2003 and subsequent occupation which officially lasted until 2011.
The case I have often heard from pacifists, feckless liberals, and people possessed with anti-american spite; is that blank checks of the kind from 2002 enable powerful nations to play god in antique lands. In a general way this is a correct and valuable lesson. And the mistakes in prosecution of the war in Iraq are well attested to. But the critics overstep when they argue that getting embroiled in another conflict in Mesopotamia will have the same outcome as before.
Hesitancy to oppose the Islamic State (which is not a perversion of Islam, but rather a nihilistic interpretation of it) presumes that the people of Iraq are not worth defending. Or at least their value as fellow human beings does not outweigh our own suspicions of the American war machine. This luxurious position (since it cannot be said of those nearer the shells and beheadings and rapes) is cautious, and sensible in a self-serving way. But it is morally indefensible.
With the wide angle lens of history we can deduce that Iraq has been a place of instability and often rancid fear for decades. For the last twenty-five the United States of America has played an active part, and were it to mobilise effectively the new threat of ISIS would quickly shrivel. The difficulty is that the domestic (and now we can definitely say global) public have long had an irritable digestive system for wars abroad. Indochina (including the two Vietnam wars 1954-1975) permanently upset the stomach, for which we can thank the likes of Henry Kissenger for adding chronic acid reflux.
If public opinion was to stabilise for long enough to carry out a thorough engagement things might be a hell of a lot more peaceful. But Kissenger incarnates; those without conscience, with a narcissistic desire for credit and praise are with us still and have to be guarded against. How then to proceed? A good start would be to know your enemy, and to learn who cannot be tolerated to continue existing for the irredeemable damage they do to their fellow humans.
A war against ISIS with boots on the ground may be worth fighting by this logic. I am no soldier, and I cannot write with the same strength as one who could carry these principles into the theatre of war. But inasmuch as I can I will stick by the people of Iraq, and not subject them to the evil of capricious minds. There is a humanism at work here, it defies the us and them understanding and embraces the logic that we are all people worth a damn, and we have been involved in each others lives far to long to pull back now.
Sunday 28 September 2014
No Votes Behind the Left
The resignation of David Cunliffe as leader of the Labour Party yesterday means another full leadership contest will get under way in the coming weeks.
Resigning was apparently not Cunliffe's preferred option for triggering such a fight. He wanted to force the Labour caucus to hold a vote of no-confidence in him -- presumably to drive his enemies out into the open. Instead as has been well reported the caucus has not cooperated and has elected Chris Hipkins (a known Cunliffe critic), and Carmel Sepeloni as senior and junior whip respectively.
This indicates that the majority of caucus is not behind David Cunliffe, and the undisguised anger shown by David Shearer and David Parker is further proof of that. Labour is heading into its darkest and most painful period since the late 1980s. There is no avoiding a massive blood-letting, nor would it be desirable to avoid it.
Opinions differ on who should go. If Cunliffe is re-elected he will swiftly purge the ABCs (Anyone But Cunliffe faction) which would spell the end for Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff, Annette King, and Clayton Cosgrove. The difficulty with those four is they are political survivors, Goff was first elected in 1981 and was a minister in the Lange/Palmer/Moore and Clark cabinets. Cosgrove has the most untenable position being a list MP, and he could be purged rather easily. Mallard, Goff, and King are long sitting electorate MPs who thus enjoy more job security. They've enjoyed it too long. Being an MP isn't a job for life, and Labour desperately needs some new blood. They should be looking at who might be in a position to succeed them in 2017 (if not before) and grooming those candidates.
However, if Cunliffe wins back his crown it is not certain that the ABCs will cooperate in such fashion. Furthermore, I don't believe that purging the party of David Cunliffe's enemies will deliver an eventual Labour Government. There is no mass working class movement joined at the point of production that is big enough to be a serious force in politics. It died before most of my generation was born. The nostalgic remnants which characterize Labour under Cunliffe insisted on carting their baggage on the campaign trail. Dissent was disallowed.
The dirty politics of the right has temporarily obscured the ruthless behaviour of the left. Offering an unorthodox view can lead to a torrent of abuse, or condescending dismissal of one's point. I personally find the latter worse, which is why my foray as a student into VicLabour (the Victoria University branch of Young Labour) fizzled out after a few wretched meetings. I still get calls and emails from them, but often-times prefer the company of those on the right. A clash of opposites -- the dialectical method -- is what I seek.
I do not support David Cunliffe. I had argued that he could maintain his position in the face of defeat on September 20 if Labour got at least 30% of the party vote. It would be disingenuous to go back on that. But the Labour Party needs more than a leadership contest, it needs more than a debate over it's future. Grant Robertson has announced that he will stand for the leadership. The media reported that he has promised to 'stop the bleeding'. He shouldn't try to plug a mortal wound. If he's going to take the reigns the party as we know it has to die. He has the skills to build it anew, and ensure that it's soul remains intact.
Having said that, there is merit in the statements by David Shearer that the leadership contest should be delayed until the Party has gone through a formal review of the general election. This would allow greater perspective to be gained with the passage of a little time. Blaming Kim Dotcom, or Nicky Hager, or the voters themselves for making the wrong choice is both petty and ridiculous.
Resigning was apparently not Cunliffe's preferred option for triggering such a fight. He wanted to force the Labour caucus to hold a vote of no-confidence in him -- presumably to drive his enemies out into the open. Instead as has been well reported the caucus has not cooperated and has elected Chris Hipkins (a known Cunliffe critic), and Carmel Sepeloni as senior and junior whip respectively.
This indicates that the majority of caucus is not behind David Cunliffe, and the undisguised anger shown by David Shearer and David Parker is further proof of that. Labour is heading into its darkest and most painful period since the late 1980s. There is no avoiding a massive blood-letting, nor would it be desirable to avoid it.
Opinions differ on who should go. If Cunliffe is re-elected he will swiftly purge the ABCs (Anyone But Cunliffe faction) which would spell the end for Trevor Mallard, Phil Goff, Annette King, and Clayton Cosgrove. The difficulty with those four is they are political survivors, Goff was first elected in 1981 and was a minister in the Lange/Palmer/Moore and Clark cabinets. Cosgrove has the most untenable position being a list MP, and he could be purged rather easily. Mallard, Goff, and King are long sitting electorate MPs who thus enjoy more job security. They've enjoyed it too long. Being an MP isn't a job for life, and Labour desperately needs some new blood. They should be looking at who might be in a position to succeed them in 2017 (if not before) and grooming those candidates.
However, if Cunliffe wins back his crown it is not certain that the ABCs will cooperate in such fashion. Furthermore, I don't believe that purging the party of David Cunliffe's enemies will deliver an eventual Labour Government. There is no mass working class movement joined at the point of production that is big enough to be a serious force in politics. It died before most of my generation was born. The nostalgic remnants which characterize Labour under Cunliffe insisted on carting their baggage on the campaign trail. Dissent was disallowed.
The dirty politics of the right has temporarily obscured the ruthless behaviour of the left. Offering an unorthodox view can lead to a torrent of abuse, or condescending dismissal of one's point. I personally find the latter worse, which is why my foray as a student into VicLabour (the Victoria University branch of Young Labour) fizzled out after a few wretched meetings. I still get calls and emails from them, but often-times prefer the company of those on the right. A clash of opposites -- the dialectical method -- is what I seek.
I do not support David Cunliffe. I had argued that he could maintain his position in the face of defeat on September 20 if Labour got at least 30% of the party vote. It would be disingenuous to go back on that. But the Labour Party needs more than a leadership contest, it needs more than a debate over it's future. Grant Robertson has announced that he will stand for the leadership. The media reported that he has promised to 'stop the bleeding'. He shouldn't try to plug a mortal wound. If he's going to take the reigns the party as we know it has to die. He has the skills to build it anew, and ensure that it's soul remains intact.
Having said that, there is merit in the statements by David Shearer that the leadership contest should be delayed until the Party has gone through a formal review of the general election. This would allow greater perspective to be gained with the passage of a little time. Blaming Kim Dotcom, or Nicky Hager, or the voters themselves for making the wrong choice is both petty and ridiculous.
 |
| Take a leaf from Tony Blair? |
Thursday 25 September 2014
Force Majeure, Review NZIFF
Yes, yes, this is two weeks late and the NZIFF was done with last Sunday, but here is one of my final reviews.
I saw In the Courtyard directly before this, but cannot bring myself to punch out a half decent review. It wasn't bad, merely overshadowed by the raw power of Force Majeure.
'Force majeure' is a legal term describing 'an act of God'. It refers to natural disasters and the like and is often a clause in contracts etc.
A young married couple take their two children to a luxury ski resort in France, where the simple act of the father running away and abandoning his panicking family in the face of an avalanche. I am being savagely terse here, and I hope the reduction of the plot into a sentence doesn't give the impression that there is little in the film. That is plainly wrong. Force Majeure explores what happens when the survival instinct forces the ego to temporarily disappear, and it takes it's time to work through the implications.
For anyone studying film this is a brilliant example of psychoanalytical cinema, and a very accessible one. While I am sure a reading of Jaques Lacan (a French psychoanalyst who wrote extensively on film) would uncover so much more, thankfully Force Majeure proves that it isn't necessary to be so high brow. I say that because I tried reading Lacan at University and couldn't understand a bloody thing. French academics are renowned for being so opaque they can't even read each other.
Film psychoanalysis is generally on the same wavelength as feminist film theory -- my favourite mode of critique. Force Majeure investigates the masculine subconscious which is denied by the husband's ego, so he denies that he fled his family in the face of the avalanche and that denial causes his wife to lose all faith in him. I haven't written spoiler alert yet because I'm really only regurgitating the bits of narrative explained in the films marketing.
The setting is what you would expect of alpine France. Snow buried mountain peaks in the background of most shots, a conspicuously clean hotel which juxtaposes with the emotional chaos playing out within the characters. The avalanche was 'controlled', and though frightening for the characters it was ultimately harmless. Loud, rumbling booms sound frequently, obviously they are part of the system of provoking small avalanches to guard against the possibility of a big one sweeping over the resort. Metaphorical perhaps, symbolizing the vital safety valve required in relationships. Almost as frequent are the opening bars of Winter from Vivaldi's Four Seasons. The combination of these partnered with the stark silence that reigns over much of the rest of the film reminded me of The Shining. And the themes are linked, however the main difference is that the events of The Shining were very particular to the characters in that film. In Force Majeure there is the palpable sense that this could happen (and probably does) to any family.
I saw In the Courtyard directly before this, but cannot bring myself to punch out a half decent review. It wasn't bad, merely overshadowed by the raw power of Force Majeure.
'Force majeure' is a legal term describing 'an act of God'. It refers to natural disasters and the like and is often a clause in contracts etc.
A young married couple take their two children to a luxury ski resort in France, where the simple act of the father running away and abandoning his panicking family in the face of an avalanche. I am being savagely terse here, and I hope the reduction of the plot into a sentence doesn't give the impression that there is little in the film. That is plainly wrong. Force Majeure explores what happens when the survival instinct forces the ego to temporarily disappear, and it takes it's time to work through the implications.
For anyone studying film this is a brilliant example of psychoanalytical cinema, and a very accessible one. While I am sure a reading of Jaques Lacan (a French psychoanalyst who wrote extensively on film) would uncover so much more, thankfully Force Majeure proves that it isn't necessary to be so high brow. I say that because I tried reading Lacan at University and couldn't understand a bloody thing. French academics are renowned for being so opaque they can't even read each other.
Film psychoanalysis is generally on the same wavelength as feminist film theory -- my favourite mode of critique. Force Majeure investigates the masculine subconscious which is denied by the husband's ego, so he denies that he fled his family in the face of the avalanche and that denial causes his wife to lose all faith in him. I haven't written spoiler alert yet because I'm really only regurgitating the bits of narrative explained in the films marketing.
The setting is what you would expect of alpine France. Snow buried mountain peaks in the background of most shots, a conspicuously clean hotel which juxtaposes with the emotional chaos playing out within the characters. The avalanche was 'controlled', and though frightening for the characters it was ultimately harmless. Loud, rumbling booms sound frequently, obviously they are part of the system of provoking small avalanches to guard against the possibility of a big one sweeping over the resort. Metaphorical perhaps, symbolizing the vital safety valve required in relationships. Almost as frequent are the opening bars of Winter from Vivaldi's Four Seasons. The combination of these partnered with the stark silence that reigns over much of the rest of the film reminded me of The Shining. And the themes are linked, however the main difference is that the events of The Shining were very particular to the characters in that film. In Force Majeure there is the palpable sense that this could happen (and probably does) to any family.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)