My Two Cents: mother!

"Darren Aronofsky is a f**king genius. mother! is so goddamn subversive. The average moviegoer probably won't even get it, but I, an intellectual, can appreciate such a deep disturbing controversial piece of art. Honestly, I can't believe that a mainstream studio would release something so intense and uncompromising. But they must have just been like 'f**k it, I don't care if we lose money, this needs to exist'."

This seems to be one of the narratives circulating the internet re: mother! Darren Aronofsky's latest allegorical horror flick. Despite a poor opening weekend at the box office, many critics and moviegoers were really taken with it. Even Marina Abramovic seems to think mother! is a work ahead of its time.

Sorry Marina, there is nothing historic, groundbreaking, or even human about mother! I do concede that it's the most ambitious film to come out recently. After banging away at his keyboard for 6 straight days (apparently Aronofsky wrote the script in less than a week), he ended up with a psychological horror/thriller, relationship drama, absurdist comedy, religious allegory film. But mixed all together, the stew tastes like shit. All of the ingredients negate each other. Instead of the complex product Aronofsky was aiming for, he ended up with a hollow joyless assault on the senses with no moral other than maybe: God is a total dick.

Aronofsky has always traded in the difficult, disturbing, and edgy (See: Requiem For A Dream). For this reason his films don't have great rewatch value. So it's not a surprise that he pushes even further in this direction with mother! That's not my real issue with it. However, it’s a major problem when compounded with my next grievance: there are no characters in the film.

Let me clarify. Aronofsky casts a bunch of famous actors to portray symbolic characters in a Genesis allegory like God, Adam, Eve etc. We experience the narrative exclusively from the POV of the titular protagonist “Mother” (Jennifer Lawrence). And although she is center of attention for over 100 minutes, I could not tell you one thing about her character other than the fact that she loves “Him” (Javier Bardem) and wants their house to be perfect. Slowly a mob descends uninvited on their home, starting with “Man” and “Woman” (Ed Harris and Michelle Pfieiffer), and Mother’s idyllic life plunges into chaos and eventually annihilation. 

BUT there is something very off about these characters. At first I thought the acting was wooden but it really falls on Aronofsky’s writing/directing approach. Like his actor notes were “I like what you're doing, but maybe be more mysterious and have less personality?”. Sure they express anger, fear, anxiety, but they’re all missing a vital humanity. They feel like mannequins. I guess this achieves a general spookiness but it ends up alienating the audience. I felt totally detached the whole time and unable to empathize with anyone. By not giving his characters relatable qualities or even names, Aronofsky dehumanizes them. 

This is really problematic in a movie where we are forced to watch a woman get her space violated, get emotionally/physically abused, etc. Just because Jennifer Lawrence represents an idea, doesn’t mean its any less gruesome to watch her tortured brutally. I was actually shocked that at the end of the film, Mother is not given a voice or redeemed but reduced to an object. I know displaying something fucked up doesn’t necessarily mean you endorse it, but Aronofsky shows his hand at the end. The last scene is often a litmus test for a film’s ethics and Aronofsky doubles down on Mother's abusive treatment, all for a bookended finale that felt very film school (“It’s like a big loop, man!”).

Well then, if the movie is a masochistic experience with no real characters or plot to speak of, whats the point? We've covered “What is it?” but “Why is it?” 

Aronofsky’s justifies everything under the convenient umbrella of allegory. “It’s ok! Don’t worry it’s actually about the Bible like God and stuff!” Allegory is defined as a text that "can be interpreted to reveal a hidden meaning, typically a moral or political one”. I think much of what makes a film great is its richness, its ability to contain multiple layers of meaning and interpretation. Unfortunately mother! is a vapid 1-to-1 allegory, devoid of any greater meaning or commentary. The whole movie becomes a paint by numbers picture where you just fill in the answers and end up with a pretty sailboat or something. Except instead of a pretty sailboat it's just pain. 

I could talk about the film’s weak entry into the horror genre—Aronofsky blatantly lifting elements from past horror films: the invasiveness and sadism of Haneke's Funny Games, the fear of maternity and conspiracy of Polanski's Rosemary's Baby—but I don’t have enough energy.  Horror movies speak to some primal fear in all of us. At best they immerse you in a feeling, they shake you to your core, they get you screaming "Don't go in there!!!” mother! didn't scare me it just depressed the hell out of me. It's "artistic abuse" masquerading as "artistic horror”. 

Last thought: 

Why make this film now? mother! seems to be completely unconcerned with the zeitgeist. In opposition, I can't help thinking of a film like Get Out that, in a similar/adjacent genre, that also came out this year and struck a chord with a wide audience. Get Out is A) culturally relevant B) has internal and external motivation C) is ABOUT SOMETHING. 

Ultimately, mother! is an exercise in ego. Like the exclamation point on the end of its title: very extra.  

1 star 

Top Ten Films of 2016 ;)

2016 sucked blah blah blah

So here's some movies that I liked! The ranking is arbitrary (sort-of). Missed a bunch this year like #SULLY. Sue me!

Honorable Mentions: She’s Allergic to Cats, I Am Not A Serial Killer, Love and Friendship, Don’t Think Twice, Sing Street, Certain Women 

(No Spoilers I Think)

TOPTENTOPTENTOPENTOPENTOPENTNOPENOTPNOEPONTPONEONPTNOPNEPONTEPONTENPEONTPONEPTONPEONTPONETPONPEONTPONETPONEPONTPONTENOEPTNEOPNTPONEPTONEPOTNEPOTONETON

10 (Tie). Swiss Army Man / The Fits

I love watching first features because A) they motivate me as a filmmaker and B) they often represent the director's purest vision, unadulterated by money or studio influence. #10 is a 2-parter—Swiss Army Man by Daniels (yes its two guys both named Daniel) and The Fits by Anna Rose Holmer—both first features.

Swiss Army Man is a movie about a farting corpse named Manny (Daniel Radcliffe) who saves Hank (Paul Dano) from a desert island. And damn if it isn't an emotional trip! The Daniels have created this new genre I'd call "Body Humor" (as opposed to Cronenberg's Body Horror) which explores the strangeness of the human body. But Swiss Army Man is ultimately a movie about body positivity and self acceptance. Hank is very repressed and needs Manny, who's free from society's judgmental eye, to rescue him physically and emotionally. The film sort of undoes itself in the last act, but Daniels have created something silly and heartwarming and unique (If you want to see a short film by these guys watch "Interesting Ball", you won't be dissapointed). 

The Fits is an ethereal coming of age drama about Toni, a young tomboy. Toni decides to quit the boxing team (of which she is the lone female) and join the other girls on the dance team, embracing her womanhood. It reminds me a lot of Celine Sciamma's work but far more sinister. The Fits turns quasi-thriller when one by one the girls on Toni's dance team start to have convulsions. Not only is this a first film for Anna Rose Holmer, but a first performance for the lead Royalty Hightower. Killer stuff.

9. La La Land

Time to take a ride on the hype train! Damien Chazelle of Whiplash fame is back with a musical about...Hollywood!!! Before you roll your eyes, let me sell it a little better. Aside from its lush cinematography and excessive Hollywood nostalgia, La La Land is an ode to the star system of the 1940s. That's where it shines. When I saw Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling in the underrated rom-com Crazy Stupid Love, I noticed their chemistry. Here we are 5 years later. It's a pleasure to watch them interact, fall in and out of love. What the film lacks in conflict and character development, it makes up for in pure charm. 

8. Tower

I would be remiss if I didn't include a doc on my list this year. And boy did Keith Maitland deliver with Tower. The film documents the 1966 University of Texas Clock Tower shooting in a stunning animation style. Interviews with survivors of the shooting were re-enacted and rotoscoped to create a historical account that seems modern and alive. Tower is unfortunately all too relevant in the current climate of school shootings. I got to see the screening at Fantasia Film Festival introduced by a survivor of the 2006 Dawson College shooting. Very moving.  

7. The Handmaiden

Park Chan Wook has revived a genre that many though had died a painful death in the late 90s: The Erotic Thriller. Well...The Handmaiden is erotic. And it's thrilling. Sook-hee is hired to pose as a handmaiden to a Japanese heiress. Little does she know she is caught in a complicated web of deception. The set and costume design of the film is almost as intricate as its plot. Gorgeous cinematography captures the opulence of Japanese-occupied Korea. What's so refreshing about The Handmaiden it's is whimsical nature, it's ability to jump from genre to genre without losing sight of itself. It's sexy and gripping, somehow both really disturbing and comical. 

6. Hunt For The Wilderpeople

New Zealand's Taika Waititi caught my attention in 2009, when he was raising money on Kickstarter for a film called Boy (which turned out to be an absolute blast). Next year he's directing the new Thor movie. I'm genuinely happy his career has flourished so much. He proved me right again this year with Hunt For The Wilderpeople, a wild buddy adventure film between a boy and his foster uncle through the New Zealand bush. This is maybe the funnest film I saw in theaters last year. The bond that Waititi develops between Ricky and Hector is truly touching. Wilderpeople fuckin rocks.

5. Moonlight

Wow this movie is gonna win a lot of Oscars...and it actually deserves it!!! Barry Jenkins' Moonlight is maybe the most powerful character study this year. In 3 parts, we float through the life of Chiron as he deals with a turbulent home life, loss, and incarceration. Moonlight is a contemplation on masculinity in the black community. Coming to terms with your identity while having to contend with your own survival. You can tell Jenkins is so confident with the material as the story takes place in his home town of Miami. The ensemble cast is also top notch. The scenes between Trevante Rhodes and Andre Holland in the last act hit me especially hard. It's a tender movie and I think we need more like it these days.

4. Little Sister

The Many Faces of Tom Cruise

On the recommendation of a friend, I recently started listening to podcasts at work. If you didn’t know, I’m a dishwasher at a busy-ish restaurant so the podcasts have really helped distract from the tedium of the endless dish cycle. I was listening to Marc Maron’s interview with actor (and former clown) John C. Reilly, in which he talks to Reilly about the separation of his private life from his acting career. Recently I’ve been thinking a lot about the dichotomy of public/private. When Maron asks him how old his kids are, Reilly replies: “they’re private citizens until they’re old enough to tell you how old they are”. Reilly like many actors prefers to keep his identity out of the public sphere to fully embody his roles. When you see Dr. Steve Brule you don’t necessarily think, “Oh there’s John C. Reilly doing a silly voice.” This is because John C. Reilly is a self proclaimed “character actor”. You see this term being thrown around a lot and everyone has a different definition. William H. Macy said semi-facetiously that character actors are just people who aren’t attractive enough to be cast in lead roles. Reilly sees a causal link between “character acting” and privacy. Character actors are actors who don’t let their private persona influence or dilute their roles. But I think with acting, the self inevitably finds its way into a performance. Despite his aversion to the public, John C. Reilly is a famous actor. There is a John C. Reilly-ness to all of his roles, however intangible that might be. Film as a medium revolves around the close-up. We develop a relationship with faces. As a film student I’ve been told to focus on the eyes because they’re what the audience connects to most. I swear this is all going to connect to Tom Cruise. Give me a second. Jeez.

So Character Actors, Celebrity, Privacy, Faces, Eyes. All of this had me thinking about stars. What does it mean to be a star? What separates a star from a “character actor”? I think I agree with John C. Reilly. It’s this intimate knowledge of an actor’s life, a lack of privacy. The world of celebrity that we live in. It’s why the Dalai Lama is famous, but Kanye West is a Celebrity. And when I think of celebrity actors I think of Tom Cruise. 

TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise TomCruise.

Tom cruise is the star of stars. And that means we know him intimately, not only the Tom who starred in countless films but the Tom who jumped up and down on Oprah’s couch professing his love for Katie Holmes. The Tom who is the veritable face of Scientology. The conflict over his daughter. The gay rumors. Thomas Cruise Mapother IV. There's drama on and off the screen. However, it’s hard to argue against his insane filmography. He’s worked with the likes of Stanley Kubrick, Steven Spielberg, Brian De Palma, Paul Thomas Anderson, etc. I mean he’s been an A-List actor for over 30 years. Who else can you say that for? He barely even looks different!  

He might be an alien. But he’s an alien who’s managed to stay relevant for longer than I’ve been alive. He’s done that by developing a cult of personality around himself, almost like brand recognition in marketing. The ethos behind stardom is exactly the inverse of character acting. You don’t want to blend in and become the character. You want the character to become you. So when we see Tom Cruise on screen we are watching Tom Cruise as Ethan Hunt in Mission Impossible (1996), Tom Cruise as Charlie Babbitt in Rain Man (1988), Tom Cruise as Jerry Maguire in…you get the picture. It's always him up there. While that might usually distract the audience, Cruise makes it work and in fact I would say it's his bread and butter. The Cruise Factor®. Tom Cruise’s face is his livelihood, his brand. There’s even a rumor that TC has a clause in his film contracts that promises a certain percentage of screen time for his face. Now I can’t substantiate that rumor but it would not surprise me at all. Take TC's first hit, Risky Business (1983). The film opens with a slow track out of Cruise's face wearing those trademark sunglasses. And since then, no one has ever forgotten that face. The movie itself is a little dated. Pretty much your standard white male fantasy. But there are some genuinely weird and funny moments that still hold up. There's this scene where Cruise is basically running a brothel out of his parents house and an admissions officer from Princeton shows up (awkward!!!!). The guy tells Cruise he's not exactly ivy league material and Cruise makes this ridiculous face and says, "Guess it's University of Illinois!" 

“Hold on!” you say. “He’s so blehhhh though. I can’t stand Tom Cruise films”. That’s fair. I’m not trying to win you over on Cruise, just understand him a little better. I think TC is such a polarizing figure because he puts so much of himself into everything. His acting, his public persona. It’s so uniquely him. He can definitely get a little tiring, especially when he’s on some press junket spouting Scientologist nonsense about how much he can help people. But I think he’s an important actor because of the bravado, the swagger, and the magnetism that he brings to his roles. I watched Top Gun (1986) for the first time recently and GOD is it bad. In the film he plays a fighter pilot named Maverick who (wait for it!) always goes by his gut and never listens to the higher ups! Honestly some of the least subtle writing I’ve ever heard. BUT I kept watching for some reason and I think that has to do with the Cruise Factor. Despite the ham-fisted plot and characters, I was able to hold onto Cruise’s sheer presence to get me through the film. 

When I was researching Cruise I found that he had aspirations to become a priest before his acting career. And that totally makes sense to me. He has all of the charisma of a preacher and a sort of religion around him. I want to imagine some kind of superhuman being that got bored with its life in another dimension so decided to spend its time on Earth becoming a movie star. But Cruise is just a guy. And like any of us, he’s influenced by his upbringing. It's why he's so natural in front of the camera. Maybe his role that's closest to priest is Frank T.J. Mackey in Magnolia (1999). Creator of “Seduce and Destroy”, Mackey is a pickup artist and motivational speaker who coaches sad, lonely men on how to get "pussy". It's a disturbing, visceral performance that I'd say is some of TC's best work.  I think this kind of character is so natural for him to access because it encompasses so much of his true personality. The magnetism, the bravado, the passion. 

Another facet of TC's personality that I want to explore is his daredevil streak. Yes, he really does do his own stunts. TC is the Richard Branson of the entertainment industry. An eccentric insanely rich person who's addicted to adrenaline. Here's a picture of Cruise on top of the Burj Khalifa in Dubai (tallest building in the world) for Mission Impossible Ghost Protocol (2011).

I know it looks photoshopped but it isn't. Cruise is anything but subtle, in his performances and personality. This calls back to public vs. private. The two seem to merge in Cruise's life and I would argue in the lives of most superstars. On screen Cruise becomes off screen Cruise. This is the caveat of stardom; you lose the option to keep your private life private. When you think about it there's an entire industry devoted to cultivating celebrity worship. And this idolization is so dangerous because it leads to paparazzi and tabloid harassment. The same industry that promotes superstardom turns a blind eye when the shit hits the fan. Mental health is often neglected in the pressure cooker that is Hollywood. It's fine to idolize, all I'm saying is we need to remember that stars are the same as us.

I want to end this post by discussing Jerry Maguire (1996), a movie that I only saw for the first time recently. Jerry Maguire was the initial reason why I wanted to write about Cruise. I love this movie. Before all of the sappy Rom-Coms of the early and Mid 2000s, there was Jerry Maguire. But what sets this movie apart is it's actually fucking SINCERE. Cameron Crowe's filmography is spotty but he struck gold with this one. Sure it's corny. It has all of the tropes you've seen a million times. But I think it invented a lot of them. It's not just a romance though, there's so many angles to this film. There's the romance between TC and Renee Zellweger, the comedy, the sports drama, the underdog story. A lot of movies try to juggle genres like this, but I would argue none keeps all the pins in the air like ol' Jerry Maguire. If no other Tom Cruise movie proves his range and actual raw ability, it's this one.

You had me at hello.

Thanks for reading, I love you. 

P.S.

In no way do I endorse the Church of Scientology or TC's involvement in it. For a private organization, they are very powerful and downright shady. Besides taking money from rich people, they have been known to abuse their own members and harass their critics. This is a strange world we live in folks. Think for yourselves and don't buy into bullshit. Hope I don't get put on a list!

TOP TEN FILMS OF 2015

Hello again, it's that time of year!!! BEST MOVIES HERE WE GO! It's been a year of shameless viral marketing. SO MUCH Minions or Star Wars advertisement (the two highest grossing films this year).

BUT there have been some absolutely incredible original films this year. I've included a big list of honorable mentions. These movies didn't make it onto the top ten but are still must sees in my opinion:

Honorable Mention

Amy by Asif Kapadia
The Assassin by Hou Hsiao-Hsien 
Brooklyn by John Crowley

Diary Of A Teenage Girl by Marielle Heller
The Duke of Burgundy by Peter Strickland

Ex Machina by Alex Garland
What We Do In The Shadows by Jemaine Clement and Taika Waititi

The Wolfpack by Crystal Moselle

Ok now onto the heavy hitters. 

I missed a lot of films this year, especially those that came out in the last two weeks but these were my favorites nonetheless:

*NO SPOILERS*

#10: Carol



Todd Haynes has always valued quality over quantity. Carol, his first film in 8 years, is the year’s most heartfelt romance. After a chance encounter, Therese, a young woman new to her desires, and the bourgeoise Carol Aird embark on a fleeting affair. Carol depicts New York in the 1950s—still conservative despite its modernity. This is certainly a male dominated world; Therese and Carol's only escape is each other.   

Ed Lachman's stunning 16mm photography transports you to 50s New York with its soft pastel colors and rich grainy texture. It really captures the tenderness of Therese and Carol's romance as well as the melancholy of its forbidden nature. Also Carol gets two damn good performances from its leading ladies, Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara.

#9: Horse Money

This film actually came out in 2014. However, it was only released in North America this year. I’m talking about Portuguese director Pedro Costa’s Horse Money, a dream, a painting––it seems to be everything but a film. By that I mean there’s basically no plot. Horse Money is about a Cape Veridian immigrant named Ventura who revisits his traumatic past within a hospital in Lisbon. The gorgeous cinematography more than makes up for the lack of plot. Costa shows us a vivid but minimal world, often giving his shots a few brush strokes of light, letting the rest of the frame fade into blackness.

I can't lie. This film is slow and challenging. If you're looking for entertainment, probably skip this movie. BUT if you want to watch something strange and cerebral Horse Money is a good bet. 

#8: Taxi

No, I'm not talking about the 2004 comedy starring Queen Latifah and Jimmy Fallon. The shortest film on my list, clocking in at 82 minutes, is Jafar Panahi's Taxi (aka Taxi Tehran), toeing the line between documentary and fiction. The whole film is confined to the taxi, mirroring Panahi's own isolation in Iran and his ban from filmmaking. Yet even in these claustrophobic conditions, Panahi seems to find humanity. He picks up two old women carrying a goldfish bowl, a DVD bootlegger who sold Panahi his first film years ago. Maybe the most poignant scene is when Panahi picks up his niece who is making a film of her own. Taxi is subtle but powerful weapon against artistic censorship.          

#7: It Follows

The stigma of teen sex is a ubiquitous trope in horror films. But I've never seen it used better than in It Follows, David Robert Mitchell's sophomore effort. After a sexual encounter, 19 year old Jay becomes plagued by a shapeshifting presence only visible to her, a sort of carnal spirit that will follow her until she passes it on (Side Note: Maika Monroe who plays Jay has the coolest voice!).

It Follows is not the kind of movie that makes you jump. It slowly crawls under your skin and into your psyche. The anonymity of the monster is its most terrifying quality; it could be anyone, even Jay's loved ones. Empty spaces become menacing, random extras in the background become suspect. The day after I saw this movie, I found myself staring out the window or down the street for way too long.  

#6: Phoenix

Christian Petzold's Phoenix chronicles the rebirth of Jewish nightclub singer Nelly after surviving a WWII concentration camp. In need of facial reconstruction, she has the opportunity to forge a new identity for herself. But she asks the doctors for her old face, yearning for her past life before the horrors of the Holocaust. Phoenix is a haunting journey of resurrection. Nelly tries to reinvent herself only to find that the past is something best left behind. Thematically dense, narratively compelling and one of the best endings in recent memory.

#5: Tangerine

On Christmas Eve, Sin-Dee is out of jail and on a rampage after discovering that her pimp cheated on her (What a logline!). Sean Baker delivers an indie marvel with Tangerine, a film that WAY more people should be talking about. Tangerine is a highly saturated, adrenaline pumping romp through a side of Los Angeles that has received very little representation—the world of pimps and prostitutes, specifically the transgender and gender fluid. These characters are actually portrayed by trans actors Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and May Taylor unlike some recent films (cough*Jared Leto*cough).

If I haven't sold you yet, the film was shot on an IPhone 5. Yes, the entire film. But you would never guess because its so gosh darn beautiful. The cell phone aesthetic reflects the candidness of the film. The big confrontation at the end plays out like a World Star Hip Hop video. Highly recommend. Best Christmas Movie of the year!

#4: Mad Max: Fury Road

I wrote a little piece on this movie when it came out. I don't have much more to say except it was the most fun I had at the movies this year. Mad Max: Fury Road marks George Miller's triumphant return  to cinema. Not only was it visually stunning and engaging throughout, but an action movie with interesting female characters????? Crazy! I don't think its a perfect feminist film but its a huge step in the right direction. Furiosa is a fantastic character and the film is basically about her liberation of the brides. Anyway, Mad Max showed us that we can have our cake and eat it too—a high octane action flick that's intelligent and artful. 

#3: The Look of Silence

The highly anticipated follow-up to Act of Killing, The Look of Silence finally came this year and I was not disappointed. It's so high up on my list, not just because it's a brilliant film, but because it's politically and culturally important. Director Joshua Oppenheimer gives us another documentary on Indonesia—where murderers remain in power—this time from the perspective of the victims. Although Look is more subtle than Act of Killing, it may be even harder to watch. Oppenheimer documents Adi, who discovers the gruesome details of his brother's death and confronts the perpetrators. A tale of immense horror and courage. Inhumanity on a national scale. Crazy stuff. 

#2: Girlhood

Last year, Boyhood was at the top of my list. This year Girlhood by Celine Sciamma is pretty close. Marieme, a young woman with a turbulent home life who lives in a male dominated Parisian neighborhood, joins a new clique of girls. Man, this movie really took me by surprise. It's so real, so honest in its depiction of youth: the pain of love, the duty of family, the trials of friendship, the oft misguided pursuit of happiness. There is a scene in Girlhood where Marieme and her friends dance to Diamonds by Rihanna. It's glorious. Girlhood is living magic. 

#1: Inside Out

Every once in a while I see a film that makes me really optimistic. Inside Out did this on so many levels. Pete Doctor, the man responsible for Up and Monsters Inc., has topped himself.  First of all its freaking delightful. We travel inside the mind of Riley, who's usual sunny disposition changes when her life is uprooted. Inside Out is a purely original and fluid story. A great cast of characters, especially Joy and Sadness. THERES ALSO A BIG PINK ELEPHANT NAMED BING BONG.

Secondly, Inside Out is a really mature children's movie, even for Pixar's standards. It delivers an incredibly complex representation of our emotions. We all have times when it feels like Joy or Sadness or Anger is controlling us. It's a film about growing up, about re-evaluating your memories based on life experience. I hope children's movies stay this nuanced. It astounds me how many 1 star IMDB user reviews this movie has. People are stupid. Inside Out RULES.


THANKS FOR READING Y'ALL
HAPPY NEW YEAR

Friendship and Anime

I love Friends. There I said it.















(jeeeeaaaannnsss)

I’ve recently been making my way back through the enormous catalogue of the David Crane/Marta Kauffman show (10 seasons, 236 episodes!) and one thing has struck me while re-watching. These characters are really good friends. Obviously, but I mean they’re close in ways virtually no real life friend groups are. However, the group is by no means utopian. Each member has a notable flaw. Ross is overly emotional. Monica is a control freak. Rachel is vain. Chandler is snarky and has commitment issues. Joey's kind of dumb. And Phoebe is just plain weird. But that’s how they function. The group accepts each other’s flaws and moves through life and its many hardships as a unit. I don’t think “friends” is even the best word to describe them. Yeah, there is friendship, but there is also romance, betrayal, awkwardness, laughter, tears, love, hate etc. Friends is a freaking microcosm for humanity as a whole.

Anyway, the friendship depicted in Friends reminds me of a concept popularized in Japanese Anime and Manga, the concept of nakama. The direct translation is colleague, friend, or comrade. This idea of nakama is an extremely common trope in which a band of people who, either voluntarily or not, join together in whatever adventures and challenges lie before them. Most popular anime follow this structure. The term is famously relevant to One Piece. Luffy’s crew is a kind of ragtag group of friends who become like family; they are willing to die for each other. That’s nakama. I think “comrade” is the most fitting translation of nakama because it connotes a certain collective goal or cause. We’re all in this together. That sort of thing.

TV Tropes says, “This sort of group dynamic appeals to younger audiences who are unfamiliar with romance, and appeals to older audiences who live in a world of complex relationships…who are feeling nostalgic about the times when friendship meant a lifelong bond”. This is interesting because the majority of manga and anime is marketed toward the “shonen” age group (elementary through high school). While it’s a child’s trope basically, nakama is the same idea found in Friends, an adult show. Although, Friends has the sex dynamic at its core thats missing from most anime. Nakama has this sweeping relatability which explains it’s popularity. It’s a universal and idealistic concept, that you find this group of friends who become closer than family. Another good example is Naruto. Naruto is initially an outcast but eventually gains the friendship and admiration of the entire village. Although the first series (pre time skip) is mainly about Naruto and his squad (the nakama group), the show evolves into something a lot bigger in Naruto Shippuden. A kind of legacy called the Will of Fire becomes important which basically teaches that the “most important thing in life is being willing to risk your neck for someone else”. Anime like Cowboy Bebop have a big nakama group dynamic. They also make a friendship pact in Yu-Gi-Oh. The list is endless.



If you were to boil all popular manga and anime down to a single concept, it would have to be that idea of nakama. So my final message is: don’t take your friends for granted. Love each other.

Crowdfunding!

a-deeper-look-crowdfunding-and-the-film-industry

Check it out!

Mad Max: Fury Road and the MTV Aesthetic

It’s summer and blockbuster season is upon us, so I decided to christen the season with Mad Max: Fury Road. 

Let me set the scene for you: it’s a sweltering day, one of the hottest of the summer so far. I trek to the theater alone for a 1 PM showing of Mad Max in IMAX 3-D. So I’m sweating before the movie’s even started. I forgot to mention it’s a Tuesday. I know Tuesday afternoon isn’t prime movie watching time but there’s a discount on Tuesday which brought the ticket price down from an ungodly $19 to just an unreasonable $13. I could have seen the movie in just plain old boring 3-D but I thought this is a big movie so I might as well go for the biggest screen. IMAX it is.

I knew little to nothing about this movie going in, save for the amazing trailer (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEJnMQG9ev8). All I wanted was a cool blockbuster.

When you hear the word blockbuster, you immediately think of explosions. And believe me Mad Max had explosions. It would even be fair to say Mad Max had more explosions than your average explosion-centric film. But more important than explosions, Mad Max had style.

I want to talk about the visual style of Mad Max, specifically in the context of what scholars would call MTV aesthetics.

MTV made its debut on American screens in 1981, the same year as Road Warrior (the second Mad Max film) came out. Coincidence? Probably. But there was a style developing, a certain sensibility in the air that would shape the media of the late 20th and early 21st centuries. After the advent of the blockbuster with Jaws in 1975, we saw the editing style and pace of films quicken. This is in direct relation to the rising popularity of MTV who marketed their programming toward young adults who liked fast cars and rock music.

When I watched Fury Road I couldn’t help but see the influence of all the various subcultures represented by MTV, or at the least MTV when it was still Music Television. I have no idea what the fuck they are now (see: Teen Mom, Teen Mom 2 etc.). Before I get into the mise-en-scene, I want to talk about the breakneck pace of the film. I know that crazy driving is a big part of the Mad Max films, but in Fury Road director George Miller really applies that idea to the editing style. In addition to lightning fast cutting, Miller actually under-cranks many of the sequences to give them a frantic sped up quality. Miller speeds up the shots of the antagonist Immortan Joe to give him a menacing god-like presence. Speed is an essential element of the MTV aesthetic and youth culture in general.

A lot of imagery in Fury Road bears similarity to extreme sports. Events like the X-Games are linked to MTV’s culture of speed. One of the bands of mercenaries that Max and Furiosa (Mmm Charlize Theron) run into rides motorcycles that look suspiciously like BMX bikes. They even go off conveniently placed jumps and do backflips on said bikes. Immortan Joe’s gang of baddies also has huge vehicles that look and function a lot like monster trucks. Another element is the "chrome" that the members of the citadel spray on their faces like war paint. For some reason this was reminiscent of chrome rims and bling, very important to hip-hop culture as well as the MTV show Pimp My Ride. See how this is all coming together?

There’s more. Maybe the most important legacy of MTV is the music, specifically rock music. This relates to perhaps the most memorable visual creation that George Miller graced us with on Fury Road. One of Joe’s caravan is a enormous truck with men pounding drums on the back and some dude shredding the most ridiculous guitar that spews flames, chained to a wall of amps. Now if that isn’t pure rock and roll I don’t know what is. The guitar guy even looks like insane drummer Brian Chippendale from noise rock band Lightning Bolt (see for yourself: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3NZGbD236fw). Another connection to rock music was at the beginning when Immortan Joe stood in front of his worshippers who begged for water. In retrospect, it felt like a concert with fans worshipping some rock idol. In these ways, Miller updates tribal customs with modern MTV aesthetics.

It’s really interesting that this post-apocalyptic world George Miller created has so many connections to MTV imagery. Is Miller saying that MTV is going to bring about the apocalypse or that MTV will be the only thing to survive the apocalypse? Both propositions are equally terrifying.

Recommendations: If you liked Mad Max, you’d probably like some of George Miller’s other masterpieces like Happy Feet or Babe: Pig in the City.

Have a nice week!