Press "Enter" to skip to content

Category: Culture

Pan’s Labyrinth

Pan’s Labyrinth is not so much a children’s movie. It’s about children, but that’s not really the same thing. Easy mistake, since it’s called a fairy tale and that has certain cultural references for us, but think the original Grimm’s stories.

Which were, admittedly, cautionary. I guess you could take your kid to Pan’s Labyrinth as a cautionary measure against him or her becoming a fascist military officer, but there may be better ways to accomplish that.

Really, though, it’s a fairy tale about the Spanish Civil War. Three acts, three tasks, three parallels to those tasks in the adult world. Ofelia and Mercedes begin by capturing keys; the second task is taking a dagger, mirrored by Mercedes’ knife (and her later use of it). And finally, Ofelia’s choice regarding her brother is precisely Captain Vidal’s choice regarding Ofelia’s mother Carmen — what’s a life worth to you?

Or, perhaps, it’s Mercedes’ choice about Vidal. Hard to say. Is Vidal’s search for information about the rebels likewise a parallel to the quest for the key? Are his torture instruments his dagger? You could read it that way, although I think that’s perhaps a bit more multi-layered than del Toro intended. The pivot point of Ofelia’s brother is enough of a nexus for the parallel quests for me.

On the other hand, I’m perfectly content to assume that the fantasy kingdom is Spain without Franco. Only makes sense.

Pan’s Labyrinth fits in with Labyrinth (sans sentimentality), Heavenly Creatures (sans insanity), and The Great Yokai War (sans Miike). Awesome movie.

Mouse stuff

Disney’s still really in fine form. Not perfect, but in fine form.

You get these wistful references to the glory days, which are kind what happens when people don’t recognize that their enjoyment of Carousel of Progress is due to nostalgia rather than due to any quality of the ride experience. It’s pretty bogus. The best work ever done at Walt Disney World was during the late 80s and 90s, when Disney-MGM and Animal Kingdom opened. The worst park, from a sheer quality perspective, is Epcot. On the other hand, it’s the worst park at WDW, which means I enjoy the heck out of it every time.

New stuff this trip!

Raglan Road is a new restaurant which looked cheesy in potential but wow, does it work out well. The food’s really good; traditional Irish cooking with spiffed up presentation and a lot of care taken with ingredients and such. I had this pork loin stuffed with sausage, plus mashed potatoes, and it was just so well done. Perfect harmony of tastes, mild but rich at the same time — loved it.

I did a lot more of Animal Kingdom than usual. The new Everest coaster is superb; not a high end coaster like Universal has across town, but the use of reverse is really good. I liked it a lot. I also saw a lot more of the theming in the Asia section of the park, and it’s an immaculate vista. I’ve read that the team responsible made a field trip to Nepal and the Himalayas, and it’s very easy to believe that.

I also hit Africa, although I skipped the rides. Again, great theming. It’s odd to see pretty depressing areas converted to shiny tourist places, mind you, but I appreciate it as an illusion of relocation to a nonexistent world, if that makes sense.

Disney-MGM is the same way; the theming is very dense, with a lot of detail. I compare this to Epcot, which has minimal theming in the Future World section and very… bursty theming in the World pavilions, I guess. The individual pavilions are buildings in the country’s styles, but for the most part, they don’t present an environment. They’re pavilions, not areas.

Speaking of Epcot, I did the American Adventure show for the first time. Eh. I don’t expect I’ll redo it; it’s cheesy and overwrought.

I continue to wish Disney would figure out Future World. There’s a rumor that Siemens will be sponsoring more of it, which might help, but man. It’s too spread out, and there’s too little to do — the original concept of sub-areas sponsored and invigorated by various companies has been too hard to maintain with shifting sponsorships.

Oh — Soarin’ is nice. Not great, but nice. It needs a narrative track, although the raw images of California are pretty awesome.

I spent a bus ride chatting with an older couple who’d just done a Disney Vacation Club open house. Nice people, but the interesting thing was that they said their guide claimed a new park (“fifth gate,” in Disney fanatic parlance) was on the way. They said he said he couldn’t say anything about it, but that it was gonna be under construction soon.

This seems unlikely — I can’t find a thing about it on the rumor sites — but hey, you never know. If there is a new park opening up in WDW, my bet is that it’ll be a thrill ride park similar to Universal’s Islands of Adventure; it’s the only thing in Orlando that you can’t find replicated inside WDW property.

Good trip. Can’t wait till next time, as usual.

Rending of hair, and so on

I thought this review was interesting as a sample of flawed political discourse. Also fun for those who want to hear about how Happy Feet is a dangerous, offensive movie, but I’m gonna shine a flashlight on the clever rhetorical trick. Or, in this case, probably not a clever rhetorical trick — it’s probably just a guy who doesn’t realize exactly what kind of hyperbole he’s engaging in.

The trick is this: you take someone generally considered to be offensive on your side of the political spectrum, and you take a behavior you disapprove of on the other side of the political spectrum, and you say “it’s OK to disagree with me, but that behavior is exactly like this offensive person!” It gives you this veneer of reason, cause you’re being all rational and bipartisan and admitting there are slimeballs on your side of the fence. However, it also irrationally conflates what may be perfectly reasonable behavior with behavior that is generally accepted as slimy.

E.g., Pat Robertson:

Calling this Liberal is like those people that call Pat Robertson a conservative. Real conservatives cringe at that statement. No, he is an ultra right wing Christian neo conservative who teaches the word of Christ out of one side of his mouth and then calls openly for the public assassination of the democratically elected leader of a sovereign nation out of the other. No. Real conservatives stand as far away from that scary goon as humanly possible.

Aw, that’s awesome. He’s condemning a guy who calls for assassination! That shows he’s rational.

Happy Feet is the Liberal Pat Robertson.

Well, there you go. Happy Feet might as well be calling for public assassination. Wait…

Happy Feet is liberal like that unwashed hippie wearing the Look to the skies T-shirt that climbs and handcuffs himself to a tree to prevent someone from knocking down a forest on their own land.

You can have mixed opinions about the morality of people who cuff themselves to trees, sure. However, I think it is reasonably clear that calling for assassination is somewhat lower on the morality scale than tree-cuffing. Cause one involves death, and the other does not.

The review goes on to explain that Footloose is evil because the hero doesn’t believe that God forbids dance — um. Wait. No. That’s the plot of Happy Feet, in this case, but it’s definitely evil. Maybe it was evil in Footloose, too, I dunno. He’s pretty convinced that there’s something clearly wrong with it here — “Still not making up a single word.” After that there are a lot of spoilers, so I won’t keep going, but wow.

This shows up all the time on political blogs. Not quite as often in movie reviews. Good trick to recognize when you see it.

Internet sensation

There’s a really funny painful video here in which one Brian Atene explains why Kubrick should cast him in Full Metal Jacket. The followup is here; someone claiming to be Brian does a great job of snarking at the original.

After watching ‘em both, through many winces, I’m making the unfounded bet that this is a publicity stunt of some kind. Some random Youtube guy who’s never posted a video before happened to get his hands on a 20 year old videotape, and took the time to digitize it? Maybe, but more likely not.

Faux pas

While I have done a number of fairly embarrassing things in my life, I have never…

No, I don’t think I can describe it. Go here. For another view, try this.

Perfectly work-safe. The words “forty million dollar elbow” are involved, but it’s not a sports story.

Wow.

Just a kiss away

Questions came first.

Is it a pale shadow of Infernal Affairs? Will Scorsese have the guts to sail to the wind and let the bleakness blow through him? Will Nicholson be too much? Will DiCaprio be enough? Can Scorsese make it tight enough for us to feel the pain?

Is it Boston?

Yeah, it’s Boston.

The original was a tense, restrained exercise in suspense and pain. It was good, or better than good. The Departed takes the plot — the same lines, in places — and spills it out on a canvas made of Boston’s racial tensions and class divisions. It’s an equal to its predecessor through an alchemical transformation of mood, theme, and locale. William Monahan is from Boston. He was born ten years before me, which means he grew up watching South Boston riot when black kids showed up at their schools. That’s where the movie opens; that’s where it’s from.

Whitey Bulger came from that. You can’t paint with too wide a brush: you can’t say that South Boston was wholly shaped and driven by the fury of 1974. But Bulger built his organization in an environment full of people who thought that the government had abandoned them; that’s what made it easy. And Nicholson’s Frank Costello is Whitey Bulger, palpably and patently, from the opening footage of the riots to the revelations about his methods.

I’ve read criticisms of the 70s soundtrack. They’re missing the point. It’s a movie about the 70s — Costello is 70 years old, and he’s holding on to the glories he once had, and those glories rise inexorably from what happened then. It’s no mistake that one of the pivotal conversations between him and DiCaprio’s Billy Costigan is about who thinks he could take over for Costello. That conversation reflects Costello’s impending death, whether that death is by gunshot or natural causes. The question asked through both Costigan and Damon’s Sullivan is whether or not Costello’s shadow is long enough to corrupt the newest generation, but it’s not much of a question. Clearly it can.

Infernal Affairs is about duty versus duty. The Departed is about class and the ties that bind. S. drew this distinction between the movies for me: everyone in Infernal Affairs cares about being a cop. In The Departed, they care about getting ahead. Both Damon and DiCaprio are from the same place, and their different paths lead them back to the same place. South Boston, not the police department, is the axis of this movie.

DiCaprio’s the backbone. As far as I’m concerned, he’s gotten away from his glamor. He bulked up, and he plays Costigan with bursts of sudden unrestrained violence. You don’t doubt him. Damon’s merely good, but he’s just fine. He’s so natural in the role that it’s easy to forget that he’s too good-looking and boyish to be able to play a bad guy.

And man, they push against each other well. Rarely sharing screen space, always sharing head space. Ambition versus despair.

Answers. Scorsese had the guts. It was painful, gaudy, two and a half hours of damaged goods filmed with perfect technique. Nicholson was too much here and there, and there again, but if it hadn’t been for his facial expressions — yes, Jack, we know your grin — he’d have been perfect. The physical presence and the voice were what I wanted.

Best Director, Best Picture, Best Actor (DiCaprio), Best Supporting Actor (Wahlberg). Not a prediction, but they’re all of that caliber. Best Editing, of course.

The answers were good. Thanks.

It’s time for the Lost Badass List to reappear. We last examined the question of the island’s badassery after the seaon finale. This list categorizes badasses over time, but is heavily weighted towards the current storyarc. This year, since the Others are regulars and since I cannot deny the force of nature that is Benry (credit for neologism to S.), Others are eligible for the list.

Without further ado!

1. Benry (aka Ben Linus, aka Henry Gale)
2. Sayid
3. Jin
4. Sawyer
5. Juliette

Comments and spoilers after the jump.