You are browsing the archive for 2010 March.

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Movie Review: Invictus (2009)

March 20, 2010 in Movie Reviews

I decided a while ago that Clint Eastwood doesn’t make bad movies.  Some are exceptional, of course, but none fall below “very good”.  Invictus, his latest film starring Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela (who else?) and Matt Damon as François Pienaar, captain of South African rugby team, is one of Eastwood’s weaker films.  But it is still, well, very good.

Invictus is a rather formulaic story about two men – one a politician, the other a sports star – who attempt to unite a nation through the 1995 Rugby World Cup.  There’s the set up, the journey, and the climax – all the elements of an inspirational sports movie are there.

But the thing is, Invictus is a true story.  From the history to the main characters to the events that changed the world, almost all of the film is true. That’s what makes Invictus so amazing.  There’s no artificial manipulation injected to make you feel inspired.  Knowing that the things depicted actually happened is more than enough to give you goosebumps.  Even if you know what happens from start to finish, Invictus is still a worthwhile experience.  If you don’t know anything about what happened, even better.

However, I had a couple of problems with the film.

First, though I usually enjoy Clint’s imagery, some of the stuff in Invictus felt a little heavy handed.  When you can tell immediately what the director is trying to achieve with a shot or a sequence of shots, regardless of how well-intentioned it is, you get the feeling that you’re being manipulated.  That happens a few times in Invictus.

Second, the depiction of rugby wasn’t very satisfying.  Part of this is because the film is confined to what happened in real life, though it wouldn’t have hurt to make the games a little more exciting.  People who have never watched the sport won’t have much of a clue what is going on, and frankly, will probably think it is a boring, brutish game where all points are scored on penalty kicks.  It would have made things more riveting had they at least tried to show some of the sublime running and passing the game is known for, rather than simply tackles and scrums which make the sport appear like a constant mass orgy.

As for the performances, both Freeman and Damon are very good, although I wouldn’t have handed either Oscar nominations.  There was never any question that Freeman is the perfect actor to play Nelson Mandela, and Damon’s stocky physique (despite his height) makes him a believable rugby player.  Maybe it’s because the two actors fit the roles so well physically that their performances don’t stand out as much.

So, I found Invictus to be a very good film that fell a couple of notches short of great.  In my opinion, it’s one of those movies where you marvel at the true story and the real-life people depicted in it more than the quality of the film itself.

3.5 stars out of 5

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
4 Comments »

Writing as the opposite sex

March 19, 2010 in On Writing, Study

I’ve been reading a lot lately, and every now and then I would come across a first person or third person subjective narrative that is so well-written that I don’t even stop to think that the author is actually of the opposite sex.  And sometimes, the name of the author (especially for short stories) is ambiguous enough that I don’t even bother to find out until someone else brings it up.

How do these female writers write from the male point of view so well, and vice versa?  And really, often it’s not just the sex of the character either.  It’s the race, the culture, the class, everything about that person — ultimately, it’s just a very believable, real-life character.

I know they say you have to put yourself in the shoes of the narrator or the character, but it’s clearly not as easy as just closing your eyes and imagining that you are someone else.  There’s always the natural tendency to revert back to yourself when a decision needs to be made, when something needs to be done, or when something needs to be said.

For someone like me, who can’t even get the male characters right, writing female characters requires plenty of planning.  It almost involves writing a mini-biography.  But that’s not enough.  Usually, when giving them character traits, I need a real-life person, someone I know (or know of) that I can pin those traits on.  Occasionally I may use a hybrid of two or three real people.  It makes it much easier for me to gauge that character’s personality, motivations and desires.  Sadly, even then, sometimes the character still doesn’t really work.  I guess that’s where rewriting comes in.

However, is all of this really necessary?  Isn’t each individual different?  Sure, a person is influenced by where they are born, how they are brought up, age, sex, race, sexual orientation, etc, but it doesn’t necessarily mean they have to be confined to the stereotype.  Isn’t that what makes a character interesting?

Thoughts?

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
3 Comments »

Over-analyzing movies and novels

March 18, 2010 in On Writing, Study

I’m enjoying my writing course at the moment, but one thing that irks me is the tendency for class discussions and teaching to be bogged down by over-analysis of a film, script, short story or novel.

I don’t have a problem with chatting about what we thought of the particular work, or even what we thought of specific elements or parts of the work (say a scene or paragraph or chapter).  But to go on for hours about some very obscure symbolism or theme or meaning which may or may not have been the intention of the writer/director/artist seems to be a little presumptuous and perhaps a bit of a waste of time.

While there are definitely exceptions, most of the time I doubt the creators of these works had put that much excruciating thought and detail into every little thing, especially things that the ordinary audience would not have picked up until at least the second or third viewing.

I appreciate that sometimes, certain things in a work are deliberately left ambiguous or vague so they can be open to interpretation by the audience.  So what is the point of trying so hard to pinpoint exactly what that thing is and forcing a specific and definitive meaning onto it?

I wonder if sometimes the creators of the work actually come out and say, “Stop wasting your time analyzing my work.  I never meant for it to be so deep and meaningful!”

Tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Getting into it!

March 18, 2010 in On Writing, Study

We are currently studying the "realism" of Madame Bovary

So I’m sitting here in the computer labs at university waiting for my next class.

I’m really enjoying the course at the moment, and finally getting into it.  By “getting into it” I mean I am going to all classes, doing the readings on time, doing the writing exercises on time, and doing all of it with enthusiasm.  I haven’t really gotten into my own writings though.  But I have a feeling it’s coming.  Soon.  Every now and then when I am doing my readings I get a burst of inspiration and I randomly scribble down some notes or prose for one of my projects.  Even though most of it is crap, it still feels good when I do it.

The best part about the course is that most of my readings are things I would read in my spare time anyway.  An interview with a famous director or screenwriter about their methods.  Breaking down scenes in a popular film.  Tips and guidelines to help you become a more proficient writer.  Excerpts from classic novels and books and award-winning short stories, most of which I had never read before.

The only thing that is killing me right now is my writing theory class.  It’s brutal.  The readings are so dry.  Slightly more interesting than my law readings (maybe not even that), but most of it sails right over my head.  I still don’t understand why we need to read these complex articles written by life-long academics with massive words I’ve never heard of, circular reasoning and Latin/French-infused passages with no translation, written always twice as difficult to understand than they should be.  I wonder whether there is a point to what they are saying (or trying to say).  And if so, if there is a point in understanding that point.

Speaking of which, I better get ready for the class.

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

Movie Review: Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief (2010)

March 17, 2010 in Movie Reviews

Percy Jackson & The Lightning Thief (also known as Percy Jackson & the Olympians: The Lightning Thief – too long for my liking) was not as bad as I expected.  That doesn’t mean it was good though.

The usual reaction to what seems like a Harry Potter rip-off is to not give it a chance, call it derivative and find ways to discredit the film.  The thought did cross my mind initially, but I went in with an open mind and a clean slate.

However, while I enjoyed the premise of the “Olympians” and the exploration of Greek mythology (I love that stuff), and the film does have some innovative moments and a bit of excitement, Percy Jackson (based on the best-selling book series by Rick Riordan) is riddled with character and plot issues.

The acting is certainly no worse than say any of the first few in the Harry Potter series or The Golden Compass or Twilight, but the three central characters (Percy, Grover and Annabeth) all lack charm.  There isn’t much to these teenagers and they are there to simply push the plot along.  I was, however, surprised to see such an all-star supporting cast (having not really heard of the book series much), which includes Catherine Keener, Pierce Brosnan, Uma Thurman and Rosario Dawson.

Anyway, my biggest gripe with Percy Jackson is the contrived plot.  I’m usually quite forgiving when it comes to such things, but when almost every event is skewed for a forced purpose that lacks sense or logic, it can be very irritating.  There are lots of “coincidences”; convenient and fortuitous things that occur just when the characters happen to need something.  I haven’t read the books, so I’m not sure whose fault this is, though I read somewhere that there are significant differences between the novel and the film.

Naturally, this leads to lots of plot holes.  You don’t even have to look for plot holes or inconsistencies or failures in logic – because they are absolutely everywhere.  They are so glaring that you can’t avoid them even if you wanted to.  I know this is supposed to be a fantasy, but if it’s set in the real world, I would expect there to be at least a little bit of real world logic.

Further, the tone of the film is very uneven.  There are a few half-decent (though mostly lame) jokes thrown in there, but Percy Jackson chops and changes between dead seriousness and kiddish fun, often without a transition period.  It just feels weird, and part of this may be because Percy is supposed to be younger in the books (like 12 or something), but in the movie he is, and acts, a lot older (like 16 or 17).

I probably sound harsher than I was trying to be in this review.  Percy Jackson is not totally horrible and there are enjoyable moments, but there are too many problems with it for me to give it anything more than 2.5 stars out of 5!

[PS: SPOILER ALERT - a few of the things that irked me.  One, why did everyone think Percy, who, at that stage had done absolutely nothing except be a normal teenager, stole the lightning?  There was absolutely no evidence, not even circumstantial, to suggest that he knew anything about it.  Two, how the heck did Luke manage to steal the lightning?  I assume it must not have been easy.  Three, why do those kids at the camp fight with real swords and weapons and actually get seriously hurt?  There is no way people don't lose limbs and die from those 'training' exercises.  Am I the only one that thinks there is something wrong with this?]

Tags: , , , , , , , ,
No Comments »

← Previous Entries
Next Entries →

Bad Behavior has blocked 586 access attempts in the last 7 days.