A Female James Bond

DISCLAIMER: The subject matter tackled in this article may be extremely offensive to die-hard James Bond fans. You have been warned.

James Bond has been a cultural phenomenon since the 1960's, with dozens of movies spanning over several decades and continuing to be made today. By this point you should already know my thoughts on the overall franchise, but if you don't let me put it simply:

• Daniel Craig=YAY! 
• Sean Connery=Misogynistic pervert who doesn't deserve my respect. 
• Pierce Brosnan=Okay. 

So the Bond franchise has come a long way, and one need look no further than the way women are treated. Connery's Bond saw women as attractive things he could have sex with. Craig's Bond actually treats women as human beings. The Bond films have changed with society in many respects. Let's face it, the 1960's was a bit of a messed up time (you know something is weird when Barbarella was one of the more progressive images of women). Still, Bond has traditionally been played by a white male actor. Perhaps it's time to try something a bit different.

I've been talking to a lot of people about this lately, and while there is no specific indication of it happening in the near future (Craig is apparently going to do at least two more Bond films before anyone else takes over), it sparks quite the discussion. Some people really like the idea, and others are adamantly opposed to it for one reason or another. To make a long story short, I'm interested in the idea of James Bond being played by a woman.

Now before you say anything, the biggest problem I've really encountered with this idea is the name. "James" is not usually a girl's name. However, "Jamie" can be either gender, and it could be said that she is often referred to by the nickname of "James" (short for "Jamie"), thus still retaining the James Bond title. There, problem solved.

The second major problem would be the question of what to do about the famous "Bond girls" of the franchise. I've got several solutions to that. One simple solution is to do nothing. Jamie Bond could be written as a lesbian and thus the Bond girls could still keep their usual form (and hey, a homosexual Bond might just be a good way for the franchise to atone for the homophobia in Goldfinger). 

Alternatively, if you really didn't want to go the homosexual route, perhaps it might be a nice change to introduce a "Bond guy". It's like a Bond girl except instead it's a glamorous and extremely handsome man (incidentally, this  part could still work with a male Bond if the writers were daring enough). In other words, turning the usual Bond formula over its head. Now it's a female superspy teaming up with an attractive man to save the day. 

Either of these approaches could work. Personally I'm all down for lesbian Jamie Bond (although a gay male Bond would still be an interesting experience) but I like the idea of turning things around by bringing in a "Bond guy". Story-wise, these films probably wouldn't be a whole lot different from the more recent Bond films: a superspy gets assigned a mission that involves them having to team up with an attractive woman (or man, possibly) which takes them on an adventure through several exotic locations before they save the day at the end. 

Now I know what you're thinking: "Bond is inherently male" or something along those lines. Well, as I've been told time and time again, Bond is a franchise that changes with the times. If Goldfinger was made today, the filmmakers would never have gotten away with putting in the glorified rape scene that made it into the 1964 version. The Bond franchise has changed with changes in society, and now in a world where (most of us, anyway) are advocating equality between genders, it isn't so easy to distinguish "masculinity" from "femininity". 

Quite simply, there's no reason a woman today can't display traits that were at one point in a misogynistic society considered to be "masculine". There is even a bit of this already in the more recent incarnations: M was traditionally a male character until the role was taken up by Judi Dench in the Brosnan Era, which eventually carried on into the Craig films right up until Skyfall.

Also from Skyfall, there is the major change in Miss Moneypenny's role. In the Connery era, Moneypenny was a minor character who would appear briefly for no other reason than so Bond could flirt with her for a few minutes and then forget she ever existed (at least until the obligatory scene where she shows up in the next film). Skyfall gave Moneypenny an actual characterization. It turned her into an action girl (who gets to brandish more than a few firearms) and allowed her to actually have a role to play in the overall story.

Then again, a lot of the detractors seem to be the die-hard Bond enthusiasts, the same ones who point to Connery as the "definitive" Bond. If they had their way, Craig would still be treating women as sex objects and casting them aside as soon as he was through. Instead of deconstructing those aspects of his character and showing how absurd they are, Casino Royale would have continued to glorify Bond's mistreatment of women. You said it yourselves, Bond changes with the times. What was acceptable in Connery's era is no longer acceptable in Craig's and with very good reason.

So ultimately I see no real reason why our present social circumstances shouldn't allow the presence of a female James Bond. Barring the comments made by Connery purists, I've already managed to easily resolve the main story problems with the idea and I personally think it could make for a very interesting twist on the franchise. A female Bond would have been inconceivable in Connery's day, but this isn't Connery's day anymore is it? 

Also, it would be fun to see a female Bond just to see all the die-hard fans freak out over it. I can see them getting into endless rants on the discussion boards and other bloggers ranting about it, but get over it. A female James Bond wouldn't be that big a deal and if you really, really have a problem with it, it's not like the older films with male Bond are going anywhere. They're far too popular to get pulled off the shelves at your local video store. If Bond is supposed to change with the times, than I think we're at a suitable point to try some gender-swapping. 

Good Things About Prometheus

I remember there as a great deal of excitement when it was announced Ridley Scott was working on some sort of prequel to the Alien franchise, having directed the original film. That was followed by confusion when it was announced that the film would be in the same continuity but at the same time it would be something separate. Hype only increased with all the secrecy surrounding the film and vague hints. 

When the movie finally came out, reactions were mixed, but it received a lot of criticism. I don't know if I'd go as far as to say it was like The Phantom Menace all over again but there was a lot of disappointment. I myself have shifted my opinions quite a bit since its release, going from being unsure what to think to calling it brilliant to finding myself on the fence.

The reason I eventually ended up on the fence was the result of me finally having to confront the problems with the movie (and they are numerous) instead of just trying to rationalize everything. It is hard to overlook the problems. There are issues with the story (just before the initial entry to the cave, Shaw talks to a "security" crew member named Jackson who never appears at any other point in the film), but the big thing seems to be the bad science.

The part about Fifield getting lost after panicking despite having brought the mapping equipment was a bit of an odd choice on the part of the screenwriter. Sure, he didn't have much to contribute to the "gigantic dead body department" but perhaps it would have worked better if instead he had just said "I don't think there's much I can do here, I'm going to go check out the rocks" and then got separated after being distracted by some peculiar formations. While he had brought the mapping equipment, it was never explicitly shown that he could access that map while in the cave, but even then there was a map on the ship and one of the guys there could have used it to direct them to the exit.

An alternative scenario that might have worked better: perhaps Fifield is a bit anxious about the dead body and keeping his distance when he suddenly notices a peculiar rock formation. He turns toward the rest of the team and says "hey guys, that looks weird. I'm going to go check it out." Just as he briefly sees something move and reports it, which inspires Millburn to follow him in the hopes of seeing a live specimen.

Unknown to them, something about the room is causing interference with the radios so they don't hear the report of the storm (and can't access the map). They spend some time there but eventually they leave and re-establish contact at which point they find out they've been left behind and the crew can't get to them. That might have worked a bit better, but the version in the film seems a bit odd.

Then there was the part where they decided to go right into the cave immediately after landing without any knowledge of what was inside and only a few hours of daylight. Even with Holloway's justification ("It's Christmas, and I want to open my presents") the Captain could have just said "Alright, we'll do a preliminary survey and maybe send in the mapping equipment but we won't go in until tomorrow."

That said, there are some good things in Prometheus and it can be enjoyed if you're willing to overlook the problems. Since it is common to hate on the film I think is fair to highlight some of its better qualities. For one thing even with all the problems it does still have some very good ideas. After all we've already had four films centered around the premise of "Xenomorphs are loose and killing everybody one by one" (and that's not even getting into the various video games or the Alien vs. Predator series).

As iconic as the xenomorph aliens are they've been used way too much. They're not completely absent in Prometheus but I do think it was a smart move to downplay their role and find some other aspect of the universe to explore in the hopes of bringing out something new. Even if that idea didn't quite work the way Ridley Scott intended, it was refreshing to see something different instead of just a rehash of same plot as the other four films.

In fact, while the plot isn't directly connected to any of the other alien films, the attention to detail in Prometheus is really good. When looking at the design of some of the sets you can tell Scott had drawn from the original film. Yes, there are some logistical problems with the design of Prometheus but you can see it drew from the designs used for the Nostromo.

Similarly, we have the the scenes on the alien spaceship. The control room seen in Prometheus is instantly recognizable due to its resemblance to the room seen in the first act of Alien. In Prometheus it is a bit cleaner, in contrast to the dark and decomposing style of the original. In the original film it was hard to tell if we were seeing the alien fused to a chair or a suit, and Prometheus offered a partial explanation. 

However, to be fair the promotional material was somewhat misleading as it didn't actually explore the back story of that particular engineer (that would be the famous "space jockey seen in Alien) so much as it provided clues towards the nature of its species as a whole. In fact, I've even heard one potentially crazy fan theory exploiting the reveal that the "Space Jockey" was wearing a suit and claiming that underneath that was actually Elizabeth Shaw.

This film does also address a few aspects of Alien, including a minor plot hole in that film: in Alien, Ripley is able to decode part of the distress call even though there is no reason for her or anyone present to know the language. Taking into account the events of Prometheus and assuming that some of their information got back to Earth, it is a bit more plausible that the computer could have had partial data on the language of the Engineers. Some of that data might have even been programmed into the Nostromo's computers given the reveal that they were intended to collect an alien and bring it back to Earth.

The acting was also quite good in this film. Everybody seemed to give the film everything they had. Even the two guys that were obviously set up to die seemed to be trying to give a good performance even if their characters were not particularly well written. That said, there are some pretty good characters and some interesting ideas.

Elizabeth Shaw earned a place in my Women In Film Blogathon and she is an interesting character. The whole idea of her being constantly torn between science and religion, and trying to reconcile both extremes is a fascinating one. In addition, it is also nice that they tried to do something different with her personality. The Alien franchise is already full of tough girls: Ripley, Vasquez, and Call being good examples. All of these women turned out to be super-tough, sometimes better than the men.

As awesome as Ripley's assault on the queen was in Aliens it is nice to see them trying to go in a different direction. Rather than just making another Ellen Ripley they tried to write a new character with a distinct personality of her own. Shaw is a bit more vulnerable, with a few issues of her own. She never gets to hurl a hostile alien into space (which Ripley got to do twice), but she does still try to do the right thing and remains determined to keep pursuing the truth even when it seems hopeless.

She does have her character flaws but those make her more human (Ripley may have been tough enough but in the climax of Alien you can tell she's scared out of her mind, singing a lullaby in a desperate attempt to calm herself). Also, on the bright side, Shaw didn't have some director come along and make a sequel that opens by undoing every one of the few things she did accomplish in her film.

Of course, the real star of the film was David, the android. Even if you didn't like the film as a whole you have to admit that Michael Fassbender was exceptional with this one role. We know right from the start that he's an android programmed to assist the crew but he isn't just another Bishop. This character has some peculiar qualities, and you can never be sure whether to admire him or be afraid of him. He seems to care for the crew but he also tries to follow his programming. When all is said and done, David is basically free once his master is dead and seems to show concern for Shaw's safety (despite being literally reduced to a head) to the point where he agrees to help her in her pursuit of the truth behind the "engineers".

So in the long run, is Prometheus a terrible movie? I wouldn't go that far. It has its flaws, yes, some of them interfere with the main plot and can be a bit irritating. The bad science is a bit troublesome (though granted, the Alien franchise was never exactly hard sci-fi to begin with). However, the film does have its merits.

Maybe it's not as good as the original Alien, but I wouldn't say it is as bad a film as some people make it out to be. Flawed? Yes, but awful? Not really. This is where I'm left on the fence. One side, the problems with the film are hard to overcome, particularly the bad science, but the stuff that is good is really good.

When is a Film a Product of its Time?

I still stand by my claim that this is a better boxing film than Raging Bull

When you run a blog like mine, you sometimes have to deal with angry comments. There are definitely a few areas where I've made some controversial remarks, and it's not surprising that I may have struck a few nerves along the way.

I have yet to hear any angry comments from fans of Tarkovsky's Solaris criticizing me for saying that the remake with George Clooney was better, or even any of Godard's fans accusing me of being an idiot for saying that Alphaville had the most pathetic vision of the future ever put on film and that he is a horrible director.

Where I have gotten lots of feedback, however, is with regards to my comments on James Bond. The article Why do People Like James Bond? was only my fourth published article on this blog and yet it still remains the most popular. Apparently controversy sells, and I've certainly gotten plenty of that.

I've found a handful of people who agree with my stance that the James Bond franchise is sexist, others who see where I'm coming from but who try to enjoy the films anyway, and the die hard fans who stubbornly try to defend it. Believe me in this business there is nothing more frustrating than trying to explain to a die hard fan why the Bond franchise is sexist, because no matter what points you make they will just repeat the same arguments, fling insults at you, and at best completely miss the point of what you're trying to say.

I've already had one person try to defend the rape scene in Goldfinger by saying that it wasn't presented as a rape scene as if that somehow made it okay (that's exactly the point, they were trying to make a horrible act look charming). I've also had someone try to break it down and argue it wasn't a rape scene, and then demand that I explain how it was (Bond forces a woman to have sex with him, I'm pretty sure that's the basic definition of rape). I've also had idiots who have stubbornly tried to deny the allegations I have made, instead opting to fling insults at me and claim that my statements about the Bond franchise have no basis and that I'm the idiot.

This is the hero, everybody, and people still try to defend him.

Now, for the more civilized fans I have argued with, there are two big rebuttals I've heard against my comments. The first is "Bond is supposed to be the ideal male fantasy", and the second is that "it's a product of its time." There is a slight problem here, and I'd say that these arguments actually conflict with one another, but we'll get to the specifics of why later on.

Just what does it mean for something to be "a product or its time"? Well, in my experience, that usually means quite simply that the work in question was made at a time when people saw the world much differently from today. In particular it usually implies that people had different ethical standards at that particular point in time: something considered acceptable back then is repulsive by modern standards and vice versa.

So to provide a straight forward example, blackface (a white actor donning obviously fake makeup to play a black character) was considered perfectly acceptable in early 20th century filmmaking, but try doing it today and you'll get into a lot of trouble. The only occasions you might be able to get away with it is either in parody or in a period piece set at the point in time, and even then it might be difficult.

By contrast, as I have discussed previously, there was a time when movies were not allowed to so much as acknowledge the existence of homosexuality. While it's still a controversial subject, the regulations aren't as strictly enforced and movies are no longer bound by a strict code, which has allowed some filmmakers to depict it. If you tried to make a movie like Brokeback Mountain, Blue is the Warmest Colour, or Mulholland Drive during the Studio Era, you'd be shot down within seconds of pitching the script.

Even if you did somehow manage to convince the studio, you'd have to change the ending. Imagine a version of Brokeback Mountain which ends with Ennis "learning his lesson" and being "cured" of being gay. It certainly wouldn't be the same movie. In fact the obviously homophobic tone would be incredibly offensive nowadays. At the same time, the ending actually used in the film would have outraged audiences during the studio era.

Now, considering we are slowly evolving from a centuries-old society that until fairly recently was rooted in misogyny, racism, slavery, homophobia, and lots of other horrible things, it's not surprising you sometimes have to understand that when looking at material from certain points in time. That's not to mean you should outright ignore anything that seems offensive, just understand that's it's only that way nowadays. 

In some cases you can take on the slightly more optimistic approach, understanding the negative stuff but finding one little positive aspect to consider. H.P. Lovecraft is a great example: on the one hand he was an extreme racist, on the other he supported woman's rights. His opinions could be seen as extremely progressive or horrendously dated depending on which side you look from.

Looking at this angle in a cinematic sense, you can find plenty of examples. Conquest of Space seems to imply that female astronauts don't exist. That's not a very pleasant image nowadays, but on the other the one Japanese astronaut is depicted as a competent professional and more or less equal to the otherwise all-white cast, not bad for a film released in 1955.

The key word here is understanding how people saw things back then. It's likely that they couldn't have seen where their society would go. After all if they had there wouldn't be so many science fiction movies that imagine the perspective of the 1950's still holding up in the distant future. To them, that's just the way things were. There was never any intent to offend. Conquest of Space wasn't trying to be sexist in its vision of the future, it's just that in the male-dominated society of the time, the thought of women being astronauts probably just never crossed the minds of the filmmakers.

That's the thing with a lot of works that are "products of their time". Shakespeare probably didn't write The Taming of the Shrew with the intent of creating something extremely sexist. He was writing at a time when it was literally illegal for women to even perform in the theater, after all, and stories like that were quite popular, so he probably just never considered the implications of his narrative. 

Same deal goes for Birth of a Nation, which D.W. Griffith never consciously intended to be racist. He even tried to redeem himself when he found out precisely the implications of his movie. This would be a film where you'd have to take into account the circumstances surrounding its production, but what if we came back to James Bond? Is Bond a product of its time?

Well, according to a lot of the die hard fans, yes. They insist you have to put yourself in the shoes of the time period to appreciate the films (at least, assuming these aren't the kind of fans who will try to outright deny the existence of any offensive content in the franchise). However, as I said before, there is the argument that Bond is supposed to be the "male fantasy". 

First off, I don't know how many men in the 1960's actually fantasized about doing the kind of stuff Bond did, but when you get down to it, the argument is justifying the Connery films being sexist. To bring it into some simpler terms: the films were intended to be that way. The writers consciously wrote their scripts knowing full well that they were extremely misogynistic, but made no effort to do anything about it.

So which one is it? You can't have it both ways. These are the two biggest arguments I get and they essentially cancel each other out. To be a "product of its time", the work can't have been made with the intent of being offensive. The artist wasn't consciously trying to be sexist, racist, or homophobic, they just didn't know any better due to the standards of the world they lived in. 

However, according to this argument, Connery's Bond films were consciously intended to be sexist, so I'm sorry but that argument can't help you. Bond is not "a product of its time" but rather the product of misogynistic screenwriters who knew very well what they were doing and made no effort to fix it. To me, that's even more offensive.

Against the Crowd Blogathon: Is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull Really that Bad?

So it's a bit late to participate in Wendell Ottley's Against the Crowd Blogathon but I've only contributed half of what he asked for. I did a long-winded rant about John Carpenter's Halloween, but I also needed to find a movie everybody else hated that I actually liked. I could certainly find a few just by browsing John Carpenter's filmography. Even if they had their flaws I personally enjoyed Escape From L.A. and Ghosts of Mars and I even found thought The Ward had some good scares. Still, I wanted to find something a bit different.

I recall I was just getting back into the Indiana Jones franchise when I heard the news of a fourth movie in production. LEGO was producing sets based off the films and I had started to watch the original trilogy for the first time in years and quickly got hooked. There was a lot of hype for the plans to make a fourth Indiana Jones movie but like The Phantom Menace and Prometheus it received a whole bunch of negative backlash upon release. The strange thing is I actually kinda liked it, and I don't think a lot of the negative criticism is entirely fair.

First off, it was definitely a smart move to change the time period. I mean even if Harrison Ford agreed to dye his hair brown I don't think there would be any way they could make him look exactly like he did 33 years ago, so updating the setting to reflect the actor's aging makes perfect sense. Furthermore, the original trilogy was based on 1930's adventure serials. Kingdom of the Crystal Skull updated the time-frame to the 1950's, by which point those had gone out of style and been replaced by science fiction serials, so it's not too great a stretch to look at those for inspiration instead.

This gives me the perfect opportunity to address one of the biggest complaints about this film: the aliens. A lot of people have criticized the film for featuring aliens for various reasons. The biggest one is that supposedly it conflicts with the previous installments, specifically because of the presence of the Ark of the Covenant in Raiders of the Lost Ark which implies the Judeo-Christian God exists in this universe. 

The part that they overlook is that three different religions are "validated" in the original trilogy: Raiders of the Lost Ark draws from Judaism, The Temple of Doom draws from Hinduism, and The Last Crusade draws from Christianity. The films have never been fully consistent about what (if any) religious figures exist in this universe, so really there's no reason aliens couldn't be present either. You could also make the case that the "religious" artifacts featured in the previous films were also the products of these aliens and they're just sufficiently advanced as appear "magic" and inspire various religions.

I will also go ahead and address the other big criticism, which is the infamous "nuclear fridge" sequence. It is a bit of a strange choice on the part of Spielberg and Lucas but a lot of people insist that this scene is too unbelievable to be taken seriously. While I can see where they are coming from, I feel it is worth pointing out that the previous films weren't exactly grounded in reality.

Raiders of the Lost Ark had Indy getting dragged along a road by a fast-moving truck and still being able to beat up a bunch of armed men with only a few bruises to show for it. The Temple of Doom has an equally unrealistic scene where Indy his companions escape from a plane by jumping out in a life raft while at a high altitude (the Mythbusters even tested this and proved it to be impossible; it could be done with an escape slide but that's not what was used in the movie). 

That same movie also featured a man ripping out a prisoner's still-beating heart with his bare hands. The Last Crusade had Indy stop a pursuing Nazi by jamming a flagpole into the wheel of his motorcycle causing it to flip into the air (also tested and proved impossible by the Mythbusters). While it's still a strange idea, by Indy's standards the fridge scene really isn't that far-fetched.

A lot of people also complained about Indy having a son, but I didn't think Shia LaBeouf was that bad in the role. (Yes, I'm defending one of his movies. You can start pelting me with rotten fruit now) The idea of giving Indy a son was actually an interesting choice, especially given the last film was about Indy's relationship to his father. 

That's actually another thing, a lot of people have criticized the choice to kill off Henry Jones Sr. because it supposedly conflicts with the events of The Last Crusade, even though it was addressed in that movie. While the Holy Grail has healing powers (even healing what might otherwise have been a lethal gunshot wound), the only way to get eternal life from it would require you to remain in its presence (as that knight had done), which means staying in those ruins because the grail isn't allowed leave.

Now one choice that I think was a very good one was the decision to bring back Marion Ravenwood, Indy's original love interest, instead of trying to find him a new one like The Temple of Doom and The Last Crusade did. Marion was probably the best of the various love interests. She had the right balance of qualities. Willie Scott was too much of a damsel in distress, always screaming and finding ways to cause lots of trouble (even Indy got fed up with her at times). Elsa being a femme fatale was an interesting turn but Marion was the most complex. She was strong and certainly capable of being tough but also had her limits, and that made her the best fit for Indy. 

Now, is Kingdom of the Crystal Skull as good as Raiders of the Lost Ark? I don't know if I'd go that far, but I personally think it's a fun little adventure movie that really doesn't deserve a lot of the backlash it's gotten since its release. It's got some great action, takes the franchise in a few interesting new directions, and even addresses some of the issues of the previous installments.

Is Lovecraft Unfilmable?

I've heard this discussion a lot and so I thought I would take the time and attempt to address this question. There have been plenty of attempts to film the stories of H.P. Lovecraft, most of which are either critically panned or hotly contested. Dean Stockwell has already starred in two hated adaptations of The Dunwhich Horror and Del Toro has been trying to get his screen treatment of At the Mountains of Madness off the ground for years. I mean even I've written my own screenplay version of the same story and I think it's turned out alright.

But perhaps I should start at the beginning. For those of you not familiar with his work, H.P. Lovecraft (1890-1937) was an American writer best known for his influence on the horror genre. He primarily did short stories, most if not all of which are now public domain and thus can be found online for free (this website has a pretty good collection of his texts), and while he might not have been famous during his lifetime his influence on the horror genre cannot be denied. This man has been a huge inspiration behind some of the biggest names in contemporary horror, including John Carpenter and Stephen King.

The controversy regarding whether his work can be filmed comes from the style his writing is known for. Many of his stories are based on the philosophy that mankind is an insignificant part of a vastly uncaring universe. He believed that humanity was little more than a spec of dust in the grand scheme of things, and that there were horrors out there beyond our wildest imagination that could destroy us in a second, and that we were doomed by our own insignificance. The thing is, his opinion wasn't so much that these things were evil (the only truly evil being in his works is one who is quite fascinated with humanity) so much as they were indifferent.

The analogy that often gets used is that these creatures see us the same way we'd see bugs on the sidewalk. However, many of these creatures are so mind-shatteringly beyond our range of understanding that they are literally indescribable, sometimes to the point that merely glimpsing them is a enough to drive a person to complete and utter madness. This is where the controversy comes in. How do you film something that is indescribable? So is Lovecraft unfilmmable?

Well, no. He may be difficult to film, but not impossible as we can see by the fact that there are some well-done Lovecraft adaptations. The H.P. Lovecraft Historical Society has so far made two low-budget but surprisingly faithful adaptations of his stories: The Call of Cthulhu and The Whisperer in Darkness. The latter in particular goes in a few different directions from the original novella on which its based (in particular it adds in a whole third act that wasn't originally there), but it still manages to remain true to Lovecraft's themes and preserved the bleak atmosphere of his work rather effectively. In fact a few of the twists and turns were actually legitimately terrifying, particularly the unsettling reveal at the end which I won't spoil.

However, many of the films that seem to be better received are the ones that aren't necessarily based on Lovecraft so much as inspired by him. There's a ton of films that have been slotted into this category including Carpenter's The Thing and Prince of Darkness, but the best example would be the third and final installment of his "Apocalypse Trilogy" In the Mouth of Madness. This was a film that he admitted was one great big tribute to Lovecraft, not based on any particular story but trying to create the same sort of atmosphere and full of references to his stories.

The thing is, you can't really generalize Lovecraft as "unfilmable". The best approach I can take is to look more at individual narratives, because not all of them involved "indescribable" horrors. The way I see it, it really depends on the story you're looking at. Some actually lend themselves quite nicely to film, while others might be much harder to do (though not necessarily impossible). Let me bring up two examples to illustrate this point.

Though we have yet to see it made into a film, whether it be my version or Del Toro's (or both), one can't deny that At the Mountains of Madness has some cinematic potential. The story, which centers around an Antarctic expedition discovering an ancient alien city, lends itself to some incredible images. Considering it's the Antarctic there's lots of room for great landscape shots and even more room for lots of fascinating images with regards to the city itself, all the buildings and their bizarre hieroglyphs and any artifacts we might see within.

There isn't much action but with all the curiosity surrounding the ruins there doesn't need to be, especially with that chase scene at the end. The shoggoth itself might be a bit harder to pull off, regardless of whether we use practical effects or CGI, but I think it could still be done with a little bit of creativity. The Elder-Things on the other hand wouldn't be so hard, especially considering we never see them move.

To bring up a contrast, why don't we shift focus to Lovecraft's short story The Colour Out of Space (which ironically several people have attempted to film). The story is simple enough: a mysterious meteor lands in a farm and brings with it some sort of... thing (it's so alien that "a colour" is the best way anyone can identify it) which gradually begins destroying everything and the animals begin to whither and die, and it begins to affect the minds of the family living there until nothing is left.

It's a very depressing story, and at first glance one that could work as a film. The problem is figuring out how to depict the Colour. In the original story the colour is described as being one outside of the visible spectrum, a color that has literally never been seen on Earth. Good luck finding a special effects team that can pull that off. Even Douglas Trumbull couldn't do it. Now I won't say it's impossible to effectively adapt, since I have heard of people trying it anyway (one way I've heard suggested would be to get around the problem by shooting in black and white), but since it's impossible to create what Lovecraft described it's certainly going to be difficult.

So really in the long run you can't generalize Lovecraft as "unfilmable" or otherwise. In fact there are several stories of his that involve simpler monsters, some of which have already been filmed. The aforementioned The Whisperer in Darkness is one example, but one film adaptation with a cult following is Re-Animator (basically a mad scientist creates a fluid that reanimates dead tissue which results in all kinds of chaos; yes, Lovecraft basically wrote a story about zombies).

The Shadow Over Innsmouth is another one that could potentially work as a film, since the only monsters to actually appear are the Deep Ones (weird fish/frog-like creatures that live in the ocean) and the funny-looking inhabitants of Innsmouth. Funnily enough, this has been done by the same director as Re-Animator under the title of Dagon. In fact Stuart Gordon has made something of a career out of adapting Lovecraft stories as he's also done From Beyond and The Dreams in the With House.

That last one there is another interesting one to consider. The Dreams in the Witch-House was a very surreal story centered around a young student of Miskatonic University (an institution that pops up a lot in Lovecraft's stories) who looking for a place to stay decides out of curiosity to move into an old boarding house that is said to be haunted by the ghost of the witch who once lived there. What follows is a weird sequence of events in which every night he has dreams in which first a creature named "Brown Jenkin" (imagine a rat with a human head) approaches his bed and then he is seemingly transported around the universe.

As the story develops the line between dream and reality start to blur, and it all builds up to a horrifying conclusion. You know who'd be perfect to try adapting this story? David Lynch. Who better to take on a piece like this than the guy known for creating subjective and mind-blogging narratives? I don't know about you but I think David Lynch's The Dreams in the Witch-House could be something amazing.

There is one story that stands out in my mind, however, as one that I don't think I'd call "unfilmmable" in any sense of the word. It has no sanity-shattering indescribable monsters. In fact it doesn't really have any monsters at all, but a very human antagonist. I am of course talking about The Thing on the Doorstep.

There's really only three major characters (okay, technically four, but it's complicated), and it's also the only Lovecraft story to have a significant female character (well... sort of), although for the purposes of a film adaptation you could flesh out some of the minor roles that were only referred to in the book (the families of some of the characters, for instance), but the plot centers around a strange mystery that involves a creepy "wizard" (Lovecraft was usually under the mindset that the "supernatural" was just the best way we could describe science that was too far above our level of understanding) who swaps bodies with other people, usually against their will.

The one time you would need to apply some special effects would be for... well... the Thing on the Doorstep. For those of you who haven't read the story I won't spoil it by telling you just what that thing is, but believe me when I say when you find out at the very end what it is (or more accurately, was) you're going to be frightened to think about it. I don't know about you but I do think this particular one could be a very chilling movie if put in the right hands.

So ultimately is Lovecraft unfilmable? Well, no. Difficult, maybe. Specific stories of his, perhaps, but in general it is not impossible to make a good movie from his writing.  It has been done before and in the right hands there are stories of his that could make excellent films. Then again, in the right hands perhaps any of his stories, even the ones with the "indescribable" monsters, could still be made into an excellent film.

Against the Crowd Blogathon: A Rant Against Halloween

Wendell Ottley of Dell on Movies is hosting an interesting new blogathon, Against the Crowd, in which we were challenged to write about our views on movies that contradict popular opinion. I've written a lot on this issue, including my discussions of James Bond, Solaris, Alphaville, Playtime, and Raging Bull to name a few, along with my positive reviews of the often critically panned Conquest of Space and Dark Tide. In fact I have a whole section devoted to this and my very first post in this blog dealt with this topic, so naturally when I heard about this blogathon I knew I had to find something to contribute.

He did specify specific movies so that rules out a long-winded rant about Goddard in general, and I think I've made my views on Solaris clear enough. I'm probably not going to write anything on either version until I can come up with a topic that doesn't involve pointing out why the Clooney version is better. Still, there are a lot of movies I have ranted about, including a few that are quite popular, and I think this is a good time to release some of my frustration. Just a warning though, I am about to say something extremely hypocritical. You've been warned.

I am a huge John Carpenter fan. Back in high school I did a twenty-minute documentary on his movies and he still remains one of two big-name auteurs I have had the pleasure of meeting (the other being Atom Egoyan) and the only one of those two I have confronted in person.

The guy has some excellent work under his belt. The Thing currently ranks among my all-time favorite movies, but I also love some of his other horror works like Christine, Prince of Darkness, and In the Mouth of Madness, and The Ward, along with some of his other stuff like Dark Star, Assault on Precinct 13, Escape From New York, Starman, They Live, and Vampires. I even enjoyed some of Carpenter's less popular work like Escape From L.A. and Ghosts of Mars. I'll confess I was not as keen on The Fog but even that had a few good points (the story never fully clicked for me, but I did always find Adrienne Barbeau's character interesting). It seems like there is no possible way that Carpenter could ever do a bad movie. Just about every movie he has ever done has something good in it...

Except for one: Halloween. Yes, I am a die-hard Carpenter fan and the one film of his I absolutely hated was the one most people consider to be his absolute best. I was actually quite shocked about this myself given how I'd responded up to that point to my other experiences with Carpenter films. I had gone in expecting something great, what with all the hype I had heard about how this movie frightened an entire generation and popularized the slasher genre. It still leaves me puzzled when I hear people talk about this as an "intelligent" horror film.

On the other hand as shocking as it was at first (I almost wanted to drop the project all together and pick a different director to study) the experience did have a few positive effects on me. The big thing was the angle I was able to take: at the time it seemed a lot of the films of Carpenter's I responded to best was his science fiction work (The Thing, Escape From New York, Dark Star) and though I would eventually find other films of his that showcased his talent for horror it did allow me to look at Carpenter's films in a broader context, going even further against the crowd. After all, everybody calls him "the Master of Horror" and for my documentary it ended up giving me a new angle: to emphasize his non-horror work and show just how versatile a director he really is instead of just saying the same old things about Halloween you've heard a million times.

As for the movie itself, well, let's look at the story in particular. You can certainly see some of Carpenter's trademarks emerging in this one, such as the low budget, his love for claustrophobic environments (particularly the scenes where Michael Myers starts breaking into houses), the idea that you can never truly overcome fear, among others. Certainly some of the things that would be present in Carpenter's later, far better works like The Thing.

Now to his credit, Donald Pleasance does an okay job in terms of performance (though he would play a far more interesting role in Carpenter's Prince of Darkness). The only problem is when you get down to it he really doesn't do a whole lot to help the story. Most of his scenes consist of him providing overly complicated ways of explaining that Michael Myers is a dangerous psychopath who must be stopped (gee, we'd never guess that from the fact that he's running around stalking teenagers and wielding a great big knife). Jamie Lee Curtis was also okay but she mostly just spent the climax crying, not exactly the role model she's made out to be.

So then of course we get to Michael Myers himself. There isn't really anything spooky about a William Shatner mask for starters, but the real problem is right at the end. Michael Myers gets stabbed in the throat and apparently dies, only to suddenly get up and keep moving like it's nothing. He then took his own knife to the chest and dies, only to somehow get back up as though nothing happened. He then gets shot several times by Loomis and falls out a second-story window, and STILL gets up and walks away just as the movie ends.

This whole thing comes straight out of nowhere in a story that seemed to be up to this point somewhat grounded in reality. I've heard arguments claiming that Michael Myers is supposed to be a metaphor for evil but if that's the case I don't think he's a very good one. I've also heard the claim that the ending is supposed to be ambiguous in whether he actually survived... except we clearly saw him get up completely unharmed after receiving two stab wounds that should have at the very least left him seriously injured.

Maybe that could have been a bit more disturbing, if Michael Myers did show signs of damage but kept moving anyway. I could see the image of the psycho crawling on the floor towards our heroine ignoring the fact that he is slowly bleeding to death through his determination to kill her. THAT might actually have been creepy, but as it stands it just comes out of nowhere and left me too confused to be frightened. Oh, and by the way, I'm sorry, but a kid whining about "The boogeyman" does not constitute buildup to revealing your main antagonist is invincible.

Actually, even weirder about this is that for a film called Halloween there really isn't a lot of... you know... Halloween. Supposedly that's when the movie takes place and they show a pumpkin in the opening titles but you really could have put the story on any night without changing much. I mean why are these kids watching old horror movies? They should be out trick-or-treating. We never really see anybody wearing costumes or doing any Halloween-related activities either.

That actually could have been another great way to make the film creepy, if it happens on a night when everybody is dressed up in costumes so that Michael Myers and his mask blend in perfectly. It would be a lot more terrifying since in an environment where lots of people, kids and adult, are wearing masks and costumes it would be much harder to identify him. He could be standing right next to you and you'd never notice until it was too late. There would be a greater sense of paranoia and a lot more reason to be afraid. Of course that would have actually been interesting. Instead we get Myers running around empty streets in an extremely conspicuous mask.

That Beach Ball from Dark Star was scarier than you.

So ultimately when you realize all the problems, Halloween is actually John Carpenter at his absolute worst. This is a dull film with an uninteresting plot and characters whose deaths were so predictable I literally wanted Michael Myers to get to them just because I knew those scenes where coming and wanted them over-with. If you want good horror from Carpenter, you're much better off with The Thing. That movie actually had some scary moments and an unstoppable force that made a lot more sense and was actually terrifying, and it used ambiguity to far greater effect in its narrative.

Quit crying, Laurie! You know nothing of fear.

Seth Rogen, Stop Directing Movies! You're Not Funny!

Seth Rogan's been going strong recently. Last year he released his hit This is the End. Next thing I know I can't ride the subways without seeing a poster for Neighbors and every time I read the caption of "From the guys who brought you This is the End" I find myself sarcastically remarking "Because that was such a hilarious movie". Now within weeks of the premier of Neighbors there's suddenly a trailer for yet another film called The Interview and it just gets me annoyed.

I appear to be a minority here but I've said it before and I'll say it again. This is the End was not funny. I keep seeing people; fans, critics, other film bloggers go on about how this is somehow an intelligent and really clever film and I'm just left to wonder if we saw the same movie. All I saw was a constant barrage of uninteresting idiots doing stupid things in the middle of an apocalypse with a complete absence of any kind of humor and the only person I was actually invested in was Emma Watson who was only on screen for a few minutes. Her departure I would say only made me hate the guys even more for getting into the rape discussion that caused it in the first place, and I spent the bulk of the movie hoping she would come back but of course she never did.

Now granted, Seth Rogen isn't necessarily a bad actor. I'll confess that I was actually surprised to find out he starred in Paul, a science fiction parody from 2011 that was actually funny (though having Simon Pegg and Nick Frost probably helped), so it is evident that that the guy actually can deliver a good performance and be funny, but that is one film in his entire career I have enjoyed.

The thing is, I suspect that while Seth Rogen may well be capable of being an amusing actor, his qualities as a director are less than inspiring if This is the End is anything go by. Now because he was so hilarious in that film he's apparently doing too more at once (seriously, Neighbors just came out, isn't it a bit early for him to be far enough into directing another project for a trailer to be available?)

Seth Rogen, if you're reading this, please stop directing these terrible comedies. You are not Edgar Wright; he released an apocalypse comedy the same year you did but his actually had humor. All your films create is an endless barrage of unfunny shenanigans and there is nothing interesting about them. Just stick to acting and maybe take contracts from directors who actually know how to be funny.

(Alright, I've finished my rant, you can start booing and pelting me with fruit now)

Dark Tide: A Tense Psychological Thriller

I think I have a thing for movies that make use of an underwater environment. Maybe it's just because the ocean has always fascinated me, but I have a tendency to be drawn towards nautical films. I remember going to great lengths to try and find The Big Blue and even resorted to downloading once I finally realized it could not be obtained on DVD (didn't stop me from trying once in a while even afterwards, though). I've also stated that one of Walt Disney's greatest achievements was the 1954 classic 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea (I'll have to discuss that masterpiece in more depth at some point).

So naturally when I stumbled across a still of Halle Berry in a diving suit filming Dark Tide I was quite excited. Sadly, I never got a chance to see it in the theater, and afterward the consensus was mostly that it was a terrible movie. It currently has a rating of 4.3 stars on IMDB, and the reviews that I have found mostly seemed to be very critical. It is a shame really, because having finally had a chance to see it I've found it really isn't all that bad a film. In fact barring a few flaws it is actually pretty good.

Halle Berry plays the role of Kate, a marine biologist who enjoys swimming with sharks, outside of the cage. Of course it is a very dangerous hobby but she is a professional and takes all the necessary precautions. Unfortunately, one dive still does not go quite as planned, one of her friends is killed by a shark and she just barely escapes. Shocked by the experience, Kate gives up diving for a year before she takes a job out of desperation to take a wealthy businessman out to swim with sharks.

Now I'm not going to lie here, the visuals are definitely the highlight of the movie. The underwater photography is incredible, but even on the surface the cinematography and mis-en-scene do a really good job. If I had to be really critical, there are a few scattered moments set at night when it gets dark and it becomes hard to see what is happening. Fortunately, most of the movie takes place in broad daylight so that isn't a huge problem.

They also take full advantage of the environment, offering us plenty of great shots of ocean life other than sharks, including seals, penguins (yes, you can actually find them in places other than Antarctica), and dolphins. Plenty of great images to enjoy if you like that kind of thing.

Of course, the visuals alone don't drive the film, but the rest of it was also very well-done. Halle Berry does a perfect job as Kate; yes, she's attractive and has several scenes where she is clad in a bikini, but she really captures the balance of passion and fear experienced by her character. Her interactions with the rest of the cast, especially her ex-husband and photographer Jeff (Olivier Martinez), and the businessman Brady (Ralph Brown). It really connects you with them and compels you to follow their journey.

I would definitely recommend taking a look at Dark Tide if you get the chance. It's a finely crafted piece of work with excellent visuals, a compelling story, great characters, and probably anything else that makes a movie great. Definitely a good story if you want an exciting nautical adventure.

The Three Science Fiction Classics of 1982

In 1982 Steven Spielberg won over thousands of viewers with the release of his iconic science fiction movie E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial. This family film about the friendship between a young boy and an alien accidentally stranded on Earth made a huge impact on the science fiction genre, with a balance of comedy and drama, solid relationships, and some impressive special effects. At the time, Spielberg was at the top of his game, but his success was not without a price.

What many people forget is that Spielberg wasn't the only one making a science fiction film at the time. Two other newly-established directors were also creating their own. One was Ridley Scott, who had established himself with 1979's Alien and was now working on an adaptation of the Philip K. Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep which would be released under the title of Blade Runner. At the same time, John Carpenter, riding the success of Halloween was working on his latest project, an adaptation of John W. Campbell's novella Who Goes There? which would become arguably one of his best horror films: The Thing.

Both these films were huge flops at the box office. They were critically panned and it was not until years later that they finally started to get the recognition they deserve. Why? There's plenty of reasons but one that frequently comes up is the success of E.T.: The Extraterrestrial. Audiences were so in awe of the family fun of E.T. that they didn't seem to care much for the much bleaker atmosphere of the other two movies.

I do find this interesting because having finally watched E.T. for the first time in years, I would say that Blade Runner and The Thing may have actually been better films. E.T. is an enjoyable movie but when you get down to it there are a lot of story problems and plot holes. For one thing, as solid as the relationship between the kids and E.T. was, I personally felt a lot of the cast was underdeveloped. There were those three characters who liked to bully Elliot and then suddenly they decide to help him during the climax with no clear motivation. They also don't really do a whole lot to help outside of following Elliot on bicycles.

There was also that strange man with the keys. Throughout the first three quarters of the film we never see his face. He is kept mysterious and the only indication of his identity is a distinct set of keys on his belt that tend to make a jingly noise whenever he walks. There is this certain intimidating vibe to the character, but we have no idea who he is, almost as if they're building up to a twist. So then we come to the big reveal and the man with the keys turns out to be... some guy who wears keys on his belt. Seriously, he doesn't even get a name, and suddenly he's treated as being somewhat sympathetic despite being played as frightening for most of the film.

The mother could also have been a more interesting character if she had found out about the alien sooner. Elliot had no problem introducing E.T. to his siblings, why not also his mother? Sure, it would have been a shock but her gradual warming up to his presence could have been an emotional touch instead of getting cheap laughs out of her failing to notice when they're both in the same room.

The stories of the other two movies are far more complex and I'd say far more interesting. The alien is hostile in The Thing, but what makes that film so interesting is how it affects the characters themselves. They have to deal with the paranoia that comes from relying entirely on themselves since the alien could be anyone. With E.T. you have a relationship forming between the kid and the alien, but with The Thing you have the alien tearing apart the already strenuous relationships between the protagonists.

Meanwhile, Blade Runner has a bit more depth and an intriguing atmosphere. With E.T. you don't get a whole lot of depth to the characters outside of a basic dynamic between each. Blade Runner lets you dive into the minds of Rick, Rachel, and the other characters. It raises philosophical questions about the nature of humanity, none of which have a solid answer. The character of Roy Batty himself is a very psychologically-driven villain, and we get to see into his mind as to why he acts the way he does, certainly a more complex character than the guy with the keys.

The relationship between Rick and Rachel may well be stronger than the bond between Elliot and E.T. ever will be. With Elliot and E.T. you just have two friends from unlikely sources, whereas Blade Runner deals more with the social and ethical consequences of the relationship. Rick is a man trained to kill replicants, and yet he falls in love with one who doesn't even know her true identity.

So why did E.T.: The Extraterrestrial become such a hit while two better films were left in its wake and only gained their deserved recognition later on? Well, at the time the concept was revolutionary. Spielberg had previously explore the themes of benevolent alien visitors in Close Encounters of the Third Kind (parallels to which are pretty clear in E.T.), but the idea of a children's movie, and in particular a child's friendship with an alien was pretty unusual. We do see that sort of dynamic in The Day the Earth Stood Still but there the alien had a goal. It was treated as a superior being intentionally visiting Earth with a plan, as opposed to an innocent alien who gets left behind by accident.

It is interesting to compare these three movies. All three of them came out in the same year of 1982, and yet they are all so different. E.T. became a huge box office success and won four Oscars, while leaving The Thing and Blade Runner, both far superior films in terms of atmosphere and story, to fail horrendously.