Semi-critical Reviews: The afterellen short film competition has too much music.

February 3rd, 2009 by Brianna

Afterellen.com is having a short film contest. I was considering reviewing all of them quickly, but most are… not so good, so I won’t (I’m trying to stay true to my ’semi-critical’ tagline.) I will say that I liked Too Much Plaid the best, despite the occasional awkward and/or preachy dialogue. At least it was unforced, the material suited to the actors.

Never mind about that. I do have something to say about all of the films:

There was too much music!

I never thought I’d hear myself say that – I am a semi-professional musician, after all! How can there be too much music? Especially if it is good music – and most of the music in these films was at least fairly good. Music makes everything better, right? (A la Jackie Primrose Monahan…)

Nope, it certainly doesn’t.

Problem #1 with music: Using it to create artificial emotion.

The writing and acting in a film must be able to create emotion on its own. The music is only useful for heightening existing emotion, not creating it! Girl Talk was the worst in this regard: I don’t know these people, I’m not identifying with them, and indie rock music isn’t going to make me care if they’re kissing! Simply having them kiss in silence would have improved it tremendously, mostly because:

Problem #2: Good music makes your average film look awful!

I used to play in a small youth orchestra. It was an informal group, and the director was more of an organizer than a musician. I was always having to convince her that having a pianist accompany the orchestra was a bad, bad idea. Why? Because the piano always sounds good! It’s always in tune, it has a good tone, and it’s usually play by an extremely competent player. In comparison, the orchestra, while quite good by itself, suddenly sounded out of tune, error prone, and generally made up of absolute beginners. It almost sounded as if we needed the piano to keep us together! Of course, if an orchestra is sufficiently talented, a piano can be a good addition – but as a member of the group, not as accompaniment.

The same thing happens with these films. Look – nobody expects them to be wonderful, but adding goodish music makes them seem worthless by contrast. In some of the worst cases, I found myself completely ignoring the picture and just listening to the music.

Perhaps I’m just in a Anyone But Me is the greatest web show ever – partly due to its economy with music – induced haze. Still, I can’t help but think that all of these films abused music. Even having no music at all would have been a great improvement.

Semi-Critical Reviews: Bloody Mallory (2005)

January 28th, 2009 by Brianna

Hulu is now officially my biggest waste of time on the internet, rivaled only by Afterellen.com video blogs.

Oh, well.

I just watched Bloody Mallory, a French (with subtitles!) B action movie. It was surprisingly entertaining.

Quick plot summery: Mallory got married, but her husband turned out to be some sort of demon guy, so she killed him. Now she’s a professional evil fighter who (sort of) works for the government, and she has to stop the evil Pope.

It was campy as could be, completely stupid, and lots of fun. Mallory and her (exish-)husband mutually stalk each other – he hangs around and laughs, she summons him from limbo, and quotes some sort of ‘rules for dead demon husbands’ at him. I thought this would have some sort of creepy abusive undertone, but it refreshingly did not. Maybe it did, and I just didn’t catch it (since it’s in French), but even when he convinces her to borrow his power to defeat the evil Pope, it didn’t feel creepy, just… mutually cynical.

Despite it being a B movie with a female protagonist, it didn’t feel too (s)exploitive. There’s not too much excessive cleavage, one of the evil fighters is a telepathic little girl, and Mallory doesn’t really flirt with anybody. (She does kiss the inspector guy, but he was dying…) I suppose that since nudity is allowed in French media (although they are trying to tone it down!), it doesn’t seem so titillating to make movies about women with enormous breasts who beat people up while wearing skimpy outfits (a la Faster Pussycat, Bitch Slap, etc.). Mallory’s outfit was fairly revealing, I suppose, but I didn’t feel like the camera focused on her body excessively.

And one of the main characters was a drag queen – who was actually really cool, and not played for laughs! I’m fairly certain that I’ve never seen or heard of an action movie with a drag queen in it before, although there probably is one somewhere.

But the best part was the evil Pope. Okay, okay, I’m really pissed off at a Catholic relative at the moment, and at the Catholic church in general, so I’m biased… but hey, anyone who wears a silly hat that that and thinks that they are God’s Representative must be pretty messed up!

More stereotypical characters, please!

October 18th, 2008 by Brianna

How many times have you heard or read these phrase: “<Random strong female character> is a good character because she’s strong without giving up her femininity.” or maybe, “It’s good that <random female character> isn’t just a male character in a woman’s body, because that is boring and stereotypical.”

I can’t seem to come up with any links to this kind of thing right now, but I keep hearing this kind of talk, over and over again – especially when I’m discussing something like Buffy with male friends. I just have one question: When has this ever been done? When have we seen a ‘male character in a female body’, and where can I find it?

Alien? Terminator? Ripley/Sarah Conner are cast in a mother role.

Alice or Jill in the Resident Evil series? Maybe. Some of Elizabeth Moon’s characters? I suppose.

I’m sure that there are more examples, but I think that we can agree – such characters are very, very rare.

Now, I love the complex, wonderful characters that are created when strong female characters are ‘done right’ i.e., not stereotypes. I wouldn’t have Buffy, or Ripley, or Xena, or Elizabeth Bennett, or whomever written any other way. Writers should strive to create complex, well-rounded characters of all genders. Sometimes, however, it just doesn’t happen. And sometimes, I’m just not up to digesting a complex, realistic character – I just want something simple. And stereotypes, ideals, are important to out cultural mythmaking…

But, where are these stereotypes? It seems like even the toughest female action-oriented characters resort to seduction on a regular basis. (c.f. Max from Dark Angel, Xena) And those that don’t are still supposed to be sympathetic to family members, spouses/boyfriends, starving orphans, etc, to a degree unheard of by their male counterparts. We wouldn’t want them seeming any less female, now would we? And if they are less female, they’re invarabily evil.

So here’s what I want:

I want a female western hero, Lone Ranger style. The kind that comes into town on a big white horse, defeats the bad guys, and rides of into the sunset. No weird former relationships, no serious love intrest, no noticeable weaknesses.

I want a female James Bond clone. Not an Alias-type female spy, but the whole masculine-fantasy Bond. Suave, perfect gentleperson, yet an amazing detective and fighter, who has an astonishing sense of luck, inept sidekicks, and who gets all the girls without trying, but who remains cooly detached throughout. For even more bonus points, make her straight and give her feminine, ‘woman in a man’s body’, male love interests.

(Side note: why is it that male characters often have love interests that are weak and girly, but female characters always dispise and reject weak male love interests, only accepting those that are close to their quality?)

I want a female buddy comedy. Baby Mama doesn’t count. It couldn’t have been made with male characters.

I want a romance movie with the roles reversed. Completely. Enough said.

I could go on and on.

We probably won’t ever get any of these things. There’s been such a rejection of cliched characters of any gender, that nobody’s going to try anything this different, but I can wish! Still…

The male ideal stereotype, the ‘White Knight’ if you will, is still pervasive in the culture. Even if modern fictional characters tend to be less idealistic, less heroic, the ideal is still there, and the modern characters still approximate it, even if they remain human. By refusing to create female characters who embody the masculine stereotype, even the strongest women will invarabily be compared, not to that stereotype, but to the existing feminine stereotype. This tendancy leads to a rejection of certain roles for women and men in real life. By denying this stereotype, we essentially deny half of human expression for half the human race.

And let’s not even start on feminine male characters…

(Crossposted from Fourth Wave)

Art Snobs

August 20th, 2008 by Brianna

Budding obsessed Xena fan that I am, I was looking through the Whoosh! archives when I came across an interview with Josh Becker. He seemed like a pretty smart (if weird) guy, and a excellent director – who doesn’t like obsessed Xena fans – but I was curious about the statement that he was a “lightning rod for praise and condemnation due to his openness and outspokenness.”

I checked out his website, and my first impressions seemed rather correct. He seemed to be the stereotype of the crazy director – he is rather serious about life, and even more serious about his movies (he is constantly telling people to “grow up”). He is incredibly opinionated about everything, and is smart enough that his ideas seem right a good portion of the time. He obviously knows a lot about making movies – his site is full of advice on film structure, DIY filmmaking, etc.

Now, I usually like opinionated smart people, even if I don’t agree with them. But the more time I spent on Josh Becker’s site, the angrier I became. For a while I couldn’t figure out why. Sure, he’s a condescending jerk to people who ask him dumb questions, but lots of people are like that – it wouldn’t make me hate him.

Suddenly, though, I realized what my problem with Josh Becker is. He is a complete Art Snob.

Read full post »

Semi-Critical Reviews: The Pleasure Drivers (2005)

August 3rd, 2008 by Brianna

So – after all I said yesterday about not being too critical, I’m going to review a movie I didn’t really like!

The only reason I watched the Pleasure Drivers was to see Jill Bennett <fangirl>who is, like, the coolest actress EVAR!!!</fangirl>. I wasn’t disappointed. She did a great job, and her character was awesome – but considering that her character’s story was supposed to be equal to the other two stories, it was pretty obvious that her part got lost in the edit room. (especially her !dramatic! death at the end for no apparent reason.)

As for the rest, I suspect it suffered from crappy editing too. The plot made very little sense, particularly in regards to the situation with the kid with head trauma and his guardian/friend/whatever. I suppose that she was supposed to be whacked out on mind-altering substances, or something.

Lots of people seem to think that Lacey Chabert’s character was something wonderful, but I just didn’t see it. Mostly, I didn’t understand what exactly she was doing, except for being high. Anyway, by the end I just wanted Bennett’s character to kill everybody – but since she couldn’t shoot straight (due to being angry at her girlfriend, or something), I suppose that was too much to ask.

Anyway, the one good thing about the movie was the acting. And not just Bennett. (who, let’s face it, I would love no matter what she did!) The acting was quite realistic – everybody seemed completely messed up/high/out of it to the appropriate degree – they seemed about as confused as I was.

And maybe that was the point. Life makes no since. The only way out is death. At least, that is what the closing scene seemed to point to.

So, Jill rocked, and the rest was bearable.