The Film Habit #49 - May 25, 2005

I think at some point in almost everyone’s life, there comes a time when we have to accept being mediocre. There are a few, the truly exceptional people who may not have to face that. They have some fantastic talent, skill, or in the case of Paris Hilton a random draw of birth that has or will or may propel them into being something special. But that’s less than 1% of us. The rest of us may have dreams of something better, but the sad truth is that for most we’ll never have the talent or intelligence to achieve it, no matter how much we struggle. There’s a lot of talk about following you dreams, but that’s mainly to ensure that truly talented 1% puts forth enough effort to sort themselves from the rest. They’re the advancers of society, the people who make a difference, the people who change lives. The rest of us are just average, and while we may dream of something better we’ll probably never have it. I’m starting to feel like I’m reaching my spot, my place where I need to come to grips with being at best mediocre. I’m not there yet, but it’s coming, along with a job cleaning Slurpee machines. When the time comes, will I be okay with that? Will you?

Anyway, The Film Habit is back depressing the hell out of you after another brief break where I found a way to worm out of writing it. It may be less weekly soon, but it’ll still happen as often as I can do it. But with #50 approaching, I think we’ve achieved something pretty special together. I’ve written nearly 50 of these and some of you have actually read them. Not the smart ones among you, but some of you nonetheless. Thanks for sticking with it, especially after #44. That one was for me, not for you. Many of you may be ready to bail out after the opening paragraph to this one, and I wouldn’t blame you. But hey, you’re almost to #50 so why not hang around.

So I guess I’ll try and cook up something special for #50 next week. Yes, prizes will be involved. Freebies are the only things people like more than vapid links or crappy images from Dark Water. Internet sufers love images, especially if they can steal them and hot link them on their blog. Oh yeah, prizes for #50. Next week. Meet you back here.

me with Eeyore comparisons.

Star Wars and Politics (run away!)

“I imagine that Revenge of the Sith is very much the film Lucas's fans want to see, but are some of them ready for an anti-Bush diatribe?” asks Ed Gonzalez of Slant Magazine in a review in which he also blames penis envy for moviegoers love of lightsabers. Ed has issues. But Ed’s not the only dope out there accusing Lucas’ latest opus of liberal political bias. A lot of it is easily dismissed as simple bitterness. It’s funny how far those who don’t get Star Wars will go to lambaste it. Thomas Delapa of the Boulder Weekly goes so far as to call anyone who likes it a “lemming”, because obviously if he doesn’t like it, anyone who does must be a brainwashed idiot. There’s bitterness out there, and because of its history, Star Wars comes with a lot of baggage. But political accusations are new, a product of our zealot thick political environment. No tree huggers, zealot is not a compliment.

Perhaps accusations from the politically fervent rabble rousers are unavoidable, in a movie where one of the most powerful moments is commented on by Senator Padme Amidala with the words “So this is how liberty dies, to thunderous applause” But by comparing the machinations of one of cinema’s most evil villains to George Bush, aren’t his supporters only indicting the president themselves?

That Lucas intentionally attacked the president seems unlikely, since according to George he wrote the thing before America’s return to Iraq. That doesn’t mean there aren’t parallels, it only means they aren’t exactly intentional. Says Lucas, “I looked at ancient Rome, and how, having got rid of kings, the Senate ended up with Caesar`s nephew as emperor ... how democracy turns itself into a dictatorship. I also looked at revolutionary France ... and Hitler.” History is replete with similar political failure, Ancient Rome’s democratic downfall mirrors Sith pretty closely, just with less Wookiees. By calling Lucas’ film a rip on Bush, isn’t it the people who are so foolishly comparing it who are attacking the president? I’m sure Bush isn’t happy to hear his supporters blaming him for Darth Vader.

Rather, the parallel isn’t so much between Star Wars and Bush as it is between Bush and the lessons of history. As Lucas pointed out this Sunday at the Cannes Film Festival, “The parallels between Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable.” There’s no denying that George has political leanings, but there’s also no ignoring history. Doomed to repeat it we are, as Yoda might say. Sith has resonance precisely because it taps into things already ingrained in our cultural consciousness. The premise it sets forward for the fall of freedom is plausible precisely because that’s how it’s happened before. If you think it’s happening again, that’s your own set of political baggage.

If anything, Lucas’ decades long space fantasy points the way to the importance of things like liberty and self-expression. It is the stifling of self-expression, a set of angsty, bottled up emotions which pushes Anakin to the dark side. Still, wars are in the end political, even in the movies. Don’t take it personally Mr. Bush.

me if you’re sick of zealots, whatever their cause.

Foul Newton

I don’t get this attraction I’m supposed to have to Thandie Newton. Crash marks the fourth time she’s been presented to me in a movie as a hot chick, and I’m still not seeing it. Ok, I could forgive that if she was a fantastic actor, or even if she was in a role that didn’t push her as some sort of angelic super-model. But she’s not and her roles all require her to be Halle Berry… or even Jennifer Esposito. She isn’t, unless you’re attracted to rotting skeletons. She bears an uncomfortable resemblance to Michael Jackson, and yes, I think her nose may be detachable.

At least she’s finally showing a little acting potential. After stinking in Riddick and the quickly forgotten Truth About Charlie she shows some acting chops in Crash. Maybe that’ll lead to her playing roles more substantial, you know, roles where I’m not supposed to think her sexy. That I can buy in too.

me with pictures of anyone but Thandie Newton.

Hot Mail

To prove that someone actually reads this website, guided by the spirit of the hot male to your left (who really ought to do a lot to draw in the ladies), I answer reader mail. your comments to have them read on the… answered here. Let’s see what filled up my inbox this week:

Jonny Vaughan:Zaphod DOES have 2 heads, one of them is hidden somewhere around his chest area and pops out at random intervals to say stuff.

Josh: Yes, you’re right. Thanks for seeing the movie a month too late.

Sammy:With ROTS coming out this week I began to think about why exactly star wars (that is the original trilogy) still stands up up better than most films from its time. It's really weird if you think about it. The acting is so-so granted it's good for the kind of film it is but if you at look it compared to other films from the same time period which aren't watched half as much as star wars like the godfather it's more than a little crappy. The special effects were ground breaking for their time but really don't look a lot better than the Letterman's edited clips from the beginning of the original star wars that feature for example a monkey shooting lasers out of his eyes instead of a spaceships.

I guess what it is; is the classic good vs. evil plot that transcends generations and cultures which has probably never been put more simply into film. George Lucas I suppose benefits from his biggest flaw in this series: batant simplicity. Putting it in that light it really makes sense as to why the first two films which didn't have villains who factored into the plots doesn't work and Episode III does.

If you use my e-mails in the film habit could you post them as being from sam; I'm really not all that comfortable with my full name being posted on something that a lot of people I don't know are going to be reading. The reason my full name showed up is because I used my hotmail which puts my full name on all my e-mails as supposed to microsoft express.

Josh: No worries, name changed… and not to something humiliating. Sometimes I forget that people get shy about hundreds of thousands of people they don’t know reading what they have to say. But then I remember a year ago that was me. So no problem.

I disagree with some of what you’ve said about the original Star Wars. I’m not sure what your beef is with the acting for instance. Harrison Ford is hard to question and the movie has Alec fucking Guinness. I mean good god man, he’s named after beer!! The Godfather is overrated. As for the effects… I’m amazed every time I watch it by how well they hold up. I mean really, they’re timeless. And its simplicity is it’s biggest strength, it isn’t a flaw. It makes it something we can identify with, understand despite the fantastical setting. It’s the sort of deceptively simple greatness that made ancient fables endure generation after generation, despite being about crazy things like gods who eat their children. Thanks for the well thought out Email Sam.

Jarrod:I believe that this movie has raised the Pedi stool in this genre. With all the medieval fantasy like “King Arthur” and “Lord of the Rings” its nice to see a movie with the same epic battles but focused on history. And that hasn’t been done for five years. This also brought a new look at the crusades, not that it was all about the land but there might have been a few who did it for the good of people. All together I think everyone should see this movie even though the story is a bit hard to follow with a little previous knowledge of the crusades I think you will enjoy it. Plus u cant go wrong when their are lines like"I fought for two days with an arrow in my testicle".

Josh: Epic battles that focus on history… I guess you missed Alexander then? Lucky you.

Personally, I’m not that interested in how it portrays history or whatever. I’m interested in whether or not it’s a good movie. Lines about pierced testicles do not a good movie make. They help, but you need more than testes poking. Ridley dropped the ball on this one, not because of what he said about history, but because of what he said about movies. I believe it was something like “I can make shit and people will like it, cause I’m Ridley”. You’ve proved him right.

Bean: I'm upset that you were blasting Christians... without them and their wars world population would seriously be out of control on this planet!

Josh: There’s no excusing it. I was wrong, you’re right. Thank god for the Spanish Inquisition!

Adrean: I dont know if this is the right place to email you, but I would like to hear your feedbacks or comments about this film. Paper Airplane

Josh: It’s a movie about the life of a deaf man, but do the family interviews have to be filmed like he also has cataracts? It’s a little self indulgent, but well done really, if you can make it past the opening that’s probably better viewed if you’re deaf. Once the cataract film lifts the family interviews are really the best stuff in here, and the only part that really gave me a glimpse at the life of a deaf man, as the short’s tagline suggests. I’m also not sure why you hear music when you walk down the stairs and pour milk. If it was more than 14 minutes, I honestly probably wouldn’t have stayed with it. But since it is a short short, I did. Thanks for sending it my way Adrean I enjoyed it.

Hey! Do you like writing for mildly successful movie websites with no guarantee that you’ll ever be paid? Are you over 18? You’re in luck. CinemaBlend.com is looking for writers just like you. If you think you can capture the signature Cinema Blend style as a critic and/or BNN reporter send me an with a few samples and we’ll talk.

DISCUSS THE FILM HABIT IN OUR FORUM

Back to The Film Habit #49 - May 25, 2005