Central Cortex http://therem.net/blog/ en-us Nucleus CMS v3.64 ? Weblog http://backend.userland.com/rss http://therem.net/blog//nucleus/nucleus2.gif Central Cortex http://therem.net/blog/ No Fixed Address: The Career of Jeremy Renner http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=145 Something happened to me this summer after I saw The Bourne Legacy: a fascination with Jeremy Renner took hold and wouldn't let go. I had seen him in other movies (most notably The Hurt Locker) and was intrigued by his intense energy and expressiveness, but something about his starring role in this film pushed the rest of the buttons needed to fully engage my obsessionator. Not sure of all the factors, but I think the most important one was my realization that he could be funny. There is a moment early on when he exclaims in disbelief that the doctor who has been working with him for years doesn't know his name and calls him "the number 5". Something about his body language and vocal intonation in this scene conveyed a humorous level of exasperation in the midst of all the spy thriller seriousness. Not so much as to undercut the proceedings, but enough to expand the frame and loosen things up in a healthy way.

Anyway, I realized I wanted to see more, so after consulting IMDB and some knowledgeable sources (thanks, Ide Cyan!), I put a whole pile of Renner's earlier movies in my queue. Though he's come into the general consciousness only recently, he's been making movies for over 15 years, so there were quite a few to choose from. It took me a couple months to get through them (the ones I wanted to watch, that is; I have no desire to see "National Lampoon's Senior Trip"), and a very interesting couple of months it was.I also spent a fair amount of time searching the internet for information about him as a person. Why? Does someone's personal life really have much bearing on their art? The answer is obviously "yes" to a certain extent. If you come to your job as a talented man of few words who's left everything behind to pursue your calling, you might have more insight into, for example, playing the lead role in The Hurt Locker. But reasoning in reverse (you must have history X because you did a great job portraying Y) can be quite problematic; we'd all be in serious trouble if you needed to be a sociopathic murderer to convincingly play one. Whatever. I'm a curious critter, and I like a good research project. Intertubes, ahoy!

The most relevant facts about Renner's life that I discovered are that he grew up in Modesto, a fairly conservative, economically depressed town in California's Central Valley. His parents managed a bowling alley and divorced when he was 10, after which there was a lot of dislocation (he stayed with his mom, but also has a "Renner family crest" tattooed on his left shoulder). He was musical and started singing and drumming in his teens. No one else in his family or peer group was theatrically inclined, so he didn't discover acting until he went to college. He describes it as being almost lifesaving in allowing him to explore and express feelings that had had no outlet before. He quit college and moved to LA to pursue a movie career in the early '90s, and spent almost a decade in varying degrees of poverty while acting in independent productions with shoe-string budgets, one-off TV roles, and lowbrow fare like "Senior Trip". In 2002, he made some waves in the industry with Dahmer. Things started to pick up after that, and with his Oscar-nominated lead performance in The Hurt Locker in 2009, he was officially a Big Deal. He's since gotten a second Oscar nomination and starred in some very high-profile action moneymakers. Things are definitely happening for him now.

So: he grew up in an unsophisticated and somewhat troubled environment. Has had difficulty accessing and understanding his emotions in the past. Is used to pulling up stakes and moving on, but is also persistent and willing to make a lot of sacrifices to do something he's passionate about. I think it's safe to say that all of this visibly informs many of this roles. But there's also an open, friendly, and goofy side to him that comes out a lot in real life, but only subtly onscreen. He is well known for busting out in ridiculous dance moves on set and for approximating Monty Python's Ministry of Silly Walks when making his way down the red carpet at awards shows. He also liberally curses and laughs, flips the bird, makes crazy faces, and sticks out his tongue a lot. Sometimes he seems like a bit of a wild man¯. (Though I've never heard any substantiated stories of a scandalous nature -- no drugs, abusive behavior, or general assholery.) But when he is working, he is focused, precise, and whoever he needs to be for the job: the real thing -- a natural actor. He is so good at playing his more serious and/or scary roles that even a seasoned movie critic like David Poland asked him in an interview if he was "a hard guy". Renner's response was: not really, he's a pretty easygoing dude -- maybe it's just his "resting face" that makes people think that.

No, I think it's that he's great at pretending he's someone he's not. On screen, he is capable of transforming not just his mannerisms or appearance, but his fundamental energy. For a good overview of the range of characters he can inhabit convincingly, check out Dahmer, 12 and Holding, Neo Ned, and The Hurt Locker. While watching each, you might think he IS those guys. But they're so different. It's like he's riffing on psychological versions of musical themes; once he's got the vibe, he's so assured that he can throw in grace notes and off-beats that make the performance seem more real and vibrant without being showy. I use that metaphor intentionally, because music has continued to be an important part of his life (his singing is pretty amazing!), but as far as I can tell, never a distraction from his acting. They seem more complementary -- both reflections of a deep need to be in motion and expressing feelings in ways that connect with other people.

Creating a work of art for an audience is one kind of connection. He's also really open and responsive to other actors, clearly keying his movements and dialogue to them in the moment. There's a sensitivity and quickness to him that I find quite captivating. (I really wish he would do more romantic roles.) He also seems unusually comfortable stepping into other people's spaces and getting close to them -- perhaps an extension of his generally confident and direct physicality, which is not fussy, clumsy, or timid at all. Dan Bradley, 2nd unit director and stunt coordinator on The Bourne Legacy said Renner would be "a fantastic stunt man if he wasn't already a fantastic actor." I believe it. He seems like he really knows his own body and can play it like an instrument.

This physical control and precision makes his recent shift to action films work quite well. I am a big fan of action movies when done right, and the casting of honest to god actors who take the work seriously and aren't just slumming it can make a huge difference. Not that I want Renner to keep doing them indefinitely; there is a sameness to many of these roles that can spell disaster for a formerly serious actor's career. (Christian Bale, I'm concerned for you.) I want him to keep stretching himself and surprising me. I'm optimistic that he will, because he has often said that he can't stand boredom and from what I've seen he doesn't seem to be the kind to settle down. And I mean that literally as well as metaphorically. He and his friend Kristoffer Winters run a house-flipping business, and have often lived in the buildings only long enough to renovate and sell them. He hasn't had a confirmed romantic relationship in ages. And to my knowledge, he's never worked with the same director twice.

What's going on? Is he just a loner? Does he have secrets? Or is he searching for something and not finding it? I don't know, but whatever it is, it seems to be fuel for some great acting. It's no accident that my favorites among his movies are the ones that left me urgently wondering, "What the hell is going on with this guy?" and "What are these strange emotions I'm feeling?" To me, the best art is about exploding your sense of normality, revealing a bigger and more complex universe, and leaving you with questions rather than answers. Jeremy Renner has done that for me, and for that, I salute him.

For those who are interested in exploring his filmography or just reading some mini movie reviews, I've written up my thoughts on almost all the films and TV I've seen him in. I've broken them out into five different posts that group by level of quality, at least as I see it. I am pretty critical when it comes to movies, so there are a fair number that I judged pretty harshly. Just to be clear, though, Renner's acting is not the problem in any of these. He's often one of the redeeming factors in otherwise underwhelming films.

I haven't included Thor because he's on screen for all of two minutes (if that), and I've also left out his one-off appearances on TV shows because, frankly, I thought they were too slight to be worth analyzing. One thing I'd love to watch, but does not seem to be available, is the 2nd season of Bravo's reality TV show "The It Factor"¯. Anyone...? Anyone...?

WARNING: there may be spoilers in the following posts. I've tried to avoid revealing any major surprises, but I find it hard to talk about movies without discussing some plot details. If you are concerned about that, you should probably not continue on.



tags: ]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=145 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:30:00 -0500 Jeremy Renner on Film: The Just Plain Bad http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=141 S.W.A.T.
2003. Rated PG-13. Director: Clark Johnson. Renner plays Brian Gamble, the former partner of Colin Farrell's character

Gamble hijacks a LearJet

A motley crew of Los Angeles police officers have to make their way through a gauntlet of mercenaries while transporting a dangerous criminal to prison. You can guess what sort of movie this will be from the following facts: their leader is played by Samuel L. Jackson, the team includes a cop played by LL Cool J, and the nefarious criminal is a Frenchman. I'm sorry to say that it is not bad enough to be good. There are various poorly-executed plot elements, but the closest thing to a theme is the good cop/bad cop contrast between Colin Farrell's character and his ex-partner, played by Renner. I guess we're supposed to root for Farrell, but he is so goddamn boring that it is impossible. An attempt to give him some depth with an early breakup scene completely fails because a) he is obviously the one who's lost interest in the relationship, not the girlfriend and b) we never find out why. Some later hints of romance with Michelle Rodriguez's character are also abandoned before anything interesting happens.

Renner is way more entertaining to watch, but his character makes no sense unless you believe that hot-heads who occasionally bend the rules are automatically evil and on their way to perdition. Perhaps my problem with the progression of events is due to all the morally gray protagonists I've seen in movies and on TV in the past few years; S.W.A.T. may reflect the absolutism of an earlier time that just reads as unbelievable now. *shrug* In any case, his badness in the later parts of the movie is over the top and kind of amusing, but it all ends with a bit of whimper.

There are a couple of interesting comments on racial issues in the movie, my favorite being Octavia Spencer's by-stander telling Samuel L. Jackson's character that he ought to have better things to do than arrest other black men. And a couple actors from The Wire make welcome appearances. But alas, the most amusing thing about this film is the fact that there is a song on the soundtrack named "Samuel Jackson". Now that there is some metacommentary!


A Little Trip to Heaven
2005. Rated R. Director: Baltasar Kormįkur. Renner plays Fred/Kelvin, a small-time crook attempting life insurance fraud.

Leaving is not allowed

An insurance claims adjuster visits a small town in Minnesota to investigate a deadly car crash and becomes enmeshed in a criminal plot. It's revealed within minutes that Renner's character is a very bad man and Forest Whitaker's purpose in the movie is to get to the bottom of his scheme. So most of the running time is spent watching Whitaker's character bumbling around with inexplicably fogged glasses, questioning Renner's wife (played by Julia Stiles) and various other rustic folk in his efforts to uncover a lot of needlessly complicated and implausible backstory. And he does it in a bizarre high-pitched voice with an accent that veers between Scotland, Minnesota, New York, and Jamaica. As if that weren't enough, the landscape is subtly wrong for the setting; I kept wondering if this was supposed to be some kind of surrealistic psychodrama. But no... it was just filmed in Iceland! Of course! …?!

Renner plays a pretty generic bad guy in this movie and sports some unappealing facial hair for most of it. Even though I was highly amused by him exclaiming near the end, “Well, looks like I'm pretty fucked!” I must advise giving this one a pass unless you feel like lobbing MST3K-style commentary at the screen.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=141 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:18:20 -0500 Jeremy Renner on Film: The Not So Good http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=140 North Country
2005. Rated R. Director: Niki Caro. Renner plays Bobby Sharp, supervisor of "the powder room"¯ at the iron mine.

Yellow or red?

A dramatization of the first class action lawsuit filed against a company for sexual discrimination in the workplace (Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines). Renner's character is introduced twenty minutes in, and his first line is, "So Harlan, which one of these girls is going to be my bitch?" Subtlety, thy name is not this movie.

To be fair, the conditions at the mine were egregious and warranted a pretty frank portrayal on film. And the acting by Charlize Theron, Frances McDormand, Sean Bean, and various others (including Renner, who brings some nuance to the role of a vile sexist jerk), is quite decent. This could have been a gripping story. But for some reason, the filmmakers were not satisfied and decided to throw in a traumatic past for the protagonist that had, at best, an implausible connection to the film's present-day events and served only to tip the story over into the maudlin. They also made a couple of really dodgy narrative choices in the process. A film on the topic of sexual discrimination should not have the main character's father sweep in and single-handedly change his sexist co-workers' opinions with one impassioned speech. And it should absolutely not take away her voice just as she is about to describe being raped as a teenager and replace it with a flashback scene of her being brutalized. Really... not good.

It's possible that I wouldn't be so bothered by all this if I hadn't read up on the real story afterward and discovered that a lot of the movie's details were invented to make it more conventionally structured and dramatic. For example: the real-life counterpart of the main character had to talk to not one, but 50 lawyers before one would take up her case; she was not alone in filing suit (the movie makes much of her being the lone troublemaker among a crowd of women afraid to rock the boat); and the lawsuit actually took a full 14 years to come to a conclusion! Imagine the courage and pure cussed persistence it took to keep going over all that time and create a legal precedent for all American women to combat discrimination in the workplace. I would really like to see a well-made movie about the people who did it. Too bad this wasn't it.


28 Weeks Later
2007. Rated R. Director: Juan Carlos Fresnadillo. Renner plays Doyle, an American soldier

Doyle and Andy in the park

The sequel to Danny Boyle's "fast zombie"¯ classic, 28 Days Later. The infected have succumbed to starvation, leaving England full of corpses and silence. An American military base is established on London's Isle of Dogs, and the few survivors are cautiously gathered into protective custody. Robert Carlyle plays a man who's made it this far by less than honorable means; he is reunited with his two children at the military base, and some fraught discussion leads to the children heading off on a hunt for their mother that unsurprisingly ends in disaster. It is a zombie movie, after all.

"28 Weeks Later" advances the story of the rage virus apocalypse in some interesting ways, and I appreciated the mercilessly downbeat ending after the first film's oddly happy denouement. Renner also gets to play the most heroic character of his career, as one of the few members of the military to break ranks and help civilians escape from a deadly lockdown. However, it all seems like more of a vignette than a complete narrative. Characters get even less development than in the first movie, so it is difficult to care about their fates, and I couldn't help laughing at how one particular infected kept popping up over and over again, almost like a zombie version of the Terminator. Some might say that the whole genre is over the top enough to be ridiculous, but I really don't think the director was going for laugh out loud funny with this one. Oops.


Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol
2011. Rated PG-13. Director: Brad Bird. Renner plays William Brandt, an IMF "analyst"

Brandt hovering in a cooling shaft

The fourth in a series of action movie spy capers starring Tom Cruise, this film is fluff from beginning to end. Early on, the Kremlin is bombed in a way that falsely implicates the United States, and the "Impossible Missions Force" is disavowed as a result. So the latest incarnation of the team (Cruise, Simon Pegg, Paula Patton, and Renner) have to go it alone in their attempt to save the world from nuclear armageddon. Plenty of fanciful technology is used to move the plot along, and set piece follows set piece to the inevitably triumphant conclusion.

There is some breezy charm here. I enjoyed Simon Pegg's performance as the unexpectedly promoted geek Benjy, and Renner has some humorous moments as Brandt is forced to take part in craziness for which he was not prepared. (The line "Next time I get to seduce the rich guy" was a gift to Renner slash fans everywhere.) But I'm afraid I was underwhelmed by Paula Patton and Cruise himself, and I found the overall plot so clichéd that I could not invest in it emotionally. It's not that I mind light-hearted romps; I just want them to be genuinely funny and/or charming. This film wasn't enough of either for me.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=140 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:13:23 -0500 Jeremy Renner on Film: The Flawed But Worth Watching http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=139 Neo Ned
2005. Not Rated. Director: Van Fischer. Renner plays Ned, a neo-Nazi criminal who has been committed to a mental institution

Ned and Rachael driving

The concept is eyebrow-raising: a white supremacist falls in love with a black woman who claims she's the reincarnation of Adolph Hitler. How can they pull this off without offending the majority of the audience and/or trivializing the subject matter? The answer is... they can't, really. The good news is that the movie is played as a relatively harmless screwball romance rather than a social statement; even if it is in bad taste (I found myself cringing whenever Ned went out in public in his swastika T-shirt -- and he spends half the movie wearing it), it has its moments. Gabrielle Union is engagingly wry and vulnerable and has great chemistry with Renner, whose character is unlike any other I've seen him play. Ned is spastic, easily distracted, overflowing with energy and poorly controlled urges, but surprisingly gentle at heart. (From what I have seen, Ned is the character most like Renner in real life.) It's soon clear that his association with neo-Nazis is a case of an impressionable kid with a bad home life falling in with the wrong crowd, and once he gets to know Rachael (or, as he continues to call her, Adolph), his prejudices easily fall away. Narratively, this probably lets him (and society in general) off the hook too easily, but I can't muster much indignation that Renner avoided another evil sociopath role. And as a major plus, this movie features his hottest sex scene ever. And when I say hot, I mean smoking!


The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford
2007. Rated R. Director: Andrew Dominik. Renner plays Wood Hite, cousin of Jesse James and an occasional member of his gang.

Outlaws in the woods

A period piece set in the American midwest of the 1880s, the film chronicles the collapse of a criminal gang from the inside as various associates of the famous outlaw Jesse James turn against each other.

There's some beautiful cinematography and poetic Deadwood-like language, and Casey Affleck is weirdly fascinating in his portrayal of Robert Ford, a pathetic hero worshipper whose obsession turns bitter once he gets to know the real Jesse James. Yet there is a stilted quality to the film. It tries to fit in a lot of characters and events that don't always seem connected to one another. (A particular oddity is the repeated mention of someone named Jim Cummins, who never appears in the film as far as I could tell.) A voiceover helps us to understand what's happening, but it adds to the sense of narrative distance. Also, it's weird how women seem to be entirely unimportant to the filmmakers. Perhaps they are making a point about how these criminal gangs thought of the world? Ummm... actually, I think they just don't care.

Renner's role as Wood Hite is fairly minor, though he does get a chance to sing at a campfire before a train robbery and later takes part in the most puzzlingly inaccurate gun fight I've ever seen on film. An odd highlight of the film is an appearance by Nick Cave in a bar near the end, entertaining the patrons with a song about what a coward Robert Ford is. I was surprised in the moment, but in retrospect, I have to say this is exactly the kind of movie you should expect to find Nick Cave in.


The Unusuals
2009. Unrated. Renner plays Detective Jason Walsh, a police officer in New York City's 2nd Precinct

Walsh and Shraeger pay a visit to a mistress

"The Unusuals" was a late-season introduction on ABC in 2009 that lasted for 10 episodes before being canceled. A blend of buddy comedy, eccentric workplace slice o' life, and crime thriller, it didn't really cohere that well, but some elements of it were very well done. I really loved Adam Goldberg as the cranky detective Eric Delahoy, who's in a state of denial after learning he has a brain tumor and starts acting out strangely. The interplay between him and his neurotic partner (played by Harold Perrineau) is hilarious. Amber Tamblyn is also appealing in her portrayal of a privileged rich girl who is trying to hide her past from her blue-collar fellow detectives so they will take her seriously as a policewoman. On the other hand, an early storyline about another detective's criminal past and the lowlife associate who won't let it go is gratingly horrible. It's over with by episode five, but alas, that isn't soon enough.

Renner's character is middle-of-the-road: appealing, but not developed very well. He owns a hole-in-the-wall restaurant that is open only when he isn't working and feels like cooking, and his menu consists of ghastly improvised items like pork chops drenched in “a Skittles reduction"¯ because he ran out of fruit. (People regularly grimace in disgust after tasting his fare.) This, along with his practical jokes in the workplace, lead me to believe that Walsh was conceived as an amusing and eccentric loner we are supposed to find fascinating. I'm sorry to say that it doesn't work. Maybe it's the writing (some early mystery about his character is squandered within a few episodes), maybe it's Renner's performance, but rather than being gripping he's just kind of solid. There are some nice sexy scenes between him and his secret workplace girlfriend, though.


The Town
2010. Rated R. Director: Ben Affleck. Renner plays Jem Coughlin, bank robber and best friend of Ben Affleck's main character.

The crew gets a talking-to from The Florist

Bank robbers in Charlestown are pursued by the FBI in a game of cat and mouse. This movie is somewhat reminiscent of S.W.A.T. in its character dynamics. Renner plays a brutal and unpredictable hothead who is contrasted with a morally upstanding partner, in this case played by Affleck. And once again, the “good guy” turns out to be a bit of a snooze. Affleck is definitely hunky with his understated humor and tattoos, but his energy level is so low that I found it hard to become invested in his fate. His romantic interest (played by Rebecca Hall) has a bit of quirky charm that lightens the material somewhat; you can understand what he sees in her. But his criminal associates don't want to let him go, least of all to shack up with a potential witness against them. Renner plays his best friend Coughlin as a live wire quivering with hostile energy, both electric and deadly. He has none of his friend's qualms about violence; for him, it's a feature, not a bug, and after spending nine years in prison, he's ready to blow off some steam. Though this is one of Renner's more unpleasant roles, his screen presence is undeniable. (It resulted in his second Oscar nomination.) Add in Pete Postlethwaite's flinty crime boss and Jon Hamm's bloodhound of an FBI agent, and the results were guaranteed to involve plenty of gunfire. However, I was left with a sense that it all should have been more meaningful, or at least more thrilling.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=139 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 03:01:54 -0500 Jeremy Renner on Film: The B List http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=138 12 and Holding
2005. Rated R. Director: Michael Cuesta. Renner plays Gus Maitland, a construction worker who is seeing a therapist.

Gus and Malee have a picnic

Dealing as it does with the aftermath of a child's tragic death, this could easily have been a depressing film. Instead, it takes an eccentric and sometimes humorous approach in its portrayal of the ensuing months in the lives of the dead child's twin brother and his two close friends. Grief and rage are present, but they are mixed with more common disruptive forces of adolescence -- "I hate you, mom!" -- to emerge in different ways for each of the three protagonists, who variously become obsessed with vengeance, romance, and physical fitness. There's an almost cartoonish quality to some of the uncomfortable situations that develop, but others have an authenticity that made me squirm. I had a crush on an older guy when I just about the girl's age, and watching her mooning over someone more than twice her age and engaging in some seriously inappropriate behavior was almost physically painful. The fact that the guy she was crushing on was played by Jeremy Renner made it even worse. I have to respect a movie that kept me gripped but made me leave the room in discomfort, not once but several times. Even if the ending is a bit over the top.

As for Renner's performance, he's very sympathetic and plays the most normal-seeming guy of his career while still breaking ground in some interesting ways. There is a remarkable scene in which his character suddenly begins sobbing while in the shower that seems utterly authentic and unselfconscious -- quite a feat given that he's not only on camera but stark naked as well.


The Avengers
2012. Rated PG-13. Director: Joss Whedon. Renner plays Clint Barton/Hawkeye, an agent of S.H.I.E.L.D. who specializes in archery and possesses superhuman levels of accuracy.

Hawkeye and Black Widow

Starting with Iron Man, Marvel studios began a four-year build-up to this movie that involved the introduction of almost all the main characters either in films of their own (Thor and Captain America, in addition to Iron Man) or as secondary or cameo roles (Nick Fury, Coulson, Black Widow, Hawkeye). They had a lot riding on the success of The Avengers -- it could make or break an entire franchise. Joss Whedon seemed like a risky choice as director, even to people like me who loved his previous work on Buffy, Firefly, etc. His only other big screen directorial effort, Serenity, bombed at the box office. What was Marvel thinking?

As it turned out, they may have made their best decision since casting Robert Downey, Jr. as Tony Stark. Whedon's deep knowledge and love of the comic book characters as well as his knack for writing funny and emotional ensemble material was a perfect match for this film, which needed to pull together very different personalities and preexisting mythologies into one cohesive story. Following most directly from 2010's Thor, the film focuses on a vengeful Loki, who returns to Earth to pave the way for a mysterious otherworldly force to invade New York City (can't that town catch a break?!), and from thence, the world. To combat this menace, Nick Fury decides to put the long-anticipated "Avengers Initiative" into action -- that is, if he can get its temperamental members to play nicely with one another. This proves quite difficult and entertaining. Turns out it's pretty exciting when Thor's hammer meets Captain America's shield...

The plot does have a few holes. Loki's plans make little sense, and the resolution of the big battle is just lazy writing. But the character work is wonderful, and the acting is across-the-board great, with particular props to RDJ as Tony Stark/Iron Man, Mark Ruffalo as Bruce Banner/The Hulk, and Tom Hiddleston as Loki. And quite refreshingly, Scarlett Johansson gets some substantial things to do as Natasha Romanoff/Black Widow, rather than being sidelined and treated as mere eye candy as women so often are in superhero movies.

As a Renner fan, though, I have to say The Avengers is a bit disappointing. He spends half the running time as a mind-controlled antagonist to the rest of the team, and by the time he is restored to himself, the final battle is about to start. He does have one touching scene with Black Widow in which he describes the experience of having his selfhood taken away, and she sympathizes. But otherwise, as Renner has said, he plays mostly as a sort of vacancy. Reportedly, this wasn't how the role was originally conceived; Whedon threw out most of the original script and rewrote it once he signed on to the project. He says in the director's commentary that he solved a story problem by separating Hawkeye from the rest of the team, but I have a niggling suspicion that part of the difficulty was him not knowing quite what to do with Renner as an actor. Whedon is a big Shakespeare fan, a master of word-craft and genre fiction, and Renner is a Method actor whose best work is visceral and physically expressive more than it is dialogue-driven. The two are not an easy fit, so I'll be very curious to see how the relationship develops in the Whedon-helmed Avengers 2, coming in 2015.


The Bourne Legacy
2012. Rated PG-13. Director: Tony Gilroy. Renner plays Aaron Cross, a chemically enhanced special ops agent or "asset".

Marta examines Aaron in the lab

This film is the fourth in a series, and acts as a "reboot" of sorts. Jason Bourne is nowhere to be found, but the chaos he unleashed in Ultimatum sets events in motion by getting the black ops community scrambling to destroy evidence of their illegal activities before investigators come knocking. "Evidence"¯ in this case includes the agents of a "Treadstone upgrade" program called Outcome as well as the scientists who have chemically enhanced them. The cleanup operation doesn't turn out to be as thorough as planned, and a couple clever individuals escape the purge. Cue desperate shooting, fighting, and bonding while on the run.

Writer/director Tony Gilroy clearly wants to maintain continuity with the earlier films while also allowing newcomers to understand what is happening, and takes the unusual approach of inserting footage from Ultimatum into the fresh material to provide context and a timeline of events. He also takes pains to differentiate his new lead character from Jason Bourne. Cross has none of the memory loss or guilty angst of Bourne; he remembers signing up for the Outcome program, and though he clearly wants out now, it is not because he is torn up inside or looking for revenge. He just wants to think for himself and not be a cog in a big death machine. He's also not a fan of being murdered as part of a cover-up operation. And he wants his chems so he doesn't regress back into a dimwit. Who can blame him?

Renner brings a very different energy to this film than Damon did to the others. Where Bourne was silently tormented and withdrawn, Cross instead radiates a prickly yet warm intelligence that borders on playful in a couple of very effective scenes (with Outcome #3 and Marta in the lab) and gives you an idea of why his particular group of "program participants"¯ might be difficult to boss around. And though the film has less frenetic action than its predecessors, there are plenty of moments for Renner to show off his athletic abilities. And man, is he good! His earlier performances as soldiers and special ops guys gave some hints of his talents in this area, but this film is a quantum leap in intensity and challenge. He is thoroughly convincing throughout, and I really enjoyed watching him punch and shoot, somersault and jump, and leap up and down the sides of buildings. (A sequence at an isolated house in the woods is particularly rewarding.) I also appreciated his interactions with Rachel Weisz's doctor character, who in the past has treated him as more of a science experiment than a human being and now has to come to grips with her guilt and try to make up for it.

There are some problems. The pacing is off at times, the Manila chase scene is a bit of an Ultimatum retread, and some bothersome questions are not answered. For example: Why does Cross hide his chems at the beginning of the movie and tell the other asset he lost them? Why were the wolves chasing him? And why is he fixated on watches? I want to know! And it is just criminal that they dangle the possibility of the "Flowers for Algernon"¯ scenario in front of us but don't ever go there. It's like Chekhov's gun never going off! One thing that did not bother me was the info-dumps as various characters explained the details of the Outcome program. I'm a fan of science fiction, and I was quite interested by the script's scientific ideas, which, though not exactly realistic, were presented in a consistent way and were integral to the story rather than being mere technobabble. Overall, I quite liked the film, and I look forward to the already announced sequel.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=138 Wed, 9 Jan 2013 01:02:37 -0500 Jeremy Renner on Film: The A List http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=137 Dahmer
2002. Rated R. Director: David Jacobson. Renner plays Jeffrey Dahmer, notorious rapist, serial killer, and cannibal.

Jeffrey Dahmer answers the door

I admit I was reluctant to watch this movie. I have no particular interest in serial killers and do not enjoy the suspense of waiting for horrible things to happen. It was a relief to discover that, rather than being a gorefest, Dahmer is more of an arty psychological film that explores its subject's twisted life through a series of flashbacks nested inside an account of his last days before being arrested. There is plenty of horror, but for the most part it is implied rather than being shown on screen.

There are many striking moments in the film, but some of the most interesting are when Dahmer is afraid he is about to be caught. He doesn't seem ashamed, exactly. It's more like he thinks people won't understand him and he'd rather just not deal with it. This theme is developed in a couple of revealing conversations that take place in different timeframes: one about being a rebel and how having sex with other men might or might not fit into that concept; and one about the sadistic and cannibalistic nature of Christian mythology. These exchanges convey Dahmer's sense of disconnection from the rest of humanity -- he thinks he has seen through everyone else's bullshit and hypocrisy and has freed himself from the moral shackles of everyday people. He is so verbally uncommunicative in the rest of the film that these blasts of antisocial ideology are somehow shocking, even though we have already seen the horrific violence he's capable of committing. They lay the groundwork for the final scene (which is a flashback), in which he deliberately rejects the option of psychological counseling in favor of heading into the woods to become a beast. Though there are moments in the movie that portray him in an almost sympathetic light, ultimately, the film does not excuse him or explain away his pathology. He is a monster -- a human one, but still a monster.

Renner is shiver-inducingly good. The younger Dahmer is clearly differentiated from the older version, being more nervous, spontaneous and unguarded in his physical movements; the present-day Dahmer is controlled and almost shark-like as he pursues his targets and employs his well-honed techniques to do them in. His face as he declares to an intended victim that he is "a pervert, an exhibitionist, a masturbator, and a killer"¯ looks both proud and bitter; you believe that he has lived (and killed) far more than the earlier version of himself. Then there are the scenes in which he gets sexy with unconscious and dead bodies. The director makes an unusual and unsettling choice to film these moments in ways that actually make them seem erotic. Dim, reddish lighting, Dahmer's buff, half-naked body arching in ecstasy as he does the horrible things that turn him on. Artistically daring and very, very disturbing. Highly recommended, if you can stomach it.

For a perceptive in-depth analysis of the film, see this piece by Sheila O'Malley. There's also some interesting behind-the-scenes commentary from Renner, the director, and the crew on YouTube.


The Hurt Locker
2009. Rated R. Director: Kathryn Bigelow. Renner plays Sergeant First Class William James, an Army bomb disposal technician.

James and a trunkload of bombs

This is not a movie about the Iraq war at large, nor does it take a position on whether we ought to have been there in the first place. Its focus is very particular: three men doing the dangerous work of disarming bombs in a chaotic, poorly-understood setting and reacting very differently to the stress.

It's a truly great achievement on many levels. The camera work is kinetic and gripping. The pacing is unpredictable and gives a strong impression of war zone confusion, fear and intensity interspersed with periods of boredom and rough-housing. The performances of the three leads are complementary in a thematic sense, but never showy or obvious. Sanborn (Anthony Mackie) is an intelligent team player with a pragmatic sense of caution and little tolerance for bullshit (of the three, I identified with him the most). Eldridge (Brian Geraghty) is a sensitive kid looking for reassurance and guidance from some kind of father figure. And then there's James, the cocky replacement for their dead team leader, who poses a problem to both of them. He is technically their commanding officer, but it's soon evident that he is a loner who focuses on getting the job done, even if it puts others in danger. He is not only uncommunicative and uncooperative, he scoffs at Sanborn's expectations of team behavior. Explain himself? Hell, no. Shrugging people off or resorting to top dog domination are more his speed. Yet he is incredibly good at dealing with bombs. I am no expert on Explosive Ordnance Disposal, but I am guessing that his total of 800+ disarmed bombs is a crazy huge number -- almost mythical. He's a genius of IED disposal. An emotionally crippled, obsessive, warrior demigod.

Mackie and Geraghty are both very good, but Renner knocks it out of the park. (He received his first Academy Award nomination for this film.) This is a role that could easily come across as a simplistic portrait of "damaged goods" or authority gone wrong, but it never does. Instead, James swerves unpredictably, but believably, between admirable and appalling throughout the film, ending up somewhere in the middle when all is said and done. Some inappropriate outbursts of emotion show that he is not dead inside, just kind of broken. And there is one long sequence of a desert firefight where he displays an unexpected amount of solicitude and leadership ability. Yet he undeniably puts other people in danger when he shouldn't. And he seems most open and appealing when he's puzzling his way through the components of someone else's homemade bomb, working against the clock to keep it from blowing him and everything around him to smithereens. Renner plays all of these angles convincingly, and the end result is a rounded portrait of a complex, occasionally heroic, but not particularly likeable or functional human being. You get some hints at what has brought James to this place (marriage troubles, a previous stint in Afghanistan), but the film wisely holds back from trying to fully explain him. If "war is a drug", as an epigraph states at the beginning of the film, why is James an addict while Sanborn and Eldridge are not? The characters don't know, and we don't know. A powerful human mystery is set up, and never solved.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=137 Tue, 8 Jan 2013 21:55:00 -0500 2011 in the arts: a retrospective http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=130
Looming like Mount Fuji over all other entertainments this past year was the HBO-produced TV show Game of Thrones and the book series that inspired it, George R.R. Martin’s “A Song of Ice and Fire”. I had not read the books prior to watching the show, so I went into it knowing almost nothing about what to expect apart from a gritty fantasy starring Sean Bean. In retrospect, I think it’s good I didn’t have any emotion invested in the production, because the early episodes were a bit clumsy in their attempts to cover required plot points from the books while keeping the pacing and visual elements interesting. The sex and violence were also a bit off-putting, because they often seemed to be there for simple titillation and shock value (yeah… to be expected in an HBO show). As the show continued on, though, it seemed to find its stride, and by the end of the run, I was thoroughly gripped. The penultimate episode, “Baelor”, was one of the best episodes of any show I watched last year.Apart from the actual content of the show, one of the things I enjoyed about it was the social element of sharing it with my family members who did not have HBO subscriptions. The “on demand” feature of my cable service meant that my brother, sister and nephew could visit and see the episodes soon after they were broadcast rather than waiting the year+ until the DVDs came out, and we could all discuss the events as they were fresh in our minds. My nephew was also a good resource for insider knowledge of the characters, since he had read all of the books. (Getting him to avoid revealing spoilers was always a challenge, though!) This up-to-the-minute, water-cooler conversation part of seeing first-run television is the main reason I haven’t ditched my cable subscription in this age of Netflix and Hulu.

Once the show was finished, I became curious about the books. I bought the first one, A Game of Thrones, not expecting much in terms of quality, but interested in getting up to speed on this cultural phenomenon & seeing how the makers of the show had remained faithful to the books or deviated from them. I was relieved that Martin turned out to be a decent wordsmith; with books this long, that’s really important. My suspicions about the sex and violence were borne out; HBO had invented the prostitute character of Ros as well as most of the “sexposition” scenes. Some of their editorial decisions were surprisingly effective, though. There is a scene in “Baelor” that had me jumping out of my seat in surprise when I first watched it. In the book, the events play out in a much more gradual way that lacks the jolt of immediacy provided by the show.

After the first book, I found I was interested in what happened next. Also, my sister was reading the books for the first time, and I thought it would be fun to compare notes as we went along. The next six months saw me slowly, but steadily, plowing through the increasingly lengthy and discursive books of the series. The release of the fifth volume, “A Dance with Dragons”, in June provided some interest for my nephew as well. When he, my sister, and I went to Greece in August, we were all reading different volumes in the series, which provided some good conversation fodder as well as in-joke humor. (Our common exclamation became “Hodor!” said with different inflections and at different volumes to suit the circumstances.)

I reached the end of A Dance with Dragons in late December. It felt like the end of an era, as I had spent more time on these books than any other fantasy series I’ve read. Was it time well spent? Hm… If not for the social element, I'm afraid I'd have to say no. Martin’s approach to sexual and racial issues often disturbs me; his world building -- though chock-full of detail -- often lacks real imagination and deeper structural consistency; and IMO, the last two books are a significant step down in quality from the previous volumes. I also have strong doubts that Martin is going to be able to rein in his various plot lines, which by the end of A Dance with Dragons all seem to be trotting (not galloping) in different directions, none particularly interesting. But at least I’m familiar with this cultural landmark now, and the discussions and other tangential enjoyments were very fun. I look forward to seeing what HBO does with further installments of the TV series.

My determination to finish these books unfortunately meant that I didn’t read a single other book in 2011! I did, however, watch some quality television, the two standouts being Breaking Bad (via Netflix), and the British show Misfits (via Hulu Plus).

Breaking Bad is an odd beast. In chronicling the double life of a family man with health troubles who secretly commits crimes to make money, it resembles The Sopranos. On the other hand, its often absurdist tone and striking visual style make it feel more like the works of the Coen brothers (e.g. Raising Arizona, Fargo, etc.). On the third hand, it also takes its time to develop its characters in a sincere, interesting, and at times very disturbing, way. The main character Walter White is a twisted soul who only seems to get more twisted as the show progresses; his “business partner” Jesse starts off as an annoying idiot, but develops into a surprisingly sympathetic and tragic figure over time; and Walter’s clownish brother-in-law Hank presents one of the most complex and interesting examples of panic disorder I’ve seen in a TV show. Various other well-drawn characters are affected by Walter’s underworld activities in mostly negative ways as the seasons progress, and the tension and dread continue to increase. This sort of journey into darkness isn’t normally my cup of tea, so despite the uniformly great acting and writing and cinematography, I have found myself taking some long breaks between episodes. But I keep coming back. I’m about halfway through season 4 now, and look forward to seeing how the standoff with Gus Fring (played by the wonderful Giancarlo Esposito) plays out.

Misfits is also an interesting mixture of elements. It tells the story of a group of 20-somethings in London sentenced to community service for minor criminal offenses, who on their first day are caught in a freakish storm that grants them superpowers of various kinds. So far… ho hum. Hasn’t this been done to death with the X-Men, Heroes, Alphas, etc? If the show actually focused on the powers, I might say yes, but it doesn’t really. Instead it depicts the main characters as fairly hapless delinquents who keep getting in trouble despite their best efforts, and who have no imagination whatsoever when it comes to using their powers for personal gain, let alone for fighting crime or helping strangers with their problems. Instead, they spend a lot of time having sex, talking smack, and meeting up with other people who were granted powers by the storm and usually seem to be using them for evil. The results are often darkly hilarious in a way that reminds me of the early works of Danny Boyle (particularly Shallow Grave and 28 Days Later). The rest of the time they are entertainingly soap-opera-ish and melodramatic as the various characters scope each other out and try on different relationship configurations. Definitely recommended.

The world of movies was pretty underwhelming for me in 2011. The only films I saw in theaters were The Fighter, True Grit, Thor, and Cowboys & Aliens. Of those, only True Grit is what I would call a good movie, though I was amused by Thor’s enthusiasm and surreal imagery. I did catch up on a few other films on DVD, the most notable being John Woo’s 2-part epic Red Cliff, which was probably too long, but whose scenery and fiery battles were quite stunning in high definition; X-Men: First Class, which did a fine job of telling a prequel story about Xavier and Magneto despite some unfortunate missteps (the black guy gets a crappy power and dies first? really?); and at long last, Moon, whose plot was full of holes, but whose sense of lonely existential angst was an unusual artistic achievement. Sam Rockwell also did an outstanding job of playing against himself.

Counterbalancing the lackluster year in movies was a banner year in new music. For whatever reason, I found my interest in exploring new bands much increased over previous years, and that interest was very easy to satisfy once Spotify became available to U.S. residents. However, I discovered my favorite album of the year through a more traditional means: a promotional sale of “5 albums for $25” at an independent label named Sargent House which was advertised on Facebook. Since they were so cheap, I decided to take a gamble on some unknown albums and scored big with the eponymous Fang Island, a blast of raw joyful energy, filled with dramatic surges of drums and guitar, elegiac vocals, and whimsical keyboard stylings that resemble church organs one minute and video game bleeps the next. The band describe their sound as “everyone high-fiving everyone”, which really does convey the experience of listening to this album. Great stuff.

Some of my other favorites from last year include This is the Second Album of a Band Named Adebisi Shank (also distributed in the U.S. by Sargent House), another super-high-energy album with lots of percussive power and complex rhythms in the style of math rock. I also liked Passive Me Aggressive You by the New Zealand band The Naked & Famous, who have a very poppy & lush sound that harkens back to some of my favorite bands from the 1980s. TV on the Radio had a new album, Nine Types of Light, that I didn’t completely love, but had some really great songs, including the swoony “Will Do” and the laid-back and lovely “You”. I also really enjoyed the movie-length video accompaniment to the album, which includes some great visuals in contrasting styles as well as a faux-documentary sequence filmed at a diner which, sadly, acts as a memorial to bassist Gerard Smith, who died of cancer shortly after the album was released.

Towards the end of the year, I saw some great live performances, two of which took place at the Flynn Center’s small, multi-use FlynnSpace, one of my favorite venues for quirky music from out of town. The first was a pianist named Marco Benevento, who played a musical accompaniment to the film House of Usher as it was projected on a screen next to him. The effect was pretty surreal, not only because the film is an over-the-top B-movie starring Vincent Price, but also because Benevento used a whole array of effects boxes to transform the sound of his upright piano, which had the front panel removed so he could reach in and pluck or hammer the strings directly. It really appealed to my geeky sensibilities.

In December I saw Missy Mazzoli and her all-female “alt-chamber music” ensemble Victoire. The pieces they performed were an interesting mix. Many featured low-key synthesizer progressions that reminded me of Radiohead’s latter-day electronica, and there were also a lot of audio samples played in loops with clarinet, violin and double bass alternately layering on top and taking the spotlight. Probably my favorite piece, though, was a solo violin number entitled “Dissolve, O My Heart”. This work has a complicated back story, but what I loved about it was its simple virtuosity as well as the humbleness of the composer, who stepped off stage along with the other band members to appreciate violinist Olivia De Prato’s solitary performance.

The last show was the cellist Zoe Keating at Higher Ground. I don’t know how I had missed Keating previously, as she is a darling of the geek crowd who regularly performs at tech conferences. She fits right in with the other musical performers I’ve mentioned, in that she makes extensive use of electronic gadgetry during her live act to record audio samples that she then layers on top of one another to build a complex soundscape with just one instrument. The results can be quite mesmerizing, and I really enjoyed her show. I was also impressed by the opening act, a local one-person band named Nuda Veritas, who also made use of audio loops (both instrumental and vocal) to create some pretty amazing and emotional pieces. All in all, it was a standout night of entertainment.

And that’s pretty much it for 2011. The new year is already looking good as far as television goes. The second series of Sherlock was stellar (if my blogging inspiration continues, a new post about it may be coming), and we have more Mad Men and Game of Thrones on the way. I’ve also jumped on the Downton Abbey train, and am really enjoying the ride. I’m looking forward to seeing what else comes along in the next 11 months.]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=130 Mon, 6 Feb 2012 00:53:00 -0500 Thoughts on Inception http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=128 Inception in theaters and was impressed by its intricate and imaginative visual look and layers of narrative. Leonardo DiCaprio was kind of stiff and boring, but Joseph Gordon-Levitt and Tom Hardy made up for him. The dreams were more like virtual reality constructs than what actually goes on in people’s minds while they sleep, but they were still involving, so I was fine with it. And it was original science fiction! Not a sequel, or based on a book, cartoon or video game! Oh rare and precious thing! In short, I recommend it. So much for the quick overview, and on to the spoiler-filled commentary on what everyone wanted to talk about after seeing the film: the ending.Since the film came out, there has been lots of online discussion of the ambiguous ending, and what, if anything, the director intended the audience to take away from it (or puzzle out about it). My initial impression was that the top was going to continue spinning indefinitely, thus proving that the whole movie has been a dream. Other elements of the film support this theory: the oddly unexplained nature of the dream-invasion technology, the surreal quality of the movie’s final scenes after Cobb has supposedly woken up, the movie’s score, which as my buddy Bill Simmon pointed out bears an uncanny resemblance to a slowed-down version of “Non, je ne regrette rien” (the song that plays over the end credits), and most intriguingly, the fact that Ariadne, the character who is introduced to Cobb in the course of the movie, is named for the woman who helped Theseus escape from the minotaur’s labyrinth, leading me to wonder if she is the one who is actually performing an “inception” on Cobb to allow him to escape from the continuing nightmare of his wife’s death and his separation from his children.

But others think the ending is left intentionally ambiguous. Maybe the top will stop spinning, or maybe it won’t; Nolan refuses to clarify it one way or the other. Is he making a statement on the craft of movie-making itself? On the interaction of the artist and the audience, and the way we willingly open our minds to manipulation for three hours in a darkened theater? Personally, I think this reading is too allegorical to be interesting. Some analyses go to the length of mapping each character in the movie to a role in a movie production. Nolan himself says there's something to this theory, but I sure hope he intended to convey more depth than could be revealed with the use of a secret decoder ring.

To me, what’s most important about the ending is that Cobb himself doesn’t care whether the top continues spinning or not. Once he sees his children’s faces, he abandons the top on the table, no longer concerned about what is real or unreal, waking life or dream. In this way, it really reminds me of another Nolan film, Memento, which ends with the main character making a similar decision to abandon consensus reality (and any pretense of morality) in favor of a comforting individual fantasy. Nolan’s films are chock full of obsessed men who are caught in loops—time loops, cycles of violence, endless deaths and resurrections—and have no ability or particular desire to escape the grim repetition of trauma and loss. The resulting aura of despair makes them hard going for me as a viewer. Inception is a step up from his previous work in that Cobb truly wants to escape his nightmare, and seems to have done so at the end of the film. Even if I doubt that his escape is “real” outside of his own mind, at least there is some sense of relief and hope. And that makes it the first of Nolan’s films that I’d actually like to see again.

tags: ]]> Film and TV http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=128 Sun, 5 Dec 2010 16:53:27 -0500 WisCon 34 Panel: Race & Gender in Avatar http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=126 Panel Description: While James Cameron's film Avatar contains a strong anti–imperialist message, it is yet another movie where a white character joins an indigenous people (the Na'vi) and then becomes the "most awesome" member of that group. Adding to this dynamic, most of the Na'vi are portrayed by actors of color, and much of the Na'vi culture seems to be appropriated from indigenous cultures on Earth. What are the effects of cultural appropriation in this film, and what is the difference between cultural appropriation and cultural sharing? How is the militarism in the film related to race and gender? How are issues of environmentalism raised in the film, and how is concern for the environment linked to racial and social justice?

Panelists: Cabell Gathman, Nick Murphy, Annalee Newitz (moderator), Terry Bisson, Nnedi Okorofor

Annalee gives some background on her io9 story (When Will White People Stop Making Movies Like "Avatar"?), white guilt and its American history. But also how people who aren’t Americans are taking the story for their own.

Cabell hated Avatar, but wants to learn how to talk about it without offending people.

Nnedi went to the movie not knowing anything about it except that people kept telling her it reminded them of her book Zahrah the Windseeker. She ended up loving everything about it.

Annalee asks the panelists for their thoughts on the colonialist themes of the movie.

Terry Bisson: Deeply informed by American themes. Not just colonialism and white supremacy, but also Intelligent Design. “The whole movie is a refutation of evolution.”

Nnedi doesn’t see the white supremacy in the movie. She sees Jake as being acted upon as well as being an actor in the drama. Jake knew he couldn’t die in his Avatar body, so he had a different approach to taking risks.

Cabell felt there was a “wannabe Indian” vibe to Avatar. She decided she hated the movie when Jake got to ride the turok instead of Neytiri.

Nnedi: He was the only one dumb enough to do it.

Annalee: Except for their great leader who did it generations before.

Nick quotes the Playboy interview with James Cameron where he says that Neytiri had to have tits, even though it makes no sense because the Na’vi aren’t placental mammals.

Nnedi says that’s funny, because Neytiri actually wasn’t that well endowed. Being a tall, thin person, she identified with her freakish physique.

Nnedi says that even though the story wasn’t new, it wasn’t the worst version of it. She lists various things she liked about it, including the leaders being both male and female, Jake’s joy in his avatar body after being paralyzed -- she has been paralyzed before, and wept watching this scene.

Another woman of color in the audience says that she hated Dances with Wolves, and was surprised to love Avatar. She identified with the Na’vi and felt represented on screen in a way she never had before.

Terry: “As a piece of science fiction, it takes us back to Burroughs.”

Nick Murphy: Jake asks how he will know which ikran he should bond with, and is told, “It will be the one who tries to kill you.” To me, that implied that the flying creature did not give consent.

Terry Bisson: Cameron is really a green activist. That is the real message of this film.

Claire Light: great overview of the messiah concept and how Jesus was actually one of the colonized. Real stories of colonizers who have “gone native” and helped the natives to triumph don’t exist. Instead, anyone who goes in with a crusading impulse inevitably ends up writing narratives of total despair, because they realize they can’t fix the problems.

Na’amen in audience: There’s a scene at the end where [Neytiri] sees [Jake's] human body, and I kind of wanted her to say, “You’re so damn ugly.”

Annalee asks if people think the movie is successful as an environmental story?

An audience member mentions the movie Yanomamo, a musical documentary about a Brazilian rain forest tribe and the destruction of their way of life.

Terry: What’s the emotional message of the film?
Cabell: Strip mining is bad.

tags: ]]> Fandom http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=126 Sun, 27 Jun 2010 13:38:48 -0400 WisCon 34 Panel: Dollhouse: Made of Win or Epic Fail? http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=124 Panel Description: Love it, hate it, love/hate it, Joss Whedon's Dollhouse definitely has feminist and racial issues worth talking about. What were its good points? Its bad points? Does the good outweigh the bad, or vice versa? Was it canceled too soon or not soon enough?

Panelists: Kater Cheek, Sigrid Ellis, Anastasia Salter, Charlie Jane Anders (moderator), K. Tempest Bradford

Rundown of people’s reasons for being on the panel. Anastasia and Charlie Jane both loved the show, while acknowledging that it had its problems as well. Anastasia was particularly intrigued by the show’s dissociation of identity from body. Kater loved Firefly, but got fed up with Dollhouse and didn’t even watch it to the end. Tempest watched Dollhouse because she was reviewing it for Fantasy Magazine, but she never liked it. Sigrid is mostly in the “liked it” camp, but has quite a few criticisms as well.

Sigrid explains the concept of the “Big Sexy Hospital”, a show that fans watch because they love the actors and want to see them play an essentially similar character with different notes. “Helo’s playing another big dumb hunk of meat, tries to do good and makes bad decisions.”

Someone asks how the professor (from “Belle Chose”) could afford the Dollhouse’s services. Tempest says he’s probably one of those professors who assigns a single text book to all the freshman, and there’s a new edition every year. Audience LOL.

There is a lot of ragging on Eliza Dushku on this panel, which I don’t think is really fair.

Charlie Jane asks: Was the show feminist? Was it trying to be?

Anastasia says yes, and that the treatment of sexuality was usually supposed to be harrowing. Tempest says she doesn’t think Joss Whedon’s feminism is as developed as people say. An audience member points out that Tempest already admitted she hasn’t seen a lot of Joss’s shows, implying that she might not be in a position to make an informed judgment on this question.

Tempest lists three levels of “getting it” regarding racism:

1) Totally racist.
2) I was taught that racism was bad, but it’s still there in my head and I haven’t really examined it.
3) Personal and social examination leading to true ally behavior.

Tempest says the same breakdown applies to sexism, and says she thinks Joss Whedon is at level 2. Others disagree. Charlie Jane relates an account of a conversation with Joss in which he said that we ought to root for Echo and the other dolls because they have been disempowered and are going to get their identities back.

Tempest says that there have already been enough shows that depict female exploitation, and that there is absolutely no reason to do any more. They just aren’t feminist.

A woman in the audience gives an impassioned rant about how Dollhouse doesn’t have to be a female empowerment show to be feminist.

Pretty much everyone agrees that Boyd was screwed over. His character arc didn't make any sense, and some think his early depiction as one of the few men who isn't attracted to Echo is kind of racist. Because of course a black man who is attracted to a white woman would be too threatening.

I gave up on trying to take notes. Too many people talking over one another, and too much annoyance at ill-informed opinions.

However, this panel featured my favorite quote of the weekend. In response to an audience member who said that Echo’s empowerment came from a man (Alpha), not from herself, Charlie Jane countered with, “Well, she had midichlorians.” A perfect summary of the show’s muddled concept that tripped it up time and time again.

tags: ]]> Fandom http://therem.net/blog/index.php?itemid=124 Sun, 27 Jun 2010 12:35:40 -0400