Self Imposed Silence

Duration: 1 Week to 1 Month; depends.

Expect a change.

Oscar Time!

Come Oscars tomorrow morning, we'll be seeing the "best of the best" being honored by Hollywood's elite. Which is a sad thing, because elitism sometimes ignores other great movies, and, more perversely, actually celebrates not so great ones. So, despite all the talk about mutual back-patting, I'm excited to see who wins.

I have yet to draw up my top ten films of 2007 (even after nearly three months into 2008!) thanks to the fact that most of the good movies arrive a few months late in Malaysia. Still, it's nearly complete, and my number one movie (which so happens to be the movie that will almost certainly win this year's Oscar)- that has been shaken but never budged- is No Country For Old Men, followed closely by There Will Be Blood (2nd), The Assassination of Jesse James (3rd), Before the Devil Knows You're Dead (4th) and Atonement (5th), with Once in (6th). I haven't finalized the other four yet, but Transformers will sure as heck be in there!

Selective Publicity

It was all fun and games as The Star headlined the DAP's Fong Po Kuan's decision not to contest for the coming elections. Yesterday, she announced that in fact, she will. Slightly odd, considering that news for the latter was relegated not to the second, third, or fourth page; but rather, it was placed in the twelfth page. Considering that the earlier news was front-paged, that is odd indeed. Small wonder why Kit Siang was complaining about The Star's sensationalizing all bad news related to the opposition (and all the good news have been nicely downplayed).

The reality of mortality

Shame, how we can live oblivious to our mortality. Such a mental attitude may be quite helpful in evaluating decisions. Yet, I wonder if we could stay sane if our mind had the capability of informing us that every day, we might die.

There Will Be Blood

Daniel Plainview is a man who loathes "people". Thus he is able to shamelessly and ruthlessly manipulate anything and everything. There Will Be Blood is a chronicle of his greed; his beginnings to his end (of sorts) where he voices out a suspiciously Biblical line, "I'm finished."

There is no other star of the show, no other reason to bother watching it than Daniel Day-Lewis (the Oscar was his even before they nominated him). It is his from start to the finish, but of course, the film's technical achievements shouldn't be ignored: each frame is brilliantly shot (most notably the scene where the oil well is on fire) and Greenwood's pastiche of sounds and instruments is on par with Marianelli's score for Atonement in terms of subtlety and impact.

The movie follows Planview's struggle for oil, his ruthless ambition and its consequences. The story is compelling, but you might find yourself fidgety in some parts: it is a long movie after all.

And then finally, the part that had most people complaining: the final act. You can either view it as a descent into madness, or a sheer genius of a climax. I inclined towards the latter. Either way, the ending will leave you reeling.

Haze. Bleh.

While our papers are busy discussing politics, they forgot to mention this:

Picture taken at 9:30 a.m today. The Weather Channel reports haze, with visibility of 5 kilometers.

Edit: Looks like it was only temporary; haze was generally gone by midday.

Filming. Bleh.

Did another (tiring) round of movie making with friends yesterday. I am most assuredly not pleased with the results; we cannot keep making unintentional parodies of any unfortunate genre we so happen to settle on. *Sigh*

Hopefully I can salvage it with some editing. This is not to say that it was all that bad, but it could've been way, way better. Anyway, you'll see the results on Youtube probably a month or so from now.

And I still ponder upon the day I get to film a serious, decent movie. But first, I need a decent screenplay, and decent actors.

Away From Her

Sarah Polley's adaptation is somewhat like a dreary classroom lecture, with the lecturer trying desperately hard to get the attention of the students. Occasionally, he succeeds, but then after a few minutes he loses his audience once again.

This was my impression; Away From Her is slightly dreary but has its moments. Judging from its critical reaction, a lot of other people love/like it, so I'm in the minority on this regard.

I certainly don't believe movies ought to fight for the viewer's attention, but I do believe they should be worth it. So while the movie occasionally is worth it, by and large I did not see the point.

Well, at least watch it for Julie Christie, who has already got a bagful of awards (although Gordon Pinsent is somewhat equal in presence, if not better). But her performance was oddly subdued (in my opinion). Perhaps you could say she played it subtly. It certainly wasn't anything outstanding.

Barely interesting movie. Barely.

I'm Not There

Todd Haynes' I'm Not There shuns the clear, non-fictional storytelling that has defined musical biopics (such as Walk The Line and this year's La Vie En Rose) and instead leaps into a non-literal, metaphorical realm (something like the tardy Across the Universe, although this is no glorified 2 hour long music video).

The subject? Bob Dylan, played by six different actors/characters. Each represents an aspect of himself at some point of his career and personality. Brilliant acting dominates, especially by Marcus Franklin (who plays the 11 year old version of Dylan) and Cate Blanchett (Dylan at the height of his fame).

It's an experimental movie, and that means some may find it weird. Of course, others will find it brilliant. My opinion of this movie would lie somewhere in between: it is superb and compelling at some points, and at others I couldn't care less. But at its heart, I'm Not There is still a musical biopic, and while it may not appeal to everyone, it sure works very well- even as a genre picture.

The balance of power

When you read posts like this, you wonder why the Opposition cries out that the BN lose its 2/3 majority. Besides the fact that this means that the party in control can pass any bills they want in the parliament immediately, some might add that dampening that majority will also mean that the ruling coalition will be "humbled" and no longer be drunk with power.

Thus that mean we should vote for DAP (or PAS!) so that BN candidates don't win? Or perhaps you're happy with what the candidate has done previously, even if he's with BN (and don't want to vote for someone you know). Oh, but then remember that supporting a candidate also means supporting his party. If you're okay with the party, then by all means go ahead.

Most of my disagreement with BN (or PAS, for that matter) might be ideological. I haven't actually been victimized by any policies set up by the Government yet, but I can't say the same for others. Regardless, I would say it wouldn't hurt to even up the playing fields. All sides stand to gain, even if that means there will be much haranguing over a bill. What use is the Opposition if there is no need to hear the other side (no matter how silly that other side may be)?

I found out...

That my mother, who had never voted before (ever!), mysteriously casted a vote in Terengganu. And I don't think it was for PAS.

Self-improvement

I shun over-analysis; it is equivalent to killing a fly with a bazooka. Both may be playing it safe, but both are fundamentally inefficient methods.

I realize I should specialize rather than diversify; the basic rule of comparative advantage applies. Currently searching for my strongest strength.

Enquiries...

Sometimes, I actually bother to enquire about stuff. Sent an e-mail, and a polite if a little cold reply, to my dismay, told me that I can't transfer funds with my Maybank2U account because I'm not (darn it) 18 yet. Instead, Maybank starts this hip and cool place called MyZone, where we can buy GSC and Sunway Lagoon tickets. Sheesh.

Oh, enquired about the movie There Will Be Blood, which mysteriously disappeared from the movie listings. After a few weeks, I got a reply!

Dear Daniel,

The movie “There Will Be Blood” will be released exclusively at GSC Mid Valley on Feb 21st 2008.

Best Regards,
James Andrew Chong,
Cinema Operations Executive
Golden Screen Cinemas

Woot! Short and sweet. I'm going on the release date. =)

Jumper

This movie clearly convinces me that Doug Liman, who once upon a time directed The Bourne Identity, needs to start looking for better projects. But of course, the questions needs to be asked: Is this a good movie?

By, um, some standards, this is an okay movie, barely making it past the decent level. Of course, the critics with higher standards will hate this movie (as someone said, expect "I wish I could teleport out of the cinema" quips), but as standalone popcorn fare, it works (barely).

So what's so bad about the movie? First things first: while you can turn a well tread premise (think: guy with special powers) into a good story, you should at least expect the story to have some weight (i.e. character development and a compelling story). Jumper has neither, and truth be told, it jumps around too much.

And what we are left with is a throwaway, thin story with characters we can't really care that much about. Hayden Christensen does not help the movie. Sure, it's fun (if only just so).

Sorry, I'm still waiting for a better show. Until then...

And there you have it.

So it begins: Malaysia PM dissolves Parliament.

And what are they up to, reprinting the Muhammad cartoons? Three cheers for freedom of speech. Three Jihads if you live somewhere else.

Oh, and this is an example of "Do your research before you comment." (You will understand why if you've been following movies closely)

Rarities

Elections, elections

The Americans are busy with politics, and very soon, so will we. Apparently, by next month, the elections should take place. I'm curious to see the result, and although I can't influence it (i.e. I can't vote yet), I sure hope it's a good one.

For the record, I would like to see Barisan Nasional's majority dampened. It's not that I hate them and want the opposition to control Malaysia (What would happen? I dunno). Instead, BN could do with a reality check. Yes, sure, we can make them win big. I'm quite certain that quite a few people would want to vote for them. After all, billions and billions of ringgit will be flowing in through the Corridor projects (Whose idea was that?), and I'm sure many people would like a piece of that. Still, what was that saying about too much power?

Ah yes, many goodies that BN has promised us, and as for the Opposition...

We'll wait and see.

Michael Clayton

Kudos to Gilroy, writer of the Bourne movies, for delivering yet another smart, taut thriller. But that is precisely the problem: the whole movie is a been there, done that sort of thing; the usual adjectives apply. Thus, while it is at the very least interesting, it is not in the very least original (unfortunately).

Somehow this movie reminded me of The Interpreter, and somehow I thought that movie worked as a better thriller. Oh sure, there may be no Sean Penn or Nicole Kidman here, but at least there's George Clooney. Hmm...

Yes, it has a good story; yes, it has great acting (especially from Tom Wilkinson, who delivers a splendid opening monologue). But ah, aren't movies that involve greedy corporations hell-bent on making a profit old? Since, like, Prison Break?

Decide for yourself. Worth watching anyways.

Sprinkles of delight (Part 1 of Many)

Courtesy of the users @ Flickr









More to come! (I'm still working on how to balance the presentation of the pictures. Right now it's only the ones I like, not the ones you might like)

The interpretation of dreams...

Really, dreams are actually quite simple to interpret. Rather than being a symbolic manifestation of one's subconscious, or what might happen in the future (That was in the Bible, and even then God's help was required to interpret it!), it, rather, is simply the expansion of one's imaginary activities, triggered by environmental variables. (E.g. I had a weird dream concerning the Predator, and I put it down to the fact that I saw a picture of it in the morning).

Global warming. No way out.

It seems, perhaps, that even "green" (i.e. non polluting, non global warming) gas can actually contribute to global warming. Oh my, where shall we turn to?

Oh, for the record, I think it is better to be safe that sorry when it comes to global warming. I mean, most people seem to believe it. But I'm not sure whether that "most" would be willing to accept the lifestyle changes (which would be truly enormous if they expect an impact) that come with me. Methinks it's easier said than done.

$$$!!!

I had a rather decent haul of the above. You gotta love being at least half-Chinese. :P

Help thyself: shun thy weaknesses.

I've just finished a certain self-help book by Marcus Buckingham, one of the pioneers of the "Strengths-Based Movement". Of course, like all self-help books, this one claims to be different, and so it is.

The author claims that we should focus our attention on our strengths rather than our weaknesses and, most importantly, do tasks that play to our strengths and avoid ones that we are weak at (which, according to him, are defined as tasks that "drain us" or tasks that we "loathe").

This is quite cool. For example, I loathe maths and doing it drains me. Hence, I should avoid it whenever possible. Awesome, except I have to, like, do it nonetheless. *Sigh* Of course, much of what we says pertains to the working environment. But I reckon this can be applied to other non-workplace tasks.

So can this system be abused? The author seems to know that, but I guess he expects the best in people who read his book and wholeheartedly agree with and wish to apply its principles.

I'm not exactly one of them (I'm quite hesitant, even though his paradigm fits quite well with what I want!), so until then, I'm not gonna shy away from my weaknesses. At least, not just yet.

On Beauty

Here is the kind of stuff that I would've churned out in my enlightened but oh-so-uninformed moments. Notice the shallowness of all the big words. Which is why I still shy away from writing stuff like this, even when my mind was switched on its "smart" mode.

If you don't find the explanation "Because God made us this way" tempting after reading this (in fact, after reading any book trying to explain what beauty is) then you truly are smarter than me. By the way, I wrote the article below.

__________________________________________________________

Take a picture. Describe it. It’s not that hard, really. You can do it with much less than a thousand words (contrary to popular belief).

But it is not easy to describe colour, or atmosphere, or emotion. There are words to quantify them, sure. Happy, sad, blue, red, dour, perky. The feeling of a moment is almost impossible to capture. Photography comes close, but “feelings” evoked by something, by trees swaying and their leaves rustling, by a lover’s kiss or a son’s hug, can never be solidified, frozen and kept forever.

Therein lies the problem with any attempt to replicate such moments, for the creation of a perfect moment is made up of two parts. The object: the newborn baby; the observer: the new father. Without one it is impossible to have the other. This is not to say that beauty is contingent upon the observer (For if humanity were obliterated, would not the dying tree in the autumn still appear as beautiful? Would not the Himalayan mountains still appear as grand?).

Some (and I define “some” as anyone utilizing the recent findings of neurobiology) would say that emotion is strictly confined to the brain. Thus, we have a chemical responsible for happiness, one for sadness, another for sexual arousal, and so on and so forth. As such, if there were no such chemicals in the brain, a newborn baby will be met with nothing but a dispassionate grin (or perhaps a frown) from the father.

A pharmaceutical extension of this theory would probably lie in the drug Prozac, with its ability to alleviate depression, OCD and a slew of other disorders. It is tempting to conclude that someday, there may be a drug that makes someone fall in love. If this were to happen, all the myth, all the nobility and all the romance will be stripped of the most unique and venerated of emotions. Love, then, will be nothing more than your mind on drugs.

Returning then, to the main theme of the evocation of emotion, a question must be asked: Why do we feel the way we do when we glance at the picture of a meadow, of a lake, or of a snow covered landscape? Why can we call it beautiful? Or, more interestingly, why do we “feel” that it is beautiful? Is beauty even objective, in the end?

There is an objective element to beauty, in truth. Anyone- anyone- will prefer a young, fair and lithe young woman as a potential mate than a frail, haggard, decrepit woman. Their levels of admiration might defer, but of the two, the former would be the universally preferred choice.

An evolutionary explanation, at this point, seems inviting. The more attractive women make better mates. Hence, our aesthetic senses have evolved in this direction. A few scientists in this tradition then go on to explain our fondness for landscape photos: because the particular terrain would have been more suitable for living in, or perhaps spotting potential prey.

Some would dismiss such explanations as just that: explanations. Such explanations are coherent but do not correspond. Or at the very least, there is not enough evidence to prove them.

As such, the author is tempted to take the middle-of-the-fence position and say that we cannot know for sure.

Back, once again, to our original question: what makes scenery so special?

‘Because we find it beautiful’ does not answer it, it only moves the question a step back.

‘Why do we find it beautiful?’

The dictates of evolution, which results in a release of chemicals in the brain which then makes us feel “in awe” when we glance a picture of a majestic mountain, or a waterfall as it cascades down.

We can accept that explanation, even if it does not explain why some people find (if you were to excuse an attempt at a joke) Pamela Anderson “attractive” or the music (the enjoyment of acoustics is a slightly different domain, although it overlaps considerably with visual aesthetics) of Britney Spears “enjoyable”.

Or, perhaps we can wait and see what neuroscience (or even perhaps philosophy) can reveal to us in the future. But the author does not expect much.

And then there was nothing...

Strange how a bout of the flu can cure you of your enthusiasm for writing anything. Or maybe the college assignments did that. I can't say for sure. What I do know is that now that my holidays have started, I've rediscovered what it means to be bored. Really, I have no idea what to do, save to watch movies, read books or play games. Even those three I get tired of after a while.

Hanging out with friends? That's a new one. That is certainly not an activity that I enjoy doing. Not because I have lousy/boring friends (How could I? I pick them oh so meticulously), but because I don't see it as a highly productive activity. Sure, it's much better on the social scale than playing Final Fantasy, but I'd say it's less enjoyable.

Oh, there's another thing to do though. Nothing. Do absolutely nothing. Which can be quite fun. Because the nothingness melts away into thinking, thinking to preoccupy one's time. And that in turn leads into philosophizing, because for that to happen, you must have an empty mind. Harharhar.

I'm trying to sound intentionally witty, you see. Which comes across as annoying. Yes, my writing annoys me sometimes. Like a teenager with a quick wit and a sharp pen who is so full of himself (ahem, ahem). Anuying.

If you haven't figured it out by now, I'm trying to fill up my blogging quota (366 posts for this year! I'm falling behind!). Bye then.

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

The pivotal scene of the movie, the climax as it is, when Jesse James is about to be assassinated by Robert Ford is one of the great moments of cinema. The music swells, but not in the usual way. It does not shout out; it only highlights the moment. The suspense is clear, but it is not pointed out. Everything is seemingly silent, still.

Jesse James, played by Brad Pitt (in a subdued yet sublime performance), looks at his daughter, and her shoe that fell off. He takes off his gun belt- as according to historical accounts- which holds two revolvers (a little off: it was four guns). He looks at a picture, and says it looks dusty. Everything is still as slow, the pace does not quicken. The camera actually bothers to cut to a chair he takes to climb up. He is face to face with it as he sees Robert Ford (Casey Affleck, his performance of which has earned him an Oscar nomination) takes out the very gun that he gave him as a present. And then the shot is fired.

Director Andrew Dominik adapts the book of the same name not as a typical western but as a 160 minute long examination of humanity and nature, with meticulous attention to every detail and nuance. The cinematography is in fact crucial to Jesse James, since the movie is everything about what you see. It is beautiful yes, shot in the most aesthetic locations, but it is more than just a pretty movie. The beauty of nature is contrasted to the dark intentions and thoughts of almost every single character.

In fact this movie could be classified as an anti-western: devoid of almost any gunfights or action of any sort. It is dialogue and detail driven. It is literally an art film. And for someone watching this, the whole movie would be either: very boring, or bordering on hypnotic. It is also a demythologizing, deconstructing movie. Jesse James is not the larger than life criminal gunslinger that he is. He is portrayed as a man burdened with doubt and insecurities, an apparently "macho" man who weeps, and who shoots his enemies in the back.

The other significant character, Robert Ford, is largely the person who is in the shadow of his venerated hero, much obsessed with him. As Jesse James asks, "Do you want to be like me, or do you want to be me?"

Some have pointed out a homoerotic longing by Ford for James. Perhaps; but a much simpler explanation would be that he is simply frustrated because he can never be as great as James would be. In the end, Ford overcomes his hero worship to proclaim, "He's just a human being." (A very retrospective insight, in my opinion)

Of course, there are the side stories, but they are mainly filler for the bigger picture. But they are never distracting nor boring and like all good side stories, help develop the main characters.

You would have thought that there would be nothing else to say after Ford shoots James, but the movie still continues, following Ford and how he became to be known as the "coward" to shot Jesse James (which is precisely the irony, because throughout the film we are treated to Ford's bravery in getting close to the man, and everyday living under the possibility that he may be found out and killed).

This film, I think, would perhaps have attracted greater attention had it been release at its original planned date (September 2006). In the end it was released almost two years after it was completed, and was unfortunately overshadowed by the likes of No Country for Old Men (the "modern" western) and 3:10 to Yuma, another great western. But again, unlike Yuma, Jesse James spurns formula (yes, Yuma still followed the tradition of the westerns even while giving it a breath of fresh air).

This is truly one of the best movies of 2007 (I had no other way of putting it), and a most worthy addition to a genre that I have unfortunately paid little attention to. It might not be your cup of tea, but if you are willing to sit back and just...watch (and not expect the movie to go out of its way to entertain you), then you will see a most beautiful film being played out, something akin to just sitting down on grass and watching nature unfold.

See the trailer here.