Biotech 8 Review

Comedy is all about trying to figure out how far you can go in my opinion. When people go to see a stand-up comic, what the audience is often looking for is someone with a great sense of timing and a feel for the crowd. They may not say it specifically, but when a comic knows how to handle the people they are talking to then modifying what they are doing to fit. A few extra words or a change in the type of words being said can mean the difference between a laugh from the crowd and dead silence.

In a lot of ways, making movies today is the same way. How you say or do something in a film is a key component of film entertainment. The wrong word or phrase from an actor, whether it is scripted or not, can completely change the way a scene is thought of from the audience perspective. This is something that you have to be aware of when making something artistic, no matter what type of film genre you are working in. An upbeat moment in a horror movie only works if you do it in the right way.

Biotech 8 has in a lot of ways failed in this respect. There is a political undertone which over powers the comedy aspect a little too much. It begins as a traditional send up of a commercial. It makes fun of the corporate structure and the way people perceive some workers, but the genetically modified aspect goes a little too far. There could be other ways to deal with that subject without going the genetically modified way.

But more than that it turns into something akin to a horror movie at around the halfway mark and then tries to dig itself out of that at the end but never manages to get there. The tone is somewhat inconsistent. The politics of the film do not mesh with the attempt at comedy, which is not to say that it is not funny. It does have some moments that someone like me who is big on politics would find funny but they don`t really translate beyond that in my opinion.

It falls flat. It is trying too hard to be a comedy to really deal with the politics of the situation of either genetically modified foods or corporate views. And it is too political and takes too much of a dark turn to be really funny.

I think the filmmaker should focus on one or the other and there is a good chance that they will succeed at one or the other, or both.

Check out more at Film Annex.

Echoes of Innocence Review

Why would someone do this?

It's a question that often gets asked at a time like this. During a crisis or tragedy it's a natural thing to do when there are so few answers. People find it hard to understand violence of any scale, but particularly on the scale of recent memory. You would think that it would be easy to understand given that so much of it happens on a regular basis. We wish it didn't and we wish it was really simple to understand. So much so that we polarize issues of violence into simple terms. The problem is one thing or another. Unfortunately, as with most things related to violence it just isn't that easy.

A lot of talk has started to go around about how we prevent tragedy's such as this from happening in the future, and it is now that we should talk about it and implement things. Where I think a lot of the talk is failing is in the single solution syndrome that develops. Things like 'If only we had tougher gun laws this wouldn't have happened' or 'We need to do more for the mentally ill and that will fix the problem'. In reality, I think that both are necessary to really make any type of difference in the world and much of the arguments that happen after a tragedy such as this are over which should come first.

Perhaps that is why nothing ever really gets resolved when it comes to the issue of guns and violence and mental illness, because in our rush to help the victims we end up forgetting the victims in the process. We are so focused on what can be done to stop more victims from occuring that we have stopped worrying about the people who are already victims of this type of violence. We brush it off as if to say 'The police and rescue workers and psychiatrists and the government will step in and help the victims so we don't need to think about them anymore, they are going to be okay' and then jump into political mode and start pushing our cause over another.

The politics of the situation are the problem that keep us from moving forward on this. We are so quick to take a political position on the subject that we force people to disagree with us rather then actually deal with the problem at hand. This isn't an issue of gun control or mental illness or more religion versus less religion in schools, it's a question of how we deal with tragedy. By which I mean we don't deal with it. In the age of the 24 hour news cycle we have over intellectualized tragedy, even among those who claim not to be intellectuals. We're so quick to analyze and discuss a problem so that we can put it in the proper context that we forget the most important context of all, the fact that people have died.

To point to an example that's fresh in my mind, a conversation arose not long after the tragedy in Newton, CT about why we are not focused on the victims instead of calling for gun control or mental health reform and a number of people came out in favor of gun control as a way of helping the victims. One person even went so far as to say that the best way to honor the victims was to push the tragedy in the faces of people who advocate for guns to show them the error of their ways. It was compared to when a dog craps on the rug.

Does that sound to you like someone who is concerned about the victims and not the political agenda they adhere to? I understand that it was well intentioned. I understand that gun control will help the situation. What I don't understand is why that analogy is at the forefront of someone's mind after a tragedy such as this has occurred. That, to me, is a problem. More of a problem then gun control, more of a problem then mental health reform, more than the media's coverage or the lack of religion in school. The idea that these people are not victims of a tragedy they are examples to be used for whatever political ideal a person is trying to put forward.

Why would someone do this? That depends on who's asking the question and who is answering it. A better question might be why is 'Remember the Victims' being used as a slogan rather than a reminder of what the real focus of the moment should be?

Frost/Nixon, the new power couple?

Anyone who reads my blog has probably noticed that I’m a fan of politics. From real political situations like Kony2012 and gay rights, to the fictional kind like Boss, The Newsroom or The Daily Show/The Colbert Report (it is considered fake news after all), I love hearing other people’s views on controversial issues. Even if I don’t agree with everything they say, I usually find something in them worth learning from or at least considering. So when I sat down to watch the Ron Howard movie Frost/Nixon, I was really looking forward to it. The whole Watergate scandal is well before my time, but the effects of it has pretty much changed the face of politics ever since. Finding out the details brought a lot of context to how politics work in this day and age and the way in which people overuse the suffix “-Gate” every time some political scandal pops up these days.

Of course, Frost/Nixon isn’t really about Watergate as much as it was about the political fallout and aftermath of the scandal getting out, how people dealt with it and the part that the interview between David Frost and Richard Nixon played in the healing process. It’s interesting to realize that for all the controversial elements of the Watergate scandal, most of which remain somewhat unresolved, no one ever seems to talk about the fact that Gerald Ford pardoned the disgraced former president for wrong doing that he might have done. From a political perspective, I can understand why a president would do such a thing. The late Richard Nixon put a black mark on the presidency, and politics in general, and not doing something would have been so much worse than what he did.

The film begins with one of the biggest events in political history, watching the only American President to ever resign from the most powerful position in the free world. It shows the reaction of David Frost to the event and from there you watch almost voyeuristically as these two men take the journey towards their eventual clash. Now what’s interesting about the film is that while many historical or political films would strive for the actor who looks most like the figure they are playing, Ron Howard has gone for more of an interpretation of those involved then an imitation of the figures themselves. Part of the reason for that appears to be one of the historical messages of the film. Howard has made a point of saying that one of the reasons he wanted to make the film is because of the political climate of the day, post-Bush administration.

He wanted to draw parallels between the loss of political trust that occurred after both Watergate and the invasion of Iraq. That may be part of the reason that I didn’t really connect with the material as much as I would’ve hoped to. It tried to walk the line between a huge generational gap and it didn’t entirely keep its balance all the way through. While there are a fair amount of similarities between the two situations, Vietnam versus Iraq, wire tapping and clandestine investigations of citizens without their consent and invasion of a right to privacy, I don’t think we are far enough away from the Iraq war (we’re still fighting it in 2012 and the movie was released in 2008) to truly give it the historical context that it deserves.

Because of that, I’m not sure that the film has the emotional impact that it’s going for. Then again, it may simply be that I have too much emotional distance between both events that I simply can’t get as angry or invested in the tragic reality of the circumstances these two characters are living in. So is Frost/Nixon the new power couple? Unfortunately, I don’t think I care enough about them to say yes.

Boss Review: Who's The Boss? - That Blog Thing - Movie Reviews, Film, Film Reviews, Boss, TV, Television, Television Review,

I have something of a ritual that I go through every so often. Whenever a new season of a show is up and coming, I go back and rewatch the previous season or seasons of the show to understand the context of where the show is when it returns. But also because I watch so many shows on television that I need to make sure that I know what’s going on. Coming up fairly soon is season 2 (I believe it's this week in fact) of the show “Boss”, and I couldn’t be more excited for it. In case you’re not aware of the show, Boss is a political drama starring Kelsey Grammer, best known for his work on “Cheers” and his spin-off “Frasier” as Frasier Crane, as the corrupt mayor of Chicago who has recently found out that he has a degenerative neurological disease.

Most of Kelsey Grammer’s work post Cheers has been in the comedy realm and they haven’t gone all that far. From shows like “Back to You” and “Hank”, a large portion of them have been cancelled within a matter of episodes airing. But with Boss, he has found a juggernaut of a show to headline. Airing on the cable network STARZ, it was picked up for season 2 even before the first episode aired. And taking a look at even the first episode, you can see why from the get go. When you watch it, you really feel like you’re getting an inside look into the world of politics in this day and age. Now I can understand that this might not sound entirely interesting to some people, but you have to consider the fact that this is a drama. It’s not all about the politics. In many ways, it’s about a corrupt man who has been further corrupted by the tragedy of his condition.

Often times when you see a show which focuses on someone with an incurable decision, they tend to be the kind of person with a great number of regrets in their life which they feel the need to repent for. But while he does have a few of those, by and large he is completely comfortable with who he is and what he does. Yet it couldn’t be more gripping to watch. To see the way in which Tom Kane (played to perfection by Kelsey Grammer) manipulates the people around him without remorse or ethical dilemma is both fantastic and disturbing at the same time. The people around him, from his wife, to his staff and political opponents all pop out at you as characters you know are horrible people and yet you can’t stop watching them both manipulate and get manipulated by the people around them in a matter of fact type of way.

What is often even more interesting is the fact that the left versus right, Democrat versus Republican divide is almost inconsequential in the story they tell. While numerous references are made to political parties or ideologies are made, most of it is entirely beside the point as far as many characters are concerned. During a time in which endless discussions seem to take place about divisive politics along party lines, this show digs deeper into the realities of politics where such a divide doesn’t really enter into it. To use a more recent show as a contrasting example, where a show like The Newsroom attempts to elevate the news above the party politics narrative that many real organizations have fallen into, Boss tries to highlight the dirty, grimy, yet exceptionally well dressed cronyism style of politics that is even more deeply rooted and often systemically wide spread in the system. Anyone who loves The Newsroom, I think, will almost definitely enjoy watching this show.

Who’s the Boss? Kelsey Grammer is the freaking boss.

That Secret Life Thing

All right, here's where I'm going to attempt not to be political and talk about television for a change. Or at least talk about television in a peripheral sense. Mainly because a television show that I've been watching has got me thinking about my own life and the difficulties I've been through versus what other people go through.

First I'm just going to establish what it was that has prompted this blog post. There's a television show on ABC Family right now called "The Secret Life of the American Teenager" (@ABCsecretlife on Twitter). Okay, go ahead and think I'm weird for watching a show like that, but it's one of the more interesting shows out there.

Yes, it's a show about teenagers, and yes it's overly dramatic and kind of has excessive situations. But that's what television is for. It's for overly dramatic teenagers in excessive situations. And okay, it's also on a family network run by Disney so it's pretty Christian oriented. But for what it provides, I can live with that.

From a filmmaking point of view, people should really take a look at this show. In a lot of ways it's brilliant. As a writer, I would love to take a look at the scripts they produce for this show because it has to be 90% dialogue. Most of the scenes tend to go like this...

Character #1 enters and talks to Character #2. They speak, then one character leaves as Character #3 enters and begins another conversation.

I know what most filmmakers are saying at this moment "That sounds terribly boring."

But I often think that filmmakers, and directors in particular, say that because of a personal preferance for movement when it comes to dialogue. Filmmakers don't think of dialogue as interesting by itself. They think that because film is a visual medium, that visual means movement. But I don't think it does. It just means making things visually interesting.

But what prompted this blog post in the first place was not the film aspect of it. It was the content of the show itself.

The reason that the content is so interesting is because of the main character. She really carries the show for a young girl, and she is young. At the time of the show's beginning, she was 17 years old. She was playing a 15 year old girl, but compared to what usually happens on shows featuring teenagers, mainly that they are played by 25 year olds. So the fact that she's carried the show at her age is impressive.

What she plays however is a teenager who got pregnant on summer vacation. So the show follows her life as a pregnant teen trying to figure out how to live with her new reality. And they don't pull any punches on the subject either. They present every option that is available to her.

This is what prompted the blog post.

By comparison to what some people go through in life, my life has been incredibly easy. With everything that happens to people, and not even in countries that are at war. In civilized countries, people have terrible things happen to them.

Drugs, alcohol, teen pregnancy and bullying. These are all terrible things that happen to people and they are things that don't really go away.

But also, it gives me pause to think about the future as well. Specifically about children. I have always been aware of the tremendous responsibility that children bring to the parents. Raising them is a tremendous thing, and everyone always says that for all the responsibility it's also a great joy.

But not being a parent myself, I haven't personally experienced the responsibility that goes with such a decision. Watching this show, I have come to think about that reality on a more personal level.

By no means am I discounting what I have been through as a teenager, or what any other teenager goes through on a daily basis these days, it's difficult. Being a teenager in any generation is difficult, but what teens who get pregnant go through must be insane. Whether it's within a family that's supportive from the start, or one that comes around over time, or even those that have their family turn against them, it must be hell and a half.

Here they are in the middle of some of the most radical physical changes a person can go through in their lives, and they have to go through another series of radical changes on top of everything. Obviously, the women go through the most difficult part of the process, I don't think anyone would argue that, but it's not exactly a picnic for anyone else either. The fathers, most of whom aren't ready for the incredible responsibility of fatherhood, have to decide whether to take on said responsibility. This can be difficult for a full grown man to handle, some of whom abandon the responsibility mid way through, so is it any wonder that a teenager would have so much trouble with it?

We tend to think of our problems as monumental, and they are at the time we're dealing with them, but retrospectively? There's always someone going through something much more difficult then we are in the grand scheme of things.

It's important to keep that in perspective when we think about our lives. People who forget that are often those who were prone to looking at other people and thinking they have it easy. Whether we're talking about actors and politicians with lots of money, or a family of six kids living in poverty. Life is hard for everyone, there's just different problems for different people.

Yes, people with money can do more things, they have more freedom, but with that freedom comes responsibility. They need to do something with that money. Some people waste the money on parties and drugs and stuff, others use it for charitable causes and helping people.

We see charity as the right thing to do with that money, and I wouldn't disagree with that, but I would say that people who don't often waste their money because they don't have it in them to take on that responsibility. That's a burden too, and sometimes it's as great a burden as using it for charity.

But I digress. My point is that it's important to be aware of the difficulty of others when making judgements about people and the lives they live. It's not always as simple as it appears on the surface.

At least, that's my opinion.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4

That Movement Thing

Hi all,

So it's the six month anniversary of the Occupy Wall Street movement and I thought I should reflect on the how it all came about. I have done my best to follow all the details of the movement over the progress.

Truthfully, I believe in the idea of the movement, no matter what problems it might have from a philosophical perspective. It's about the focus of power in society and where it should lie. Sure, it's got a good slogan.

"We are the 99%."

And that's about how the majority wants to be treated by the 1% in power. They feel their voices aren't being heard and this is how they are expressing that frustration. Feelings aren't something that are easy to get rid of. Particularly feelings of anger, frustration and pain. Everyone knows this, but they're also the most confused by these same feelings. When these feelings mix with power, they can be even harder to sort out.

But the truth of the matter is that power has always been disproportionate. It's the nature of power. In order to have a power structure at all, it can't always rest in a group. Someone has to be in charge, and for that to happen you have to trust a small group with the power to make decisions for a larger group. That doesn't mean that they will always make the right decision. In fact, it's often the case that not everyone will be happy with all the decisions being made. To paraphrase a quote by Abraham Lincoln...

"You can please some of the people most of the time, and most of the people some of the time, but you can't please everyone all the time."

As a group, decisions have to be made and on universal issues it's appropriate to get a group consensus.

How do we want to be treated by the government? How do we want to be treated by the police? Doctors? Other people? What do we want done when we aren't treated the way we want?

Usually the answer is, we want to be treated with respect and dignity. The major problem is, what constitutes respect and dignity?  When those universal questions get answered, then the question becomes how do we implement those answers? And that's when it's important to have people in charge with power. Someone has to make decisions about where the line is drawn between respect and dignity, and the violation of that respect and dignity.

It's when that violation occurs that problems arise, and when it happens too much, that's when things like Occupy Wall Street happen.

And maybe that seems like an obvious thing to say, but I thought I should establish the way I view the world as a way to establish why I think things like Occupy Wall Street movement are important and should happen. I wish they didn't have to happen, but they do.

Because democracy is built on an expression of feelings. Sometimes expressing those feelings isn't nice or progress building, but it's important. Bottling things up can be as problematic.

People need to express those feelings, whether it's through the Occupy movement, or the Tea Party movement. Both of those movements are expressions of feelings of frustration and pain. They may be on different sides of the political spectrum, and I don't always agree with those political views but I make it a point to at least understand where they are coming from.

It's important to know that about me. I believe in seeing all sides of an issue even if I don't agree with all sides. That way, I don't feel like I'm just railing against people who don't agree with me. In fact, it makes having conversations with people all the more interesting because I can usually take opposing opinions in a conversation.

It can be a lot of fun, but also cause a lot of problems when it comes to relating to people.

But I think that's the thing that opponents of the Occupy and Tea Party movement don't do. They attack their position, saying that all they are doing is yelling and screaming about injustice without really knowing what the issues are. Although I'm sure that there are those in the movements that don't really understand the issue, but there wouldn't be any movements if there wasn't a problem worth addressing and there weren't those that understand and feel strongly about the issue to start a movement in the first place.

And that's something that is worth understanding.

Published with Blogger-droid v2.0.4