Thursday, May 1, 2008

Lost - The Shape Of Things To Come

Rather embarrassingly, last Thursday morning Canyon had to remind me that my beloved Lost was returning after a short hiatus, much to my surprise. I had been thinking that the gap between episodes that the strike had caused would be much larger, so when she told me I was wrong, it made me a) doubt that my love is as strong as I make out (surely I would have known it was coming back if I cared as much as I say), and b) scream for joy because it was back early yay! It was like waking up on the 16th of December to find Christmas had been moved up a week.

After seeing it, I was unsure what I could write about it, other than the words, "HOLY SHIT!" several thousand times. Cuse and Lindelof had said that the truncated season necessitated an increase in pace, but I don't think anyone expected something as hectic and shocking as this. Story beats that would have carried over for weeks are being dealt with in no time at all. Who would have thought we would find out how Sayid joined forces with Ben so soon? (N.B. How great was Naveen Andrews again this week? Yet more of his patented vulnerability and badassery, just the way I like it.)


The hostage situation with Alex would have previously lasted half a season. Here it barely lasted half an episode, and was resolved in the most sudden and upsetting fashion.


There was barely any time for the setups for the next episode, with the death of Doctor Ecklie and Jack's appendicitis, which made him grouchier and more pathetic than ever (again, kudos to Foxy for being willing to play someone so easily crushed by fate).


What is most apparent from all of the excitement is that even with a hectic shooting schedule and on-set frustration at the time spent hanging around waiting for the strike to finish, Michael Emerson still managed to crack out a performance that, seriously, has got to be recognised at the Emmys later this year.


How can I join? Is there a People' Choice award for Most Awesome Actor Ever? Can I vote a million times? He's been great prior to this, but the range of his performance in this episode was staggering. Though this week saw action, explosions, death, time-travel twists, revelation and (its natural twin on Lost) deepening confusion, spending time on the internets looking at popular opinion about The Shape Of Things To Come shows everyone is pretty much in agreement; the highlight of this most incredible of weeks was Ben staring out of a window for about a minute. It was heart-breaking, devastating, confusing. That it gave way to one of the most exhilarating moments in Lost history was the cherry on top.


Of course, Ben was the focus of the episode, and ace director Jack Bender knew this, using the visual template employed by Stephen Williams a few weeks back, placing Ben in the centre of the frame as often as possible.


It's probably redundant of me to say it, but I'll go ahead anyway; the directors are working together to establish a consistent tone and visual language from episode to episode, and Ben is the most obvious example of that. For example, in these two shots Ben is like the apex of a triangle of people, the focus of their attention and the one in control of the situation even when, in the second picture especially, he seems not to be.



We've become accustomed to the fact that Ben is always in control no matter what happens, and that is shown via his location within the frame. This week went a little further, and sometimes had him in the foreground while other characters bickered in the back. They were out of focus, and therefore superfluous, while the real drama lay in what Ben would do next.


There were only two obvious moments when this was not the case. Firstly, when he shares the frame with Locke in this shot. It's not because Locke is his equal; he's pretty much following along and pretending to be in control of events, something that he seems to come to terms with as the episode goes along.


The other times were, of course, during his attempts to save his daughter from the evil Keamy. As the scene progresses the camera closes in on his face as he struggles to contain his emotions, swearing to his daughter that everything will be alright for no other reason that somehow he knows that nothing bad will happen.


We have no way of knowing what he knows, but we (I speak for most people, sadly without proof, but I know how we felt) think that everything will be alright. Ben has been a thousand steps ahead of everyone else this season, and so it seemed logical to assume that he had some plan to save her.


We were all wrong, though. When Alex is shot (by a seemingly reluctant Keamy), he falls out of the centre of the frame (knocked from his moorings by shock!)...


...and then sits in the shadow of the curtain, his face fixed as a mask of horror, while Sawyer and Locke run around off camera, yelling at each other in panic.


The camera closes in on Ben, keeping him to the side, but as he comes to and realises his nemesis has "changed the rules", he makes up his mind about his next course of action, and stands, towering over us, back in the middle of the frame.


He is even more imposing when entering his Incredible Closet of Secrets, in which he summons Smokey.


From then on he remains in front of everyone, right in the centre. Of course, this is during the incredible scenes of carnage as Smokey goes apeshit on a bunch of mercenary asses, as shown in this YouTube clip, which also features Michael Emerson's Emmy reel.



In contrast to Ben's isolation within the frame, when scenes focus mainly on him, the other characters appear either in the background or, if Ben is not included, paired up (perhaps this is a visual representation of their solidarity).


It gets more complicated back on the beach, where we got some lovely group shots, either when fishing mysterious time-lost corpses out of the ocean...


...sending a message using morse code (with Desmond's lightning rod acting as an antenna)...


...or, in one of my favourite shots of the episode, standing around chatting.


Jack Bender's compositions are superb, some of the best on TV right now, pretty much single-handedly putting an end to this nonsense about TV shows not being a valid art form. If something as complex, through-provoking, and visually arresting as this doesn't count as art, then art can go fuck itself. If you'll excuse my language.

A lot of speculation has surrounded Ben's comment about "the rules", and whether the antagonism between him and the dastardly Charles Widmore is nothing more than a game they are playing against each other. Certainly Ben has been manipulating people like chess pieces throughout the season. Games have been a common motif throughout the show; this week started off with a game of Risk. There's not much else to do on a island while hiding from murderous mercenaries, I guess.


This theory certainly makes sense, and within this episode we saw Ben expertly playing Sayid, now grief-stricken with the death of his wife, Nadia, who has been popping up as an Easter Egg for a few seasons now (I feel a bit bad referring to someone as an Easter Egg, but you all know what I mean). Was she really killed by one of Widmore's men? We don't know enough of his machinations yet to come up with a proper plan, but it's possible it was just Ben playing games. I mean, look at the smirk on this guy! I will confess, this made me giggle like a baby, even taking into account the dramatic power of that moment.


The only proof he had, after all, was a photo of Bakir driving away from the scene of the crime, but there was nothing on that photo that made it seem like he was in the US. For all we know, Ben took a photo of him driving around Tikrit a couple of hours before. He does like taking photos from rooftops, after all.


Whatever Bakir and Widmore's involvement was, Ben certainly manipulated poor Sayid into joining his cause, but what's most interesting is that, even acting on information that might have been compromised or false, Sayid chose to join Ben. It's like an initiation ceremony, similar to Locke's. To join Ben's group he had to kill his father, though that might just have been Ben putting an obstacle in Locke's way that he couldn't surmount. Here, Sayid kills, and chooses to work with Ben. Oh, and can I say it one more time? Sayid is such a badass!


Of course, that's all very ironic considering how much he hates Ben and is angry at Michael for doing something similar, but the key thing is that it's important to Ben that Sayid makes the decision himself. Perhaps because that puts him in a stronger position, or possibly because Ben is all-knowing and is concerned with maintaining the illusion of free will in a world where there is no such thing.

I think Widmore is the same. He puts obstacles in Desmond's way, stopping him from getting together with Penny for what seemed to be a very empty reason. His obstruction made Desmond choose to sail around the world, and we know that was important on a cosmic level as knowledge of the future made him consider changing his choice, which was enough to get the mysterious Timecop Ms. Hawking to intervene, thus causing much talk of free will and predestination. So, from the shocking finale of this episode we see a vengeful Ben setting his sights on Widmore's daughter Penny (cue many outbursts of shock and awe from us), which would be horrible, obviously. The tragic possibilities are too much to contemplate. Even more tragic than this horrid haircut.


However, we're spending so much time dealing with Ben's amazing ability to prepare for whatever happens next that we have yet to consider whether Widmore is the same. He may not have control over the island, but he too might be able to predict what is gooing to happen, and plan accordingly. The only thing we have seen him do on this show before now is obstruct Desmond in a way that makes him act out by sailing around the world, bringing him to the island and servitude within the Swan station. It was his choice to do that, but only because his most desired option is withheld from him. Now I'm wondering if Widmore maneuvered Desmond to get him to the island in order to protect Penny, knowing that Ben would eventually target her. All of that seemingly pointless nastiness was just to get that chess piece onto the board, and perhaps stop Ben from fulfilling what he now sees as his mission. Bear in mind, Ben and Desmond have yet to meet. When they do, perhaps Desmond will change the rules of the game once more and off our anti-hero. Oh God, I'm hyperventilating at the thought of it!


The reason I'm so stuck on the idea of Ben and Widmore manipulating events to serve their own ends is that I recently read The Sirens of Titan by Kurt Vonnegut, the first book of his that I've tried. Though the shows have referenced Slaughterhouse 5 in recent weeks, I haven't got a copy of that lying around, so in the midst of a terrible mania recently during which I could only read sci fi, I figured I should at least read something by him.

I got lucky. While many try to add Slaughterhouse 5's plot to the Lost theory pile, The Sirens of Titan provides just as much food for thought. It concerns a space-faring multimillionaire, Winston Miles Rumfoord, who has been spread throughout time and space after flying into an astronomical anomaly called a chrono-synclastic infundibulum. He simultaneously exists as a wave phenomenon on a spiral vector traversing our solar system, meaning he appears on Earth every 59 days for one hour only,while existing on Titan as a constant presence, accompanied only by his faithful dog Kazak and a shipwrecked alien called Salo, who is originally from the planet Tralfamadore.

Rumfoord's peculiar condition also allows him to know everything that happens in the cosmos, and as a result of his omniscience sees that many of the events that shape the future are the result of his actions. Over a period of years he manipulates the actions of thousands of people in order to shape history, merely to get three people to Titan; his wife, a trust-fund industrialist, and their child, who has in his possession a piece of metal that allows the Tralfamadorian to fix his vessel. Oh, and the name of the industrialist? Malachi Constant. I think it's fair to say the book is an essential part of Lost lore. OMG! Miles is as astonished as I am.


Though I wasn't crazy about Vonnegut's prose style, the book is, nevertheless, amazing. Addressing the problems surrounding the issue of free will, Vonnegut's absurdist take satirises the military, religion, inheritance, and humanity's inability to see beyond its own solipsism. That lack of perspective is often what dooms us, though of course even omniscience doesn't free Rumfoord, instead trapping him even more in the role of world-shaper. Even without its apparent connection to the world of Lost, it's a superb, thought-provoking read, and comes highly recommended.

It was only after finishing it that I became convinced that it holds the key to what Lost will ultimately be about. I'm not the only person who thinks that the show will ultimately be about how history is being shaped either by the island or someone connected to the island, but it was only after finishing Sirens that I saw how well that theory fits the show.


From Ben's startling arrival in Tunisia, as well as his curiosity about the date, it seems obvious he has travelled directly from one part of the world to another, and almost certainly through time as well. Also consider Desmond's mindtrips and the presence of the doctor's corpse; it's beyond question that somehow the island exists outside time as we know it.

Once you add time travel into the equation, even if it is constricted by rules, we can then accept that Ben's seeming omnipotence and ability to manipulate every circumstance to his benefit is a consequence of his travels through time. He knows more than anyone on the planet (except maybe Widmore), and is either using that knowledge to alter events to his own advantage, or is operating as a time agent in the same way that Ms. Hawking is.


There are arguments for either theory. Certainly Widmore's statements that the island belongs to him suggest a petty squabble over power between him and Ben, and if he is little more than an aggrieved power-hungry jerk then, if the visual coding linking him and Ben together is anything to go by (see following images for incontrovertible proof), Ben is probably the same. Note their faces are lit in opposite ways, but the background lighting in is in the same place, meaning they are opposite sides of the same coin.



That said, Ben has often acted as if he is fighting for a greater good, so perhaps he is trying to save the world from the machinations of an unscrupulous asshole who would use the immense power of the island for his own petty ends. However, we've seen Ben's youth, and his stunted emotional development. He may be an absolute badass and all-round Macchiavellian genius, but omniscience doesn't equal moral perfection. For all we know he was chosen by the island because he was able to help it rid itself of the threat posed by the Dharma Initiative and not because he was in any way blessed. His insistence that he is the good guy might just be him framing his role in the game from his point of view, and not because of some higher calling.


Of course, though Ben and possibly Widmore have been manipulating those around them to do their bidding on the "gameboard", there is also the possibility that the island itself has been manipulating everyone for years. The format of the show, featuring flashbacks to events prior to the arrival of the Losties, has long been criticised by insane haters who think the meat of the show has long been the island moments, and the flashbacks are a distraction from that. According to Cuselof, next season will feature another perspective change, perhaps on the same scale as last season's flash forward introduction, and I'm beginning to believe we will see the flashbacks return, but this time we will see those events from the point of view of the island or the agents of the island who have pushed our heroes' lives until they end up on Oceanic 815. There is a rumour the island is already intervening more than we thought. Claire may have been saved from this explosion, as a deleted scene apparently features her hallucinating, which is a sure sign the island is showing an interest in her.


For the island to survive the machinations of Widmore (and possibly Ben), it needs "players" to get to the island in a certain frame of mind and with particular types of psychological baggage, which means they will be easily manipulated into doing what is necessary to help whatever the island is, in much the same way that Rumfoord and the Tralfamadorians manipulate humanity in order to help Salo get that part for his ship. Of course, Vonnegut's novel shows that all of human history is based around an absurd alien goal (Salo needs to deliver a pointless message from Tralfamadore to another race, and we humans exist only in order to facilitate that), but the ultimate goal of Lost will almost certainly not be something so trivial, unless it has an absurdist streak we have not yet witnessed. That said, it's odd that Doc Jensen's latest theory in EW mentions that he believes Smokey is an alien who is trying to leave Earth. Perhaps he's finally caught up with Sirens, and is being influenced by it.


Of course, I could be very wrong, but this is the first theory of the show that I've come up with that I'm really really confident about. The format of the show suggests the history of the characters is not only interesting in a narrative sense, but is crucial to understanding the ultimate destination of the show. Everything these people has done in their lives has led them to the island, and though Cuselof have said in interviews that the connections between the characters are mere coincidences, I don't believe them at all. It's the whole point of the show.

Okay, I doubt I've said anything new, but I feel better for putting my cards on the table. Time will show if I am on the right track, and hopefully the imminent introduction of the Orchid Station with its time machine (maybe) will answer more questions (prior to posing about fifty more). Time to make random comments about the episode in general, as is my way. Firstly, who is Kate fooling?


Her come hither looks were hilariously inept and obvious. And no, that's not just my pro-Kawyer/Jackliet, anti-Jate bias talking. She was just being really crap at it. It was quite endearing, actually.


Way to hit on a guy while his appendix tries to explode, Kate! I guess it was inevitable she would make a move soon, and I'm not actually upset about it, no matter how often I go on about it. I've seen how Jim/Pam fans lose their minds and ruthlessly slander innocent daughters of Quincy Jones when talking about The Office. The troubles of fictional lovers interest me solely as fictional characters. I am able to maintain some perspective, even when talking about Lost.


Speaking of Juliet, she keeps hanging around in the background looking bored. It's very odd. She got one line of dialogue this week, asking Faraday about his sat-phone project. Also getting one line was CS Lewis, who similarly hangs around looking annoyed whenever the Losties figure out their evil plans. I'm still pissed at her for beating up Juliet (again with the proviso that yes, they are fictional, and I'm not crazy, okay?


Holy shit! Sayid might not actually be the show's top badass! All along it was Ben, either whipping out a shotgun at the mere mention of a weird code denoting imminent invasion...


...or using someone else's AK-47 to blast some brigand off his horse. I guess he doesn't have qualms about getting his hands dirty after all.


What pleased me most about his desert encounter is that it was a perfect example of him using his feeble exterior to hide a warrior heart. His sneaky ploy to draw in his prey was brilliant (note the collapsible baton, possibly a nod to writer Brian K. Vaughan's also-badass Y-The Last Man character 355, as many internet commenters have noted).


Good to see Miles turning up again, though his arrogant demeanour has obviously taken a knock not just from Keamy's brutality but also the arrival of Smokey. It's a shame he didn't go to Jacob's Moving Shack with Locke, Ben and Hurley, as it would have been interesting to see what he thought of that ghostly figure.


One of the things I enjoyed most in this episode was the number of random heroic moments littered throughout. The Losties have often seemed morally compromised and eager to follow their own shady motivations at the expense of others, but this week, with death and 'splodey and gunfire all over the place, their altruism shone through. Most notably, Sawyer ran through lots of picket-fence-shredding gunfire...


...all to save Claire from certain death. His efforts to do the right thing without cynicism are all the more appealing knowing that once he was the jerk who barely ever did the right thing, but has been cured of that failing since killing Anthony Cooper. I'm not suggesting everyone will become a better person after throttling someone, but it obviously works for some.


Hurley has continued to be the moral centre of the show, looking after Aaron and standing up to Locke in order to stop the crazy violence, even if it means he has to go Jacob-hunting.


Even though Locke turned into a bit of a dick at that point, he pre-redeemed himself with his expression of sympathy over Alex's death. He might still hate Ben, but he has enough humanity to understand his tormentor's pain.


It was a small moment, but it might have been my favourite of the episode (next to Michael Emerson's aforementioned award-worthy scene at the window). Locke's quiet nobility was more charming than anything else he's done this season, and seems to suggest he is coming to terms with his place on the island. Or maybe it's because his frustration after finding out that Ben's seeming lack of knowledge about Smokey was in fact yet more subterfuge. Perhaps Locke knows he is closer to the answers he seeks than ever.

Speaking of answers, remember when the snotty psychiatrist Harper commented that Ben was interested in Juliet because she "looks just like her," leading many to assume she was talking about either Annie or his mother? Is this a picture of his mother (which seems likely, considering the likeness)?


That looks as much like Juliet as anyone else. It's a bit murky so I can't tell, but the similarity to Elizabeth Mitchell struck me as notable.

Is this the most exciting non-pr0n swing set in history?


It's seen gunfire, death, captivity, ghost hauntings etc. I guess now the Barracks have become a charnel house for the millionth time in its history, we won't be going back there, at least for a time. Bye, Swings of Excitement!

Check it out! Ben was in London! The actual real London, according to reports.


Jack Bender and Michael Emerson flew over here just for one scene? That's dedication to the cause. Or maybe there is more to come. Who knows?


Of all the revelations of the episode, my favourite might have been the news that Doctor Ecklie is alive on the boat while dead on the island. That said, how is the sat-phone working? The time differential stuff is already making my brain hurt trying to understand it all without that complicating matters. Though it's a useful bit of gear to keep the show going, I really hope they don't fluff the reveal of how it works, though I can't imagine they will spend too long explaining it. I do expect to find out it was designed by Faraday, though.

It's a pity we didn't get to see more of the amusingly named Ishmael Bakir, played by Faran Tahir, soon to be seen in Iron Man. Perhaps we will get to see whether he was indeed responsible for Nadia's death in future. Or perhaps I'm just blowing smoke out of my ass.


Speaking of actors departing the show, sad to see Tania Raymonde leave in such an unpleasant manner. I was never really sure what to make of her character, but her final scenes were heartbreaking, and not just because Michael Emerson really acted the shit out of them. Raymonde was great too, really selling her fear.


I was glad we didn't get to see her face as Ben told Keamy he wasn't her father. The scene was already too raw for me to have coped with the sight of her hearing that information.

Right, time to wrap this up, with the next episode about to air in the US. I'll leave you with this, Sawyer in full on action effect bitches! Check out the multiple redshirt deaths, and Sawyer's hilarious efforts to save them.

Wednesday, April 30, 2008

Adventures in WTF?! - Casting Dr. Uwe Boll's Far Cry

Is there anyone working in movies today who inspires as much joy as Dr. Uwe Boll? I might be crazy about Michael Mann, I may think Brad Bird is a master who doesn't get enough praise, and I will happily rave about David Fincher until I pass out from lack of inhaling, but they themselves, though fine men, won't ever do anything as entertaining as this.



Though the Michael Bay comment makes me cry a bit, Dr. Boll delivers again. He needs to keep making movies just so he can keep getting pissed about the criticisms. Whenever he does he always reacts in the most entertaining ways. I'll even watch Postal, seeing as he thinks this is the movie he will be remembered for. I'm interested to see what he cooks up. Seriously! I'll give anyone a chance. Or five.

I'm particularly happy with his casting for his adaptation of Far Cry. The game was okay, a better than average FPS that got wildly overpraised on release (though I will grant that the PC version might be more fun than the Xbox transfer). Though I'm not totally crazy about it, it held my attention for a few hours, and can be adapted into a standard action plot very well. If you've not played it, it's best summed up as Commando meets The Island of Doctor Moreau, though sadly that doesn't mean it features cameos from Vernon Wells in chainmail or Val Kilmer impersonating Marlon Brando. You just run around with special powers, slashing bad guys up and driving jeeps over exploding bridges. As I say, fun, but nothing mindblowing.


Unlike Dr. Boll's new movie adaptation, I'm sure. The casting is mostly predictable; it features Boll regulars Michael Paré, Chris Coppola, Carrie Genzel, Ralf Moeller, and many other Canadian actors who, from a quick check of their IMDb pages, seem to appear in lots of the same stuff together. Nevertheless, it does seem that he has managed to create a little repertory of actors who are willing to appear in his movies, which, in a way, means he has a lot more in common with Preston Sturges than one might have believed possible (Dr. Boll, if you ever read this, you are free to quote me comparing you to Preston Sturges). That's all well and good, but the one bit of casting that amazed me the most was an appearance by famed cantankerous chef Anthony Bourdain as a scientist. I was so confuzzled by this, but thankfully this YouTube clip clears it all up.



Shades of Caruso approves! Bourdain has occasionally annoyed us in the past, but for his wonderfully entertaining book Kitchen Confidential, his highly recommended (by Canyon; I've yet to read it) Salon article about the bombing of Lebanon, and for the unbelievably great steak we ate at Les Halles last year, he has more than earned our admiration and overshadowed any minor doubts we have had about him. I mean it, that steak was magnificent. Even though that clip shows Bourdain's ultimate fate within the movie, I'm still weirdly psyched about it. That doesn't mean I'm ready to face Dr. Boll's fantasy epic In the Name of the King: A Dungeon Siege Tale: Search For The Sword of Budnork: Adventures Into Adventure: DragonFable IV: Into The Dungeon Of Despair: ChivalryQuest Of Honour or whatever the hell the title is, though. Sorry, Doc.

Tuesday, April 29, 2008

Breakfast Of Champions It Ain't

Consider it flagellation, but we tend to watch BBC's Breakfast while preparing to head out in the morning. It's an infuriating show, but there isn't much else on at that time in the morning. This morning, after nearly bursting into angerflames while watching it, I ended up turning over and catching a customarily piss-poor episode of Smallville (guest-starring Ian Somerhalder), having missed the start of The Naked City on Sky Movies Classic and not feeling up to watching multiple installments of Takeshi's Castle or Ironside. Even though there is nothing else on, I still debate having it on at all, giving up only because it features London travel news, or as it should be called, "What Percentage Of Your Tube Journey Will Be Cancelled At The Last Minute, Stranding You Underground And Unable to Contact Your Boss To Beg Him Or Her Not To Fire Your Ass For Being Late Every Day?"


Why the hatred? It is just breakfast news, which is never going to be Newsnight, and I'd be a fool to expect anything more than fluffy nonsense and light chatter. What I would expect is at least a baseline level of competence, which we do not get. We only watch about twenty minutes of it on average, and in that small section of the show we always, always, get at least one mis-cued link, one sound error, or one wrong film clip. Oftentimes it's far worse than that.

I once mentioned this to a colleague of mine, and he immediately leapt to the defence of the show, saying it was no easy thing to make a live TV show, and yes, I'll grant that, but many live shows either come off without a hitch or with only the occasional error. In a small subsection of the show (which runs for 195 minutes) we get at least one screw up every day. Extrapolate that out to the full length of the show and we're talking about ten head-in-hands-level mistakes a day at the least. It's sad and hilarious viewing at the same time.


Those technical difficulties aren't the worst things about it, though. Not by a longshot. As I said before, I don't expect Newsnight or Channel Four News, and so it's churlish to complain about the presenters not being Paxman and Kearney or Snow and Hilsum, but my god, even by the usual standards of early morning TV presenters (in the UK and the US), regular hosts Bill Turnbull and Sian Williams are just appalling. Watching them struggle to comprehend even the most simple of subjects is hard on my teeth, as they tend to grind together every time Bill says something inane, or Sian misunderstands what their guests are trying to say. They're so bad they make me nostalgic for Dermot Murnagurnah and the fragrant yet icy Kate Silverton. Yes, that bad.


I've considered writing something about this godawful show for some time now, momentarily inspired by various car-crash interview gaffes, such as the morning Bill asked Simon Pegg about drinking eggs a grand total of four times, obviously because that was the only bit from the Run, Fatboy, Run trailer that penetrated his braincasing, or yesterday's debacle when Joanna Lumley tried to get up from her seat in the middle of a link to local news which panicked Bill so much he practically rugby tackled her back down. There are many more examples, but those are the ones that spring to mind.


However, my ire was finally raised to blogging point by a segment about the release of Grand Theft Auto IV which, as expected, was used to say nothing more than, "Video games are destroying civilisation by turning your children into murderers." I could tell because Bill and Sian's faces were set not to Puff Piece Perky, but to Serious Story Stern. After a quick nod to the success of the franchise, this little factoid was used as proof of the game's insidious hold over the nation's children, as various non-statistics about the violent nature of the game led us into an interview between Team BS and two gamers, one casual, one working for the BBC. Surprisingly the "debate" wasn't held between the gamers (which is the usual course when news items are discussed in the studio), but between them and Bill and Sian, who pointed out time and time again that games are for kids and are violent and therefore are bad for kids and hence everyone is doomed.


It was already heading downhill by the time the first question was asked, which followed on from an email sent in from someone who thinks GTA IV was "symptomatic of the degenerating society", and that it allows people to live out a "fantasy of evil," leading Bill to ask the gamer if he has a fantasy of evil of his own. Sadly the guy didn't tell him to shut up, instead arguing for the game by saying it allows people to get rid of their pent-up aggression, which led Sian to ask the BBC gamer if that was the same for him, and to add, "I'm not suggesting you're violent in any way or give in to violent urges." By then it was obvious the game has been framed as only appealing to people who are drawn to violent things exclusively. Later Bill asked if the game has any redeeming qualities, if the characters give to charity or help people. Seriously, if Bill and Sian were a TV show, they'd be Monarch of the Glen. If they were a book, they'd be The No. 1 Ladies' Detective Agency. Where their brain should be, there is merely a tombola, used to raffle off a set of china teapots commemorating the coronation of King George VI.


When it was pointed out by the BBC gamer that GTA IV isn't on sale to children, Sian batted that away with the argument that kids would want to play it anyway. Of course they do. They're curious. When I was young I wanted to watch anything that was forbidden, and not even the exciting stuff. I remember staying up to watch some of the Red Triangle films shown on C4 late at night, though sadly the one or two rather earnest European art movies I caught have faded from memory compared to the proper innocence-destroying stuff (early viewings of The Thing, Texas Chainsaw Massacre and Videodrome). So what does she suggest? Infantilising ourselves and censoring all art and culture just in case some children stumble across something that might do some harm? (And I emphasise might as there are conflicting reports about the corrupting influence gaming has on young minds.) I say this all the time in real life, and I'm introducing it to the blog now; it's the 21st Century, you fuckers. KEEP UP!!!


Even for BBC Breakfast, the whole thing was offensively facile. The Beeb gamer tried to draw attention to the huge success of the franchise and how great it was that it was developed by Rockstar Edinburgh, but that was ignored by the presenters who were utterly incapable of seeing the release as anything other than another nail in the coffin of humanity. Another emailer, your archetypal concerned mother, accepted that the game wasn't for kids, but stated even eighteen year-olds don't have the emotional maturity to deal with the themes presented by the games (and then said why not celebrate the nice things in life, for crying out loud). Why stop there? Maybe eighteen year-olds don't have the emotional maturity to deal with anything. Let's take the vote away from them, stop them joining the army, stop them driving. And what age are you ready to handle any of this? Twenty? Thirty? Life begins at forty, so let's make that the default age.

It ended with Sian commenting that kids should be playing "that tennis on the computer that just went 'bip!' and 'bip!". Fine, Sian, if it makes you happy, we'll throw out years of programming progress just for you. Thanks for contributing nothing to the debate other than to continually turn it around so that game designers and gamers have to prove a negative instead of pundits and panicky parents having to prove games are corrupting on something a little stronger than conjecture and fear of the unknown. Now that you've done that, can the adults do what they want now? Please? The despicable Mail bitches that the BBC has a left-wing bias and rails against it every day, but this kind of insulting, alarmist, blinkered, ill-informed, paranoid, Luddite idiocy is just the sort of thing it loves. The Mail and Breakfast should get married and have stunted babies who can't feed themselves, are terrified of the modern world, and can only talk in racist, homophobic code phrases.

Wow. I feel like Will Graham up in this bitch. In the scheme of things, yes, the shoddiness of Breakfast is nothing to write home about, but this is a subject I get very annoyed about. I guess I should be grateful that they didn't trot out the "proof" so often used by lazy churnalists that another Rockstar game, Manhunt, warped one kid's mind so much he murdered his friend, even though he didn't own it, may have never played it, and any link between the murderer and the game was disputed by the police who investigated and the judge presiding over the case. Instead we got a lot of emotive nonsense about protecting kids from amoral culture intended solely for adult usage, none of which can be considered journalism or news. It's comment, and poorly thought through as well.

And what came up after that? Talking to Robert Webb and Ella Smith about the current West End run of Neil LaBute's Fat Pig, which could have been the starting point for an interesting debate about size fascism and peer pressure, or even a discussion about what the fuck LaBute's problem with women is, but instead turned into Sian asking if the play was like Shallow Hal, Bill asking if they keep laughing at all of LaBute's high-larious jokes while performing, and whether Robert Webb was filming another series of That Mitchell and Webb Thing. I guess it's good to see their momentary contact with the depravity of gaming hasn't changed them, if you enjoy cringing, that is.

ETA: Just after I finished this post, I read this article in the Times, telling of a horrible knife attack in Croydon while waiting for the midnight opening of Gamestation. It's terrible that someone was assaulted in that manner, but the article continues to draw parallels between the game and violence that don't hold up. The perp obviously has rage issues, but is that because of playing the GTA games? Or was he already like that? There's no causal link established there, merely a confluence of events, unless the guy suddenly screams, "It was the games wot made me do it!".

Even more annoying is that some poor guy got mugged yesterday, and his copy of GTA IV was stolen, which is reported in that article as if it is further proof of the corrupting influence of the game. That's not the fault of the game. It's a desirable object. Tragically, people get mugged for their desirable objects all the time. Should we ban iPods and mobile phones? No matter how often bad journalists try to link gaming with crime, it just won't wash. I expect to read more of this nonsense over the next few months.

ETA again: According to Florida attorney Jack Thompson, "Grand Theft Auto IV is the gravest assault upon children in this country since polio." He also says, "indictments should be handed down against Wal-Mart, Best Buy, GameStop, and all other retailers distributing this game to minors at their retail stores, openly, to kids who are only seventeen." Of course. They would be breaking the law, after all. However, he also says, "indictment should also be against Sony and Microsoft which are making this pornographic game available to minors, and openly so, on their PS3 and Xbox systems." What, just for making the game and making machines to play the game on? This argument only works if you assume games consoles are exclusively used by kids who are not legally being sold the game. Gamers are not just kids, you cretin. Now go find something important to rail against instead of playing to the worst instincts of the voter. Oh God, I'm getting this annoyed about it all and I don't even like the GTA games. I realise that they're great, but I've never spent enough time with them to get as obsessed as millions of other people have. I need to move on before I really do burst into flame.

Sunday, April 27, 2008

Welcome New Viewers

This blog covers the period January 1, 2007 to September 2007, during which time Sally and I visited 31 countries by plane, boat, train, bus, taxi and foot, and never once lost our baggage! The primary purpose of keeping the blog was to share our adventures with our children, other family, and close friends, while we were on the road. However, I would like to think that it contains some ideas that might be of interest to a broader public.

Unfortunately, to read it, you must go backwards...to January and February to read about New Zealand and Australia...to April to see some amazing places in Southeast Asia...to May to see the pink city of Jaipur and the sandcastle like Jaiselmer in India. June will take you to Greece, Turkey, and then up the underrated Adriatic Coast. If you have time, do check out Albania, our first post in July...it was one of the most surprising stops on the trip. July also found us at the Hotel Gellert in Budapest with its historic wave pool, and in Prague where we found one of Frank Gehry's best buildings...known locally as Fred Astaire and Ginger Rogers!

The architecture of Poland and Russia is described in some of the later July entries along with our experience being kicked off a train between Warsaw and Moscow. August finds us in South America. In addition to Rio and Buenos Aires, Parati in Brazil and Colonia in Uruguay were two relatively unknown gems that we were delighted to discover.

We hope that this blog will inspire you to now start thinking about leaving your jobs and comfortable lives for a while, and visit some places you have never seen before. Or even heard of! We are so very glad we did it and hope you will enjoy reading about some of our experiences.

ps: to read about some of the planning lessons that I picked up along the way, you might want to check out my Vancouver Sun Column 'Homes Away from Home' which can be found at www.michaelgeller.ca

Friday, April 25, 2008

Things That Have Occurred To Us While Watching Season Five of 24 (5-7)

We've finished the season (a bit of a drop in tension by the end, but it was still a terrific run), and there are many more things that caught my attention in the middle of all the craziness.

5. A lot of the tension created on this show is awfully mechanical.

I know, this is hardly news. There are lots of examples of it, but the most common one is the satellite retasking conversation that keeps happening. Pretty much every episode, Jack loses whichever lower-level terroristic person he has been chasing (usually someone he found out about at the end of the previous hour), and after leaping into whichever Hummer he has at his disposal, will phone Chloe and bellow at her for a while. As Canyon pointed out midway through the season, the format for these conversations is always the same.

Jack: [out of breath even though he is driving and not running] Chloe! ::pant:: I lost DuPrez! ::pant:: He got into a car and headed south on I95. ::pant:: I need you to task a satellite to track him and download it to my PDA/supercomputer! ::pant::

Chloe: [rolls eyes] I can't do that, Jack. Miles Papazian is sitting opposite me, watching my every move. And Karen Hayes has got a spybot installed on my hard drive and if I do anything that she hasn't authorised my computer will shut down automatically. And Bill and Audrey have been locked in barrels and rolled out of the building. And an armoured robotic sentinel is guarding the server room. And I'm chained to my chair and can't move. And my arms have been amputated. And there are mines embedded in the floor around my chair. And I'm in a glass case. [pouts]

Jack: Dammit Chloe! ::pant:: If I don't find DuPrez in the next twenty minutes he'll rendezvous with Farquharson and my cover will be blown! ::pant:: And if that happens I'll never find the disc with the locations of the fifty nuclear bombs hidden in each of our United States! ::pants again::

Chloe: [rolls eyes] Okay fine, Jack, you don't need to shout. [begins sewing arms back on using teeth]

Ten minutes later, the satellite is retasked and Jack gets to stare at his PDA while driving, and doesn't even veer out of his lane once. Of course, this reliance on false conflict is the worst kind of lazy McKee-esque contrivance, but in season five it was a lot more entertaining than usual. In previous seasons there have been dreadful sub-plots used to keep characters occupied. I'm thinking of the famous cougar in season two and the baby-minding in season three (which was far worse and infinitely stupider). Season five had no boring plot threads (even the dead ends like actually-not-evil Vice President Hal Gardner were fun), and if that meant Chloe spent the entire season evading her bosses and retasking satellites (at least fifteen episodes featured her doing that impossible thing) instead of looking after a baby, then that's fine by me.

Oh, and what happens with DuPrez? Jack catches him, tortures him using an ironing board, a bottle of Diet Coke, and a roll of wallpaper, and in agony and terror the weaselly DuPrez gives up his contact, Dash MacKenzie, the aerospace engineer who mysteriously spent four years living in Chechnya. Upon finding him, Jack is frustrated in his efforts when he is arrested by over-zealous police officers sent to his location by whichever short-sighted neckless pencil pushing loser is in charge of CTU at that time.


Dash speeds away as the clock ticks down, forcing Jack to make his angry face. Next episode, Jack is released without charge, and he calls Chloe about tasking a satellite to chase Dash. Jack Bauer, breathless Sisyphus for the 21st Century!

NB: The use of the words "Tasking" and "Retasking" drives Shades of Caruso into incandescent rage, just so you know. My repeated use of those words do not qualify as endorsement. We're not crazy.

6. Why is no one weeping for Carl Mossman?

The body count in 24 is incredibly high for a TV show, but then our hero Jack is perfectly willing to kill and maim and torture any number of people in order to save, "hundreds! ::pant:: Of thousands! ::pant:: Of lives!". This list of dead characters is filled with names I don't recall, though I think they're padding the list out a bit. Some of the names are from the 24: Declassified series of novels, but even taking that into account, there are a lot of redshirts and Terrorist Lackey #4's in that list. I didn't really care when they died, and I don't care now. However, I do care about poor, noble Carl Mossman, the bank manager kidnapped by Jack and Wayne Palmer at gun point, dragged to his workplace to open a vault, and then killed by Christopher Henderson's men during their escape.


During that time he put up with a bunch of shit, watched as his wife was pushed around by Jack, dragged across town in the middle of the night, bonded with Wayne Palmer, found out President Logan arranged to have David Palmer whacked, announced he was all Team Bauer and stuff, gained their trust, and then got killed with bullets until dead. Time elapsed between being kidnapped from his wife's side to being iced: 40 minutes.


Normally the gratuitous death of a minor character wouldn't bother me at all, but this time the guy was at home, probably watching Letterman, chillaxing after another day having to deal with grumpy Californians bitching about yet more armageddon being visited upon them, and then all of a sudden some out-of-breath dude storms in with the former President's brother in tow, and even before Letterman got around to doing that night's silly stunt (playing baseball with Johnny Damon), he's been shot by goons who manage to completely miss the two large guys standing on either side of him. That's some crappy luck.


For the first time ever, the death of a minor character really pissed me off. Oh sure, I was furious when Tony "died", and hated to see George Mason go out (even though he was both heroic and radioactive), but usually the chumps who get momentarily involved in Jack's life die and I don't care. This time, I got actively upset. In the next episode Wayne tells Jack of Carl's death, which, if I recall correctly, isn't even greeted with a "Dammit", let alone a "Son-of-a-bitch". They carry on driving, with a corpse in the back seat not caring about the increasingly ripe smell. By the end of the episode they have ditched the car and are running around trying to capture evil Christopher Henderson, and after that Wayne disappears into the night, not to be heard of again (at least until he improbably becomes President in season six). Meanwhile, Jack is too busy getting his on-off girlfriend almost killed and sneaking onto planes to care about anything as trivial as a dead guy. I hope that while that was happening Wayne at least made his way back to Carl's house to hand the corpse over to his wife, because otherwise there's just some dead guy stuck in a car on some industrial wasteland in LA. Man, this show can be cold sometimes.



7. Someone working in 24's casting department is a big fan of Robocop.

And so they should be, as that is a wonderfully sweet film, delightfully ribald, romantic, reminiscent of the classic MGM musicals of the early 50s with its innocent charm and endearing sentimentality. The casting for this season featured some surprises for fans of Paul Verhoeven's satirical classic, including Peter Weller, Ray Wise, and Paul McCrane.


Weller played one of this season's many bad guys, the monotone and eternally duplicitous Christopher Henderson (which is a disappointingly mundane moniker in the same vein as former antagonists Peter Kingsley and Stephen Saunders), and Ray Wise and his barely present grin played the red herring is-he-good-or-bad Vice President Hal Gardner (a name that makes me suspect there are also some Green Lantern fans working on the show). McCrane barely ever gets to play good guys, and here continues this trend by playing the vile and oddly spelled Graem Bauer (yes, I read a spoiler).


At the end of the season Henderson gets blasted to death by the righteous weaponry and rage of Jack Bauer, who has spent most of the day killing everyone responsible for the deaths of David Palmer, Michelle Dessler, and lovely Tony. Fair enough, but it amused me that every time he shoots one of the big bads he acts like they were the only ones involved, which I thought meant he would just keep on killing people with even a tangential involvement in the plan, all the time glowering at them and ominously reciting the list of friends he has lost, until he's the only person left on the planet, at which point he will realise that actually he is a shit magnet who gets everyone who knows him into terrible trouble, at which point he would shoot himself with enormous solemnity and humourless vengeance. Because that is the way of The Bauer (a Bauer being the Western equivalent of a Samurai, obviously).

As for Gardner and Graem, they live to fight another day, which is interestingly the opposite of Robocop, where Weller, as Robocop, lives on, Leon (Wise) gets blown to smithereens by Nancy Allen, and Emil (McCrane) gets melted by toxic waste and run over, in a scene which no one who has seen it will ever forget.


The only thing that could improve 24 (other than a musical episode) is to get Verhoeven on as a guest director. Imagine the carnage! Time to start a new futile internet campaign, methinks.