Satoshi Kon passes.

Celebrity deaths haven't really ever affected me. They have in the passing “oh, they died? That's awful” sense, and a few times I'd felt bad for the film or music industry, because a talented person had died. Never before have I felt something of a personal loss, though. Not before Satoshi Kon died in his home of pancreatic cancer on August 24^th, 2010.I think they loss may have felt so personal to me because he was such a huge motivation to me personally. He wasn't the reason I got into animation, but his influence was undeniable. He was able to make such generic cities and locations feel so personalised in his work, and I've always found I've taken cues from his extravagant use of music.

I'll forgive you for not knowing who the man was. He was never exactly a huge name (though there really aren't too many in animation). Satoshi Kon was a Japanese animator, writer and director of anime. Whilst I have no real strong feelings towards anime, it's not something I have an outstanding love of. When I was younger, however, I confess that I may have been a little obsessed. I was one of the few people in the UK who had a subscription to Shonen Jump, and it would be a lie to say my childhood was not overthrown by Dragon Ball and Pokemon (both of which I think I still have an embarrassing nostalgic non-ironic appreciation for). However as I got older I think I grew out of the medium – I never abandoned it, though. It just seemed for every Death Note there were a thousand Naruto's. I think my drifting away from the animation form was because the fans bothered me, and to be completely honest at times embarrassed me.

When I was about twelve, I remember being at my friends house in Memphis. It was very late, and I was flipping through the channels on his then super-rare high-definition flat screen TV. I saw one of the strangest things I think I've ever seen out of context. About halfway through an episode of some show, a boy started to vomit letters into a toilet. A mysterious figure then stood above him, wielding a gold, crooked baseball bat. I forgot about the show shortly after, but that scene didn't leave me. Years later, I discovered it was a short series called Paranoia Agent.

My God, Paranoia Agent. I watched every episode in two days. I combed the internet searching for explanations and theories on what I just watched. I watched the entire series again with two of my friends. I gave my friend a DVD for Christmas. I think this was the closest I've come to some sort of life-altering appreciation for something, something I'm sure many trekkies and Star Wars nuts experience. It was obvious it would appeal too me. My favorite books were always those crammed full of symbolism that required time to sink in and study (Cask of Amontillado quickly comes to mind) – and I do have a loving relationship with Twin Peaks.Sure, it was only 13 episodes, and there were a couple of duds, but I don't think a work of fiction has really had this much influence over me. I changed the way I went about animation and writing, and it was after watching Paranoia Agent I started experimenting with colours more. After these alterations I won a competition on Newgrounds for animation netting myself a small but pleseant cash prize – a victory I am sure I would not have attained if not for Kons influence. My next animation was for my film studies course, which I made sure to make as weird and obscure and Kon-ish as possible. I ended up writing about Paranoia Agent on my personal statement when applying to university, and I swear if I were ever given millions of dollars to adapt something to the big screen, Paranoia agent is the first place I'd go.

The show had such originality and interesting characters, and the imagery became stronger and stronger with every passing passing episode to the point were the shows strangeness seemed to transcend the art form while being totally at home within it. The show had such an incredible energy to it – it had the most odd and dark story, but would constantly use the most bright and garish colours with the chirpiest, loudest, happiest sounding choir they could find. The series had the most peculiar dreamlike quality to it (which may be why it works so well when things really get strange) which Kon utilised in his Inception-inspiring feature Paprika, which revolved around travelling into dreams and used similarly bright colours and memorable music. However, while using similar elements, Paprika managed to feel completely and utterly different from Paranoia Agent in every way. It was it's own unique and wonderful experience while borrowing from the directors previous work. Satoshi's death is so tragic because he was still learning. He was already a master writer and director, but he wasn't set in his pace yet (he even said that when watching his directional debut Perfect Blue he felt “a little embarrassed”, but that watching it inspired him to improve). Nothing was ever the same, and he still had so much left to say in so many ways – he wanted to work on a childrens story to force him new directions (the project is called The Dream Machine in English, and was the directors last work). A poster called Jbetteridge said it so perfectly -

“It's not that anime will never be the same with Satoshi Kon gone. It's now much more like that with Satoshi Kon gone, anime will always be the same.”

In chasing down the mans career, I also found (unsurprisingly) he was quite an interesting chap, starting out as a background artist on a series of films and originally wanting to be a painter, he eventually moved on to Magnetic Rose (He never had time to paint after that - amusingly saying that because he made his hobby his job, he doesn't have a hobby anymore). He is the founding member of the Japan Animators Creators Association (JANiCA). He was (I think now predictably) a bit eccentric, too. He said that while working on his films, he would attempt to think beyond his own imagination, and to even try to surprise himself. He also had the most intense love for his medium - Ilya Garger said the easiest way to annoy Satoshi Kon would be to ask him why he makes cartoons – that he would begin answering the question before you finished the sentence (not that he didn't adore films, he even dresses a character up as Akira Kurasawa when explaining the “line rule” in Paprika). Kon also stated that animation is just something he feels far more comfortable with. Garger goes on to talk about Kon breaking convention and writing about otherwise untouched subjects (when was the last time you saw a movie about homeless people?), and indeed Kon was also somewhat of a contrarian, trying as hard as he could to destroy the traditional “moe” female character in anime, and admitting to not being a big fan of Miyazaki, that in the other animators films everyone “has to love each other” and that the morals are “always so clear”. He would always seem offended if he was ever compared to or asked if he aspired to be like Miyazaki - not only because the question itself is somewhat insulting, but because Kon and Miyazaki are so fundamentally different anyway – Miyazaki is typically associated with fairytales, whereas Kon is known for his urban settings.

Kon's final blog post has been floating around, and if you're a fan of his work, I really recommend you read it. The Japanese have a terrific phrase we don't have that Kon ends his post with - o-saki ni - meaning when someone has to leave a place before other people. That pretty much perfectly sums up how I feel about his passing. He had such a he impact on my life, and I would constantly check for updates on what he was working on. He was a man who so obviously had so much to say even he wasn't aware of it all, and losing him is truly an enormous loss for the industry and his fans. I will remember Satoshi Kon for the rest of my life.

http://makikoitoh.com/journal/satoshi-kons-last-words

Michael Cera versus the Internet

I've never understood hating actors. Never. My mother completely hates Adam Sandler, some friends of mine can't stand Seth Rogen and it appears that many of the "cool kids" don't really like Tom Cruise, but to my knowledge, nobody dislike Leonardo DiCaprio.

What a sweetheart.

When it comes to hating actors, I just don't understand why. To me, there are two reasons to hate an actor:

1) They are a complete jerk
2) They are such an objectively bad actor that them simply being in a movie makes it worse.

Yet, time and time again people will simply shrug and just say "I can't stand them". Usually, I believe it comes down more to the actor simply being in movies that the hate-ee hates, or more obviously; being type-cast in a role the hate-ee hates. I can sort of understand this - I've grown pretty tired of Jim Carrey silly-facing his way through his career, and we can all agree robin Williams has made some bad choices lately. However, I don't hate the actors, and when I see them on screen, I'm well-aware that they're both talented actors fully capable of playing a wide range of roles - it's just that more recently, they haven't been.

Now is when we get to Michael Cera. Several years ago, the Internet had the biggest boy-crush on Michael Cera you could imagine. He had just finished acting in the universally-adored series Arrested Development and was appearing in the majorly hyped Superbad. Sure, he was sort of playing George Michael Bluth in Superbad, but he was different enough from the character to still be funny and have plenty of memorable lines. You wouldn't catch 4chan admitting it now, but when Superbad came out they were pretty much ready to give Cera a shrine. So what happened? Well, that same year he was in Juno (which I've never really seen, but from what the Internet tells me it's Knocked Up with teenagers smarter than teenagers actually are)and then Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist. To my knowledge, neither of these films were reviewed badly - so why the hate for Cera? Okay, yeah, he was in the awful Extreme Movie, I'll give you that, as well as the failure Year One. Was he really the same character in those two movies? Even if you give him those two misses, he has Paper Heart, which at the very least we can say was him at least trying to branch off.



I think Paper Heart may be a bad thing to list. You see, after me breaking one of my only life rules and actually going to 4chan (my shower is only 20 seconds away from my computer, I should be safe), I've discovered something. Something scary, ironic, and most of all; completely retarded. 4chan, and I believe the rest of the Internet, are in the middle of the Hipster Witch hunts. Paper Heart is fake documentary about some teenagers trying to find out about love? Hipster garbage. Juno had a bunch of songs on the soundtrack I hadn't heard of - Well they may as well have been wearing Che Guevara t-shirts! Here's a comment I read that I think pretty much sums up the movie going ignorance of hating actors:

I would consider seeing Scott Pilgrim, if I didn't hate Michael Cera with every fibre of my being.

Every fibre? Even the nice ones? If this hate stems from Cera playing similar/the same role, grow up. It's not his fault he's being type-cast, he's known for playing those roles, he plays them well, he makes everyone money for playing those roles. When he's well-known for making money with a certain type of role - hey guess what - he's going to get lets of offers for similar roles. Also, you know what? Cera is still a young guy. He's been being type-cast for what? Four years? That's nothing. How long has Will Smith been playing "the black guy who is charming enough to still attract a white audience?" Almost his whole career, and I bet you love him for it.

What a sweetheart.

Cera has his entire career to break away from the character's he's being cast as, and here's a hint - he's already done playing those characters. He is too gnarfing old too anymore. That's a flaw in the haters logic right there - it doesn't make sense to hate an actor for the roles they play, if they're no longer playing those roles. Refusing to admit that it is even possible for an actor to play a role other than the ones you are familiar with him playing shows your own stupidity, lack of faith and inability to understand how acting actually works.

Now onto the hipster debate; I dislike hipsters intently. I believe there is no such thing as intentional non-conforming, I hate the preaching-but-not-acting philosophy of hipsters and they just look silly. However, there's something I've noticed about the hipster hate on the Internet: nobody knows what a hipster is. Someone will make a topic about Scott Pilgrim, get a "hipster shit" reply, and the whole thread will turn into a back and forth about who in the topic is an actual hipster. It's basically the same as two white people yelling "no you're a racist" at each other. Why is Michael Cera a hipster? Because he's in Hipster films? What makes his films hipster films? Oh dang, too late, I'm a hipster for asking. "Hipster" was originally a term used by black jazz musicians to describer white Jazz musicians - a hipster is a poser. So... Why is Cera a poser, and no other actors are? He must dress like a hipster, his characters must say hipster things. Except, you kow, those things are both out of Cera's control. The instant knee-jerk "hipster shit" response almost seems one of self-defense, of the cliche gay-hating homosexual. I'm not calling hipster-haters hipsters, but I am saying that one shouldn't jump so quickly to a conclusion so baselessly.
If we take a "hipster movie" to be about non-conforming, about half thought-out philosophies, possible nihilism, anti-consumerism etc., you know what the first movie that comes to mind when I think of those things is? Fight Club. It has more "hipster" morals than I'm sure Scott Pilgrim does, anyway. It's still a damn fine movie, though, and I wouldn't even freaking accuse it of being a hipster movie. This leads into my next point...

Now, I am going to risk something here; something that may (if you're one of the witch hunters): So what if Michael Cera is a hipster? So What if Scott Pilgrim is a Hipster Movie? Why does it fucking matter? Why is a hipster movie instantly bad? Newsflash guys: You don't have to like the characters in a movie and still enjoy it. Show of hands, who really really liked Daniel Plainview? Who thought he was a swell guy?

What a sweetheart.

You don't have to agree with a films message. You don't have to like the characters. You don't have to see your own opinions and persona on the screen to appreciate a good movie. One of my favorite characters of recent films is Chad from In the Company of Men. I also find him one of the most disgusting chatacters ever put on film.
I saw Harry Brown, waiting for the film to give Michael Cane a good talking to - to tell him that revenge wasn't the answer, and that maybe the kids are just as much victims as the people they pick on. That maybe they're the way they are because they've never been offered help, or that it would be better to let the actual law handle this. It never did, though. Do I hate the movie for that? No. Does the director even have to agree with the characters? No.

Forgive actors you hate. Abandon the hipster-fear, and learn to actually enjoy movies again. Be a sweetheart.

Nerd Rising.

Is it just me, or has the Nerd been having a very good year? Or dare I say, a good decade?

You notice the capital N in Nerd. I'm not talking about a nerd specifically, but rather, the species (even as a nerd myself I would be embarrassed to call it a subculture. Species is much more fitting). Comic book movies, while once something to not be talked about even when in theatres (Did you even know the was a Flash movie? How about Dr. Strange?) then erased from the Zeitgeist forever are now expected summer releases. "What action movies are showing" and "what comic book movies are showing" are almost interchangeable now. It's not even A-List heroes, either. This year alone we've had The Losers, Jonah Hex and Defendor.

Allow me to highlight Kick-Ass for a moment. Boy oh boy, Kick-Ass. It's an indie comic which nobody has ever heard of, highlighting on the contrast between current and golden age comics and overall is nerd wish fulfilment. And Nic Cage is in it. How did this get made - how is it getting a sequel - how was it actually good? I my opinion, even better than the source material!
We also got Prince of Persia this year. Now, this didn't set any box-office records, nor was it met with outstanding critical acclaim. But you know what? Metacritic says it's okay. Exactly, slap-dab in-the-middle okay. A videogame movie is okay. WE DID IT!

However, as glorious as Prince of Persia's okay-ness is, it's not the main gaming attraction this year. This year we get Scott Pilgram vs. The World. If Kick-Ass was confusing, Scott Pilgrim is completely baffling. Not only is it a small indie comic nobody has heard of (although I believe it's a bigger nobody than Kick-Ass), but it's ridden with pop-culture references only nerds would get. There's Seinfeld and Zelda music in it (okay, non-Nerds watched Seinfeld, but not for the past 8 years). Most shockingly, it may be the single most video-game-y film ever made, despite not being based on a videogame at all. It injects videogame logic into it without characters as much as questioning it, and delights in being as flashy as possible.

Sci-fi in general is no longer just a Nerd subculture, either. Sure, Bladerunner was critically acclaimed and Star Wars is inescapable, but sci-fi was still very much somewhat of a taboo until recently. It was the kind of thing where if you liked it it was probably best to keep it to yourself, or at the very least you'd probably get some sass for mentioning a sci-fi you liked. However, in the last decade we've not only seen intelligent sci-fi films grab some well-deserved acclaim (Children of Men, Inception), but sci-fi in general being accepted. Cool, even. When did you ever think you'd see crowds cueing up to see a new Star Trek movie? Let alone see actual breasts in that cue? This year, Lost ended after six years. The show was full of sci-fi and fantasy references, littered with the names of scientists and authors and had enough philosophical metaphors to choke a polar bear. This show got six years. Twin Peaks got two. The Prisoner got one. Would this show have lasted in the 80's?

The Thor movie is also happening. This shocks me - Marvel has been trying to make their movies feel a bit more gritty recently. Sci-fi over fantasy, imperfect hero over altruist. Then, they go and make a movie about Norse Gods wearing silly gold armour flinging massive hammers into things. I could not be happier.
Then, there's the Avengers teaser. Oh my God. If you had told a Nerd in the mid-ninties that Marvel would in fifteen years have started a movie company that is working on releasing films involving numerous characters from different franchises, ultimately building to an enormous team-up movie being teased for years before it's released, they would assume the only way it would be possible is if they personally were appointed the head of Marvel the next day. You want to know how strong Nerds are? The man directing The Avengers is none other than Joss Whedon is directing it. The man behind The Iron Giant and Dr. Horrible's Sing-along blog. At this point it seems nothing BUT nerdspoitation.

This makes me wonder, though: Have we always had this much pulling power? Have we always been such a huge influential force? Has the right strategy all along ACUTALLY been giving us what we want (If so, where is my Viewtiful Joe movie, Hollywood!)? Maybe if we had waved our fists a little earlier, we wouldn't have had to wait until 2008 for a darker take on Batman, or the John Woo Metroid film wouldn't have just vanished. I'm glad this is becoming apparent now, though. I would have much rather waited for the 200's than gotten some crummy-looking Thor movie in the 80's. This year I saw the trailer for Rubber, a film about a tyre with psychic powers set in the desert. When else could this film possibly be made?! Okay, maybe it's not that out-there compared to some other things, but damnit, I want to talk about Rubber!

What does this mean though? Are Nerds growing in numbers, or are we simply (wrongly) growing less ashamed? In a world where WoW players actually make up a percentage of the Earth, I assume it must be a bit of both. Let's just not abuse this, okay fellas? After all, we did get Ghost Rider(I love you Nic!).

... And the screen ordered me to observe the screen.

I understand the pains of the film industry. I really, really do. I know it's hard to "get a film out there", especially if it's a low budget picture, or if it doesn't have any big names attached to it. Then, of course, there is the ever-present dark cloud of piracy that constantly hangs above the heads of filmmakers and cinema-owners like a mysterious smell they're too polite to mention. It doesn't help that movie studios are asking for more and more from the theatres - in both profits and distribution (For instance, in order to be able to show Transformers 3: Versus Jason, you have to agree to show our newest hipstersploitation flick for a couple of weeks). This being said, I understand why people can be defensive of their films, and to be honest, I don't even blame them for slapping this in front of their feature.


However, what I do feel is silly is very generic ads, that simply tell me to watch movies. I'm sure everyone has seen at least one of these. They're an odd species because they aren't technically anti-piracy ads, they're more just... celebrations of film. Or, more specifically, celebrations of cinema. They're usually just compilations of coming attractions with a somewhat smug announcer saying something along the lines of "This summer, there's only one place to catch the adventure (Stallone face), the romance (Jennifer Aniston face), the laughs (Adam Sandler face or sometimes John Belushi face even though he's been dead for almost thirty years) and the fun (Latest Pixar movie face)". However, the ads seem somewhat... pointless. I can understand an anti-piracy spot, but simply telling me to watch movies? When I've already paid to see a movie? What's the real point - at least stick an anti-piracy message in there somewhere.

The thing is, this wouldn't transfer to any other medium. If you're reading a book, you don't expect to find a blank page halfway through with two words in the middle reading "Read Books". Can you imagine if Nintendo tried to do this? "Aren't video games fun!" Mario barks at you as you once again plummet into merciless darkness, as if he is mocking you. If placed in front of the wrong movies, these ads would be mocking, in all honesty. I think the final insult to any gentleman dragged to see Romantic Comedy #1342 (International title The Bounty Hunter) would be an ad telling them how much fun they're about to have.

I have no problem with cinema owners making sure I know that pirating films is bad, and that I get a dimished experience, but why not just come out and say that? Also, when I go to see Inception, don't make me watch clips from 27 Dresses, dangit.

Thoughts on Inception (Solipsism done right)

I don't really intend to enter into the bold and unforgiving world of "film reviews" anytime soon. Not because I don't think I'm qualified enough to write a review (although I'm certainly not) or that my opinion doesn't matter enough to warrant a review being written (it certainly isn't), or that there are better reviewers than me anyway (Goodness me there are). It simply isn't in the spirit of the blog; I don't want to write reviews, I want to write overly-analytical, bothersome explorations of films!

On top of this, Inception is terrifically difficult to talk about anyway, because the films plot details have been kept so wonderfully concealed so far that to talk about pretty much anything could diminish the effect of the film. Oh right, yeah, it's really, really good, too. Just needed to slip that in somewhere.

So, what I'm going to do is talk about a few ideas in the film without actually spoiling plot details as I know how difficult it is to simply "stop reading" something (but, I should add I would consider the ideas in a film to be some of the most important aspects). Ready? Okay. Inception is a film concerning Solipsism. It doesn't really start that way, but it moves there eventually. However, Inception is not like The Matrix; it does not tell us our lives are illusions. The films message seems to be the delicious one that solipsism on it's own is dangerous enough (and the idea certainly is a destructive one). "The idea" - "the cancer" referred to in the film is the fallibility of being awake. "They come here to wake up".

The movie asks the audience if we can distinguish between reality and dreams, then ingeniously makes its dream sequences as realistic as possible. Both in terms of believability, and the fact that on several ocassions we're unaware we're even in a dream at all, to really drive the theme home. Of course, the film falls back on the sci-fi setting, so the questions don't really apply to us, but they at the very least raise the interesting topic of debate (and again in a more interesting way of just telling us the world in the film is fictional). It's unclear what side the film takes on the solipsism debate though; on the one hand the movie would lack the "catharsis" Cobb says is required if the notion of solipsism wasn't conquered in some form; however, what's conquered may not be the idea of solipsism so much as it's negatives effects. I will be spoiling the final shot of the film now, and although I don't think it will really damage viewing of the film, it may be better to avoid reading my thoughts on it if you haven't seen it yet. The final shot shows Cobb reuinited with his children; he is happy, finally, after so much strife and so much torture from his own subconcious. We see the top is still spinning over their laughter, and while it does seem to slow down slightly, we don't see it fall. The top throughout the movie, the "totem" is something that keeps the characters certain of where they are; that they are the dreamer, or at least are viewing the world unaltered. The fact the top is left spinning at the end of the film seems to be suggesting the possibility that Cobb remains in a dream (though I doubt he actually is) - however, he is happy. Does it really matter if Cobb is dreaming? He's happy now, finally.

Truth may be beauty, but most models are miserable.

Why I love single-set movies.

Many people, when confronted with the notion of being in a single location for over an hour (goodness, sometimes even two hours) will kick and scream and fuss until I eventually agree to watch the latest large-scale world-traversing feature epic. Haha, just kidding, no one out-fusses me.

I recently was lucky enough to be able to see the 2009 film Exam. The basic plot is that a group of people are put into a room for 80 minutes in order to complete an exam, where they're unsure of the question, have a strange set of rules they must follow and can't really trust each other. The movie was refreshing because the characters were actually smart enough to mean they didn't waste 10 of their precious minutes rolling around on the floor crying "WHAT DO WE DO?!? WHAT DO WE DO??" No, they all actually had reasonable ideas, and worked quickly and decently together. Characters true colours are revealed as the film progresses, and we get to see just how bad these characters want the job they're competing for. The characters are well developed (there are some real assholes) and the set moves enough so that the single-set works. It also helps they play with the lighting a bit too.
Now the film isn't perfect; it suffers from some hammy acting, a couple of equally hammy plot points and a touch of hammy dialouge, making for a very hammy movie and I imagine a dish for aquired taste.

You may have heard about the film Buried which turned a couple of heads at Sundance. The film stars Ryan Reynolds, buried in a very confined space underground. You stay with Reynolds the entire movie (no flashbacks!), making the number of camera angles and lighting effects extremely limited. The film recieved generally positive feedback, and any actor able to carry a movie on their own is truly deserving of the highest praise (Sam Rockwell practically did this with last years sadly overlooked Moon).

So why do I love these (arguably) visually dull movies? Simple: They're writers movies. Films and stories in general are, almost without exception, pushed forward by characters and character action. When a film isn't held back by it's set (ironically, most films with a low number of sets are held back... by their budgets), the audiences attention is strictly on the characters. It's why many still claim theatre to be the purest form of screenwriting.

Simply put, whenever we see a movie with only one or two sets, we know we're in for an emotional whirlwind that usually leads to a startling catharsis for the characters. Would Twelve Angry Men as been have memorable (especially this many years later) if it included a court scene? If we saw the titular angry men at home before arriving at the courthouse? No. The film is still relevent because the people don't matter. Their names certainly don't, and their backgrounds are only important when lending information to their decision.

Would Hard Candy have been so... Hard to sit through... if it hadn;t have taken place in one small apartment? If it had been a frantic chase throughout a city, or if investigating "crime scenes" were incoroprated in some way? Say what you will about the film (I certainly have), but it knows what it needs, and it knows how to use what it has.

I advise you all to watch one of the films I've mentioned (Seriously, watch 12 Angry Men if you haven't), even if you don't like it, it will at the very least give you something to think about. To risk sounding cliche, and I'm sure like every single film teacher in the world; do we really need massive heaps of CGI to keep us interested? Sweeping landscape shots I accept in fantasies, but not when they serve to distract (sometimes intentionally) from lazy writing.

I'm looking at you, unobtanium.

"Why is Oldboy called Oldboy"?

My interpretation of a question I've seen asked a few times before (warning: obvious spoilers for Oldboy, which you should certainly have seen already goodness gracious)

Obviously Oh-Dae-Su mentions the oldboys in the final apartment scene, however that line was totally ad-libbed; so why is it so important to the film? Dae su was locked up for fifteen years, where he allowed his hate to consume him, and become the often-mentioned "monster". He becomes focused on revenge and most of his personality is dominated by surpressed rage and hate, much like Daniel Plainview from There will be Blood (though Plainview was born a monster rather than made one, according to the films logic on genes).

Dae su was put into the hotel, and for fifteen years, he strived on the most basic emotion, and had only one idea to focus on; revenge. His mind stayed stationary as time slipped by. During those fifteen years, Dae su did not develop, he did not change and he certainly did not mature. He became "book smart", sure, he had TV. However, emotionally he remained impriosned in his loathing for his host, and for fifteen long, miserable years, he was stuck. If anything he reverted to being more childish, focusing on the most basic emotion of anger.

Dae Su's mind was denied the ability to develop, however his body never stopped growing. He became a child trapped in the body of an old man; and old boy. The actors who played Oh-Dae Su and Woo-Jin-Lee seem a tad young to be playing characters we assume are around 35-40 - this is because the characters lives were literally put on hold by their quest for revenge (the actors playing Oh-Dae-Su and Woo-Jin-Lee were born in 62' and 76', with the film being released in 2003).

Movie critic martyrdom, and why it's bad for the industry (and humanity!)

I'd like to speak a moment about something I find quite troubling. Something quite childish.

I've noticed a large group of people are going to see movies, either with the preconception or certainty before entering the cinema, that they hate. People who are seeing films that they despise - people seeing bad films (Note: I don't mean enjoyably bad films, I loooovvveeeee me some Troll as much as the next guy) knowing full well they won't enjoy them. Why do they do this? They do it to justify their hate. These are not critics who have to watch these poor productions; they are just harpers.

An example: People who see the Twilight ironically. These people will pay money in order to view a film for the sole purpose of knowing that they were right, and that the series is bad. They're not seeing it hoping they're wrong and thinking they'll find some enjoyment out of the film, nor are they seeing it to laugh at how bad it is. They choose to torture themselves, simply so they can be the voice of criticism. I am troubled by this for two reasons:

1. It is giving money to bad filmmakers. This is similar to how countless numbers of people watch reality TV knowing it's bad, but watching because they seem to enjoy knowing "stupid" people watch the show, and seeing how "stupid" people are entertained. A Mitchell and Webb sketch commented on this, with the terrific line "they still show up the same in the ratings". We should not encourage mediocrity.

2. People do it so they can complain. Let's be honest here; people love to complain. We do it about everything; our jobs, work, our friends, food, the human race, entertainment, celebrities, sports and literally everything else possibly imaginable. It may come from the fact that people enjoy fighting, or more importantly, we enjoy winning fights. However, fights are now pretty hard to come by, and complaining is sort of as close as we can get now. It's a one sided fight; listing the faults of something, and being smug when you get through the list. Complaining will also eventually lead to meeting someone with a differeing opinion (a Twilight fan), leading into a fight ("FINALLY!!!" I imagine is what most complainers would tihnk).

It would be a mass understatement to say I don't care for the Twilight brand (in fact I feel it to be one of the worst things to happen to art in its entirity in a while), so I don't see the films. I'm guilty of complaining about them, but my dislike for the series doesn't require me torturing myself; I know I won't like the films, my experience with the books has left me breathless with confusion and uncomfortable itching. I'm not going to reward the makers of Twilight for doing this to me, why would I?

I'm just going to carry on complaining when in actuality it's probably not fair to do so. If you've got a problem with that, we can take this outside.

Welcome all.

I assume the minute number of people who have currently stumbled upon this blog are hardcore film nerds, and if this assumption is correct, then you may rest your weary eyes and tired hearts here. I understand. I understand the frustration of having to hear the piercing, cold words "you're thinking too much about it", or, even worse; "it's only a film".

Consider this a haven for those who think overthinking anything (especially art) is absurd. For those of you have have been up way past your bed time arguing with SOME JERK about the symbolism behind Twin Peaks, or carefully re-watching Planet of the Apes trying to keep track of all the communist metaphors.

So what can you expect from the blog? Well, I confess to being somewhat ignorant of exactly how these things work, but I'll basically be posting deconstructions of films, explorations of themes of misc. musings on the art of film making. I am absolutely not claiming to know more about movies than over movie geeks, or possibly even more than the average film-goer. I am simply sharing my opinions, which I am inflated enough to believe may be interesting, or, at the very least, inspire debate amongst my more interesting readers.

Ciao for the moment.