Outlander

Sympathy plays an important role in character development in films. Without sympathy, why do we care about the protagonist? Sympathy can be used to make us cry when a character dies, it can be used to make us cheer when they emerge victorious, and it can be used to pull the rug out from under us when a character turns out to be evil. If sympathy can make or break a film, consider Outlander broken.

Outlander is one of those films that, after reading the plot, you think that it's going to be the most bad ass film of all time. Outlander is the story of Kainen, a space marine who crash lands on planet Earth during the time of the Vikings. He is pursued by a giant space creature called a Morwen, and he must band together with a kingdom of Vikings to destroy the creature. Did I mention that the role of Kainen is played by Jim Caviezel, a.k.a. Jesus Christ? After reading a plot description like this, I walked into the theatre fully erect. I left it, not with priapism, but with erectile dysfunction.

There were so many things I wanted to complain about during this movie that I realized I needed a notepad to keep track of them. I'll start with what I mentioned in the opening paragraph. The biggest problem with this film is it's lack of sympathy development. Kainen is obviously the protagonist in the film. He crash lands on the planet and is taken hostage by a local group of Vikings. The Vikings think he may be part of a rival village, and they interrogate him with their fists. So, being a standard audience member, I should now feel sympathy for Kainen's plight and dislike the Vikings who just beat the shit out of him. Immediately following this scene, the film decides that now would be the time for the Morwen (the evil space creature) to attack the village. We're shown scenes of the brake Vikings falling in battle... but wait... why do we care? Weren't these the people that we were just shown beating the shit out of our hero, Kainen? Aren't they the bad guys?

With a skilled director, this sort of back and forth sympathy play could be used as a tool to make more dynamic characters and play with the audience's emotions, but fear not: These characters are as one sided as ever. The problem is that the director (the film, the producer, who do I blame here?) just seems to forget which side the characters are on. At the beginning of the film, we're introduced to some of the Viking characters that will play a larger role in the tale. Rothgar, the leader of the tribe, his (not) surprisingly well groomed and attractive daughter, Freya, and the hot-headed commander Wulfric. (Guess which one of those three gets taken hostage by the Morwen?) Wulfric is set to ascend to the throne on the death of Rothgar, and it is shown early in the film that he has strong feelings for Freya. One would suspect, as Kainen and Freya grow closer, that a love triangle would develop. Surprisingly, Wulfric seems to completely forget that he has feelings for Freya after the first ten minutes of the film, and Kainen and he become best buddies. And finally, the star of the show, the Morwen. The Morwen is a CGI monster with the upper body of a Hell Knight from Doom 3 and the rear of Godzilla from the horrible Matthew Broderick film. To be honest, it does look wicked, and the graphics are well done for such a low budget movie. It's unfortunate that the sounds it makes are "generic demonic monster sound taken from Doom 3" (so much so that iD software should probably contact their lawyers). Oh, there's also a Viking in this film named Boromir. Someone should contact the Tolkein family about that.

There's a lot of forgetfulness in this film, and I often wondered whether there was some underling dementia that had been written into the script. After the first attack on the village by the Morwen, the Viking men band together with Kainen to go hunt the creature. They find a cave that houses a giant bear, and they all work together to slay the animal. Cheer, drinks, and celebration ensue, because the Vikings all think that they've slain the creature that attacked their village. Kainen is well-aware that the creature that was killed was not the Morwen, yet he neglects to mention this small, but important, detail to anyone during the party. Maybe he just wanted to enjoy the free booze, or maybe he was still pissed that the Vikings had just beaten the crap out of him the day before. There are numerous plot holes in this film that revolve around characters and entities forgetting obvious facts, most of which would spoil the movie, but just be warned. There are some "are you kidding me?!" moments towards the bitter end.

But, back to sympathy. I mentioned earlier that sympathy was a large reason for why this film fails. The main conflict driving this film is that Kainen is being pursued by this horrific creature, and he needs to defend himself and the Vikings from destruction. Great, so we're supposed to care about his survival, right? Well, about that... Kainen decides to take a moment in the middle of the film to give us more insight into the backstory. We learn what his actual duties were, and why he was crash landing with a Morwen stowed aboard his ship. I'm not going to spoil anything, but let me just say that it doesn't paint him in a positive light. In fact, he sounds like a real douchebag after telling us the story. Again, in the hands of a skilled director, this could have been used to develop a dynamic and conflicted character. This never happens. Kainen is a one-dimensional hero that we're supposed to cheer for because he's fighting a monster.

The positive in this film is that Ron Perlman plays a dual hammer wielding bad ass Viking named Gunnar.

Ideological Formalism and the Sci-Fi Original

I've recently begun reading more on formalist theory and filmmaking. It's become obvious that ideological formalism, the idea that the classical Hollywood editing style is the way it is to appeal the most to to the audience and to earn the most profit, holds much truth. This is also evident in the Sci-Fi Original. For those unaware, the Sci-Fi Originals are a collection of quickly produced low budget monster or horror films produced or purchased excusively for the Sci-Fi network. These films typically have names like "Boa vs. Python" or "Frankenfish" and hearken back to the days of true B-movies.

Ideological Formalism is different from Auteur Theory of formalism in one key area: motivation. Ideological Formalism is the idea that it is not the director's own personal motivations and experiences that drive the film (such as in Auteur Theory) but the socio-economic and human pressures around him. In this sense, Sci-Fi originals embody Ideological Formalism in it's purest sense.

These films are mass produced, coming out at an astonishing rate of once each week, for a Saturday night premiere on the Sci-Fi network. They require small budgets of only one million to two million. The pressures put on them to keep the costs down greatly influence the filmmaking process. By releasing direct to DVD or a cable network, the filmmakers avoid the extensive costs of film processing. The films often have a basic set, such as a city, a jungle, or a desert. They often star almost all unknown actors, or at the most an actor with few major film credits such as Robert Beltran. Rarely, famous "B-movie" actors are cast in films. Stephen Baldwin, being an example, has starred in numerous straight to video or television films shown on the Sci-Fi channel.

The "monster" is the major draw for the film. The filmmakers need to come up with something original, yet amusing enough to retain the camp that is present in all of these films. Each film strives to be more over the top than the previous one, in order to grab the ratings on Saturday night. This is why sequels, spinoffs, or cliches will frequently occur. For example, "Boa vs. Python" was released in 2004. Since then, the snake meme has perpetuated in the Sci-Fi original film library. Following "Boa vs. Python" has been "Snakehead Terror" (2004), "The Snake King" (2005), "Fire Serpent" (2007), "Mega Snake" (2007), "Vipers" (2008), "and "Copperhead" (2008). This is one of many of the frequent memes present in Sci-Fi Original films. The filmmakers are heavily influenced by the success and ratings of the films. They will keep producing different snake films until it stops being profitable.

Ideological Formalism isn't a bad thing. To put it quite simply, it shows that we're influenced by external factors much of the time. It's clear that these filmmakers are producing these films for the ratings, and audiences respond well to that. Audiences aren't always looking for pure art in film, otherwise Michael Bay would be out of a job (...zing). Until the ratings shift in the other direction, Sci-Fi Original filmmakers will keep bringing us giant mythological creatures attacking a rag-tag band of adventures each week, and we'll keep enjoying watching them.

Full Frame Documentary Film Festival Prelims

I volunteered to work at the Full Frame Documentary Film Festival this year. I originally wanted to be a photographer, but the spots were limited and filled quickly. Instead, I will be working the "Civic," which basically means nothing important to any of you. The important fact is that I know have free reign to see as many films as I possibly can during the festival.

The organizer informed us that our volunteer pass allows us "about ten films." She said this as an estimation because, as she put it, "that's about as much as you will have time to see." She added that if someone was superhuman, they could make time to see more than ten, and in fact see as many as they want.

I'm planning on taking off work from my regular job during the Thursday and Friday of the festival to see as many films as I possibly can. I will of course be writing reviews of these films for my blog, so look forward to frequent updates from April 2nd through 5th.

Post-Oscar Wrap Up: How well did I do?

First off, I want to commend the designers of the show. It was incredibly well done. Now that that's out of the way, let's see how bad I did:

Best Adapted Screenplay:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Original Screenplay:
I chose In Bruges. The winner? Milk.

Best Director:
I chose Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire. The winner? Danny Boyle with Slumdog Millionaire.

Best Supporting Actress:
I chose Marisa Tomei. The winner? Penelope Cruz.

Best Supporting Actor:
I chose Heath Ledger. The winner? Heath Ledger.

Best Actress:
I chose Kate Winslet. The winner? Kate Winslet.

Best Actor:
I chose Mickey Rourke. The winner? Sean Penn.

Best Picture:
I chose Slumdog Millionaire . The winner? Slumdog Millionaire.

That's 5 out of 8 correct, or 63%. In reviewing the picks that I got wrong, they definitely were close match-ups. I would love to see the voting results from the Academy. I imagine that the Best Actor category was very close.

I'm also surprised to see that The Curious Case of Benjamin Button somehow managed to avoid winning any major awards. It was nominated for thirteen, and it took home only 3: Art Direction, Makeup, and Visual Effects. I should mention that it won most of these while competing against The Dark Knight, so the fanboys are in an uproar this morning.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Summary

With the Academy Awards just an hour away, here is the summary of my chosen nominations. I'm listing this for either posterity or embarrassment, depending on how correct my choices are.

Best Adapted Screenplay: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Original Screenplay: In Bruges
Best Director: Slumdog Millionaire
Best Supporting Actress: Marisa Tomei
Best Supporting Actor: Heath Ledger
Best Actress: Kate Winslet
Best Actor: Mickey Rourke
Best Picture: Slumdog Millionaire

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 8: Best Picture

And here we are, the Oscar for Best Picture. Arguably the most prestigious award any film can ever hope to receive. We have five strong films here, and this is going to be good. Let's look at the nominees:

The Curious Case of Benjamin Button - When Forrest Gump came out 13 years ago, it swept the Oscars, arriving with a record setting 13 nominations and leaving with 6 Oscars: Best Adapted Screenplay, Best Editing, Best Visual Effects, Best Director, Best Actor, and Best Picture. The Curious Case of Benjamin Button has been compared to Forrest Gump, both in it's storyline, it's epic scope, and it's devotion to telling a story about American life. This film has 13 nominations going into tonight, the exact same as Forrest Gump. How many will it take home?

Frost/Nixon - Admittedly the underdog in this race. Ron Howard's adaptation of the play of the same name is led largely by the performances of the two leading actors, which makes it a long-shot for taking home the win.

Milk - Put a brilliant actor and a brilliant director together and what to do get? This film, which chronicles the life and death of Harvey Milk, California's first openly gay elected official. This film has been getting heaps of praise for it's portrayal and of Sean Penn's award-winning performance. This film wasn't nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture, with Revolutionary Road taking it's place.

The Reader - Nominated for a Golden Globe for Best Picture as well, this period piece, wouldn't have been up here without Kate Winslet.

Slumdog Millionaire - Is this film really the underdog that people are claiming it to be? Slumdog Millioniare may have been a small film, especially compared to the gargantuan budget of Benjamin Button, but this movie has already taken home numerous awards including a Golden Globe for Best Picture. With critics fawning all over this film, it looks to be Slumdog's year.

Conclusion: I choose Slumdog Millionaire, Regis. And, yes, that's my final answer.

2009 Oscar Best Contenders Part 7: Best Actor

What sort of hodge-podge has this years Oscars brought us? A selection of epic proportions.

Richard Jenkins, The Visitor - A man who has worked in the field for thirty-five years, finally getting recognition by numerous groups all for this one film. Is this the only chance in his life at Oscar gold?

Frank Langella, Frost/Nixon - Another established actor. A career spanning forty-five years. Numerous accolades. His first Oscar nomination. Has he finally done enough to win?

Sean Penn, Milk - The Oscar veteran. His fifth nomination in the past 14 years, and possibly his second win. Will he had another trophy to his case?

Brad Pitt, TCCOBB - The pretty boy. The Hollywood sex symbol. His second Oscar nomination. Can he overcome his image to finally claim gold?

Mickey Rourke, The Wrestler - Out of nowhere, it's Mickey Rourke. The ultimate underdog in this contest. Huge amounts of buzz; claims of "resurrection." When did this B-movie star turn into a genuine actor of Academy material?

Conclusion: It's going to be Davis vs. Goliath. Rourke flexed acting muscles he didn't even know he had, and he finally proved he's capable enough to be a respected actor. Penn is the veteran, and always gives a spellbinding performance in all of his films. Here's hoping: Rourke takes home the gold.