Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts
Showing posts with label reviews. Show all posts

Friday, 29 November 2024

Triple review: The Founder, Worth, and Irena’s Vow

Iconic

All three are based on a true story, are well made, and worth a watch... if you’re in the right mood. 

Let’s tackle The Founder first: it starts out as a Happy Commercial for McDonald’s, then careens into oncoming traffic, crashes into a ditch, and explodes, leaving black skid marks all over the road in its wake.


The film follows the story of down-on-his-luck (ain’t they all?) salesman Ray Kroc who's selling milkshake mixers in the idealized 1950’s. Or trying to. His travels often leave him eating in his car at roadside diners and burger joints, where the service is slow and the food equally meh. 


Then, a ray of light: McDonalds calls and orders 8 of his milkshake mixers. Impossible! No one orders eight mixers. Kroc immediately sets off to see with his own eyes the magical restaurant that needs 8 mixers. When he gets there, Ray's stunned: no one comes out to his car to take his order. He has to get out (innovation!) and go up to the window on foot. Remember, this is revolutionary stuff: the 1950's were practically the Stone Age. Kroc orders and BAM his food is right there. I mean, BOOM: Food. Instantly. No delay. And what's more, no plates. No dishes. No cutlery.


Ray’s baffled by awesomeness. 


This is the Temple Mount of American Fast Food. It couldn’t be more revelatory if crepuscular rays streaked out from between parting clouds and bathed Ray in light.


From there everything goes downhill spiritually as it goes up financially. Ray, it turns out, is not the paragon of entrepreneurial virtue we might have thought. Indeed, Ray’s an avaricious dick, the kind of guy who thinks Monopoly is a guide and not a warning. 


The rest, as they say, is spoilers. 




Worth also stars Michael Keaton, this time behind a Brooklyn accent and pair of spectacles. He plays a by-the-book star lawyer who takes on, pro bono, the seemingly thankless task of working out compensation for the victims of 9/11. 


It's even more gnarly than you think.


This is the guy who has divvy out money to grieving relatives according to a financial compensation formula. Putting a dollar amount on someone’s life, anyones life, is problematic enough, but when the amounts are less for some than for others, people get... irked. Spouses of formerly high flying execs (sorry) get far more than the building janitors. 


And there are all sorts of legal issues around same sex couples. 


The whole thing is a nasty business, a moral and legal landmine that Keaton’s character cheerfully steps on. The rest of the picture is essentially about him trying to get off that landmine.


It’s a morbidly fascinating look behind the curtain of the legal aftermath of 9/11. Thankfully, there is a ‘happy’ ending of sorts (circumstances permitting: no one is coming back from the dead here).




Irena’s Vow follows a young Polish nurse from 1939 to 1945, as she tries to survive the horrific Nazi occupation. She’s initially fortunate in getting work as a server at a restaurant for Nazi officers. She’s then hired to be the housekeeper of a German Major’s house. Thanks to her job, she learns what the Nazis have planned for the jewish ‘tailors’ who had been working in the basement of the restaurant, and decides to intercede: she offers them a place to hide… in the Major’s house.


Talk about hiding under the nose of the enemy. 


Sounds outlandish, right? Something a fiction writer would cook up. And to be honest, I kind of balked at it... but the film is actually based on a true story. Truth, as they say, is stranger than fiction. 


This is one gutsy lady.


Irena’s played by Québecois actress Sophie Nélisse, and she’s absolutely riveting. Her performance carries the movie. The only real criticism I have of her character is that she’s, well, pretty much flawless. And the real woman the film is based on may very well have been: she did save a dozen lives at great personal risk. But with our jaded modern mindset, throwing in a character flaw might have made her a little more relatable.


This is a low budget film, but it knows its limits, and never oversteps. Everything looks right for the period. There are a few staging choices that seem a little on the nose, and one awkward scene is even more awkward thanks to the direction and dialogue, but otherwise this is a solid film. 


I started watching it on Netflix, just to see if it was a decent movie or a low budget Canadian throwaway. I only intended to watch a few minutes, but half the movie went by before I even realized it. 


There are plenty of mega budget films (*cough* Multiverse of Madness *cough*) that can’t say the same. 


The Founder is the tale of an avaricious, driven anti-hero, while Worth is about a man who transcends his own limitations to become a better person. Irena’s Vow is about a paragon of virtue who risks her life for the sake of others, because it's the right thing to do. 


As people, they couldn’t be more different. 


Guess which one our extrinsic centred society rewarded most.


Go on, guess.


All I can say is, in a world overrun with wannabe Ray Krocs, I am grateful for the Irenas.






Monday, 18 November 2024

Everyone's a critic

Critics at war
Critics at war!

Normally, people just say to ignore the critics. That's what professionals do, after all. And many people out there are unbothered by criticism and blithely dismiss it. 

Life would certainly be easier if that was so easy. I don't think they're wrong, but I do sometimes wonder just how intense the criticism they have faced has been. 

Creatives working on major franchises, and especially (as one friend put it) 'nerd franchises', are prone to especially intense, detailed, and vociferous criticism. I don't think that's really much different than what is faced by sports team coaches and players, though. 

They have to get a thick skin, ASAP. 

Calm, rational, constructive criticism at its best!

Professional level athletes and particularly coaches are known for being pugnacious, tough and ornery. It's not a field for shrinking violets.

The creative arts, however, is a little more introspective and idiosyncratic. Good writers aren't always like Hemmingway, and massive waves of criticism can wear their creative energies away.

Such seems to have been the case with Stephen Moffat, the showrunner of Doctor Who. Doctor Who, for those of you not in the know, is one of the biggest shows on the BBC, a nerdy cultural juggernaut that specializes in terrifying children and driving them for safety behind the couch. 

Creative destruction with Stephen Moffat
Stephen Moffat in the field of creative destruction!

You don't get to that position without having some serious credentials and creative chops. 

And yet, Moffat has said (according to Doctor Who News & Update on Facebook, and on FlickLuster):

"The amount of hate you get could down three passenger jets. I mean, seriously, it doesn't stop... I was vilified endlessly. I was labelled a 'homophobe', a 'misandrist', 'misanthrope', 'sexist', a 'misogynist' and 'racist'. I was against so many people, I could only be described as an 'omni-bigot', because I was treating everyone equally."

When Moffat chose Chris Chibnall as his successor, he joked with him "how would you like me to ruin your life?" Fully aware that "absolutely everything you say or do will be wrong."

Yeah. Doesn't sound appealing.

The common public response is: tough, grow a pair. Entirely devoid of empathy. I'm not so sure that's the best answer, as many talented people who might do a fabulous job will simply not want the hassle and headache. And those who do (*cough* Chibnall *cough) won't be the best option. 

You see what I did there? I snuck in some fan snark. Guilty as the next person. 

This is one reason why I have trepidation about criticizing creative work, even the seemingly god-like show runners of the world's largest franchises. 

I get the passion. I really, really do. 

But we could all do with a little more civility and chill.

Is that a Ben & Jerry's flavour?


Monday, 21 October 2024

Collier's epic review of Star Trek: Picard

Back in The Before Time, in The Long Long Ago, Red Letter Media made a set of feature length Mr. Plinkett Reviews of the Star Wars Prequel Trilogy. 

They were incisive, entertaining, and above all, novel. 

Now? Epic reviews are multiplying at an exponential rate. Soon as fresh content comes out, vast swarms of YouTube reviewers descend upon it and tear it to pieces.

It used to be just Siskel & Ebert. Today there are a LOTS of smart, media savvy citizen reviewers. 

One such is Angela Collier, who's made a long (3 hours, 47 minutes) video on Star Trek: Picard, and why she didn't like it, from the perspective of a TNG fan. This one stood out.

I don't intend to review the review (it could be trimmed down a little), that'd be too meta; I'll just say she makes some great points:

I also hate Section 31. It undermines Roddenberry's vision of the future. 

Thursday, 5 September 2024

R-Ratings aren't just for blood, sex, and gore

Old man Logan

James Mangold on making Logan:

"For Mangold, allowing Logan to be R-rated was important, not so much for violent content, but for style: "For me, what was most interesting in getting the studio to okay an R-rating was something entirely different. They suddenly let go of the expectation that this film is going to play for children, and when they let go of that, you are free in a myriad of ways. The scenes can be longer. Ideas being explored in dialogue or otherwise can be more sophisticated. Storytelling pace can be more poetic, and less built like attention-span-deficit theater."

When you put it like that, it becomes obvious why so much cinema is the way it is. 

Saturday, 31 August 2024

Retro-review: The Pink Panther Strikes Again

Clouseau in one of his incredible under-cover disguises

This is 1970s Austin Powers long before Austin Powers: a deranged Inspector Dreyfuss escapes from the mental institution and creates a terrifyingly powerful criminal organization with one goal: to kill Clouseau! 

He doesn't go about it directly, oh no, he decides to use his organization to blackmail the rest of the entire world into killing Clouseau, because that's easier than... actually trying to kill the unkillable Clouseau. 

The ridiculous doomsday disintegration laser: so fancy!

Peter Sellers is in top form here, and plays the oblivious fool Clouseau with fine understatement, bumbling from one success to another, despite the odds.

He's a one man wrecking machine, and to be honest, I have sympathy for poor old by-the-book Inspector Dreyfuss. He's like Grimes from the Simpsons: a regular joe who does everything right and still winds up trailing far behind a fool (in Grimes' case, Homer Simpson). 

What might kill an ordinary man, or an army, is nothing to Homer or Clouseau. 

Dreyfuss picks an old castle for his lair, which isn't quite as iconic as a volcano, but his disintegration laser is right out of the most absurd James Bond flicks. And Inspector Clouseau's attempts to break inside the fortress are side splitting. 

Dreyfuss's castle of evil

This flick marked the apex of The Pink Panther series of films. They never again came even close to this, which is a real shame. The Oktoberfest sequences, and toothache climax, are sublimely funny when you're 8. 

I also really liked the guy who played President Gerald Ford: "Who won the game?!?"

Peter Sellers made one more appearance as Clouseau (in Revenge of the Pink Panther) before passing, and while he's still fabulous, the movie just didn't split my sides like Strikes Again did. 

Clouseau's face melting off, pre-Raiders of the Lost Arc! I'm telling you, this film was WAY ahead of its time!

Thursday, 29 August 2024

The Boys season 4 review

Homelander
The best worst villain on TV

The show's still got it, but the paint job is wearing thin. 

Franchises are repetitive by their very nature, but work best when the audience isn't constantly being made aware of this. 

I'd tune in to watch the X-Files, for example, with a vague expectation of what I was in for: a spooky occurrence, Mulder and Scully getting dispatched to investigate, Mulder insisting it's aliens while Scully desperately rationalizes, jeopardy followed by our heroes either overcome the foe or escaping by the skin of their teeth, with Mulder largely confirmed in his beliefs... yet still with room for doubt. The same as every week, just different. Swapped in details, same format. 

Same goes for The Boys, although it is far less episodic and more season (and multi-season) story arcs. In season 4, the show cycles through the usual corrupt hero tropes, just with different heroes than previous seasons. 

Nothing moves forward.

Don't get me wrong: I still enjoyed the show, I like the satirical bent of it all, and it's very sharp edged humour at times. The gross out stuff grated a bit, though; they've dived into that sordid pit over and over, and it's kind of getting old. Having said that, it seems to be baked into the DNA of The Boys, and the dungeon of the faux-Batman stuff... I still can't believe they put that on television. 

For all the glorious blood spattered exploded brains and sex act juvenilia, it felt like padding, like they were dragging their feet, and honestly, I think they were, in order to have that cliffhanger finale.

Fortunately, in the last couple episodes of the season, everything speeds up and events cascade. 

NOW things feel like they're moving forward again. I suspect they wanted to save the really bonkers stuff for the final season. 

Kripke was the showrunner on Supernatural and told a well realized story arc that concluded with season five. Then he left, and the show was kept on life support as a Zombie Franchise for 10 more seasons because money. But this bodes well for The Boys: Kripke very likely DOES have an ending in mind, and I expect it to be both disgusting and spectacular.

Which is exactly what you'd expect, and want, for The Boys 

I have faith!

Friday, 23 August 2024

Delicious in Dungeon is bonkers fun

Delicious in Dungeon: let's get cooking!
Let's get cooking that basilisk!

Delicious in Dungeon is a Japanese Anime based on a Manga (by Ryoko Kui) about a group of Western style Dungeons & Dragons adventurers going down into a dungeon and cooking the monsters. Of course, they do this while trying to rescue a friend who's being slowly digested, after a TPK, in the belly of a Red Dragon.

It's a fantasy adventure comedy cooking show. 

I'm not kidding.

If that style of weird is up your alley, Delicious in Dungeon may be for you!

It's (dryly) very funny, the monsters are clever, and the cooking angle is a hoot. The colourful characters are over the top in a good way. One of them, I suspect, was originally a cat. 

The main group consists of a fighter who's monster cuisine obsessed, a young female wizard-elf, a... gnome? I think? And a dwarf who joins them on the way.

It cuts to a second group of less fortunate adventurers from time to time, and their paths intersect more and more. 

The show doesn't shy away from depicting violence, or blood and guts, or internal organs, or seasoning and grilling. It makes me wonder what basilisk or animated armour tastes like.

The 'Dungeon Master' is a sly lil' elf character who manages the entire place (of course he does!). Thought went into plotting out the dungeon ecology. 

The show plays with D&D tropes like deathless characters: players repeatedly head down into the dungeon, death after death, until they find success. Here, it's not so much a game mechanic as it is an aspect of this dungeon: death is not permanent, thanks to magic and curses and some such. It's a mix of tongue in cheek meta-commentary, contextual humour, and straight up adventure, with some mystery thrown in on the side.

Which is just what I'd expect from a fantasy adventure comedy cooking show.

Wouldn't you?

Frog costumes
They also wear cute frog suits as camouflage at one point. Because of course they did!

Monday, 10 June 2024

Furiosa is fantastic

furiosa movie poster

Furiosa is an action-packed, splatterfest roller coaster ride. 

Sure, it rehashes action sequences from earlier entries, such as the climactic attack on the tanker truck in the classic Road Warrior, but it adds turbo powered rocket engines, insane stunt work and mind-blowing virtuoso direction.

This is a sumptuous post-apocalypse wasteland of saturated colours, sweeping vistas, quick cuts and ultra-violence. 

It's gob smacking good, and while it is on the long side (what movie isn't these days?), I was never bored or taken out of the story. The film just keeps pummelling you with bat-shit insane characters, incredible action, and post-apoc concepts, you're too stunned to complain. 

Unlike Fury Road, this isn't just a run on action sequence: we get more world building and background in this outing than we have since... well, Road Warrior

Chris Hemsworth is excellent as the appropriately scenery chewing Dementus, an unhinged, megalomaniacal leader of a biker gang horde. He squares off against the more calculating Immorten Joe, his accountant, and the fanatical War Boys. Naturally Furiosa is caught in the middle. 

Cars crash, people are impaled, shot, beheaded, diced and run over, and lots of stuff explodes. 

What's not to like? 

Anya Taylor-Joy is very good as Furiosa. She doesn't have many lines, and her character isn't as flamboyant as Dementus, but she makes what she's given work. She's essentially the new Mad Max: the strong but silent type. In her case, it's more strength of spirit.

I love that in this post-apocalypse there's a grouchy accountant with the nipples on his suit ripped out and a gas mask over his crotch. What the hell? The costume design is over the top fabulous, like a fashion runway got mixed up with post-apocalypse survivors and a down-on-its-luck carnival show. 

Highly recommended. See it in IMAX if you can, it's worth the extra cash. 

"There is no hope!!!"

Tuesday, 7 May 2024

Civil War review

Civil War movie poster

I quite enjoyed it. 

Well. 

As much as you can 'enjoy' a such harrowing film. 

It focuses on a group of journalists travelling to interview a third-term President (who has obviously chucking out term limits) before 'The Western Powers' of California and Texas topple him. 

It doesn't go into the causes of the conflict. It doesn't spend a lot of time with the families of the journalists.

It doesn't have to.

It's a road trip through hell, told over a couple of days. It gives, for my money, just enough detail about the characters to keep us engaged. How much would I expect to know a person after a short road trip? These are not simple archetypes spouting glib one-liners. They feel more nuanced.

Could they have discussed more personal things? Talked about their childhoods and their dysfunctional families, their personal politics and values, messy relationship history and favourite TV shows? Sure. But it might also have added bloat to a very pared down screenplay.

The cast is all excellent. There was nothing that took me out of the film, although it slumps a little in the middle act (a common problem with a lot of films) but then barrels to a very kinetic ending. 

The main cast is tight, a mere four characters

The journey in Civil War is the thing: not just the physical one to Washington, D.C, but the personal. The young, aspiring war photographer matures over the course of the film under the wing of a cynical old one. They helpfully have her presentation and wardrobe change over the course of the film, in case we missed the point. 

That worked for me. 

The other half is a bit like Heart of Darkness or Apocalypse Now as they travel through an increasingly bizarre and nightmarish America at war with itself. Here Alex Garland could have gone even further, but then, he may not have wanted to make something as surreal as Apocalypse

Meaningless destruction and suffering, whatever the cause(s) of the civil war, is the point. That, in my opinion, is why the causes are not elaborated upon. You could also argue that there are a few so-called 'dog whistles' embedded in the script that give you some hints. 

Ultimately, it's open enough for viewers to read what they want into it. 

To me, the film is a powerful warning of what NOT to do. 

The cost of a second American Civil War would be enormous, and Xi and Putin salivate at the thought of it. Foreign troll farms deliberately try to escalate arguments online and sow division with disinformation and incendiary material, with the ultimate goal of turning Americans against themselves. 

Let's hope America does not fall for it.

Tuesday, 12 March 2024

Dune II review: epically awesome and awesomely epic

"Hey you guys, I found my knife!"

This is one of those rare films that simply must be seen in IMAX.

It's a breathtaking, epic spectacle. 

The art direction alone is worth the price of admission, IMHO.

Visually on par with Lawrence of Arabia and other classics, this is a hyper-serious take on the ttale of a messiah created by a bunch of space nuns, trapped in a neo-feudal nightmare galaxy of murder, intrigue, betrayal and fanaticism. 

If anyone was going to make gigantic mile long sand worms believable, it's Denis Villeneuve. 

Run away!

Dune II is faster paced and more of a roller coaster than the first installment (which proceeded at a rather stately pace) and it kept me hooked from beginning to end, despite being familiar with the books. 

It's a stunning triumph, a visual feast, and the most impressive film I think I've seen in a very long time. In terms of visual impact, it's up there with the original Star Wars, 2001: A Space OdysseyThe Matrix, or The Lord of the Rings. It's a little less emotionally affecting than the modern classic LOTR, but still highly enjoyable, immersive, and easily the visual equal. 

Herbert was concerned with how people can be manipulated to believe collective myths (such as ideologies). Ideologies are enormously powerful, capable of uniting millions of separate individuals into a gestalt organism that can accomplish great, or terrible, things. Nation states, empires, religions, political ideologies are essentially collective organisms, and human history is littered with their deeds. 

Dune I and II effectively convey the wastefulness and paranoia of a feudal universe, where every royal is constantly on guard, wary of assassins, while the masses are little more than cannon fodder. Chaff for the gestalt grinders. 

Tinfoil is back in, boys!

The Bene Gesserit genetic experiment to create the ultimate human leader is a crucible through which the Atreides, Harkonen and Corrino must pass. These machinations drive the entire plot, and most of the foreground players are merely pawns of it, causing untold bloodshed and suffering while they play their parts. Why exactly are they trying to create this ultimate ruler? I don’t remember the book providing an answer, but it might be to escape the feudal trap. 

Paul is initially sympathetic, but as he grows in power he finds his actions constrained by the role he must play. The film also states flat out that horrible crimes lie in his future, and the death of billions. 

The script is smart and faithfully brings to screen Frank Herbert's sci-fi classic. There are a few on the nose lines, which might have been mandated (it's a complicated scenario Denis Villeneuve has to set up, executives might have insisted on more clarification); the only other quibble I have is that there were some changes to the story, additions and omissions, that I didn't really understand the reason for, and after awhile the sheer weight and scale of the film can feel a little crushing. Everything here is BIG; even door openings are epic. 

"I hate sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating and it gets in everything!"

The acting is top notch. It's not a character film, it's an epic, and it doesn't delve as much into Paul's inner world (for example) as it might, but you'd need 9 hours to bring all the inner life from the books to film. As it is, you get all the information and character context you need to understand what's going on. 

The music is immersive, powerful and compelling; as usual from Hans Zimmer, it also made me wonder if I came out with hearing damage. 

Dave Bautista gets to yell a lot in Dune. And I mean A LOT.

Denis Villeneuve has crafted an epic sci-fi art film in a class of its own. He has an undeniable eye for scale, like Gareth Edwards, and he merges that with top tier material; the production design here–the ships, the costumes, the sets—are as close to perfect as fallible humanity is likely to get. I can't find anything to criticize. They're unique, unlike anything else in sci-fi. 

I can't recommend this film highly enough. Don't wait for it on streaming, see this in the theatre, in IMAX if possible. Take ear plugs as a precaution, it will be LOUD.

Read my face
I can't wait for Dune: Messiah. 

Oh yes: the movie is too long. But all movies these days feel too long to me. 

Monday, 11 March 2024

(Sort of) Russian literature review: Day of the Oprichnik & War with Russia: An Urgent Warning

day of the oprichnik cover

Day of the Oprichnik 

by Vladimir Sorokin

This was sold to me as a kvass soaked satire of Putin's Russia. I can see some parallels, in the mixture of religion and fascism with an Imperial Czarist face. But it's really more of a parody of General Pyotr Nikolayevich Krasnov (ataman of the Don Cossack Host) 1927 utopian novel Behind the Thistle, in which he posits the return of the Czar.

Everything positive that Krasnov posits is revealed as dysfunctional by Sorokin. The infallible, imperious leader is a petty Machiavellian tyrant. The Oporichniks (based on Ivan the Terrible's secret police) are brutal thugs who rape and murder in the name of both Czar and God. They observe religious rituals and trifles while committing horrific crimes with a clean if twisted conscience. They engage in extensive drug use and sodomy that the church would imprison others for. The book is a litany of hypocrisy, of entitled elites exploiting and oppressing the people in the most amoral fashion while marinating in their own self-aggrandizing piety. 

Technology in this nightmare state is skewed and warped to serve the system, with some extreme high tech and the rest... not so much. Only what is of use to the regime, what keeps it in power, is leveraged. 

It's a good dystopian book, but it's an ugly read, despite the poetic leanings of Sorokin. The florid prose is like dressing on roadkill. 


War with Russia cover

by General Sir Richard Shirreff 

I picked this book up in the wake of all the articles and hand-wringing about a possible Russian attack on the Baltic States after Russia defeats Ukraine. The author, Sir Richard, is a former Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe of NATO and showed up on a news video I saw which touched on his book, and its prediction of a Russian invasion of Ukraine (followed by an attack on the Baltics). 

Given the current state of the world, that peaked my interest. The Baltics are NATO members, so Article Five would presumably be invoked should the Russians attack, setting off WWIII. 

Surely an insane scenario, yet one being seriously considered now by people in the know. I wanted to understand why.

War with Russia is filled with more military jargon and acronyms than you can shake a stick at. Yes, the author knows his stuff. No, I did not need to know the calibre and specifications of every weapon. 

This sort of thing is to be expected of a book in the Tom Clancy vein (military gear porn!), with loosely sketched characters, mostly out of central military casting. It does include a variety of political figures, and pointed behind-the-scenes machinations, some of which are no doubt culled from the author's personal experiences. Impractical defense spends, budget cuts, fickle leaders in pursuit of approval ratings, and military decisions driven by photo op opportunity all get a spill of ink. 

The plot unfolds briskly, the action scenes have verisimilitude, and the story is disturbingly believable.

And that's the real point: the narrative trappings are just the sugar coating on the policy paper pill. 

An attack on the Baltic states actually is possible. It is unlikely and would be a huge gamble, but then, Putin looks like more of a poker player, than a chess player, by the day.

Shirreff's posits a lightning strike by Russian combined arms into the Baltics, with paratroopers being dropped in from Narva and supported by armoured columns. The Russian plan is to  present the West with a fait accompli: occupy the Baltics, formally annex them, and declare any attack on Russian territory will result in a nuclear response.

The Baltics are small and their armed forces are tiny; they don't have the ability to stop a determined Russian attack. They can make the occupation unpleasant, but by then it will be too late. 

As the Ukrainians have discovered, it's extremely difficult to root out entrenched Russian troops. The US would not have total air superiority here, unlike in Desert Storm. Invading the Baltics would be enormously costly, and Western European governments might not want to spend lives on a (seemingly) lost cause against a foe that thinks nothing of its own combat casualties.

NATO also requires members unanimously agree to activate Article Five; with Hungary practically a Russian vassal, that's not likely. The larger NATO has gotten, the more unwieldy, slow and bureaucratic it has become. Worse, anything they discuss winds up on Putin's desk within a few hours. 

Putin also ascribes to something called 'Nuclear De-escalation'. The term is not what it seems: if NATO were to launch a major ground attack on the Baltics, or Kaliningrad, Putin would drop a nuke on Warsaw or Berlin. This would so shock Western governments that they would completely back off, and the conflict would turn to negotiated settlement on Russian terms. That's the idea, at any rate. 

Peachy.

Only an inveterate gambler would dare to pull a stunt like this. 

Is Putin that guy?

I'm not sure, and neither it seems are the pundits. Some assert this attack is inevitable, others insist it's delusional nonsense. 

Either way, the doomsday clock is closer to striking than ever before: we're now 90 seconds away, 'at a moment of historic danger'. 

Rather sobering.

Friday, 24 November 2023

From Voyager to For All Mankind: Ronald D. Moore's fabulous forays into the cosmos

For All Mankind hero image

For All Mankind
 season one is superb TV. 

It's one of the best sci-fi shows out there. Maybe one of the best shows on TV currently, period, and for a number of reasons. 

They say with good writing, you:

1) Create characters people love.

2) Put those characters through sheer hell.

FAM does exactly that. 

The cast of characters is nuanced, diverse and easy to root for. Rather than engaging in easy breezy cynicism, it displays the resilience, courage and adaptability of humanity. And yet, these are no idealized supermen: they struggle with their own flaws and weaknesses, often being forced to acknowledge their own imperfections in order to better collaborate with others.

This is the latest foray into the cosmos by the extraordinary show runner Ronald D. Moore. Every time he gets both more brilliant, and closer and closer to reality. 

He started his career submitting spec scripts to Star Trek (his favourite show), and on the strength of those, got into the writer's room of The Next Generation. That is no easy feat. From there, he went to the more serialized Deep Space Nine; where he wrote some of its best and most memorable episodes.

He followed that up with a very brief stint on Voyager. Unfortunately, he hated it, and quickly bounced. In an interview, he didn't hold any punches: Voyager failed to fulfill the promise of the premise.

the other voyager
Not this Voyager, the other one

"I just don't understand why it doesn't even believe in itself. Examine the fundamental premise of VOYAGER: A starship chases a bunch of renegades. Both ships are flung to the opposite side of the galaxy. The renegades are forced to come aboard Voyager. They all have to live together on their way home, which is going to take a century or whatever they set up in the beginning. 

I thought, This is a good premise. That's interesting. Get them away from all the familiar STAR TREK aliens, throw them out into a whole new section of space where anything can happen. Lots of situations for conflict among the crew. The premise has a lot of possibilities. 

...This ship was going to have problems. It wasn't going to have unlimited sources of energy. It wasn't going to have all the doodads of the Enterprise. It was going to be rougher, fending for themselves more, having to trade to get supplies that they want. 

That didn't happen. 

It doesn't happen at all, and it's a lie to the audience. I think the audience intuitively knows when something is true and something is not true. VOYAGER is not true. If it were true, the ship would not look spick-and-span every week, after all these battles it goes through. How many times has the bridge been destroyed? How many shuttlecrafts have vanished, and another one just comes out of the oven? 

That kind of bullshitting the audience takes its toll. At some point, the audience stops taking it seriously, because they know that this is not really the way this would happen. These people wouldn't act like this.”

I can't argue with that: Moore makes very good points. Sadly, he couldn't make any headway against the executives running the show.

That fruitless creative collision led Moore to jump ship and reboot Battlestar Galactica instead, turning it into the best sci-fi show on TV in the early 2000s. It was innovative, gritty and far more adult than anything Star Trek had done to date. The fleeing survivors of Caprica dealt with all kinds of shortages, unlike the pampered TNG crew who could just replicate anything they wanted with the push of a button (or 'Tea. Earl Grey. Hot'). Ships flew in a more realistic manner, and they even toyed with removing all the sound from space scenes. 

Storylines were daring, dark and tied back to The War on Terror, making it must-see TV.

At least, it was for the first two seasons. 

Battlestar Galactica
BSG: So good it can get away with a pic like this

One of the main themes of the show (That everyone never agrees on anything, making compromise and negotiation necessary for civilization to function) got jettisoned out the airlock in the finale. The survivors put their ships on automatic pilot and sent them soaring into the sun, along with all their tech, universally adopting a hunter-gatherer subsistence existence on earth. 

Okay, sure.

Yuval Harrari would be proud. 

Thanks to the hive mind, BSG wrapped up with a neat if perplexing bow. Maybe I just didn't understand the premise of the show. Moore would know. I can't help but imagine a postscript where, once everyone else is frolicking in hippie-time meadow, criminal gangs reveal squirrelled away tech & weapons and take over.

But for the first two seasons, it was breathtaking, genre defining sci-fi. BSG pushed the sci-fi envelope and then some. 

Now, Moore is back with some of his best work yet: an alternate history show centred around the space program. The central conceit is that the Soviets landed on the moon first. Like the flapping of the wings of a butterfly, this causes a cascade of further changes. As the show progresses through the decades, the more it diverges from what we know as reality. 

Moore wisely avoids rehashing The Right Stuff, Apollo 13, and the like. Instead, the space program is the supporting scaffolding upon which human drama can be hung. For All Mankind is as much about culture, prejudice, social change, organizational and individual fallibility, and the human experience as it is about space shuttles and moon bases.

Each season covers a decade, starting with the sixties. The period details are wonderful, and the evolution of the cast's fashions fun to digest. 

Thanks to the Soviets landing a woman on the moon, the Americans are forced to include women in the space program. Propaganda posturing propels them to become more inclusive, the better to win hearts and minds. Yet the social improvements that cascade out of these calculated, reptilian motives winds up improving society as a whole. 

Allowing everyone to contribute to a society to the best of their ability maximizes human capital, making society stronger and healthier.

The show tackles everything from panic attacks, alcoholism, egotism, to geopolitics and space hazards, yet remains hopeful and positive throughout. 

It's a virtuoso performance: For All Mankind sees all the warts, yet loves humanity anyway.

Give it a watch on Apple+. 

It's too good to miss.

astronauts from For All Mankind
Astronauts heading out to watch For All Mankind