Failed Idealism

Inside every cynic is a disappointed and failed idealist

  • Dream and the Dreaming

    • 24 Jul 2009
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Comics Gushing Review
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Through a degree of belligerence and dog-eardness a friend finally convinced me to try Neil Gaiman's Sandman series.

    The irritating thing here is that my friend was right (I hate those rare occasions)I loved every page of the book. so much in so that a mere two weeks later I’ve finished half of the 11 book series.

    The series has a mythic otherworldly air to it, nothing needs validation or explanation to be accepted. the magic that exists is never quantifiable, nor is the structure of the Dream-verse probed for reason. It is a massive story, which for me is definitely part of the appeal, Gaiman evidently undertook an epic amount of research, as the series references elements from a vast diversity of mythologies, some of which are adapted to fit, some plucked directly from millennia old tales and texts.

    Never have I read a book that can have Nordic gods, Egyptian deities, Christian angels and demons, Japanese figures and above that a collection of Endless beings personifying experiences and emotions of humans all interacting together, without explanation. it is an incredible achievement, and a fascinating one. A new character pops up, with a few scant lines of origin or relevance and then disappears. From experience I recognise the name, and the character can hold even more significance.

    "Wolf-father" as the Nordic god of mischief Loki is referred too, may sound like an insult at first glance, unless you are familiar with Nordic mythology.
    Morpheus - a cool sounding name for the uninitiated - holds a greater relevance once a brief glance at the ancient Greek religion has been had.
    Ragnarök – briefly surmised in book 4, but worthy of a book itself.

    I find myself admiring Gaiman for not just inventing but taking something established and existing and moulding it to fit his own purposes - sometimes without much of a change.

    The character pool is only part of the appeal. for my money it is a series of slow books, little seems to happen in terms of action or events, or even to progress the story. But it's the methodology and the meaning behind events that keeps me reading.
    Gaiman flits between discussing the nature of Dream, Desire, to psychology and the nature of reality, lost histories, sexuality, abuse, and the principles of a cat rebellion.

    The central character is beyond the Gods of man, the personification of Dream itself, an Endless and eternal force, but not without human emotion or feeling. A central theme of the books is how this immortal changes over the unimaginable length of time he has existed.

    It is a fascinating, intriguing and disturbing tale, I confess I'm now addicted. the one bad thing: Only 6 more books to go.

    • Tweet
  • Public Enemies

    • 9 Jul 2009
    • 0 Responses
    •  views
    • Rants Review
    • Edit
    • Delete
    • Tags
    • Autopost
    Am I just missing the point here?

    I watched all 143 minutes of this film last night and to be honest John Dillinger didn't seem particularly remarkable to me. Or rather, Michael Mann's depiction of him didn't.

    After being paroled Dillinger proceeds to rob a few banks. Rather unremarkably I might add.
    Then through a completely unexplained happening he ends up on the radar of Hoover, and under the full focus of the (to become) FBI.

    These events don't appear to be linked in any way in the film! I'm fairly confident that I managed to remain conscious throughout the runtime, but unless I'm mistaken the main character leaps from being a simple bank robber to the focus of a massive federal manhunt and front page news.

    What happened?!

    This somewhat tainted the rest of the film for me. Through tense scenes generously sprinkled with extreme close ups of Depp and Bale (neither of which it turns out have great skin when looked at on a 20ft screen), and hyper realistic gun play I was left perplexed as to how the entire thing began in the first place. Mann assumes the watcher is familiar with Dillinger's story, and evidently skims over the details, concentrating on the characters themselves rather than the events. Which is fine. IF the characters were at all interesting, or worthy of such attention.
    Dillinger is to some extent and honest crook. But far from the robin hood-esque figure of his mythical status. Frankly - not an intriguing man. Yes he had enough guile to escape from jail (in the film only once) and he did manage to evade for some time what was obviously a rather incompetent investigation. Nothing else remarkable surfaces about the man. As such the film and character became unbelievable, because the question keeps ringing "why have you made a film about this guy?!!!"

    The inevitable love interest is equally as unbelievable. Mann again skims over the details, Dillinger and Billie Frechette only appear to meet 3 or 4 times. Briefly. And yet end up in love, seemingly without any onscreen exposition at all. They are awkward together, no chemistry between actors, and to be frank, a woman playing a love interest of Johnny Depp's should be much more attractive than Marion Cotillard (who doesn't look slightly Indian I might add)

    Discounting the exposition void present in most of the film, it is well made, and directed. Michael Mann's talent for realism in action first shown in Heat make a welcome return. The audience flinches as bullets from Tommy Guns ricochets off walls, and the sickening wet "thunks" of metal meeting flesh aid in drawing the viewer into the battle.

    For me that is the redeeming feature, where the writers have failed, Mann has picked up the slack and made a watchable if not engaging movie.

    Heat - but set in the 1930 would have been an appropriate tagline.

    • Tweet
  • About


    13064 Views
  • Get Updates

    Subscribe via RSS
    TwitterFacebookBlogger