Tag Archives: Art

Paraphrase

Karen is a fan of Harry Potter. She’s read the novels, and seen the movies. I have nothing against Harry Potter, and I understand that its extremely well-written…its just not really my thing. However, as we haven’t really had a date night together since our daughter joined us nearly seven weeks ago, I took Karen, very belatedly, to see the final Harry Potter movie. For me, it was entertaining, but I didn’t have enough backstory to really put the pieces together. She was impressed, and discussed with me after the movie how the film had differed from the novels in various ways. Her final conclusion, though, was that the adaptation had worked well.

A few years ago, I rushed to the film adaptation of Phantom of the Opera, as the show has been my favorite musical for years (the Broadway production remains one of the most amazing pieces of theatre I’ve seen). There were differences in the film, very notable differences and additions. I accepted them, however, because Webber had co-written the screenplay, and my thought was that, if the adaptation comes from the author, then the purity is maintained despite any differences. Now, I suppose that particular comparison might break down eventually, as Webber himself adapted Leroux’s novel from the early 1900’s. My point, though, is that I would have considered myself a purist where the storyline of Phantom is concerned. At the time, I accepted the changes readily because I felt that they had still come from Webber’s vision. Had another writer dominated the screenplay, I doubt I would have been as receptive.

A conversation with a family member over the weekend revolved around our inability to accept historical inaccuracies in film. I have the same problem with film adaptations of literature: liberties taken with the story drive me to distraction, because I’m very passionate about staying true the original work. All too often, stories are completely altered away from the author’s vision in order to make a “good film” (from Hollywood’s standards, at least, which are typically poor at best). This is particularly problematic when working with literature of historical importance, and occurs far too frequently in far too many spheres. Apparently, there were some significant differences between the latest Harry Potter film and the novel (fans can feel free to comment here), but Karen was okay with it because, in her perspective, it was a re-telling more so than a reinterpretation of the story.

As recording our stories in written form is a relatively new phenomenon in mankind’s history, perhaps our tendency toward literalness is also very recent. I say that because when stories were told in oral traditions, there were naturally some variations. This occurred not so much out of error, I think, but because storytellers, like historians, have a proverbial axe to grind; that is, a different part of the story to emphasize. That doesn’t mean that they’re telling the story incorrectly, but rather taking care to point out different things. We see this continue in our political realm today, and I would say that this would even account for some of what Biblical historians discuss as a set of perceived discrepancies among the Synoptic Gospels.

With this view in mind, I’m hard pressed to remain as much a purist in my favorite stories as I was previously. Of course, there is still a difference between a re-telling of a story, and a complete re-interpretation of a story. I’m still very selective in my tolerance of the second, but I think I am becoming more tolerant of the first.

This is sort of like seeing the same event from different perspectives, or vantage points. When we share those differing perspectives with others, we all come out better for it. Our stories deserve that same treatment, I think. A lack of literalness just might be a good thing.

Photo Attribution: Rosenfeld Media 

Looking at Where We Are

I was catching up on my Google+ stream and looking at my Sparks to see what was going on in different areas of interest a few moments ago. Two of the interests that I have listed on my profile are (of course) the Hard Rock Cafe, and comic books.

I remember a professional acquaintance telling me a year or so ago about a comic book discussion group that he hosted at a local library. I always wanted to make it, but never did. When he and I were discussing the world of comics and great issues of our childhood years, I recall his mentioning that he felt that comic books were a snapshot of where a culture is at any given point in history. I find myself in agreement with that (do we need to look any further than the Watchmen for evidence?)

I think that the reason I’m so interested in rock history as well, though, is very similar. I can certainly trace the more profound moments of my childhood by going back through the music that I was listening to at the time. This is true, though, of nearly all of us…I imagine that you can do the same thing. And, I think that, culturally, we can go back through our musical history and see in it the same snapshot of what was going on culturally at a specific time period.

The reason I count visiting and collecting merchandise from the Hard Rock Cafe among my hobbies is because of the museum aspect of the restaurants. I think that they give visitors a glimpse of the history of the music that is a soundtrack to our culture.

How do you remember profound moments in your life? Does music take you back there? If not comic books, do other books cause you to remember? Movies? How does artistic expression take you back to the “glory days?”

Appreciating the Puppets

So, I’m apparently on a “write about super heroes and science fiction” trend.

As family keeps arriving to visit the new baby, there are many movies to be watched during baby’s nap times. And, because I have the coolest extended family ever, Dr. Who is, of course, an obvious choice for said movies. Specifically, this week we voted for classic Dr. Who movies with Tom Baker as the Doctor. Of course, such classic films from the 70’s bring about comedic commentary on what a colleague referred to as “cheesy” special effects…in this case, a giant alien grasshopper-looking creature and a metamorphosing man who’s green alien appendage looked suspiciously like colored bubble wrap.

I was reminded of another science fiction program to which I held long term loyalty (and occasionally enjoy re-watching), Farscape. Farscape preceded widespread use of computer generated effects by some time. I have especially fond memories of watching new episodes in my old bachelor apartment in my first days of life-after-college. The series, produced by Jim Henson Productions, featured puppet-style aliens that were quite impressive. Of course, modern make-up had long produced outstanding aliens in series such as Star Trek: The Next Generation or Star Trek: Deep Space Nine. This was because this type of creative make-up and building of puppets was the norm at that time, and those who practiced the art were quite good.

During my theatrical adventures, I’ve worked with some amazing make-up artists. I’ve been aged and made younger. I’ve had a gruesomely realistic rope burn placed on my neck when I played a character who had returned from the dead after being hanged. There’s something really special about the kinesthetic process of building special make-up effects, puppets, and masks. I loved that this art translated so beautifully to the screen, as well as the stage.

And, today, I just don’t see it any more, or at least not as prominently. There are now science-fiction programs featuring completely computer generated characters and backgrounds, in which the actors film almost exclusively in front of a green screen. I admire the ability of the actors to do this. I miss, though, the artistry of the puppets and amazing make-up effects used to create alien races and all manner of wild visuals. I respect the skill of the animators and graphic artists, don’t get me wrong. Tron remains, in my opinion, one of the greatest artistic achievements of our age. Digital artists are of just as amazing a talent as make-up and costume artists, and I find it particularly beautiful when all of these disciplines work together.

I just miss the exclusivity of the puppet-building, make-up brush-wielding, alien creators of science-fiction programming of yesterday. Call it nostalgia. Call it old-school. There was just something about those giant puppet aliens. Don’t you think?

Photo Attribution: X-Ray Delta One

Heros Hidden in Plain Sight

Ever since the hidden teaser for next summer’s Avengers movie at the end of Captain America: The First Avenger, I’ve been anxiously awaiting the full trailer with almost as much anticipation as I would await a movie. This week, I was treated to its unveiling:

Now, I’ve had some debate with others about just how good of a trailer this is, and how good of a film the Avengers may or may not ultimately be. I think its a trailer with promise, of the same promise that I thought Thor’s trailer showed: this movie could go either way, good or bad. Of course, Thor turned out to be amazing, as did Captain America, as did both Iron Man films before them, and I feel confident about the Avengers because it has been set up correctly; that is, it will have what the X-Men never did.

I’ve said before that I’ve been more of a Marvel fan than a DC fan. I’ll admit, though, that the New 52 have tested this resolve, as I’ve become quickly hooked on series that I’ve never collected previously. Still, I think the two universes fill very different story-telling needs, and speak to different cultural trends. DC gives us (especially in the re-boot) the classic hero to fly in and save the day when all else seems lost, a symbol of hope that would otherwise be absent in a dark situation (the plane is plummeting toward the baseball stadium, but Superman shows up and performs the impossible to prevent the unthinkable). Marvel’s characters have always been less of the traditional super-hero, and held more realism that is in touch with our day-to-day existence with all of its angst and fallacies. Even visually, the casual observer will notice the difference: fewer flowing capes in the Marvel universe, and more armor-clad heroes struggling with demons like alcoholism. While DC will always be known to have given us some dark characters (i.e.: the Batman), and the exploration of the fragile anti-heroes by which all others are judged, the trend toward gritty realism tends to lie with Marvel.

While watching the trailer for the Avengers with me, Karen made an interesting observation to this effect: there are more public identities in the Marvel universe. For example, in DC Comics, Superman, Batman, Wonder Woman, the Flash, Green Lantern…all have secret identities. All conceal themselves in some way to prevent the world from discovering that Barbara Gordon, for example, is really Batgirl.

Conversely, the world knows that Tony Stark is Iron Man, and Professor X is in charge of a school for “the gifted,” in which Jean Grey operates under her actual name. Others, like Thor, have no need for a secret identity. The Fantastic Four are all public personas. The world even knows that Bruce Banner is the Hulk.

I think that this again speaks to the ability of Marvel’s characters to connect more deeply to a culture at the time in which it exists. America is more than tired of a lack of transparency in public figures, and the public feels burned by a few too many secrets kept by those that they elected.  The general thought process of those in leadership, whether it is leading a country, a business, or a volunteer organization, is that the people below you on the chain of command (or the general public), to quote a famous line from another movie (ironically dealing with similar topics), “can’t handle the truth.” And, while certainly intelligence gathering and secret keeping are necessary in governments in today’s world, there is significantly more kept from public knowledge that could easily function within public knowledge.

DC Comics superheroes frequently fight not only the bad guys, but also the perception of the public that they are “vigilantes.” Often on the run from law enforcement just as they’ve finished saving the city or the world once again, they are faced with suspicion: if you’re the good guy (or girl), why won’t you show us your face? While Marvel certainly has its share of secret identities and those officially held in disdain by the government (such as the X-Men), other heroes…often the ones of which we immediately think when we speak of Marvel Comics, make their identities known to the world. In fact, the Avengers are an organization sanctioned by the government for most of their comic book history.

I think Marvel continues to meet us where we are better than DC, to help us feel more connected to its heroes. DC seems to focus on the heroes far above the rest of us mortals, those who know things we don’t know but act always to save us, to use that knowledge responsibly. One is a more classic image of a hero, the other more modern. I think both are needed, though, and I enjoy reading both for different reasons.

What do you think of when you think of a hero? Which characters speak to you more, and why? I’d love to hear your opinions.

Responsive Reading

“But I don’t want to get addicted.”

That was my response to Karen when she announced that she had discovered a new television program to which she wanted me to become addicted with her as she perused the new season offerings of CBS this afternoon. Because I’m not an avid television watcher, I pushed back on the idea, even though I recognize that most of the few programs to which I have developed a loyalty have come to me by Karen’s recommendation. For the most part (Glee notwithstanding), my wife has good taste.

The program that she submitted for my consideration (the second in two days) is called Person of Interest, and it is sort of a re-imagining of Minority Report. The difference is that, in Minority Report, the future crimes were predicted by mutants with pre-cognitive abilities. In Person of Interest, the predicting is accomplished in anonymity by a surveillance algorithm, leaving those with the information to do something about it. The person who invents the program comes into possession of the anonymous data, and hires a former CIA operative to handle the less savory aspects of solving the situation. He doesn’t shy away from violence, and metes out what justice he deems necessary to prevent the innocent from being harmed.

I don’t identify addic…er, I mean, loyal following…to any program after one episode. This one, however, has potential. Watch it and let me know what you think.

What strikes about both this program and Minority Report is the method used to prevent what is recognized as tragic…that is, the loss of human life. Both premises deserve credit for recognizing that human life is immeasurably valuable and must be preserved. However, the error that I see in both is the approach taken to preserving human life: violent justice. In fact, the violent justice that is justified as a means to protect the innocent ultimately necessitates that it must itself take life, and I’m reminded of the adage that my parents used to tell me that “two wrongs don’t make a right.” This smacks of a very Western, very American, method of using justice: that the enforcers of what is right and good do their enforcing by means of overwhelming force. Essentially, “might makes right” begins to be the accepted thought process.

Now, certainly, both Person of Interest and Minority Report are addressing larger themes as well, not the least of which are determinism over free will and the corruption resulting from power. I would guess that the nature of justice is likely far down the list of themes that leap out from these screenplays. I was just left thinking about this specifically today, though, after watching the pilot episode. I’m wondering about the better way to preserve the value of life…how do we do that as a culture? Our justice system emphasizes punishment, not grace. In fact, second chances in Western culture are rare events in any form, and I think we need to focus more on forgiveness and giving more grace as a culture. I also think, though, that a conscious decision must be made to recognize human life…every human life…as something inherently invaluable, and not a commodity that can be taken away at will for some transgression. We view life as so expendable. We view anger and retaliation as acceptable forms of response to a person or group that has done wrong.  The prevalence of “Wild West” violence on our streets, the willingness of our country to leap into war, are indicators of this.

I’m not naive enough to think that we can achieve a utopia of crime-free existence, and violent offenders will always be a sad reality. I just can’t help but think that cultural mores drive more individuals into the mindset of violent offenses than we might see otherwise. I also think that valuing a person for more than what they can produce or contribute would produce less un-addressed frustration that boils over into violence.

I also know that I’m opening a quagmire of debate by saying this. I think, though, that one of the things that these screenplays show us (perhaps inadvertently) is that justice does not have to be a response composed of overwhelming force. I think that there are gentler, and more effective, methods of protecting the innocent, not the least of which is a paradigm shift in which we see the life of the innocent as worth more than the possessions of which one might rob them, or the object of revenge for whatever wrong that they may have done without knowing. Perhaps a recognition that none of us are innocent, and that we would all like some form of second chance, would go a long way here, as well.  Something, ultimately, that is best accomplished with hearts and minds, not fists.

Discovering that is worth being addicted to a new program. These writers are saying something important, and I think that we should listen.

Photo Attribution: Dan4th