Taylor Swift's Miss Americana: Parts of a Narrative

I am not the biggest fan or follower of Taylor Swift. Everyone who knows anything about Pop music knows who she is though. They have heard a song or a scandal or more than likely multiples of both. She dates too much. She's a white feminist. The multiple interpretive identities of Taylor are out there to be consumed, chosen, and stuck to like glue.

And Taylor believes she's the rubber band for all of it.

Documentaries are difficult to review. If you are looking for a recommendation the real question is: do you care? I care about Music and therefore I care about Music documentaries. Taylor Swift's last two albums have been a defiant shift in a direction that feels better and more personal - to some degree. Personally, Reputation was a better album than Lover, which felt like she took the best of Reputation and the best of her older career and made a marriage of the two. Again, I'm not a big Taylor fan, I've just been exposed over time.

But the hard part about documentaries is that one assumes that they are there to tell objective facts. To present objectivity, not subjectivity of the subject at hand. And when one sits in front of a screen for ninety or more minutes while a variety of sources tell you something about things that are true or that they have opinions about, it makes a story that you either can or can't believe. In Miss Americana, that subject is Taylor Swift - and most likely you already have your opinion about whether or not you do believe her.

I am undecided. And watching the documentary did not help. At once, it shows a person - going about her day, making her music, and responding and thinking on the criticism's about her character that have gone around since she was seventeen years old. Success at a young age makes an incredible impression and the Pop industry is no stranger to taking young teenagers and turning them into early twenties sex symbols and radio stars. Taylor Swift was equally part and parcel of this machine. And much of the documentary follows her, raggedy makeup, hair in a tight ponytail, fiddling with her music and lyrics with a producer, friend, co-star, trying to just make this music that is her calling in life and has been since she was a little girl.

This is the part I like. This is the part that feels like a curtain is being pulled back. That there is something personally at stake for Swift in this documentary, that she's truly fighting a battle against being misunderstood and underheard throughout the years.

I feel however, in painting this picture that Ms. Swift sells herself short precisely because she's acting in the role of a salesperson for much of the documentary.

First it should be mentioned that a good portion of the documentary focuses on Taylor Swift's political advocacy, which is a recent move on her part and is more or less very strong and seen as the triumphant moment in the film. The moment when Swift throws off her bondage of being a pop singer and moves towards being socially active as a role model for her fans and audience. This despite the fact that she has expressed numerous views and philanthropic effort in regards to political positions throughout the past decade, including winning an award for a music video aimed at combating homophobia. While it was new for her to endorse a political choice, it's made as if Taylor Swift has somehow been a politically vanilla person until that choice, and that just isn't true.

Second when she picks and chooses songs she's making to show off in the film a lot of it comes from the far more normal sounding Lover album than the fiery rage filled Reputation album. It's really difficult to separate the idea that she created this documentary in part to show off Lover as the album where Taylor Swift has finally arrived at a mature expression of herself - although I'm fairly certain that's what the Reputation album had shown off. Even before that, it wasn't like Swift stopped making music whenever people questioned her dating, or when she got criticism from communities of people that agreed with Kanye.

These two positions just seem like stagings that benefit Swift in ways beyond just what the documentary is trying to say. I believe that Swift sees herself this way, but in dramatizing the moments beyond their impact, in choosing the weaker album, it makes it appear like more of an advertisement than it's meant to.

That brings me to my least favorite moment in the documentary. Taylor Swift receives the call regarding Grammy nominations for Reputation. It explains that she received only one nomination and it was not in any major category. This is meant to be like a defeat moment at the start before she wins for the rest of the documentary.

I'm sorry Ms Swift, but I don't feel bad for you. Not only are overblown industry awards like the Grammys and the Oscars not how you should personally track your success in the arts, but you also have unprecedented success to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars in your personal networth. I get that each piece of art created is like a baby and you want people to like your baby. I just don't believe that Taylor cares so significantly about the criticism she receives when she's done nothing but publically and obviously push ahead and rarely miss a beat in publishing content and music. She has always possessed more steel than she expresses in this documentary.

I would've loved to see what Taylor Swift is - a passionate, dedicated woman who runs her own business, writes her own music, and crafts her image and sound to benefit her fans around the world. Instead, it seems like we must spend ninety minutes first believing what she thinks are her weaknesses (despite few of them really being weaknesses) and watching what she believes are her strengths.

So, do I feel like I wasted my time? No, of course not. I love music documentaries, I love every peek behind the scenes to how the music is made. I like listening to someone discuss a monstrous amount of public protest about themselves. I just don't have a lot of patience for the Kardashian-esque feel badding of a millionaire talking about how hard their lives have been. I don't like the feeling that she makes herself weaker to appeal to people. I don't like the feeling that she ignored a stronger more aggressive album for a more by the numbers appeal. I just do not see Taylor Swift the way she does.

And I suppose that in and of itself is her point. She sees herself this way and wants others to see that. But she's grown. She doesn't care as much anymore. That's why she made this documentary for you. Also Lover is out in stores now, look Brandon Urie is on it.

I think Taylor Swift should keep making her music. And honestly, if she wants to do more documentaries I would watch them also. I like Taylor Swift, I just don't always like what she's serving for dinner.

----

Taylor Swift's Miss Americana can be streamed on Netflix. Netflix doesn't offer affiliate programs for blogs like mine to make money sending them there. But you should have Netflix, after all they have The Crown and other shows I like. If you'd like to support the blog, try Amazon Music or buying Taylor Swift's Lover album - despite my analysis within this review it is definitely a quality album of pop music.

Aladdin (2019): Two Steps Forward, One Step Back

Disney's live action adaptations besides being one of the most unfortunate capitalistic schemes imaginable (not only are we just remaking our animated films that you all love, but we're going to do almost shot for shot reimaginings of every frame of animation with realistic CGI! What could possibly be shilly or greedy about this) have also mostly been of a single flavor.

Guy Ritchie's Aladdin remake however begins and continues through with bigger ambitions. Rather than copying word for word beat for beat wholesale the original Aladdin, this film version decides to rather change up a significant amount of the characterization.

For instance, rather than being a mostly humble thief, this Aladdin rather slips up quite a bit. He's not infinitely charming or infinitely handsome. This actually coincides with Jasmine's characterization, which is that rather than simply being a princess, she is a strong willed woman - perfectly characterized by Lindsay Ellis as Disney's revisionist feminist the #GirlBoss.

Even Jafar and Genie get new characterizations, with Jafar having a similar background to Aladdin and his goal as Sultan seeming more naturalistic than lustful. Genie is a bigger playboy so that it makes sense to have Will Smith playing the role instead of the more lovable Robin Williams.

Let me address this while the monkey turned elephant is in the room. Will Smith plays a great Genie. In fact, when it comes to thinking back Will Smith is going to wind up being one of my favorite parts of this film. There's a dumb myth when it comes to stunt casting like the original Genie and Robin Williams that when someone lands a role they can't ever be replaced. See: Wolverine and Hugh Jackman, Johnny Depp and Jack Sparrow, and many many other roles throughout the years.

It would be one thing if like most Disney live action remakes the Genie in this version was entirely unchanged. Instead, it appears that Will Smith got to have his version of this role. Yes, he still performs most of the same plot actions as Robin Williams Genie, but just like the other characters, the flavor is different.

If each Disney remake had the same goals as this one - not to re-enact perfectly shot for shot the animation - the artistry and loveliness of which can't ever ever ever be replaced by physical cameras and sets - but to liven up the stories, to tell altered versions, to deepen the characterization and to add cultural beats and elements to it, that would be something.

At one point Jasmine gets her character moment, to stand up to the corrupt Jafar, to show her passion and power as a voice of leadership to her people, to stand up to sacrifice to alter the situation she's standing in by voicing her feelings. This Jasmine is entirely different to the damseled Jasmine of the original film.

I haven't seen Jungle Book or Lion King yet, though I hear Favreau's realism is out of this world, but I can't help but think this is my favorite of the live action remakes. If we have to have these unnecessary retreads with their apologetic political tones and their unnecessary responses to Internet criticism, then perhaps they can take this bit into heart: use this time to deepen the original products rather than cash in on the hard work of the creatives that came before.

If the direction of the Star Wars franchise shows anything, it's that Disney may well be in a place where they want to dial back experimentation and actually play it safe for a while. This would be exceptionally detrimental to the art, creativity, and product coming from them in the future. Take the by the seat of your pants approach with these live actions as you do your Marvel series and other projects and we could have something truly great - eventually. As long as you realize when the film doesn't need to be a musical.

-----
I was able to rent Aladdin because of our access to Disney+ streamed through our Amazon Fire Stick. You can get one of these for your home by clicking the image below, which will also assist the blog in kicking me back a few bucks. Thanks for your support!

Fast Color (2018): Mothers, Daughters, and Heroes

When it comes to stories, I have a type. Slow-boil, magical realism, family dramas. Hell, the novel I'm writing is exactly that kind of story. So when I sat down to watch Fast Color - looking for lighter fare to watch around the kiddos - I wasn't expecting it to be that right up my alley.

Ruth played deceptively stoic by Gugu Mbatha-Raw, is a recovering addict on the run. While we don't get to know what she was addicted to we get to know why - she experiences seizures which cause her superpowers to cause deadly earthquakes that affect the areas around her in devastating ways. The film lives in the mystery of what she is, why she is, and if she can gain control of these powers but to think that this is the core of the story would be a mistake.

Instead the core of this story is family - in fact, Ruth's story mirrors that of Rue's from this Euphoria season 1, if that character were slightly older and far more distant from her family. Having used drugs to escape an uncomfortable mental situation she returns now to her Mother's house - and her young daughter, both of whom possess the same magical power she does.

This story of not just coming home for protection, recovery, and hope but to rediscover and rebalance who Ruth is has far more narrative focus and weight than anything about powers or the government scientist - played by Christopher Denham in a way reminiscent of Martin Wollstrom's Tyrell Wellick in Mr Robot. The film is incredibly slow boil and at one point I paused to see how much was left to realize I had another eighty minutes. Don't let that sentiment make you think I didn't like the film.

I am a fan of stories like these - the ones that lure you in with genre premises and then hits you over the head with solid drama. Ruth is dangerous and her Mother is guarded from letting her back in. Ruth is navigating the similarities and differences between herself and her daughter Lila. Swirling in the background of this story is this environmental apocalypse setting that reminded me of Mad Max or The Rover, here used much more to underline the stressful living situation they find themselves in.

There are likely some who will watch this film and say something along the lines of "I really wish they had more powers" or "I wish they'd explain the water shortage more" but it's those details that get lost by the wayside. Some might view that as poor concept exploration or ask "why even have it there?" and I can't criticize the thinking, although I wasn't personally distracted too much by that.

Ever since I've had kids I've been touched by stories that deal with Mothers and Daughters. Having watched someone go through pregnancy, childbirth, and raising a few babies paints a delicate picture. Especially having a rough mother child relationship myself and hoping that the mother child relationships I see forming in my own household go well, it's incredibly touching to see the redemption and changes the characters in this film go through. While it takes a bit to set up, and some might think it focuses too much on these relationships, the climax of the film takes the cake as one of those deceptively easy wrap ups and finalizes itself on a lovely sentiment.

"I know the back of her head more than her face," Ruth describes these words her mother said to her to Lila early in the film. And it's this sentiment by which the arcs are completed. What it means to leave in disgrace versus what it means to leave in search of more love, more safety, and more growth.

Yeah, there were some dad tears with this one.
-----

I watched Fast Color on Amazon Prime and you can to. If you don't have Prime Video follow this link, and you'll get Prime free for 30-Days. Then you can tell me how right I was about Fast Color.

Why the Oscars Do, and Don't matter

NOTE: In the following article there are spoilers for BlackKklansman and Black Panther.

But furthermore, I wanted to make sure this is clear. I am a white cis male commenting on representation concerning black people. In which case, my opinion is pretty irrelevant. I am in favor of minority, gender, and sexual representation in American culture and being significantly more present in all film. But I say that as someone whose life is not as directly impacted by it as other writers. I highly encourage that if you like this article, you also seek out, listen to, and support those writers first.
-----


The Oscars are tomorrow night. On the verge of this annual gathering of the celebration of not only the films, actors, writers, and crew men that make our cinematic pleasures possible, but the way the leading representative body of those factions of Hollywood creators view the output of their own art form, I wanted to let you the people know two very important things:

The Oscars Do Not Matter

and

The Oscars Do Matter


-----

In 2015, Selma, a film celebrating one of the biggest victories and conflicts of the Civil Rights Movement and centering on Martin Luther King Jr, was entirely snubbed at the Oscars for all but one major award: Best Picture.

At the time it was questioned as to how a film could be considered "Best" if the Academy hadn't felt it deserving of any individual awards. Furthermore, it gave off the feel that in an Oscar year so full of white faces up for awards, how this wasn't an example of Tokenism from the MPAA, the governing guild that votes and puts on the Academy Awards.

That year and the next the Twitter hashtag #OscarsSoWhite began trending in discussion, and the Academy responded by vastly increasing the amount of Black representation they had in the Academy. And by vastly, I do mean by like oh... one or two percent. It's something at least, and they released a vow to ensure that they would be increasing the amount of representation over the years.

Which leads us a few less controversial years to today where perhaps the most hopeful candidates for Best Picture are Black Panther and BlackKklansman - both of which have significant merit to be winners of the take home category and perhaps in a vein where the Academy can finally say - we did better.

-----

Oscars Don't Matter

At the end of the day, the only thing even securing a win does for the Academy is allow them a history of reward. When, in 2020 we see that only the whitest of 2019 is being represented, the academy will be able to point back and say, yeah but BlackKklansman/Black Panther won last year so like we don't have to keep worrying about this. If you don't believe me, recheck the 2016 Presidential Campaign.

There have been massive cultural shifts in mainstream culture - including another rightful wave of Feminism and a big push in Minority Representation in films.

The ousting of serial sexual harassers and A-list celebs from TV, Stage, and Film worlds has pushed the power of women and minority voices up and forward.

But a positive fact is this - these voices have that power without being recognized.

The main reason the Oscars don't matter is because Black Panther made a billion dollars. And for three decades Spike Lee has been one of the most pre-eminent black film makers who has made a successful career on telling black stories (and we're going to excuse him for ever touching an Oldboy remake). These films have made their cultural impact. Being recognized by an overwhelmingly white group doesn't in any way benefit or rectify a history of having to be taught painful lessons of embarrassment on the Internet.

Part of the bigger problem of these cultural shifts is that the dominant culture wants to appease. As if three hundred years of slavery can be washed away with one single reparation.

Again, these films have earned their place in the culture. Black Panther is one of the most successful films of all time and appropriately uses the Marvel formula to make a compelling and powerful film about being Black. It's phenomenally important, likely the best film of the decade for me (not that that really matters), and the absolute watermark of how far we are progressing.

Best Picture just solidifies what it is.

-----

Oscars Do Matter

Everything said above is true.

But here's the thing. Everything I said above is impactful and important for people who pay attention to, deal in, and debate the current culture. The intellectual part of the Millennial, X, and Boomer generations.

There is an entire set of people who aren't as educated, aren't as invested, who pay no attention to the cultural context of everything. I understand where the directors who complained about technical awards being cut from the show were coming from. The Oscars matter. They show off the art form celebrating its best artists of the year and displaying how important it is for people, in front and behind the camera, to make the art that matters to us.

But the fact is that the Oscars are also a thinning of the herd. Hundreds and thousands of films are produced, developed, and released every single year. The majority of people just want to know what the best is. And historically, those films have either been less popular, more "artistic", on the nose cultural relevance films. The term Oscar Bait exists for a reason, and its not because certain qualities denote what is and isn't actually good film making policy.

This actually brings up a contention I have between my opinion on who "should" win Best Picture. Black Panther and BlackKklansmen both represent something about the black experience in America. They represent a spectrum of what it means to be in this place at this time and to be well represented in film. But the film that wins says something significant about the privileged class of the Academy and in the country.

Black Panther is a marvel film. A superhero movie. No matter how significant or impactful it is, it's a formula film. The celebration, relevance, and impact this film has is significant and entirely subverts what we've come to expect from this formula.

Three years ago, I was writing several drafts of a multi-part series about how Watchmen was the end of significant development in superhero stories. And that may still be true from a narrative aspect.

What Black Panther proves as a film is that superhero can be as meaningful a medium, more meaningful a medium, than the traditional drama, biopic, narrative driven films that dominate the Best Picture winner history. Black Panther is a film that celebrates and drives home the pain of the Black American experience and even after that "villain" has proven himself power hungry and something that has to be beaten, it still has the balls to give him the most powerful one line of dialogue that I've experienced.

"Can you believe that? A kid from Oakland, walking around believing in fairy tales."

That is a significant and powerful indictment. Black Panther is a fairy tale of what could be. This is the goal of representation, to prevent people from feeling trapped by their surroundings.

BlackKklansman is a significant film. But one that continues saying what Spike Lee wanted to say thirty years ago - America has a long way to go in making it a tenable place for black people to live and thrive. The gut punch of that historical comedy is that by the way the KKK still exist and still fuck shit up and still regularly contribute to violent attacks on innocent victims. One film, one black man getting the up and up on that group means nothing compared to the thousands who marched on Charleston - the location of a violent racist mass shooting that killed people gathered in a place of worship, a place of peace.

The correct way to honor that message, to show to every black American that that progress is being made - is to honor the fairy tale that Killmonger needed.

And that is why the Oscars don't and do matter.

-----

Please follow the Facebook page / Twitter for more posts. Taking a hiatus until April but by then I will be writing more frequently.

Will Minecraft learn from Steam’s Skyrim failure with the Minecraft Marketplace?

This week Microsoft announced that they are launching a mod-store called the Minecraft Marketplace (https://minecraft.net/en-us/article/its-time-discover-marketplace). It’s exactly what it sounds like, a re-tread of the failed Skyrim Mod Marketplace that Steam attempted in April of 2015. Mod author upload their file to the storefront where other players pay an amount set by the author. Microsoft takes a cut (30%) and the mod author gets the rest. This is all to be handled by a premium currency system known as Minecraft Coins, purchasable through the in-app storefront.

Do you remember how the Skyrim story ended? (http://www.polygon.com/2015/4/27/8505883/valve-removing-paid-mods-from-steam)

The reasons that Skyrim went so horribly is that it’s proposed value did not out-weigh its corporate greediness. Steam decided that it needs over one-third of the profit cut and Bethesda deserved even more, leaving the Mod author with 25% of the profit. On top of that, the notably insecure Steam marketplace could not protect itself from mod pirates and shoddy content. Admittedly, some of the issues it experienced that weekend were on the part of community protest. The people wanted some sort of beneficial business for mod authors, but Steam’s way did not cut it.

Microsoft assures that mod creators will be getting “most of the payment.” This is a good way to appear innocent of Steam’s central sin, but it doesn’t directly address the premium currency. Because even if 30% seems small next to Steam’s monstrous slicing and dicing, it fails to mention that the money Microsoft is cutting the profit out of is being bought with currency which Microsoft automatically pockets 100%. It’s an ideal world where a mod author could maybe get 100% of the profit on a curated premium-currency storefront, but Microsoft appears to be ravenously keeping its claws in its pockets and reassuring sideways from its gaping maw.

A Reddit AMA is taking place on the 20^th, but I just am not sure that these kinds of marketplaces belong in the gaming spectrum. Some might point out how Counter Strike and DOTA 2 do a good job with their marketplaces, but it’s worth mentioning that those also sell in-game assets not created by modders. And Diablo 3 was a grand example of how that turned out.

We’ve seen these marketplaces attempted before. However, it’s clear that a 3^rd party mod marketplace will never be accepted by big AAA game companies, and clearly it’s going to be difficult for them to respect their authors.

70%, IF it is indeed 70% profit is a step in the right direction, but hiding it behind a premium currency appears to be the gateway of ensuring that the profits are entirely owned by the company and not the community.

Hopefully, the Reddit AMA will address some of these concerns and show that Microsoft is a loving company that can understand how to truly support a community of modders. Until then, I can’t help but feel that they’re just kicking the proverbial line to the left a little and waiting to see how little they can get away with giving to the mod community.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

-----

To purchase the item discussed in this post, please consider clicking the image below (it kicks me back a couple of bucks if you do!)

Teaser Breakdown: Netflix's Death Note

Today, Netflix released a Teaser Trailer for their version of Death Note (internal screaming commence).

I'm a bit of a Death Note junkie, so let's break this trailer down shot-for-shot.

First here's the trailer:



So let's get into the analysis.

0:00-0:04: Here we see the Death Note falling in that lovely shot, taken directly from the Anime adaptation. The Anime, by the way, is going to be my main source of response to this trailer, so if you aren't familiar, you'll want to be. And soon.

0:04-0:11: Light "Turner" our brand new anglicized protagonist picks up the Death Note, re-establishing just how the Death Note enters the world of the living.

0:12-0:15: Three important shots. First, barely visible to the naked eye is a shot of Ryuk standing outside the window of some place. Based on the neon sign on the wall that reads "afe" one can only assume this is going to be the cafe where Light and "Mia" meet for the first time. The second shot is one of an empty school hallway, presumably around the time that Light finds the Death Note. And third, we hear Ryuk's laugh while an apple seems to "fall" off a desk.

0:17-0:20: Here we establish that this version of Death Note has been moved from Kanto region Japan to Seattle, Washington. That certainly explains the gray cloudy skies in nearly every shot of the trailer, and the rain falling on the Death Note from earlier.

0:21-0:22: This is confirmed to be L, here wearing garb that covers his face (but not his eyes, does that mean we are going to see a potential rule change in either the way the Note or the Shinigami Eyes work? Are we going to even have Shinigami Eyes?) and he's walking down another neon hallway (are we taking cues from Neon Demon or Only God Forgives?) in what must be some sort of nightclub.

(I will be addressing my thoughts on the white/black washing of Asian characters in a separate post)

0:25 - 0:32: This reads like the First Kill of Light and his brand new Notebook of Death. It leaves the old Anime trailer hook of explaining the first rule, watching him write something and then...

0:33: ...Three men in suits jump off the top of a business building in (presumably) Seattle, what an incredible shot! This is also the first of several implications that young Mr. Turner is going to be far more creative with his kills in this adaptation than he was in the show.

0:34: L appears to have arrived at his location in the Nightclub. Scrawled on the wall is the message "Justice of Kira" the message is scrawled in blood, which reflects back to Light's "experimenting" with the rules of the Death Note.

0:35: Here we see Mia again. This time she is clearly in the "afe" cafe from the previous flash shot of Ryuk. So this is probably the Half Moon Cafe where Misa first sees Light in the anime. Here, though, she seems to be looking up at Light as if he is looking back at her, so does that mean they go there with the intention of meeting in person? Also, we cut to them kissing in a hallway, so this is likely when they hook-up in the show (but there's no clear indication that Light is manipulating Mia, then again it's a teaser so...)

0:36 - 0:42: Okay... there's a LOT to unpack here, so let me do so. We first see Light running from police cars through a warehouse. This has a lot of SPOILER-ific connotations, being in a (yellow box?) warehouse. (Of course, we don't know how far this film is going in the story, or how long it's going to be to fit that story in a reasonable space of time)

Then we get a shot of a Ferris wheel, with one car with a searchlight shining on one car, and then the Ferris wheel falling over as what appears to be Light holding onto Mia dangling over the edge!!

So what the heck? Is the American Death Note going to blockbuster it up with action scenes? Let's save this answer for post analysis.

0:42-0:44: The Title Splash, a lovely ink drip black and white.

0:44 - 0:50: The scene stealer is Willem DeFoe's first (technically second) line in the trailer as Ryuk. "Shall we Begin?" Mmm.

I FUCKING LOVE THIS CASTING CHOICE

----------------

So, what's up with that Ferris Wheel scene? Or that Nightclub scene? Well, I think the answer is actually already there for us.

The Anime of Death Note is highly stylized. It earns it's "Anime" quality by delivering what amounts to exposition in a highly stylized and engaging way. See, Death Note isn't an action series, it's a detective show, a detective show where you follow the bad guy and are waiting to see if the good guys can catch up to him and how he thrawts their efforts at every turn. It's a reverse-Sherlock. The satisfaction doesn't come from the mystery (although viewers are typically left in the dark about Light's plans at any given time) but the action comes from the characters knowing, thinking, or believing that they have the upper hand at any given time, while not being able to display anything other than good character on the outside.

So as the series goes along this takes place in a bit of an "architecture world" where buildings and skyscrapers set the stage for mental combatants of Light and L to explain and dissect how and why the other person thought something would go down one way when it actually will go down some other way. In this way, the show gets to be incredibly smart without leaving the viewer behind. It's brilliant. It's one of the backbones of how the show works, allowing them to show sequences, evidence, and metaphoric battles of wit.

So when I see L walking into a Nightclub and physically seeing a sign of Kira's killing, I think that's going to be the film's version of these sequences. Same goes for the Ferris Wheel. Optimistically, this is not them abandoning the primary draw of the show as being a psychological detective battle, but the realization of that with sequences that befit a film as opposed to an anime.

------

It should be mentioned that there's already criticism of this teaser and this film, but I'm going to address those separately in THIS post. If THIS isn't a link already, then expect it soon.

Until then, let me know what you guys think? Does this look promising to you? Are those action-y shots concerning? Would you like to see Death Note: The American Action Blockbuster with gun-toting wise-cracking Ryuk voiced by Willem Defoe? Shoot off in the comments.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

-----
Death Note was an Anime series when I first fell in love with it. I prefer the animation to the Manga, though both have their individual merits. Now has never been a better time to catch up with the series in anticipation for the Netflix release, so click the image below to the get whole series on Blu-Ray or DVD.

The People v. O.J. Simpson: What is a Tragedy?

Tragedy is one of the oldest genres in literature. It’s fitting that The People v. O.J. Simpson opens on onr of the most well documented tragedies in American History. The show opens with the LA Riots, underlining how and why a police force like the LAPD could not only be such a force of violence and oppression, but also how the justice system within the city could get such an obvious and easy case wrong. It also underlines why one of the most popular black men in the country could get away with murder in the eyes of his peers.

If The People had stopped at attempting to provide a black outlook on a popular event from the nineties, that would’ve been enough to make it a great TV show. But what The People v. O.J. Simpson does is much more elemental. It asks one of the hardest questions a piece of art has ever asked, “What is a Tragedy?”

An incredibly bad trap card.

The People opens with the central tragedy: the brutal bloody murder of Nicole Brown Simpson and her lover Ron Goldman. The People isn’t interested in telling us the truth of this tragedy, but rather, other more human truths.

This is how the show makes the question of Tragedy. Most representative of this question comes at the conclusion of the most unique arc in the show: Johnnie Cochran’s. To get there, we must also discuss Christopher Darden.

There are many actors in the series that provide their best performances in a long time. But the two that stand out above the rest are Sterling K. Brown who plays District Attorney Christopher Darden, and Courtney B. Vance who plays Johnnie Cochran. The show is largely painting the viewpoint of the trial from the various narratives of self-interest. Christopher Darden is on the prosecution side and Johnnie Cochran, of course, on the defense. They are both black men.

The tempest of these characters and their relationships with the white people on their respective sides is of huge important. Johnnie is a vital voice, but not the lead of the defense team. Darden is a vital voice, but not the lead of the prosecution team. Johnnie is brought on to make a show of the racial component involved. Christopher is ostensibly brought on to refute that narrative, either with his words or with just his presence.

Darden starts the series by looking at Johnnie as a father figure, a man of the law, fighting for the rights of the black community. Quickly he realizes the mistake he’s made. At the end, he gets to deliver the final condemnation of Johnnie’s character. He leaves Johnnie with words that in any other show, series, or work of narrative would be the final word.

After Christopher gets his last say, Johnnie goes back to the law offices and turns on the TV. President Bill Clinton is discussing what the result of the trial means for the conversation of race in America. It’s then that Johnnie says, “We did it. We made our story heard.”

This is what I mean when the show asks, “What is a tragedy?” Is it a tragedy that O.J. Simpson was corrupted by a patriarchal society that surrounded him with L.A. yes men and brand deals? Yes. Is it a tragedy that a woman was ignored multiple times until she was nearly beheaded by her husband? Yes. Is it a tragedy that Marcia Clark lost one of the easiest and most blatant cases of murder because a social issue got in the way? Yes. Is it a tragedy that miser Johnnie Cochran let a known murderer free by making black issues into national issues? Yes.

These are tragedies of separate and competing strains. But the bigger problem is that our society enabled the discussion to be as razor edged for these characters as it was. That instead of being able to unite, they were separate by work, violence, and justice from achieving what should have been a palpable happy ending for all involved.

It’s fitting that we follow O.J. once the verdict is given. That he throws a party. That he gets to be told that his friends are not coming to party. That he reads a statement to the people at his house, people he doesn’t recognize, and doesn’t know. He tells Robert that the bible he gave him kept him company in prison, got him through the hard times. As he realizes that everything he ever gained and ever enjoyed in his life is falling around him, Robert holds that Bible up and leaves it on his table. He did not escape going to prison for his crimes, the prison is to be carried with him for good. All that O.J. is left with is the false image of his past accomplishments, an incredibly empty and vain appreciation for which he would later go to prison over. Just one of many tragedies wrought by his own arrogance.

If a man falls, and ends up nothing of what he once was, if an entire community gets to voice its pain and its concern in a way that does not destroy property, if a troubled if legitimate viewpoint of the law and justice is under minded so that an oppressed populace can be heard, then what is a tragedy, if not something to build on top of, if not a moment to take advantage of the eye of a nation which can only ever focus on violence and celebrity?

The People v O.J. Simpson is a masterpiece that redefines the very questions we ask with narrative art. Its laser focus on what is and isn’t worth fighting for while it builds heroes and villains that both achieve dual purposes demonstrates the complexity of our own world. As a show that gets to stamp down a truth about history. What that truth is? It finally displays how much tragedy must be endured to make progress, and just when you think you’ve answered every question it has it asks, “Ah, but what is progress?” as O.J. stares at that statue of empty glories in his backyard. So must we.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

-----

Click the image below to buy the product reviewed in this post (it kicks a couple of bucks back to me if you do!)

A Series of Unfortunate Events: Laughing at Count Olaf

When I was thirteen I had only read the first two books in A Series of Unfortunate Events. I liked them, but they were a bit small and I was just about to really get out of the age range that those early books are intended for. The movie coming out felt like a way to make me more interested in the series as a whole.

But that didn’t happen. And frankly, I think it was Jim Carrey.

He looks entirely pleased with himself.

Count Olaf, in my mind, never came off as funny in those books. He was a sinister presence, a direct confrontation with the grim and dirty world that plagued the Baudelaire’s. Sure the adults failing them in sometimes idiotic ways was always humorous to a degree of silliness, but Count Olaf always refused to play into that. So getting a comedic actor to play Olaf, always felt wrong to me.

I recently reread the first two books of the series (apparently this is an inevitable curse for me) and dropped them again. This was in part because I wasn’t reading very much and because of the repetitiveness, but the point is that Count Olaf still felt like a very foreboding and awfully real to life dark figure.

So Jim Carrey didn’t work for me. Count Olaf was, frankly, ridiculous in that movie and they made unnecessary plot changes that destroyed some of the wit and pace of the books (I mean it was three books in one).

But luckily now we have the TV series, with its completely serious casting of Neil Patrick Harris.

Barney?

Well…

Okay, so I’m going to say this first: I really like the TV Series. I thought it was great and that they perfectly captured the tone of the books. But they still did not capture my mental imagination of Count Olaf. And at this point, I can’t really keep arguing for it, because Daniel Handler is basically in charge of the show.

And to be fair, what I’m wanting for Count Olaf would be no fun. No fun at all.

Count Olaf the way I read him is a nasty horrible man. And he still is, but if he quipped like Carrey or Harris I would probably like him more. Instead, when I read scenes such as him talking about post-marriage rape (essentially) in the first book, and holding a knife literally against a child’s leg in the second book, I’m not laughing.

The TV Series has done a lot else great with adaptation. But that’s for another post. Until then, just know, that if the ridiculousness of Olaf in the film adaptations so far leaves you wanting, there’s always a much more unfortunate path in the books.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

-----
The series discussed above is available on Netflix. But, you might also be interested in seeing how such a series could be executed through the written word as well. By clicking on the image below you can purchase the first book in the series, and see if you like it.

Totally Uncontroversial: The Best Thing from The OA

The OA, the latest (way to date yourself) series on Netflix is riddled with problems. I know, I know, people like it. I like it. The sometimes spotty plotting and sparse characterization don't detract from one thing though: it's honest exploration of nearly every realm of spiritualism.

Now, to be fair, that's a bit of a misnomer. The concept of taking every single religious philosophy and merging them into a monogamous marriage of humankind's best and brightest ideas is something that's been done multiple times. And honestly, most of the time writer's use a short cut. It's a fictional God, or it's about humans versus a Devil figure. Instead, The OA takes the hard route. It crafts together symbolism stitched from a variety of viewpoints into a whole. Christian, Islamic, Norse, Roman, and Judaism all serve as sources of lessons, morals, philosophies, and explorations in The OA and without spoiling a late-game twist, paints a picture of the centre of all of them by means of a medium.

That is to say, the one best thing from the OA is the dance.

The dance.

Laugh, but understand that laughing is the first in a long line of human reactions to this... okay, is that a Kamehameha?

I'm kind of amazed how split people are on this. If nothing else, I would think the thematic blindness of the popular perspective of shows and writing and films exposes itself in those that don't realize the dance absolutely epitomizes the entire crux of the show. One could even argue the show writes in a reason for it to seem made up on the spot and advance only in broken pieces the way it does. We're supposed to look at the unexplained gaps as the elements of a spiritual story, where gaps and holes exist, reason to question exist, and reason to doubt are pertinent.

But the dance is the doing away of all that. Whether you believe OA's backstory or whether you buy into the show telling you that it was all made up, the idea of prisoners doing a nonsensical dance, filled with the metaphor of swallowing a dove, spreading yourself out, reaching out to those on either side, these are the messages of the entire show.

Even the climax ends it on the crux of the dance. Spiritualism is a weapon against the biggest craziest tragedies of the world. Without talking about the problem of plotting in light of the climax, it can be safely said that them dancing is one of the strangest most satisfying climaxes I've seen in a show this year (that is, 2016). It's the rule that storytelling works on, but dance... how cinematic is dance? How can you accomplish this story by a means other than television? You can't. Not really.

Basically, when something hugely thematic or important to a story and can only be accomplished in that medium, that's when you've found out exactly how something has transcended its artform.

And that is the best thing from The OA.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

Mass Surveillance Part 2: Snowden (2016)

Film Review for Snowden (2016)
Directed by: Oliver Stone
Written by: Oliver Stone, Kieran Fitzgerald
Based on the book by: Anatoly Kucherena, Luke Harding
Starring: Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Shailene Woodley, Zachary Quinto, Melissa Leo, Rhys Ifans, and others

Review

You know the story of Edward Snowden, and Oliver Stone's film, much like his previous political films, sets to tell the human story of someone at the center of conspiracy. In this case, Edward Snowden a young man who injures himself in the armed service grows to serve his country in other ways. He is a computer science genius, shown to us in the typical "smartest guy in the room" type of incredulous test-study thing, before becoming a major worker in the CIA. It's during his time that he comes into contact with the NSAs surveillance network and his paranoia grows until he decides to whistleblow.

Considering that Edward Snowden's whistleblowing and what he divulged happened in the real world we are mostly familiar with this story. Citizenfour, the documentary whose real filming is dramatized in this film, was released about a year after Snowden's leak, the reputation of which had garnered a serious reputation as a blow against America. Declared an act of treason, the most important weight to drag to this film is the idea that Snowden somehow wronged us.

The film itself is surprisingly "meh."

Let's be clear, the character of Edward Snowden is not interesting, not in real life, not in the film. He was a worker, he got scared of his work, and he smuggled and whistleblew. That's literally the story, to the point that when he first came out many media outlets and the government did their best to try and redact his claims, to say he was just a disgruntled office worker who was mad about a relocation. There's an untouched arc that could've worked, where Snowden transitions from being a soldier to being a treasounous whistleblower, but for some reason the film refuses to ever tap into this. The Snowden from the very first conversation with his love interest is the exact same person at the end of the film.

Shailene Woodley has piss-all to do in this film besides look and act like Shailene Woodley. Has anyone even interviewed Snowden's wife/girlfriend person? You can't tell in this film, as she literally falls out of the sky as cool girl to have sex with, even when she's mad there's still some sexy things you can do with and for her. I've never seen so much screentime so grossly misused as with the romantic partnership between these two.

Let me be clear: I do not find the fear and paranoia of Mass Surveillance in and of itself interesting. It has to be made interesting for me. What I'm not interested in is Joseph-Gordon Levitt staring at his webcam. That's not interesting, especially when the only shot in the film dedicated to making that scary is a single shot of a woman who only goes to her undies. Invasive? Yes! Frightening? Paranoid? Thrilling? No. The opening shot of Carrie physically represents a far more uncomfortable reality of the relationship with nude vulnerability and viewership.

At least Orwell understood that rummaging through self-reported facts can create an entirely fictional criminal. That was sort of scary. But Snowden fails to think beyond some strange moral line. It seems to insist, "The government shouldn't be able to do this," and that in and of itself is only scary to a particular type of jingoistic gun toting paranoid that I'm not.

Snowden for some reason fails to comprehend what subject its even talking about. Nearly everything in the film, down to the basic paranoia that we established must be there in this genre, is missing. Instead we get a very boring slow portrait of a very boring man. And it did not have to be this way.

I think of Fruitvale Station, certainly a much more emotional powerhouse film, but a biographical film about a man unjustifiably shot at a train station while handcuffed. It's important to realize that the action of being killed is not what is focused on in that film. Instead, it takes a tour of what a young black man's life might look like, where he might have gone wrong, where he might have gone right. Then they kill him. And that's it. That's the point.

There is nothing interesting in the continued discussion this film has about Edward Snowden. Yes, what he did was great. No, nothing anyone has done before will be as important for the transperancy of the country. But there's a character there, a story, and a biography, not just of one man but of everybody, and when it's painted with this bland a brush for the characters, it serves absolutely no justice to the real people in America who may begin to feel threatened by this type of thing.

Art is an argument, a political stance, and the one in Snowden is so laughably weak that the concept of being "scared" only exists in the next project Stone decides to direct.

-----

Did you like this post? If so, consider signing up for the e-mail list so you never miss out on the latest film, tv, music, or video game post from Expository Conundrum! (Hint: It's in the upper right-hand corner of the page!!)

Also, consider donating to the blog! Your eyes are enough, but generosity and support can go a long way to making us both feel a lot better. Support your local artist (by local I mean Internet local.)

And finally, you can hang around the Facebook page or Twitter to keep up on Social Media. This doubles as the easiest way to harass me, but you wouldn’t do that would you?

-----
I didn't like Snowden, and when I don't like something, I'm not going to recommend it to you either. Instead, if you like conspiracies and/or Oliver Stone, make sure you've seen his career making masterpiece, JFK. It's longer than Snowden, but definitely better.