Book review: The Years of Rice and Salt by Kim Stanley Robinson

  If there is one thing history has taught us,it would be that it is good to be a white European.  White Europeans are often those with power and are the ones who are treated rather well. As a consequence of this, those who do not fit into the Caucasoid mold, and who do not follow the ideals of a Greco-Roman christian society are subjected to oppression, conversion, destitution, and at times, outright annihilation. Whilst non-white empires have thrived and prospered, even with more powerful entities slowly consumed their neighbors, generally speaking, most of the world's historically powerful nations have been centered within Europe, and have had a largely Caucasian in origin. The Roman Empire, the French Empire, Germany, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Greece, and  most notably, the British Empire, which was once dubbed "The empire where the sun never set." Even the current primary superpower, the United States of America, whilst not in Europe, has its roots primarily in European philosophies, and a majority population, that could trace its origin to Europe. As a result of this balance of power, a significant amount of world culture is influenced by Greco-Roman culture, and the even more significant amount not centered in Europe is viewed within the lens of a European perspective. Nations not in Europe have constitutions and governments based off Enlightenment ideals from European philosophers. Those countries have architecture that can trace its origin to Medieval and Renaissance architecture. Even old traditions are redefined using European terminology. If there is a point I am attempting to convey here, it's that Christian Europe has been VERY influential in world history. However, here's some fruit for thought; What if Europe was removed as a influence in world history? What if the great empires of Europe never rose, and colonized the world, and not spread their ideals throughout it? What civilizations would take its place? What cultural forces would come to influence world society? This concept forms the central premise of Kim Stanley Robinson's alternate history The Years of Rice and Salt. In this anthology, the Bubonic Plague, as opposed to killing approximately 30-40% of European population, kills 99.9% of all of Europeans. This leaves Western civilization vanquished permanently. As a result, new cultures and civilizations slowly rise to take Europe's place in world history, creating and influencing cultures, and molding the world through their lens. The primary focus of the novel is one the two main cultures that come to dominate this world (as they were the most powerful nations in the world at the time of the plagues); China and the Islamic world. There is also a strong focus on Indian and Iroquois countries. All of these countries come together to forge a world very foreign, yet strangely familiar to our own, with some historical events paralleling our own histories, others very different. To add a bit of continuity for each story in the novel, Robinson decides to deploy the device of Buddhist style reincarnation. At the end of each story, the characters enter Bardo (the Tibetan Buddhist version of Purgatory), and is reincarnated in a different age, and for the most part, a different culture. You can keep track of which characters reincarnate into whom, by the first letters of their names. The main characters in each story have names starting with B, P, I, K, and Z. This provides an interesting framing device, though at times, the scenes set within the Bardo can be somewhat tedious and inconsequential. As this is an anthology, it contains multiple stories (each by the same author), and I will go through each story individually, and evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of these tales. So, let's stop beating the bush, and dive right in (Note: this will contain spoilers for the overall direction of the novel):

     The first tale, Awake to Emptiness, is set in multiple places, but starts in 14th century Hungary. Bold and Psin, two scouts in Timur-I Leng's (A Mongol Turk infamous for attempting to restore Genghis Khan's empire, and largely being unrepentantingly brutal in his conquests) army, discover a village completely wiped out by the plague. Realizing the danger, Timur turns his army around, and orders the two soldiers executed to prevent the spread of plague. However, they escape, just a lightning bolt hits Timur's tent, killing him. Bold proceeds to aimlessly wonder the ruins of Eastern Europe on horse back, encountering only one local, whom (despite Bold being a polygot) he is unable to communicate with. He wounds up in the Black Sea (one particularly interesting scene sees Bold in Athens, and viewing the last offerings in the Parthenon.) Here, he is finally found by Arab slave traders, who capture him, and eventually sell him to the fleet of legendary historical Chinese explorer Zheng He. Here, he befriends a young African slave named Kyu, who is rendered a eunuch by the eunuch crew (due to their embitterment over their forced state). They stop in Sri Lanka, and eventually come to China, where they are sold to a restaurateur, and kept as kitchen slaves. Whilst Bold is surprisingly content with this, Kyu, who resents the Chinese for chopping off his genitals, has some very specials plans, particularly for the Emperor in Nanjing, the ruler of the Ming Dynasty. To enhance the tone of the story, much of it is written in the style of the famous 16th century Chinese epic, Journey to the West, with the narrative occasionally giving way to poetic verses throughout. This is an interesting artistic choice, and a welcome one, although it does get somewhat distracting. The first part of this story, Bold wandering the East European wastelands, is quite captivating in the feelings of isolation for Bold, and the destitution showed in the ruins of the European villages. The aforementioned scene of Bold looking into the Parthenon, and viewing the final prayers in it is quite powerful in its melancholy. Similarly, the second part, whilst not as interesting, is still notable in its constant references to Chinese culture and Chinese history, which in and of itself is quite interesting, and having to look up certain references is always a good indicator of an excellent story. The book is littered with these sorts of minor references to cultures. It helps give authenticity to the setting of the story. Storywise, the second part is still solid, and is still very interesting to read, particularly Kyu's quest for vengence, and how Bold is dragged into it, reluctantly.
     The second story, The Haj in the Heart, shifts the setting to 15th century Mughal India. A young Hindu women named Kokila poisons her husband's brother and father, after the former impregnated her friend, Bistami, and for the two's overall corruption as heads of their village. For her crime, she is executed, and her next life is that of a Tiger. As a tiger named Kya, she saves and befriends a young Persian Sufi named Bistami. Despite Bistami's pleas, the villagers kill Kya.  After several years pass, Bistami travels to Agra, where he becomes a prominent figure in the court of Emperor Akbar. He becomes a personal friend of the Emperor, but many in Akbar's court aren't very fond of Bistami. Eventually, the Emperor also comes to distrust Bistami. Consequently, Bistami is sent on a hajj to Mecca, where he studies with other Persian Sufis. However, he grows to detest life in Mecca, and with the Mughals slowly extending in to Mecca, he joins a group of Sufis leaving Mecca. He travels to Africa, and eventually ends up on a caravan travelling through Al-Andulus (Spain). The caravan is ruled by a sultan, Mawji Darya and his beautiful wife, Katima, who has unorthodox views regarding the Qu'ran and gender roles. The caravan eventually settles in the ruins of a Frank town, and they build a city on it. Bistami comes to largely agree with the views Katima espouses. However, after the sultan dies, and Katima becomes ruler, certain people become restive. I think you could cut out the first two parts of this story, and you'd still be read this without confusion. I'm not saying the first two parts are bad. They do contain good plots, which have a lot of drama. Bistami features in the second part.They just don't hold much significance for the main story. Other than that, another good tale. Its insights into the nature of Islam, the ideas expressed in the Qu'ran, and the two's relation to women's rights, are quite fascinating to read, even to those who aren't familiar with the holy tenants of Islam.

     Our third narrative, Ocean Continents, shifts the focus back to 15th century China, at least initially. The Wanli Emperor, fed up with Japanese pirates invading Chinese shores, and concerned with the potential threat of Tokugawa Ieyasu and his rule over a unified Japan, decides that its time to, quote, "return this bastard child of Chinese culture to its rightful place under the Dragon throne."To this end, he assembles a fleet under the control of a former pirate-turned-admiral from Vietnam named Admiral Kheim. On this fleet is a doctor named I-Chin. Whilst sailing to a port owned by an daimyo (feudal lord) allied with the Chinese, Kheim's fleet is blown off course, and set adrift in the Dahai (the Pacific Ocean). After spending weeks out at sea, hoping that ocean currents would bring them back to China, they come across a mysterious land, and a mysterious people. They live amongst these people, and eventually teach a young local girl (whom they name Butterfly), Chinese. They learn that the people living in the area call themselves the Miwok. However, they soon learn that they brought smallpox to the Miwok, and, having grown to care for them, decide to leave, bringing Butterfly with them. However, what new discoveries, or threat, await them on their continued journey. The landscape of California and the people of the Americas are described in ways only Chinese people not completely familiar with the Americas would describe them. At one point, one character even speculates that they have in fact landed in Europe, and the Miwok are the inhabitants reduced to a more primitive civilization by the plague. I greatly admired the way the Chinese sailors, after learning that they have spread smallpox to the Miwok, magnanimously decide to leave, in contrast to the first European explorers and settlers. The final part of the story (which I will not spoil), is very action-packed, and tense, and there is a very tragic death near the end of the story.
    The Alchemist is set in 17th century Samarkand, in what is now Uzbekistan. An alchemist named Khalid Al-Samarqandi has been caught trying to trick the local khan (leader) into thinking he had transmuted lead into gold. The Khan punishes him by chopping off his right hand. This sends him into a deep depression, and in this morose state, he demands that his alchemy texts be destroyed. However, his son-in-law Bahram and their friend Iwang (a Tibetan Buddhist mathematician) convince him to test the claims of the authors in these texts. They first disprove alchemy altogether, and proceed to make a myriad of scientific discoveries, from gravity, to the speed of sound, to the fact that sound needs a medium, to the composition of white light, to microbes, to Jupiter's four moons. These experiments are supplemented by various Indian, Persian, and Chinese texts from caravans. However, the Khan's top advisor seeks to use these developments for military applications, especially with the looming threat of Qing China overhead. This is probably my favorite story, largely because the scientific discoveries are very recognizable to someone somewhat fluent in scientific history. However, they are still stated in terms as if they were new discoveries, allowing for the excitement to resonate. Also, it has the most interesting characters of the piece. Not saying the other characters in this book are not good, but I feel that this story has the most relatable characters.
           Warp and Weft is set deep in North America (called Yingzhou here) around 17th-18th centuries. The High Council of the Hodenosaunee League are meeting to elect the new leader of the Confederation. They are unanimously in favor of a foreigner named Fromwest, whom they rescued from torture in the west. He is elected, and during the celebration, he narrates to them his story. Of how he was originally named Busho, and born in a far-away land called Hokkaido . About how he became what is called a "ronin," or "samurai without a master." About how China invaded and annexed his homeland, forcing him into exile. And finally, how he believes the Hodenosaunee system of government and interpersonal relationships are exemplar, and needs to prove an example to the world. And finally, how he intends on protecting the League from incursions from Chinese to the West, and Muslims to the East. I feel this story is the weakest, not because it is poorly written, but it is too short. The concept of a samurai training native Americans against invaders is fascinating. However, Robinson doesn't go far enough with the concept as much as he could have. However, there is still that central concept that is still quite fascinating, with Fromwest teaching the Iroquois how to protect themselves with guns, and how they were to form a great nation.
    Widow Kang brings us back to China, now ruled by the Manchu Qing Dynasty. A recent widow, the eponymous Kang Tongbi and her irate youngest son befriend a Buddhist monk, Bao Ssu and his son. Kang feels particularly close to Bao, taking care of his son on occasion. However, tragedy strikes, as  Kang's son has his queqe cut off. The queqe is a symbol of Manchu dominance over the native Han people. Bao is accused of cutting the queqe, and is executed for his crime. Kang falls into a deep depression, and begins to have symptoms like sleepwalking. Her son brings in a Persian scholar named Ibrahim ibn Hasan to help her. Together, they go through hyponotic sessions where they remember their past lives. Eventually, the two begin to fall in love, with Ibrahim moving to China, and continuing his study of History, and Kang beginning to write poetry. However, this lays in a backdrop of increasing tensions between the Hui (Muslim) and Han, and the ruling Manchu rulers. This story is quite heavy in historiographical detail. There is a lot on the nature of history, the way history works, the direction of history. The views expressed are described as being Marxist in nature. It is quite heavy. If you can decipher the details, one can come to enjoy the story, and hell, one might be able to learn a thing or two about the nature of history.
    The Age of Great Progress is set in several places, but begins in 18th Century Ottoman Empire. There, the Sultan's doctor, Ismail, has been heavily involved in the activities of the Sultan (at one point, visiting a harem full of rare European women). However, the Ottomans have come under siege from the technologically advanced Travancore League. Originating in Southern India, they have amassed such political influence, that they have driven the Mughals from Northern India, and defeated the Persians. They have utilized air ballons and iron ships in their conquest. They lay siege on Constantinople, and have captured Ismail. However, little did they realize that Ismail had correspondents with a Buddhist doctor and abbess named Bhakta. With her help, he is realized, and allowed to come to Travancore. There, he encounters a society which values scientific knowledge and technological expertise, which the monestary Bhakta resides in openly embrace. He eagerly joins them. Eventually, his work gets him a meeting with the Kerala of Travancore, an enlightened despot of sorts, who seeks to spread liberal and scientific ideals, and wishes Ismail to join him. The description of a non-European industrial revolution is done well-enough, and has a degree of uniqueness, in that the society comes to embrace science and technology, and seeks to use their gifts for spreading good, not for imperial desires. The characters are well defined, and the monestary is very captivating.
    The War of the Asuras is set in the 20th century, between China, Himalayas, and India. Eventually, tensions between China and the Islamic world would rise, and eventually, blow in the form of Muslim riots in China, which, in 1914, would lead to a war between an alliance of Islamic states (called Dar al-Islam, which refers to any state where Islam is practiced regularly), and an alliance of China, the Houdensee League, and the Travancore league. It revolves around three soldiers in the Chinese army: Kuo, Bai, and Iwa. They are good friends, often discussing the news from the front, and the nature of a war that has been going on for so long that nobody remembers how it began. One day, a artillery shell is set off in their encampment, killing Kuo. Despite this setback, Bai and Iwa trudge on, travelling with the army through the Himalayas to connect the Chinese and Indians to drive the Muslims out. All the while, the two wonder whether they are truly alive, or they are in the war-torn bardo. The question of whether one is truly alive, especially in the face of war, is one that is rarely explored, at least in my experience. The way that the characters question their reality, and whether they are in the realm of the living, or the dead, brings a Dickisian dimension. There are also some pretty cool scenes, like a scene of the top of Mount Everest being blown off, so that K2 is the highest peak in the world!
    Nsara is set after the war, in what would've been Northern France, but starts in Switzerland (known in this world as the Alpine Emirates). A young women named Budur lives with her father at his harem. Living with her is her scientist aunt, Idelba, who had been studying with her husband before his death. Her research was in the fields of atomic physics, and, in particular, radiation. She greatly misses her work, and one day, escapes from the harem. Budur follows her, and, after Idelba initial reluctance, accompanies her to Nsara. There, Idelba continues her work in radiation, whilst Budur meets various figures of intrigue in this city. She has a growing interest in history and archaeology. However, following the Chinese victory in the war, the Muslim world has been increasingly falling into disarray, and rebellion, which might reach Nsara one day. Meanwhile, Idelba's research has uncovered a deadly secret, which would be disastrous if it falls into the wrong hands.  The descriptions of Budur's travel through Nsara, and the interesting, outspoken characters she encounters is the best thing about the story. The way Robinson writes these scenarios is very compelling, and makes you want to read more. The description of protons and electrons as "Yin-Yang particles" was amusing. The examination of history is lesser, and more accessible in this story than in "Widow Kang." There are parts where I had trouble deciphering what was happening, but it was good. I would've been fine if this was the conclusion. However, we still have one story to go.
     The First Years brings this story to a close in China. Here, a young man named Bao Xinhua is caught up in a revolution by his friend Kung Jinao, against the military government ruling China since the war. After Kung is killed, Bao moves to Fungzang (a city roughly where San Francisco is), where he settles down and teaches history to future generations. That's really it to the story. It's not bad, but it really doesn't finish off the book well. It could of worked better if this story and the story before it were switched around. However, it's not a bad story, and it does keep your interests well enough.
    Overall, I find that this novel has become one of my personal favorites. Yes, it has minor flaws in the individual stories, but what Kim Stanley Robinson does in this novel is to give an ambitious modern history, one not influenced by traditional European thinking. This lens allows us to view cultures like China, India, or Islam from their point of view, not the European view. It shows hat these cultures are as much, if not more inclined towards progressive ideals than Western culture. Overall, I highly recommend this novel to anyone interested in history, or wants to see other cultures.
     

Movie Reviews: Man of Steel.

(Note: this will contain moderate spoilers)
         Superheroes have become sort of a modern mythology. Beings with powers beyond that of ordinary man has been a staple of mythology since the beginning of civilizations. Now, instead of god with awesome and reality changing powers, or heroes out on quests to vanquish monsters or the like, we instead get the costumed hero, battling to save the pedestrian populace from various evils, ranging from petty criminals, corrupt businesses and business people, and murderers, to alien conquerers, evil sorcerers, cosmic beings, and mad scientists. These adventures of superhumans and their adventures are essentially no different from the fantastic mythologies of Greece or Norway or India. And, like the myths of old, which were depicted in various pieces of art ranging from the medieval times to the Victorian period, and later in books, movies, and video games in the modern age, various heroes are open to new interpretations, and new stories are born as a result. This is particularly true for superhero movies. From the 1940's onward, film adaptations showing various interpretation of superheroes have been made. Some of the traits created in these film can enter into the heroes regular continuity. However, recently, superhero movies have become not only more culturally  predominant, but also very profitable. This is shown in two franchises, the Dark Knight Trilogy and Marvel's Avengers films. These two franchises have made billions of dollars in box office revenue, putting them amongst the highest grossing films of all time, catapulted the characters into national attention, and created parodies and pop culture references the world over. The result: a resurgence in the popularity of comic book movies and heroes. Heroes like Spider-man are given new life on film, and more obscure properties like Guardians of the Galaxy and Ant-Man also have film adaptations in the works. Who better to ride this wave of popularity amongst comic heroes, than the original comic book superhero (I'm going to be a pedantic nerd here, but the first being considered a fictional superhero was a somewhat obscure French character, whose super powers essentially amounted to being able to see in the dark, but I'm not talking about that.) I'm talking about Superman. Superman has become the archetype of a superhero. A being wearing tights, spandex and a cape, possessing amazing powers normal humans do not, fighting crime as a moral duty to society. Superman has been, and is the quintessential american superhero, as well as an American icon. He has been depicted and re-depicted ever since his first appearance in 1938. From radio to Television to books to his native comic books, he has always fought crime and corruption "in a never ending struggle for truth, justice, and the American way." What better superhero to star in a film at height of the superhero craze. So, to achieve such, Warner Brothers and DC comics brought in Zack Synder (300, Watchmen) as director, and visionary Christopher Nolan (Inception, The Dark Knight trilogy) to create Man of Steel, another version of the Superman story. Does it manage to achieve the high quality of the Avenger films and the Dark Knight trilogy, whilst also maintaining the essentially good-natured spirit of Superman. Well..., let's just take look at it.
     Based on the character published by DC comics, and created by Jerry Siegal and Joe Shuster, Man of Steel follows the story of Kal-El, an infant on the planet Krypton. His father, scientist Jor-El (Russel Crowe), has deduced the planet will eventually self-destruct, killing all who live on it. As such, he tries to convince the high council to try to evacuate the citizens. However, the Council is briefly overthrown by General Zod (Michael Shannon), who proceeds to try to capture Jor-El for a device called the Codex, which contains the genetic code for all of the citizens of Krypton. To save both the race and his son, he infuses the code into his son's body, and sends him on a rocket into space. Zod, in a fit of rage, kills Jor-El. However, the Council defeats Zod's forces, and they subsequently punish Zod and his loyal followers by exiling them to the mysterious Phantom Zone. Meanwhile, Kal lands on the planet Earth in Kansas, where he is found and cared for by farmers Martha (Diane Lane) and Jonathan Kent (Kevin Costner.) They decide to name him Clark. Young Clark has enhanced capabilities such as X-ray vision, super strength, Heat ray vision and flight. At first, these abilities cause him trouble, as he struggles to both control his abilities, and conceal them. However, he slowly begins to control and use his powers for the greater good. This brings the ire of his father, who feels he shouldn't do so at such a young age. At one point, Jonathan decides to show Clark the spaceship he landed in, and also a mysterious object with symbol resembling an S. One day, whilst getting into argument with his father over his use of his powers, a tornado arrives. Whilst the family flees, the family dog is left in the car. Clark's father goes to rescue the dog, but as a result, is unable to escape the tornado. Just as Clark goes to save him, Jonathan refuses help, and is killed as a result. Flash forward 20 or so years, and we see the now adult Clark Kent ( Henry Cavill) as a bearded vagabond, travelling around doing good deeds. His travels bring him to a defunct Kryptonian ship in the Artic, where he learns his origin as well as the origin of his people from the "consciousness" of Jor-El, and acquires a suit with the S symbol (revealed to be the symbol of his house, which means hope.) In the ship, he also meets reporter Lois Lane (Amy Adams). She is there to write on the military installations surrounding the Kryptonian ship, and stumbled upon it. Lois, intrigued by her mysterious savior, decides to investigate his origin. Meanwhile, Clark returns to his widowed mother, now confident about his origin. However, soon a threat arrives that threatens the Earth. General Zod and his minions have escaped the Phantom Zone, and is now trying to reestablish the lost Kryptonian species. He is brought to Earth by the distress signal brought by the Artic ship when Clark activated it. Zod intents to terraform Earth to make it more like Krypton, and use the genetic code infused in Clark body to repopulate it with Genetically engineered Kryptonians, all the while eradicating the human population. Can Superman stop Zod from enacting his plans, killing his adopted people in the process?
    What I will say in this movie's defense, is that many of the concepts it introduced are quite fascinating. The design of Krypton at the beginning is very interesting, and creative. The society it introduces is also somewhat interesting. The idea that Superman's powers caused him trouble when he was young, and he had to master them has potential. Finally, Zod's plan to turn the earth into Krypton is a legitimately good idea in and of itself. Overall, it has some nice concepts behind it...
    But it has a number of problems. First, and definately foremost is WHY DOES THE "S" ON SUPERMAN'S HAVE TO BE A SYMBOL? I'm serious, the whole "the S-shaped symbol around Superman is actually a Kryptonian symbol of hope" really bothered me throughout the feature. Why is this needed? This is not Batman. Batman's symbol, the bat, makes sense, it's meant to strike fear into the heart of the criminal element. Superman's S is a purely aesthetic choice, just meant to indicate it's Superman (or Bizarro).  Is it really necessary to make the S a symbol of hope? I mean, why not just make it an S, you know, for Superman. And as for the whole, "well, it's meant to show that Superman's suit comes from Krypton," Well, why couldn't he just sew the S on to the costume? The more you think about it, the less sense it makes. Alright, let's move away from that for the moment.  Let's go to the other pieces. First, the acting is soulless. It's almost like a Shaymalam film, where most of the acting has no emotion to it. Every actor doesn't emote very well, and what we get is a cast full of bland actors. And I know many of them can act (I know that Amy Adams has more charisma in her acting then what is displayed here.) The plot is okay, though I did have a problem with them basically redoing Batman Begins with Superman. Except that Superman and Batman are fundamentally differing personalities. Superman is driven by his morals, the ideals his adopted parents installed into him when he was growing up. He uses his powers to do good, because his adopted parents taught him to do that with his powers, and he wants to help people as a result. Batman is driven by his anger. He wants revenge on the system that allowed his parents to be murdered in front of him. So, he takes it upon himself to wage a personal war against crime in his parents honor, and prevent what happened to his parents happen again. Turning Superman into Batman in a Superman costume does not work, because the two heroes are fundamentally different. Also, just a pet peeve, but why does it not go into chronological order regarding the flashback. Why not go the "Batman Begins" route (Yeah, yeah, I know I just said that this film was very similar to that one, but not in this sense.), and just put the flashbacks in order. You know, so that we could see the character grow, see him  slowly develop his skills, and eventually become Superman. It has worked before. It worked in the 90's animated series, where the chronology followed that exact pattern. Moving away from the plot, the dark tone does not work well with Superman. Now, don't get me wrong, it is possible to juxtapose a dark tone with Superman.  However, this seems too dark a tone to go with in a Superman movie. The tone almost reminds me of... hey, wait! Look, the dark tone may have worked for the Dark Knight trilogy, but that doesn't mean it could work for a Superman film. Especially since Superman is such as optimistic and light-hearted series. Whilst that explanation doesn't mean that Superman can't have drama or complex characterization, that sort of style is integral to Superman, and is the reason for his continued success. Another thing that is wrong with this is the very fact that it is a tone from the Dark Knight. It doesn't change. You could try a different approach with this film, but instead, they decided to recycle the tone of the Dark Knight, and expects it to work here, even though this is not a Batman movie.
    Alright, so Man of Steel isn't necessarily a great film. Is it the worst? No. I have seen far, far worst films than this, just browsing the episode guide of Mystery Science Theater 3000. However, it suffers from a number of flaws and faults that prevent it from attaining greatness. It has some good ideas that could have worked. However, the combination of bad acting and an attempt to replicate the Dark Knight with Superman bogs it down severely. My score is a 40%, has some good ideas, but isn't overall good. Who would I recommend it to? Well, I can't really recommend it to anyone. If you like the Dark Knight Trilogy, and feel you could tolerate it's repetition, than I suppose you would enjoy this film. Otherwise, for Zack Synder fans, it doesn't have any of his trademarks, for action fans, the action is more loud and bombastic than enjoyable (at least in my opinion.), and overall, it doesn't really have much of the spirit or charm of Superman to recommend it to fans of the character. However, this is only my opinion. If you enjoyed the film, fine, I respect that, you have your tastes. However, if you disagree with me, and want to express it in the comments, just try to be respectful of my opinion. Thank you for reading, and have a nice day.

Movie Reviews: Les Miserables

             (Note: I started writing this three months ago. I started writing it the 23th of February, but then life got in the way, and I became too busy finish it. Thus, why I make a reference to the Oscars being two days in the very first paragraph, because that was the day I started writing. Forgive me, if you're annoyed by this. Every thing up to the 6th sentence of the third paragraph was written in February. Anyway, enjoy, regardless of the time of writing.)
        In two days, the Academy Awards ("the Oscars") will occur in the Dolby Theater in Hollywood. In this ceremony, special awards are given to films that were critically, though sometimes not financially, successful films of the preceding year. Organized by the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, these awards have been a tradition since 1929, celebrating the best in cinema during that particular time. This year, the Oscar nominees include "Argo", "Lincoln", "Zero Dark Thirty", and other critically praised films. However, I am going to focus on one particular nomination: "Les Miserables."  Now, exploring the depths of youtube and Metacritic, I have found that a lot of people REALLY like this film. Some were blown away by it, and some were brought to tears by the performances. There are a lot of reviews declaring this film, "AMAZING", and "BRILLIANT", and "STUNNING". And that leads them to attack other reviewers for criticizing it. I refer you to the "What the Flick" review of Les Miserables. Now, the critics in that video were heavily criticizing the film, some very legitimate, but some somewhat harsh. The notable thing, however, was the comments. Most of the comments went to the effects of "Les Mes rocks, and these people don't like any movies, if they hate this film." This is of course indicates a high admiration for the film, and a confusion if one dislikes the film.There are a lot of people who like this movie. I'm not one of them. In fact, I think it is largely mediocre; let's see why, shall we?
     The story, based on Victor Hugo's 1862 novel and the stage adaptation of that work with music by
Claude-Michel Schönberg, is set in post-revolution France between 1815 to 1832. It revolves around Jean Valjean (Hugh Jackman), a convict who has been paroled by prison guard Javant (Russel Crowe), but is rejected due to this. After being taken in by a priest, and moved by his kindness when Valjean steals some silver from the priest, and when two policemen confront the priest with Valjean and the silver, the Priest actually defends him, Valjean decides to skip parole and start his life anew. He becomes a respected factory owner. In his factory, one of his employees, Fantina (Anne Hathaway) is fired, despite having an illegitimate child to care for. To make ends meet, she becomes a prostitute. Meanwhile, Jean Valjean finds out that another man has been captured under the impression that he was Valjean. Whilst dealing with the implication, he comes across Fatina, who is being confronted by Javant, now a policemen and several others, over her assaulting a customer. After Valjean saves her and sends her to a hospital, he decides to come clean with the court about to convict the false Valjean, before visiting Fantine. After learning that Fantine has an illegitimate child, and narrowly escaping Javant, he finds Fatine's child, Cosette (Isabelle Allen), living as a virtual slave to a con man and his wife (Helen Bonham Carter and Sasha Baron Cohen), and after paying him in exchange for the child, decides once again starts a new life, with Cosette in tow. Skip forward another few years, and Jean Valjean has settled in Paris with the teenaged Cosette (not played by Amanda Seyfried.) However, their tranquil life is disturbed by a brewing revolution against the new king, lead by two young men named Marius ( Eddie Redmayne), and Enjolras (Aaron Tveit). On top of that, Marius falls in love with Cosette, and Javant, now a having a Captain Ahab-style obsession over Jean Valjean, wants to crush the rebellion. Can Jean Valjean help the rebellion, and approve of Cosette and Marius' romance.

First, I'll get all the things I like about the film out of the way. Most of the actors do well. Hugh Jackman does very well in the role of Jean Valjean, and the character himself is very likable, very noble, and very developed. Anne Hathaway does a terrific performance at the beginning of the film, and does a very powerful, emotional song. However, contrary to what the trailer show, Anne Hathaway is only in the movie for that amount of time. I really like the set designs, and how it easily conveys the setting of the piece, and creates an authentic atmosphere. Some of the other songs are also very nice to listen to, though I will elaborate later. Overall, there is many things to like about the film..

That said, there are some things I find distracting. The main one? EVERYONE SINGS THEIR LINES! No, literally, nobody says anything. They sing it. And to me, that is very irritating. Okay, maybe people like the innovation, but I was just annoyed that they were singing all the time. I didn't like it because there is no transition between musical number. That is to say, I cannot tell where one ends and the other starts. The musical number sort of all merge due to this, and thus individual songs lose some of their impact as a result. Also, it doesn't allow us time to calm ourselves, and get ready to enjoy the next musical number. Perhaps it's a pet peeve, but it just kept bothering me throughout my viewing of the film. This is my main problem with the movie. There are a lot of smaller problems I have. One is Russel Crowe's voice. Yeah, even people who like this movie don't really like Russel Crowe's singing all that much. The thing is, his voice always seems off tune every time he sings. I hear this is because he is a rock singer, and thus he is more adapted to that style of music then to opera, but I have never heard him sing rock, so I wouldn't necessarily know why. Also, he didn't really act that well. I suppose it's just that off-tune voice that keeps bothering me during his more emotional moments. Finally, I suppose the cinematography was crammed. I mean, these are very nice set designs, but we don't get time to enjoy it. Instead, the shots simply cram them into each shot, and it really is too much in one shot at times. It's hard to enjoy the scenery when its crammed into a single shot. Once again, probably a pet peeved, but these sets are very large and very nice looking, and the only time we get to enjoy them is the ending.

I suppose I don't necessarily dislike the movie. When I came out of the theater in December, My feeling was "meh..." It was largely okay in my opinion. Not a great film, but not one of the worst I've seen. I was only discontent with the reaction to negative criticism to the film, where people would blast anybody that has a negative opinion regarding the film. I don't know. If you like the film, fine, go right ahead. You are entitled to opinion, just like I am entitled to my opinion. If you read this, and you really disagree with me, leave it in the comments, explain why you like the movie, just be a little bit respectful about my opinion, alright. Anyways, if I were to give this a percentage of how good it is, with 100% being absolutely perfect, I'd give this a 70%. Some good things, some bad things. If you can tolerate the constant singing, then you'll probably like it alright.

Percentage :70%

Hello

Hello,
  I'd prefer to keep my identity anonymous, so just call me Mr. RC. This is my very first blog. I currently have nothing to discuss, just sort of a experimentation with the medium right. Good bye, I hope to see you soon, whoever's reading this.