Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Clash of the Titans

     Last time, we discussed Ray Harryhausen, legendary stop motion/special effects director. He had the market on fantastic adventures featuring stop motion monsters. However, by the late 70's, that market was dwindling, in the wake of higher quality special effects films like Star Wars and Close Encounters of the Third Kind. Harryhausen made what would be his final film in 1981, returning to the old well of Greek mythology, this time adaptating the legend of Perseus and Medusa.  He teamed up with producer Charles Scheer and screenwriter Beverly Cross (two people I forgot to mention in Jason). Cross got the idea for a film about Perseus and Medusa during a vacation near the island of Seriphos, where the legend took place. The story was expanded to include other monsters for Harryhausen to animate. Cross' then-wife Maggie Smith came aboard, and convinced her friend Laurence Olivier to join the cast. This being the period when Olivier did many roles for money, the most notable being as Douglas MacArthur in the Unification Church produced film Inchon. Another relationship on set was between stars Harry Hamlin and Ursula Andress (who played Aphrodite. I mention that, because she has no bearing the plot). There were a number of disagreements between star Hamlim and  the producers, particularly over the scene where Medusa was beheaded (getting beheaded by a thrown shield Captain America-style, over the original method in the original myth. The movie uses the latter, because Hamlin refused to leave his trailer until it was changed). As mentioned, this was Harryhausen's last film. To capitalize on the success of Star Wars, a mechanical owl was added as comic relief. After some modifications, the British film classification board placed an A rating (not recommended for those under 14) There was a sequel planned called "Force of the Trojans" (presumably adapting the Iliad), but that never came into fruition. However, some of you might be aware of the 2010 remake, and its sequel. I'll probably never cover or watch those, but we're talking about the original, so let's go.

      The film follows the story of Perseus (Harry Hamlin), a son of the king of gods Zeus (Laurence Olivier) and Danaë (Vida Taylor), who is the daughter of King Acrisius of Argos (Donald Houston) . For reasons I'm sure are explained at some point, but I didn't catch, Arcisius puts his daughter and grandson in a wooden coffin, and casts them out to sea. In vengeance, Zeus has the Kraken (a creature from Norwegian maritime myth, but we'll ignore that), destroys Acrisius and Argos, and ensures that Danae and Perseus are safely on the island of Seriphos, where Perseus grows up. The gods decide that Perseus was destined to achieve a certain mission, he is placed in an abadoned stadium with an elderly poet named Ammon (Burgess Meredith). Perseus learns that his mission is to free Princess Andromeda (Judi Bowker), daughter of Queen Cassiopeia (Siân Phillips) ruler of the city of Joppa, from a curse by her ex-fiance Calibos (Neil McCarthy), who was mutated by Zeus to a horrific Satyr creature, by solving a riddle. After the gods grift him with several mystical weapons, and gaining Pegasus (who was formed by the blood of Medusa in the myth, but whatever), Perseus follows the apparition of Andromeda to Calibos' realm. He battles Calibos, and figures out the riddle pertains to the ring on Calibos' hand. He cuts off the hand, but keep Calibos alive. He presents the hand, breaking Andromeda's curse, and making Perseus the main suitor for Andromeda. However, Thetis (Maggie Smith) is enraged by this, and Cassiopeia's statement that Andromeda was comparable to her beauty. In statue form, she demands that Andromeda be sacrificed to the Kraken, or the Kraken will destroy Joppa. Perseus seeks the guidance of the gods. Zeus commands Athena (Susan Fleetwood) to give her owl Bubo, but instead sends a replacement produced by Hephaestus (Pat Roach). Bubo guides Perseus and his small entourage assembled to assist him to the  the Stygian Witches (Flora Robson, Anna Manahan, and Freda Jackson). He takes their eye hostage in exchange for information on how to defeat the Kraken. He learns he must cut the head off of Medusa, which could turn the Kraken into stone. Now, Perseus must get Medusa's head, and get to Joppa, before Andromeda can be sacrificed.

   Once, the special effects are the main stars of this film. Medusa and the Kraken are particular standouts, with unique designs, and much more fluid motion than in Jason and the Argonauts. And the integration between the actors and the effects looks even better. Especially with Pegasus and Calibos, both of whom are portrayed in both stop-motion and physical forms (horse and actor, respectively). While obvious where the stop motion ends and the live action begins, it still is seamless enough that it isn't very bothersome. The acting is mostly fine. I kept hearing how Olivier was "over-the-top" and "clearly not caring". Honestly, that's not the impression I got. He did fine in the film. He seemed a bit tired, but given he was sick on set, it is understandable. Once again, since this is a classic of Greek mythology, I find it hard to criticize the story. Sure, it deviates from the original, but these stories have been changed all the time over the centuries. The pacing is better in this film, possibly because the film is longer, allowing equal time for both the story and the action scenes

     Once again, it was hard at time to figure out what was going on. I understood generally what happening in the story, but specific details confused me. I had to look up later that Arisius was jealous of Dinae's beauty, and that's why she was cast out. Perhaps it was explained in dialogue, but the dialogue is pretty grading, so I zoned out of parts of it. Perhaps it's my fault for not paying attention, but it got confusing. The characterization isn't very nuanced, but mythological films are more about archetypes than characters, so that gets a soft pass.

    This is basically as good as Jason and the Argonauts. It has the same good elements and most of the same flaws. It just has higher quality cinematography, and it was a good end to a career like Harryhausen's, especially how the ending describes how the heroes are preserved in the constellations. If you like Greek mythology or stop-motion monsters, or liked Jason and the Argonauts, you'll like this.

   I might revisit Harryhausen in one of his monster movies later on, but next we look at an actual horror movie, Halloween III: Season of the Witch.

Masterpiece of Horror Theatre- Jason and the Argonauts

      It's that time of year again, folks! Time for me to once again go through film history, and personally look through what are considered  classics in the horror genre. The scariest, the cheesiest, the most powerful. And, in honor of a recent trip to Greece, I decided to tackle two of the most well known films on Greek mythology, which also feature monsters (because I have to maintain the facade that this is a series about horror and monster movies) as the first two films. And starting that off is Jason and the Argonauts. 

     The account of the Argonauts that most modern iterations draw from was the epic poem Argonautica by Apollonius of Rhodes, in the 3rd Century BCE. Since then, Jason and the Argonauts has been adapted by a number of other authors, and Jason himself has made appearances, including a cameo in Dante Aligheri's 12th century poem Inferno. In the 20th century, there were many filmed adaptations, including an appearance in 1958's Hercules, starring Steve Reeves. However, the real hero of this particular film was its special effects director and associate producer Ray Harryhausen. The mastermind behind the stop motion effects for films like Mighty Joe Young, The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms, and Earth vs. Flying Saucers, Harryhausen wanted to distance himself from B-movie monster antics, which led him to produce The 7th Voyage of Sinbad in 1958. After the success of that, there was originally going to be a sequel, where Sinbad (despite being from the 11th century) teams up with the Argonauts. This was scrapped, and a stand alone feature for Jason was instead made. Harryhausen teamed up with Don Cheffey, and composer Bernard Herrmann (most known for composing the score for Psycho). It was originally called Jason and the Golden Fleece, but a similarly named Italian feature lead the producers to change the name. It was filmed primarily in Italy.  The effects took much longer to produce and film, with the ending skeleton scene having been shoot over for months. After release, the film garnered financial success, and influenced an entire generation of filmmakers. Tom Hanks, speaking at Harryhausen's Special Oscar award in 1992, remarked, "

Some people say Casablanca or Citizen Kane. I say Jason and the Argonauts is the greatest film ever made". But does it live up to the hype? Let's take a look.


The film begins with Pileas (Douglas Wilmer) getting a prophecy from the god Zeus (Niall McGinnis), that he will overthrow King Aristo, of Thassaly, and take over the Kingdom. During said coup, he kills Aristo's daughter, Briseis (Davina Taylor), while she prays to the goddess Athena (Honor Blackman, who some may remember as the Bond Girl from Goldfinger) . Athena, enraged, warns Pileas of a man with one sandal, and vows to protect Aristo's infant son, Jason. Years later, Jason (Todd Armstrong), raised by one of the soldiers from the palace, saves Pileas from drowning, unaware of who he is. Jason seeks to regain his throne, by gaining the legendary Golden Fleece. Pileas decides to support this effort in a bid to destroy Jason, having his son Acastus (Gary Raymond) tag along. Jason briefly discusses this with Zeus and Athena. Athena tells Jason that she will only help him five times during his journey. Athena also directs Jason to the location of the Fleece in Colchis. Jason assembles a crew, including ship builder Argus (Laurence Naismith), and crew Hercules (Nigel Green) and Hyla (John Cairny). Naming the ship Argo, they set sail for Colchis, with Athena's help. With many fantasic obstacles in their way (large bronze statues that come to life, demons, crusing cliffs, skeletons), can they get the Golden Fleece?

    The main aspect of this film that is most talked about is the stop motion effects, and they deserve all the praise they get. The special effects in this film are incredible, even in this day, with the most advanced CGI around in movies. The way the effects and actors are integrated, while crude, does give some credibility to the action happening. The famed skeleton scene at the end is especially notable, for the amount of detail that Harryhausen put in, during the fight. The acting is serviceable, standout performances comung  from Honor Blackman and Nigel Green. The story, while mundane, is still a classic Greek adventure, and seeing all those colorful creatures from mythology come to life was great.
   This movie has inconsistent pacing. The story set-up is done very quickly, causing you to miss parts of the story. For instance, it jumps 20 years between Pileas' coup and Jason's reemergence, but I couldn't tell until later on. This is a recurring problem, and I got confused sometimes when characters would appear out of nowhere. (Also, them being muscle bound cacausian men made them hard to tell apart, aside from Jason and Argus). Other times, the pacing would slow down, such as when they were journeying or fighting. The dialogue is stilted, and also causes confusion at points, since they explain events too late. The characterization, especially of Jason himself, leaves much to be desired.

    I could see why  this film is so beloved, despite its flaws. The effects are very impressive, and it does have that classic epic adventure atmosphere that is lacking now. However, it is imperfect, muddling in narrative elements. Still, if you're into Greek mythology, classic monster movies, stop motion animation, or want to see the myth that inspired Percy Jackson:Sea of Monsters,  check this one out.

   Next time, the other Harryhausen Greek mythology movie, the original Clash of the Titans.

A Boat by Any Other Name: Why "Boaty McBoatface" Matters

   So, in case you haven't been following this particular story, in March of 2016, the National Environmental Research Center in the UK launched an online poll to name a new polar research vessel currently in development. It was meant to, in the words of Britain's Science Minister Jo Johnson, to give the average Brit "the opportunity to feel part of this exciting project and the untold discoveries it will unearth." The vessel, costing $287 million, will study the effects of climate change in Antarctica, and will launch around 2019.

      This being the internet, the most popular name voted ended up being "Boaty McBoatface", as suggested by former BBC Radio Jockey James Hand (Hand apparently now regrets the decision, and particularly the attention it got). Despite it being the most popular name out of all suggested, NERC and the British Science would have none of it. Very recently, they announced the vessel would be named after Sir David Attenborough, famed naturalist and TV presenter most famous for the "Life" series on the BBC. This was despite Attenborough being only the fourth highest entry, behind Boaty, "Poppy-Mai" after a dying, cancer stricken 16 month old girl, and "Henry Worsley”, after a British Army officer who died attempting the first ever solo trek through Antarctica. However, it's not all bad for the Boaty Camp. The name would be bestowed on a small remote operated submarine, which collects data for the research team. 

   So, why am I talking about this? Well this was all prompted by this comment on the NPR coverage of the story (Link in the sources), by a fellow named "No One": 

It's not that they didn't want to use the results, it's just that the results have to be reasonable.
I'm sure people will participate in future polls in large numbers, despite this. The only ones who wouldn't are the same childish fools who voted for a ridiculous name; and I doubt those people know or care what the research vessel is for in the first place.

     But would they? Even you weren't particularly inclined to vote for this name, (like I was),after the NERC decides to disregard what the public wanted for the name, would you choose to vote again, knowing that they could disregard whatever was most popular name, whether it be silly or dignified?That herein lies the main issue with the whole ordeal. Even if the name was absurd (and admittedly David Attenborough is a more appropriate name and tribute to a fantastic nature documentarian), it was the name that the public did chose, and if the NERC didn't like the name, and intended to use a different one, why even engage with the poll? It discourages people from taking part in scientific research, however small the role, and even people who don't like the name might not like the idea of voting. To address the second part of Mr. Nemo's comments up there, Yes, the people who voted for the name may not have known what the vessel was for, but bestowing upon it a name like that may help popularize the vessel, get people engaged in what research the ship is engaged with. Hell, the controversy increased the visibility of the ship. I probably wouldn't have heard of the vessel, unless it was mentioned in a National Geographic article. Yes, the people voting may not have known or cared, but having a popular name on the ship may have gotten them to care. And it has gotten people to care about this ship, because the common refrain on the ship is "It'll always be Boaty McBoatface to me."

    I'm not upset about the name. I don't find the name particularly appealing, and like I said, "David Attenborough" is far more appropriate name. What does concern me is the fact that the public was invited to participate in very important research, and they were disregarded. This highlights a growing rift between the public and the scientific community. The average person regards most research as esoteric and incomprehensible, thus the rampancy of scientific illiteracy amongst the public. John Oliver did an excellent piece on his HBO program "Last Week Tonight", on the simplification of scientific research in popular media (and I suggest you look at that). And in recent years, the scientific community has begun outreaching to the general public, with popular science books being published and science documentaries becoming popular. However, when incidents like this occur, it tells the average layman that science is an incredibly closed process, and participation is cut off to them. This could not be further from the truth, but this perception opens up a whole litany of problems, from minority representation in science, to funding for the sciences to the aforementioned scientific illiteracy. Especially the latter. Remember, the ship was meant to survey Antarctica to study climate change. Since this controversy, perhaps people will be more invested in research, and they might realize that just because it snows in Minneapolis in December, that does not mean that climate change isn't real. If people have more participation in science, they could be more invested in it, and they could more easily understand how process of research works, and perhaps encourage them to be more invested in research.

Sources:

Boaty McBoatface, explained- Tara Goldshan| Vox

http://www.vox.com/2016/5/8/11606554/nerc-rrs-david-attenborough-boaty-mcboatface-explained

Boaty McBoatface to Bear David Attenborough's Name, and the Web Puts - Hannah Olivennes|The New York Times

http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/07/world/europe/boaty-mcboatface-sir-david-attenborough.html?_r=0

Entries- Most Loved| Name Our Ship

https://nameourship.nerc.ac.uk/entries.html

Boaty By Another Name: 'Sir David Attenborough' Is Chosen For British Research Ship, by Bill Chappell| NPR

http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/05/06/477010650/boaty-by-another-name-sir-david-attenborough-is-chosen-for-british-research-ship

Movie review: Captain America: Civil War

       I would be lying if I said that I didn't understand the fatigue with superhero films. There are a lot of them, and the massive corporations that create them do market them excessively. There are a lot more planned in the future too. Then again, trends like westerns or slasher film had similar runs in the 50's and 80's respectively. But, you know what irritates me more? People complaining about superhero movies. Seriously, it seems every day I see a comment or a think piece about superhero movies are too much, and how they are distracting from  films that are"true art" or some cockamamie like that.  It is just so... hipster, for lack of a better term. Pretending to be some sort of intellectual insight by disparaging popular forms of media. You ever hear the phrase "Just because it's popular doesn't mean it's good?" Well, these people apparently take that to mean that "It's popular, ergo it's bad, and it's popularity indicates the fall of cultural tastes," and I wrote a whole piece on that a month or so ago, so go read that. Again, I understand if people are tired of superhero movies. I was admittedly starting to grow tired of them as well after Age of Ultron. Even the surprisingly good Ant-Man wasn't spectacular, and didn't help me appreciate the genre. Batman v. Superman was so dull, I thought perhaps the experience watching that may dull my experience watching Captain America: Civil War, because it indicated my fatigue with superhero films. Actually, watching Batman v. Superman actually enhanced the experience of this film, because I realized what that film did wrong, and what this film did right. It also reminded me of why Marvel movies are so well-regarded. They do put more effort into the scripts and acting, and they actually know what the fans of these films want. So, with that introduction out of the way,...

    Based around the Marvel comics character created by Joe Simon and "Jolly" Jack Kirby, Captain America: Civil War once again follows the adventures of Steve Rogers, Captain America ( Chris Evans). The new Avengers assembled at the end of Age of Ultron (Scarlet Wtich (Elizabeth Olson, who I learned is the younger sister of the Olsen twins), Black Widow (Scarlett Johansson), and Falcon (Anthony Mackie)) are on a mission in Lagos, where they try to stop the assassin Crossbones (Frank Grillo) from attaining a biological weapon. When Crossbones detonates a bomb on his person, while Cap is interrogating him, the Scarlet Witch contains the explosion, but releases it at a nearby building, killing several workers from the small East African nation of Wakanda. International condemnation ensues, and Secretary of State Thaddeus Ross (William Hurt) tells the Avengers that due to the number of incidents where they were involved, and people were killed, the UN wants to institute the "Slokovia Accords", which would place them under a UN mandate. Tony Stark, Iron Man (Robert Downey Jr.) supports this measure, along with Black Widow and War Machine (Don Cheadle), but Cap is skeptical. Cap learns of the death of his former girlfriend Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell), and attends the funeral. There, he meets her niece Sharon (Emily VanCamp), a CIA operative in Germany. At the signing of the Accords in Vienna, a bomb goes off, killing the Wakandan King T'Chaka (John Kani). The blame is quickly placed on the Winter Soldier, aka "Bucky" Barnes (Sebastian Stan), Cap's best friends turned HYDRA assassin. T'Challa (Chadwick Boseman), the prince of Wakanda, swears vengeance, and adopts the "Black Panther" moniker, one which has gone down generations of Wakandan warriors.Cap knows that Barnes has been framed, and Barnes professes as much when Cap confronts him. When Cap and Falcon try to protect Barnes from government agents, they find themselves enemies of the government, and Stark. Can they prove Bucky innocent, and get into a conspiracy to split the Avengers?

      This is much more serious than any of the previous Marvel movies, going off the darker tone of  The Winter Soldier. There are less jokes or very funny moments. Unlike  Batman v. Superman,  however, it works to the film's advantage, underscoring how intense and serious some of the moments in the film are. There are several scene, which are legitimately shocking to see. The events also have more weight and consequence to them, unlike Batman v. Superman. I feel more invested in the events happening. The action is very good, as usual, and I feel more excited watching it. As always, the cast is absolutely great. A particular stand out is Tom Holland as Spider Man (who appears later in the film, so I didn't mention him in the synopsis), who manages to do a good job trying to separate himself from Toby Maguire and Andrew Garfield. I also liked Spider-Man's costume, which resembles the iconic Steve Ditko look of the 60's. Chadwick Boseman does a very good job as the Black Panther, and I'm very excited for his solo film (I'm a fan of that particular character).  While not using the comic's "Superhuman Registration Act", it does provide some interesting questions on whether the Avengers should intervene with supervision, and the conflict within the Avengers feels real, and builds on the characterization of team since their inception back in the original film. A recurring theme is the idea of revenge and hatred, which causes some characters to overreact and make some poor decisions.

     Like I said, I liked Spider-Man, but honestly, he could be cut out of this film. I wish he played a larger role, just so that his presence is justified a little more than "We would like to introduce the MCU Spider-Man, before we put him in a movie". Also, the motivation of the villain is less than satisfying. Given the wide scope of the conspiracy, I thought that there would be more, but no, the reason the villain (not spoiling who it is) is doing this is very simple. Given the scope of the events, it is very disappointing. The inclusion of the other Avengers, while necessary, sometimes distracts from Cap and the Winter Soldiers, who are supposed to be the main focus. Finally, while the title is appropriate, they should have incorporated more elements from the comic version. It could've justified the title.

    This was far better than Age of Ultron, and it restored my faith in Marvel. If you want a good superhero film after Batman v. Superman, or you enjoyed most of the previous Marvel films, this is the film for you. If you don't like Superhero movies, I don't think this will change your mind, but I'd say give it a chance, because there are elements of spy films in this. Overall, very exciting and very fun. A rare quality in today's blockbusters.

Film Review: The Jungle Book

      A very common complaint about the modern film industry is that everything is derivative. Most of the big blockbusters are either adaptations of popular superhero comics, young adult novels, novels in general, or are outright remakes. Whilst not necessarily invalid, this doesn't mean that any of these films are bad by any measure. Most of the Marvel films have garnered mostly critical acclaim, for instance. And the recent crop of Disney live-action reimaginings have seen some positive reviews. Given Disney's recent live action offerings (John Carter, The Lone Ranger, Tomorrowland), perhaps that's a bit of relief to the House of the Mouse. Especially the critical and financial success of today's subject, The Jungle Book. The success of this, and other recent live action remakes, has ensured that other Disney animated films are remade. Relatively recent ones too, like Mulan or Aladdin. But, is this truly as good as the critics say. Let's take a look.

    A remake of the 1967 Disney animated film (which is, in turn, very loosely based off the first three in the 1894 collection of stories of the same name by Rudyard Kipling), The Jungle Book revolves around Mowgli (Neel Sethi), a feral child raised in the jungles of India by a pack of wolves, led by Akela (Giancarlo Esposito) and Raksha (Lupita Nyong'o). During the dry season, a "Peace Rock" is revealed in a dried river, which is an indication of a truce amongst the animals. Basically, during this period, carnivores can't eat herbivores. However, during this truce, the ruthless tiger Shere Khan (Idris Elba), learns of Mowgli's existence. Given his hatred of humans, Shere Khan demands that Mowgli be turned over to him, or else. Mowgli decides, in order to protect the wolves, to leave, and his mentor, the black panther Bagheera (Ben Kingsley) accompanies him to the man village. Mowgli is reluctant to go to the man village, given his upbringing by wolves. However, Shere Khan ambushes Mowgli, and separates him from Bagheera. Mowgli wanders the jungle, encountering colorful characters, the sloth bear Baloo (Bill Murray) (who doesn't at all look like a sloth bear, a very small thing that bothered me through the film), the Gigantopithecus King Louie (Christopher Walken), and the python Kaa (Scarlett Johansson). Can Mowgli evade Shere Khan, or can he control the power of man's red flower (and apologizes if that song's stuck in your head for the next week) to defeat Shere Khan.

       First, the film looks very impressive. Very distinct and colorful. The talking animals feel real, not just computer constructs. The jungle also looks very lively, and very real. While I do often complain about the use of 3-D in films, I did think this looked very impressive in 3-D, and if you wanted to watch it, I do recommend watching it in 3-D, because it does enhance the look of the film. Most of the actors do fine. Neel Sethi wasn't great, but I'll give him a pass, because he's only ten, and I'd feel like a jerk for criticizing his performance. Ben Kingsley and Idris Elba do fine in their respective roles (Kingsley sounding very similar to Bagheera's original voice actor) . Bill Murray was perfect casting as Baloo, and he is, of course, very entertaining to watch. And Christopher Walken as King Louie was hilarious. He's supposed to menacing, but with Walken's signature voice, and him randomly breaking into the chorus and second verse of  "I Wanna Be Like You", it was frankly hard to take him seriously (also, insert Donald Trump joke here). He's not bad, by any means, and when he chases after Mowgli at the end of the scene. I just cracked up during his appearance. It was entertaining to watch.

     A few odd, superfluous choices bothered me through this film. Like I said, Baloo is supposed to be a sloth bear, as he was in the novel and the film. However, this is what he looked like in the film:

Source: http://morungexpress.com/the-jungle-book-trailer-mowgli-is-back-with-his-army-of-wild/

And here's what a sloth bear actually looks like:

Source:http://wildlifesos.org/indian-sloth-bears/

  That relatively minor thing bothered me. King Louie being a Gigantopithecus also was unnecessary. India and Sumatra are not that far away, You could just had an Orangutan wash up there after a storm or something like that. Having him be a prehistoric ape seems excessive. Also, he and Kaa were just devices to explain important plot points. Otherwise, they serve no real purpose in the story. The rendition of "I Wanna Be Like You", like I said, comes out of nowhere. They sing "Bear Necessities", of course, but it made more sense in the scene it was in. While they are trying to take the animated version, and make a more serious version, they also bring in elements from the Kipling stories. The Wolves play a larger role, as they did in the story, the Law of the Jungle poem is recited, the monkeys are called "Bandar-Logs"(and they butcher the pronunciation of it) and several minor characters from the book make cameos. This doesn't come off as a way to balance the two, since most of the rest of the film is derived from the 1967 film. If you're going to remake the 1967 film, you could just take elements from that. Don't randomly place stuff from the novel, and do nothing with those, because none of those additions really add to film. Finally, the ending completely misses the point of the story, both the book and the Disney film. I won't spoil it, but you've seen or read any variation of this story, you get the general message of it. However, the ending just completely botches it, and misses the whole point.

    If you were looking for a film version, which is very close to the Kipling stories, like I was, you will sadly be disappoint. Just for some recommendations in that case, animator Chuck Jones (who was a very prominent animator in the Golden Age Looney Tunes shorts, and later directed How the Grinch Stole Christmas) did an animated TV special based on Mowgli's Brothers in 1976, which is considered one of the closest adaptation of the story ever made (Sadly, he was never able to adapt the other two stories.) If you enjoyed the Disney version, it isn't a musical, and it is more intense, so you might not enjoy it as much, though you might like the Bear Necessities rendition. Some might enjoy just the visual and the action sequences, so I'd recommend it. Overall, this was okay. Can't really muster any strong emotions about it. It wasn't nearly as good as the original. In fact, just watch the original. It has all the classic songs, and the decent animation. Yeah, it hasn't held up particularly well, but it is much better than this. However, this wasn't bad. Just, not really interesting or new. Hopefully, the Warner Bros version coming out next year will provide a more interesting retelling of this story.  

"Intellectual Decline" and Adulthood

    Before I dive into a full weekend of studying for my exams, I might as well get another opinion piece out (long time since I did one). So, recently (past 5 or so years) some individuals have expressed concern that adults are becoming enamored with stuff designed primarily for children. Perhaps the one in most recent memory was Ruth Graham, whose piece in Slate "Against YA" stated,  in an example of Slate's very high standard of journalism (okay, to be fair, they have Phil Plait, so that's one thing worth reading on that website), that adults should be "ashamed" if they read YA novels, because of their general lack of sophistication compared to adult literature. Later, New York Times film critic AO Scott used Graham's article, and echoed such sentiments in his article "The Death of Adulthood in American Culture", but extending it to general culture, stating that adults being interested in things meant for younger audiences is an indication of the decline of adulthood in America. Finally, Alan Moore (who, for full disclosure, is one of my all-time favorite writers, and whose influence on the comic medium matches those of Eisner and Kirby) said, as he continues to shun society in general, that the current fixation on superheroes shows that culture has stagnated, and he fears that society will not produce any more culture, because people are more obsessed with recreating their childhoods. Through my readings of these statements, I have ruminated on the subject, and came to a conclusion, that in hindsight, I should've had at the very beginning: You should not judged for your tastes in anything, and the civilization is not going to come to an end just because people happen to enjoy children's stuff.

       Now that I've stated my thesis, I want to go into this idea of "intellectually stunting" and why no one should care. To be fair, both Smith and Graham did constantly state that people should be allowed to read what they want. However,  Graham went on to say that adults should "know better," and implored adults to read more sophisticated literature. I'm not objecting to her saying adults shouldn't read YA books, because that's not what she's arguing. No, she's arguing that people shouldn't only read YA novels, because that would intellectual stunt their development. I could go on an eloquent rant, filled with multi-syllable words and the like, but I'll just put it bluntly: 1.) Reading or consuming any one genre is stunting growth. Part of the idea of intellectual growth is expanding your horizon. One could argue that reading only high literature is a form of intellectual stunting, because you can't get the perspective of more popular forms of media. The whole point of "intellectualism", however nebulous a term that may be, is going and learning many different disciplines of knowledge. But, and this is my main point. If a person decides to only read YA novel, what business is it of hers? If you only want to read a certain genre (the idea of "young adult" as a genre is up for debate, but that's neither here or now), you should not be judged. You should be allowed to like whatever you want. And that's not to say, at time, I too bemoan the fact  that the endless slew of indistinguishable "Hunger Games" rip-offs seem to dominate cinematic trends at the moment. But, I don't actively judge people for not going to see more interesting movie (feel free to point out instances where I do, because my fickle-mindedness goes hand and hand with poor short-term memory.) I am also saying read what you'd like. However, I'm adding the caveat "and you shouldn't be judged." People should generally be allowed to have their own taste, and enjoy their own preferences without being mocked. It is none of my business what you like to read, or watch. Like what you like, I might not like it, but I'm not going to disparage your love of something. I enjoy many childish things, and there is old adage about people in greenhouses and stones.
       I'm certainly not going to imply that liking something will lead to Armageddon. Yeah, they don't say, but that's the logical extension of it. Especially Smith's piece. It implies that adulthood as defined.... in some arbitrary way he never bothers to explain, is on the decline, and that people might go into a "perpetual childhood." Moore's statement is also an example, stating that people are no longer interested in making new culture, and cultural decay was a major theme in League of Extraordinary Gentlemen volume III (whose promise was squandered by incomprehensible episodes involving drugs and occultism, by the way).  xkcd did a good job with this:  https://xkcd.com/603/ . And it's right. This sort of moralizing is similar to people who complain about certain societal attitudes leading to societal decline. Ladies and gentlemen, The Epic of Gilgamesh, the earliest recorded piece of literature, dates back to 2100 BC. The fact that the Avengers is one of the highest grossing films, is not going to cause culture to stagnate or decline or become less sophisticated. Human culture is too fickle for that. We still have original, mature being produced, and still getting some attention, if not most of it.  We are not, nor never (unless nuclear war breaks out, or a meteor hits) going to be in societal decline anytime soon.

    The best encapsulation of adults liking childhood things is by CS Lewis:
"

Critics who treat 'adult' as a term of approval, instead of as a merely descriptive term, cannot be adult themselves. To be concerned about being grown up, to admire the grown up because it is grown up, to blush at the suspicion of being childish; these things are the marks of childhood and adolescence. And in childhood and adolescence they are, in moderation, healthy symptoms. Young things ought to want to grow. But to carry on into middle life or even into early manhood this concern about being adult is a mark of really arrested development. When I was ten, I read fairy tales in secret and would have been ashamed if I had been found doing so. Now that I am fifty I read them openly. When I became a man I put away childish things, including the fear of childishness and the desire to be very grown up.”

 Whilst I don't agree with Lewis on a number of issues, I can agree with this sentiment. Adulthood means that you have reached the point in your development, where you are generally rational enough from experience or learning to make your own decisions about what you want out of life and what you enjoy. Yes, you have a number of responsibilities, indisputably, but you are at the point in live where what you like is what you like. And you shouldn't be ashamed of liking stuff meant for kids, if you enjoy it as well.  

Live Long, and Prosper. (I know this has nothing to do with Star Trek. I just needed a good closer)

Book Review: A Kim Jong-Il Production by Paul Fischer

    This was originally going to be a review of Fred Hoyle's The Black Cloud, but my workload has prevented me from finishing that work at the moment. When I do finish, I will make sure to post a review of it. For now, here is a review of a book I read in one go a few months ago. When you think of North Korea, you most likely think of the lunacy and caricature of its ruler, Kim Jong Un. However, beyond this, there is still a nation of people suffering under a complete totalitarian regime, which controls every aspect of their lives, with little hope of escape. Beyond the pompous absurdity, there is a real horror that presides over the regime. And much of that is the result of the ruling Kim dynasty. Their grip on the entire country is so absolute, it bends to their will completely. Believe it or not, though, there was a time, when the leadership was interested in creating a good image of itself (As opposed to today, where the Dear Leader does what he wants), and the best way to do that was film. Exporting quality films could show that North Korea wasn't nearly as bad as people assumed. However,  the North Korea "film industry" was a mere machine to produce propaganda films venerating the Kims and the whole Jurche ideology, with very little artistic value.  Kim Jong-Il, the son of the original Dear Leader, Kim Sung-Il, and a huge movie buff, wanted to change that. He wanted to show that North Korea could make great, popular films, and those would help popularize North Korea among the world community. And he had a plan to do just that. A Kim Jong-Il Production, written by journalist Paul Fischer, details the story of a filmmaker and his actress wife, who are both kidnapped by Kim, and forced to serve as the filmmakers of the Hermit Kingdom. And we will take a look at it now.

(Note: I do not know Korean or how the Korean name system works, so I might refer to some people incorrectly. My sincerest apologizes if I do.)

    Shin Sang-Ok was one of the most acclaimed directors in South Korea during the 50's and 60's. His wife, Choi Eun-hee was one of the biggest stars in the country. The two of them had a whirlwind romance, despite Choi being married, and they were one of the most famous couples in South Korea, being personal friends of the South Korean dictator Park Chung hee, and his wife, Yuk Young-soo, among other.  Shin was overly dedicated to the art of filmmaking, and he and Choi had their own studio. Choi also ran her own acting school to teach a new generation of South Korean Thespians. However, this was soon to end, as Shin had an affair with another actress, whom he impregnated. Choi divorced him, and he also ran afoul with government censorship, which ultimately led to a shutdown of his studio in 1978. Meanwhile, Choi struggled to maintain her school, which led to her accepting an offer from Hong Kong, which would have helped her school. And she ends up getting kidnapped. After a long boat ride, she eventually finds herself in North Korea (a country she had fled during the Korean War), and has a face to face encounter with Kim Jong-Il, the son of the founder, Kim Sung-Il, who keeps her as a prisoner. Meanwhile Shin investigates his ex-wife disappearance in Hong Kong, but is himself captured. He is tossed around the infamous North Korean prison system, kept alive for mysterious reasons. Finally, in 1982, he is reunited with his wife, and Kim Jong-Il himself comes to explain their presence. He wants to project the glory of North Korea to the entire world, but he needs some actual good films, not just state propaganda. He hopes to utilize the talents of Shin in order to make those films. Kim makes Shin a cultural official, and he and Choi once again make movies. Of the films made in North Korea, the most notable and well-known is 1985's Pulgasari, a pseudo-Kaiju film, revolving around a mythical creature who is called upon to kill an oppressive warlord by a village under his rule....only to himself oppress the villagers himself. (Subtle....)Despite being directly under the thumb of the son of the Dear Leader, the two still plot their escape. They eventually carry it out while in a film festival in Vienna. They slip past their North Korean detail, and drive to the American embassy, where they ask for asylum. While Jong continued to rise through the ranks to eventually succeed his father following the latter's death in 1994, Shin and Choi spend time in the US, getting reacquainted with some of their South Korean friends and family (including their children). Shin tried to start a career in Hollywood, directing, among other things, the third 3 Ninjas film (remember that franchise? Yeah, me neither), and a Romanian co-produced remake of Pulgasari called The Legend of Galgameth, before finally coming back to South Korea to dispel rumors that they had willingly defected to the North. They remained there, until Shin's death in 2006.Choi Eun-Hee is still alive, and living in Seoul, where the book concludes.

      This book was very well researched. The writer derived most of his information from Shin and Choi Korean language memoirs, but, as he details in the afterword, Fischer went out of his way to really verify the story, and make sure that every word is accurate, at least to the extent that he could. And frankly, the story is quite hard to believe at points. The North Korean state really is as absurd and extreme as the news often states. However, there were many horrors that many don't know about. Shin and Choi's kidnapping? That was actually very common, and not just from South Korea. They would kidnap people from Japan, Hong Kong, and even as far away as Jordan. They didn't target them, but just kidnap them at random, and try to train them as spies. They also had this massive drug dealing empire to help fund the government. North Korea also had an extensive prison system, where the tiniest offences could lead to not only you, but your entire extended family. It really does hammer in the horror of the regime. Equally disturbing and absurd is the life of Kim Jong-Il, who would often hold absurd and bizarre parties, but still had enough power to force people to play along. Among the examples of his power was killing an actress whom he had an affair with, after she eloped with someone else and tricking the actor who played Godzilla (the guy in the suit) to star in Pulgasari.  An entire mythology has been concocted about the Kims, ensuring that the population is under their complete influence, in an almost religious fashion....

       As this is a non-fiction work, I don't really want to criticize the story, as it likely happened as described. It's hard to criticize reality, after all. That said, the writer could have added more detail to actual films that Shin made in North Korea. Pulgasari is covered in some detail, as it was the most well known (and worst) film out of this period, given it was smuggled to Japan shortly after its release. However, more detail on the rest of the films would have given a better impression of Shin's North Korean films. He also never puts up any other accounts beside Shin and Choi's. It would've been nice to see the perspective of the two from others who knew them, even if most of them are deceased at this point, and it's hard to find such perspective.

    I suppose this book has some new found relevance in the world, with the whole controversy with The Interview and the Sony Hacking last year. Reading such an account does provide a nice look into the North Korean government's feelings on the film medium itself, and why a harmless James Franco-Seth Rogan comedy could send them in such a frenzied state. They realized that film is a powerful medium, which has the ability to influence the way people view reality. Really, that's something most people realize now. So, if you want to read an extraordinary account of surviving in the Hermit Kingdom, or just want something to past the team, I suggest giving it a read.