I love darkness and heavy shadows in film and perhaps the best -and earliest- examples of this sort of expressionism was found in the early German cinema of the 1920’s and into the 30’s. Here then is Conrad Veidt as the killer somnambulist in the classic film The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari…
The German cinema heavily influenced another cinematic movement which came a few years later: Film noir. Boasting similar visuals (at least when it came to heavy shadows) and stories often involving crime and desperation usually centered around a “big city”, there are quite literally hundreds of great films noir movies out there worth checking out.
Here then is my interpretation of a still from one of the more memorable ones, Laura (1944). Featuring Gene Tierney as the mysterious “victim” of murder -or was she?- and Dana Andrews as the cop investigating this strange case, Laura also featured a young Vincent Price and was directed by Otto Preminger. The plot of the movie was essentially lifted by author William Diehl for his novel, then subsequent movie, Sharky’s Machine (1981).
Here though is the original, with too-cool Gene Tierney’s Laura being interrogated by Dana Andrew’s cop.
These include songs, books, movies, and even works of art. It’s an intriguing list and it does bring up, at least for me, the issue of copyright in general.
As an author, I feel copyright is a very important tool to protect one’s works (duh) from being appropriated by others. I would certainly go ballistic if someone comes up, without my authorization, stories set in my Corrosive Knights universe and subsequently released them. If it’s “fan fiction” and posted where anyone/everyone can read them, I don’t mind.
But if a conscious attempt has been made to create something for sale/profit, then that crosses a line. I created the Corrosive Knights “universe” and the characters that inhabit them. I feel I should have the ultimate say, as long as I live, to what becomes of them.
However, issues regarding copyright aren’t always so clear cut.
Years ago and way, waaaaay back in the 1980’s I was an early fan of the brilliant writing of Alan Moore. For those who don’t know who he is, Alan Moore is considered, even today, one of the best comic book writers there ever was. Among the works he wrote, several made it to film: V for Vendetta, Watchmen, League of Extraordinary Gentlemen, From Hell.
Most of his very best works appeared in DC Comics, including Watchmen, Swamp Thing, and V for Vendetta. In the case of V for Vendetta, the initial stories were serialized in a British comic book magazine called Warrior but after the magazine folded it appeared the work, which hadn’t reached its conclusion, would never be finished. DC Comics picked it up and Mr. Moore, along with original artist David Lloyd, were able to finish the series and get the full story released through DC.
Mr. Moore had a big falling out with DC Comics in the late 1980’s and left the company, never to return again. According to interviews, the main issue Mr. Moore had with DC was regarding the rights to Watchmen, which according to the contract he signed with DC would revert to him once the book was no longer in print.
Thing is, Watchmen was so very successful DC’s been able to keep it in print since it was originally published and therefore have retained the rights to the work. Mr. Moore, who signed that contract in an era when reprinting works in near perpetuity seemed unlikely, feels he was shafted and DC has taken advantage of him.
Did they?
I suppose.
DC must have seen at least the possibility of retaining the work to include that provision in the contract, though one could also argue that maybe Mr. Moore, who was a red hot creator by that point, should have read the contract more carefully before signing it (or at least had a lawyer read it and advise him on the provisions).
However, just how “original” is Watchmen?
As a story, it is quite original, though I very much believe Alan Moore took -whether deliberately or unconsciously- the ending of the Outer Limits episode The Architects of Fear… or some other similar work (You can read more about that here). My feeling, at least based on interviews with the recently deceased Len Wein, who was the editor of Watchmen, suggest that at the very least Mr. Wein knew the ending was going in that direction and told Mr. Moore to watch out. Mr. Wein stated in these interviews that Moore didn’t really care.
Regardless of who/what the ending of Watchmen was taken from (or not!), what is not in dispute is the chain of events that led to Watchmen being made, which bends the issue of copyright to a near breaking point.
Back in the 1980’s DC Comics bought the defunct Charlton Comics line of superheroes. The characters, with a few exceptions, were for the most part forgotten. But Alan Moore was given the opportunity to write a story for these newly acquired characters. Thing is, the story he came up with would have effectively “ended” any future Charlton heroes story, something DC wasn’t about to do, having invested good money in buying the rights to the characters.
So Mr. Moore modified the story and “created” new characters to inhabit it and, voila!, Watchmen was created. Here’s a visual comparison of the Charlton Comics heroes and their eventual Watchmen “twins” (click on the image to see it larger):
Here’s where the proverbial rubber hits the road: I feel sympathy for Mr. Moore. Of all the comic book works he’s done in his life, Watchmen was his most ambitious, at least IMHO. He clearly poured his heart into the story and, even if the ending may be suspect, nonetheless wrote an intricate work that deserves to stand the test of time.
Yet it probably never would have come to be had DC not acquired the Charlton Comics heroes and asked him to come up with a story involving them (he might, to be fair, have come up with a story similar to Watchmen eventually, on his own). Further, the characters he “created” for Watchmen were clearly meant to be thinly veiled versions of the Charlton Comics heroes.
Issues of ownership, thus, get stretched in a matter like this.
Curiously, though Mr. Moore’s arguments with DC involve the Watchmen ownership, he hasn’t been shy about using actual characters who have fallen into public domain. Indeed, The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen was composed of a host of public domain characters!
Would the creators of those characters, were they alive today, be miffed about what Alan Moore has done with them? Would they be angry that someone has appropriated their works/characters and profited from their use?
An interesting question which will never have a proper answer.
Found this article written by Mike Schur and featured on Slate.com. It concerns on of the more popular radio talk hosts and talk shows around currently, ESPN’s The Dan LeBatard Show…
I’ve known about Dan LeBatard for far longer than most out there because for years before he made it to talk radio he was a sports writer for The Miami Herald. I enjoyed his writing, which was often quite humorous but, unlike his radio show, did indeed focus on sports topics.
A curious thing: I get LeBatard. I get what his show is about.
But, unlike his writing, it doesn’t work for me. Yes, its goofy and at times it can be fun but… its just too frivolous for my taste.
Nonetheless, I enjoyed the hell out of the article, though it did have this one curious error:
The Clevelander Hotel, on Miami’s South Beach, feels less like a hotel than a hangover you can sleep in. It appears to have sprung spontaneously from the sand, perhaps when a Lamborghini dealer spilled tequila on a magical turntable, and provides its guests with both a stunning view of the Pacific Ocean and the diametrical opposite of a good night’s sleep, thanks to the 24-hour Pitbull video raging in the outdoor courtyard.
Guys, we’re on the east coast. The ocean we’ve got at our doorstep is the Atlantic.
Yesterday was… interesting, to say the least on the political front.
The biggest news was likely the fact that Paul Ryan, the Republican Speaker of the House, was retiring.
Huh.
I don’t have many good thoughts regarding Mr. Ryan. His silence during many of Donald Trump’s more -let’s be kind here- jaw dropping escapes was deafening. He really had nothing to say about any of the twitter comments? Or Trump’s attempt to talk well of Nazis in Carolina? Or Trump’s constant attacks on pretty much everyone? And for a “deficit hawk”, he’s allowed this to balloon thanks to the latest tax breaks pushed through.
Someone far more clever than I posted:
Man farts up entire elevator then gets off at next stop.
If there was ever a band that created great music (and that’s an understatement!) amidst equally great turmoil since the mid 1970’s in their up to now current incarnation, its Fleetwood Mac.
Their best known, best selling album, Rumours, had among its many famous songs this one, sung by Mr. Buckingham and, allegedly, a song about his breakup with fellow band mate Stevie Nicks:
So here the band, which is about to embark on what is purported to be their last tour, decides perhaps mutually, perhaps not, to cut ties with Lindsey Buckingham and… it seems so silly and such a wasted opportunity.
Not to brag, but I happened to catch Fleetwood Mac with their “classic” lineup in a concert that, if the one about to happen is their last was their second to last tour, and they were freaking great.
Lindsey Buckingham, in particular, blew me away with not only his singing on many of the classic songs he created for the band but also his absolutely sizzling guitar playing, which until I saw them live -this was the first time!- I didn’t realize was that damn good.
He’s a very underrated guitarist!
At some point in the concert and between songs Mr. Buckingham told the crowd to expect new Fleetwood Mac music. Based on this article, that will likely never be, though fellow band mate Christie McVie and he did release a collaborative album very shortly afterwards and in 2017.
I suppose Mr. Buckingham couldn’t get the rest of the band interested in working on a new album but at least got fellow band mate Ms. McVie.
Anyway, at this point in time, Lindsey Buckingham is 69 years old. Stevie Nicks is about to turn 70. Christie McVie is approaching 75 years of age. Mick Fleetwood is reaching 71. John McVie will be 73 this year.
The point is that these five people, who have been together since late 1974 in this band’s incarnation -though there have been years when individual members have left the band for some period of time- got back together and, despite their age, created some magnificent concert music together.
I do believe their current concert tour will be their last. You can only go on so long with this kind of high energy grind and, as I mentioned above, these individuals are getting up there in age. Regardless, its a damn shame -for audiences who will go to these final shows- that when they go they won’t see or hear Mr. Buckingham and his terrific singing and guitar playing.
Such a shame.
*****
For those into politics, yesterday was one hell of a day. I’m referring, of course, the fact that the FBI raided Donald Trump’s attorney Michael Cohen’s residence and business. If the reports are accurate, they actually busted down a door or two to get into one or more of these places.
Stephen Collison over at CNN.com (again!), wrote the following article regarding what happened next…
There are so many incredible -stunning, shocking– things that have happened since the inauguration of Donald Trump, but I truly didn’t think we’d be talking about non-disclosure agreements with porn stars and a raid on his personal attorney’s office.
And this isn’t to mention the fact that Trump was, up to that moment, focused on possible repercussions to a gas attack in Syria.
Takeshi Kitano, also known as Beat Takeshi, was primarily known as a comedian but, over time, became even better known as an action/adventure star.
Mr. Kitano has appeared in many works, including many films he’s directed, acted, and written. He’s also appeared in American films, including Ghost In The Shell and Johnny Mnemonic. He even appeared opposite David Bowie in the 1983 film Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence.
But for Mr. Kitano, one could say it was his first directorial work, Violent Cop, which really put him on the map. Here’s the movie’s trailer. Mr. Kitano not only directed, he stars in the film as Azuma, the proverbial Violent Cop…
I have to admit, I bought the film on a whim and because it was on sale. While watching it, I found it intriguing and entertaining but the reviews that stated it was a Japanese “Dirty Harry” seemed a little exaggerated.
For most of the film first couple of acts, we don’t see so much as a single gun!
This turned out to be a coldly calculated storytelling technique, because while the first forty or so minutes of the film allow you to enter Azuma’s world and all seems edgy but otherwise not out of this world, there are many dark edges peeking out, one of which is presented in the movie’s opening minutes…
The movie begins (MILD SPOILERS) with a truly perplexing -in a good way!- sequence where a homeless man is enjoying a meal before he’s attacked and beaten up by a bunch of youths. Given the way the man is left, the viewer wonders if he is still alive.
The young boys head home and one of them leaves the group to go to his house, which turns out to be in a nice neighborhood. Shortly after he arrives at the house, Detective Azuma shows up. He flashes his badge to the youth’s mother after she answers his knock, then heads up to the boy’s room where he proceeds to beat him up. He then tells the youth that he and his friends better turn themselves in the next day at the police station for what they did to the homeless man.
Questions are raised: If Azuma saw what the young boys were doing to the homeless man and followed at least one of them home, why didn’t he stop them while they were beating the poor guy up? Why did he wait for them to finish and go home before coming after one of them?
The answer, in a way, is revealed through the course of this movie, and the answer isn’t pleasant…at least with regard to Detective Azuma’s character.
The movie goes on, showing us what Azuma does. He’s assigned a rookie (a classic police drama cliche) to tag along with him and we also find he has a sister who he cares for but who has mental issues.
He also skirts the law and isn’t above beating up a potential snitch.
But I’ll repeat: The first forty or so minutes of the film lure you into a sense of false security, a sense that things are rough but not that rough.
Which makes the film’s conclusion all the more shocking, difficult to watch, and, yes, nihilistic as hell.
While watching the film to its end, I felt -wrongly as it turned out!- that this movie was influenced by the violence present in Quentin Tarantino’s early movies. While I’m aware Mr. Tarantino has cribbed from many works, including those released in Hong Kong and Japan, Violent Cop was released in 1989, three full years before Mr. Tarantino’s Reservoir Dogs was released.
I could go into more and more of the film but I feel that would be counterproductive and involve way too many spoilers.
Suffice to say Violent Cop is a film that will shake you up and surprise you by how much it pushes the envelope. This is ultimately not a pleasant film but that’s what makes it work so exceedingly well. Having said that, it is also quite clearly not for everyone.
If what I’ve said above intrigues you, give Violent Cop a look-see. For everyone else, best you stay away.
I’ve made no secret -on the contrary, I’m likely beating a dead horse at this point!- regarding my enjoyment of Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice and, further, my interest in seeing the Zack Snyder directed version of Justice League.
One of the first times I wrote at length about being curious of, and hoping for, the release of the Zack Snyder “cut” of Justice League was here:
I happen to love the film, though I admit to not having watched it start to end in many a year.
Yet the film fascinates me even as many nowadays either don’t have the patience to watch it (the movie is awfully long), or feel it is too pretentious.
Taking the first point, the film clocks in, according to IMDB, at 2 hours and 29 minutes long. I’ll admit it here and now: That is a long time to sit before a screen and in these days of wild effects and speedy storytelling, 2001 must surely seem like a chore for any modern filmgoer to watch.
As for the film itself, it offers surprisingly little dialogue while giving audiences a story broken into four parts.
GOING INTO 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY’S PLOT HERE, SO BEWARE…
SPOILERS BE HERE!
Still there?
You’ve been warned!
The first part of the film involves the “Dawn of Man”, a sequence that effectively shows humanity the moment it makes the transition from animal to human. The sequence shows a pack (group?) of primates being run off their watering hole by a more powerful group of primates. There is -obviously- no dialogue here but the implication for the group is dire: They will likely die without their water.
But one of the primates is visited by a mysterious black monolith, which will figure prominently within the movie’s story. Upon seeing the monolith and while celestial objects are in alignment, a primate develops the ability to use a weapon, specifically a bone (there is irony in this!) which he then uses to attack that other group of primates and reclaim their watering hole, following which we have one of the most fascinating transitions in film…
Thousands of years of history are effectively “fast forwarded” through and the bone is now another, far more sophisticated weapon in the form of a satellite (the satellite is supposed to be an orbital weapon).
We then come to the second part of the film. Humanity in the year 2001 is presented as mannered, tight lipped, and pretty bored. While audiences may be wowed by the space travel presented, its clear that those doing the traveling view it much like we do a long car trip. It can be exciting, but mostly its a bit of a chore.
We follow as a man heads to the U.S. Moonbase and are given hints to a mysterious discovery on the Moon’s surface, something the U.S. is keeping from the Russians. Turns out the discovery is a monolith not unlike the one found in the Dawn of Man sequence.
The men head out to the monolith and, in a bit of wry humor, these modern sophisticated men are presented as not all that terribly different from the primates that came many years before. They take pictures of themselves in front of it, they touch it, they have no clue what it is.
And then the planets align and a very loud signal is released from the monolith, something so piercing the men present around the monolith are forced to try to cover their ears.
We then get to the third part of the film, where we fast forward months later to a spacecraft, the Discovery. As it turns out, the signal sent by the monolith on the Moon was directed toward Jupiter and the ship is on the way to explore what’s going on there.
Within the Discovery are a group of scientists in a cryogenic sleep. Awake are two astronauts who are accompanied by the HAL 9000, their artificial intelligence computer.
If the movie has any edge of the seat sequences, it is during this part, where the HAL 9000 malfunctions -or functions only too well- and decides to eliminate all the people on board the ship. This part also fits in well with Campbell’s hero mythology as the hero must overcome seemingly impossible odds before…
The film’s final -and to some most controversial- part involves our lone surviving astronaut reaching Jupiter and finding a very large monolith floating in orbit. The surviving astronaut heads to that monolith and then begins a bizarre, trippy, hallucinogenic journey. He then sees himself in a room, aging until he eventually dies, and then is reborn as a cosmic star child.
Whew.
John Byrne, a prominent comic book artist who is one of the major reasons the X-Men, and Wolverine in particular, is as popular as it is, wrote of the movie:
In an interview in PLAYBOY, (Arthur C.) Clarke said “If you understood it, we failed.” I’d clock (2001: A Space Odyssey) as about the most pretentious piece of twaddle on record.
As I’ve often stated, opinions about works of art are unique to each individual and who am I to say he -or anyone else with a different opinion than mine over any work of art- is wrong?
I love 2001: A Space Odyssey and feel the story presented is, even when simply looking at its surface, is easy enough to understand: Mysterious aliens have transformed primates to humans and, in the year 2001, they transform humans into the next stage, the star child.
But there are other elements present. Some have noted that the HAL 9000 is the most “human” of the characters in this film, and in many ways the character and the story presented with “him” is an updating of the Frankenstein monster story. Humanity has ventured into the realm of Gods, creating an intelligent being and getting burned for their hubris. An interesting element is that the monolith is essentially the true God here… whatever it may be.
There are also those who note the whole trip of the Discovery has a curious “look” about it. The Discovery itself, they note, looks very much like human sperm (I’m not joking here!) and when it reaches its destination and following that trippy journey into the monolith, what is produced is an embryotic looking star child!
But even ignoring away from all these elements, one can’t help but be impressed with the many practical effects (compare this film to the many science fictional works to come in and around that time… there is no comparison!) and world-building director Stanley Kubrick and author Arthur C. Clarke created for this movie. The idea of space travel being a chore is a fascinating and, at that time, unique take.
So, yeah, for these and many other reasons, I’m damn impressed by 2001: A Space Odyssey.
Even today, fifty years after its original release.
The German cinema heavily influenced another cinematic movement which came a few years later: Film noir. Boasting similar visuals (at least when it came to heavy shadows) and stories often involving crime and desperation usually centered around a “big city”, there are quite literally hundreds of great films noir movies out there worth checking out.
