Rolling for SAN

I don't know if anyone follows this blog, but if you do, you've probably noticed it's been mostly inactive. Looking back, making a blog solely dedicated to adaptations was kinda dumb. It's just too limited a subject. So I started a new blog, Rolling for SAN, where I can write about whatever I please! I'll continue to post on Adaptation Analysis as inspiration strikes me, but for the most part, I'll be writing there.

Man of Steel

          Well, that was a longer hiatus than I intended. Man of Steel is directed by Zack Snyder and everyone knows who it's about; Superman, created by Jerry Siegel and Joe Shuster. To call Superman a character would be a gross understatement; he's a bona fide cultural icon. He was the first costumed superhero and as a direct result of his creation, superheroes have dominated American comics, not only as an industry, but as an art from (Watchmen has been hailed by many as the Citizen Kane of comics). Superman's name is synonymous with heroism; so does Man of Steel do such a legend justice? Not really. I certainly didn't hate this film and I can see why people like it, but Superman deserves better than "didn't hate it." 

          Starting with the bad, the cinematography is pretty obnoxious. I don't mind a little shaky cam for effect every now and then, but there's so much of it in this film that I can only assume Zack Snyder is the abused stepson of a tripod. I take back all my complaints of Snyder's egregious use of slow motion; at least with slow-mo I can see what's going on. Actually, this film doesn't feel like Snyder at all. Love him or hate him, he has a distinctive style that is nowhere to be found in Man of Steel.
          The biggest problem plaguing this movie, however, is the portrayal of Superman's character. A lot of people have complained that Supes is too mopey, but I don't think that's the real problem. No, the problem is that Superman just doesn't give a fuck. Without going into spoilers, the last fight scene leaves Metropolis in ruin. There are countless deaths and billions of dollars in damages. At no point did Superman try to take the fight out of the city. In fact, he doesn't even bat an eye at the death and destruction his fight caused and neither does anyone else for that matter! Metropolis is decimated and in the next scene it's all gumdrops and ice cream. No remorse. No consequences. You would think that there would be at least one person going "Hey, thanks for saving the day and everything, but was it really necessary to punch Zod through that 278th skyscraper? There were, like, hundreds of people in there." For a more modest example, there's a scene where Superman nearly gets into a fight with some asshole trucker. Superman, as befitting a man of his caliber, takes the moral high ground and walks away. Then we see the guy's truck impaled on a telephone pole. Really? He'll destroy a man's way of life and leave him stranded in the middle of nowhere, but he won't just deck him? If you're going to show Superman snap, then show him snap and show the consequences of him snapping. It's like the movie wants to be darker, but is unwilling to actually be dark. No remorse. No consequences.
          So what about the good? Well, this movie has one thing going for it: ZOD! The Kryptonians have this thing called the codex which is basically the Krypton eugenics program. ZOD! was bred to be a soldier, his sole purpose in life being the protection of Krypton. Then Krypton blows up. Fortunately for the inhabitants of the planet, the codex was sent with Superman. ZOD! learns of this and tracks Superman to Earth. There, he wishes to regain the codex and rebuild Krypton; all atop the bones of humanity of course. While nothing will replace Donner's version of the character, this is, admittedly, a much more interesting character motivation than "let's take over the world because KNEEL!" But interesting backstory and motivation or no, ZOD! is only as good as he is hammy, the real question to ask is does Michael Shannon deliver?

 Yes. The answer is yes.

          I sure hope a steady supply of dental floss was provided in his contract, because every time Shannon is on screen he's picking scenery out of his teeth. He turns dramatically. He yells nearly every line. He makes faces. It is glorious! I think this scene gets the point across.

See what I mean about the shaky cam?

          So would I recommend this movie? Well, I'm tempted to say it's worth seeing for ZOD!, but I would wait for it to hit the cheap theaters. If you really want to see a good Superman movie, I recommend Superman Vs The Elite. The animation is a bit lacking, but it's still a solid story about Superman's encounter with a group of anti-heroes who don't share his reluctance to kill.

Starship Troopers

          I hope the two people who regularly read this blog like science fiction; because we're talking about Verhoeven again. Starship Troopers directed by Paul Verhoeven and is kinda, sorta based on Robert A. Heinlein's novel of the same name. Starship Troopers is the most interesting example of an adaptation I can think of; not the best, but the most interesting. Rather than being a retelling of the book's story, this movie is meant to be a propaganda film within the universe Heinlein created. The book is as much (perhaps more) of a political essay as it is an actual story. In Starship Troopers, Heinlein expresses his opinions on the necessity of war and capital punishment, as well as the virtues of a selective democracy where only veterans of Federal Service are given full citizenship and allowed to vote.

“Citizenship is an attitude, a state of mind, an emotional conviction that the whole is greater than the part . . . and that the part should be humbly proud to sacrifice itself that the whole may live.” - Colonel Dubois

"Under our system every voter and officeholder is a man who has demonstrated through voluntary and difficult service that he places the welfare of the group ahead of personal advantage." - Major Reid

"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst. Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their lives and freedoms.” - Colonel Dubois

          Verhoeven's film isn't much of an adaption, but more of a satire of the themes and virtues expressed in the book. The whole tone of this film is zany and comically jingoistic. The drama is soap-operatic and protagonists are all dumb, macho, borderline psychotic xenophobes who wear eerily familiar uniforms.

Godwin can suck it.

          Throughout the movie, there are short propaganda clips, such as this.

          That's pretty much Starship Troopers in a nutshell. The movie even ends with such a clip encouraging the viewer to enlist! Imagine if there was a film adaptation of Atlas Shrugged that ended with a tour of Rapture. That is what Starship Troopers would be like if it were any less subtle.

They could call it Atlas Drowned.

          Although I disagree with many of it's ideas, there is no denying that Starship Troopers is a very thought provoking book. It's also pretty quick read, especially when compared to some of the more iconic examples of political fiction (Tolstoy and Rand wrote books that could legally qualify as deadly weapons). Anyone who is interested in political and moral philosophy should give this book a shot. As for the movie, it's not the essential science fiction viewing that Verhoeven's RoboCop is, but it can still be fun as long as you're in on the joke.

Total Recall

          Total Recall was directed by Paul Verhoeven and was inspired by the short story We Can Remember It for You Wholesale by Philip K. Dick. Wholesale is existential tale of a clerk with a Mars fetish who goes to Rekal Incorporated to have memories of a fake trip to Mars implanted in his brain. Like much of Dick's work, Wholesale is mostly about questioning reality. It's also less than forty pages long and written by one of the greatest science fiction writers in human history. Total Recall is a two hour action film starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. This has to be a disaster right? I mean, I love a good action movie as much as the next guy, but come on! Well, it's actually pretty good all things considered. It's not really a great film and it has all the goofiness you would expect from an Arnold movie, but underneath the guns, explosions, and cheesy one-liners, the heart of this film is very Dickian. Like Wholesale, Total Recall begins with an ordinary guy (an ordinary guy who happens to be Arnold Schwarzenegger) named Douglas Quaid who really, really wants to go to Mars and goes to Rekal since he can't afford a real trip. As you would expect it doesn't all go according to plan. It turns out that Quaid was a secret agent who had already been to Mars, but had his memories wiped. Rekal erases his memory of their company, but it's too little too late. His former employers learn that he's regaining his memories and begin hunting him down. Also, explosive decompression...

FYI: Mars isn't a vacuum.

 

          But here's the interesting part. As soon as Quaid goes under in Rekal, everything after could have been implanted in his mind. In other words, it is about questioning reality, just like Wholesale! The film is intentionally ambiguous as to whether Quiad really went to Mars; though, if we're being honest, believing any of this actually happened is as ridiculous as thinking Deckard is a replicant.

“Yes, he’s a replicant. He was always a replicant.” -Ridley Scott

          Yeah, well, what does he know? Anyway, Total Recall may not look like much at first glace, but it's more than just another Schwarzenegger shoot 'em up and it's sufficiently mind-screwy to be a Philip K. Dick adaptation.

Axis of Awesome is Appropriately Named

NSFW

Well, there's my three months of blogging summed up in three and a half minutes...

Constantine

          Constantine was directed by Francis Lawrence and is loosely based on the Dangerous Habits story arc, written by Garth Ennis, from the comic book series Hellblazer. I've said before that adaptations should have their own identity. That does not mean it should be completely unrecognizable. An adaptation still needs to stay true to the spirit of the source material, or, like Bladerunner, put its own spin on the ideas presented in the source material. Constantine is an adaptation in name only. In fact, when I first saw the trailer, I didn't even realize it had anything to do with Hellblazer. I won't go into much detail about the differences in plot between Dangerous Habbits and Constantine because Hellblazer has had 300 issues. When a character has been around that long, the individual stories aren't nearly as important as getting the character himself right.

          The most obvious difference is that Constantine (rhymes with teen) from the movie is an American exorcist, while Constantine (rhymes with line) from Hellblazer is an occult detective/working-class magician/con artist from Liverpool. However, there is more to it than that. What makes Constantine such an engaging character is that he is perhaps the antiest of all anti-heroes, while stile being likable. He is a snarky, cocky, manipulative, lustful, chain-smoking, spell-casting, deal-with-the-Devil-making adrenaline junkie who is at least partially responsible for the deaths of nearly everyone he meets, to the point where the closest thing he has to a friend is a humanoid plant creature that hates his guts. One of his friends' last words were "Constantine, you bastard" and that could be tagline for the whole series. Yet, in spite of all of this, he is still sympathetic and I always found myself rooting for him, as he genuinely does his best to protect humanity from the war between Heaven and Hell, even if he does so in very unpleasant ways. It's hard to explain, but there's just something endearing about a guy who wants to do good while also being an unapologetic asshole the whole time. He is also a rather tragic figure. A recurring theme in Hellblazer is that every one of Constantine's victories is small and temporary. With every villain defeated, more enemies are made and, in the end, the only possibility for him is failure.

          The movie just doesn't quite capture that same charm. Since the last film I reviewed also starred Keanu Reeves, it might seem like I'm picking on the guy, but that's not my intention. I'm not a fan of Reeves, but he's not my real problem with the film; he does just fine in the role. My problem is that this role isn't Constantine. The film's protagonist (who shall be referred to as Constanteen) isn't nearly as compelling as his namesake. Constateen is stoic. Constantine has an air of affability and a delightfully inappropriate sense of humor. Constanteen kills demons by the dozen with a big gun. Constantine relies on deceit and cunning to win his battles. Constanteen wants to work his way into Heaven because of a past suicide attempt, without realizing that none of his good deeds count if they are done for selfish reasons. Constantine continues to commit half of the Seven Deadly Sins every other day and stays out of Hell by literally cheating Satan out of his soul. One of these is a far more generic protagonist than the other. To be fair, the movie gives us a few Constantine moments, like John giving Satan the finger, or this classic moment of unwarranted spite.

          Sadly, however, these don't make up for everything else. But what if we separate the movie from the comic? Could it be good then? Well, my sister doesn't know anything about Hellblazer and she liked this movie enough to buy it on Blu-ray, so perhaps. Though, as I see it, if a film is going to claim to be an adaptation, it should be judged as an adaptation. By that standard, this film doesn't measure up.

The Maltese Falcon

          The Maltese Falcon was directed by Roy Del Ruth and is based on the novel by Raymond Chandler. I want to point something out real quick: not a single scene in this movie actually takes place in Malta. Does that not bother anyone else? Seriously, that's straight up false advertisement. I can't be the only one to notice that. Come to think of it, this whole movie is kinda shit. The whole movie is filmed in black and white, not to mention the sound quality is all grainy. Did they blow the whole budget not filming in Malta? Come on Roy, give it you're A-game. And don't even get me starting on Bogart's "acting."

American cultural icon my ass.

           The gorilla from Congo gave a better performance. Oh, and get this; he plays a private investigator. Yeah, Humphrey Bogart as a private investigator; never seen that before. That was sarcasm by the way. But don't take my word for how bad it is. Here's what the critics have to say:

"The Maltese Falcon? More like the Snoretese Falcon!" -Rodger Ebart

          Ha! You tell 'em, Rodge! Oh, and happy April Fool's or something, I guess.