focoproject.com

Song of the Day: “I” by Andrew Bird

• Director: Ridley Scott
• Genre: Sci-Fi/Thriller/Action
• Year: 1982

My sister was being born when this movie came out! Actually my sister beat out the movie in arrival by about five months but that is neither here or there, I am simply pointing out the fact that this movie is getting old. Oh dang I am so screwed if my sister reads this. But aren’t we all getting old? Facts are facts and age in a movie, particularly a Sci-Fi movie, in my opinion, can often be crippling, because more and more they become reliant on special effects and as technology improved visual effects as well and because increasingly the new generation of MTV children get bored with the old school of watching films. Therefore, it is the signature of a well done movie when one can watch a twenty-something sci-fi film this day in age and still be blown away by it. Empire Strikes Back, anyone?

This is not the first time I watch this film, in fact I can still vividly recall coming back into the house after rolling around in the sand piles of Toño’s construction site with my friends and walking up to my dad who was seated in the family room watching this film. I was hooked from the go (I walked in on the scene where Pris paints her face like a harlequin). I spoke no English at the time, so you can probably imagine me staring at the screen, trying to figure out what was unfolding. So, perhaps after that verbose explanation you can understand why I had to watch the film again and judge it properly. It is unfair to say I liked a film because it looked really cool when I was a seven year old (I saw it a couple of years after it came out).

I watched it, twenty-six years after its release and I can still happily say this movie is flippin’ good!

Based on a novel (Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep) by Philip K. Dick, Ridley Scott presents us with the story of Rick Deckard a formerly retired Blade Runner, who is called back into action when four replicants sneak back into earth where they are no longer allowed. In a future (2019, but honestly I am saddened to see how far off the mark we are from this version of the future. Where are the flying cars???), where robots have been created to be an equal match, if not better than a human as far as physical traits and intelligence go, it was only a matter of time before the robots became sentient enough to rebel against the slavery that was imposed on them. Blade Runners are officers that are in charge of retiring replicants that make it back to earth. Retiring is a nice way to say executing.

On a purely entertaining level, this movie is solid, with a theme that is constantly moving, intriguing and set in a world that is still visually stunning and which was clearly the influence of many films to come. Yes, the effects are not quite as polished as what you are likely to encounter in recent movies, but they hold up surprisingly well, to the point where it becomes a non-issue, allowing for the audience to sink itself into the film without questioning the how’s and the why’s on the mechanics and design of things.

But the beauty of this film, and surely the novel (which I have sadly not yet read), is in the complexities of the issues it deals with underneath the surface of this techno-punk world. The central question being what is it to be human? These replicants, modeled after ourselves, are like us in just about every way and the newer models (Nexus 6, or something like that) are even more complete in that they have been implanted with memories. Needless to say, the film offers a group of antagonists that are both interesting and easy to relate to. All they want is to live! Trying to get rid of the coding inside them that allows them to have a lifespan of no more than four years. Never is it mentioned that they are looking to take over or displace the humans. Life…a proper life is all they want. All of this set in an dim, neon highlighted littered with garbage and automated advertising. Mixing a sense of Noir along with the futuristic vision of our society, the setting alone is enough to get one involved in the story.

Leading the cast as Rick Deckard is Harrison Ford, who looked really young compared to the latest installment of Indiana Jones (hurl!) which is the last film I saw him in, and there is no question that he carries his role solidly. The supporting cast, which includes Daryl Hanna as the replicant Pris, Rutger Hauer as replicand Roy Batty and William Sanderson who is immediately recognizable as J.F. Sebastian the moment he steps out of his vehicle, is good in their delivery. This, coupled with good directing add up to a very enjoyable Sci-Fi film, that reaches beyond the stereotypical borders of the genre opening a can of philosophical worms that will make for great, late night conversation with your friends.

Rating: 4.5 out of 5
Notes: Some violence. I do not recall much language but then again I seem to have a filter when it comes to that and swear words do not register with me until my parents are in the room and watching the movie with me…only then I seem to be aware of how potty mouthed many of my movies are. No question on the violence, however, which is mostly what earns this film its R rating along with brief nudity.
Quote: [after Rachael kills Leon]
Deckard: Shakes? Me too. I get ‘em bad. It’s part of the business.
Rachael: I’m not in the business… I *am* the business.

Song of the Day: “We Are Rockstars” - Does It Offend You, Yeah?

• Author: Steven Hall
• Category: Fiction - Experimental

If you were to take the love child from a Alex Garland, David Mitchell and Mark Z. Danielewski threesome, say…”The Beach”, “Number 9 Dream” and “House of Leaves” respectively, then the product of it would probably be “The Raw Shark Texts”. Other, more qualified critics are also comparing him to Paul Auster, Thomas Pynchon and a Japanese author whose name I can not remember and likely would not be able to spell if I could (but whom I will most definitely have to look up), but I do not pretend to know that, because I have only read one Auster book. There is no doubt that for his debut novel Hall has borrowed heavily, in my opinion mostly from Danielewski, and he has taken the elements that he appreciated from other authors and given it his own creative, ambitious twist, to make of this thriller something that is conceptually amazing, albeit abstract and difficult to approach.

If you are a fan of the clear cut story with simple to follow plots and entirely grounded themes, then I will let you know now not to come anywhere close to this book. If you however have enjoyed the work of any of the authors mentioned above or even the work of Italo Calvino (particularly “If On A Winter’s Night A Tarveler…”) then this book is going to take you for a wild ride.

This story will demand a little bit of patience from the reader, not because the story develops slowly (quite the contrary, from the very beginning it gives you a kick in the butt and sends you down a flight of stairs, blindfolded), but because it starts like a very straight forward thriller and then becomes something else entirely. Eric Sanderson wakes up one day not knowing where he is, who he is and why he is there, having only letters sent to him by a past self with a series of instructions to try to help him determine who he is. You see, Eric suffers from a condition that began shortly after a boating accident that claimed the love of his life, which wipes out chunks of his memory, time and time again, each time erasing more and more of his former life. This is Eric Sanderson number 11. And just when it may seem that you have a handle on that, the weirdness comes, shaking things all over and making somewhat of a mess. There is the Ludovician, which threatens Eric with never making it to his 12th ‘rebirth’ from amnesia, there is his run into unspace guided by pixie-ish Scout and then there  is the entire last third of the book which asks you to exercise your pretend bone, one which most of us forget to use after the age of ten.

If that makes absolutely no sense, do not worry, it all does as you read the book and it does in a fashion that is fast paced and engaging. Raw Shark reads like a thriller, but requires a lot of imagination from the reader, to tell a vivid story of a man in the run not from killers, not from concrete evil, but rather conceptual evil which is the product of a mad man’s quest for eternal life. Needless to say, while some of the readers (such as me) will eat this up with a spoon, this will also upset and frustrate the majority. Hall has tackled an inventive story and as mentioned above, ambitous, but he is still not exactly polished. Here and there his characters will falter and a few strings are left untied. For that reason, while I enjoy the work that was written here and would definitely read it again, I do not consider it as good as “Could Atlas” or “House of Leaves” which take the time to close all the small gaps and answer the important questions pertinent to the plot.

Typography plays heavily in this book, the way it did in Danielewski’s ‘House of Leaves’, but unlike the latter, Raw Shark streams together a story that is more approachable and easier to follow, if still entirely nightmarish and strange. With an efficiency of language–saying what needs to be said in six words what most people would say in six sentences–Steven Hall creates a handful of vivid, interesting characters starting with the easily relatable Eric, the gutsy Scout (who in my head would be perfectly cast as Natalie Portman) and the ecclectic Prof. Trey Fidorus, but just as the book seems rugged and broken, so too is the story. There is a way about this writing style that has a burst release quality, which is what reminded me of Alex Garland, clearly a book of the new generation that is used to technology and the way it seems to condense our writing, particularly on the internet. Unlike Garland, however, Hall tends to use word pairings that are at times clevers and at other times brow-furrowing (hehe, notice my own word pairing?), which might annoy another handful of readers. This is not necessarily a jab, at least I do not intend it as such, though some will likely see it in that shadow. I personally enjoyed the stylistic change and the simultaneous brevity of his sentences which collectively manage to make a very vividly detailed picture.

Lastly, it is unavoidable that I address the flood of media hype this book apparently has gotten. Commercially, this book is apparently doing incredibly well and I can only imagine a movie will be soon to follow. Do yourself a favor and try to ignore the numerous quotes commenting on the book. I say this because this book is a good book, fun and though not really ground-breaking it is certainly helping tear open the break already created. However, when one reads so much praise for a book it could end up building false expectations and that could lead to the ‘Da Vinci Code’ effect where you end up expecting a masterpiece and end up with something much less. This is not a masterpiece, but definitely a very fun read worth your time if the genre appeals to you.

Is this an abandoned island book? For me, yes, but I will say that most people will not agree with me here. In the end, if you are up for an experimental, imagination defying read, this one is for you. If you like your books off the Oprah list, then look further down my list of reviewed books, this one is not going to be one of them. And for the record, yes, there are some books (two, actually, to be precise) I have reviewed that as it turns out, did make it to the Oprah Book Club list…yikes.

Rating: 4 out of 5
Notes: Funny how I picked up this book. Having never heard about it before, I walked into B&N just after reading The Watchmen, where one of the detectives is called on the phone and given a tip on one of the characters named Rorschach. Unable to hear properly, the detective answers: Raw Shark? This struck me as curious and when I walked into the book store and saw that on a title, that curiosity grew. I had to touch the book, because I am a freak when it comes to books, if it does not feel good in my hand, the paper, the cover, the size, I will try not to buy it or find another edition that fits me better. It is also the reason why I avoid hard backs like the plague, because they are awkward and wrong and make a harshness out of the pleasure of reading. But anyway, I am going off on a tangent. When I picked up this edition of Raw Shark, the cover felt perfect, the weight of the pages perfect, the quality of the binding is solid. This book was a joy to have in my hands. Really. But most surprising to me was the coincidence which let me to pick it up in the first place. No regrets here.

Song of the Day: “In the Absence of Sun” - Duncan Sheik

• Director: Olivier Assayas
• Genre: Thriller
• Year: 2007

Occasionally I will take a chance on a movie I know nothing about, but whose trailer or look may seem promising. Occasionally, I get burned this way.

It is truly a sad thing, particularly when you go into a movie excited and wanting to like it, wanting to give it a chance. You never know which independent film willl turn out to be sleepers and which ones can be swept under the rug. With Michael Madsen and Asia Argento in this cast, I truly wanted this movie to take off, but it only took the very first scene for me to realize the acting would not be up to par, the second scene for me to realize the directing would not be up to par, the third scene to realize the screenplay was as unfocused as it seemed and by the fourth scene I wanted to break my television.

This movie dubs itself a thriller, which is a complete misnomer, because I was not thrilled the least, save for a couple of T&A parts which did managed to get me to pay attention for almost a full minute. Quite remarkable actually. Now…this is the point where I normally tell you about the plot, except that in this case I am having a real hard time figuring out exactly what the plot was, and that is largely the problem. Asia Argento (daughter, I believe, of Italian horror director Dario Argento) plays a woman torn between her former love and her new love to two dangerous men working on both sides of the law. Suffice it to say that all sorts of backstabbing take place, some which make no sense at all but which add confusion to the film and apparently somebody decided this amounted to intelligent interest.

This movie does not know what it wants to be, an action film, a thriller, an edgy romantic triangle sprinkled with low level S&M or something else altogether, but in the end it fails to be all of those, mostly due to a cast that can not deliver, a director that  has a hard time guiding the movie, and an editor that needed to work on his transitions. In the end, you are left with a very barren film with a cool look and enough T&A to keep your eyes on the screen at random intervals, but truly, this is the sort of film you can watch with the sound down and while surfing the net. They tried, you can tell there are parts where they were trying to put the effort and save this film from itself, unfortunately there were too many things working against it. Like a freak car accident, there is simply just “nothing here to see.”

Rating: 2 out of 5
Notes: Violence, nudity, brief sexuality, language. The movie itself is in English for the most part but there are subtitled parts which are in French and what I am guessing may have been Japanese or Chinese (call me ignorant but I am not good enough to tell the difference and the characters were supposed to be Japanese, but they were in China…so whatever….)