2023年8月25日 星期五

"Traitor to the Living" by Philip Jose Farmer (1973)


 
"Patricia liked to talk about herself, but she also had to have physical activity.  After a few hours of spilling emotional contents, she would pace back and forth and then say that she either had to go for a walk or to bed with Gordon."

Philip Jose Farmer's books have been discussed here several times already.  He was at best a third tier (heh heh) writer of science fiction, and even though he has his modern champions I think most of his output is best forgotten.  I enjoyed his World of Tiers series; Riverworld less so.  Much of what he wrote seems to be a pastiche of what other, more popular writers were doing, and there's often an immature sense of sexuality at play in his stories.

In Traitor to the Living, a book I thoroughly regret wasting my time with, a tycoon invents (?) a machine that allows the living to communicate with the dead.  It's a solid concept around which to build a science fiction story, but the workings of this machine are never sufficiently explained, and the discussions framed around it involve such leaps of logic that they take the reader right out of the story.

There's also the problem of the female characters in this book, who are little more than objects provided for the male protagonist's amusement.  Whether old or young, the first details applied to these female characters is the size of their breasts, other distinguishing sexual attributes, and their willingness to have sex with either the protagonist or men in general.  Most disturbing of all, the love interest in Traitor to the Living is the protagonist's first cousin, and his first impression of her is that she reminds him of his own mother.

All of which is a shame, because I think the author was on to something with the concept.  In the hands of a better writer the machine could have been a compelling story point, but as it is it's buried beneath a lot of bad writing.

Related Entries:

2023年8月24日 星期四

Academy Award Winners: 1931-1939

 

My plan was to watch the Best Picture, Best Actor, Best Actress and Best Cinematography winners for each year, but sadly that's not going to happen.  It would seem that a lot of those movies aren't popular enough to be available now*, so instead of going through each year in turn I'll be discussing what I could find from the rest of the decade.

Consider this another "Some Other Movies From..." entry if you like, with the following entry being the Some Other Movies From 1940-1945 entry, which I wrote during September of last year.

 

Best Picture and Best Director: Cavalcade (1933)
 
You'll see the dramatic irony coming from a mile away, but this lavish production still packs a punch.  Cavalcade follows two families through the first three decades of the twentieth century, painting a vivid picture of love and sacrifice. 

Fun Fact 1: Director Frank Lloyd was one of the founders of the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences.  He was also named President of the Academy in 1934.  Cavalcade was his second win for Best Director, following 1929's The Divine Lady.

Fun Fact 2: Cavalcade might have been Adolf Hitler's favorite movie.



Best Actress in a Supporting Role: Alice Brady - In Old Chicago (1938)

Dirty politics and social mores come between two brothers in the late 1800s.  At the time In Old Chicago was one of the most expensive movies ever made, and Tyrone Power and Don Ameche are convincing as the two brothers.  

This was one of Alice Brady's last films.  She had a career stretching back to 1915, and she'd succumb to cancer in 1939 at just 47 years of age.
 

Best Director: Leo McCarey - The Awful Truth (1937) 

Cary Grant and Irene Dunne exercise their breezy charm in the service of this romantic comedy.  It's not laugh out loud funny, but I did find myself chuckling throughout.  Compared to many of the other movies here it's aged extremely well.

Fun Fact: A lot of this movie was improvised.  Director Leo McCarey and others involved in the production weren't that fond of the script or the play it was based on, and McCarey encouraged the actors involved to improvise.  Cary Grant, by that point accustomed to the factory approach used at Paramount, initially threatened to quit over McCarey's perceived "lack of organization."
 

Best Actor: Charles Laughton - The Private Life of Henry VIII (1933)

A mostly satirical look at the marriages of the famously promiscuous monarch.  Laughton was perfect for the lead, and his "moment of discovery" still hits hard 90 years since this film's release.
 

Best Director: Frank Capra - Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (1936)

Small town values meet the big city in the guise of a poet who comes into a sizeable inheritance.  I wasn't that fond of Gary Cooper in A Farewell to Arms, but he makes much more sense here.  Frank Capra, who was nothing if not a director driven by his belief in both the underdog and a nation's character, would revisit many of the themes present in this movie later in his career.

Fun Fact 1: 1939's Mr. Smith Goes to Washington was originally going to be "Mr. Deeds Goes to Washington".  The trouble was that Gary Cooper was unavailable for that project, and Jimmy Stewart was.

Fun Fact 2: Adam Sandler's 2002 comedy Mr. Deeds was, unfortunately, based on Mr. Deeds Goes to Town.


Best Supporting Actor: Thomas Mitchell - Stagecoach (1939)

One of the movies that established John Ford as the leading director of Westerns, and also John Wayne's breakout performance.  With its Western tropes and racist depictions of Native Americans it's somewhat easy to overlook Stagecoach now, but this movie is worth watching for what the director does with the camera, and also for the occasional hypocrisies of Western life present in the story.

Fun Fact: John Carradine, father of Keith, David and Robert Carradine, appears in this movie as "Hatfield."  Actress Martha Plimpton is, by the way, John Carradine's granddaughter.


Best Supporting Actor: Walter Brennan - Kentucky (1938)

Stable "boys," huh?

This one's a bit weird.  It starts off with a great, dramatic sequence involving the requisitioning of horses on the eve of the Civil War, and then jumps ahead several decades to a love story centered around horse racing.

Note how the script attempts to explain away Richard Greene's accent.  A few years in England and his character's Southern accent changes that much?  I think not!
 

Best Director: Frank Borzage - Bad Girl (1931)
 
Best Director?  Really?  Bad Girl definitely isn't a bad movie; it's full of snappy dialogue and the acting's on point, but I'm not feeling "Best Director" here.  Perhaps the Oscar was awarded as a way of recognizing Frank Borzage's general popularity at the time, alongside the fact that he was one of the two Best Director winners during the first Academy Awards ceremony.
 
In Bad Girl a young woman falls for an extremely self-effacing young man, with various misunderstandings threatening to drive them apart.  In case the title puzzles you (as it did me), it's a reference to the night they spend together in the young man's apartment, which was a definite no-no back then.
 
Fun Fact: Borzage initially refused to direct this movie.  Apparently the novel it's based on (which incorporates premarital sex) scandalized many at the time, and when first approached he wanted nothing to do with it.


M (1931)

The only movie here which didn't win an Academy Award.  One of those strange quirks of fate I suppose.
 
Vigilante justice or simply "justice?"  In Fritz Lang's M a group of citizens band together to catch a killer, and the outcome of their search is both saddening and disturbing.  Lang directed M several years after Metropolis, and many (including the director himself) would argue that M is his masterwork.  
 
Given the state of film production at the time it is indeed a stunning achievement, and just as profound today as when it was released in 1931.
 

Best Cinematography: Victor Milner - Cleopatra (1934) 

Cecil B. DeMille paints an expansive (and expensive) portrait of Egypt's most famous woman.  For the record the 1963 version is much better, even though this take on Cleopatra does illustrate the connections between Roman diplomacy and Cleopatra's ambitions in some interesting ways.  Claudette Colbert was a serviceable Cleopatra, but Liz Taylor's portrayal casts something of a shadow over all previous (and subsequent) versions of that character.
 

Best Actress: Helen Hayes - The Sin of Madelon Claudet (1931) 

Modern viewers might have some trouble determining what the "sin" is.  I'm guessing it's the fact that Madelon Claudet's son is illegitimate, and not the ways in which she funds her son's passage through medical school.  I could be wrong though.

Whatever the case, the highest praise I can give this movie is the statement that I knew right off who won the Academy Award for it and why.  Helen Hayes gives a great performance here, even if the the story is muddled and the way in which the director cuts between scenes toward the end of the film is a bit distracting.

Fun Fact: Helen Hayes' career in Hollywood lasted 77 years, from 1910 to 1987.  Her last "big" movie was 1970's Airport.
 
 
Best Cinematography: Floyd Crosby - Tabu (1931)

Like 1928's White Shadows in the South Seas, another Oscar winner set in that part of the world.  I suppose that in the late 1920s and early 1930s the south Pacific seemed a lot more remote than it does now, and filming there also offered the filmmakers a chance to put shirtless women on film without getting into trouble for doing so.

Tabu is F.W. Murnau's last movie, released not long after his death.  Unlike White Shadows in the South Seas, it's less concerned with the effects of colonization on indigenous peoples than with a love affair between a young tribesman and a virgin promised to the gods.  As with other Oscar winners of the time period, the Oscar seems to have been awarded more for the technical achievement of filming in a specific location.
 

Best Cinematography: Charles Lang - A Farewell to Arms (1932)

Nothing against director Frank Borzage, who should be better remembered; nothing against Helen Hayes, who was one of the greatest actresses of her generation; nothing against Gary Cooper, who had a big career in film yet ahead of him; and nothing against cinematographer Charles Lang, who brings this story to vivid life.  I'm just not a big fan of Ernest Hemingway.  It's a well done movie, I just wish it had been based on someone else's book.

Parting Thoughts
 
Which of these films do I regard as "required viewing?"  To be honest, I'd only recommend M, which didn't win any awards.  The remainder are good or bad to varying degrees, but I can't imagine any of them really capturing a modern viewer's attention for very long.  Cavalcade is worth seeing for the effect it had on subsequent propaganda films, The Awful Truth is a good example of the kind of movie Hollywood doesn't make anymore, Stagecoach is a genre-defining Western and the bigger-budget spectacles discussed here are all good examples of what a blockbuster movie was in the 30s.  But overall there's a talkiness to these films that modern audiences will find hard to digest, and also a slower pace which might not suit those who've grown up on more recent movies.

Related Entries:

 

*I could give YouTube money to watch them, but I'm not going to do that.

2023年8月18日 星期五

"Joe Hill Presents Hill House Comics" by Joe Hill and Many Others (2019-2020)


Who's Joe Hill?  He's a writer of horror novels and comic books.  He also happens to be Stephen King's son.  Several of his works have been adapted for the screen, most notably his comic book series Locke & Key.  His real name is Joseph Hillstrom King.

Hill House Comics?  It's a line of DC horror comics that fall within the larger DC Black Label imprint which replaced Vertigo.  The collection discussed here includes all of the Hill House comics with the exception of Refrigerator Full of Heads, which is a recent sequel to the earlier Basketful of Heads.

The individual books/comic book series in this collection are:

1. Basketful of Heads

A young woman stumbles upon an ancient ax with horrifying properties.  Joe Hill wrote the story with art by Leomacs.  Its the funniest book in this collection, it's well paced, and the conclusion is satisfying.

2. The Dollhouse Family

A family suffers the presence of a sinister dollhouse.  M.R. Carey wrote the script, with art by Peter Gross and Vince Locke.  This one was my favorite by far.  It would make an excellent movie.

3. The Low, Low Woods

Two girls living in a dying town discover a disturbing secret.  Carmen Maria Machado served as writer, with Dani illustrating.  I liked it, but parts of the story seemed a little unfocused.  I think the writer could have pulled it together more tightly in terms of theme.

4. Daphne Byrne

A lonely young girl strikes up a friendship with an otherworldly being.  Laura Marks wrote with Kelley Jones (!) on art.  It's a very solid effort overall, and it reminded me how much I missed Jones' work on Deadman.

5. Plunge

A salvage crew runs into trouble off the coast of Russia.  Joe Hill wrote the story, with Stuart Immonen providing the best art in this collection.  It borrows a bit too much from other stories, and the little nods to John Carpenter's The Thing weren't helping.  Definitely not bad, but it's juggling too many balls at the same time.

6. Sea Dogs

This was originally a backup feature for Basketful of Heads.  It was also written by Joe Hill and features art by Dan McDaid.  It reminded me a lot of the old EC comics (Tales from the Crypt, etc.), but its tongue in cheek tone is more of a liability than an asset.  I suppose that many will find it goofy fun, but it wasn't working for me.

And that's it.  With the exception of Sea Dogs I'd say that all of these comics are worth reading, some (of course) more than others.  I'm not a big reader of horror comics, but I'd be glad to read more Hill House titles in the future.

Related Entries:

2023年8月16日 星期三

"American Comics: A History" by Jeremy Dauber (2022)


"But Shooter's work was the exception at DC rather than the rule.  The cover of the August 1966 issue of Batman showed the Caped Crusader relaxing in front of a TV showing The Adventures of Batman, Robin begging him to come out and fight crime."

Jeremy Dauber is a professor of Jewish literature at Columbia University.  He's written several books which explore Jewish history and culture, American Comics: A History being the only of his books that doesn't directly tackle that subject.

As a work of research this book is commendable.  The author is exhaustive in his analysis of this art form, beginning with the debatable "early comic books" of medieval Europe and concluding with recent titles such as Tom King's run on Mr. Miracle.

With this said, I found the last two chapters of this book to be uncomfortably "woke."  The author is very preoccupied with issues of sexism, racism, sexual orientation and representation, often to a degree far in excess of what the average comic book reader is willing to countenance.  

In earlier chapters his exploration of racial and sexual politics in the context of comic strips and comic books is absorbing, but in later chapters it grows extremely tiresome, involving as it does discussions of comic books that few have read and that fewer have interpreted in the same way as the author.  His waxing rhapsodic over comics that were never popular, and which thus lacked any real impact on the industry, feels extremely condescending at times.  And at the end of the day, do you or I really need to read titles like Black Hole?  No, not really.  If that's your thing, cool, and if not, then also cool.

In the midst of his plea for representation the author also seems to lose sight of the fact that it's only one aspect of storytelling.  It's a tool that, when used well, adds realism to a story and invites new readers into that same story.  It's also a tool, when used badly, that both alienates readers and evidences a lack of originality.  Do we need more minority and LGBTQ+ characters in comic books?  Yes, we certainly do, but these characters have to be done well, they have to be compelling, and they have to serve the narratives they inhabit.  Assuming otherwise estranges people, and it also overlooks the central concern of the comic book industry, that of a publisher's need to know its audience.

I'd recommend the first half of this book.  It's full of interesting historical anecdotes and asides.  I wouldn't recommend the second half, which overlooks some important changes in the industry and which grows increasingly pompous toward its conclusion.  

I also think that if the author wanted to "show his wares" (his prose) to a wider market he would have done better find a subject which lent itself more naturally to that.  As it is it often seems like he's using the history of comic books to show us how big his vocabulary is, and many of his analyses of the genre seem to overlook the very titles he's discussing.

Related Entries:

2023年8月7日 星期一

"Time War" by Lin Carter (1974)


 "MAN AGAINST TIME

"John Lux was an electronic scientist, a level-headed industrialist, an ordinary twentieth century man -- at least he thought he was an ordinary man.

"...until he discovered he could teleport himself.

"...until he discovered that forces 200,000 years beyond his time were trying to destroy him.

"...until he discovered that civilization of the future was being pampered into extinction in a kindergarten world and he was the only man in all eternity who could save it.

"But until John Lux discovered how to use his dormant neuro-radionic powers, he was a helpless pawn in a time war -- and both he and the planet were doomed..."

That's from the back cover.  This book is, including an author's postscript, 160 pages long and not very substantial.  I might go still further and say Time War is both an insufficient homage to A.E. Van Vogt and that its plot doesn't make a great deal of sense.  At times it reads like a comic book of the time period, at times it reads like a much older book that the author dusted off for (re)publication, at still other times it feels like the author is going for a certain word count, recapitulating previous events at every opportunity.

If I were you I wouldn't bother with Time War -- not that you're likely to come across it anyway.  Its author was never famous or even that well known, and I doubt that any publisher will ever bother to run this book through a printing press again.  It's an artifact of what science fiction once was, and as such it can be occasionally charming if consistently unimpressive.

Lin Carter, by the way, was better known for his fantasy books than his works of science fiction.  I haven't read any of those books and I probably never will.

Related Entries:

2023年8月6日 星期日

"House of X / Powers of X" by Jonathan Hickman and Others (2019)


 Anyone else find Hickman's Secret Wars disappointing?  It started out as this enormous, ambitious thing and then just kind of ended.  I began that comic book series expecting a conclusion that would shake the Marvel Comics universe(s) to its very core, but what I got -- or seemed to get -- was an ending less than spectacular.

Don't get me wrong, I loved Hickman's run on New Avengers up to that potentially reality-altering comic book crossover event.  Those New Avengers comics exceeded my expectations on every level, and perhaps that was part of the problem, in that they set me up for disappointment later on.  The author, it would seem, had no way of topping or completing what he'd done on New Avengers, and what we were left with in Secret Wars was a half-concluded conclusion, a less-than-epic final chapter to a bloated run of excellent, good and mediocre comics that we all felt coerced into reading.

But perhaps I'm projecting here.  I don't, after all, know what YOU felt about Secret Wars.  Maybe you loved it the way I loved New Avengers.  Maybe you consider it a masterpiece.

If so, I can only hope that you'll forgive me for saying that Hickman's House of X and Powers of X are head and shoulders above Secret Wars, and that they are works of such shattering scope and consistency that I doubt they'll be eclipsed by any other comic book series for many, many years to come.  They represent not only the summation of what Hickman's done in previous comics, but also the summation of the X-men's collective comic book history, right back to X-men #1 in 1963.

The premise?  It's somewhat hard to encapsulate, but let's say it involves a combination of reincarnation and precognition, with the X-men beginning anew on the sentient island Krakoa.  It's a story spanning millennia, and it involves a number of X-men friends and foes coming together as a way of ensuring mutantkind's continued existence.  And did I mention that Nimrod is one of the featured characters?  I always loved Nimrod.

Hats off to everyone involved in the creation of this series.  I'll probably read it again at some point.  It's mind-bending in the best sense of the term.

Related Entries:

"The Authority: Book One" by Warren Ellis, Bryan Hitch and Others (1999)


 Longtime readers of this blog can probably guess why I read The Authority.  There will be, at some point, a movie adaptation of this comic book series, and I wanted to know more about it for that reason.  There are no details available on the movie yet, but I assume that the idea of superheroes operating above the law will be a prominent theme.

Another reason I sought out The Authority is The Planetary Omnibus, which I read not long ago.  Planetary is another Warren Ellis creation, and the two properties have crossed over at least twice.  The Authority appears briefly in The Planetary Omnibus, and Planetary appears even more briefly in The Authority: Book One.

Of the two properties I'd have to say that Planetary is WAY more interesting.  There are some fun ideas at work in The Authority: Book One, but they're largely overshadowed by the world-ending threats that pop up every four issues or so.  After the third time the world's almost destroyed and millions of lives have been sacrificed you're left feeling kind of numb, and I would've liked more lulls between battles, more time in which to know both the characters better and to examine the moral implications of what they were doing.  Who are these people, really?  After reading this TPB I'm no closer to understanding who any of The Authority are, or to understanding what drives them to do what they do.
 
Stormwatch, you say?  Maybe, but I've read a few issues of Stormwatch.  I wasn't seeing much character development there, either.
 
Also, a lot of this comic book series seems to revolve around various characters embodying things.  A woman embodies a century, a man embodies whatever city he's in, another man embodies a mystical force dormant in the Earth, etc., etc., etc.  It gets a little repetitive after a while.

I would, however, like to read Mark Millar's heavily censored run on the characters, the run collected in Book Two.  The early 2000s was indeed a very strange time for comics, and there are probably even more interesting ideas in Millar's take.  I have no doubt that he took some of Ellis' ideas forward into both his own run on The Authority and The Ultimates, and the connections between The Authority and later comics make it worth reading, even if it's not that interesting read in isolation.

Related Entries: