Post-Mortem: Elantris(low spoilerage)

Elantris

by Brandon Sanderson

A stand alone novel

The story of why I read this book has many smaller folds.  My girl and I were looking for a new book series that we could read together so we could interact like we did with Harry Potter, Hunger Games and Lord of the Rings.  We rather enjoy our discussions and perceptions of the characters and the plots of books, but we're both sort of tepid when it comes to committing to a multi-book series.  I decided to look at some stand alone novels by people who had done book series.  Several names came up, Tad Williams, Jack Vance, and many others, and then I saw Brandon Sanderson's name.

Brandon Sanderson is known right now as the hand picked successor to Robert Jordon, chosen to write the last books of the Wheel of Time series using Jordon's notes.  Wheel of Time is the classic example of what I feel is a trilogy or quadrilogy that so obviously starts being expanded purely for profit.  Just like with A Game of Thrones, people can point to the book where the author said "let's see if we can stretch this out".  I am no fan of Jordon(on a side note, I am more likely to read the his novels than George R. R. Martin's though), so I almost passed on Sanderson's entire body of work, an unfair and now admittedly stupid thing to think.

Elantris had me after reading its back cover, where it explained people would become Gods and reside in a magical city for all eternity; except eternity ended ten years ago.  Yes, its a story of demi-gods that had fallen from grace.  They did not become evil, they became some sort of living zombie creature, too pitiful to die and too insane to live normal lives and one of the main 3 voices in the book had just become one.  It is a hell of a start, and proper bait for me to bite at when it comes to describing a book.

Sanderson's style won me over immediately.  I am not a fan of writers who write "smart" to prove they are smart, yet I am not fan of drab and boring writing either.  Sanderson is a great example of people taking inspiration from The Hobbit more so than from The Lord of the Rings when it comes to plain exposition.  I love it.  I can fly through pages without pausing, and remember everything I've read.  When the action gets intense, my reading does as well.  Also unlike a few recent books I've read, the author doesn't linger too much on certain details and use that to continually fill space with description.  I read a book recently where food was unusually focused upon at all times, despite it not being central to the plot.  I do not know if starving himself was the author's way of getting into the writing mood, but it certainly seemed like it.

The character of the Princess was the next thing that won me over.  She is a really great protagonist, if a little cliche in our day of "a princess that's not a lady" arch type, but something about her made me like her.  Unlike the first Shrek's Fiona, Repunzel in Tangled, and a few others; Princess Sarene does not grate on my nerves with her insistence on proving to an audience that she's crude.  The other characters grew on me as well, and I actually found that I wanted more from almost all of them; something that Sanderson sadly stayed light on.  Most characters show their true selves by the end though, and none of them are a disappointment in this respect.

The plot is really well done.  If you are well versed in this type of literature, you can guess several things that are going to happen; its just the nature of the genre.  However, Sanderson does a good job of presenting the real clues only a chapter or so before it happens, so you do not spend half the book saying "I bet this is what's going to happen, I'm 90% sure".  It really is pretty smart to do it the way he does, he simply doesn't foreshadow real facts till right before the reveal.  The plot focuses on Hope without being sticky sweet.  There is sorrow, remorse, and regret in this book, and the reader will feel it as well.  But also there's Hope, and I think the reader will feel it as well.  Not exactly the kind of hope that a movie like Braveheart brings, but a yearning in the back of your mind that you want the good guys to succeed.  In many of today's plots you aren't sure who is the good guy, or if the protagonists coming out on top is really anything more than a changing of the despots.  I am all for "gray" characters, as I name them, the bad that aren't so bad, or the good that aren't so good, but they have to be done right.  Elantris doesn't touch on gray all that very much, but where it does, it offers a nice shade away from the view points of the always morally "right" view points we get.

The book really bursts open the last 100 pages or so, and will leave you wanting more of the world.  Seriously, while being a great stand alone novel, and self contained, it sure could be the opening of something grand.  The world, the veil of a fantasy world with only a few bits of fantastic things, and a legend, gets blown wide open toward the end and you almost wish immediately for a book that expounds on it all.  Oh, and that "burst" is not exactly what you've been waiting for from the start, its not as obvious a veil lifting as you think of from the very beginning.  Again, Sanderson knew what he was doing.

The bold princess is bold.  The magic is truely magical.  The suspense is paid off.  The epic story ends epically.  I could only hope certain ongoing series that I am reading right now has this sort of pay off(lookin' at you Patrick Rothfuss).

I give Elantris my highest mark: recommending it whole heartedly.  I can't see people that enjoy fantasy novels being disappointed in it at all.  I am not one to ask people to read things that I think could be a waste of time in the least.  I would want to know what people have read and liked before I recommend something, but if someone just said "Fantasy", Elantris would be right after The Hobbit(the Lord of the Rings requires some dedication compared to The Hobbit).

Media with related themes:

Atlantis mythology of all types
Grandia by Game Arts
Vagrant Story by Yoshi Matsuno
Zombie literature
Political drama

Hook: Hated and Loved

Hook occupies this weird place with my generation.

When you look at movies "made for kids" there are generally two categories that they can be put in.  Category one is the movies that kids are supposed to love, but grownups are going to yawn or think about taxes and grown up stuff during it while the kids stay staring at the screen.  The second category is the movies that are entertaining enough for grownups to enjoy as well, and typically are liked on their own as a "movie" not just a "kids movie".

The categories are also appreciated differently by their fans over time.  With category one, usually when the kids grow up they lose appreciate for the film.  They see the movie without their rose colored glasses, and they say "wow, I don't remember this being this bad... but I bet my kids will love it one day".  Nostalgia can play a huge part in the appreciation, but they recognize that the actors were in it for the pay day or for making it for their kids, the critics rated it with the thought of kids in mind, and at the end of the day it is not taken seriously, given a "pass" and the movie lives on.  Usually the "fad" movies are in this category.  Movies that were created to take advantage of a fad at the time.  Examples include: Three Ninjas, Mighty Morphin Power Rangers, Rookie of the Year, Beethoven.  Movies you would probably only watch as an adult to get that nostalgia factor hit.

The second kind of movie are "kids" movies that stand the test of time.  The easy ones for my sister's generation are E.T., The Goonies, and The Neverending Story.  These films are remembered so fondly that children older than my sisters and children younger than I claim the in their childhood.  Its this whole huge bubble of everyone loving these movies.  The Critics too had lots of good, if not great, things to say about them.  These movies were held to standard, they were reviewed with critical eyes on the acting, but also on the directing, editing, writing, and technical aspects.  Movies in this category that I would consider part of my actual generation(I was the age it was meant for when it was released) include Home Alone, My Girl, Jumanji, Adams Family, Homeward Bound, Mrs. Doubtfire.

Hook has this place in a 3rd category that I do not think others are easily put there.  Hook, to much of my generation's surprise, is thought to be one of the biggest turds every shat out of the Hollywood machine.  It is reviled by critics, so much so that these said critics(that are still alive) deny it has a cult status.  There are a lot of things my generation has brought into mainstream America and made closer to "normal", but you can't talk about Hook being a great movie, you get shouted down.

Why is that?

Well I think there was a lot of hype surrounding the movie.  This is nothing special to people now, but do you remember when a movie was released and advertised on television and in restaurants for 6+ months?  This sort of thing really happened.  Now, if something is advertised or talked about for more than 2 weeks, it threatens to take the profit from the studio's next movie.  So things are generally talked up for a small amount of time and quickly asked to be forgotten(until the home versions come out).  Hook had HUGE names attached to it, names that were the biggest in successful movies and critically acclaimed movies as well.  Dennis Hoffman had just gotten an Oscar and was still living in its glow.  Bob Hoskins had just headlined the extremly successful "Who Frames Roger Rabbit".  Robin Williams was on the verge of being the hottest comedy actor in movies.  Stephen Spielberg had just made his come back to blockbuster elite after Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade.  Julia Roberts was on the verge of becoming America's sweetheart, every bit as destined to be as huge as Robin Williams was about to be.  Plus, there were cameos, OH MY GOD was there cameos for everyone over the age of 40 at the time.  Everyone from Woodstock performers, to Oscar nominated actors and actresses, and even Spielberg's friends George Lucas and Carrie Fischer.

The critics hated it.  I think they must have gotten the message that this movie was made for Baby Boomers instead of kids, I don't know.  The actors don't tend to have wonderful things to say about it in memory.  It was in a time before CGI sets(thankfully) and it was a pain to work on such elaborate sets back then.  Its a look and a style that I think are under appeciated, and a look that I think lasts, since we now see a lot of the late 90's and early 2000's CGI sets are garbage due to time and tech passing them.  Spielberg has said that he hopes one day he can watch it and like it, because right now he hasn't liked seeing it, all he sees are his failures in the movie.

People outside my generation seems to have hated it as well.  Most of the really younger crowd, under 10 years my junior, don't seem to have an appreciation for it either.  I think they may rely on the internet for their proto-opinions where as my generation only really had viewing to formulate our thoughts on film rankings.  The younger crowd get told its trash before they get to appreciate it.  Unlike the Goonies, which you are bombarded with left and right about how great that movie is.

My generation, kids that were 8-11 when this movie came out, love the hell out of the movie.  We see characters like Rufio as alternative heros.  He is the hero we're not supposed to have liked, but he was the hero we had, and he did not seem to conform to anything.  He was the 90's version of Peter Pan, and his character was perfect for the analogy.  Critics found him obnoxious, overplayed, and heavy handed... and that was PERFECT, they should have.  If that kind of kid wasn't annoying enough to grown ups, he would have pushed the boundaries until he was.

The other stuff, the imagination needed to eat, the food fight, and the kids playground scenes were right up there with the best scenes of unfettered kid joy in all the 90's.  The closest to it was the Foot headquarters in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, but that one went over the top because of the cigarettes and beer all the teenagers got.  The Lost Boy's camp was the perfect mix of mischief, freedom, and light hearted fun.

I'm not saying there wasn't flaws, because there are many.   But what I'm saying is that unlike category 1 movies, my generation seems to keep enjoying the movie as time goes by and their ages advance.  Unlike Category 2, later generations seem to dislike it as much as the older generations.  Unlike Goonies or E. T., Hook will never have its time in the sun as a great cult classic.  But that's ok, because you know what?  That kind of gives us our little gem.  I think some of the closest analogies is the movie "Singles" to people that were that age in the early 90's.  If you weren't there, you don't really "get" that movie, or have an attachment to it beyond the music.  That's not a perfect analogy because that's like saying "you don't understand Hook unless you were a lost boy at the time".  Which admittedly has a nice double meaning to the phrase, but is not accurate in what I meant.

Anyways, to me and a lot of people my age, there is no Captain Hook unless it is Hoffman's Hook.  Even the old Peter Pan Disney movie, with its Hook extending into many other shows, is not the Hook we love.  The recently departed, and inspiration for this post, Bob Hoskins is the Smee we hear, and not the delightful voice of Bill Thompson(we do remember him for other things though).  We willfully claim our movie, even as others throw it away.  The old critics, and the old haters are dying out, but we are showing it to our children.  It is sure to live beyond its reputation that it currently has, and I think deserves another look by the detractors.  I can take off my rose tinted glasses, can you throw away your pre-conceived notions, your "I've been told to hate this film or my opinions aren't sophisticated enough" mentality?  I think we would both come out with a sense that it was a well done movie with more than a few miss steps, but then what movie is not?

Yojiro Takita's "Departures"

Departures was released in 2008, and won the Japanese Oscar and Foreign Film Oscar for its year.  Takita won praise for the earlier samurai period piece "When the Last Sword is Drawn".  An interesting turn of events, as Takita began his career as a porn director.  In the past decade though, there are few Japanese directors more lauded in the native land as Takita.

To understand Departures, you have to understand a bit of Japanese traditional culture.  In Japan, only the lowliest of those on the social ladder dealt with death.  One of the biggest taboos of Japan is the touching of a dead body.  This is juxtaposed with the tradition that a body must be washed, properly dressed, and ritually prepared before it is cremated.  In Japan, one must trust the last rite of their loved ones to the lowest of society.  For many it was a thankless job that meant they would be shunned.

This happens to the main character in this movie.  A musician, Daigo, learns that he will not be able to continue his life as a paid musician and must look for a new job.  He is attracted to a job because of its high pay, and before he knows it, he's presented with the choice of being a mortician by and aging man that will soon not be able to perform his duties.  With no one to pass his skills down to, the traditional death rites will soon be forgotten, and the impersonal, modern way of dealing with the dead will take over.   Daigo must make the choice between not only being shunned and money, but also keeping this deeply personal practice alive in the modern world.

The movie is powerful, emotional, and at time funny.  Takita is heralded as a champion of traditional ideas in the modern world, and this movie makes a good, sentimental case for why keeping some traditions are important.  Do not expect action, adventure and kung-fu in this foreign film, this is a story about loss, love, and human dignity.  Its uplifting and inspiring, and is one of my favorite films of all time.  Japan is doing the kind of heartfelt movies that Hollywood will not touch anymore.  Takita's directing is amazing, he is the master in understating, and not telling the viewer everything that is happening on screen; the view must watch and look to read emotions on faces to understand the context of scenes.  If you have seen When the Last Sword is Drawn, then you will see his hand in this as well.

Romantics Anonymous

Someone wrote that Romantics Anonymous is a cup of warm cocoa, and I think that fits it better than I could.  I can describe this movie as sappy, corny, sweet, funny, quirky, and just an overall nice movie, but somehow that can come out sounding bad?

I mean, let's get this strait, this movie is not going to make you rethink or change your life, but that's not what it set out to do.  The movie has set out hoping that you find a little of yourself in these neurotic, afraid of everything characters.  But then that could turn people away too, I certainly would have had a hard time convincing myself to watch a movie about social anxiety laden people, but it somehow does it without being annoying.  American cinema, romantic comedies especially, rely on "annoyance is funny" of which I despise.  Romantics Anonymous never felt annoying, it felt warm, and silly, and was just overall a warm cup of sappy cocoa.

A small summary of the concept: Jean-Rene and Angelique are both socially awkward people.  Angelique is in a group of strongly emotioned people that get overwhelmed but have formed a group therapy session to help each other with it.  When she gets asked questions or becomes the center of attention she has a panic attack and frequently faints.  This has cost her a job as a chocolate maker. in the past.  Jean-Rene is the inheritor of an old fashioned chocolate boutique, he has inherited his father's fear of the world as well.  He goes to a therapist that challenges him to try new things.  Angelique chooses this shop to apply for a job, while Jean-Rene's challenge is to ask someone to dinner.

There is a small cast of quirky individuals that reminds me of the kind of casts in Hedgehog and Amelie, and they all do their job very well also.  The stars make the movie though.  Angelique is played by Isabelle Carre, and she's kind of quirky like Amelie, but she has this Pam Beesly(Jenna Fischer) from The Office quality to her.  She is played well, but I feel the star performance is by Jean-Rene's actor Benoit Poelvoorde.  He is what separates this movie from the Hollywood drivel that comes out here in the states.  He's funny, and almost clown like in his mannerisms, but plays the part strait at the perfect times.

If you like the 90's era un-edgy romantic comedies like Sleepless in Seattle, Jerry Mcquire or You've Got Mail, I think you could come to like this movie.  Oh, and if you don't want to see an hour+ movie with chocolates as a centerpiece, stay way, this will make you crave chocolate.  Here's a trailer:

My Experience with Frozen

I came into Frozen with a cold heart(I'm a blogger!).

I find myself in this weird world where Disney is not making any hand animated features, and Pixar is endlessly putting out horrible sequels to my least liked Pixar movies.  I don't like this world.  The thing is... the Disney Studio's recent CGI movies are trumping Pixar.  Wreck-it-Ralph overcame my skepticism early with its first trail.  It has a hand up when it comes to me because its based on video games, and thankfully it was created by people who actually loved video games(of all eras).  Wreck-it-Ralph was amazing in all categories.  Frozen, I wanted to hate Frozen.

Frozen had no excuse to me as to why it was CGI and not hand animated.  It was a Disney princess tale, not a movie about computer created characters.  I disliked Tangled, which I thought would have been better animated by hand.   I started picking Frozen apart early, starting with the fact that it was in development hell for years.  Then I saw the advertisements.  It was so "formula" based it solidified my want to hate it.  The snowman thing looked horrible, sounded horrible, and seemed unneeded.  It was like it was an afterthought, but hey, they chose to use it as a huge advertising focus.  Then there was the whole "dumb guy, smart princess" thing that was funny when it was first done, but now probably 1/2 of Disney movies use this dynamic... oh and 100% of today's sitcoms.  It also looked so damn much like Tangled.

Then I watched it.  I said to myself "you know what, even if its a crap story, and annoying characters, I will be in a theater, and I'm virtually guaranteed to see some amazing landscapes.  Early on I really liked that the two Princesses were not enemies.  This was a movie made for sisters to watch together.  It is a dynamic not explored in Disney before.  Then they also had some hard political intrigue.  I'm not talking "oh no the guy from the other nation doesn't like things", I mean they had economic manipulation and diplomatic position shifting.  Another bonus for me.  The stupid animated snowman never redeemed himself.  I took the opportunity of his song sequence to go take a piss.

I think it turned around for me during the amazing landscape sequence I was waiting for, because the song was amazing.  The song sequence "Let it Go" is easily the highlight of the entire movie for me.  I got the incredible visuals I was expecting, and a pretty good song I was not.  Disney has not had a super strong song in a feature for many years, especially not one that people would go out and buy a soundtrack for.  I just wish the rest of the songs were catchy like in the early 90's movies, but these days 1 good one is good enough.

Good enough for an Oscar.  Idina did an amazing job on the Oscars right before they announced that Frozen had won for best original song.  Even during the Oscar performance, I was like "this is a very powerful song".  I can even overlook the incessant need for people to put a "let's talk in the song like Pink" part at the very end.  Its the very end, I can get over it.  Then the pair that came up to accept the Oscar were like the most bubbly and funny pair I'd seen at the Oscars all night.  They also looked like normal, every day people among a sea of plastic and paint.  I was very happy for them.

I'd own Frozen.  A rare sentiment for a Disney/Pixar movie in the past decade.

The Relationship of Miyazaki and Disney

Many people of my generation would point to John Lasseter being the great "Walt Disney" of our times, and its understandable to do so.  To his credit though, John Lasseter has repeatedly pointed to his own personal hero to claim that mantle:  Hayao Miyazaki.  

Miyazaki is an animator and illustrator from Japan that has taken the Japanese, and now American audience, to fantastic places for over 40 years.  His films are national treasures in Japan, to the point that factories shut down when they are released because so many would schedule their days off during them.  Miyazaki is the head of Studio Ghibli, which do other movies aside from his own, which are each wonderful in their own ways as well.  It is an extensive catalogue.

This catalog was to be bought by Disney in the late 90's.  Many thought that this would mean we would get great versions of them brought to our shores.  In video games, the Japanese games were at their height.  On television the Dragon Ball and Sailor Moon craze was in their zeniths as well.  That fact such a large company bought the rights to Ghibli distribution should have been a cause for celebration.  Unfortunately the lead of the studio saw Ghibli as a competitor.  They were afraid these wonderful movies would detract from whatever half assed direct to DVD sequel they were pumping out that week with horrible quality animation, and shoddy voice acting.  The catalog was bought for one reason: to bury it so that western audiences would never see it.

This is where John Lasseter came in.  Disney was feeling the pinch of their horrible decisions around the turn of the millenium.  Their biggest hits were done by Pixar, a studio that was not yet part of Disney.  John Lasseter wrote into the contract that he would in charge of Studio Ghibli's western distribution, and since Disney needed Pixar, they consented.

Many times since, we have been getting good quality transfers of Ghibli films, and Oscars have either gone to Lasseter's Pixar stuff or Miyazaki's Ghibli movies.  While Lasseter does not make the movies himself, you can see why and how Miyazaki has influenced the kinds of things Pixar green lights.  From Up to Wall-E, you get that warmth and quirky charm.  While the earlier stuff is niche still, and largely unknown, the stuff released since Lasseter got in charge of it, are known and loved by critics and movie audiences a like.

Ghibli movies are spectacles.  You are guaranteed to be transported to a place you never imagined.  To places that are not yet stereotypical here in America, and treated to stories that are heart warming, quirky, and less about princesses in castles rescued by the quarterback. 

This is the end to my post about Miyazaki and his relationship with Disney, but it surely will not be my last post about Ghibili.  I have watched almost all his movies, and the movies of Ghibli not done by him, several times each.  I should do reviews and try and get others to watch them as well.

Movie: When the Last Sword is Drawn review Part 2

When the Last Sword is Drawn(WTLSID) is worthy of being proclaimed as a "Best" movie.  To be a best movie, you have to have: great writing, great cinematography, great acting, and great music.  Its the category I put movies like Lawrence of Arabia in.  There are favorite and great movies that deserve distinction, but maybe not "Best" because the writing is terrible, or the camera work is one dimensioned.

WTLSID is not a very quotable movie.  It does have a couple of places, but its not a book that is going to spawn scripture.  Writing is not just quotable dialogue though, it is also how and why things are said... or as in WTLSID, what can be left out.  The classic samurai movie is like the classic samurai swordsmanship, you do not waste movement.  Things are left unsaid, and you are given time to think to yourself "oh, this is that, and this is how" in your own mind.  It is something many movies made in Hollywood has forgotten, that sometimes you don't need every little emotion spelled out in dialogue.  WTLSID's dialogue is understated and elegant.  If I had not seen Takita's other work, I would assume he was just trying to cop on the Kurosawa feel of samurai movies, but since his other work does not have samurai, I know that his style is coming through.  We are meant to think and to make connections, and this allows us to interject our own emotions into things.  Its like the perfect combination of reading a book and watching a movie.  So much of yourself goes into the imagination while reading a book, its nice to see movies that give us a little of that as well.

The cinematography is sweeping while being intimate.  There are no large scenes of armies marching through valleys, or wide vistas of desert.  Instead we have motion and focus on the close up.  The camera is not simply sat in front of people while they talk close up, we have interesting camera changes and angles, all the while keeping the focus on what is going on.  Anyone can plop a camera down and say "here talk into it", this is not what happens in WTLSID.  How Takita does this, I have not grasped it yet, as you can tell I have trouble translating it to text.  I'm not saying he flies around in the faces of actors, or that he sweeps motion throughout all crazy cam style.  I'm just saying, his intimate camera work is not claustrophobic.  By the time he does Departures, he's even better at it, but he does it well here.

The acting all around is a perfect example of period and genre.  The real clash of personality is in the two main samurai, Yoshimura(Nakai) and Saito(Sato).  Both won their Japanese Oscars as Lead and Support. At first you think Nakai's role is the stand out one.  He is the focus, and we see him as both a struggling loving, family man that has to take on this new personality in a new clan.  When no one is looking, we see into him, and the pain it takes to act as he does.  There is zero hint at this inner struggling while others are watching, and its a great choice by the actor.  Too many times in OTHER movies we see the inner struggle come out and wonder why no one around the character seems to care at obvious signs.  Nakai deserved his award.  Taking a second look at the movie, you may realize that it was Sato that really stretched his acting skills for this role.  He has to play both a young, but troubled character, and an old, wizened one.  All the while, convincing us he is the same man.  After the emotion of seeing who he is, and knowing what really is in his heart, the 2nd viewing of the movie, watch Sato, he is the star on second viewings.

When the Last Sword is Drawn is a period piece, and has an appropriate sound track.  You don't go around humming The Godfather's soundtrack, and you won't go around humming this soundtrack either, but it is there, its appropriate and its masterfully done.  When things get tough, and when the drama increases, you will feel your own feelings raise and the music will get your heart aching or pumping, whichever the movie needs.

Things that were off about the movie?  Even after all my praising of understatement, sometimes I feel like not enough was spoken.  There is a side journey your mind takes, trying to figure out Saito, and you will get there, and you will have independant revations about the character as you remember the circumstances of the beginning of the movie, but you are meant to do all that while digesting the other parts of the movie.  Sure, it leads to the "oh he's... awwwe, ok, I see now" moments, but I would have liked to have seen some more of the older Saito.  The entire movie, Saito says one thing about Yoshimura, and we are supposed to realize he means the other, but I would have liked a little better closure about his thoughts on Yoshimura, rather than leaving it fully to be inferred.

Just a little maybe.

Also there's a couple of side plots that seem to not get developed as much, a few characters that might have needed more screen time for their roles to give us as much emotional kick as other characters give us, but all in all, I am having a hard time finding a reason to complain.  If you're in this for super samurai badassness, then go pick up 13 Assassins, because you will not find lots of it here.

I give the movie 5 out of 5 stars, easily my favorite 21st century Samurai movie to date.  A worthy successor to the style of Kurosawa.