Review 1:
"A Good Day to Die Hard," otherwise known as Die Hard 5, is your average philistine's thriller. It is wilfully stupid and seems to believe everything is better with explosions. The plot has generic twists and is fundamentally unbelievable. The action sequences for which most will watch the film are often the result of that bane upon film-making: CGI. The morals are unambiguous, the characters are basic, and the purposeful commentary on society is non-existent. "A Good Day To Die Hard" is a simple film, for simple people. *haughty laugh*
Let us begin with the characters. The main character of John McClane, played by Bruce Willis, accidentally ruins his son's crucial CIA mission. Here is the basic requirement for the Aristotelian tragic hero: "a hero who does not know, and so acts, creating the plot's problem." However, despite an hour and a half of film, this basic concept of tragedy is never expanded. It would be easy to do so, yet the film prefers to focus on more vulgar things, such as the endless action. It would also be easy to convert the film into an epic of redemption, as a result of McClane's mistake, but this theme is also kept threadbare. It is almost as if the film doesn't want to be a grand and intelligent tragedy!
There are occasional brilliances in cinematography and setting. For example, the film opens with a rough shaven, grizzled and brooding John McClane in a dark police shooting range. After being informed of his son's arrest, Willis makes McClane look genuinely disappointed... in both his parenting and his son. The dark longing eyes and resigned body language speaks volumes when compared to that of the young Cop calling him "Grandpa" in jest. However, does the film examine how ageing parents deal with their disappointing offspring? No, it moves onto a horribly incongruent scene in which McClane cheerfully waves goodbye to his daughter.
The film's musical score also has infrequent moments of splendour. Many would call it melodramatic and histrionic, but it only augments the overall absurdity of this needlessly expensive popcorn flick. It is somewhat fitting that the music is so theatrical in a film so stupendously silly. It is much better to the ears than the monosyllabic dialogue, where grunts and crass one-liners are the closest to intelligent discourse you will hear. One cannot help but get the impression that the dialogue is secondary to the mindless action!
The setting of Russia also seems painfully aesthetic and superficial. There is no daring discussion of the scars communism has left, or the corruption in modern Russia. These are just useful backdrops to the generic plot and another gimmick through which the film can sell itself. In fact, halfway through, the film appears to change its mind, and the setting moves to Ukraine. This film could have been set anywhere, given its simplicity in plot and themes, so the laboured use of Russia seems awkward to the senses.
"A Good Day to Die Hard" is a lazy, simple film. The central themes, if you can call them that, are not developed to any extent more than the plot requires. "A Good Day to Die Hard" has no artistic merit or intellectual rigour, just mindless action. No day is a good day to see this film.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Review 2:
Woooooo! Explosions! Guns! Car Chases! More Explosions! "A Good Day to Die Hard" has it all!
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Depending on the attitude and expectations you go in with, Die Hard 5 is either an extreme disappointment or a thrilling success. Don't judge it on how clever or emotional it is, because that isn't its purpose. The point of it was to make money and have mindless action, so judging it on artistic sentiment is like judging a fish for it's ability to climb a tree: pointless.
Friday, 22 February 2013
Monday, 18 February 2013
Owen Jones, George Galloway and Political Writing.
Recently, Owen Jones wrote this piece in the Independent columns, where he argues that the left (a horribly vague, homogenising term) needs to get better at communicating.....using the unfortunate example of George Galloway.
Galloway, for those unaware, is a rape apologist and a generally disagreeable fellow. In response to the Julian Assange rape allegations, where Assange is wanted by Swedish Authorities for the rape of two Swedish women, he said this on a podcast:
A writer can do many things. They can lie about the past, or omit facts which hurts their argument. Jones does neither. He refuses to lie about or defend Galloway's comments. He does not drop the facts or pretend they don't exist, he in fact describes them as "repulsive".
However, Jones does something else; he mentions the truth quickly and then moves on to other things more important to him. Blatant lying or omission runs the risk being discovered, which might cause the reader to rebel against the writer, something a young columnist like Jones might want to try and avoid when dealing with left-wing, liberal politics, his own ideological back yard. To state the facts however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information and points, is to say to the reader with a certain infectious calm: "Yes, Galloway made shocking and deplorable comments, but it should weigh little in our judgements."
It is not that the writer can avoid emphasis of some facts and not of others. I have probably done it myself in this blog and many other pieces of writing. It is as natural and as necessary to the writer as it is to the cartographer. In order to make a usable map for practical purposes, a Cartographer must flatten and distort the shape of the earth and then choose out of the tonnes of geographical information available those things needed for the map in question.
I do not want to argue that writing must incorporate all facts and views equally. An authoritarian argument that will both make writing horrendously complex and rob it of all aesthetic value. My argument cannot be against selection or emphasis, which are need in writing and cartography.
That is where the similarity ends, however. The map is a technical distortion made for a common purpose shared and recognised by those who need maps. The writer's distortion is often an ideological distortion released into a world of contending views and interests, one of which it will inevitably end up supporting, whether it be social, political, economic, racial or sexual. Secondly, while the map maker's purpose and distortions are often obvious and openly stated, the writer's distortion is often shrouded in the guise of impartiality.
It is here we get to the crux of the issue.
People have many different views and opinions, not all of which can get into mainstream media or politics. Therefore many writers in the media are championed and hyped, unfairly or not, to represent the views of those who would not have a voice. In Owen Jone's case, he represents the vague "young left wing liberal" group. An ill-fitting definition but the best I could muster. By emphasising and selecting facts that do not serve, or in this case, fully acknowledge the views of these people, he has betrayed and alienated them. A sentiment expressed by the excellent twitter feminists Zoe Stavri (@stavvers) and Sarah McAlpine (@sazza_jay)
Whether we should champion writers to represent our views is a debate for another day. Jones has however, previously accepted his role as a left-wing, well-known activist and writer. However, he has written an ambiguous piece on George Galloway that cannot decide whether the man is a victim or a cad, despite Galloway's deplorable rape comments, which are not fully addressed in the piece themselves. By trying to bury this past and pretend it isn't important in learning from Galloway, Jones has alienated and betrayed a good number of his support base. We're not angry Owen, just disappointed.
Something else I found on this issue that was interesting: http://hurryupharry.org/2013/02/18/owen-jones-on-galloway/
Galloway, for those unaware, is a rape apologist and a generally disagreeable fellow. In response to the Julian Assange rape allegations, where Assange is wanted by Swedish Authorities for the rape of two Swedish women, he said this on a podcast:
These comments are ones I find deplorable, as have many others. One just needs to watch the podcast in full to see how uninformed he is on the Assange issue, repeating many myths that David Allen Green has previously debunked. However, Jones barely mentions these in his article praising Galloway and straight-talking. There is only one sentence at the start of Jone's writing that mentions Galloway's rape comments.
Even taken at its worst, if the allegations made by these two women were true, 100 per cent true, and even if a camera in the room captured them, they don’t constitute rape. At least not rape as anyone with any sense can possibly recognise it. And somebody has to say this.Let’s take woman A. Woman A met Julian Assange, invited him back to her flat, gave him dinner, went to bed with him, had consensual sex with him. Claims that she woke up to him having sex with her again. This is something which can happen, you know.I mean not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion. Some people believe that when you go to bed with somebody, take off your clothes, and have sex with them and then fall asleep, you’re already in the sex game with them.It might be really bad manners not to have tapped her on the shoulder and said, “do you mind if I do it again?”. It might be really sordid and bad sexual etiquette, but whatever else it is, it is not rape or you bankrupt the term rape of all meaning. . .I don’t believe either of those women, I don’t believe either of these stories.
Jones then moves onto his other points quickly. For me, this presents a problem. Jones, a relatively young columnist who I like and occasionally agree with, is being intellectually dishonest as a writer.
He has made unacceptable comments about rape – “not everybody needs to be asked prior to each insertion” – that repulsed virtually everybody
A writer can do many things. They can lie about the past, or omit facts which hurts their argument. Jones does neither. He refuses to lie about or defend Galloway's comments. He does not drop the facts or pretend they don't exist, he in fact describes them as "repulsive".
However, Jones does something else; he mentions the truth quickly and then moves on to other things more important to him. Blatant lying or omission runs the risk being discovered, which might cause the reader to rebel against the writer, something a young columnist like Jones might want to try and avoid when dealing with left-wing, liberal politics, his own ideological back yard. To state the facts however, and then to bury them in a mass of other information and points, is to say to the reader with a certain infectious calm: "Yes, Galloway made shocking and deplorable comments, but it should weigh little in our judgements."
It is not that the writer can avoid emphasis of some facts and not of others. I have probably done it myself in this blog and many other pieces of writing. It is as natural and as necessary to the writer as it is to the cartographer. In order to make a usable map for practical purposes, a Cartographer must flatten and distort the shape of the earth and then choose out of the tonnes of geographical information available those things needed for the map in question.
I do not want to argue that writing must incorporate all facts and views equally. An authoritarian argument that will both make writing horrendously complex and rob it of all aesthetic value. My argument cannot be against selection or emphasis, which are need in writing and cartography.
That is where the similarity ends, however. The map is a technical distortion made for a common purpose shared and recognised by those who need maps. The writer's distortion is often an ideological distortion released into a world of contending views and interests, one of which it will inevitably end up supporting, whether it be social, political, economic, racial or sexual. Secondly, while the map maker's purpose and distortions are often obvious and openly stated, the writer's distortion is often shrouded in the guise of impartiality.
It is here we get to the crux of the issue.
People have many different views and opinions, not all of which can get into mainstream media or politics. Therefore many writers in the media are championed and hyped, unfairly or not, to represent the views of those who would not have a voice. In Owen Jone's case, he represents the vague "young left wing liberal" group. An ill-fitting definition but the best I could muster. By emphasising and selecting facts that do not serve, or in this case, fully acknowledge the views of these people, he has betrayed and alienated them. A sentiment expressed by the excellent twitter feminists Zoe Stavri (@stavvers) and Sarah McAlpine (@sazza_jay)
@stavvers @crisdafis @owenjones84 and that it comes from somebody whose normally quite decent about women's rights is all the more upsetting
— Sarah McAlpine (@sazza_jay) February 17, 2013
Whether we should champion writers to represent our views is a debate for another day. Jones has however, previously accepted his role as a left-wing, well-known activist and writer. However, he has written an ambiguous piece on George Galloway that cannot decide whether the man is a victim or a cad, despite Galloway's deplorable rape comments, which are not fully addressed in the piece themselves. By trying to bury this past and pretend it isn't important in learning from Galloway, Jones has alienated and betrayed a good number of his support base. We're not angry Owen, just disappointed.
Something else I found on this issue that was interesting: http://hurryupharry.org/2013/02/18/owen-jones-on-galloway/
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)