The Last Jedi

Star Wars is dead,
long live Star Wars!

Beware Spoilers

Last year concluded with Star Wars month once more. So I was on appointment to go and watch the latest set of fireworks. I had prepared for this event. The night before I watched the exhilarating Star Wars: The Force Awakens and thought long and hard about the next instalment. The potential of possibilities keeping me awake through the night. It was a unifying experience, as Star Wars fans all over the galaxy lay awake with me - thinking about what next to speculate in their ongoing coverage of Star Wars on Youtube. Non-stop theorycrafting online was having more impact than the actual movie. Ratcheting up expectations beyond anything Disney could possibly imagine. The multiverse is fanmade. Yet, nothing could prepare me for the asteroid field The Last Jedi would navigate with Solo-like abandon.

Everything that flows through Star Wars needs to qualify as dogma.

It's hard to see this film in isolation, so this post is a much about Star Wars as it is about The Last Jedi. It seems just yesterday when I mentioned Star Wars' creativity deficit in my review of Rogue One. For the reason that everything that flows through these products needs to qualify as dogma. As much as I like the fiction, this form of canonization has been the bane to my enjoyment of it. If you only watch the feature films this statement may raise an eyebrow but engage with any other media and you'll notice the patterns. This especially applies to games. Where the intention is to put the player squarely inside the movies. A recent example: Battlefront 2, a game by EA, is symptomatic. In it, like an extra that overslept, the player seemingly walks on set right after the cameras were shut off. But instead of joining the other extras in the pub, shoots them with laser guns. Games, comics, series, they all share the same basic ingredients. Their sheer amount of sincere verbal and visual queues and callbacks to the movies are to me like fingernails on chalkboard. The only technical benchmark is how well the game mimics the movie. The only idea here is: "Hey, remember this?" What once felt like they were classic and original lines from unique characters are banalized as if they are phrases that are said all the time. For events that happen all the time. Said by everyone and their mother, porg and droid.

New characters are also derived from the series' archetypes. Each villain is another Darth Vader, squeaking with prosthetic and oozing inhuman menace. Every mercenary a Han Solo, self-reliant, quippy and charming. Every aspiring Jedi a Luke Skywalker with his head screwed on straight. As they repeat, the franchise railroads itself further and the universe becomes smaller - like a fractal of boring. Then there are the typical themes that have occurred forever. Some of which were concepts in the original movies. Some were solidified, even demystified, in the prequels. Extrapolated backwards in time by George Lucas in desperate need of inspiration. It's the reason every Jedi looks like a Tatooine moisture farmer.

_{Jedi Master Owen Lars, Moisture farmer Ben Kenobi, Tatooinian free spirit Qui-Gon Jinn}

The Last Jedi goes some way at least to setting the fiction free from some of its rusty conventions. As such it may be the best thing to happen to the series. In fairness, Star Wars has almost become a genre onto its own. The Force Awakens was textbook. A new iteration of A New Hope. The Empire Strikes back was the quintessential sequel. So how does this latest sequel hold up? It's rather odd even for Star Wars, like duck that doesn't quack. But in no small way less true to the formula, this needed to be the darkest entry in the trilogy, and The Last Jedi pulls if off with comedic aplomb. Everyone fails! But as Yoda said "The greatest teacher, failure is." Some characters even live to learn from their mistakes.

What does all of this mean? The Last Jedi proposes an answer: it doesn't mean anything.

What does all of this mean? The Last Jedi proposes an answer: it doesn't mean anything. Star Wars has always been a science fiction fantasy ride, but it seems to have been made it out to be something else. A profound reflection on the nature of existence. An elaborate puzzle made by a superhuman genius made to unravel the true meaning of. It never was. George Lucas seems to have bought into the hype too when Darth Vader was made out to be something of monumental significance in the prequels. Even though it was never warranted. Remember, Vader almost didn't survive the original trench run attack. He just so happened to become an iconic villain - and commercially interesting.

_{Remember him? And the other guy?}

George went where the money was and served us another helping of Darth in the form of Anakin Skywalker. The arc from well meaning brat to volatile psycho ended short of having him spout a red tail, laser eyes and fire breath. That's another thing. I'm bothered that Star Wars adheres to fairytale logic that ugly means evil. It's a terrible lesson. For one, some may mistake the good looks of yours truly for outstanding morals and trustworthiness. The prequels fully leaned into the videogame logic of the evil-ugly connection with red eyes, a head crowned with horns and a voice that sounds like a bag of crisps being stepped on. Star Wars forgot that Anakin looked the way he did in Return of the Jedi because of physical trauma and not necessarily because he was a bad man. Before you bring it up the Emperor... when he first appeared in Empire Strikes back he was basically an old man with glasses for eyes. Not a waxfaced vampire that had napped by the stove too long during Star Wars month.

_{First: Snoke, second: Kylo Ren}

The new trilogy gives us Kylo Ren, who's trying his hardest to be Evil but retains the good looks of a renaissance nobleman. Even after his puberal episode in which he tried to score a thousand dark side points by slaying his father. He has a trembling lower lip just like his grandfather at his age. But unlike him has reasons to be peeved. His misdeeds don't impress his mentor: the Supreme Leader Snoke. Soke is yet another old man and yet another victim of excessive heat exposure. He looks like he'd been left out in the sun too long, chain smoking, and when trying to douse his stub in a vat of brine, fell in. The master and apprentice relationship is another well-worn convention that goes back to the very beginning. Obi-Wan, Yoda, and eventually the Emperor. The original Star Wars only mentioned the Emperor in passing. Nothing hinted that he was anything but a politician. Vader himself at that point was nothing more than a "dark side Jedi". Not too important. Again, Vader could have easily chrashed his dingy Tie fighter in A New Hope, no matter how strong the force was with him. Yet when Empire Strikes Back was released, we learned the Emperor was Vader's master and force sensitive. There was no mention of him being Jedi-related however and 'master' doesn't mean 'mentor'. In return of the Jedi, we are informed the Emperor is a Dark Side teacher. A powerful one at that, which is meant to explain why Vader must do his bidding - which somewhat contradicts Vader in the prequels. Does Vader even have free will or is he just a tool? This utilitarian relationship was made a rule in the prequels. "Always two there are", mumbles Yoda. They are given a name too: the Sith. The members are given a title 'Darth Coolname'. The Emperor used to be just the Emperor but is now Darth Sidious. In whose employ are Darth Maul, Darth Tyrannus and then Darth Vader. All are treated as disposable tools.
Neither of new odious duo are Sith. Thankfully it's not Darth Snoke and Darth Ren. There's even the hint at other dark Jedi in the Knights Of Ren. Lucky for us, rebellious Kylo Ren would rather see his master and all that which hints at the old order disappear.

The mentor role is getting a bit stale too, and so is that of the problematic student. In the originals Obi-Wan never marked Luke's age as a problem. Later, Yoda considers him "too old" to be trained as a Jedi. At the time it seemed like an excuse for Yoda, old and tired, to not get back to work. But it also made it seem like becoming a Jedi was a life long commitment from youth. A result of this, there was Jedi preschool in the prequels. Filled with aggravating younglings served with gag-inducing child worship. The only thing to make up for Luke's lack of training was the overabundance of special destiny and his Skywalker lineage. Now take Rey who, at about the same age as Luke was at the beginning of his story, discovers her force ability more or less on her own. No special training required save for some perseverance and experimentation. No age stipulation is made, no guru figure needs to holster her power. In fact, the latest Mentor is the reluctant Luke. In a flashback to the training of Kylo Ren another reversal is shown. The mentor tries to slay the pupil. Frustratingly, we're not keyed in exactly why the desperate act happened. Which is frustrating. But it's yet another sign of Skywalker infighting. On a related note. Vader being Luke's father was a cool twist in the Empire Strikes back. But it set an expectation of hidden family lines. I wanted to claw my eyes out everytime I heard this or that pundit speculate who Rey was the daughter to. Was she a Skywalker? A Palpatine? A Kenobi? Why would anyone want this dynasty mentality? We're allowed to like new characters. No relation needed. How can a creative mind come up with anything new if it is chained to the past? It also doesn't help that force sensitivity used to be portrayed as a hereditary trait. Of course everyone is related, it's basically a requirement.

_{Rey and Mark Hamill.}

Particulary the Skywalkers are strong in the force. 'Being powerful', first uttered in the originals, became a quantifiable property in the prequels. Mi-di-chlo-ri-ans. Anakin even boasts to Dooku, in Dragonball like fashion, that he has "Become twice as powerful as when we last met.". This is yet another videogame-like system that deals in force powers and rock-paper-scissors lightsaber stances, and only stops short of Jedi character sheets populated by attribute points for strength, wisdom, courage and midichlorians. You may be alarmed to learn flocks of fans are already turning themselves into knots, arguing online about the mana cost of Luke's 'Force projection'. They're also running into problems explaining it using the established rules, adding fuel to the fire. In my opinion, the answer to the question "Who's the best?" should always be "It depends." or if I'm being honest "Who the hell cares?". Why bother, what's the use? It all reminds me of when middle aged men discuss the horsepower of their cars to detract from their receding hairline.

Literal reading of events in a movie are what kill the symbolic meaning of them. It removes a layer of interpretation and some of the magic evaporates. It's what happens when start counting medichlorians. Talk about force powers. Manacosts. The magic of the Myth is lost if we were to recognize that Achilles' armour weighed in at 15 kilogram and Hector's at 20 kilogram. Thanks to the extra mobility Achilles could move around faster and dodge Hector's attacks and was victorious even though he had to land more blows to defeat the extra armour. The rules that build tension dictate that the fight could go either way. The implication then is, for dramatic purposes, that they were each others equal in all other respects. But that doesn't justify pulling apart each aspect in order to quantify them. It's all nonsense that leads to pointless bickering! The point is that Achilles won and Hector Lost. It's what the story demands and no measure of attack can defeat plot armour.

"The son of Skywalker must not become a Jedi" said Palpatine. He ostensibly said this because it would mean Luke's power level would exceed nine thousand and neither Vader nor he would be able to stop him from overthrowing them both. What superpowers that would entail was never quite clear to me. It was a vague statement that was left to interpretation. Sith doctrine (possibly no longer canon) however states that a good asset should never go to waste. Sadly, this base interpretation of the originals wasted alot of the symbolism that could have gone into the aura of a Jedi, in this case Luke Skywalker. No, might makes right. It's almost an animalistic law - and somehow thát is the biggest concern of the Emperor, a politician. In fact, it is hard to fathom that Luke's threat would be a physical one. Maybe It would have been better if Luke was considered dangerous because he could become a symbol of hope. "He could destroy us" said Palpatine, which would still be true. If Luke became a galactic paragon of all that is good, he could rally neutral forces to bolster the Rebel Alliance against the Empire. This would make Palpatine a more political/strategic thinker rather than a strong animal that fears a stronger animal. It would also have been inline with the terrifying symbol that was the Death Star. Or even the symbolic might that a person like Darth Vader projects. The Last Jedi seems to reestablish the latter. The resistance wants Luke back as a beacon of hope, to inspire allies and bolster their forces. He seems to be stuck in the old mentality of the Jedi superhero though. He interprets their question as a call of duty and refuses. Ultimately both come to pass. Though it's the symbolic act that matters. Not so much the minutiae of Luke buying time for the desperate escape. The showdown between Luke and Kylo Ren is the stuff of legends.

There are three more stand-out scenes to remember. One is a rare scene has some actual tension building before it happens. The Kylo Ren and Rey team-up. Part of the conflict here has always come from people who would get along but for their political or philosophical differences. This is contrasted against the greater conflict - a battle for how society should function. It would be very easy to imagine Rey and Kylo being the best of friends if not for some differing opinions. But the point is that dark and light don't need to be sworn enemies out for the other's extinction. This scene shows us just that. The scene calls back to when Luke and Vader put the sabers away in favor of more civilized course of action. Neither wanted the other's destruction. It is pretty well established that the dark and light are in a self-sustaining balance in The Last Jedi. Foreshadowing a union rather than a schism.

The second is a bit more political. Not even much of a scene, really. Some nuance is brought to the story with the introduction of the unnamed character of Benicio Del Toro. A mercenary with a surpluss of stat points into competence but less in virtue. A character that doesn't fit into the dark or light system. He shows Finn that both sides are being supplied by the same military industrial complex and therefore he shouldn't care for either side. "It's all a machine, partner. Live free, don't join".

The final scene is short: Rey's force vision about her parents. It's a delightfully weird sequence that tells us more about the force than it does about Rey. It's not logical and that's the whole point. How else to tell that understanding the force is difficult by showing a scene that doesn't adhere to everything we've seen before. It's linked to the universe and not to some need to be a superhero. It's not a mere tool to be used in war.

_{Here's hoping Benicio Del Toro will return to reprise his role.}

All the upsets to the canon seem to come at a cost in storytelling cohesion however. One element I'm hoping does not make a return is the liberal use of deus ex machina. The result of a few too many empty epic moments that can't be resolved in any logical way. A few examples:

• Finn and Rose are hounded by the Kanto Bight police and strand at the edge of a cliff. BB-8 saves the day with a brand new stolen spaceship.
• How did Kylo Ren and Rey resolve their quarrel? Rey steals an escape pod offscreen and flees towards the Millenium Falcon parked outside the current system?
• Finn and Rose are surrounded by a hostile army, about to die. BB-8 hijacks a AT-ST to provide covering fire and an escape vehicle.
• Finn is about to sacrifice his life for the rebels by ramming his ship into the battering laser. Rose comes out of nowhere and rams him out of the collision course. The power of love will save everyone, in the background the First Order breaches the final defensive line.
• The Rebels are stranded on Krait, the First order has land and air forces to put the pressure on. The Millenium Falcon shows up and draws away every flying First Order craft.
• The Rebels are stranded on Krait, the First order has land and air forces to put the pressure on. Luke Skywalker shows up at exactly the right time and place to draw away the land-based First Order army.

There's a built-in excuse for all of these of course: The Force is with the rebels. Or at least a select few of them. I wish fans would discuss the mana cost of the Plot Armour force power.

I'm still waiting for some time-travel or parallel universe nonsense to push things into the absolute Marvelesque absurd.

The fact that backstory is teased in The Force Awakens, or not explained at all, or seemingly postponed to a next - this - movie exacerbates fan theory madness. With no answers or pay-off in The Last Jedi there's actual madness. You could rightly say the fans take their favorite fiction way too serious. But so far that fiction has been playing it straight too. I'm still waiting for some time-travel or parallel universe nonsense to push things into the absolute Marvelesque absurd. Though it may already be there! Seeing as how much and what kind of weaponry the First Order produces, one has to wonder if they're not conjuring them out of thin air. The means to enact a comic book reset or revival of characters are already present too: cloning technology. Before you raise an eyebrow, it's not just comics. In the end the Dune novels had nothing but clones in them, all of whom had their progenitor's memories. Cloning technology and genetically determined force powers? The story could practically write itself, over and over again!

As much as Rian Johnson tries to pry open the door to a brighter future it remains far far away. Star Wars is still basically a black-and-white story about good and evil. The closing chapter of The Last Jedi tries to smooth the creases it so interestingly made. Empire versus Rebels. It doesn't really handle its characters too well either. Rather, it looks inwards and back to the original trilogy. It is Star Wars obsessed with Star Wars - not its denizens. A trait it shares with the prequel trilogy. I'm also sure this will only lead to more navel gazing by the community. It's ultimately unsatifying. In shedding its skin, the snake that was eating its tail seems to have lost more than it has gained. The scene is once again set for the next round. While we wait and speculate.

A looming danger with this sequel trilogy is that it may result in the old status quo.

A looming danger with this sequel trilogy is that it may result in the old status quo. The situation from before A New Hope. I can imagine it now. Episode 9 has the First order grows into the newly formed Empire. A Palpatine hologram, prerecorded or otherwise, congratulating Hux and Kylo Ren on a job well done. In response the resistance has no other choice but to become the new rebellion. Setting the stage like it was just after A New Hope. Allowing Disney to plow Star Wars each and every year. It would be a plan made for economy rather than any passion for telling a story. A wild guess on my part - but one needs to sketch the situation in order to see its horror.
A more definitive ending would maybe play out as follows. Proven to be an inept commander Kylo Ren is deposed and replaced by Hux. After which Kylo joins forces with Rey. The Resistance overthrows the First Order and reforms the Republic. Kylo and Rey establish a new form of Force practice that is neither Jedi nor Sith.

 

I remain adamant: the original Star Wars is the best Star Wars. For as simple as the movie is, it hinted at an immense depth of potential that was gradually made more shallow with each new film. The big twist in Empire Strikes Back signalled the death spiral. It turned the whole plot onto nothing but itself. The recent Force Awakens is the only film in the series that bucked the trend. And yet. In case you haven't seen any of these movies, I'd recommend watching only the first one. Leave the untapped potential to your own imagination rather than watching the later entries. Skeptical? Look no further than the deluge of fan outrcy at the current run. Each voice louder and more indignant than the next, telling us how Star Wars should have been made instead. Solid proof of how it could be the same but different. Many will point to the pre-Disney extended universe on how things should be done. Demanding something new while expecting something old. It's a fools errand. It will never be good enough. Besides, no matter how good or bad things get. No matter how you feel about it. Remember that it's the creator's right to drive his creation into ruin.
 

 

 
+
 

One Flew Over The Monkey House

The Square

Yesterday I was fortunate enough to profit of another man's misfortune and was handed a VIP ticket to a sold-out showing of the movie The Square, from Swedish writer and director Ruben Östlund, at the Ghent Film Festival. Fresh, not quite living up to the meaning of the word, from work I got to the multiplex, which for the occasion looked like something out of a movie. Cast included. Contending for scruffiest VIP attendee was I, as I shared the catwalk with tall blondes, middle-age five o'clock shades, neat suits, smiles and the smell of Indian summer - which wasn't doing me any favors after a days worth of creative pondering.
 
 
Since the ticket was the last minute type of last minute opportunity, I had absolutely no idea what The Square was about. But I rather liked the idea of being surprised. Trying to remedy my naivety was a familiar face from television which I had never seen before. It made a speech that was supposed to lead us into the film. This bothered me. The suggestion bothers me, it puts up a frame that boxes-in one's understanding. I'd rather like to make up my own mind. Nevertheless, the well-spoken entity on the screen told all of us this was a satire on the world of modern art. Being a once-insider of this world, I could feel clouds gathering overhead.

_{Christian, played by Claes Bang. Curator of the X-Royal museum}

Luckily the film didn't start with a comical stint, in which a clumsy museum cleaner makes a mess on the white walls after which it is mistaken by the Japanese attendees for being a poignant statement by a maverick painter. No, it starts out with a cascade of ever louder music, a party, over a black screen that comes to a sudden stop and opens the shot on the lead figure by the name of Christian (Claes Bang). The first scene is of him waking up, presumably the morning after, alone on a sofa. Still wearing his suit. He's late for an interview conducted by Anne (Elisabeth Moss) about the latest exhibition. In the interview he's asked to clarify a highfalutin description of a previous exhibition. You may know the sort of incomprehensible artistic sounding drivel. After some prodding he, with some hesitation, mumbles an explanation "If I place a normal object in a museum, does it become art?" At this moment, I strongly dislike this man who had just confessed that his job was mostly about securing enough funds to buy "important art".
The current exhibition in the story is all about the titular "The Square", which has the function of providing a safe space in which human rights are paramount. This is explained by Christian to his patrons, with great pathos and premeditated built-in moment in which 'spontaneously' goes off script.

_{The X-Royal museum, for the occasion modern art has taken the throne.}

Cut to: a shot of a homeless person.
Cut to: a shot of Christian and people like him, obliviously passing by a street barker asking for donations for a humanitarian cause.
The movie is rather clearly pointing out something. In this very scene, Christian gets robbed of cellphone and wallet as he plays the hero in an orchestrated domestic abuse scene. This kicks off an arc of Christian trying to get his stuff back at any cost. His staff, as well as the the lower class residents of an apartment building, which to him, are all suspect to be the thief he's looking for. All have to bear the brunt of his petty quest. Material wealth in his life takes priority, as does his ego - against which this theft is a great injustice.

At any cost, but to no cost to himself as he scapegoats and guilts his underlings into performing his dirty work. The movie plods along a lovely disjointed pace, we see Christian crack in all the right places for us to peek at the monster inside. From the obsession of his possession, to the disdain to the less fortunate, the utilitarian views he has on his staff, to the childish self-pity whenever his hare-brained schemes fall apart. We start to see the picture of a deeply insecure man who is being lived by the role he desperately clings to. Leeching off the system that has him, in this case, promote a banal art piece that is supposed to encourage altruism. Each time there's a glimmer of redemption and the option to do the right thing, he hesitates and never goes all the way of setting things right. He struts them with a good intention but never takes action. He insists on being irredeemable because a man of his stature doesn't need redemption.

There's a party at night at the museum, sounds like the blind opening of the movie. It's decadent. It has grotesque movements - the dance looks like a fight in its violence. Flabby old women with eyes closed dancing like twenty somethings. Sweat glues clothes that want to come lose of their host bodies. The museum resembles a zoo. It's animalistic.

At this point, the movie was no longer bound to the silver screen, something wonderful had happened.

The chapter ends with Christian and Anne undressing at her place. What follows is the coldest portrayal of two people having sex. They lie to each other that this is a great, meaningful moment but it looks like a cash exchange. A contractual meeting of bodies. There is no affection between these two... but it suits the situation. What else are two rich, well dressed, art minded people to do after a wild party? This is what's supposed to happen. They are being lived by their roles they have chosen for themselves and now, like automatons, are going through the agreed upon motions.
Anna lives in an opulent Baroque apartment with a chimp that draws with crayons. This is a bit of nonsense that many in the audience seemed to find funny. I wondered why I heard laughter. "How absurd, it's a monkey!". At this point, the movie was no longer bound to the silver screen, something wonderful had happened.
Here we must remember that the audience was told upfront that this movie was a parody. This means you laugh at anything you think is intended to be funny. They mustn't have noticed the pattern that was pervading the film in subtle ways. The civilized world is held into stark contrast with the natural. Good manners with instinct. Ego with fear. Bravery with cowardice. A chimp doing art, part of the pattern, foreshadows something we don't yet know.

In prior shots from the museum, we have seen two shots of a video installation with a picture in close up of a muscular young artist behaving like a gorilla. The projection of the video is way in the background, but larger than life and fills the frame. In all cases, the picture of this artist is glaring and breathing at Christian. This is the thread of a second plot arc that runs in parallel to Christian's. The well-behaved, controlled and library-like quiet of the museum also shows its cracks. Behind them is this contained ape-man...
 
A first blow lands in a moment where the high society donors from the off-the-script-speech get shouted into paralysis by the gourmet chef of the museum as they walk away indifferent from his announcement of the fancy dinner that's being served for them. They react like frightened children at the disturbance of the chef's shout. No social norm has been agreed to such alarm and they freeze, unable to respond to this outside signal.
 
Then there's a live interview going on before a similar crowd. A polite affair in which an artist, who dresses in blue pajamas with an overcoat, speaks inanely about his process of bringing mundane objects into the exhibition sphere. The elderly, yet stylish, woman doing the interview politely nods at the beat of every full stop of the artist's sentences. Suddenly an audience member blurts out a string of profanities. A man with Tourettes syndrome disturbs social mores and everyone gets very uncomfortable. They do their best to try and ignore the cascade of sputtered insults. Here again, civil society is upset by a shock wave of human nature.
 
A museum cleaner accidentally vacuums an piece of artwork of piled pebbles. This hit close to home. Something quite similar happened in Ghent when a city cleaner scrubbed the colour mixing strokes from a painting in a public space. The outraged artist fumed at the destruction of his work - a part of which were the sketch lines.

A scene that should make cinematic history.

This story culminates with a scene that should make cinematic history. The rich donors of high, modern art loving society are about to have a gala dinner in an artistic setting. This takes place in a dining room blooming with gold as in Versailles. The middle-age and elderly men brought their young and middle-age wives to this gilt soirée. It's a scene with tall blondes, five o'clock shades, wearing neat suits and smiles. The art is announced over the audio system, informing the crowd of what is to come. A confrontation is coming. The advice is to not falter in the face of adversity. In walks the gorilla artist from the museum for a live performance. He walks on all fours, bare chested, a hunk of pressed and bundled muscle, shouting, braying... The art is loose. Challenging the suits, daring them to engage. "How absurd, a silly monkey-man" and they laugh the unease away. An interesting echo.

But the art persists, threatening with its behavior. Truly an ape, an animal with which there is no pleading. After matters get a little more violent and some would-be heroes are run off. The mood in this kitschy setting turns grim, the entire room freezes. The art has a mind of its own and no matter of stature, riches, power and importance can stop its rampage. It only ends when the patrons realize that they too, under the thin veneer of their suits, are animals.

Terry Notary portrays the ape-man "Oleg" in the film. The Russian artist Oleg Kulik was invited to the international group exhibition "Interpol" at Färgfabriken, Stockholm, Sweden. At the opening, the vernissage, Kulik performed like a dog. He glittered, jumped up, rolled and even bit the VIP crowd in their legs. Kulik said he acted as a representative of the browbeaten Russian people, who now attacked and bet back. The crowd became so scared and enraged that they called for the police. In "The square" there is a similar, charged and offensive scene, but here the performance artist acts like a monkey.
 
from IMDB

Halfway through the film we see that Christian has two small daughters from a divorced marriage. A fact that the plot, like the man himself, kept hidden. They are introduced after the children had to walk home from school because daddy didn't come pick them up. Within minutes of their reunion the monster is shouting down the youngest for banging with the doors out of frustration. At this point, to me, the monster had shed its human skin. I also didn't hear any more uncomfortable laughs from the movie audience either. I had rather hoped the penny had dropped.

The film seems to make a point of showing us what Christian sees and wants to see. More poignantly, what he doesn't want to see. In the fallout of his quest to get back his toys, he has offended an immigrant boy who insists he apologize for calling him a thief (and impugning the boy's standing with his parents). In a verbal kerfuffle the boys ends up falling down a flight of stairs in Christian's luxury apartment complex and is left there, crying out for help. Christian, considering the matter of the apology closed chooses to ignore the pleas and goes back to business as usual. The repeated pleas scoring the scene of Christian sifting through some mail. Till they come to a sudden stop. At this time Christian has a change of heart and digs out the telephone number of the boy, gets voicemail and leaves a message with a heartfelt apology. Yet the message may never arrive. We cannot know, just as Christian cannot.

Meanwhile, in his life as curator, there has also been an upset. A marketing video has gone scandalously viral. While this is mission accomplished for getting the The Square project much needed attention, the violence and imagery of the clip doesn't suit the brushed-up image of the museum. Blame falls to the curator. Only the movie audience knows this issue stems from his quest for his effects. But rather than accept his responsibility and negligence, Christian blames the incident on an "unauthorized release". The opportunity to defend freedom of speech, which is a big issue in Sweden at the moment, is passed by and he resigns his post, to great disapproval of the press. Therefore shifting the blame taking the coward's way out.
The movie finally ends, when a now unemployed Christian seeks out the boy from the staircase incident to apologize. He goes back to the original building where he made his threat and asks around, hat in hand. He's told that the boy hasn't been seen in weeks and is presumed to have moved away suddenly and unannounced. This is ominous news and Christian knows it, but he chooses to believe the hypothetical story and leaves in the comfort that there's nothing he can still do. Opting for the comforting lie. The audience too, is left to think about this as the film ends without a clear resolution.

Most of the entertainment in this movie comes from elements upsetting this staged play of politeness. It's a commentary, not the parody it is seemingly perceived as.

Frankly, I don't think any amount of prior information would have prepared me for The Square. It really was a good thing that I went in as blind as I did. It's an odd, uncomfortable film. Its characters are scrubbed of humanity till all that's left is their functional meaning. They are like civil servants that represent the state and not themselves - but seen in a keeping up appearances sort of way. His role as curator is where Christian is powerful and effective. Yet when it comes to Christian without the mantle... well, it's not pretty. That's why so much of the curator part pervades his personal life. He's not the only one, almost all the adults in this story are playing a culturally determined character. Most of the entertainment in this movie comes from elements upsetting this staged play of politeness. The art in the film is meant to put a magnifying glass on real world issues. But next to the artistic happenings, every character at play here puts much more stock into illusions and escapism. The art here is the only real world element that is allowed to penetrate the protective upper class bubble. Yet even that is by proximation, a sterile mirror image. As a consequence, the only action is taken is symbolic - which in times of social media slacktivism makes the picture hit another mark. What happens if the real world event unexpectedly knocks at your door? It's a commentary, not the parody it is seemingly perceived as. I did not laugh once during the entire showing, and was surprised some people did. At a couple of times, I wanted to sink through my seat or hide in the palms of my hands but in the end it's this that makes this film rather interesting. It's confronting because there's a bit of Christian in all of us. That is to say, none is without ego or egotistic tendencies. I only hope that it's not to this degree. You'll have plenty of time to think about the happenings in here too. You'll be positively able to stew in it since many of the scenes drag on very long. If you are expecting to be entertained you may be disappointed and the run time adds to that frustration. Some of the movie even feels a little clumsy. In my opinion, The Square has much more value when you look at it as a product of its time. Seen in this light, it itself straddles the line of becoming art.

~

Another Star Wars Story

Rogue One

Beware Spoilers

A Star Wars Story is the first instalment in the Rogue One trilogy. Inspired by the blockbuster Star Wars movies made by George Lucas it is directed by Gareth Edwards. Set before Star Wars: Episode IV - A New Hope, It tells the tale of how the Rebellion got the plans to the first Death Star. A key character in this story is Gyn Erso. She is the daughter of the weapon's architect and is the only one who can retrieve said plans to expose a fatal flaw in the station's design.
Right of the bat I'm annoyed by the subtitle. Will every side story need that little bit of extraneous info? This is a story of Star Wars, unlike all the other's you've seen and heard.
Rogue One opens up well enough, evil space Gandalf Orson Krennic, director of the death star program, comes to reclaim the last peon to finish the construction of the battle station. True to tradition the progression of the big project lags behind schedule. Much like every governmental program in history, in any galaxy. Krennic seems amicable at first, but a lie escalates the whole affair into cascade of shouts, violence and death. Unstoppable like a wedding band of a past marriage circling down the drain of a sink, slippery and inexorably as it slips towards its sewery doom. What I mean is that it happens too fast and is really tragic.

_{Felicity Jones as Jyn Erso}

From there the story is pretty straight forward as the film takes the universe into wider focus. Showing the state of the universe. Once again, the Empire are clearly space Nazis. Oppressive, , exploitive, ignorant. It has all the (correct) traits it had in Star Wars: A New Hope. I say space Nazis, but the Empire could quite clearly be some other state found in the world today.

_{Jedha is the site of an ancient Jedi Temple}

Our eye travels to Jedha, a planet whom's culture resembles a mix of eastern and middle eastern, its veiled and robed freedom fighters branded terrorists by the invaders. In the streets storm trooper in parade ensure the populace that they are there for safety and employ justice as their means. Two minutes later there's blaster bolts blurring the lines, rebels shooting rebels, concussion explosions, thermal detonations and a lone child crying out in agony.
All this, only moments before the Empire blows the place up with a moon-shaped drone. Sorry old chaps, all we needed was fuel!
It's a bit on the nose. We all get it.

~

Yes, this is a war movie.
Should come as no surprise, it's right there in the title! But it's quite unlike the prequels. There the troops fighting the war are either throw-away battle bots or throw-away clones. In the clone wars only the heroes actually mattered. In Rogue One the heroes are the throw-away troops (sadly, in more way than one). This rather sets the tone to tragedy. Don't bring you children to watch this movie if you were expecting Jar Jar's silly antics. Don't expect the plucky bantering of Solo vs Organa. Don't expect old fashioned romance of rogues and princesses. Funny lines are rare, involve guns and shooting people and are made by a robot on a suicide mission. These aren't the swashbuckling space adventures of old man Lucas, this is war. This is World War 2, this is the Vietnam War... in space! The rebel forces even look the part. If the movie tried to make a point about war, it even gets a little twist here.

_{Walks on snow, sand, forest ground and surprisingly: water}

Oddly, it also has a few of war game elements to it. One I'm thinking of is one scene set in a tropical beach locale... By the way: add that to the level 'theme list' too after: space, desert, ice, lava, swamp and forest. So this one scene takes place in front of a hangar bay: closed doors, an open space and then some chest high crates for the rebels to crouch behind. Ideal for dishing out potshots with the witless Stormtroopers as they run out from their spawn closets and into the enemy crossfire. This fight takes ages before Empire troops wise up and attack the rebels from one of their three exposed flanks. Akin to virgin players experiencing a round of Battlefield, not aware of their surroundings. A handful of Stormtroopers would have done the job but Command sends in a handful of AT-AT walkers, I guess to show that Rogue One speaks fluent Starwarsian, but more on this later. I laughed out loud when I saw the setup of the scene, because it reminded me of the silliness of simplistic, video game inspired action sequences. It broke my suspension of disbelief. That's not how combat works, especially not in a "war movie".
Sure enough this tactical error on the rebel's part costs them the match, but this foolishness doesn't take away one iota of drama as almost all of them die a hero's death. At least they would have, if I could remember their names and/or character. Their last utterances absorbed by their still unvanquished colleagues, just moments before they too are slain.

Saving Private Ryan is another war movie. It too had nameless soldiers that died in puddles of their own viscera. We did feel for those men, so what's the difference? Well, in the preceding shot we saw them getting seasick, puking, praying, getting themselves ready, fighting nerves. They were human beings, relatable. We would do the same things if it was us in those troop carriers. It makes the troops into nameless but unique characters. Rogue One barely even does this with its leading characters. This is one of its weakest points, in my opinion. For starters, I thought the antagonist, Orson Krennic, was a more interesting character than the protagonists: Jyn Erso and Cassian Andor. The two ambassadors to China, Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus, while not bad on their own, felt tacked-on. Their scenes may have been more believable without their near jedi-like feats and aimbots. The pilot Bodhi Rook was introduced 3 times one third of a time.

Oh.

_{Also starring: Diego Luna as Cassian Andor, Riz Ahmed as Bodhi Rook, Donnie Yen and Wen Jiang as Chirrut Îmwe and Baze Malbus (source: www.imdb.com)}

It feels like we are to care for too many characters at any given time. The focus from Jyn Erso is diffused by the presence of all the others. Cassian, the ambassadors. Then there's the sarcastic robot, the defected cargo pilot, and the extremist freedom fighter. I have to look up their names because I didn't remember them. I feel that some of these could have been cut from the story to benefit the protagonist, because as a result I ended up caring for none of them. No time is given to make them really stand out in any memorable way. You won't find anything close to a blowhard, laser brained Han Solo. There's very little sci-fi fantasy going on here. The only one is Darth Vader, who is a larger than life villain. All the first billing rebels keep it very real. They're very serious and bland, 'gritted teeth' isn't a character trait.
I even have a bit of a problem with Jyn's motivations. At first she wants to deal with neither the Empire, nor the Rebellion. She even states that she kind of likes the order the Empire has brought. Her father dies due to a rebel bombardment. In a turn of events that are now lost on me, she is willing to sacrifice her life for the rebellion. It seems to me that the Death Star's threat is largely overstated in Rogue One. It's weapon of terror, not a weapon of mass destruction - yet, and only becomes so because of rebel actions. We as an audience know it will blow up a planet. That's why we buy the argument why she would make the sacrifice. Jyn doesn't know that she should. I'm not sure what's in it for her other than proving to the Rebellion that she can get the plans. Or revenge for what's been done to her. Or that her father told her so, would he have wanted her to die for it too? Seems like a big price to pay.

Does the rebellion really have that few pilots and squadrons? The Rebellion seems tiny!

In any case 'new' characters are about to fulfil their destiny. Dramatically introduced, shot from the back as they speak, letting us wonder... Ah, CGI versions of Tarkin and Leia on vacation from the uncanny vally, are here to accept the baton. Known quantities are here, because it's Star Wars.
I could have done without the X-wing pilots that were pasted in from A New Hope though, for some reason they specifically shrink the size of the universe. Does the rebellion really have that few pilots and squadrons? The Rebellion seems tiny! The many cameos also shrink the universe.
We could say that the ideas of X-wings and Tie fighters limit the scope too, but I think that isn't as much of a problem. Ordering in bulk saves funds.
This stems from a greater problem with Star Wars as a whole, and that is that the visual and ideological vocabulary of this universe is rather limited. Especially after the Disney acquisition all extra world building from the expanded universe was deemed non-canonical. So we're back down to brass tacks. Logical, how else could you expand upon the existing films? Forget the Ebon Hawk, there's only the Millenium Falcon. But this means we need to stick with what we know: X-wings, Tie fighters, the Imperial walkers, etc. Only small elements expand this vocabulary: like the newly added hammerhead corvettes, which - to my knowledge first appeared in Knights Of The Old Republic - a role playing video game.
Another new element, another tweak, is the black elite death troopers with their distorted voicecomms. So elite that they need to mask their communications from any bystanders? But the sounds they make with the scrambled grunts and wheezes, sounding very much like the combine soldiers from Half Life 2. Talking as if they had swallowed a white noise Morse code machine. It works very well, the result is an other-than-human appearance, which instills fear and makes one uneasy. Nice to see the an addition to the Empire that instills fear (and isn't Darth Vader) next to the comically incompetent regular Storm Troopers. Those almost look out of place in a war movie.

_{Death Troopers, as the name suggests, are scarier than regular Storm Troopers}

This is one of the downsides of the Star Wars vocabulary, change too much and it starts to sound different and unfamiliar. It makes some sense to pick and choose from the former expanded universe to see what fits well enough to carry over.
This, if nothing else, is something that could be attributed to the prequel trilogy: it quite literally expanded the universe, there was a smattering of ideas thrown into the mix. Even going too far some cases (mi-di-chlo-ri-ans).

~

Rogue One is subservient to Star Wars: A New Hope in every way.

Rogue One is subservient to Star Wars in every way. I don't think this movie can work without A New Hope existing. Compare this with last year's The Force Awakens, that movie carries more weight and is allowed to come up with new ideas. In contrast, R1 is slanted towards Star Wars fans, panderingly so. "Remember how awesome this or that was?" So while it can't come up with much new, it can elaborate a bit on vested ideas.
Remember the Force? Here Rogue One sheds a bit more context on how it still exists under the Empire. The line in A New Hope "Your sad devotion to that ancient religion" suddenly makes more sense now. With the passing away of the Jedi, the force has changed from the practical to the mystical, and with the mystical comes religious belief. It validates the common use of "may the force be with you" too. A common use of well-wishing and wishfull thinking, which starts to sound hollow the more it is used, and turns into just something people say.

Remember Darth Vader? Because I simply can't let this post go without mentioning Darth Vader. Neither can any Star Wars movie, really.
I find that the position Vader is put in interesting if a bit problematic. There's a clear discrepancy when it comes to Vader in Rogue One and Vader in A New Hope. In the former he's met with fear and respect because of his acumen, in the latter he is mocked for being a relic and a bully.
In A New Hope it comes as a surprise that he force chokes the general. Didn't this general know that Vader is a big deal? Didn't he see the prequels?
Of course we need to remember that A New Hope (1977) was written as a stand alone. There had been no mention of the Sith. The concept of the Sith didn't exist in the movie. The Emperor might as well been a force-less tyrant. Vader at that time was nothing more but a 'Dark Jedi' in comparison to Obi Wan, a 'Light Jedi'. Both follow the same "ancient religion". Vader also doesn't have much more use than being a strongman for the Empire. A special unit, a powerful tool. A commanding officer, an ace in the hole. He seems valuable, but still expendable. Only by sheer luck does he survive the end of the first Death Star.

DARTH VADER!!¡!

In Rogue One (2016) we have the entire prequel (1999 - 2005) baggage to consider. Vader is regarded as the stand-in person of the Emperor. Which he is in a way - he's Sith royalty. He's the one who should, if all goes as to tradition, replace Palpatine by way of regicide. Therefor he is much more akin to the crown prince of the Empire, if the prequel stated goal of the Emperor is for the Sith to rule the galaxy.
In this story it seems pretty much affirmed that Vader's power is well known. In a callback to Return Of The Jedi, Tarkin even warns Krennic that he is the more amenable of the two, shielding him from Vader's ire should things go awry with the super weapon.
But then, in Rogue One, he is also shown here in the super unit, strongman role of ANH. Granted, its awesome to behold. Not only that, his opinion matters when it comes to military and political issues. Krennic asks Vader if he is still in charge of the Death Star project - over Grand Moff Tarkin. Who's really in charge here? Did Vader get demoted in ANH for failing to get the plans back, so now Tarkin gets to hold his leech? Did Imperial military command campaign against Vader with propaganda for being a costumed clown? It seems to me that connecting the dots from 'awe-inspiring' to 'ridiculous' could be very hard.
Honestly, I do like how the movie portrays Vader as an unstoppable, unnatural force. Why he should be feared. That red light saber igniting , which it thankfully only does once, is a sign of an impending slasher scene... in space!
Quite a contrast with the 'hands on hips, assessing the mess the boys made on the blockade runner'-Vader we see mere moments later in ANH. Presumably the battery on his suit runs low that late in the day. In short, the final Rogue One scene with him is straight out of a comic book. It is awesome, exclamation mark, exclamation mark.

~

_{Some (battle)scenes feel very much like those in Return Of The Jedi}

I was surprised to see the movie ends mere moments before A New Hope Starts. Accept the new cast of characters and keep rolling. The old cast... well I had a feeling they would be expendable and I wasn't wrong. No lose ties means no breaks in consistency. The Death Star is a convenient way to clean up the mess the movie makers made in Rogue One. No stone is left unturned to ensure that none of the new characters make it past the credits and into Episode 4. It's a tease too, since it doesn't blow up any planets yet. That reveal is left to the main attraction.
I liked the plot's simplicity. No obvious plot holes. Nor unexplained mysteries, which would be fine for a "new" story, but would makes this one ask questions that would remain unanswered in ANH. In fact I thought it felt very much like the final part of Return Of The Jedi, minus the Luke storyline. There's a space battle happening as ground troops complete their mission.
Ultimately Rogue One rectifies one of the sleights you could make against the story of A New Hope, "why would the Empire let be such an obvious flaw" by answering "It was done on purpose". Which is one of the best reasons to excuse yourself of anything is saying you meant to do it like that all along. In this case: embed a subtle flaw into the Death Star Systems.
To me A New Hope always felt a bit more unique to the rest of the trilogy, and therefor a bit more distant when compared to its sequels. If nothing else, Rogue One helps to tie its spiritual second act to connect with more with the universe it spawned. Makes it feel like a focused chapter in the bigger story.
Just don't think of it as a snake eating its own tail...

Thoughts after Skyfall

This will come as no surprise to many of my readers - most of my family and friends know this - when I say that when I was a mere child, I always wanted to be James Bond. Good with the ladies, knows how to be a gentlemen even when plowing a T55 through Moscow, shoots straight while looking cool, retorts with wry humour and even knows how to fly a plane! This last one closed the deal for me. Today, I am of an age where I can finally almost afford my very own Bond Watch, I feel as though my aspirations haven't changed much.
We have a vengeful maniac on the lose, threatening to use new and scary tech against us? Rolex, I mean relax, Bond is on the case to save the western world. Begging the question: "what still threatens the western world?". The curious fact that Bond remains useful even after al this time is aptly commented on by M in Goldeneye, 'a sexist, misogynist dinosaur, a relic of the cold war'. An affirmation that a character like Bond can only really exist in the outrageous world portrayed in the movies (or also: the testosterone driven past), where secret global threats still exist too. The threats usually take the shape of new technology, or new global phenomena that become super weapons in the hands of super villains.

Not so with the new Bond movies that set a whole new standard for the franchise. The stories are more personal, grittier and a whole lot more painful for Bond. I really enjoyed Casino Royale. Its sequel wasn't quite as phenomenal but in the end I liked this new beginning. Daniel Craig is introduced as a springy athlete doing half an hour of spectacular parcour to catch a bad guy. Quite the contrast to stiff-assed Pierce who was growing a few too many grey hairs.
Daniel Craig's Bond is quite different from all the ones who came before. He has less of a poker face, and from time to time emotions seem to gleam through the cracks of his secret agent mask. My girlfriend described Craig as 'A hideous lump of a man with too much muscle'. Which was a stinging answer to my confession that I really like him in the role, and even wish I could be a bit like him. Including his looks. This is a different Bond, with a few more flaws, which makes him more likeable. A man behind the monster? The new films shine a new light on the character, about what's happening with the man himself. The insinuated infertility of Bond at the end of Casino Royale 'you are still a man, no matter what anyone says' as a particularly personal detail no one saw coming (or even noticed - so let me be the one to point it out). The movie made us see that there was more going on beneath the surface. And it's nice to know that when describing Bond, we can go further than the description of his job. Though we still didn't know too much. As M, writing Bond's obituary at the beginning of Skyfall 'What do you write about a man like Bond?' He also comes over as a much younger bond, with less experience, fitting the theme of an origin story.

Funny that. Because in Skyfall, just 2 movies later, Bond is once again an old warhorse who needs a justification for existing in the present world. A world filled with faceless, nameless terrorists armed with laptops, not guns or nuclear missiles, who post sensitive information on the web - a bit like Julien Assange or Anonymous. Bond isn't much of a hacker himself but there are still a handful of reasons why he should stay. Tracking, catching and/or assassinating bad guys requires an agent in the field. Whether the bad guys are Cold War era Soviets or modern day Terrorists, we need hitman Bond to deal with them.

But right there, I come to a point that makes these new set of films different from the old. Though the threat of cyber terrorism gets enlarged, this time, the antagonist isn't out to destroy, conquer, enslave or sell the world but has a personal vendetta against M. Like the previous two movies, The plot is much smaller in scope so, aside from a destructive romp through downtown London, the world at large and its population stays relatively safe. I think this is what makes the Craig movies so interesting - Bond isn't a superhero set to save the world by single-handedly retrieving the nuclear warhead or preventing a World War. Rather, he's a talented individual who needs to win a poker game... or prevent M from getting assassinated.

Raoul Silva, played by Javier Bardem, is an ex-agent given up by MI6 after capture who took this rather personal and turned rogue. In this he almost serves as the evil twin to 007, because Bond is duty-bound. So much of his self confidence comes from the job, that without it, his drive is sapped.
Silva is, simply put, insane. A monster behind the man. He's quite good as a villain compared to Le Chiffre. Quantum of Solace didn't have a villain worth mentioning. Aside from Silva's colourful characteristics, he is very interesting as an avatar of, presumably, the filmmaker's comments (or even scorn) on the Bond movies of old. He's a destroyer of Worlds (and now I'm talking about M's world, not planet Earth). Silva mocks the old way 'How old fashioned of M to send a spy to catch another spy'. The perceived disrespect for the older bond movies doesn't end there however, because baddy mcBad is on a personal revenge quest to kill the only remaining character from before Craig: M as played by Judi Dench. He also goes out of his way to blow up the classic silver Aston Martin DB5 in a volley of gratitious gunfire as if to say 'That's for ever casting George Lazenby!'. The movie doesn't stop there however, Q chips in by saying, rather disdainfully, that Q-branch doesn't do those silly gadgets anymore. But wait, there is more. product placement is notoriously present in Bond movies. Almost a trademark. Yet, Skyfall has a rather on-the-nose scene in which Bond destroys a bunch of 'VW beetles, I think'. Of course, I rather took that as an extra amusing comment.

The film keeps going as a ritual cleansing of the franchise by reverting back to some of the more familiar Bond tropes. In the final stand at the Bond estate our protagonist, curiously sans backup, hopes to defend M from Silva who comes a-knocking with a small private army including a gunship. This is another little twist on the formula, like a snake eating its tail. Usually it is Bond who can spearhead an assault, aided by king and country, endless ammo clips, shark repellant spray and the US army, to confront the cornered villain.

In the end, and against a backdrop of old school over the top guns, fire and explosions, Bond manages to defeat Silva, but not long before M succumbs to her wounds and dies in the arms of the son she never had: James Bond. Bond in turn looses his surrogate Mother at the very place were his biological parents are buried. Bond seems to be forced to relive the past again (and again). And I stress this because the film then sets up the new Bond universe proper with the reveal of Moneypenny and the transferring of the M title to the new head of MI6: a man, just like the Bond movies of old. The snake has shed its skin, lo and behold the same snake emerges. Only newer.

In the final scene, Bond is encouraged to remain an agent in the field, despite recent hardships, failed medical and psychological tests and worst of all: his age. No, I'm not saying Daniel Craig is too old to play Bond in the next film and I hope he stays, rather the film itself when it goes at length to show how Bond's age and physical condition is impeding his efficiency as an agent.
Personally, for the next movie I really hope they keep the smaller scope of the new run and puts Daniel Craig through the wringer once again. More of a thriller than an action movie, more serious and believable than the gadgetry of exploding sandwiches and homing missile ballpoint pens.

World War 2: The movie: Inglourious Basterds

A little word up front to my readership that might not be interested in the usual game rambling that is the norm around here. This post deals mostly with popular culture AND LOTS OF SPOILERS.

It's impossible to ignore the impact the second world war had on the world we know today. It was also quite a long time ago. And indeed our first hand source of information is slowly drying up. Even so, Hitler and his Nazis are still very popular. Popular boogeymen that is. Given the time that has past since that gruesome event, the world has had time to acclimate to the hard, cold facts, and has learned to live with it. What humans are capable of. This new-found freedom has allowed us to get a little more creative with the whole notion of a world at war. Break up the protagonists of the war into cartoonish achetypes. And Nazis have become a literary archetype. Comparable to the undead or vampires. In which case Adolf Hitler becomes a modern day Count Dracula. Now, these archetypes are coming from their dark sub-cultural recesses, such as games and comics, into the mainstream.

I recently saw the new Tarantino Movie Inglourious Basterds. This movie is a stylish expression. If you'd compare this movie to the likes of Saving Private Ryan or Band of Brothers. The difference is immediately clear. This is a creative interpretation. And presents an interesting point of view.

Adolf Hitler, who looks nothing like his real life counterpart for good reason, in this movie has been portrayed as a deranged German Bonaparte wannabe, simple minded, psychotic and bent on the destruction of every Jew on the globe. He bursts in saliva spitting laughter when watching the movie National pride. The film (in a film) is basically about the typical rambo-esque spraying of bullets (from a bolt action rifle no less) and people hitting the floor. It's the heroic tale of a sniper sitting in a bell tower killing a cohort of allied soldiers in Italy. The allied stupidity shown through a brief conversation between an allied soldier and his commanding officer: "Commander, we must destroy that tower!" upon which the commander replies in stoic fashion "Not a chance.". Followed by the camera cutting to more allies getting shot or falling from windows. With his combat knife, our hero sniper carves a swastika with impressive shading into the floorboard of his bell tower as a reprise from the killing. This is, of course, hailed with loud cheering and applause from the Nazi Brass in the theater. It's a boneheaded piece of propaganda. A power trip. It's what we could call gun porn. Hitler exclaims to Goebbels "This is your best movie yet!". Goebbels is moved to tears by the complement. A condemnation perhaps on the director's behalf. Tarantino is comparing people who enjoy the gun porn movies to this caricature of Hitler. And I guess this would also count towards people who play first person shooter games as well. If they are played for the simple reason of shooting people and marvel at the carnage in sadistic enjoyment. It might also be a wake-up call to every person in the audience who was laughing at the fact that Nazis were getting brutally murdered or mutilated on screen. These said Nazis were in many cases presented as normal people with morals, principles and dreams. Like the sergeant that meets his demise at the hands of the so-called Jew Bear. The latter points at the Sergeant's Iron Cross and asks him "Did you get that for killing Jews?" at which he gets an honest reply "For courage". Implying that he did not fight this war to kill Jews, but rather to protect his homeland. And of course, it's rather absurd to believe that all German soldiers were psychopaths. The reply falls on deaf ears, it is not the version of reality a determined person on a quest for revenge wants to hear.

But for as many incompetent German officers the movie has, there are competent Nazis, you could call them villains if not for the fact the movie portraits them simply as officers on duty. These characters radiate an air of tension, their friendly face the impenetrable facade for the calculating detective inside. Such is the Gestapo Officer in the cellar meeting. And such is Hans Landa, played by Christoph Waltz, who is arguably the most enjoyable character in this story. And arguably the most impressive villain since Heath Ledger's Joker. The very opening part of the movie is as tense as the it gets. And is one among a series of unbearable, deafening, tense and discomforting moments. All of these come to a loud, abrupt and somewhat violent end. At first glance a likable character, bearing a big bright smile, speaking kind words in a multitude of languages. He is shrewd however, seems to know just about everything and acts with deadly precision. The war seems to be a game to him, played by rules and a mutual respect between prey and predator. This almost childlike trust in these rules are eventually his folly. His professional mercenary logic is quite sound however. Unfortunantly for him though, some characters carry a grudge that is rather unprofessional.

You might have noticed I'm glossing over the story and possible meaning of the Inglourious Basterds squad. But then, what's to say? These characters are rather simple and honest in many possible ways. They're out for revenge, and get it. Aldo Raine, the squad sergeant played by Brad Pitt is an uncomplicated ruffian. And it's amazing how many times the Basterds serve as comic relief. Most noticeably when they present themselves to be Italians. Perhaps the most interesting fact about the Basterds is that they are Jews killing Nazis, in it self this isn't anything special, but in the context of the film, and add to that the characters of Shosanna and Marcel, it leads to a remarkable reversal, namely that, from a Nazi's point of view, the übermensch is undone by the hands of the undermensch.

I did not feel good as I walked out of the movie theater. This piece of cinema is rough, like the screeching of a fork on a blackboard. And contradictionary as it might sound, I enjoyed it thoroughly. That's because I had a lot to think about. And because I could, this blog post exists.