tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post7773343933059588357..comments2023-10-14T03:58:59.333-06:00Comments on The Tao of D&D: LucyAlexis Smolenskhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-58838551218006222222014-12-07T07:41:02.710-07:002014-12-07T07:41:02.710-07:00I fully understand that the characters and the sty...I fully understand that the characters and the style of the film were deliberate.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-40689003942141546742014-12-07T00:44:45.198-07:002014-12-07T00:44:45.198-07:00"The main character has no context and no rea..."The main character has no context and no real philosophy (he doesn't act, he reacts), reducing his nature to 'robot'; in etymological terms, his work is driving. He fulfills a purpose, a niche, which for him has no morality, only rules."<br /><br />I'm not sure if you're calling that a feature or a bug (or a shitty feature). Every character is pretty explicitly trapped by the rules ... no good sharks, the frog and the scorpion, poor Albert Brooks sighing wearily as he knifes people, etc.<br /><br />The "robot" thing is beaten in pretty hard ... Gosling's legit work requires him to wear a featureless mask, his "real" work is predicated on a routine that can't be deviated from, his affect is flat. Every time he tries to break free (track racing; connecting with wife and kid; sitting in on planning and waiting extra long for the husband; any time that "real human being" song starts playing), he's stymied by his programming and rules. So back to robot mode with the featureless mask.<br /><br />So I think the characters' "lack of existence" is deliberate and I don't think the director went for "iconic." That obviously doesn't mean the acting or writing was effective, but all the characters are *supposed* to be ciphers and ghosts caught in loops at the start of the narrative.<br /><br />Dead on about Brooks. Best part of the movie.<br /><br />And yeah, the director's increasingly known for an obsession with stylized masculine cool. He's *trying* to deconstruct it or subvert it, but again that doesn't mean he's succeeding. His last movie Only God Forgives amps all the tendencies you've noted up to about 11.<br /><br />(I also tend to overvalue "style," "cool," and quixotic triggers for character identification, so I suspect there aren't many movies we'd enjoy similarly.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027050864450321406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-71217889349408228362014-12-06T09:29:02.325-07:002014-12-06T09:29:02.325-07:00I'd never actually watched Drive - until just ...I'd never actually watched Drive - until just this morning, after reading your comment Scott.<br /><br />Well, its something of a forensic examination into the structure of a film, isn't it? The main character has no context and no real philosophy (he doesn't act, he reacts), reducing his nature to 'robot'; in etymological terms, his work is driving. He fulfills a purpose, a niche, which for him has no morality, only rules.<br /><br />Some will probably relate the character to other personality-less, nameless icons like some that Eastwood has played, but I think that's far too generous. If this universe did not include the Good, the Bad or the Ugly to provide context for this movie, then the lack of context would be stark and disturbingly empty.<br /><br />The girl has no real personality, either; nor does the son, who appears in every scene as though heavily drugged on ritalin. For a 8 to 10 year old, he is bland and short of energy. The husband returned from jail has no history except that he was in jail. The hoods, while played beautifully by Brooks and Perlman, have no more context than the protagonist.<br /><br />None of these people <i>exist</i>. Therefore, the audience is expected to impress themselves into the film, which given the strongly androcentric presentation of the film, predictably results in a principle of "cool."<br /><br />Bereft of character or real story (virtually everything is predictable) I found myself drifting into the fingerprints and shadows of the film's makers, observing the use of the camera, set design, pacing, music and other facets of the production. There isn't much else to watch except to note how close the actors are placed in relationship to each other or the speed with which they cross the room or the angles used to film the various car chases. The 'style' of the film does sustain it for the time the film runs, but I doubt this would sustain the film for a second viewing.Alexis Smolenskhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10539170107563075967noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-22420903960659477242014-12-06T02:43:20.521-07:002014-12-06T02:43:20.521-07:00Tim, are you honestly ruing your tendency to overs...Tim, are you honestly ruing your tendency to oversimplify things while you consign people into the trash for not understanding that?<br /><br />Alexis, I apologize if lateral contention is poor form in your home.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027050864450321406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-20683849498387516352014-12-06T02:19:55.417-07:002014-12-06T02:19:55.417-07:00I'm coming along late.
Have you seen Drive? I...I'm coming along late.<br /><br />Have you seen Drive? If so, curious what you think. (Obviously it means something to me or I wouldn't have brought it up.)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09027050864450321406noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-91636223947939530872014-11-29T23:21:01.016-07:002014-11-29T23:21:01.016-07:00(continued from above...)
I've gone a little ...(continued from above...)<br /><br />I've gone a little off-the-rails... but I want to draw a parallel here. There's a natural desire to have everything within one's comfort zone, and there may be evolutionary running-from-lions use for it, but it's stupid to expect to master life one day and plateau in enlightenment until you ascend into the "afterlife." If one goes to see a sequel or an adaptation because one wants the original back, it will only be a waste of time. If one wants to read a book and find that every word conforms to one's worldview and that person reads the last page, gets up and goes on exactly the same as before, it will be a shit book. Because we need that confrontation that life does not fit in a neat box in your head (and as the science in <i>Lucy</i> shows, even if it did you could only conceptualize a tiny fragment of it). <br /><br />You argue this point a lot, Alexis, and it's why I love this blog: because it makes me catch myself trying to oversimplify things and I think about the world and the bigger picture. And I think it makes me a better DM after it all, because I know that there may be comfort in worn-out tropes and hackneyed lines, but the real world is <i>fucked up</i> and that's so much more interesting to bring to D&D. So thank you, because you demonstrate that all it takes is a little deep thought, even in these posts which are not about D&D at all. I'm sure I would still read the blog if you never mentioned D&D once. Because you challenge your reader to reshape their view, whether that view is how to present an adventure hook or how to interpret a movie tagline. It's goddamn valuable, and anyone who can't understand that deserves quite rightly to go into the trash.<br />Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496502173819113887noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3871409676946408069.post-25475459183033396982014-11-29T23:20:33.398-07:002014-11-29T23:20:33.398-07:00I'm in every way unqualified to say anything o...I'm in every way unqualified to say anything on the topic of <i>Lucy</i> as I haven't seen the film. I am unqualified to open a discussion on it or criticize it. That's not what I intend.<br /><br />I could try going to bed without commenting on this post but a) I have been thinking about this recently and b) I feel guilty for opening my mouth earlier and having nothing important to say, especially here. So I'll open my mouth and try to say something a little more intelligent this time.<br /><br />I was discussing the concept of "butts-in-seats" cinema the other day and how making sequels so effectively uses that model: people will go to movies out of sheer curiosity, especially if the movie is an adaptation of a book or a sequel to another movie they loved or even hated. Film Crit Hulk, whom I discovered while exploring some of the blogs you link to, wrote a long, fascinating essay on how this applies to <a href="http://badassdigest.com/2014/01/13/film-crit-hulk-smash-anchorman-2-and-the-inherent-problem-with-comedy-seque/" rel="nofollow">comedy sequels</a>.<br /><br />There's always safety in following the "tried and true" (talk about self-demonstrating cliché). People who consume this kind of content – the sequels, spin-offs and reunion tours – have nostalgia and hope on their end: they want it to live up to the first version, right down to the same jokes that, somehow, don't seem as funny as they were the first time, even though the original jokes still make them laugh in the first version.<br /><br />I caught myself doing this for video games, which are probably the most infamous for having a bunch of morons play them. Morons who hate the game because their computer can't render it as smoothly as the original, or because they made it too easy compared to the original, or because they stole ideas from another game which did it first and better. They argue the merits of good or bad without ever considering the point of the thing. Zoe Quinn's <i>Depression Quest</i> does not need to be entertaining... it's supposed to bring about a discussion. But of course that's too much depth.<br /><br />When I Googled <i>Lucy</i> after reading your post and came across the <i>Time</i> review, I found myself looking at that same kind of moron who hates a game because he just <i>knows</i> the developers should have <a href="http://tao-dnd.blogspot.ca/2014/10/why-wasnt-i-consulted.html" rel="nofollow">consulted</a> him first.<br /><br />(continued...)Timhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03496502173819113887noreply@blogger.com