Lee Column

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2: The Good, The Bad, and The Weird (possible spoilers ahead)

2016-02-27T01:33:00.000-08:00

I just finished watching Netflix's Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon: Sword of Destiny (aka "CTHD2", which I'll use to save myself time writing this post, as well as "CTHD" to talk about the original), a film I have anticipated watching ever since my obsession over Ang Lee's masterpiece for the better part of my young adulthood.

I loved gushing over the gorgeous cinematography by Peter Pau, the groundbreaking fight choreography by Yuen Wo-Ping (who returned to direct this film), the timeless orchestrations of Yo-Yo Ma, and... yes, I'll be honest, I had a big crush on Zhang Ziyi for a while.

Source.

What's my overall assessment?

I'm not sure.

I still need time to process everything.

Some of it was good, some it was bad, and some of it was... odd.

Below are 9 takeaways from watching CTHD2.

SPOILER ALERT: Don't read on if you don't want to be potentially exposed to what happens in this film. Look away from this post, turn on your Netflix, watch the film, then come back to the post and sound off.

The Good

A stronger sense of humor

CTHD had only one intentionally funny scene: disguised as a boy, Jen's relentless vanquishing of multiple foes in the large restaurant, who are largely there to flex their muscles and build on their reputation.

In the sequel, we not only get a similar scene at another dining establishment - we get the formation of a new fellowship of five warriors. They serve to provide appropriate beats of comic relief and joviality in a saga that can feel a little heavy-handed at times.

Why would you ever mess with Donnie Yen while he's drinking tea?
Source: Kung Fu Magazine.

I was really hoping that this group could be sustained, but we all know what happens to bands of warriors over time...

Some very creative battles in new, exotic locations

We all remember the beautiful, coordinated fight sequences in CTHD. The nighttime battles in the governor's courtyard, that showdown high up in the bamboo trees, and of course, one of the greatest sequences ever produced on cinema (depicted in lightsaber form for added fun):

This film knew it had to try to out-do that, and the best way to do so is by doing things differently rather than better. Two scenes in particular stood out for me:

A battle between three warriors over a frozen lake, fully compensating for the dangers below and the lack of friction on the surface

"You sure you don't want to move this fight, like, 20 feet to my left?"
Source.
A battle sequence outside of a tower, making me wonder whether the human body can withstand so many sequential impacts

Whatever happened to killing each other indoors like civilized people?
Source.

Some of these sequences remained fun to watch and very much in the spirit of "let's settle this in the most epic environment possible, worth of one of our deaths."

Appealing to a broader audience

While still quite violent and not appropriate for kids under age 13 without context, this film felt much more accessible to families and individuals who are still new to the wu xia (Chinese martial chivalry) genre. The film still features the occasional gorgeous landscape shots and also widens the world of CTHD to include more of "China," and the cast is quite eclectic and pan-Asian.

Admittedly, most of the time I focused on Harry Shum, Jr., who I certainly recognized from Glee, and newcomer Natasha Liu Bordizzo, who looks like this:

This will probably be on my screensaver... if we all still used them.
Source.

While the film strays even moreso from questions of authenticity to Chinese culture than the original (more on that later), I think CTHD2 brings in a lot of people that connected with the source material and, in some ways, built upon it.

The Bad

The fighting felt slower (or perhaps I'm getting older)

I have a lot of difficulty critiquing Yuen Wo-ing. He's the man who made films such as The Matrix Trilogy, Iron Monkey, Hero, the Kill Bill films, Kung Fu Hustle, and everybody's favorite: Cradle 2 The Grave.

I'm not sure what's happening here, actually.
Source

This time around, I felt like everyone moved a little slower than in other films I've seen. Maybe I am used to fight scenes moving too quickly, augmented by editing or fancy but impractical techniques.

The Ip Man films, for example, were all about showcasing the aptitude of Wing-Chun style kung fu through its emphasis on speed and quick disposal of your enemies.

Let me know in the comments below if I'm not just seeing things, or perhaps I'm just bored of martial arts sequences all together. (I never thought this day would come.)

What happened to the feminism?

I've largely agreed with the argument that CTHD is a very feminist film. Some reasons that support this argument:

The primary protagonists (Shu Lien, Jen) and antagonist (Jade Fox) are women. The men in the film are largely supporting roles (yes, Chow Yun-Fat's character Li Mu Bai is awesome - but he's largely there to support the other two characters. Otherwise, he'd rather just drink tea and hold hands with Shu Lien).
The themes revolve around the struggle for female independence and explore whether that is possible for a woman. Jen wishes to have more than just the luxurious yet restrained life of an aristocrat's daughter (especially after her intense experiences in the Steppes). She envies Shu Lien, a proud and famed warrior who struggles to pursue her own romantic desire towards Li Nu Bai so as to not break the rules of propriety within her society.
Every single fight sequences includes at least one woman. This is almost an inversion of the Bechdel Test, which challenges people to think of films where two women are talking to each other about something else besides another man. In the case of CTHD, there isn't a single instance where two men are engaged in combat with each other.

Just watch how the antagonist Jade Fox takes on three opponents at the same time, using a particular brand of cunning and skill:

CTHD2 doesn't focus on any of that, and I think that's a shame. Much of the apparent innovations of the original film's story were driven by these deliberate choices by Ang Lee, who would go on to continue subverting social norms in films such as Brokeback Mountain.

I think great art focus on energies that work connect with a broader audience on a subconscious level: gender, class, race, philosophy, etc. When such approaches are sacrificed, opportunities to connect with certain audiences are also lost.

A far less engaging story than its predecessor

While I do like that the CTHD2 tries to tie up one loose end, the result feels rather formulaic. We learn that Shu Lien's deceased ex-fiance was killed by the main antagonist (played by Jason Scott Lee - remember him?). Turns out the ex-fiance (Silent Wolf, played by Donnie Yen) wasn't dead after all and opted to fake his death in order for Shu Lien and Mu Bai to requite their love.

In other words, he voluntarily friendzoned himself... but faking his own death.

"I've made a terrible mistake."
Source: Kung Fu Magazine.

The rest of the story follows the typical vindication trope: everyone seems eager to kill someone for killing their master, surrogate parent, or even in the case of CTHD, themselves. Chan Woo-Park pretty much mastered the art of telling a revenge story properly with personal favorites such as Oldboy, Lady Vengeance, or Stoker - which heavily inspired Quentin Tarantino's work since Kill Bill, by his own admission.

Instead, I think the story should have focused even more on the legendary Green Destiny sword, as it is suggested in the title, as an allegory for the broader world they are in. CTHD is really about the illusory appeal of choosing a military life over a peaceful, enlightened one and how it strips away from you with every kill.

Sales have been discontinued from this store, likely due to the harbinger of destruction that comes with it.
Source.

The sword is actually cursed, bringing scores of violence to it wherever it goes. I would have probably enjoyed a film that debated the destruction of the sword or its moral application against a very challenging enemy. How that turns out will require at least an hour and a half for me to explain properly.

The Weird

"Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars in Asia"

Replace the Green Destiny with the Ring of Power, and you have a pretty similar story to that of Lord of the Rings. The only difference is that in CTHD2, morality appears to more individually-determined rather than object-inspired. Therefore, is it intelligent for the Green Destiny to even exist, knowing that it could be abused in the wrong hands? This question is never fully explored.

Speaking of which, CTHD2 does something completely new by incorporating magic and turning it into a full-fledged fantasy universe. I previously had trouble explaining to others why high-flying, skipping on water, or balancing your entire body at the edge of a tree branch worked so well in the original: it was made to look like it could happen in real life.

The use of magic - and the hinting of its use as a perk of "the dark side", wink wink - no longer looks real and changes the game for what is possible in this universe... but it worked by asserting certain martial arts techniques. I still need to think these familiar tropes through.

The film is in English... and I found out 1/3 into the film

A film set in presumably 19th century China is entirely in English. I only discovered this about 30 minutes into the film - my Netflix defaulted to Mandarin for an audio setting, and yet the more non-Chinese actors I recognized and the less the audio synced up with their lips, I stopped the film and changed the setting to English.

Eureka! ... and yet... this is strange to me.

I do not speak Mandarin, and I have watched far too many films that are set in non-English locations yet speak English. I am aware of the arguments that CTHD had "bad Mandarin," as the script was translated originally from an English-written script, and most of its lead actors did not speak Mandarin well. Yet CTHD broke the mold so many years ago - a subtitled film that was both a commercial and critical success.

This feels like a cultural regression.

That moment when Bruce Lee is battling Ip Man

Jason Scott Lee had the honor of playing Bruce Lee over 20 years ago, and for that, he brought awareness towards the Little Dragon for a new generation, including my own. Lately, Ip Man films have been prolific, with Donnie Yen's performance leading the way for a third installment with Mike Tyson. Yes, you read that correctly.

To watch the actor who played one the greatest film star of all time battle his master... unnerving.
----
As you can see, there's quite a lot to process here. I do recommend that people watch CTHD2, especially if you're particularly nostalgic about the film - as I clearly am. However, I advise you to curb your expectations and accept it as part of a larger experience for cinema in the 21st century.

This film is the second major film to be released by Netflix (after Beasts of No Nation), and I know that this trend of direct-to-stream cinema will only continue... but I hope the quality will match its predecessors.

What Worked and What Sucked in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (SPOILERS AHEAD)

2015-12-26T00:06:00.000-08:00

(WARNING: This blog post contains a LOT of spoilers - if you haven't seen The Force Awakens and don't want to be ruined of some key plot points - don't read ahead.)

I was fortunate to see Episode VII on Christmas Day 2015, and I will say this (tl;dr):

As its own film, it's great. Fun, action packed, full of smiles and feels for the whole family.
As the seventh installment of one of the greatest space fantasies of all time... it leaves a lot to be desired, even for the most ardent of fans.

Here's a list of aspects that worked and what didn't. Thoughts are my own.

What Worked

"Suspenseful Drama with Strong Female Leads"

This familiar Netflix category ranks high on my wife's account, and The Force Awakens could be the first Star Wars film that qualifies. This epic franchise has a notable dearth in substantive female characters, with Leia in particular often remembered as the quintessential space damsel in distress or the golden bikini-clad submissive of every pubescent's fantasy since the 1980s.

Three characters stand out to me this go-around:

Source.

Rey, Jakku-based scavenger who we realize is the combined scion of Luke Skywalker and Han Solo. Rey showcases her adeptness at piloting and engineering one of the signature fastest ships in the galaxy while also hinting that there is something quite special about her that only a handful can sense... Plenty of young girls and boys will be lining up to buy her ~~doll~~ action figure.

Source.

General Leia Organa, who C-3PO must correct himself around as she is no longer a princess of Alderan, but the founder and leader of a critical militant wing of the New Republic. We haven't seen this level of leadership from Leia since her command of the Hoth evacuation in Empire Strikes Back.

Source.

Captain Phasma, the ruthless silver-plated stormtrooper, played by Game of Thrones' Gwendolyn Christie. Although her screen time is brief, I felt uneasy whenever she hovered over the other troops. I do hope that she'll return in a greater capacity.

Star Wars is all about balance, equality, democracy, and justice (and how the dark side disrupts all of that). Working on the gender issue is a great start.

Han Is As Han Does

Source.

Even well into his 70s, Harrison Ford still delivers that trademark maverick charm to the fan-favorite Han Solo, bringing comedic relief to an otherwise cheesy space opera. Moreover, Han Solo provided a historical link for both the uninitiated in the film and those watching it.

Source.

His demise in the film means the next will have to fill that void somehow... but how? I'd like to see a new character, perhaps more of a mercenary than Han, willing to make deals with The First Order just to survive. I'd also like this character to be a non-female, and (ambitiously) non-human, just to continue the theme of added diversity.

The Trial of FN-2187

Source.

I'm heavily invested in the potential of FN-2187 aka Finn in the next films. He's a bit like the Star Wars equivalent of Hitman: identified only a number, trained from birth to obey and kill. Why does he suddenly switch sides without much more of an explanation than it being "the right thing to do?"

Source.

Something else must have clicked. What if he's actually a sleeper agent for The First Order, meant to infiltrated The Resistance? (If that was the case, then why did Kylo Ren nearly try to kill him?)

The Temptation of Luke

The last Jedi alive came so close to the dark side, and I did like how he came mythological after 30 years of his successes during the civil war. What was Luke going through since then? What happened with him and Ben/Kylo Ren? Are there other Jedi out there, or is it up to him and Leia to re-populate the earth? Please don't...

Source.

I'm grateful that J.J. Abrams restrained himself from including Mark Hamill in a larger capacity in this first film. On the other hand, I hope that Luke isn't just the second coming of Yoda - we've already been down that road of master/padawan. I'd like to see something much more complicated and ambitious.

What Sucked

The Re-Hashed Plot

Here are some plot points that happened in The Force Awakens that seem all too familiar:

A member of the resistance force hides classified information in a utility droid.
The information is discovered by a young, talented scavenger on a desert planet.
The fascist opposition sends stormtroopers to the desert planet to find the droid
The droid escapes with the teenager and a mysterious man on the Millenium Falcon.
They rendezvous at the resistance base, where they happily greet some friendly pilots.
The fascist opposition has built a weapon capable of destroying planetary systems.
They work with the resistance force target a small vulnerability in the weapon
The plot involves a combined covert ground sabotage and air assault.
Meanwhile, an old ally encounters the most powerful warrior on the dark side... and dies.
The resistance succeeds in destroying the weapon, but the war continues.

Something tells me that J.J. Abrams is in love with Episode IV...

In short, there's very little about Episode VII that feels like a new film. While this may feel cathartic through familiarity compared to the incomprehensible, lazy, and boring prequels, I came to the theatre to watch a new story, not a near-reboot.

Seriously, What's With The Plot?

After 30 years, a fascist military junta continues to taunt the galaxy and build weapons of mass destruction with glaring technical weaknesses. Didn't the Rebel Alliance win? Where is the New Republic, and why are they still operating as the "Resistance"? Why is the First Order so much more powerful than the Galactic Empire?

Source.

If anything, the Alliance should be taking on several different groups - neo-separatists, Imperial loyalists, mafia syndicates, Jedi cults, etc. Despite having the head (Palpatine) and arm (Vader) cut off, the First Order looks like they never skipped a beat from their days of bullying the galaxy.

Source.

Sorry - I'm a bit of a global politics nerd, but we've all seen what happens in recent history when you depose a brutal dictator and create a power vacuum without an established government in place, especially with various religious sects in play. Sometime history repeats itself... but not THIS much.

The Script

While a huge improvement from the prequels, here's my favorite line from the film:

Finn: We'll figure it out, we'll use the Force!

Han Solo: That's not how the Force works!

In fact, most of my chuckles came from Han Solo's usual snipes and one scene where some stormtroopers thought best to leave a violently emo Kylo Ren alone. We do get some emotional banter between Han and Leia as well, but that is also short-lived.

It could have been worse. Source.

Star Wars is a fantasy opera, powered by love, faith, righteousness, anger, vengeance, greed, and fear. It is a deeply emotional saga and should be executed as such through better scriptwriting.

Kylo Ren's Reveal

There was much debate over Kylo Ren going into the film. (My favorite online theory: is he actually Luke Skywalker? Nope.) He's Leia and Han's Josh Grobin-esque son, imbued with the power of the force through Leia but tempted to the dark side by Supreme General Snoke, the new "Palpatine" of the First Order.

And he seemed so cool at first... Source.

Star Wars has given us some of the greatest reveals in cinematic history through clever wordings ("He betrayed and murdered your father" being one of them. Thanks, Obi-wan Kenobi). We just didn't see that here. Something tells me the storytelling here got a little lazy, and now that we know the truth about "Ben," he feels rather diminished.

Conclusion

Despite all of these critiques, I'm still going to watch the next one to see what happens. Maybe I'm still suffering from PTSD after eight years of horrible prequels. I'd rank it easily at #4, but the gap between the originals and the prequels is almost too wide for comparison.

Farewell, N'At: Lee's 15 Unforgettable Memories in Pittsburgh

2015-07-20T04:44:00.000-07:00

Hello, yinzers!

With a heavy heart, I announce that I am leaving Pittsburgh before the end of the month. These last three years have been extraordinary, easily beating out college and graduate school.

Some of you have heard my tired story: PhD drop-out who decided to dabble in the Pittsburgh startup scene and somehow got really deep in it. As my darling wife facetiously likes to say to me: "no ragrets."

I thought I'd take a moment to reflect on some of my favorite memories while living in this wacky little town. Let's start from the beginning.

1. My first birthday in Pittsburgh

As I blew out that candle, I had no friends, job prospects, or even a decent pair of shoes. Yet I had Sharon, who made me one of my favorite meals: steak and mashed potatoes. It was our first birthday together after three years of long distance. I felt like the richest man in town.

2. My first Startup Weekend

Ah, where it all began. Team Academica - we worked hard and got along extremely well. Some of us stayed and others moved on, but there's nothing like your first Startup Weekend, is there?

3. Getting accepted into Thrill Mill

Technically, this wasn't a Pittsburgh memory. I was actually in Manila when I got the notification that I would join the first class of a new incubator in Pittsburgh. If that didn't happen, I would have never started up a friendship with its one-of-a-kind CEO and become so immersed in the scene.

4. Throwing my first Lunar New Year party

I was in California prior to Pittsburgh - close to most of my relatives and people who share my parent's language and culture. I felt like I had lost a big part of my personal identity, so the party was a way to reclaim it.

Unfortunately, I only had one of my friends show up to the party. The rest of the guests were Sharon's. Still, we watched Big Trouble in Little China. It's awesome.

5. Pitching my startup at Google

I almost didn't do this pitch. A marketing mistake and a lack of substantial traction and practice made me concerned that I would crash and burn in front of the Pittsburgh startup community. Yet one of the most unlikely saviors helped me climb that mountain and deliver my vision for education. He knows who he is.

6. Receiving support from the Idea Foundry

"We are your investors." When I heard that in our first meeting as inductees into the Idea Foundry portfolio, I felt shivers down my spine. What started out as an idea conceived from a weekend competition was finally seeded. We could make something substantial happen.

7. Throwing my second Lunar New Year party

After a year in Pittsburgh, my friendship pool grew. We placed "Heads Up!" and ate my favorite foods. I get pretty superstitious around New Year's, guided by this core principle: the more we spoil our friends on this day, the better luck we'll have this year.

8. That very first beta test

We had a product that completed all of my MVP requirements! Over 18 months since the ideas started churning, and our beta tester told my team and I that "this product is beautiful." Quite certain I cried tears of joy on the inside.

9. A birthday party ... with a twist

I wanted a big birthday party for once. I did my last one with my family in Oregon, and historically, birthdays have never quite gone the way I planned. No presents, but everyone had to sing karaoke.

f they didn't, they'd donate to a local charity that helps kids with terminal illness find meaningful friendships. We had a lot of fun, and we raised a little on the side. All good things.

10. Closing that first customer

I can see why salespeople love to do what they do. Showing our product to the people we wanted to serve the most - teachers - and getting their immediate validation was one of the highlights of my professional career.

11. Getting a chance to "roast" my community

We started a tradition at Startup Weekend Pittsburgh since April 2013: the joke pitch. First it was Steve McCarthy for his now-regrettably named "Taco Shots." Next it was Nat "Natty Light" Eliason's "Fratboxes," a standard for satire indeed.

I took the mantle in November 2014 with a joint project from the managers of AlphaLab and a few other Startup Weekend peers: Whipd. Thankfully, there is no video of the pitch that exists, but there is a fun still of me making fun of my marriage.

12. Getting the job I wanted... where I wanted

After I decided to end my startup, I landed a job I truly wanted: regional manager at UP Global (now Techstars). I found something that I knew I could excel in - spreading the good gospel of entrepreneurship in my community. Although the experience didn't last as long as I hoped, it certainly transformed my career in profound ways.

13. Throwing my third Lunar New Year party

Just prior to me leaving for Seattle to train at UP Global HQ, I threw yet another party on New Year's. This time, the number of friends I had in attendance grew substantially, and most of them have been instrumental to my success over 2014. Will our cup runneth over?

14. Representing Pittsburgh as a Startup Weekend ambassador

I've been traveling a lot lately, facilitating events in four different communities.

NYC:

Orlando:

Miami:

Durham:

At each event, I have a tradition: wear my generic Startup Weekend shirt on Friday, wear my favorite Pittsburgh shirt on Saturday, and wear the community's shirt on Sunday.

I look my best on Saturdays.

15. My last "birthday" in Pittsburgh

You've probably been hearing about the Summer Harvest event I'm incessantly promoting on social media. The origins of this event are pretty convoluted.

My birthday was on July 13, and I already knew I might be leaving the city, so I wanted to host a event with as many friends and acquaintances as I could. Turns out that doing so is pretty difficult when you don't have any money, so I converted the event into a fundraiser for a non-profit, using extra funds raised from the last Startup Weekend. This just felt... right.

My hope is that many of you come out, connect with old/new friends, break bread, have a drink, wish me bon voyage, and support a great cause. There's a public promo code circulating right now to support the next Startup Weekend, and there are also several codes distributed to our great sponsors over the years.

One way or another, I hope you come out to attend. RSVP here: summerharvestpgh.eventbrite.com.

So what's next for me? I'm not entirely sure (I mean, I know, but who really knows?).

I'll be returning to the Pacific Northwest to be closer to my family and work in an exciting startup space in which I am already familiar. I'll still be working in education through community engagement and technology. This was the "dream scenario."

As much as it pains me to leave the city that resurrected my professional career, I think the stars have finally aligned in this case. I will miss you all, but people never really drift apart nowadays unless you let them. Let's hope that's not the case.

Thank you so much for reading this. If you have any questions, you likely know how to get in touch with me. I'd love to see you all at the Summer Harvest and celebrate all we've done together - as friends, colleagues, and dreamers. I've also a lot of stuff to sell in the next two weeks at ridiculous prices. Feel free to inquire.

Otherwise, I wish you nothing but the best.

Lee

PS: And now, for your moment of zen:

Of Sex, Film, and Politics: 5 Films That Do "Fifty Shades of Grey" Better

2015-02-16T04:00:00.000-08:00

Fifty Shades of Grey was released this Valentine's Day weekend, and I ended up seeing it in Seattle, the primary setting of the film. Thus far, I've read mostly negative views online, and a quick personal exit poll suggests that its reception is rather divided along gender lines.

Pretty much made for those who squealed when this happened.

I attribute that difference to the vapid, confusing portrayal of Christian Grey, but since vapid, confusing portrayals of women happen all the time in androcentric films, I suppose we should let that one slide.

You can keep Christian Grey, but we'll keep Megan Fox in... everything, really.

Still, I was disappointed by the film, simply because there are better films out there that tackle the subject matter. First, I don't think this is a film about accurately representing the rich, complex culture BDSM - it's inspired by Twilight after all.

The fact that this is true upsets me beyond belief.

I do, however, think of it as a film that explores - in a rather trite way - the complex of power embedded in sexuality. House of Cards' Frank Underwood said it best: "A great man once said everything is about sex. Except sex. Sex is about power."

I think that's what entices us about this film - it's about extreme expressions of sexual politics. From this point, I'd like to recommend 5 other films that do what Fifty set out to do far better - and I'll explain why.

Secretary

Synopsis: a young girl who inflicts pain on herself finds an unexpected synergy with her domineering, sadistic, "detail-oriented" new employer.

Why it's better: talented actors Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader really push the envelope with this one. While it takes place in a legal office, there are ironically no need for contracts. They also include the element of public scrutiny as well, with hilarious effects.

Lust, Caution

Synopsis: in Japanese-occupied Shanghai, a young country girl must seduce a collaborator in order to assassinate him, but her mission becomes more complex.

Why it's better: director Ang Lee and lead actors Rebecca Tang and Tony Leung leave very little to the imagination in their sexual exploits. It's also interesting to see how their dynamic shifts and finds catharsis through some of the most erotic scenes ever depicted on screen.

Basic Instinct

Synopsis: a detective struggles to determine whether a bisexual erotic novelist may also be a serial killer.

Why it's better: sleazy yet utterly enjoyable, Michael Douglas and Sharon Stone really unleash on one another during some intense, violent scenes. Moreover, that famous "interrogation" scene is all the more delightful when framed as a woman simply toying with her prey.

9 1/2 Weeks

Synopsis: Two New York elites engage in a brief yet intense affair where they push all of the boundaries and "break all the rules."

Why it's better: the sexual chemistry between Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger is palpable and steamy, yet also violent and uncomfortable (like Fifty really tries to be). These two also perfected the use of ice cubes in the boudoir.

A History of Violence

Synopsis: A spontaneous act of heroism exposes the owner of a diner to some shady, dangerous men claiming that he deserted their organization years ago.

Why it's better: "Is Christian Grey really a sadist?" While not an erotic thriller, per se, this film takes on a similar question but with more delicate execution and bravado. We're not sure whether our protagonist (Viggo Mortensen) is a good guy who makes love or a well-repressed thug with a rapacious side.

We're also not sure if that's what his wife (Maria Bello) wants as well.

Agree or disagree with my list? I'd love to hear your opinion.

8 Reasons Why I Wake Up Every Morning: A Ode to Self-Motivation

2014-10-19T19:03:00.002-07:00

I haven't blogged in a while (19 months to be exact), probably because I've been either too busy or not very inspired, or a little bit of both. In the past, I'm get compelled by some kind of an idea that I feel like I must put out there, like an amazing theory or hilarious joke.

This time, however, I'm just in the mood to write. This post isn't particularly groundbreaking or complex, just a simple list of the people, places, and things that I look forward to every time I wake up. Like all the content we create online, this too is a move towards a "productive narcissism," an examination of what is important in my life.

I guess the only motivation I have for doing this is because I want to see what others post as well. I remember someone giving a talk to an audience of disillusioned academics, suggesting that they should all create a list of the things they've done.

This list is not a resume or a CV, but just things they've accomplished, defined in the vaguest sense. I challenge many of you to see how valuable you are as well as what you truly value by doing the same.

You might be surprised.

Here are my eight things (in no particular order):

1.) Scholar Hero.

Over two years ago, I started a company to help academics improve their ability to be successful in a highly competitive marketplace. Since then, we have engaged with the market and the market engaged back, and now we focus on middle and high school writing development through gamification and crowd-review.

In a short amount of time, I've worked directly with over two dozen terrific people, received incubation from Thrill Mill and investment and mentoring from The Idea Foundry, and recently secured two schools to pilot our program for a full year.

Two years ago, it was just a crazy idea that was easily dismissed by other peers, and now it's outlasted several companies and headed in a very exciting new direction. Not a bad way to start this list... in no particular order.

2.) Pittsburgh.

As a recent transplant to this up-and-coming city, I try not to get too swept up in its local ideology. I don't care for the Steelers, the Pirates, or the Penguins. I rarely read local news, and I never, ever, say "yunz," even ironically.

Yet I don't want to live anywhere else for the foreseeable future. I love the humid summers and cold winters that keep me respectively sweating and rigid. I've love dodging potholes with my rickety bike and going for runs on more than one suspension bridge in an afternoon.

Most importantly, I love the people. The working-class stereotype permeates across classes, ethnic groups, genders, and ages. Pittsburghians work hard, and I've never worked harder in my entire life.

3.) Strayer.

What began as a means for a supplemental income evolved into a enriching way to provide higher learning for a diverse group of individuals across the nation. As both an online and campus instructor of sociology for nearly two years, I am exposed to so many different perspectives from my days as a graduate student in southern California.

What I love the most? I've never felt so respected, appreciated, and liked at any job I have worked, and I mean that from the bottom of my heart.

4.) My friends.

I have a lot of colleagues and acquaintances, but if you are my friend, you would know it. Friends are people who I come to their aid when they need it, whether or not they want it. Friends will always have my loyalty, but they'll appreciate my honesty, too.

Some of them are in Pittsburgh, but there are many of them scattered elsewhere. That's why I'm always on social media - there are friends that need me, and I need them.

5.) Soccer.

First, I am a basketball fan. My emotions rise and fall with the standings of the Portland Trail Blazers in the Pacific Northwest division of the NBA. However, I don't enjoy playing basketball anymore. The injury risk is too high, and the older I get, the likelihood I'll roll an ankle or blow out my knee increases.

Nowadays I go to an empty field and kick around a soccer ball provided by my brother-from-another-mother. I don't leave until my lungs are heaving and I break a sweat. I also make sure I train myself to kick a decent number of goal kicks, for I am ... The Keeper.

Of course, soccer is a team sport, and I'm grateful to have one. I play for FC Thrill Mill. We're young, inexperienced, and pretty easy to pick apart, but we have more heart than we can handle.

6.) My family.

None of them are here. They're in Oregon, California, Canada, Vietnam, the Philippines, and scattered about throughout the world. There are also always in my heart. I wake up every day hoping that I will get closer to doing them proud, to getting a point in my life where I can take care of them in every meaning of the world.

I often think of what the legendary sushi master chef Jiro Ono of the eponymous documentary "Jiro Dreams of Sushi" said about his family:

When I was in first grade, I was told "You have no home to go back to. That's why you have to work hard." I knew that I was on my own. And I didn't want to have to sleep at the temple or under a bridge so I had to work just to survive. That has never left me. I worked even if the boss kicked or slapped me. Nowadays, parents tell their children, "You can return if it doesn't work out." When parents say stupid things like that, the kids turn out to be failures.

I'm always thinking about this quote, and I'm always thinking about my family.

Always.

7.) Startup Weekend.

Can a weekend change your entire life?

It sure changed mine. No competition in town is more chest-thumping, code-hacking, or bond-building than Startup Weekend Pittsburgh. Below was the turn out for its third edition:

Since the first competition (where I formed what would later become Scholar Hero), I have been a serial volunteer, and now for the next one, I am a co-organizer specializing in sponsorship. I'm grateful to Jeremy Burton, Kit Mueller, Kacey Wherley, and the Up Global organization for this opportunity to shine.

It's going to be amazing this year. You can register for it here: http://www.up.co/communities/usa/pittsburgh/startup-weekend/4682

8.) My wife.

One person wondered whether I'm happy or not being married. I don't recall what I told them at the time, but what I know about myself is that I struggle to create a better life for the both of us. That struggle seems perpetual, but I know she's worth it.

She taught me how to care about people I've never met before. She taught me how to take on new cultural experiences with full-fledged excitement. She taught me how to live. In return, I taught her how to laugh.

I hope she knows how much I love her, but I also know that it takes more than just feelings to create a strong marriage. Like everything else, it takes hard work, and it starts by getting up in the morning.

That's my eight. Create a list of your own. You might be surprised.

"Hey Ash, Whatcha' Playin'?" - A Light Freudian Analysis

2013-03-29T08:15:00.000-07:00

For the uninitiated, "Hey Ash, Whatcha Playin'?" or HAWP (found at www.heyash.com) is a web series focused on a family of video game enthusiasts who alternate between deep critical analysis and dadaist surrealism.

Produced by Ashly Burch, Anthony Burch, Ashley Davis, and Justin Yngelmo, the core formula of every episode is a executed dialectic between the Burch siblings, with occasional guest appearances by their father (colloquially referred to as Papa Burch), Davis, and other peers.

I discovered HAWP through a friend/honorary brother, who shared with me the following clip:

People are really into their video games.

From that point, I was utterly hooked. The series has a huge cult following in the gaming community, with everyone involved enjoying a moderate celebrity status. After watching two seasons in a single sitting (such is the norm of most YouTubers, I hope) while studying a lot of psychoanalysis in graduate school, I realized that HAWP's appeal derives from a rather famous and recognizable theory in our general epistemology:

"Hey Ash, Whatcha' Playin'?" is straight up Sigmund Freud.

"Hey Ash, Whatcha' Playin'?" All me. -Siggy

I'm not talking about the Freud you're probably familiar with, the one that's popularized in the media as extremely sex-obsessed, where even the cigar in that photo has "implications." What emerges more ostensibly about of HAWP is Freud's basic theory of the structure of the human psyche, which goes a little something like this. (Wikipedia's description may also help here.)

Review of the Freudian Human Psyche Theory

The human psyche comprises of three distinct yet deeply embedded and interrelated categories:

Id - When I was in college, my professor compared the id to "pure Jim Morrison from The Doors." I like to think of a toddler in their "terrible twos" (as would Freud, for that matter).

Think about all of your most primal instincts, which actually include many of the Seven Cardinal Sits - lust, hunger, greed, wrath, sloth, etc. The id is the locus of all of those motivations, which have the potential for utmost pleasure but also terrible violence and destruction.

Id.

Ego - This word actually means "I" in Latin, and with good reason. This is the space that is considered the most grounded in "reality," where the libidinous, immediate instincts of the id are curbed in order to produce long-term gain.

In plainer terms, this is the part of our minds where logic, deduction, negotiation, and reason exist - the place where we think, and it's the part of us that we recognize the most as ourselves, hence "ego."

Ego.

Superego - Say you're hungry and you want to eat a steak. For many people, there's a part of their brain that tells them they should not do that because the steak has too many calories or cholesterol, or that it's made from an animal, or that's it's not environmental, or (it happens) they simply do not deserve the steak. We've all been there, but why do we think this way?

Some people call it "conscience," Freud tends to describe is the "internalization of social norms," and other scholars after him have different amalgamations of that core concept. The superego is that voice in your mind that regulates your decision making much like a parent would, and if you don't listen to it, you will feel terrible.

Superego.

What Does This Have to do with HAWP?

The three most repertory characters in HAWP fit quite nicely into these three categories.

Ashly is Id

Ashly Burch's persona in the show is usually impulsive, infantile, pleasure seeking, and destructive to her brother. Her logic usually makes no sense, yet she also manages to feign innocence in her actions. This is exactly what defines the realm of the id.

Here's the most exemplary video of Ashly's libidinous demeanor. Without her brother to focus and exact abuse upon, her emotions are completely unbridled:

I lament this image, truly I do.

Anthony is Ego

Poor, poor Anthony. He's obviously the "straight man" in the series, guided by a strong, intellectualized passion for gaming as well as a fixation on sense. He does usually fall apart from the immense pressures around him, but generally he exists to keep Ashly in check while also tolerating her relentless abuse.

My favorite Anthony episode is his striking critique of Katamari Damacy, one of the weirdest yet alluring games ever created.

Papa Burch is Superego

In early versions of the series, Papa Burch is a simple authoritarian father who oversees, mocks, and even screams his children for their obsession with games. (See the episode where Ashly was told to jump off their roof.) He prefers reading mystery novels and smoking cigars on his porch to whatever insanity his children are up to.

Over time, he too immersed into their gaming world, but he never compromises his own interests and instinct. His actions and words are never challenged, however corrupt and possibly insane he might be. Notice how Anthony never raises his voice while his father makes silly decisions while playing games:

HAWP could stand for "Hey, Ash, Whatcha Psyche?" (Okay, that's dumb, sorry.)

Together, they form a pretty complete picture of the human psyche apropos of gaming. Moreover, people tend to see a lot of parallels between Papa Burch and Ashly Burch, and rightly so. Freud claims that the id and the superego are actually deeply connected - both seemingly immutable, relentless forces that regulate the before of the ego.

Ultimately, we sympathize with Anthony's plight to raise the discourse on gaming to a sophisticated level, but at the same time a part of us delights in his misery and torment. Those parts of us are better exemplified in the other two, who seek fun and power, sometimes at the same time.

Perhaps we're all a little bit of the three when we indulge in things as seemingly frivolous as games. For some, they are just bits of code and hardware, but to others (including myself) they are rich experiences that engage all aspects of the mind.

Anyhoo, thank you for reading this post if you even got this far. Have a good day.

Warrior - R - Gavin O'Conner, dir. (2011)

2012-10-16T09:51:00.001-07:00

One fighter, one grappler. Oh, and they're brothers.

Seriously, Pittsburgh, what is up with the way you make films that seem to have a endless reservoir of emotional gravitas? The latest film I stumbled upon in my Netflix stream is Warrior, seemingly a gritty, rough-around-the-edges look into the underbelly of the mixed martial arts (MMA) craze. The core themes of the film, however, are the following:

Family - perhaps the most central theme of the film, for this is the space that divides everyone yet also potentially brings them all back together
Loyalty - In the absence (or, in this case, betrayal of family), people tend to see others for that sense of stability. It's a quality that motivates people to move mountains if necessary.
Honor - None of the characters in the film have it, which means they're all hungry for it. Honor is the same thing as fame or glory, however. Everyone works toward a goal that is beyond themselves.

This film really isn't about the story itself, which is largely predictable but also necessary in every step of its delivery. Instead, it's about performances of the actors as they endure the trajectories of three men of immense talent and skill, weighed down by their respective pain and grief.

(Warning: The following may contain spoilers, so do not read on if you prefer not to know.)

Brendan Conlon (John Edgerton, who looks like the most intimidating ten-year-old you'll ever see)

Brendan is the calming force in this film. Even when he's lost all personal shame and embarrassment, he always acts with the best intentions. Growing up in in the Conlon household, his father perceived him as the weaker of his sons and never trained him. After marrying at an extremely young age and escaping the perpetual violence within his home, Brendan joined the UFC circuit, but his tenure was short and largely unmemorable.

Retiring from MMA to be a high school physics teacher, husband, and father of two girls, Brendan to try and live a normal life. However, as is the case of many people throughout the country, he somehow was swindled by his own banker and now his house might be foreclosed. This is part of why he fights. However, it's obvious in many ways that Brendan has something to prove to everyone - his skeptics, his father, and himself - that he's not a weak person.

John Edgerton does a fantastic job in this role, repressing his Aussie accent and appearing to look both strong and weak at the same time. Facing down the virtually indomitable Koba (played to ironic hilarity by Kurt Angle) exemplified this best, as everyone loves a good David v. Goliath scenario.

You know what? I take it back. He looks scarier in this film than as Bane.

Tommy Conlon/Riordan (Tom Hardy, halfway into his incredible Bane physique)

When Tommy suddenly shows up at his father's doorstep after 14 years, his intentions are not quite clear. He appears to be both a drunk and a pill-popper, and his disheveled look suggests that he's not slept under a roof in a while. He's suppressing his bitterness towards his father in very passive-aggressive ways - handing him a bottle of whiskey despite knowing what that will do and frequently referring to his father's tendency to viciously beat his mother, despite his calm, sincere disposition. He's angry, and he's not afraid to show it - especially up against some poor victim in the ring.

Why does he return to Pittsburgh? He wants to be trained for a major professional MMA tournament, and nobody does better than his father. He needs money - not for himself, but for the family of a fallen comrade in Iraq. Tommy's not a washed-up bum looking for a second shot at redemption. He's a war hero with an endless concept of honor and loyalty, mostly to fill the void created by his abusive father and his absent older brother. He's so angry that he register for the tournament (presumably) under his mother's maiden name, dedicating every fight to her memory.

Tom Hardy, repressing his whimsical British accent, is the main star of this film, transforming both his body and mind to portray a young man with so much strength and natural talent yet still, in many ways, still that same young boy who had to escape with his mother to save her life, only for her to die due to a lack of adequate healthcare. Roles like these define Hardy as one of the greater acting talents of his generation.

Paddy "Pop" Conlon (Nick Nolte, Mr. Gravitas himself)

How should one feel about a man who is so desperate to reform himself after living a life creating horror, violence, and betrayal on those he loved? That's the challenge of Nick Nolte's acting effort, a reminder that there are times when redemption is no longer possible, and the damage done extends beyond your own scope and into the lives of other people.

It is unmistakable that he is the reason for much of the emotional quagmire of this film. After running away with his wife and starting a new life, Brendan refuses to acknowledge his father and has yet to introduce him to his granddaughters. (A truly heartbreaking scene ensues from this matter.) Tommy regards him as just his trainer, "just an old man who trains me, nothing more," and he rejects any attempt from his father to try to bond and heal their divide.

But it's when Tommy and Brendan finally meet after nearly 15 years that Paddy's sins are apparent. Tommy is confused by the encounter, both wanting to see his brother but also angry at his abandonment. He is unable to forgive Brendan for leaving him and his mother at the mercy of their father. Brendan knows this, and he asks Tommy for his forgiveness. He even tries to tell Tommy about his new life and shows pictures of his nieces, but Tommy cannot even look. He even struggles to look Brendan in the eye. They part awkwardly, knowing that there's a possibility they'll encounter each other again under drastically different circumstances.

All of this familiar hell is created by a father who hit the bottle too hard and quit when it was too late. Alcoholism nowadays get shrugged off as a statistic - drunk fathers are a dime-a-dozen in American culture - but that does not diminish the brutal reality that so many people, especially children, endure every day. If there's a lesson to be learned from this film - that's it.

Overall: Warrior is a very good film. If you like MMA, you'll get caught up in the violence just as much as you would watching a UFC bout. If you like strong acting and weighty drama, this film will delivery. Don't expect any plot twists and turns since the film's not really interested in that. The story alone is good enough for your consideration.

The Perks of Being a Wallflower - PG-13 - Stephen Chbosky, writer/director.

2012-10-13T16:59:00.001-07:00

No fair. As a proud Portland native who recently moved out to Pittsburgh, it's really not very fair the way in which this town has become a mecca for both solid independent films and thoroughly entertaining popcorn fare. The most notable film of the year to do this is, of course, The Dark Knight Rises, which features so much of Pittsburgh's most prominent locations that you'd really start to wonder whether Gotham ever actually represented a "darker" New York City.

Also, undisputed proof that absolutely nothing can stop Hines Ward,
not even this fictionalized version of him.

Even another somewhat major film - The Avengers - conducted secondary shooting in Pittsburgh before it broke records and became the #3 film of all time. Yep, Pittsburgh's in that, too.

Tony Stark: "Instead of schawarma, should we have gone to Primanti Brothers instead?"
Thor: "The Man of Iron is correct. My stomach hungers for sliced potatoes
dipped in boiling oil and placed on everything. Where is my horse?"

Again, I'm starting to digress. This post is about The Perks of Being a Wallflower, which I shall affectionately refer to as POBAW just to make typing a little easier. This film yet another of several "indies" to have come out in recent years and capture the national zeitgeist (Adventureland, Warrior, and even Super 8 come to mind.)

Unlike these other films, however, POBAW is based on a 1999 novel, by its writer-director Stephen Chbosky, whose lack of experience behind the camera does not reveal itself at all throughout this film (though I would have preferred just a few more in-focus shots on Emma Watson).

See what I mean? Also, the other two dudes are quite pretty, too. Just saying.

Story: Think of The Breakfast Club from entirely from the perspective of Ally Sheedy's character, Allison a.k.a. "The Basket Case ," multiply that character into five or six more people, and set it at a much cooler time period, say the rise of Generation X and "alternative music" in the early 1990s. That is probably the most superficial way I can describe POBAW.

However, the attitudes are timeless: the impossible task of "fitting in" in high school, making new friends, sexual exploration, and other vignettes of teenage pathos. Mind you, this is not a John Hughes film. The subject matter gets extremely as the film continues: repressed vs. open sexuality, suicide, family loss, mental illness, child abuse, domestic abuse, kleptomania - the list goes on, and all of it underlined with a tinge of unspoken violence that drives everyone to their breaking points. I personally could not fight back the tears as their group struggled just for contentment and acceptance - for freedom from their own emotional prisons.

Performances: While focusing on its protagonist Charlie (played to near-perfection by Logan Lerman), the film manages to go quite deep into the personal horrors of each major character without feeling like the film has gone on for too long. Without going into too much spoiling detail, everyone from the charismatic but frustrated Patrick (Ezra Miller), the beautiful but ashamed Sam (Emma Watson, branching out exceptionally well from her Harry Potter typecasting), or even Charlie's sister, Candace (Nina Dobrev), who struggles to reconcile her popularity with the monster she just cannot shake.

As strong and moving as all the performances are, the ultimate prize deservedly goes to Logan Lerman, who portrays Charlie simultaneously exuberance and usurpation of his childhood created an individual that is ill-yet-all-too prepared to enter into young adulthood. His rise, fall, and rebirth are so emotionally jarring that I would recommend bringing tissues to the theater before you hear his story.

Also, a bit of a props to Paul Rudd, who plays Charlie's English teacher and mentor and managed to repress his silly yet delightful instincts to play a convincing adult figure (if you've seen Wet Hot American Summer, you know this is a difficult portrayal to accept).

Final verdict: Although I thoroughly enjoyed The Perks of Being a Wallflower and appreciate everyone's effort, especially its visionary Stephen Chbosky, for managing to produce a teenage film that dramatically builds upon the 1980s legacy of John Hughes, I am still angry.

Why?

Because even though I now live in Pittsburgh, this story could have easily been transplanted into Portland, and the same gravitas could have been conveyed. Unfortunately, Portland is left with this utter nonsense.

I want to make this very clear: Portlanders do not do this.

I know I'm going to catch hell from my friends for saying this, but

Pittsburgh is now the new Portland.

Until, of course, Pittsburghia comes out...

Did I end up predicting half of The Dark Knight Rises?

2012-07-20T18:44:00.001-07:00

I wrote the following post on March 22, 2010. The Dark Knight Rises came out on July 20, 2012. I've emboldened the parts that are similar to one another. This is completely real and surprising.

-Lee
A Treatment for the Next Batman Film by a Superfan

I saw The Dark Knight again for the zillionth time tonight, and I couldn't stop thinking about the possibilities for the next Batman film. I previously wrote a spoiler-free review, a spoiler-rich-review, and a few ideas for a third installment down not long after The Dark Knight was released in theaters, but after hearing that the Nolan brothers are already busy writing the script for their final contribution to the franchise, I figure that I might as well make my own treatment public, just to see if I write anything similar to what they do. Your thoughts on my treatment are encouraged, and feel free to share it with others. Since this information really belongs to create Bob Kane, the DC Universe, Warner Brothers, et al., I can't make any claims to the originality of the following treatment. As a hardcore Batman fan, I just want to see if any if not most or all of it will happen. Enjoy.

(Spoilers if you haven't seen Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, all three of you out there).

The Shadow of Gotham (working title)

a treatment by Lee

written March 21, 2010

With Harvey Dent/Two-Face dead, The Joker behind bars, and Batman in self-exile, Gotham has a major power vacuum, and the scale could tip either way. Gotham Mayor Anthony Garcia is up for re-election, but after being the only one left from the mess created by The Joker, his seat is up for grabs. His primary rival comes from outside the corrupted parameters of Gotham: a well-educated, charismatic college professor named Edward Nygma. Nygma's precipitous rise to power is aided by a mysterious financier, but given the history of corrupt officials that have gone through the revolving doors of city hall, Gotham is intrigued by his unorthodox political background, incredible intelligence and elegant way with words.

Batman/Bruce Wayne returns to the place where it all began - the former headquarters of the League of Shadows, somewhere in the Himalayan mountains. Still mourning the death of Rachel Dawes and emotionally compromised by murdering Dent, Bruce decides to commit suicide in the place that gave birth to Batman (and also for its immense isolation). Before he can do so, he stumbles across some bandits attacking a woman and tries to fend them off, but he is knocked unconscious. When he awakes, he finds himself in a cozy home with a beautiful, concerned woman hovering over him. She introduces herself as Talia and thanks him for trying to save her life. Bruce thanks her for her hospitality and gets up to leave, but he realizes that he has no place to go and finds comfort in Talia's company. He decides to stay until he knows his next move.

The Joker is locked in the deepest, darkest depths of Arkham Asylum, unable to communicate with anyone and only receives attention from three bowls of gruel a day, given to him by a trustworthy guard appointed by Commissioner Gordon. Several institutions, intrigued by The Joker's mental condition and his mysterious past, request Mayor Garcia to study him, offering millions to a city in need of funds to rebuild its infrastructure, but Mayor Garcia declines them all out of fear of opening a Pandora's box. The leading bidder is backed by Wayne Enterprises, still run by CEO Lucious Fox, who wants to evaluate The Joker's psyche in order to anticipate the moves of anyone eager to take his place. Fox hires a young, attractive, overqualified psychiatrist from the University of Gotham to head the study, pending its approval: Dr. Harlene Quinzell.

With only a week before the mayoral election, Nygma continues to trail slightly in the polls despite a strong campaign. Lucious Fox decides to financially support Nygma's campaign in exchange for Nygma's approval of Dr. Quinzell's research. The move is enough to put Nygma over the top, and his first order as mayor is to allow Dr. Quinzell exclusive access to The Joker. Although anxious at first, the citizens of Gotham come around and support their new mayor. With the mob still licking their wounds after the Joker's rampage, Nygma is able to follow up on many of his campaign promises through the financial support of Wayne Enterprises and slowly rebuilds Gotham back into form. Nygma and his mysterious financier, of course, have ulterior motives.

In the Himalayas, Bruce Wayne and Talia develop a romantic relationship. As one of the most recognizable men in the world, it was impossible for Bruce to conceal his identity to Talia, but Talia seems less interested in his life as a billionaire playboy and more interested in his decision to kill himself in the Himalayas. Deciding to leave behind his life as Batman once and for all to commit to Talia, Bruce tells her everything. Unwilling to deceive him any longer, Talia reveals the truth about herself as well: she is the daughter of Ra's Al-Ghul and the current head of the League of Shadows, knowing everything about Bruce the entire time. She staged the attack that brought them together to recruit him back into the League of Shadows, presuming that, after killing Dent, he no longer maintains his prior ethical code. She also reveals that the League of Shadows is Nygma's mysterious financier, using him as a Trojan horse to regain control over Gotham in order to execute their plan, which she will not reveal. Shocked, Bruce tries to escape, but Talia refuses to let him go, insisting that Gotham must be destroyed. Bruce and Talia fight. Although Talia demonstrates a martial arts skill worthy of her position as head of the League of Shadows, Bruce eventually defeats her but refuses to kill her. He leaves for Gotham, and Talia, overcome by love, tells him a peculiar word before he leaves.

Dr. Quinzell's research goes well at first, as The Joker, malnourished but still sporting a sense of humor, seems to reveal much of the truth about his past, presenting himself as a tragic victim of horrific circumstances. Over time, Dr. Quinzell starts to develop feelings for the Joker and requests Mayor Nygma to upgrade The Joker's living standards. Nygma refuses on the grounds that the public would not approve of an upgrade, but he is really concerned that The Joker might interfere with the League of Shadows's plan. Lucious Fox, aware of Dr. Quinzell's emotions toward The Joker, realizes that the project is a failure and halts all funding, which removes Dr. Quinzell's right to visitation. This move sends Dr. Quinzell into a psychotic spiral, and on her last visit to The Joker's cell, she kills the lone guard and breaks The Joker out of Arkham. Grateful and enamored, The Joker calls her by a new nickname: Harley Quinn.

Bruce Wayne returns to Gotham, dons the Batman cape and cowl once again and confronts Nygma in the mayor's office, easily defeating him. Nygma kills himself before Batman is able to get any information out of him. The citizens of Gotham assume that the newly-escaped Joker killed off Nygma, which sends the city into panic. Batman returns to the public eye after thwarting a robbery attempt by some of the Joker's henchmen, which momentarily puts the citizens of Gotham at ease. Batman concentrates his efforts on figuring out the League of Shadows' plan, but Before Batman completely gives up, he remembers the word that Talia told him before he left the Himalayas. This word is the password to Nygma's secret files, which are also encrypted with bizarre riddles, anagrams and other puzzles. Enlisting the help of Commissioner Gordon, Lucious Fox and Alfred, separately, Batman deciphers the riddles to learn that the League of Shadows planted a stolen hydrogen bomb in the epicenter of Gotham, ready to detonate upon orders from Talia. Afraid that Nygma's death might accelerate the League of Shadow's plans, Batman quickly deciphers the location of the bomb, defeats a horde of Shadow members, and disarms it, saving Gotham once again from annihilation.

Faced with the looming re-emergence of the Joker, Batman decides to remain in Gotham. Meanwhile, halfway around the world, Talia learns of the League of Shadows' failure. She reveals that she could have ordered Gotham destroyed before Bruce's return, but she decided not to because Gotham's preservation seemed to be the only thing that kept Bruce going. Talia also learns that she is pregnant with Bruce's child.

Slavoj Zizek Inception'd My Dream

2012-06-19T10:58:00.004-07:00

I just woke up to having a dream with Slavoj Zizek. It was so bizarre and profound that I had to write down as much as possible.

The first thing I remember is running without shoes to some unknown location. On my way there I see a familiar face reading in a chair. However, as I pan around his location, I see two other gentlemen reading in a chair but dressed differently.

Smugly, I say to all three: "Will the real Slavoj Zizek please stand up?"

All three of them look up and chuckle. The first Slavoj invites me to stay a while and attempt to figure out this strange paradox. I keep looking around to see if there's something strange aside from the social philosopher in triplicate, but everything looks completely normal.

The third Slavoj says, "You are blinded by your own vision."

The statement provokes me to close my eyes. I extent my hands towards the Slavoj Three and... something obstructs my movement. A mirror-like object invisible to my eyes creates the illusion the entire time. My hands explore until I find the edges of the mirror and promptly pull them down to the ground. I open my eyes to see that only one Slavoj disappears. The process repeats until two more mirrors are disabled.

When I open my eyes for the final time, I find myself in my grandmother's living room. Slavoj Zizek is still there, ebullient over his victorious instruction. My five-year old cousin Liam, wearing a Godzilla costume, sets the dinner table. Nothing about this scene looks abnormal to me.

Looking at the fallen mirrors, I realize that I want to repair them to make Zizek proud.

"Do not bother," he says. "My image does not need to be replicated again. My likeness will only be used for profit and exploitation. It belongs to the public."

I look back at him, perplexed. "Wait. Are you actually against the notion of your image or your name as intellectual property? Do you not stand to make money by doing it again?"

Zizek smiles, extends his arm, pulls back his palm and says, "Silt defense."

"What?" I retort.

"If you try to block a river, there will always be a little bit of silt that eeks out into the open water. This silt is highly concentrated and valuable to people who seek nutrient-rich irrigation waters. So, silt defense."

Before I could respond, the front door blows open and many of my graduate student colleagues burst into my grandmother's living room. Apparently, I am the last to know that there is an actual colloquium going on here. As people assemble and mutter about the questions they want to ask, I stare back at Zizek, who responds with a simple shrug.

And then I wake up.

How to Explain Thor to Young Children (and Fail Miserably)

2012-01-30T21:30:00.000-08:00

I'm quite certain that I'm a kid at heart, but sometimes I have trouble switching off my "adult" mode, especially since I teach at the university level. Whenever I'm with my family, they always seem to have questions for me, and I always provide answers. Consider the following (based almost verbatim on recent events).

(Side note: these children with whom I'm mutually dissecting this film are my cousins, ages 1-8, who all refer to me by my respectful "older brother" title, Anh Lee. They are my babies. Please enjoy.)

Max: "Anh Lee, who are those big blue guys?"
Me: "Those are Frost Giants."
Max: "Where do they come from?"
Me: "A planet called Jotunheim."
Max: "Where's that?"
Me: "You know, I'm not exactly sure."

Lesson One: Orientalized Antagonists with a Distinct Skin Pigmentation

Aidan: ‎"So, like Neptune?"

Me: "Yeah, sure, like Neptune."
Max: "Are the Frost Giants evil?"
Me: "Evil is a strong world. I don't know if I'd describe them as--"
Aidan: "Then why is that old guy with one eye fighting them?"
Me: "I suppose he wants to protect his own realm by containing the Frost Giants to theirs."
Max: "So the Frost Giants ARE evil?"
Me: "In a matter of speaking, I guess you're right."

Lesson Two: Oedipal Complexes Emerge at Any Stage of Human Development

Max: "Why is Thor's dad mad at Thor?"
Me: "Because Thor chose the path of preemptive strike on Jotunheim after his coronation ceremony was rudely interrupted by some Frost Giant invaders in the armory."
Aidan: "Didn't Thor's dad already fight in a war with the Frost Giants? How come he gets to fight them and not his son?"
Me: "You know, you make a great point."
Max: "Is Thor's dad evil?"
Me: "No, just really, really disappointed."

Lesson Three: Vindication is a platter ideally distributed at zero Kelvin temperatures.

Liam: ‎"Why did Loki suddenly turn blue next to that ice crystal thing?"
Me: "Because Loki is actually not Odin's son. He's a Frost Giant."
Liam: "Then how come he's the same size as Thor?"
Me: "Well, I guess he's a Frost Giant, but ... miniature."
Aidan: "Is Loki evil?"
Me: "Well... let's just say he's not handling the news well."

He looks like Data from Star Trek: TNG... but with the personality of Lore.

Aidan: ‎"Did Loki let the Frost Giants into Asgard?"

Me: "It would seem that that is the case."
Aidan: "So did he already know that he's a Frost Giant when his dad told him?"
Me: "Hm, I suppose he does."
Aidan: "Then why is he so surprised when his dad tells him?"
Me: "Because... well... Kenneth Branagh might be a lazy director."

Ava: "Is Loki evil now?
Me: "Well, he ain't getting any more noble at this point."

I went to Harvard, and I have an Oscar. Don't call me by my character name. It's just not as awesome.

Peyton: "Who is that girl?":

Me: "That's ... Natalie Portman."

Peyton: "Is she important in this film?"

Me: ".... Not really."

I covet thy triceps, sir.

Max: ‎"Anh Lee, did Thor get his power back?"
Me: "Well, he's currently flying straight up into a tornado he created, so I would say so."
Max: "But, how did he get it back? Before he couldn't lift the hammer."

Me: "Well, remember when Odin, I mean, Thor's dad whispers into the hammer and says that only someone worthy can lift it?"

Max: "I think so."

Me: "They just showed it again. Anyway, Thor decided to sacrifice his own line to keep everyone else safe. When he did that, he proved that he no longer cared about his own power and cared about others instead. That is what it means to be worthy, and that's pretty much the whole moral of the film."

Aidan: "So how come Thor could use the hammer at the beginning of the film, when he wasn't worthy?"

Me: "... Because his dad is kind of a poor judge of character."

Aidan: "Is it because he only has one eye?"

Me: "... I want to say no, but I can't say for certain."

End.

Why "Source Code" Fails To Be Near-Perfect (Spoilers Ahead)

2011-04-05T19:31:00.000-07:00

For the record, I enjoyed Source Code. The film takes science fiction to a plausible dimension, so to speak, and the acting performances manage to tap into my own emotional concerns. My only problem with the film lies in the spoiler-heavy diatribe below.

(Spoilers ahead! Do not read on!)

I must recapitulate the sci-fi premise of the film. Apparently, the brain maintains approximately eight minutes of memory after one dies. Using some "quantum mechanics" and "parabolic calculus," a scientist named Dr. Rutledge (Jeffrey Wright) has discovered and developed a program to insert another person's consciousness into a brain that matches their own (in a matter of speaking), gaining access to these memories and effectively "reliving" the last eight minutes of the person's life. This program is known as the Source Code. It is a huge scientific leap of faith, but we live in a world where light sabers are now considered quotidian. These are the rules of the film's "game."

The major ethical dilemma of this project is that their first operative, Air Force Capt. Colter Stevens (Jake Gyllenhaal) is not a volunteer. His last memory is of him on a mission in Afghanistan, where he was declared KIA. Colter is actually a just a partially-functioning brain in a barely-functioning torso, and he is utterly confused by his participation in the Source Code. His imposed mission is to find the identity of the bomber who destroyed a passenger train heading for Chicago. This dilemma creates the proper villain in Dr. Rutledge as well as the morally conflicted subordinate in Capt. Colleen Goodwin (Vera Farmiga). Near the end of the film, she is forced to choose between Colter's dying wish to try and save all of the passengers on the train (which is not the objective of the mission nor does it matter since Colter is merely accessing memories, not actual past events) and Dr. Rutledge's command to wipe Colter's memory clean to prepare him for a future Source Code mission.

Here is where the film breaks its own rules. Predictably, Goodwin decides to side with Colter, and she cuts off his life support just before Dr. Rutledge and his security team can intervene. Within the Source Code, Colter manages to disarm the bomb, arrest the bomber, convince a comedian (Russell Peters) to do a set on the train, and steal a kiss with Christina (Michelle Monyahan), the main object of Colter's concern on the train. What SHOULD have happened is the film fades to white at the last second of the Source Code's eight-minute limit, presuming that Colter dies with a beautiful, peaceful final memory.

Instead, the film forces the audience to presume that the eight-minute limit does not apply, even though it did when Colter died by other means after he managed to get off the train carrying the bomb. In addition, did Colter manage to cheat death by living beyond the Source Code, downloading himself completely into another person's body? Sure, this "happy ending" option creates a fun little bookend twist on the outcome of the Source Code in this alternative universe, but it breaks the rules that were initially established at the beginning of the film. Of course, had the film followed these initial rules, the ending would have been far more depressing (although relatively sensical).

I leave the decision up to the audience. Would you rather end a film on a positive note even if it violates the core premise, or would you rather the film follow the rules it creates, even if you might feel as little depressed by the end? I think Source Code would have been a stronger film if it followed the latter, but in these dark and depressing times, I'm sure we can all make do with a more pleasant conclusion.

Birdemic: Shock and Terror - A Film That Makes Me Want to Drink

2011-03-07T12:21:00.000-08:00

What exactly is a film that falls into the "It's so bad, that it's good" category? There's no way one can make this kind of film deliberately... or can they? Such is the dilemma that I encounter as I write the following review. It's very hard to write earnestly about a film like Birdemic: Shock and Terror, a ninety-minute "it has to be seen to be believed" opus by James Nguyen, a former software sales representative who claims to be the next Alfred Hitchcock. On one hand, the film is an absolute cinematic disaster and deserves its reputation as one of the worst films ever made. On the other hand, I haven't had this much fun while watching a film since I saw Tommy Wiseau's The Room with a drunken crowd of rowdy Portlanders several months ago. Let's start with the bad.

Whenever the actors fend of birds in the dumbest possible way (coat hangers?!?), I drink.

How This Film Makes Me Want to Drink (Depressively)

This film is often compared to and is similar to to Alfred Hitchcock's classic terror film The Birds (1963) in the following ways:

(1) Birds attack a small town adjacent to a lake.

(2) A romantic getaway between two lovers is interrupted by #1

(3) The reason for the birds' onslaught is not completely specified, which adds to the dimension of terror

That's it. Those three ways are the only ways in which Hitchcock and Nguyen's films relate to one another. Made nearly fifty years ago, Hitchcock's film still remains a haunting masterpiece, crafted to the utmost precision even by today's cinematic standards. Hitchcock was known for being a producer's dream, economically rationing his time and resources to produce critically and commercially well-received films. Nguyen's film is, from start to finish, sloppy, cacophonic, out-of-focus, and poorly-lit. The entire crew should have been fired for doing such an awful job. (I am aware that the film was made for about $10,000, which means most of the crew were likely working on a volunteer basis. Nonetheless, terrible work all around). In terms of Birdemic's production quality, Nguyen does not deserve to equate himself to Hitchcock.

Whenever I see an incredibly awkward romantic scene, I drink.

Though I thought that Whitney Moore did an acceptable job as film's female lead Nathalie, this may be due to the fact that she played opposite of Alan Bagh, who was absolutely atrocious as Rod, a software salesman who drives a Mustang gas hybrid that gets 100 miles to the gallon (seriously, that's what he said). His wooden movements, constantly shifting eyes, and piss-poor line delivery did not convince me for a second that he could close a million-dollar sale AND convince some venture capitalists to invest $10 million into his solar panel company (seriously, that's what he did). Although Alan Bagh is no Jimmy Stewart, I have to blame Nguyen's inability to direct him and others in this film for the numerous atrocities committed against the craft of acting.

Whenever characters do stupid things while crazed eagles attack from the sky, I drink.

Finally, the film's script is full of problems. Why would Victoria's Secret want Nathalie as their Cover Girl model? (Does that even make sense?) Why should a couple go out to dinner if they never take a bite of food for twenty minutes? What the heck is ImaginePeace.com, and why does a couple think its appropriate to make love in an N.G.O.? Why is the singer in a romantic restaurant singing about "hanging out with the family?" Who keeps an AK-47 inside a mini-van? Wasn't the avian flu a problem exclusive to Southeast Asia? What is up with all of the CGI in a film budgeted for $10,000? This film is full of mysteries that are lazily thrown together and not entirely resolved. The meandering approach to the last third act is inexcusable in this respect. At best, Birdemic should be shown to film students on what NOT to do when one makes a low-budget film.

How This Film Makes Me Want to Drink (Harmoniously)

Since I saw this film on DVD, I had the luxury of stopping the film whenever I needed to go to the bathroom to puke. To my surprise, I had to stop the film because I was laughing way too hard. I am going to go ahead and call James Nguyen an "cinematic idiot savant," in that he, by pure accident, has managed to make a film that is watchable and even quotable. I also had the luxury of watching this with my like-minded best friend, and we had to dry our eyes from laughing too hard at certain parts of the film. Birdemic is not meant to be seen alone.

Whenever the guy on the right expresses that he is a raging sex addict. I drink. A LOT.

Nguyen's attempt to build a "dimension of terror" is yet another completely accidental success. According to Slavoj Zizek in The Pervert's Guide to Cinema, Vol. 1 (2007), the cause for terror in The Birds exists only in psychological theorization, but it is not at all obvious to anyone, not even to the characters in the film. In Birdemic, several "scientists" each try to offer an explanation to the phenomenon, but the differing opinions never come to a consensus, thus leaving both the characters and the audience utterly confused. By leaving the origin of the "monster" - the threatening entity - shrouded in mystery, both films maintain the dimension of terror throughout. This worked for The Dark Knight (2008), No Country For Old Men (2007), and The Silence of the Lambs (1991).

Whenever a character goes on a rant about global warming as a possible link to the birdemic, I drink.

Finally, Birdemic is a very socially conscious film, and I must applaud it for that. The lead character Rob drives a hybrid and touts the ridiculously awesome gas mileage that he gets. Rob also wants to set up his own solar panel business. News reports talk often about the plight of polar bears and other environmental anomalies. The characters go see An Inconvenient Truth. Several minor characters at various points in the film stop to remind the audience about the dangers of global warming and the possible effect that it has on the chaos that surrounds them. Perhaps Birdemic is an even better film than An Inconvenient Truth for informing people about the crisis that the world is in. After all, would you want to see a two-hour long PowerPoint presentation, or a ninety-minute film that has the words "Shock and Terror" embedded in the title?

The lessons we must learn from Birdemic: Shock and Terror still remain unclear, and unfortunately, I am in no position to define what an "It's so bad, it's good" film really is. Perhaps we have become numb or spoiled by films that have perfect lighting, sound mixing, special effects and editing. Once a film like Birdemic pulls the rug out from under us, we easily make fun of its shortcomings and tease the little guy for trying to roll with the big boys. Unlike Tommy Wiseau's $7 million budget for The Room, James Nguyen filmed Birdemic on barely enough money to declare to U.S. customs. A proud Vietnamese-American man who talks often about his experiences as a refugee and an immigrant, Nguyen should certainly pat himself on the back for capturing lightning in a bottle, captivating millions of people nationwide with his off-beat film. In a way, Nguyen has created a Birdemic of his own.

Black Swan - Darren Aronofsky, dir. - 2010

2011-02-12T13:34:00.000-08:00

This film is certain to polarize those who haven't seen it yet, and much of that can be attributed to the "Darren Aronofsky Style." For no particular reason, I have seen every single film that Aronofsky has directed, from π to The Wrestler and this one. While in college, I was attracted to his early razor-sharp sound editing and overall exciting, visceral style (Requiem for a Dream was a required screening for many of us). After the bloated mess of The Fountain, however, I wanted Aronofsky to return to that former MTV-generation glory while showing signs of maturity and growth. Aronofsky accomplished that with The Wrestler, astounding alone for delivering Mickey Rourke back from the Hollywood graveyard. Aronofsky's latest opus is widely considered to be his crowning achievement, but I disagree. While Black Swan works on many registers, the film is far from perfect, and I would be quite surprised if it won any major accolades, including Best Actress for Natalie Portman.

To begin with the positives of the film, the film's horror aesthetic works well to build on the Edgar Allan Poe-esque madness that fragile protagonist Nina Sayers (Natalie Portman) plunges into while striving for perfection within her ballet company. Her exploitative coach and director, Thomas (Vincent Cassell) insists that she is missing half the point of his re-imagined Swan Lake, which needs the lead dancer to "lose herself" and "seduce the audience." Her insecurities and paranoia are furthered by the arrival of a rebellious dancer named Lily (Mila Kunis) who seems to accomplish the persona of the "Black Swan" effortlessly. Portman, Cassell and Kunis all do a solid job with maintaining the web of intrigue, and the film itself is essentially a "new" twist on Swan Lake itself, the most overplayed ballet storyline of all time.

However, even the twist feels familiar, and the film feels formulaic right up to the end. Some musical choices in the film feel awkward, forced, and ultimately distracting. The film is full of CGI, which is helpful to establish a major plot point but not exactly spectacular to watch. Aronofsky's hand-held tracking shots do nothing to help the film's overall "cheap" digital look, and his sound editing cues take the audience out of the film. By the end, I'm left wondering: "what's the big deal with Black Swan? What did it do that other filmmakers should emulate?" In response to these two questions, I have no answer.

Black Swan is a film that can wait until it comes out on DVD to watch. If you are going to watch it in theaters, be my guest, but you're going to end up wishing you saw it at home anyway.

Bãy Rồng/Clash - Le Thanh Son, dir.

2011-01-17T08:51:00.000-08:00

Remember the first time you saw Ong Bak: Thai Warrior, a balls-to-the-wall Thai action flick featuring international superstar Tony Jaa's incredible muay thai skills and "I kick death in the face" stunt choreography? Clash, directed by USC graduate Le Thanh Son and starring Vietnam's equivalent to Brangelina, Johnny Tri Nguyen and Veronica Ngo Thanh Van, is guaranteed to make you feel the same way about Vietnamese film. I've been following the evolution of this film since the summer of 2009, and right when the first trailer came out, I nearly fainted.

You may now exhale. Four months after its widely successful release in Vietnam, the film has been screened outside of the country on a handful of occasions, most recently at an event at the UCLA Film School titled "New Voices from Vietnam." I finally had my chance to see it at the Los Angeles Asian Pacific Film Festival in May of 2010, joining a packed and diverse house of patrons. After some introductory remarks by Ysa Le, Executive Director of the Vietnamese American Arts and Letters Association (VAALA) (whom I personally refer to the "Queen of Art and Aesthetics in Little Saigon"), two members of the film's crew remarked about the film's wild production process. According to Ham Tran, the film was shot in an frantic thirty days and edited, inconceivably, in another thirty (ask anyone who works in film and they'll tell you it can't be done). "This is Vietnam," Ham said with a smile, describing the production climate in Vietnam as a maelstrom of excitement and chaos.

Vietnamese people don't look at explosions.

Finally, the curtains parted, and the film began. I went to the screening expecting precision-choreographed violence and unnecessary but gratifying explosions; in other words, straightforward visceral entertainment. In that respect, the film delivered, especially during the first half. The film also incorporates another untapped dimension to the martial-arts flick - wrestling and grappling - which should please mixed martial arts enthusiasts. Shot on the RED (a digital camera that produces film-quality images and is quickly becoming a standard instrument in film making worldwide), the film looks spectacular yet appropriate for the gritty subject matter. Johnny and Veronica look terrific (my fiancée, sitting next to me, whispered "He's cute..." every time Johnny's smoldering physique came into shot). My favorite character of the film was the vertically-challenged gangster (I forget his name and the actor that played him), who provided some delightful comic relief.

Why were there so many six-shooter revolvers in this film?

However, at a very specific point in the film (!), the joyride of Clash ends, and the film takes itself way too seriously, exploring the dark subplots of the main characters. The effort on the whole sucks out all of the momentum of the film, and I could tell that audiences were getting restless towards this heavy-handed storytelling. At no point during the first half of the film are the main characters of Quan (Johnny) and Trinh (Veronica) developed in any way that draws the audience in to root for them. Part of this could be attributed to the underdeveloped acting, writing, or directing (thirty days is not enough time to do a lot of re-shoots), but I believe that if one particular moment in the film didn't happen (!), the rest of the film could have been saved.

Johnny Tri Nguyen does this in his sleep.

Nonetheless, I was told by a little bird that Clash will be released nationwide very soon. Despite its flaws, the film does entertain on the level you expect it to, and especially if you're Vietnamese or some other denomination of Asian-American, supporting this film will further the overall project of creating a viable entertainment industry for a minority group that is constantly yearning for increased representation in the media. For those two reasons, I highly recommend you to go see this film upon its release.

Empowerment or Exploitation? Representing Sexuality in Để Mai Tính/Fool For Love

2010-10-17T00:17:00.000-07:00

When I first heard that Fool For Love, a romantic comedy directed by Charlie Nguyen (The Rebel) and starring Kathy Uyen (Spirits, Passport to Love) and co-writer Dustin Nguyen (21 Jumpstreet, The Rebel, The Legend is Alive), is premiering in my hometown of Portland this month, I felt a mix of excitement and apprehension. I've seen the film three times (twice in the US and once in Vietnam), and immediately I knew its crowd-pleasing story and tongue-in-cheek humor would be a hit with a Vietnamese-speaking audience. The films stands as the biggest box office grossing film ever produced officially in Vietnam, and its run in the US has pulled in a respectable gross so far compared to other films produced by and for ethnic Vietnamese.

Random comment: that bag is fabulous.

With an approximate population of 15,000 Vietnamese in Portland (12,000 as of 2005, 10,000 in 2000), however, I don't think it will make a big impression on a visible but demographically small community. I'm much more concerned with reactions from the LGBTQA community in Portland. Much of the interest in this film from Vietnamese and American audience focuses on Hoi, the main supporting character of Fool For Love. Hoi, an out-and-proud cosmetics entrepreneur played by Vietnamese actor Thai Hoa (who is straight), is a perpetual scene-stealer and unsung hero of the film. Many media sources in Vietnam regard Hoi as the film's true star, and they widely expected that Hoa will win his second Golden Kite (the Vietnamese equivalent to the Academy Awards) for his performance. If you asked me last week, I would have agreed with this sentiment. Now I'm not so sure.

"Did Lee say that I don't deserve another Golden Kite? Oh, no, he didn't."

We all know that for years non-heterosexuals get caricatured heavily in film and television. Putting over-the-top gay characters into a project, whether the story demands it or not, is an easy device to draw cheap laughs, especially from a pretty conservative community such as the good majority of Vietnamese in the world. Even though I am a hyper-sensitive heterosexual ally leftist who champions civil rights and equitable representation for everyone, I couldn't help but laugh when Hoi burst into the screen for the first time. Or the second time. Or even the third time. I just got caught up like everyone else with Hoi's unyielding, energetic conviction from start to finish. The film also digs very deep into Hoi's background, and by the end of the film I sincerely cared for his character's well-being. When I saw Fool for Love the third time with packed crowd of mostly ethnic Vietnamese in San Diego, however, I began to question my original perspective.

Above: A heterosexual bites the homosexual hand that feeds him. Hidden message?

As Hoi made his grand entrance once again, I could hear the crowd murmuring, mostly in Vietnamese: "Pê-đê... pê-đê..." This word has many meanings, most of them pejorative. In Vietnam, my relatives told me it's used specifically to describe ladyboys in Vietnam, i.e. people who are born men but live their lives as women (other Southeast Asian approximates include the Indonesian waria, the Thai kathoey, or the Filipino bakla). I grew up in the United States thinking that this was the term to refer to homosexuals, but a graduate student colleague and friend of mine who studies lesbian subjectivity and activism in Vietnam told me that the term is extremely offensive, drawing its etymology from the word pederasty (a man who loves pre-pubescent boys). I started to wonder if my queer friends in Vietnam saw Hoi the same way I saw Mickey Rooney's Mr. Yunioshi in Breakfast at Tiffany's or Gedde Watanabe's Long Duck Dong in Sixteen Candles. These films exploited Asian identity in order to entertain a broader audience of non-Asians, and now they're heralded as American classics. Is queer identity exploited in the same way in Fool For Love, except this time the film's excuse is to entertain a broader audience of Vietnamese-speakers instead? Is sexuality getting sacrificed in the name of nationalistic interests? Is Thai Hoa's Hoi an offensive caricature of subjectivity, or is he simply a character who should be lauded for his courageous self-expression?

He got to slow dance with Dustin Nguyen, so the score is Team Hoi 1, Haters 0.

As a heterosexual man, I don't feel that I am fully capable of answering these questions. As a "Vietnamese" man (I get more ethnically confused by the day) I'm even more conflicted, because I want to see every film made by and for a Vietnamese-speaking audience do as well as possible. A few of my queer friends saw the film and said that Thai Hoa's performance didn't bother them at all - if anything, it held their attention throughout. Portland, however, is a very gay-friendly city. Its mayor, Sam Adams, is the first openly gay major of a Top 30 city in the United States. Many of my queer friends in Califoria speak of Portland like it's Shangri-La, and all of my queer friends in Portland agree with my California friends. In a sentence, Portlanders don't take too kindly to any threats to their collective hyper-progressive attitude, however well-meaning they may seem. I worry that Fool For Love might have that kind of effect in my hometown, even though it's really just wants to be an innocuous romantic comedy that aims to show Vietnam in a positive light.

In Vietnam, like anywhere else, only the best looking guys can pull this look off.

My favorite Portland mantra pretty much says it all: "Keep Portland Weird." Portlanders pride themselves on their alternative perspective, and even though the city has attracted a grossly disproportionate number of hipsters in recent years, it's still the best place in the world to me. I invite all of my Portland friends - queer, non-queer, Vietnamese, non-Vietnamese, cinephilic and even cinephobic - to check out Fool for Love when it drops and tell me what they think. Responsible, ethical representation of all people remains one of my top priorities in life, and I hope through an engaged, constructive discourse we can all work towards that goal together.

The Social Network - PG-13 - 2010

2010-10-01T19:11:00.000-07:00

I really hate to admit it, but this film hits me on a deeply personal note. I don't need to repeat the unanimous praise that you've already heard about the film. We know that Aaron Sorkin writes an lively rapid-fire script (and yes, people from Harvard pretty much talk like that). David Fincher delivers on Sorkin's promising source material, making virtually everyone in the film (even former Harvard president Larry Summers, who is known more for dry economic diatribes and sexist comments) contribute in entertaining ways. (Brenda Song is the lone "weak point," and even she does a decent job. Lamentably, her performance is not that crucial to the overall story, and I blame Sorkin's rare "under-writing" for that). We know Jesse Eisenberg can act (The Squid and the Whale), and we know that Justin Timberlake is a bonafide entertainer (if he sucked so much, why can't you stop copying his ways?). The soundtrack by Trent Reznor & Co. is brooding, paranoid, off-kilter - pretty much what the filmmakers want you to think is constantly playing in Papa Mark's brain (out of fear and respect, that's what I'll call him for the remainder of this post). Technically, this film is pretty much perfect, and it clocks in at a breezy two hours. I could have sat there for at least one more. It's that good. For that alone, out of sheer respect of the craft, you should see this film.

But anyway, onto the personal stuff. The film contends that this amazing story started with a young, brilliant, cocky, socially awkward kid at an Ivy League university who gets burned by a girl and, in a pathetic act of revenge, decides to blog about it and subsequently develop a website that brings her and the entire Harvard female student body down with her. I've been there, burned by a woman (or several) and, in an overnight drunk, contemplated ways of getting revenge by doing something extraordinary... or destructive. However, like most untalented people, I pass out, wake up with a hangover and pick up the remaining pieces of my life. And so, that is why there's no movie or book about my life. Films are made because they tell stories about incredible events and incredible people. This film involves both.

Left: The "inceptor" of Facebook.

The Social Network is not about Facebook itself - we don't need a film about that because we're already constantly staring at it. It's about the kid (he's a year younger than me, I can say this) behind the phenomenon. Papa Mark is an extraordinary person. Yes, he's very privileged and lucky in a lot of ways, but he happened to have the talent and drive to take his privilege and luck to a place beyond anyone's wildest imaginations. He's the protagonist of the film, in the most literal, formal sense. He is awkward, brilliant, calculating, naive - imperfect and utterly compelling. He's not portrayed as a hero or even a likable person. Although I was perfectly fine with his betrayal of the Winklevii ("They're upset because, for the first time in their legacy-driven, privileged lives, something didn't turn out the way they wanted," - I love seeing guys like these feel like failures, even if they're played by the same actor - brilliant), you can't help but chastise him for the ruthless liquidation of his last remaining friendship, all in the name of business. You are left wondering if, given the chance to do it all over again, would he make the same choices and maybe lose a multi-billion dollar empire? I don't have the answer to that, and, as the film suggests, neither does Papa Mark, it seems.

I don't want to spoil the film's narrative (as opposed to the plot, which, if you just do a little online reading, you can figure out pretty quickly), but tagline of the film's marketing campaign really says it all. "You can't make 500 million friends without making a few enemies." Hence why the theme (dare I say moral) of the film, draws so many comparisons to Citizen Kane. The story is essentially the same: a wunderkind who becomes the czar of a pervasive media form and, at the zenith of his empire, he looks down and feels completely alone. How different would Papa Mark's life (and millions of lives around the world) would be for want of a scorned heart, an abandonment of childhood innocence and a precipitous ushering into early adulthood.

"What do you think of my new profile pic?"

To bring it back to my own narcissistic interests (hey, I'm already writing, the act alone is narcissistic), I shall ask a "would you rather..." question: Would you rather have more money than you could ever dream of and spend the majority of your life alone, or would you rather scrape by on the bare minimum with the love of your life? It seems my life is headed towards the latter, and, honestly, I'm content with that. I can live with being poor, but I can't live without companionship. Loneliness is perhaps one of the worst feelings a human being could ever endure. After all, why else are so many people on The Social Network?

PS: For any contemporary economic anthropologists reading this, a Gabriel Tarde-ian analysis might be fun. What is the germ and what is the cotyledon? Also, can the germ exist without the cotyledon? I'm going to say this film would argue ... no.

Awesome Contemporary German Film Trifecta - Downfall, The Lives of Others, Goodbye, Lenin!

2010-09-19T06:39:00.000-07:00

My fiancée and I managed to accomplish our version of a perfect weekend: a bucket of KFC/KGC dark meat with four biscuits and double mashed potatoes and a trip to a Blockbuster in Pittsburgh. We intended only to rent one film about a little old evil man's melodramatic final days in a bunker, but given our shared penchant for fighting over the perfect spot on the couch, we ended up renting two more films to give ourselves plenty of time for negotiation. One is a sharp, sleek spy thriller that makes you want to watch your tongue whenever you're on the phone with your probably-not-but-maybe-unpatriotic friends (I have a lot of them), and the other is comedy about the power of filial love in a time of precipitous national transformation starring the German equivalent of Zac Efron (my fiancée's sentiments, ugh).

And so, Awesome Contemporary German Film Trifecta Weekend commenced, and it was glorious. I highly recommend all three films in case you're feeling a bit exhausted with the condescending crap American theaters try to force down your throats. Do make an effort to support well-made films once in a while. My fiancée nearly threw up while searching for a decent poster among the Team Jacob vs Team Edward fodder. There is still hope for us all.

Downfall (Oliver Hirschbiegel, dir.) - 2004

By now, we've all seen the internet meme. This one is my favorite.

The distributors of Downfall recently issued an order to take down the video parodies, and I'm not sure where I stand on this matter. For want of the video parodies, I would probably have never cared quite as much to see Downfall, but during the actual scene of this film, in its very serious, almost sympathy-inducing execution, I couldn't help but giggle and think of my favorite Hitler XBox or fantasy football rants. In this and many scenes, Hitler is actually expressing an unwavering, frightening brutality, which beckons the more crucial question:

How do you justly portray a man whom most of the modern world considers the most evil man to ever walk the earth? This portrayal is particularly significant because it is one of the first exclusively German-produced films where Hitler is the focal point (we all remember the classic scenes in Das Boot, for example, where attempts to honor the Third Reich are openly discouraged, even met with mockery from the other main characters). I've been told by other friends that in order to dispel its horrific history and reputation in the world, the German government discourages any discussion of the Nazi era and clamps down hard on any attempts to do otherwise.

So, what kind of Hitler should we expect from a film like Downfall and a bad-ass actor like Bruno Ganz? I'm sure I'll get myself into trouble for this, but I constantly hunger for "humanistic" portrayals of notoriously brutal men in history ("Mongol," a film I once reviewed about the rise of Genghis Khan, comes to mind), and I'm even one of the people who dare to ask, "if Hitler was so evil, why would Germany let him rise to power? Was it fear, or was it possibly love? What about all the good things that Hitler did?" (You used to be able to get a t-shirt with that question here, from a place that ... makes sense, but people successfully protested to take it down.)

Downfall does not completely provide me what I am looking for here, but given the testimonials of people who were in the bunker with him (particularly his last secretary, Traudl Junge, played by Alexandra Maria Lara with an innocuous precision), it is perhaps the most accurate portrayal of the Fuhrer ever conceived. We get to see a man who openly admits to his lack of compassion for humanity, his pride in eliminating the "Jewish poison" from the lands, and his regret in not liquidating his closest allies for failing to execute his impossible plans. We also see a soft, defeated Hitler who feels regret for failing to bring eternal peace to the world and is loved by everyone around him. Ganz is able to bring both sides to him in the same scene. His Hitler appeases everyone who refuses to accept him as anything but evil incarnate, but he frequently reminds us that there's still a fragile, mortal human ensnared and consumed by these utterly dark sentiments.

By the end of Downfall, we're left with a lot of moral ambiguity, especially towards Traudl Junge (who makes appearances at the beginning and the end of the film). In a way, the real Junge thinks completely differently to that of Lara's Junge, but, as Ganz's Hitler expressed to his inner circle on the eve of his death, "you're all going to curse me in the history books by tomorrow."

See Downfall. Leave your giggles at the door if you can.

The Lives of Others (dir. Florin Henckel von Dommersmark - 2006)

I've seen this film twice before, yet I've never written my thoughts on the film. I suppose I can chalk that up to the fact that this film crushed Guillermo Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth for Best Foreign Language Film, which means that a bunch of old Hollywood farts thought it was better than a frightening visionary fairy tale against the backdrop of the always-cheery fascist Spain. When I finally saw the film, I agreed with the old farts. "Das Leben der Anderen uber alles!!!"

In 1984, the policy of the Stasi (the German Democratic Republic's secret police) was simple and brooding: "know everything." I'm going to guess that East Berlin during this pre-glasnost period wasn't exactly fun if you had a lot of salacious private information and/or subversive motivations. The film follows a Stasi officer as he is assigned to spy on a playwright and his leading muse in order to potentially gain information on any attempts to smuggle any information (even in literary form) about the failures of the East. The omniscient experience connects him intimately with his subjects, and throughout the film he is forced to choice between his loyalty/fear to the state and his sense of human decency and appreciation to these artists.

Unlike Downfall, where we're not supposed to like the protagonist of the film no matter what, the "hero" of this film (without spoiling too much of it) undergoes a very dramatic moral transformation, and the audience is completely caught up in it. We start off by feeling absolutely terrified by his capacity to destroy people in the name of order and authority, and yet once he starts to make an extra effort to care about the people he carries so much power over, we're immediately persuaded. The character's portrayer, Ulrich Muhe (who passed away very shortly after this film was released in the US), does not try to impress the audience with over-performing it in an attempt to scene-steal. His acting is very calm, deliberate, and diligent, and by the end his work pays immense dividends. RIP, Ulrich.

Paced by a searing soundtrack and near-perfect cinematography, "The Lives of Others" is probably one of the best films of the first decade of the millennium. If you haven't seen it yet, you're probably too busy watching Jersey Shore. Dolt.

Goodbye, Lenin! (dir. Wolfgang Becker - 2003)

What would you do if you woke up from an eight-month coma, only to realize that you now live in the United States of the Soviet Union? Instead of McDonald's, Coca-Cola and Starbucks on every block, you'd see large propaganda slogans cast over images of ecstatic working class citizens, tell you to always love the American Democratic Republic in all its glory? Not many Americans understand this sudden handover in national sentiment, even though it happens frequently throughout the rest of the world (Glenn Beck seems to think we're already there, but if we were, he'd be working the steaming machine in the Fox News mail room instead of talking openly on his show every night...) .

Goodbye, Lenin! turns this traumatic experience into a comedy, taking place before and after the fall of the Berlin Wall in 1989, the end of the German Democratic Republic's authority, and the reunion of West and East Berlin. The mother of a young East Berliner, played by the allegedly dashing Daniel Bruhl (I don't have a sense for these things), falls into a coma just months before Germany becomes a single nation. She wakes up eight months later, obliviously surrounded by the arrival of unbridled consumerism and West Berlin hipsters. Her deep allegiance to the GDR and her fragile state of health forces her son and family to "recreate" her socialist paradise as if nothing ever happened, labeling imported products with state-issued rations and wearing monochromatic clothing around their tiny, angular apartment. My favorite process of the "cover-up" is the production of state-sponsored news programs by the son's aspiring film making friend. The best line: ‎"Not everyone wants careerism and spiraling consumption. The rat race isn't for everyone."

If you want more proof of the film's hilarity, see the trailer.

Be warned that the film does get a bit heavy at times. After all, at its core, the film is about a boy's undying love for his mother. The most basic yet powerful sentiments will always trump idle political debate and satire.

Conclusions

Deutsch Kino ist gut. Stop ansehen von filmen von Michael Bay und starten sie einen cue auf ihrem konto Netflix. Gute nacht.

How Inception Ended (and other mysteries resolved)

2010-08-08T10:12:00.001-07:00

This is not a film review, and it is completely full of spoilers. If you haven't seen Inception yet, don't read on. Much of the fun of this glorious film lies in choosing ignorance, as if you're witnessing magic instead of an illusion unfolding before your eyes. Nay, this post is for the crazies out there who have seen the film at least twice or thrice, desperate for answers. I can think of at least four of you out there. This post is for you.

(SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ ON!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ ON!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ ON!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ ON!!! SPOILER ALERT!!! DO NOT READ ON!!!)

All of the frequently asked questions (FAQS) are in bold. I'm going to to answer the easiest question first:

What the hell are the characters of this film doing with that weird machine in the briefcase?

That machine is the science fiction aspect of the film, and pretty much the only suspension of belief you're asked to make (well, that, and the overall experience of dreams as comprehensible modes of consciousness virtually indistinguishable from "reality," which we will explore later). In this universe of Inception, it is possible to "share dreams," provided that one person is assigned as the "dreamer," the person who is actually in control of the material details within the dream. Everyone else exists as "subjects" in the dream, filling it with projections of their subconscious. Even though people do not have control over their subconscious, some can train their subconscious to defend themselves against such invasive pursuits (i.e. extraction and inception). Others with a more unstable subconscious can sabotage the collective efforts of the other subjects and the dreamer (i.e. Cobb and the projection of his wife Mal).

The machine allows for the sharing of dreams, administering a timed sedative to all the participants. Once that sedative wears off, people can be woken up by getting killed in a dream or through a "kick," a physical stimulus such as falling, slapping or dunking in water that instantly wakes someone up. However, if someone is killed in a dream while under the influence of the sedative, then they go into limbo, i.e. infinitely raw subconscious, where they begin to lose their sanity.

Keeping up so far? Good.

Wait, what's inception and extraction again?

Extraction is easier to describe and, in this film, execute. The point of extraction is to enter someone's dream and try to steal information from their subconscious, the state of consciousness where a person is most vulnerable. A lot of people would pay good money to get their hands on that kind of expertise.

Inception is the successful attempt to implant an idea into someone's subconscious. Once the subject returns to reality, they are immediately bounded and driven by that idea. This type of mission requires multiple descents into the subconscious - hence the plan to initiate three dreams-within-a-dream. Successful inception is incredibly rare, with Cobb being the only person in the world to do it. However, for Cobb, inception cost his wife Mal her sanity, her life, and his citizenship to the United States.

There are other moments of inception as well in the film, aside from the main one done to Fischer. Let's not go into that right now. (Fine, one hint: Saito needed to be reminded of something while he was in limbo... right?)

Why does Saito's dream at the beginning of the film (no, not the very beginning) begin to unravel?

In that scenario, Arthur is the dreamer, and once he is killed in the dream by Cobb, the dream becomes unstable. If the dreamer wakes up before the rest of the subjects, that's what happens. Saito and Cobb are still asleep in a dream without a dreamer, so eventually they will (and do) get crushed by it.

When Cobb first tells Ariadne that they are dreaming, who is the dreamer?

Cobb. When things begin to "blow up" or destabilize around them, that's Cobb dismantling of the dream until it hits Ariadne and wakes her up. Ariadne doesn't know that she can do that yet - when they go back to sleep, she takes over. They are under for only five minutes (one hour in the dream world), so it's not quite enough time for Cobb's crazy subconscious to surface.

During the mission, how many dream levels do the team actually descend?

I counted five.

"Reality" (the quotes will be explained later) - They're on the plane. They have ten hours to complete their mission.

First Dream - The rainy city. Dreamer is Yusuf. Yes, Ariadne the Architect designed this and all of the other dreams, but each dreamer had to memorize her designs. Therefore, Yusuf is the dreamer, but he's a chemist, so he can't quite manipulate his surroundings the same way that Ariadne or the others can. To make matters worse, since Fischer's subconscious is actively attacking the team, he doesn't have enough time to manipulate his surroundings, and doing so would probably provoke Fischer's subconscious even more. All he can do is run.

Also, it's raining in this dream because Yusuf had to go pee (hilarious).

This stage lasts for 200 hours (over one week).

Second Dream - The hotel. Dreamer is Arthur. The layout of the hotel should be a hint - it's very similar to the layout of Saito's dream (as Mal pointed out, he has a distinct but unimaginative taste). Arthur is a better architect than Yusuf, demonstrated by his ability to throw in a paradox to foil a projection. This entire level steals the excitement of the film. The coolest, most "Matrix"-y scene in the film, by far.

This stage could last for 4,000 hours (20 weeks, or just over five months), but because Yusuf had to administer his "kick" early, Arthur had to do so as well. Arthur initially planned to blow up the room below where everyone slept in the next dream level, but Yusuf's "kick" came too soon, so he had to improvise by putting everyone in the elevator and propelling it down the shaft with his explosives. Very cool.

Third Dream - the Snow Fortress. Dreamer is Eames (the forger, but better defined as an imitator). This stage was supposed to be the final stage of the mission, but because of some complications (Mal "killing" Fischer and sending him into limbo), Ariadne persuaded Cobb to hook her and Fischer up to a machine in order to retrieve him.

This part is a little strange to me because if Fischer died in this stage, can he be hooked up to a machine? I suppose he's in limbo while still on the sedative, which means someone needs to retrieve him from there. Which bring us to...

Fourth Dream - Cobb's Dream World. Remember, everyone who is in shared limbo wakes up submerged in water. Since Cobb is technically the dreamer when he descends with Ariadne and a dead Fischer, this world is mostly according to his prior designs with Mal. Remember, Cobb had no prior design given to him by Ariadne, so the world we enter here is his spontaneous imagination. Here he is at his most vulnerable - at every descending dream level, Cobb is more and more likely to lose his sense of reality. In Cobb's dream, Mal is holding Fischer hostage in order to lure Cobb to her. Fischer is revived by Eames with the defibrillator in the the third stage, but he is finally "awoken" out of Limbo when Ariadne throws him off the patio.

Back in the third stage (and previous stages up to the first one) Saito eventually dies, sending him into limbo as well (the sedative doesn't wear off for several hours). Hence, Cobb stays behind while Ariadne escapes by free-falling as well. How does Cobb get to Saito, however? Easy - either he kills himself or the stab wound that Mal gave him killed him, sending him into ...

Limbo: By the time Cobb shows up in Limbo, Saito has been waiting for decades, hence his aged status (which is revealed mysteriously at the beginning of the film). Both Cobb and Saito are borderline insane, unable to remember their mission, their agreement, or even their sense of reality completely. In limbo, time never really stops, so potentially their minds could be lost forever. It is through their encounter that they start to put the pieces together and know what to do. We assume that they kill each other, "kicking" them back to "reality" on the plane.

Mission accomplished.

Here's another guide: http://flowingdata.com/2010/08/04/inception-dream-levels-explained-in-flowchart/

Okay, enough logistical stuff that I can figure out on my own. Tell me what I really want to know.

Okay, and what is that?

First, why won't Cobb look at his children?

Easy. His children represent his sense of reality. If he sees their faces, he knows he's in reality because his predicament does not allow him to do so. In dreams, he is constantly haunted by them, tempted to see their faces once again. In a sense, the children are another "totem."

At the end, does the top continue to spin or does it fall?

Good question. Too bad Nolan cut the film off beforehand, so we'll never quite know... (wink)

So, is there a reality in this film, or "was it all a dream?"

Well, I think a better question is whether the conclusion of the film is a satisfactory, cathartic one. I say yes. Our protagonist Cobb wants to forgive himself for the inception of his wife which lead to her suicide. He also wants to be back with his children and, to some degree, atone for his mistake by maintaining the circle of life.

Thus, whether the final scene of the film is real or not doesn't matter on this emotional level. Everyone gets what they want in the end, even if it might be a lie. Fischer is the lone exception, but he's a trust fund baby, and Nolan got him in the crosshairs (Blume: "You can't buy backbone...") Unless, of course, his children are just projections and start to betray Cobb, but that's a potential sequel.

(snicker)

No, seriously, is there a reality level?

I don't want to tell you. It will ruin a key point of the film that I think Nolan is trying to make.

COME ON.

Fine. I give a close friend of mine full credit for telling me about COBB'S SECOND TOTEM.

What?

We're so fixated on the top that we don't realize there's another totem out there - much more subtle. I didn't even notice it the first time I saw Inception, but I paid extra close attention to it the second time.

Well, what is it?

Don't read on if you don't want to know.

I want to know.

Did you see Inception yet?

Yes.

Okay, then you can move on. If you haven't seen Inception, don't read on.

http://neaato.com/2010/07/31/a-bunch-of-diff-views-on-the-secret-of-inception-spoilers/

Cobb's wedding ring. When Cobb is dreaming, or in any one of the dream levels, he's wearing a wedding band on his left hand ring finger. When he is conscious in what we call "reality," he is not wearing it after the death of Mal. That's the second totem. Watch the film again. Cobb is usually hiding his left hand throughout the film, under a table or off-screen. Occasionally you'll see the ring, and sometimes you won't. Do not trust the top - it was originally Mal's idea, so even that could get tampered with in the dream state.

The last few moments (when Cobb finally wakes up on the plane), I'm am staring constantly at Cobb's left hand. Nolan only reveals Cobb's hand while he is walking through customs.

Cobb is not wearing the ring.

That's my stance. There IS a reality, and Cobb's reunion with his children is not a dream constructed by his stepfather or some other dreamer. I read one interpretation here

http://taylorholmes.com/2010/07/20/7-layers-of-inception/

and was almost convinced, but I didn't buy the idea that the real world felt strange.

Okay, I've been writing for two hours. I need a break. Good night, world.

"You mustn't be afraid to dream a little bigger, darling."

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the 'Nam (again)

2010-07-21T21:09:00.001-07:00

Ladies and gentlemen, I'm going to be okay.

First, thank you for all of your support after I wrote my "plea" for help post a few weeks back (and barely a day after my birthday, yeesh). I'm completely surprised and overwhelmed by the love and support that apparently exists out there for me. I hope to always remain worthy.

Fortunately, immediately after that post I felt much better. Writing is a really great way to, as the Vietnamese would say, "giải tỏa căng thẳng," or relieve stress. That evening, I realized that sitting around and waiting for myself to magically feel better just wasn't going to do it. I had to be proactive, even if it meant spending a little more money (being an obsessive saver has made me a borderline ascetic) or trying new things that I'm either indifferent towards or hate with every fiber of my being. A negative attitude is the first thing that needs to be abandoned.

I've come up with a list of new discoveries in my just-over three weeks here that have certainly helped to change my mood. Consider this my submission to the VK Guide to Staying Sane in Saigon (I hope that's a real thing).

Dopplegangers are everywhere, but you have to go out and find them.

I've met several people so far that seem to be carbon copies of me, except better looking and more fascinating. Perhaps meeting new people and forcing a connection might be your style, but every now and then it's okay to fall back onto the familiar, especially when there isn't a lot of familiar on the surface. You never know when you'll make that deep connection with someone that, hopefully, will last a lifetime.

If you don't like bad food, don't pay cheap prices.

A few days before my birthday, I told someone that I didn't like the food in Saigon. I am currently based close to the Little Saigon community in Southern California, and I also live off of Valley Blvd in Alhambra, a street well known for its dozens of competitive Chinese-Vietnamese restaurants. I've been exposed to great, great food.

My friend, however, gave me this death stare that changed my life forever. She ordered three dishes at this restaurant called Tib on Hai Bà Trưng, and I nearly fainted after the first one: a jackfruit salad. Genius. Of course, when the bill came back, the prices were much higher than the $1-equivalent plates of food or bowls of noodle soup that you can get anywhere, but the costs were still manageable.

The point is, you can't low-ball Vietnam forever. It's one of the culinary capitals of the world, so show it some respect.

When all else fails, SING.

A year ago, I never was much of a fan of karaoke. Although the song selections are outdated by at least fifteen years, it's still a fun thing to do. Don't worry about singing a song poorly - everyone does at some point. Singing karaoke has less to do with the sound of your voice and more to do with the movements of your body. Throw in a kick every now and then.

Eventually you will all be embarrassed by the secret professional singer in the room, especially the quiet, non-Vietnamese guy that's been working with Mỹ Tam every night. Yep, those types. When that happens, you lower your head and smile. You're in Saigon. These things happen.

Same Vietnam, Different Sojourner

2010-07-14T04:46:00.000-07:00

I really hate to admit it, but I think I'm depressed. (Sorry to everyone that I may have lied to recently.)

I've been in Vietnam for over two weeks now, and I can't quite shake this horrible feeling that seems to have manifest itself in the form of physical pain throughout my body. I find myself napping just to pass the time. I turn on the television in my living room but don't even bother to watch what's on. My appetite has diminished to a point where I can't even finish a plate of food anymore.

I feel like a completely different person from last year, which feels like yesterday, given the familiarity derived from my current surroundings. I was constantly enthusiastic (at least for the first two months). I ate heartily, usually at least two servings at a time. Sure, I even watched more television than I should have, but at least I paid attention to the programming. I look back at my library of photos taken by my Nikon camera, and the picture total goes into the thousands. Thus far this summer, I have taken less than one-hundred photos, most of which feel relatively uninspired and forced.

I could go on, but the issue remains: what's happened to me? Am I starting to lose my enthusiasm for a country that I fell in love with a year before? Vietnam feels virtually the same in every respect: the karaoke venues, the sidewalk vendors, the constant hum of motorbikes in the distance, the frequent assumptions from locals that I'm of Korean descent, etc. Maybe that's the problem, or at least part of it. Of course, I'm going to get bored of do my general activities, including events directly related to my own research, if they're the exact same the activities that I did the year before. There's no excitement, no surprise, dare I say no joy in going through the motions of last year, trying to re-capture that constant excitement and sense of adventure that fueled me the first time. I don't really know what else I'm supposed to do here. I need inspiration.

Another factor is that a lot has happened in my life since I left Vietnam last September. Before I knew myself by the following labels: novice (in graduate school), brother, boyfriend. Now my head turns around when I'm referred to as a veteran (or at least someone that can't use the "It's my first day" excuse anymore), an uncle to a beautiful baby girl, and the fiancé to the most amazing woman, the latter whom I miss constantly despite daily contact. The stakes are different. My concerns are different. I can't stop thinking about the world that I left behind, being able to lie in my old bed as a child and not have a care in the world. I wonder if, this time, I'm expected to grow up for good, accept my responsibilities here and simply execute. There's nothing left for me to discover anymore. It's all business from here on out.

I guess, to the select few that actually make it to the end of this post, I'm asking for help. Help me break out of this mysterious funk. Do I need a change? Will this attitude pass? Am I homesick? Will there ever be a rainbow? Help.

A Treatment for the Next Batman Film by a Superfan

2010-03-22T02:31:00.000-07:00

(Spoilers if you haven't seen Batman Begins or The Dark Knight, all three of you out there).

The Shadow of Gotham (working title)

a treatment by Lee

written March 21, 2010

Batman/Bruce Wayne returns to the place where it all began - the former headquarters of the League of Shadows, somewhere in the Himalayan mountains. Still mourning the death of Rachel Dawes and emotionally compromised by murdering Dent, Bruce decides to commit suicide in the place that gave birth to Batman (and also for its immense isolation). Before he can do so, he stumbles across some bandits attacking a woman and tries to fend them off, but he is knocked unconscious. When he awakes, he finds himself in a cozy home with a beautiful, concerned woman hovering over him. She introduces herself as Talia and thanks him for trying to save her life. Bruce thanks her for her hospitality and gets up to leave, but he realizes that he has no place to go and finds comfort in Talia's company. He decides to stay until he knows his next move.

Alice in Wonderland - PG-13 - Tim Burton, dir.

2010-03-19T00:23:00.000-07:00

In a sentence, come for the 3D experience (better than Avatar in this respect) and stay for the the misleading title, though not in a completely bad way. I showed up late to the screening of the film with two friends, bringing a pair of 3D glasses that I saved from my viewing of Avatar (my review of that is here, but in case you hate to read things, I had more fun sporting the glasses at home than in the theater). A theater employee tells me that I'm not going to see Captain Eo (judging by his age, I don't think he knew what he was talking about) and hands me a pair of near/far-sighted goggles, which can't be good for my already legally-blind, astigmatic eyes. The film had already started, and I found my seat at the very front of the theater during the famous "eat me, drink me" scene.

(SPOILERS AHEAD - IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT HAPPENS IN THE FILM, DO NOT READ ON UNTIL YOU SEE "SPOILERS" END)

Suddenly, a mysterious pair of voices whisper through the theater sound system, "I'm telling you, it's not Alice!" "No, it is, trust me!" I'm absolutely confused at this point. Isn't this the Lewis Carroll story about a curious young girl who falls down a rabbit hole and discovers a world full of wonder and splendor, like a pair of good and bad acid trips happening simultaneously? I've seen many variations of the story (heck, even acted in one back in high school), the and most common two interpretations show either Alice's capitulation to the relative calm of the "real world," where everything appears to follow a cold, unyielding logic (I hate Disney so much), or Alice's triumph over her deepest, darkest fears, which culminate themselves within the dream-space of Wonderland into the Jabberwocky, equivalent in terror to that of H.P. Lovecraft's Cthulhu (shudder).

Tim Burton's Alice in Wonderland is neither of those two versions. In a way, it can be understood as the third chapter in the Alice in Wonderland saga (I think - I'm not too familiar with Through the Looking Glass, so I'm not sure if I'm seeing an adaptation or a completely original extension of the universe), where Alice, now a young woman (Mia Wasikowska, who, in true Burton fashion, looks half-dead while still retaining her sex appeal, which added to my confusion, since Alice is supposed to be a little girl - creepy), once again falls into the same hole while trying to chase the White Rabbit, but this time many of the characters she encountered serendipitously on her first journey to Wonderland are waiting for her on the other side of the door. The first time Alice ventured into Wonderland, she seemed to have no sense of purpose, just a relentless childlike curiosity or desire for the nonsensical. This time, the people of Wonderland impose Alice with a sense of purpose in the form of a prophecy, but one that she must accept and fulfill like a champion.

As a result (super ending spoiler alert), Alice matures once again, becoming the master of her own destiny, and, instead of staying in Wonderland to bask in the glory of her victory, she decides to wake up and .... pursue a career as a British colonizer. WHAT? You're telling me that the hero of this story ends up discovering a more efficient way to supply opium to the Chinese? (Seriously, this is pretty what happens at the end of the film). NO. NO, NO, NO, NO!

That moment was the insult to injury. Right when I was about to accept the film as a mediocre, palatable effort by Burton, a particular scene in the film completely destroys the illusion for me and reminds me that I exist in a world tainted and adulterated by cacophony and sophomoric interests. If you've seen the film, you know what I'm talking about.

I could go on about the horrible ending, but I need to bracket my own personal stakes on that issue.

(SPOILER ENDS)

I thought the point of Alice in Wonderland is the presentation of a world that has no sense of reality whatsoever, where nothing makes sense, where dreams become reality. Unlike my 3D experience (or lack thereof) of Avatar, this film actually adds that dimension in a far more effective, entertaining way, in that I found myself reacting unconsciously to the rendered images and the sudden kinetic illusion of objects flying at my face. The world alone, although dark and dreary (it's Burton, what can you do), still retains a certain aesthetic quality that alone is worth seeing on the big screen.

My main critique of the film is that, because it actually carries out a traditional, comprehensible plot, it defeats the point of Alice in Wonderland. When you dream, you're not supposed to know what happens next unless it is a lucid dream. This rendition of Wonderland is exactly that - it makes too much sense. This realization makes the audience feels cheated, forced to play by Alice's rules instead of follow her along on this mysterious journey. Of course, even in the most virtual, most imaginary, most nonsensical of scenarios, there must remain some semblance of reality, albeit difficult to discern. Otherwise, once we wake up, we lose everything, including reality itself.

As one of my philosophical heroes, Slavoj Zizek would say, "I want the third pill."

District 9 - R - Neill Blomkamp, dir.

2010-01-01T13:01:00.000-08:00

What if aliens, typically anticipated to have draconian intentions of invasion and genocide, don't do any of the things that the movies lead us to believe? District 9, with its visceral special effects contained in a very gritty backdrop, is very much a science fiction film, but like the best science fiction films such as Children of Men or Gattaca, they're really allegories of the status quo, in many ways even more real than the myths that occupy our own understanding of our reality. In this film, one could replace the "prawn" (forgive me for the use of this literally racial slur) with any other refugee group - the Vietnamese, the Somalians, the Hmong, the Iraqis, etc. - and aside from the impressive technologies that only they can wield, yield the same story.

The film's protagonist, Wikus, played by Sharlto Copley, is a eager but somewhat incompetent fieldworker for Multi-National United (MNU), essentially a super-powerful NGO that claims to work for the interests of the aliens but also happens to be the world's second-largest manufacturer of weapons. While trying to carry out the massive eviction of all of the residents of District 9, Wikus is exposed to a substance manufactured by "Christopher Johnson," an intelligent resident of District 9 who hopes to reactivate the mother ship anchored over Johannesburg. Wikus suddenly undergoes a radically biological transformation, and he is only able to find solace with the people he sought to relocate. Although the plot of the film follows a relatively familiar standard, Wikus is not your typical hero. Appointed through nepotistic channels, he's really just a guy that happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, and there are certainly several points throughout the film where he is incredibly unheroic, even deserving of his horrible predicament.

The extraterrestrials are portrayed as coincidentally "human" - they are bipedal, they love canned food, and they have unconditional love for their offspring. Child aliens are actually quite rare because forced abortions are frequent, even popular in District 9, the zone in Johannesburg in which the aliens are forced to reside in utter destitution, rummaging through piles of trash and selling their complicated gadgets to nearby Nigerians in order to survive. The backdrop of Johannesburg, as the film points out in the beginning, is a sharp break from the more commonly invaded global cities of Tokyo, New York, Los Angeles, or London, as if the film wants to juxtapose the experience of these aliens with South Africa's history of apartheid (the aliens also speak in a "clicking" language, adding further to their similarities to African culture). These are just some of the many "moves" that the writers and director of District 9 make to create a truly substantive base for the film's somewhat formulaic (but far more satisfying than Avatar) plot.

After discussing the film with one of my closest colleagues, he reminded me of a very valuable lesson from Karl Marx's The Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte: class consciousness is not a given. I kept wondering why the extraterrestrial refugees, with all their exclusive awesome armament, didn't simply rise up and try to annihilate their human oppressors. The residents of District 9, at most, exhibit symptoms of civil unrest, requiring their militarized "ghettoization," but even though they possess the means to launch a substantial, possibly successful assault on humanity, most of them just want to co-exist or, through painstaking efforts, find a way to return to their home planet. To me, this is the most powerful argument of the film, arguing against the Lou Dobbs and the Tom Tancredos of the world that believe immigrants are trying to take over their native land. Aliens in our own cultural mythology have long suffered the same injustice, and perhaps these films either reflect or, in a perverted Zizekian way, have actually fueled the motivations of these nativists.

District 9 is not for the faint of heart, but if you can stomach the in-your-face violence, it is definitely worth a viewing.

Avatar - PG-13 - James Cameron, dir.

2009-12-22T19:30:00.000-08:00

Instead of repeating what others have said across the board, I'm going to use Avatar as the focal point for the real question at hand: what does it mean to be "creative"? The Miriam-Webster online dictionary defines the word in three ways:

1 : marked by the ability or power to create : given to creating
2 : having the quality of something created rather than imitated : imaginative
3 : managed so as to get around legal or conventional limits financing>; also : deceptively arranged so as to conceal or defraud accounting>

If we go with the first definition, then by all means, James Cameron is a "creative" director. However, on that basis, all filmmakers could also be considered creative by default. There's something very distinct about James Cameron in the American film tradition that certainly puts him somewhere above, say, Michael Bay, but below, say, Stanley Kubrick or Akira Kurosawa. In other words, this definition doesn't really help much.

The second and third definitions interest me far more apropos of Cameron. Would I consider Avatar as "having the quality of something created rather than imitated?" Let's break down the plot (I'd like to claim spoiler alert, but... I'll get to that later):

About 200 years into the future, a young paraplegic marine (Sam Worthington), fortunate enough to share the same DNA as his well-educated deceased brother, is assigned to the Avatar Project and infiltrates an indigenous tribe on Pandora, a planet rich in a rare mineral that sits directly beneath their homes. He is able to do this by "linking" himself to a large blue humanoid clone. Although ostensibly working towards establishing diplomatic relations with the natives under the guidance of a tough-as-nails botanist (Sigourney Weaver), he also provides intelligence to the more militant interests ready to obliterate the natives should the diplomatic efforts fail. While deeply embedded in the native's society, he learns their language, customs and rituals and soon becomes accepted as one of their own. He also falls in love with the tribe's designated princess (Zoe Saldana, who churned out the most engaged performance in the film and won't get recognized for it). Eventually the militant interests grow tired of waiting around for diplomacy and proceed to attack both the natives and their surrounding habitat, resulting in an all-out war. (Just to be nice, I won't spoil the ending, but you can probably figure out at least two possible outcomes on your own.)

Let's generalize this story a bit: a young, handsome protagonist representing a modernizing force is assigned to penetrate a society of natives in order to learn more about them. Ultimately, these efforts are funded or motivated by military interests.

Avatar, circa 1990.

In time, the protagonist becomes "one with the natives," adopting their culture and consummating that integration through (what else?) the act of love.

Avatar, circa 2003.

Meanwhile, the modernizing force decides to go on the offensive, first targeting the natives' natural habitat.

Avatar, circa 1992.

With their survival hanging precariously in the balance, the protagonist leads them heroically into a all-out battle, using war techniques that are more "natural" or "indigenous" compared to their opponent's advanced, brutal arsenal.

Avatar, circa 2003.

You get my point. Avatar is essentially equal parts Dances With Wolves and The Last Samurai, plus a dash of Fern Gully and a bit of the Zion battle scenes from The Matrix Revolutions for the icing on the cake. It rehashes the run-of-the-mill fairy tale of modern colonialism, which, as history shows, tends to pan out in more elaborate ways than the oversimplistic plot that lies underneath all of the film's spectacle. I think the motivations of the human "aliens" could have been made, well, more humanistic, acting out of a skewed need to "survive," instead of going with the basic corporate greed angle summed up by Giovanni Ribisi's one-dimensional performance. The Avatar Program serves as an rich allegory to classical anthropology, a discipline once considered the "handmaiden" of colonialism and, in the contemporary era, apologize profusely for its sordid history. Cameron could have told this film in a variety of more complex scenarios that would have elevated Avatar to the ranks of a real cinematic masterpiece, but I'm starting to join the other "Cameron Haters" who believe that story just isn't Cameron's forte.

To draw from the late anthropologist Claude Lévi-Strauss, I think there'a a more specific way to think about Avatar and, perhaps, the overall canon of James Cameron's work:

"The 'bricoleur' is adept at performing a large number of diverse tasks; but, unlike the engineer, he does not subordinate each of them to the availability of raw materials and tools conceived and procured for the purpose of the project. His universe of instruments is closed and the rules of his game are always to make do with 'whatever is at hand', that is to say with a set of tools and materials which is always finite..." (Lévi-Strauss 1962:17).

To call Cameron "creative" in the sense that he is a "bricoleur" who works with what is available to him instead of an "engineer" capable of redefining the "rules of the game" makes more sense to me. In the most literal sense, he is indeed a "visionary": Avatar provides some of the most stunning visuals ever projected onto the silver screen, and I highly suggest you see it in IMAX 3D just to bask in its total glory. But beyond the superficial, Cameron seems to run out of steam, using tired, forgettable narratives, underdeveloped characters and formulaic dialogue, almost as if going beyond the pale would distract from his already well-established talents. This is where the third definition (second part in particular) of "creative" comes in. Maybe Cameron's been deceiving himself all these years, unable to disassociate one filmmaking talent with another. Whatever the reason may be, I just can't give Avatar that much praise, especially for a film that took twelve years (maybe more) and $500 million to make. I hope that Cameron's next project will once again show audiences something new and innovative, but in terms of substance and not style. Perhaps he should let someone else do the writing from now on...

Works cited:
Claude Lévi-Strauss, The Savage Mind, The University of Chicago Press, 1962, translated in English, 1966.

Lee Column

Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon 2: The Good, The Bad, and The Weird (possible spoilers ahead)

The Good

A stronger sense of humor

Some very creative battles in new, exotic locations

Appealing to a broader audience

The Bad

The fighting felt slower (or perhaps I'm getting older)

What happened to the feminism?

A far less engaging story than its predecessor

The Weird

"Lord of the Rings meets Star Wars in Asia"

The film is in English... and I found out 1/3 into the film

That moment when Bruce Lee is battling Ip Man

What Worked and What Sucked in Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens (SPOILERS AHEAD)

What Worked

"Suspenseful Drama with Strong Female Leads"

Han Is As Han Does

The Trial of FN-2187

The Temptation of Luke

What Sucked

The Re-Hashed Plot

Seriously, What's With The Plot?

The Script

Kylo Ren's Reveal

Conclusion

Farewell, N'At: Lee's 15 Unforgettable Memories in Pittsburgh

1. My first birthday in Pittsburgh

2. My first Startup Weekend

3. Getting accepted into Thrill Mill

4. Throwing my first Lunar New Year party

5. Pitching my startup at Google

6. Receiving support from the Idea Foundry

7. Throwing my second Lunar New Year party

8. That very first beta test

9. A birthday party ... with a twist

10. Closing that first customer

11. Getting a chance to "roast" my community

12. Getting the job I wanted... where I wanted

13. Throwing my third Lunar New Year party

14. Representing Pittsburgh as a Startup Weekend ambassador

15. My last "birthday" in Pittsburgh

Of Sex, Film, and Politics: 5 Films That Do "Fifty Shades of Grey" Better

8 Reasons Why I Wake Up Every Morning: A Ode to Self-Motivation

"Hey Ash, Whatcha' Playin'?" - A Light Freudian Analysis

Warrior - R - Gavin O'Conner, dir. (2011)

The Perks of Being a Wallflower - PG-13 - Stephen Chbosky, writer/director.

Did I end up predicting half of The Dark Knight Rises?

I wrote the following post on March 22, 2010. The Dark Knight Rises came out on July 20, 2012. I've emboldened the parts that are similar to one another. This is completely real and surprising.-LeeA Treatment for the Next Batman Film by a Superfan

Slavoj Zizek Inception'd My Dream

How to Explain Thor to Young Children (and Fail Miserably)

Why "Source Code" Fails To Be Near-Perfect (Spoilers Ahead)

Birdemic: Shock and Terror - A Film That Makes Me Want to Drink

Black Swan - Darren Aronofsky, dir. - 2010

Bãy Rồng/Clash - Le Thanh Son, dir.

Empowerment or Exploitation? Representing Sexuality in Để Mai Tính/Fool For Love

The Social Network - PG-13 - 2010

Awesome Contemporary German Film Trifecta - Downfall, The Lives of Others, Goodbye, Lenin!

How Inception Ended (and other mysteries resolved)

How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the 'Nam (again)

Same Vietnam, Different Sojourner

A Treatment for the Next Batman Film by a Superfan

Alice in Wonderland - PG-13 - Tim Burton, dir.

District 9 - R - Neill Blomkamp, dir.

Avatar - PG-13 - James Cameron, dir.

I wrote the following post on March 22, 2010. The Dark Knight Rises came out on July 20, 2012. I've emboldened the parts that are similar to one another. This is completely real and surprising.

-Lee
A Treatment for the Next Batman Film by a Superfan