Wotan At The Movies

Blade Runner 2049: Or Why Has Deckard Become Tannhauser & Why Is The Venusberg Empty?

2019-08-12T09:55:00.001-07:00

I want to take you back to 1982. A young(er) Wotan is wondering the mean streets one, hot, summer evening. A bit like Travis Bickle, but without the homicidal tendencies. It's the big city, but the bad end of town. I'm going to my favourite flea pit cinema. This was before the dreaded multiplexes had really taken off, Although Odeon cinemas, and their like, had long started to split up their theatres to smaller multi-screens. If you wanted to see a film on a full-sized, old fashioned screen, in general, you had to go to flea pits, These didn't have the money to alter their interiors and break up the screen size, with the consequence of allowing one to see films as they should be: on really giant screens, This evening I'm on my way see a film that is being liberally panned by critics. They really, really hate it:

Said Roger Ebert: "He (Ridley Scott) seems more concerned with creating his film worlds than populating them with plausible characters, and that's the trouble this time. "Blade Runner" is a stunningly interesting visual achievement, but a failure as a story."

Said the New York Times "And it's also a mess, at least as far as its narrative is concerned. Almost nothing is explained coherently, and the plot has great lapses, from the changeable nature of one key character to the frequent disappearances of another. The story lurches along awkwardly, helped not at all by some ponderous stabs at developing Deckard's character. As an old-fashioned detective cruising his way through the space age, Deckard is both tedious and outre."

Indeed, perhaps the reviews are best summed up by Harrison Ford who, when asked to summarise the film in an interview at the time said sarcastically, "It's a film about whether you can have a meaningful relationship with your toaster."

But I had seen the trailer and some scenes on Barry Norman's "Film Night" (he hated it too) and liked its film noir looks, Plus, I liked P.K. Dick and his book upon which the film was, loosely, based. 117 minutes later and I thought I had seen a masterpiece of modern cinema. It took nearly a decade for professional reviewers to agree. And as long for the film to start to turn a profit.

So, here we are nearly 40 years later and along comes a sequel. And this time critics love it, falling over themselves to tell us how great it. But here is the rub, its not good. It's boring, overlong, unimaginative. It contains little logical consistency with the film that proceeded it,. It's derivative, but oddly of many other films and works of art. It's tedious and shallow and while presenting the same visual universe, it manages to make that universe look dull. And worse, it is a misogynistic, sexist mess.

It has taken me two sittings to get through this movie - and it is a "movie". I fell asleep two hours into its nearly 3 hours running time the first time. And yes, before you say anything, I watched it on the "big screen".

It's 30 years after the events of the original. The Tyrel Corporation has gone bankrupt, not after its founder was murdered in the original, but after a mass revolt of Nexus 8's - or something - caused all replicants to be banned everywhere - or something. Thus Tyrel is no longer the most powerful corporation on the planet. That corporation is now the Wallace Corporation, named after its founder, ~~Lucifer, the Demiurge, Ernst Stavro Blofeld,~~ sorry, I mean Niander Wallace. Wallace's company has become so powerful because it managed to bioengineer grubs as a food source - or something. It has also started "manufacturing" Replicants again. Not too sure why this was allowed so soon after the mass revolt of the Nexus 8s but hell, why not - or something.

Wallace is a Bond villain, but a really boring one. He is also Lucifer. We know this because he is the god of the replicants - given that he creates them. But unlike their orginal god, Tyrel, his replicants are flawed. They cannot reproduce. Did I forget to mention? It seems that Tyrel had managed to engineer his replicants to reproduce - maybe. Actually, perhaps this makes Wallace more like the gnostic Demiurge? A flawed god, who thinks he is the great creator but only of flawed creations?

These new Replicants are not only allowed on off-world colonies, per the first film but are now also enslaved and work on earth. Not too sure why, as they carry the exact same "risk to humanity" as the early Nexus 6s. More so perhaps as they have had their limited 4-year lifespan removed and yet still have the risk of developing their own emotions.

Blade Runner's still exist though, mainly tracking down those remaining Nexus 8s - or something. They too are replicants, like the "hero" of this film, Ryan Gosling's "K" (As an aside, in an uninteresting, misogynistic, and persistent, side story K has a romantic involvement with this world's version of Siri.). During one retirement of a rogue replicant, he discovers that Deckard and Rachel, of the first film, went off and had a baby replicant - born by biological means. The rest of the movie involves him trying to track down Deckard and this child. "Dramatic tension" - apparently - is increased as he is being followed by Wallaces personal killing machine, henchwoman, a replicant named: ~~Jaws, Odd Job~~, I mean "Luv" so that he might capture the child, dissect it and work out how to make his own replicants "self-replicating". Que, maniacal laughter while stroking the white, furry, cat upon his lap (No! He doesn't. Although, he does have a standard bond villain physical "flaw". In this case, he is blind. One is convinced that perhaps in director Denis Villeneuve's world view a flawed being can only make flawed creations? Given his treatment of women, nothing would surprise).

It takes K two hours of the film's running time to track down Deckard, after. a long chapter which seems to involve him wondering into the orphanage from Dickens' Olver Twist but being run by Fagan and visualised following repeated viewing of Mad Max 3. Indeed, I was very surprised when Tina Turner didn't make a guest appearance singing "We don't need another hero.

Deckard is living in the Venusberg, as conceived by Richard Wagner - or at least as often visualised by opera directors - in his work Tannhauser. Or in this case a decaying Las Vegas, But Venus is long gone. Indeed, all the gods have gone. Or if they are present, they are flawed, broken, represented as failing holograms of Elvis and Marilyn Monroe. Venus may still exist in this world but as a giant, naked, commercial hologram, stalking the streets of LA. offering any lonely man a "good time". You see, in Roy Batty's famous final monologue (in which perhaps he finally comes to terms with his own mortality, the importance of others lives and why living may be worthwhile after all) he notes "I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate." The reference to "Tannhauser gate" has fascinated fans of this film for decades, even spawning a popular fan site based upon it. It seems to be the Denis Villeneuve nod to this while helping him plod through his discussion of gods and religion

Final Act. Blade Runner 1982 orginal.

And here we have the two greatest "sins" of this movie - its misogyny and its shallow "investigation" of religion and "god". The orginal Blade Runner was an investigation and discussion of several things: misogyny, sexual exploitation, religion, racism and death. Death was its overriding theme and one that makes sense given that Ridley Scott, developed and made this movie so soon after the early death of his brother. But it also looked critically upon sexual exploitation, (watch closely the scenes between Deckard and "exotic dancer" replicant Zorah), misogyny (this time look at Pris's scenes with Sebastian, especially the last one with Roy), racism (Deckard's disgust and criticism is most obvious in the theatrical releases voice-over). And of course, the inevitability and "waste" of death and perhaps both coming to terms with it and the way it should help us value life. (the entire film, but especially the last act).

But how does Denis Villeneuve address these themes? Well apart from the death or impotence of god - and the commercialisation of religion - he doesn't. Tyrel is dead, a poor god anyway in the orginal film, his successor is a bigger failure, unable to even design his creations to reproduce. The gods are in their heavens but clearly, just ordinary beings like ourselves, Humans that we have projected to god-like status: Elvis and Munroe's holograms in Vagas. But even these are dying; broken down and hardly functional. Otherwise, we have commercialised our gods. They are reduced to prostitution on the streets of LA (giant naked, female hologram offering a "good time"). It's all, just, so clunky. But worse, is Denis Villeneuve's treatment of women in this movie.

There are only four types of women in this movie: sex workers, subservient housewives, and cold-hearted killers - or at least women that ask men to kill for them. And of course, the latter are the "bad guys" over whom the male lead must conquer. There is only one exception, the human involved in producing memories given to replicants. But even she too is a female stereotype: weak and sick, confined to an artificial world because to enter the harsh, real-world would kill her. A poor delicate flower, good at heart, living in an artificial fantasy world.

"What are little girls made of? What are little girls made of? Sugar and spice. And everything nice. That's what little girls are made of."

Perhaps the perfect movie for societies determined to strip women of control of their own bodies? An interesting notion for a movie about a female replicant who gives birth even though that should be impossible.

Like Colonel Kane, I Do This For You

2019-07-22T19:55:00.002-07:00

I am back. What? No one noticed I had been away? Well, screw you! Anyway, it has been a few years but, I have now sat through too many bad films to remain silent. Actually, let's be honest, I feel like Colonel Walter E. Kurtz. Honestly! Don't you feel:

Call me mad, but like Colonel Kane, I do this so you may be saved. And if you don't get that final reference? Well, that's why I am here. And if you don't get the first reference? Why are you here? Scat! Get out of here! Another Marvel (Apart from Deadpool, Deadpool movies are good), DC, Disney movie will be along any minute now.

Leonard Simon Nimoy March 26, 1931 – February 27, 2015

2015-02-27T11:09:00.003-08:00

A very sad day.

"I'm touched by the idea that when we do things that are useful and helpful - collecting these shards of spirituality - that we may be helping to bring about a healing." — Leonard Nimoy

"I am not Spock." — Leonard Nimoy

"Spock is definitely one of my best friends. When I put on those ears, it's not like just another day. When I become Spock, that day becomes something special." — Leonard Nimoy

"You proceed from a false assumption: I have no ego to bruise." — Leonard Nimoy

"You know, for a long time I have been of the opinion that artists don't necessarily know what they're doing. You don't necessarily know what kind of universal concept you're tapping into." — Leonard Nimoy

"LLAP" Leonard Nimoy, and also Spock

THE DARK SIDE: STAR WARS, MYTHOLOGY AND INGRATITUDE

2014-06-22T10:39:00.001-07:00

By David Brin, Ph.D.

"But there's probably no better form of government than a good despot."

George Lucas (New York Times interview, March 1999)

Well, I boycotted Episode I: The Phantom Menace -- for an entire week.

Why? What's to boycott? Isn't Star Wars good old fashioned sci-fi? Harmless fun? Some people call it "eye candy" -- a chance to drop back into childhood and punt your adult cares away for two hours, dwelling in a lavish universe where good and evil are vividly drawn, without all the inconvenient counterpoint distinctions that clutter daily life.

Got a problem? Cleave it with a light saber! Wouldn't you love -- just once in your life -- to dive a fast little ship into your worst enemy's stronghold and set off a chain reaction, blowing up the whole megillah from within its rotten core while you streak away to safety at the speed of light? (It's such a nifty notion that it happens in three out of four Star Wars flicks.)

Anyway, I make a good living writing science-fiction novels and movies. So "Star Wars" ought to be a great busman's holiday, right?

One of the problems with so-called light entertainment today is that somehow, amid all the gaudy special effects, people tend to lose track of simple things, like story and meaning. They stop noticing the moral lessons the director is trying to push. Yet these things matter.

By now it's grown clear that George Lucas has an agenda, one that he takes very seriously. After four Star Wars films, alarm bells should have gone off, even among those who don't look for morals in movies. When the chief feature distinguishing "good" from "evil" is how pretty the characters are, it's a clue that maybe the whole saga deserves a second look.

Just what bill of goods are we being sold, between the frames? Elites have an inherent right to arbitrary rule; common citizens needn't be consulted. They may only choose which elite to follow.

"Good" elites should act on their subjective whims, without evidence, argument or accountability.

Any amount of sin can be forgiven if you are important enough.

True leaders are born. It's genetic.

The right to rule is inherited. Justified human emotions can turn a good person evil.

That is just the beginning of a long list of moral lessons relentlessly pushed by Star Wars. Lessons that starkly differentiate this saga from others that seem superficially similar, like Star Trek.

Above all, I never cared for the whole Nietzschian bermensch thing: the notion -- pervading a great many myths and legends -- that a good yarn has to be about demigods who are bigger, badder and better than normal folk by several orders of magnitude. It's an ancient storytelling tradition based on abiding contempt for the masses -- one that I find odious in the works of A.E. Van Vogt, E.E. Smith, L. Ron Hubbard and wherever you witness slanlike superbeings deciding the fate of billions without ever pausing to consider their wishes.

Wow, you say. If I feel that strongly about this, why just a week-long boycott? Why see the latest Star Wars film at all?

Because I am forced to admit that demigod tales resonate deeply in the human heart.

Before moving on to the fun stuff, will you bear with me while we get serious for a little while?

In “The Hero With a Thousand Faces,” Joseph Campbell showed how a particular, rhythmic storytelling technique was used in almost every ancient and pre-modern culture, depicting protagonists and antagonists with certain consistent motives and character traits, a pattern that transcended boundaries of language and culture. In these classic tales, the hero begins reluctant, yet signs and portents foretell his pre-ordained greatness. He receives dire warnings and sage wisdom from a mentor, acquires quirky-but-faithful companions, faces a series of steepening crises, explores the pit of his own fears and emerges triumphant to bring some boon/talisman/victory home to his admiring tribe/people/nation.

By offering valuable insights into this revered storytelling tradition, Joseph Campbell did indeed shed light on common spiritual traits that seem shared by all human beings. And I’ll be the first to admit it’s a superb formula — one that I’ve used at times in my own stories and novels.

Alas, Campbell only highlighted positive traits, completely ignoring a much darker side — such as how easily this standard fable-template was co-opted by kings, priests and tyrants, extolling the all-importance of elites who tower over common women and men. Or the implication that we must always adhere to variations on a single story, a single theme, repeating the same prescribed plot outline over and over again. Those who praise Joseph Campbell seem to perceive this uniformity as cause for rejoicing — but it isn’t. Playing a large part in the tragic miring of our spirit, demigod myths helped reinforce sameness and changelessness for millennia, transfixing people in nearly every culture, from Gilgamesh all the way to comic book super heroes.

It is essential to understand the radical departure taken by genuine science fiction, which comes from a diametrically opposite literary tradition — a new kind of storytelling that often rebels against those very same archetypes Campbell venerated. An upstart belief in progress, egalitarianism, positive-sum games — and the slim but real possibility of decent human institutions.

And a compulsive questioning of rules! Authors like Greg Bear, John Brunner, Alice Sheldon, Frederik Pohl and Philip K. Dick always looked on any prescriptive storytelling formula as a direct challenge — a dare. This explains why science fiction has never been much welcomed at either extreme of the literary spectrum — comic books and “high literature.”

Comics treat their superheroes with reverent awe, as demigods were depicted in the Iliad. But a true science fiction author who wrote about Superman would have earthling scientists ask the handsome Man of Steel for blood samples (even if it means scraping with a super fingernail) in order to study his puissant powers, and maybe bottle them for everyone.

As for the literary elite, postmodernists despise science fiction because of the word “science,” while their older colleagues — steeped in Aristotle’s “Poetics” — find anathema the underlying assumption behind most high-quality SF: the bold assertion that there are no “eternal human verities.” Things change, and change can be fascinating. Moreover, our children might outgrow us! They may become better, or learn from our mistakes and not repeat them. And if they don’t learn, that could be a riveting tragedy far exceeding Aristotle’s cramped and myopic definition. “On the Beach,” “Soylent Green” and “1984″ plumbed frightening depths. “Brave New World,” “The Screwfly Solution” and “Fahrenheit 451″ posed worrying questions. In contrast, “Oedipus Rex” is about as interesting as watching a hooked fish thrash futilely at the end of a line. You just want to put the poor doomed King of Thebes out of his misery — and find a way to punish his tormentors.

This truly is a different point of view, in direct opposition to older, elitist creeds that preached passivity and awe in nearly every culture, where a storyteller’s chief job was to flatter the oligarchic patrons who fed him. Imagine Achilles refusing to accept his ordained destiny, taking up his sword and hunting down the Fates, demanding that they give him both a long life and a glorious one! Picture Odysseus telling both Agamemnon and Poseidon to go chase themselves, then heading off to join Daedalus in a garage start-up company, mass producing wheeled and winged horses so that mortals could swoop about the land and air, like gods — the way common folk do today. Even if they fail, and jealous Olympians crush them, what a tale it would be.

This storytelling style was rarely seen till a few generations ago, when aristocrats lost some of their power to punish irreverence. Even now, the new perspective remains shaky — and many find it less romantic, too. How many dramas reflexively depict scientists as “mad”? How few modern films ever show American institutions functioning well enough to bother fixing them? No wonder George Lucas publicly yearns for the pomp of mighty kings over the drab accountability of presidents. Many share his belief that things might be a whole lot more vivid without all the endless, dreary argument and negotiating that make up such a large part of modern life.

If only someone would take command. A leader.

Some people say, why look for deep lessons in harmless, escapist entertainment?

Others earnestly hold that the moral health of a civilization can be traced in its popular culture.

In the modern era, we tend to feel ideas aren’t inherently toxic. Yet who can deny that people — especially children — will be swayed if a message is repeated often enough? It’s when a “lesson” gets reiterated relentlessly that even skeptics should sit up and take notice.

The moral messages in “Star Wars” aren’t just window dressing. Speeches and lectures drench every film. They represent an agenda.

Can we learn more about the “Star Wars” worldview by comparing George Lucas’ space-adventure epic to its chief competitor — “Star Trek?”

The differences at first seem superficial. One saga has an air force motif (tiny fighters) while the other appears naval. In “Star Trek,” the big ship is heroic and the cooperative effort required to maintain it is depicted as honorable. Indeed, “Star Trek” sees technology as useful and essentially friendly — if at times also dangerous. Education is a great emancipator of the humble (e.g. Starfleet Academy). Futuristic institutions are basically good-natured (the Federation), though of course one must fight outbreaks of incompetence and corruption. Professionalism is respected, lesser characters make a difference and henchmen often become brave whistle-blowers — as they do in America today.

In “Star Trek,” when authorities are defied, it is in order to overcome their mistakes or expose particular villains, not to portray all institutions as inherently hopeless. Good cops sometimes come when you call for help. Ironically, this image fosters useful criticism of authority, because it suggests that any of us can gain access to our flawed institutions, if we are determined enough — and perhaps even fix them with fierce tools of citizenship.

By contrast, the oppressed “rebels” in “Star Wars” have no recourse in law or markets or science or democracy. They can only choose sides in a civil war between two wings of the same genetically superior royal family. They may not meddle or criticize. As Homeric spear-carriers, it’s not their job.

In teaching us how to distinguish good from evil, Lucas prescribes judging by looks: Villains wear Nazi helmets. They hiss and leer, or have red-glowing eyes, like in a Ralph Bakshi cartoon. On the other hand, “Star Trek” tales often warn against judging a book by its cover — a message you’ll also find in the films of Steven Spielberg, whose spunky everyman characters delight in reversing expectations and asking irksome questions.

Above all, “Star Trek” generally depicts heroes who are only about 10 times as brilliant, noble and heroic as a normal person, prevailing through cooperation and wit, rather than because of some inherited godlike transcendent greatness. Characters who do achieve godlike powers are subjected to ruthless scrutiny. In other words, “Trek” is a prototypically American dream, entranced by notions of human improvement and a progress that lifts all. Gene Roddenberry’s vision loves heroes, but it breaks away from the elitist tradition of princes and wizards who rule by divine or mystical right.

By contrast, these are the only heroes in the “Star Wars” universe.

Yes, “Trek” can at times seem preachy, or turgidly politically correct. For example, every species has to mate with every other one, interbreeding with almost compulsive abandon. The only male heroes who are allowed any testosterone are Klingons, because cultural diversity outweighs sexual correctness. (In other words, it’s OK for them to be macho ’cause it is “their way.”) “Star Trek” television episodes often devolved into soap operas. Many of the movies were very badly written. Nevertheless, “Trek” tries to grapple with genuine issues, giving complex voices even to its villains and asking hard questions about pitfalls we may face while groping for tomorrow. Anyway, when it comes to portraying human destiny, where would you rather live, assuming you’ll be a normal citizen and no demigod? In Roddenberry’s Federation? Or Lucas’ Empire?

Lucas defends his elitist view, telling the New York Times, “That’s sort of why I say a benevolent despot is the ideal ruler. He can actually get things done. The idea that power corrupts is very true and it’s a big human who can get past that.”

In other words a royal figure or demigod, anointed by fate. (Like a billionaire moviemaker?)

Lucas often says we are a sad culture, bereft of the confidence or inspiration that strong leaders can provide. And yet, aren’t we the very same culture that produced George Lucas and gave him so many opportunities? The same society that raised all those brilliant experts for him to hire — boldly creative folks who pour both individual inspiration and cooperative skill into his films? A culture that defies the old homogenizing impulse by worshipping eccentricity, with unprecedented hunger for the different, new or strange? It what way can such a civilization be said to lack confidence?

In historical fact, all of history’s despots, combined, never managed to “get things done” as well as this rambunctious, self-critical civilization of free and sovereign citizens, who have finally broken free of worshipping a ruling class and begun thinking for themselves. Democracy can seem frustrating and messy at times, but it delivers.

Having said all that, let me again acknowledge that “Star Wars” harks to an old and very, very deeply human archetype. Those who listened to Homer recite the “Iliad” by a campfire knew great drama. Achilles could slay a thousand with the sweep of a hand — as Darth Vader murders billions with the press of a button — but none of those casualties matters next to the personal saga of a great one. The slaughtered victims are mere minions. Extras, without families or hopes to worry about shattering. Spear-carriers. Only the demigod’s personal drama is important.

Thus few protest the apotheosis of Darth Vader — nee Anakin Skywalker — in “Return of the Jedi.”

To put it in perspective, let’s imagine that the United States and its allies managed to capture Adolf Hitler at the end of the Second World War, putting him on trial for war crimes. The prosecution spends months listing all the horrors done at his behest. Then it is the turn of Hitler’s defense attorney, who rises and utters just one sentence:

“But, your honors … Adolf did save the life of his own son!”

Gasp! The prosecutors blanch in chagrin. “We didn’t know that! Of course all charges should be dismissed at once!”

The allies then throw a big parade for Hitler, down the avenues of Nuremberg.

It may sound silly, but that’s exactly the lesson taught by “Return of the Jedi,” wherein Darth Vader is forgiven all his sins, because he saved the life of his own son.

How many of us have argued late at night over the philosophical conundrum — “Would you go back in time and kill Hitler as a boy, if given a chance?” It’s a genuine moral puzzler, with many possible ethical answers. Still, most people, however they ultimately respond, would admit beingtempted to say yes, if only to save millions of Hitler’s victims.

And yet, in “The Phantom Menace,” Lucas wants us to gush with warm feelings toward a cute blond little boy who will later grow up to murder the population of Earth many times over? While we’re at it, why not bring out the Hitler family album, so we may croon over pictures of adorable little Adolf and marvel over his childhood exploits! He, too, was innocent till he turned to the “dark side,” so by all means let us adore him.

To his credit, Lucas does not try to excuse this macabre joke by saying, “It’s only a movie.” Rather, he holds up his saga like an agonized Greek tragedy worthy of “Oedipus” — an epic tale of a fallen hero, trapped by hubris and fate. But if that were true, wouldn’t “Star Wars” by now have given us a better-than-caricature view of the Dark Side? Heroes and villains would not be distinguished by mere prettiness; the moral quandaries would not come from a comic book.

Don’t swallow it. The apotheosis of a mass murderer is exactly what it seems. We should find it chilling.

Remember the final scene in “Return of the Jedi,” when Luke gazes into a fire to see Obi-Wan, Yoda and Vader, smiling in the flames? I found myself hoping it was Jedi Hell, for the amount of pain those three unleashed on their galaxy, and for all the damned lies they told. But that’s me. I’m a rebel against Homer and Achilles and that whole tradition. At heart, some of you are, too.

This isn’t just a one-time distinction. It marks the main boundary between real, literate, humanistic science fiction — or speculative fiction — and most of the movie “sci-fi” you see nowadays.

The difference isn’t really about complexity, childishness, scientific naiveti or haughty prose stylization. I like a good action scene as well as the next guy, and can forgive technical gaffes if the story is way cool! The films of Robert Zemeckis take joy in everything, from rock ‘n’ roll to some deep scientific paradox, feeding both the child and the adult within. Meanwhile, noir tales like “Gattaca” and “The 13th Floor” relish dark stylization while exploring real ideas. Good SF has range.

No, the underlying difference is that one tradition revels in elites, while the other rebels against them. In the genuine science-fiction worldview, demigods aren’t easily forgiven lies and murder. Contempt for the masses is passi. There may be heroes — even great ones — but in the long run we’ll improve together, or not at all. (See my note on the Enlightenment, Romanticism and science fiction.)

That kind of myth does sell. Yet, even after rebelling against the Homeric archetype for generations, we children of Pericles, Ben Franklin and H.G. Wells remain a minority. So much so that Lucas can appropriate our hand-created tropes and symbols — our beloved starships and robots — for his own ends and get credited for originality.

The Apocalyptic Cosmology of Star Wars

2014-06-22T09:55:00.000-07:00

One might, or might not agree with it but it displays an interesting point of view:

John Lyden is Associate Professor Religion at Dana College in Blair, Nebraska. He received his B. A. in philosophy from Wesleyan University, his M. A. in theology from Yale Divinity School, and his Ph. D. from the University of Chicago Divinity School. His dissertation concerned Karl Barth's theological use of Immanuel Kant's philosophical epistemology. More recently, he has been interested in interreligoius dialogue (especially Jewish-Christian dialogue) and the relationship between religion and popular culture, notable popular film.

Originally published in: The Journal of Religion & Film

April 2000

Abstract

The paper analyzes the saga of Star Wars as a text that has borrowed extensively from biblical apocalyptic. There is a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil; a great cataclysm is foretold, but the faithful will survive with the help of God (The Force); a messiah figure (Luke) appears; and a new world order will come about in which justice triumphs and wickedness is punished. This myth is made relevant to modem viewers by being framed as a battle of technology vs. the natural human: the machine Vader vs. the human Anakin, the Death Star vs. the Force, Imperial walkers vs. primitive Ewoks. The films' apparent technophilia is cover for a technophobic message: we must remember our humanity lest we be absorbed or destroyed by our machine creations.

Article

[2] In a year which has featured the first new Star Wars movie in 16 years, media critics have finally begun to notice the religious themes in this most popular of all film series. And while the religious elements may be more obvious in The Phantom Menace, they have in fact been there from the beginning of the series (in episode four). Indeed, the incredible success of the Star Wars films is not due only (and I would argue, not primarily) to marketing or special effects, but to their ability to tap into basic religious or mythological concepts with which viewers can connect.

[3] It is well-known, for example, that George Lucas self-consciously constructed the screenplay for the first film under the influence of popular mythologist Joseph Campbell. In an address to the National Arts Club in 1985, Lucas noted that he was entirely without direction until he stumbled upon Campbell's The Hero with a Thousand Faces.1And the stages of Campbell's monomyth, outlined in that book, do indeed suggest the structure of Lucas' screenplay: the hero (Luke) is called to the adventure; he initially refuses the call; supernatural aid is supplied (Ben Kenobi), which enables the adventure to proceed; he passes the threshold (Mos Eisley) and enters the belly of the whale (The Deathstar). He meets the goddess (Leia) whom he must rescue, and loses the father-figure (Ben) who becomes a spiritual presence to him. After escaping the Death Star, he must return to it, this time to destroy the monster.2

[4] However, it is my contention that reading Star Wars through the lens of Campbell's philosophy does not do justice to all that is in the films, religiously speaking. Although the basic storyline does indeed replicate Campbell's categories, Lucas did not intend to be a mouthpiece for Campbell's thought, which diverges from Lucas's own religious sensibilities in a number of important ways. Lucas used a variety of religious sources to construct the world of Star Wars, including biblical apocalyptic. It is not my intention to demonstrate thatStar Wars is chiefly an apocalyptic text or only that, but to show that Lucas utilized apocalyptic ideas, among other religious notions, in the construction of the Star Wars universe. To do so, I must first spend some time showing the inadequacy of the Campbellian interpretation of Star Wars, due to the fact that many people have interpreted the films' religious elements solely through those categories.

[5] To understand Campbell's view of Star Wars, one must have some sense of his overall philosophy of religion. Campbell had very little formal education in religious studies. He studied Medieval European literature, Romance philology, and modem literature, especially the works of James Joyce and Thomas Mann. His main encounter with religion began through editing the posthumous writings of Indologist Heinrich Zimmer and through working with Swami Nikhilananda translating and editing the Upanishads. On the subject of mythology, he was an autodidact without formal training.3 When one looks at Campbell's assessment of religions in his published writings, this background is evident. Many of his examples come from modem or medieval literature with little explicit reference to religion. When he does speak of religions, he shows a decided preference for Hinduism's conception of the divine and salvation, and in particular, the traditions of monistic Vedanta. He degrades the western religions, Judaism in particular, for sharply distinguishing God from the world. "The Biblical image of the universe simply won't do any more,4 writes Campbell, and he also claims that in eastern religions the ultimate divine mystery is sought beyond all human categories of thought and feeling, beyond names and forms .... Anthropomorphic attributions of human sentiments and thoughts to a mystery beyond thought is--from the point of view of Indian thought--a style of religion for children."5

[6] One may note that this judgment even preferences non-dualistic Vedanta over the devotional forms of theistic bhakti practiced by most Hindus. In any case, the "proper" religious teaching of identity with the Godhead is not taught in the West, according to Campbell, because it is viewed as heresy or blasphemy; Campbell even claims Jesus was crucified for claiming identity with God.6 This is the sort of oversimplification of historical and theological matters in which Campbell revels. He generalizes about religions, concluding all that do not preach monism are superstitious and parochial. He reserves particular venom for the Jewish claim to be the chosen people who have received a unique revelation from God.7 That this denigration of Judaism is tied to Campbell's own anti-Semitism has been well documented by Robert Segal and Maurice Friedman.8

[7] Campbell's monism also represents a "psychologizing' of religion and myth, and here he is under the influence of Karl Jung in particular. He tries to reduce all religion to a journey of "self-discovery" brought about by identification with the story of the "hero" reproduced in every myth. One of the most striking things one finds in reading Campbell's works is his amazing ability to ignore the points of the individual tales he is telling; all are made to fit the mold of the one 'true' story of the "Hero with a thousand faces" mapped out in the book of that title.9There as well he concludes that the end of the hero's journey is a union with the divine in which all personal identity and difference is annihilated.10 But finally, this identity is not interpreted as the union of the individual with a transcendent absolute, for there is no transcendent; rather, the identity of all is interpreted in immanentist categories, in that the individual realizes he himself is the absolute, the creator, the center of his own universe.11 Each person is to realize this, that each of us makes our own universe and so is responsible for all that happens in it. This is why Campbell cannot take the problem of undeserved suffering seriously; we deserve everything that happens to us, for we make our own universe.12 In this he sounds more like Jean-Paul Sartre or Friedrich Nietzsche than the great religions of history. This view also represents a reduction of reality to that which we experience and perceive, and so it cannot take seriously any external mystery of transcendence.13The only "mystery" is what lurks in my own unconscious, which can be plumbed via depth psychology and interpretation of my myths and dreams. In this Campbell has also very much influenced the New Age movement in its use of mythology and religion.

[8] After George Lucas invited Campbell to Skywalker Ranch to view all threeStar Wars films in a single day, Campbell gave his approval to the message of the films in interviews with Phil Cousineau and Bill Moyers. In his interpretation, we again see the hallmarks of his own philosophy of religion. Darth Vader is a "bureaucrat, living not in terms of himself but in terms of an imposed system." Like him, each of us must learn to develop as a human individual by "holding to your own ideals for yourself and, like Luke Skywalker, rejecting the system's impersonal claims upon you.14 Immorality comes when we do not listen to our own inner voices and instead listen to others. "The world is full of people who have stopped listening to themselves or have listened only to their neighbors to learn what they ought to do, how they ought to behave, and what the values are they should be living for.15 Again, this message resembles Nietzsche's philosophy more than that of George Lucas, I would argue, as this is Campbell's own moral philosophy.

[9] Campbell also gives an immanentist interpretation to the idea of the Force. The Force is "within" us, he points out, and for him this means not that the sacred is both beyond us and within us (like the Holy Spirit in Christian thought, or Brahman in Hinduism), but only that which lies within us. The Force is "what best fosters the flowering of our humanity in this contemporary life," and as such it is not a "first cause" or a "higher cause," but "a more inward cause." "Higher is just up there, and there is no 'up there.' We know that. That old man up there has been blown away. You've got to find the Force inside you."16

[10] That Campbell's interpretation of Star Wars need not be the only one is clear even by an examination of Lucas's own words about the meaning of the films. In a recent interview with Bill Moyers in "Time" magazine, he said that he did not intend Star Wars to be a replacement for the old religions, nor does he say that the eastern religions are "closer" to the truth than the western (as Campbell does).

[11] I don't see Star Wars as profoundly religious. I see Star Wars as taking all the issues that religion represents and trying to distill them down into a more modem and easily accessible construct--that there is a greater mystery out there .... I put the Force into the movie in order to try to awaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people--more a belief in God than a belief in any particular religious system. I wanted to make it so that young people would begin to ask questions about the mystery.17

[12] The mystery is clearly transcendent for Lucas, not merely a reflection of some internal psychological structure. "I think that there is a God. No question. What that God is or what we know about God, I'm not sure." Lucas would seem more at home with John Hick's philosophy, that there is a Reality which transcends all the religions and which each is trying to describe as best it can, rather than Campbell's reductionist view that all religions can be boiled down to a single psychological process of auto-suggested divinity. Lucas also believes that his films do not supply religious answers, but ask questions that are then given various answers by the different religions. This seems to echo Paul Tillich's method of correlation, which claimed that culture can ask the questions of existence but only revelation can answer them. Lucas actually likes the fact that a number of religions can find their own ideas reflected in the Star Wars films; they fill in the answer to the question with the content of their own faith.18

[13] In the process of asking basic questions about the meaning of life and how we should live, however, the Star Wars films do give some guidelines about the ways in which those questions might be asked or answered. Lucas has taken ideas from numerous religions of the world and combined them into a syncretistic mix which works. Just as he freely borrowed from various genres in constructing Star Wars--the western, swashbucklers, samurai films, film noir, world war two films--so he also shows his skill as a filmmaker in his ability to synthesize mythological and religious concepts from around the world. Again, this is not Campbell's monomyth, I would claim, but a polyglot of religious languages in which each contributes something to a pluralistic whole of diversified parts--albeit with a western interpretation. I will focus on Lucas' use of apocalyptic ideas, in particular.

[14] There is considerable consensus among scholars about the basic elements which define apocalyptic, especially the apocalyptic of biblical religion. An "apocalypse," of course, is a disclosing of secrets, especially the plan for the destiny of the world to which the divine power will bring it. A radical discontinuity between the present and future ages is envisioned: as C.K. Barrett puts it, "History would, as it were, take a leap to a new level, on which the judgments of God would be more plainly visible; or, better, God would, by entering history, either personally or through a representative, introduce into it a new factor which would revolutionize its course."19

[15] God is in control of history; it has a destiny which will be fulfilled, though it requires radical change accompanied by considerable turmoil. In other words, before things get better, things will get much worse.20 This tribulation leads to a cosmic battle between the forces of good and evil in which these powers are envisioned in starkly dualistic terms; there is no ambiguity about which is which. Humans are called upon to make their choice for good or evil, or as Persian apocalyptic puts it, "truth" or "the lie"21--and depending on their choice, they will either be rewarded or punished by God in the end. A final resurrection of the faithful follows in which they are re-united with God and each other in a restored communion of the faithful. All of this may be accomplished with the aid of a Messiah figure who acts as God's intermediary.22

[16] Apocalyptic functions religiously, scholars tell us, as a comfort to the faithful in times of persecution. The current persecution is viewed as the tribulation which must precede the final judgment and restoration of the faithful. The faithful are told of their future reward to encourage them to remain steadfast and not give in to the powers of evil or the temptation to forsake their faith.23Apocalyptic also functions politically as a critique of the established order which is denounced as an incarnation of evil; the predicted future order, that which ought to be, calls for "cataclysmic change: the humbling of the mighty and the exaltation of the meek." Hope for this new order is a remedy to anxiety and frustration, conveying a sense of confidence and one's own righteousness.24

[18] How many of these features are found in the Star Wars films? A number of them are instantly recognizable. There is certainly a cosmic battle between good and evil, clearly envisioned as opposites, and the fate of the whole galaxy hangs on the outcome. The evil is personified first by Darth Vader, and later by the Emperor who is trying to eliminate self-determination of the planets and bring all in accord with his will. There is some parallel here to the situation of the early Christians and other politically oppressed groups which have found the authorities unsupportive of their self-determination--in the case of the Christians, there actually were Emperors who persecuted them for failure to honor and obey. Events are also spiraling towards a cataclysmic battle, which can be seen both at the end of the first film (episode 4) as well as to a greater extent at the end of the first trilogy in episode six. Though all appears to be lost at a certain point, the faithful win the day by trusting in the Force--a higher power which is in fact controlling all events. A savior-messiah figures into the plots as well; this figure is Luke in the original trilogy, but in episode one it is Anakin Skywalker, referred to as "the chosen one" whose birth was foretold--a virgin birth, no less. Qui-Gon Jinn maintains that Anakin is the prophesied one who will bring "balance" to the conflict, citing as evidence the fact that his blood contains a higher concentration of "midichlorions" (which allow a Jedi to access the Force) than Yoda's.

[19] The role of faith is quite clear in the movies as well, in particular, episode four (A New Hope). Here Luke has not yet developed the ability to see dead people, move objects, or know the future, and so what he sees of the Force's power is more limited. He observes Obi-Wan's Jedi "mind-trick" (used on dim-witted stormtroopers to evade confiscation of R2-D2); he learns to fight a combat training droid without seeing it; and he hears Obi-Wan's voice after his death. Outside of these few examples, he has little to go on other than his belief that there is a Force which will help him when he tries to blow up the Death Star without computer assistance. Obi-Wan also shows tree faith in his willingness to give his life for no discernible purpose; he tells Vader, "if you strike me down, I will become more powerful than you can possibly imagine," and it is only this belief that he will be of more help as a spiritual presence to the forces of good which justifies his apparently futile martyrdom. Han Solo, in contrast, opts not to believe in the Force, for as he says: "Kid, I've flown from one end of this galaxy to the other; I've seen a lot of strange stuff; but I've never seen anything to make me believe there's one all-powerful force controlling everything. There's no mystical energy field controlling my destiny. It's all a lot of simple tricks and nonsense." He attributes to luck what Luke and Ben attribute to the Force, and he trusts in his own abilities rather than any transcendent power. (In fact, in this he sounds a lot more like Joseph Campbell than Luke does! Of course, Solo actually fights for the Force without realizing it; a sort of "anonymous Jedi," if you will, whose skepticism about ultimate matters does not prevent him from aiding friends in need.)

[20] Darth Vader is also depicted as a figure who paradoxically bears witness to the power of faith in the Force. When his "ancient religion" is ridiculed by one of the Imperial officers as inadequate next to the technological power of the Death Star, he uses the Force to choke him and asserts that he finds his "lack of faith disturbing." Throughout episode four, Vader appears to be an anachronism in the Empire, as no one else seems to believe in the mystical dimension he does; his faith is a peculiarity in the otherwise secularized and technologized empire. As Governor Tarkin puts it: "The Jedi are extinct; their fire has gone out in the universe. You, my friend, are all that is left of their religion."

[21] Several things, however, are different beginning in episode five (TheEmpire Strikes Back). We encounter the Emperor for the first time, and discover that he represents the Dark Side of the Force more powerfully than Vader; he is not simply a bureaucrat like Governor Tarkin was. In addition, Vader seems to have more power: In episode four, Leia makes a crack about Tarkin holding Vader's "leash," likening him to a henchman; now, Vader has his own star cruiser and crew just for the purpose of chasing Luke's friends, and he is free to execute imperial officers whenever they disappoint him. Also in episode five, Luke begins to discover the power of the Force and actually sees some of the things he has only believed up to this point. Obi-wan appears to him and delivers messages; Yoda shows him how to move objects around and see the future. At the same time, Luke lacks the total belief required to be a Jedi; when he says it is impossible to lift his ship out of the Dagobah swamp and Yoda does it for him, he can only say "I don't believe it!" to which master Yoda replies: "That is why you fail." Luke also confronts the power of the Dark Side in a new way, not only through Vader's attempt to capture him but through the revelation that Vader is his father. In this way, Luke confronts the possibility of evil in himself, in that even his Jedi father turned to the Dark side. Luke's vision in the cave on Dagobah, in which he kills Vader only to find he wears Luke's own face, reinforces this idea that the only evil one needs to fear is the hatred and anger that lurks within oneself.

[22] Episode six of the saga (Return of the Jedi) brings all its elements to a conclusion. We see the final apocalyptic battle and Luke faces Vader again. He now accepts Vader as his father, and attempts to redeem him by appealing to his former nature as Anakin Skywalker. In this Luke fails and he is brought before the Emperor for a final testing. Can he resist hate and fear, even when confronted with the destruction of his own friends and the rebel cause? His attempt to remain non-combative breaks down when Vader threatens to turn his sister to the Dark side. In a fit of anger, he chops off his father's hand, just as Vader had chopped off Luke's hand at the end of the previous film. But when the Emperor exhorts Luke to kill Vader and "take your father's place at my side," Luke throws down his weapon. "I am a Jedi, like my father before me," he says. He is able to come to this decision, as he sees himself about to suffer the same fate as his father; in particular, he looks at the stump of Vader's electronic hand and then at his own machine hand which he was given after he lost his own. He resists the temptation to lose his humanity to a technologized and de-personalized identity.

[23] Luke's decision not to fight may appear to be one place in which the film borrows from eastern religious notions of ahimsa, non-violence. But there is a significant difference between his actions and the ethic of the Bhagavad Gita in which the Hindu notion of ahimsa is developed. In that text, Krishna advises Arjuna to fight to preserve the world-order of dharma, but to do so without selfish desire or hatred. This is basically the same advice Yoda and Obi-Wan give to Luke; to kill his father, but without giving in to hate or anger. Yet Luke ignores their counsel and refuses to fight him at all. He abandons the "eastern" philosophy of detachment advocated by Ben and Yoda for a more Christian ideal of attachment to those whom one loves. And oddly enough this is what saves them all, as he manages to redeem his father from hatred and violence. Here again, Christian concepts of redemption clearly take center stage, as Luke's willingness to non-violently sacrifice himself(much like Obi-Wan's self-sacrifice in episode four) becomes the key to turning his father back. Granted, in his "conversion" Vader does use violence against the Emperor, but in so doing he eschews the path of violence he has been following since he turned to the Dark side.

[24] In the end of the film, Luke sees the spirit of his redeemed father accompanied by those of Yoda and Obi-wan, an otherworldly salvation of the righteous analogous to the final resurrection of the dead in biblical apocalyptic. It is also worth noting that these figures retain their individuality even in this apotheosis, contradicting Campbell's monistic vision which would require their dissolution into the absolute. If Obi-wan can sit on a log in the Dagobah swamp and discuss Luke's family tree with him, it appears that the departed are not simply manifestations of some abstract oneness which does away with their personalities.

[25] Much of this tale also transcends the structures of apocalyptic, it can be seen. The future is not completely set; although faith in the Force should bring success, even Yoda does not guarantee this. The Dark forcemasters tend to speak of "destiny" in a way that suggests free will is non-existent; but the good side always allows participants to choose their own destinies, granting that free choice can and does contribute to the direction of events. When Luke asks Yoda (in episode five) if Han and Leia will die, he replies, "Difficult to say. Always in motion is the future." What will happen depends on the choices that individuals make, and this cannot be foretold with complete certainty. That this is so is shown by the errors the Emperor makes in predicting the outcome of Luke's testing, as well as in the fact that Anakin, even as "the chosen one," was corruptible.

[26] Perhaps the most significant difference from traditional apocalyptic, though, is that the function of the Star Wars myth does not seem to be to give comfort to the politically persecuted. If Star Wars is primarily a myth for United States citizens, it is hard to see how we fall into that category. Of course, if apocalyptic categories are used to describe a battle that has already taken place, it can actually serve to support the status quo, rather than question it. In this case, the evil has already been vanquished, and represents the previous political order rather than the present one.25Apocalyptic form would then be used not to critique the powers that be (the U.S. Government, for example), but rather to support them as the just victors over evil. Star Wars does tap into some of this by portraying the Empire as resembling both Stalinist Russia and Nazi Germany. Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner, authors of Camera Politica, support just this interpretation of Star Wars. They hold that the films express a conservative ideology that supports the American ideals of individualism, elitism, antistatism, agrarianism, and anti-rationalism.26However, their attempt to interpret the films entirely in traditional Marxist terms seems to fall short by reducing the films to their supposed political message of support for western capitalism. Their own survey of viewers seemed to suggest that most did not see the Empire or the rebels in political terms, and even when they did, there was no consistency in assigning a political identity to them--e.g., more viewers believed the Empire resembled a right-wing dictatorship than communism, but most also believed the rebels resembled right-wing freedom fighters more than left-wing revolutionaries.27

[27] What Ryan and Kellner are unwilling to grant is that the films have used apocalyptic concepts not primarily for political purposes, but for some other end--and it is in this that the Star Wars films may differ most markedly from traditional apocalyptic. For the "enemy" is not a political "other," but ourselves, or at least the threat that we will lose our humanity to greed and a selfish quest for power--symbolized by the Dark side, and even moreso by the technology of deathstars, imperial walkers, and Vader's own robot body. Virtue triumphs over evil technology, however, not only when the "natural" Ewoks beat stormtroopers and their imperial walkers by "primitive" jungle tactics, but when Darth Vader becomes Anakin Skywalker once again. When we see him unmasked and his humanity restored, even at the moment of death, he is "saved," as he says himself.

[28] All of this, it can be seen, serves to reveal some basic virtues Lucas wants to highlight: the importance of family, the redeeming qualities of love and forgiveness, loyalty, friendship, and faith. These are what viewers like to see, as in so many Hollywood films. And although these values are labeled banal or anachronistic by many critics, these are the virtues the fans appreciate and presumably hope to emulate in their lives. The continual whining about how Star Wars is trying to replace "real" religions28 might subside a bit if we realized that the values it portrays are not entirely negative. As viewers, we are caught up in the struggle between good and evil framed in apocalyptic terms not because we hope for release from political persecution, but because we can relate the story to our own struggles to do good in our personal lives. On a small scale, we all try to be like Luke rather than like Vader. As George Lucas himself puts it:

[29] Heroes come in all sizes, and you don't have to be a giant hero. You can be a very small hero. It's just as important to understand that accepting self-responsibility for the things you do, having good manners, caring about other people--these are heroic acts. Everybody has the choice of being a hero or not being a hero every day of their lives. You don't have to get into a giant laser-sword fight and blow up three spaceships to become a hero. 29

FILM CREDITS
The Empire Strikes Back A New Hope The Phantom Menace
Return of the Jedi Star Wars

Notes

1 "It was the first time that I really began to focus. Once I read that book I said to myself, this is what I've been doing .... It was all right there and had been there for thousands and thousands of years, as Dr. Campbell pointed out .... It's possible that if I had not run across him I would still be writing Star Warstoday." Phil Cousineau, The Hero's Journey: The World of Joseph Campbell(San Francisco: Harper & Row, 1990), p. 180.

2 Andrew Gordon, "Star Wars: A Myth for Our Time," in Screening the Sacred: Religion. Myth. and Ideology in Popular American Film (Boulder: Westview Press, 1995), pp. 73-82.

3 Cousineau, pp. Xxv-xxix. (Curriculum Vitae for Campbell)

4 Joseph Campbell, "The Confrontation of East and West," in Myths to Live By (New York: Viking, 1972), p. 89.

5 Ibid., p. 93

6 Ibid., p. 95

7 This claim privileges one group's proximity to the divine whereas (in his view) all have the divine "within" them, already. Since Judaism seeks a "relationship" with a named God rather than identity, it claims that relationship is only available "through membership in a certain supernaturally endowed, uniquely favored social group." Ibid., pp. 95-96.

8 Robert A. Segal, Joseph Campbell: An Introduction (New York: Garland, 1987); Maurice Friedman, "Why Joseph Campbell's Psychologizing of Myth Preclude the Holocaust as Touchstone of Reality," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 66/2: pp. 385-401.

9 "It seems to be a temptation that many modem thinkers cannot resist--to put forward their own central discoveries as the core of all the world's religions .... Even when they know something about the world's religions, they do not hesitate to ignore all the phenomena that do not fit their personal perception ...." Friedman, p. 395; "[Campbell] cites hundreds of myths and extricates from them hundreds of archetypes...but he analyzes few whole myths .... He is interested less in analyzing myths than in using myths to analyze human nature." Segal, pp. 137-138.

10 Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1949), pp. 365-378.

11 Here I must agree with Friedman against Segal. "Campbell seems to want a unity of inner and outer, as Segal says, yet it is not the actual outer but a mysticized and universalized outer that comes from his projection of his inward philosophy on it." Maurice Friedman, "Psychology, Psychologism, and Myth: A Rejoinder," Journal of the American Academy of Religion 67/2, p. 471.

12 Joseph Campbell with Bill Moyers, The Power of Myth (New York: Doubleday, 1988), p. 161. Campbell speaks of "loving one's fate" even if it involves suffering, and quotes Nietzsche in support of this ideal. He also quotes the Buddha's dictum that "all life is suffering," ignoring the fact that the Buddha sought a way to escape this, not an affirmation of it.

13 In an address he delivered shortly after the first men walked on the Moon, Campbell cites the Kantian notion that space and time are mental constructs rather than objective realities, and claims that the "moon flight as an outward journey was outward into ourselves." Even the conquest of outer space is finally only the conquest of another inner mystery, and its significance lies in its ability to tell us more about ourselves. Campbell, "The Moon Walk--The Outward Journey in Myths to Live By," p. 239.

14 Campbell and Moyers, The Power of Myth, p. 144

15 Ibid., p. 147

16 Ibid., p. 148

17 "Of Myth and Men," Time, April 26 1999, p. 92.

18 Ibid., p. 93.

19 C.K. Barrett, The New Testament Background: Selected Documents(New York: Harper, 1956), p. 227.

20 "Children will be born with the white hair of old men, miscarriages will increase, and women will cease to give birth at all. The earth will fail to bring forth fruit .... One nation will rise up against another, wars will tear mankind to pieces, within families fathers will oppose and quarrel with sons, and brothers with brothers.., everything is devastated and destroyed. When at last even the cosmic order disintegrates, the stars will no longer follow their regular courses..."

21 Eduard Lohse, The New Testament Environment, tr. John E. Steely (Nashville: Abingdon, 1976), p. 57.

Bruce Lincoln, "Apocalyptic Temporality and Politics in the Ancient World," inThe Encyclopedia of Apocalypticism, vol. 1, ed. John J. Collins (New York: Continuum, 1998), p. 459.

22 Norman Perrin, The New Testament: An Introduction (New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1974), p. 71.

23 Willi Marxsen, Introduction to the New Testament (Philadelphia: Fortress, 1974), p. 273.

24 Lincoln, p. 467.

25 Ibid., p. 466.

26 Michael Ryan and Douglas Kellner, Camera Politica (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1988), pp. 228-236.

27 Ibid., p. 235.

28 For just one example of this, see Maclean's, May 24, 1999, "The Second Coming," pp. 14-18.

29 Time, p. 94.

Listen to David Bowie's New CD free & prior to release

2013-03-03T10:03:00.000-08:00

In an unprecedented move, Itunes are presently steaming on demand, Bowie's new, and might I say best in years, album The Next Day prior to its official release. And whats more for free. I wouldn't normally encourage Itunes with free advertising but in this case... To listen log into the Itunes store on whatever device you normally use (or go here if you don't) and it will appear on the homepage. Or alternatively simply click THIS LINK. Hear it 8 days before its official release.

New Short Film From David Bowie

2013-02-27T17:37:00.002-08:00

Well, some might call it a music video but Bowie has been at this for far to long to throw out anything so "crass". And given his latest set of videos seem to be ruthlessly ridiculing the odd rumours about him that have circulated since his "retirement" 10 years ago... The video to the new single "The Stars (are out tonight)" proves no different. While the music shows a more than solid return to form. Musically closer perhaps to Outside then his previously released single which lay closer to the rather maudlin "Hours", the video features British actor Tilda Swinton, directed with Floria Sigismondi's usual flair for "jittery camera work" and cinematography by Jeff Cronenweth (Fight Club, The Social Network, and The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo Hitchcock - one of the only good things about Hitchcock its worth noting).

Is it also satirizing the blog Tilda Stardust which attempts to "prove" that bowie and Swinton are one and the same? Perhaps, but given Bowie's strange sense of humor - and that the fact that the blog looks like a number of others that have appeared over that years regarding Bowie whose author seems suspiciously familiar - I would hate to guess. Although interested readers might want to investigate the "Nate Tate Affair"

Oops! @Twitter And the Silent Years of Slapstick

2013-02-26T18:34:00.002-08:00

Well now. Isn't that embarrassing. Sorry, just found out the follow me twitter button was not working. Fixed now though

Review. Django Unchained: Nietzsche's Siegfried Not Wagner's?

2013-02-26T05:39:00.000-08:00

4 Out Of 5 Stars

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness." Nietzsche: The Gay Science

"Moreover, Africans faced punishments designed not to only correct but also to degrade and humiliate. William Byrd, Virginia planter and a sophisticated colonial gentleman, noted, without embarrassment, in his diary how he forced a slave bed-wetter to drink a “pint of piss”: The Routledge History Of Slavery

It is nearly impossible to discuss Django Unchained without discussing Richard Wagner's Ring cycle of dramas and Siegfried in particular. How could it not be when both Tarantino and Christoph Waltz have discussed the influence of Wagner's work on Tarantino's newest movie - especially so in the German media. Add to this that Django is searching for his wife Broomhilde (Brunnhilde) and the clear links between certain characters and those found in Wagner's dramas. However, like everything that Tarintino "steals" from, he manipulates them for his own purposes - while often doing little more than nodding at the original. And I don't just mean the written narrative here but all of the narrative structures at a film makers disposable: sound, music, dialogue, mise-en-scene, titles, costumes, framing, etc. Indeed, one feels sometimes that perhaps this alteration of the original source allows him to add a further narrative message - even if one needs to be familiar with the source to see how he does this and perhaps what he he might be trying to say. This would be no different in the manner that he adapts Wagner's work then he does that of the other two main pieces of source material: Sergio Corbucci's original Django and Pietro Francisci's Hercules Unchained. However, I think that Tarantino's distortion of Wagner's Siegfried (Django) is so important in this movie that it needs far more attention than has been provided by those perhaps less familiar with the source. But don't worry, we will keep things simple. Don't I always?

Django Unchained begins with the runaway slave Django (now recaptured and being resold as a form of punishment) as he is being transported for sale by a group of slavers (Perhaps representing Mime from Siegfried - I'll get to this in a bit) . He is quickly rescued by the German Bounty Hunter of King Schulz (the Wanderer) in a scene that is typical of Tarantino's homegrown variation of "exploitation movie violence". This is with perhaps an even greater use of overfilled "blood splatter-bags" than normal (there is no escaping the abundance of cinema blood in this movie, although I suspect its use is for other reasons than would normally be the case. More of this in a moment.)

By more than convenient coincidence, King needs Django to help him track down a rather lucrative bounty contract of whom only Django will recognize. King is an commited Abolitionist - with a "distaste" of slavery and its consequences that grows realistically throughout the movie . While he points out to Django that they are now tied by a contract (contracts and monetary exchanges feature heavily throughout the movie) he would rather they work as "partners". Django agrees, helps find the wanted men, kills them (as King points out he is "a natural") and the two enter a mutual partnership - Django's original "contact" now concluded. Django stays with King in part because King claims he will help Django track down and win back Django's wife "Broomhilde".

This search leads them to "Candie Land" home of Calvin Candie, a brutal plantation owner who forces the "most talented" his slaves to fight to the death in "Mandingo fights" and who now owns Broomhilda. Realizing that Candie will not give up Broomhilda, they devise a plan whereby they pretend to be interested in buying one of Candie's "Mandingo" fighters. The rest of the movie concerns this and its aftermath.

People have complained about the level and frequency of exploitation" violence in Django Unchained. And they are correct, Tarintino uses more cinema blood in one death scene in this movie than he may have used in his entire film career so far. Blood splatters and paints everything: rooms, horses, people, even flowers. However, those that note this as "overly violent" very much miss two points I believe should be taken into consideration. One, he has used what was once considered one of the "vilest" films in history as his starting point: Django. To use this as his films cinematic reference and not reproduce its "over the top", cinematic violence would have been impossible - especially for someone like Tarantino. Secondly, a viewer needs to note exactly when Tarintino uses this "balletic" violence and when he does not. In violence against the "bad guys" (except one which I cannot discuss) by either Django or King , the deaths are indeed "outrageous". Bloodbags explode as they may never have done in any movie previously. Exploitation, anime deaths abound. However, when violence is done onto Django, or any of the slaves it is far more "realistic", far more understated than what we see elsewhere and for this reason is far more horrific. In one scene for example, where a slave is literally "ripped to pieces" by dogs, Tarantino pulls his camera away quickly leaving much to the viewers imagination. This is in contrast to when Django seeks revenge for other things later. Tarantino seems to be using cinematic violence as a juxtaposition against the real historic and extreme, horrifying violence committed upon slaves.

As to the links with Django Unchained and Siegfried I will detail them below. However, these are only included for anyone interested. For the purpose of a review the only one that is important is that of Django/Siegfried. So disinterested readers can happily skip down a few paragraphs:

King is Wotan (the Wanderer in Siegfried). He first meets Django and the slavers who are transporting him, in disguise. In the same way, when Wotan first meets Siegfried's"captor" (Mime. It's a lose connection but both Mime and the slavers are using Django/Siegfried for their own self interest) and indeed Siegfried himself later. Wotan is "king" of the gods and gains his power from his staff upon which are written all of the contracts that he keeps. Indeed, it would be easy to describe Wotan as a god of "contracts". - which, should he break, will lead to his own undoing. King too is bound by contracts. Indeed, his "power" (to kill those upon whom there is a bounty) comes from bounty "contracts. So much so that after he and Django kill a number of those with Bountys on their lives they only saved from death themselves by King waiving the bounty and noting the legal contract that exists. King always keeps his bounty contracts upon him just as Wotan must always carry his staff. During the movie there is only one place where he "breaks a contract" (the handshake scene for those that have seen the film) and this leads to the type of consequences one would expect to fall upon Wotan under similar circumstances - no mater how right or morally justified the breaking of that contract might be.

Broomhilda is Brunnhilde (a Walkure) Siegfried's "wife" and although he does not know it for much of the drama, the woman that he must "rescue" from a wall of fire. Broomhilde is also first rescued from a sort of "fire cabinet"

Stephen, Candie's senior house slave, may well be Alberich. Like Alberich, he benefits from the enslavement of his own race (as a small number of free Afro American did), appears to have forsaken any kind of love and manipulates those around him. His relationship with Candie, as we will discover, seems to go beyond what we might expect. There isn't the time here, but I might also point out that the "Study scene" has some similarities with Alberich appearing to his son Hagan in the final part of the Ring cycle: Götterdämmerung.

Indeed, talking of Götterdämmerung may lead us to further links with Django. I have already noted a scene in Django with similarities to Alberich appearing to his son Hagan (it is certainly no less chilling thanks to Samuel L. Jackson) . One might go further and suggest that in certain ways Candie Land is Götterdämmerung's Hall of the Gibichungs. If so, and it should be notted that in Götterdämmerung Brunnhilde is in a sense entrapped and enslaved in Hall of the Gibichungs, then it might also argued that Candie is a mixture of Hagan and Gunther (lord of the Gibichungs). And just as Gunter lives with his sister Gutrune, Candi lives with his sister Lara Lee Candie-Fitzwilly (before you say anything, yes, Tarantino fills his movies with what could be best described as "schoolboy humor")

Press Q&A

There seem to be other references to Wagner also. For example Tarantino's Wotan being named Schultz (Tarantino, as you may have noted, loves to play with the names of his characters) and thus most likely being of German but perhaps most importantly, Jewish ancestry. You might also like to note that Schultz is a compound of sculd(a) ‘debt’, ‘due’ plus a derivative of heiz(z)an ‘to command’. Thus making Schultz "King of debts" or even "King of Contracts"). However, I will leave it to any interested party to search for others if they are feeling bored enough. I would hate to spoil the fun

And finally to Django/Siegfried. Here things become rather complex as the links are not as strong as one might suspect - or at least to Wagner's Siegfried. Clearly, if his wife is Brunnhilde then this makes Django Siegfried. He also goes through a transformation like Siegfried - from fearless but rather naive hero to, in Siegfried's case the ultimate, mature romantic hero. Wagner's Siegfried is freed from the normal morality of the world - he will break with Wotan's laws and contracts - as Django will in a sense break with King's - and instead will be guided by "natural bonds". And what are these natural laws or bounds? In Wagner's still Feuerbachian world view these laws would come forth from natural bonds of love: love for nature, their loved ones and perhaps most importantly for others.

However, Django develops into a very different sort of hero, one perhaps that mirrors more Nietzsche's hero (the Übermensch and especially the Nazi version there of) than Wagner's.While there have certainly been attempts to make Nietzsche's Übermensch more "palatable" to modern readers (just as his horrendous misogyny has been successfully submerged. That in Nietzsche's future world of the Übermensch women's only role would be to produce more male Übermensch and this is how they would be judged, is a minor and more restrained example of his thinking). Perhaps Nietzche put it best in "The Gay Science":

"Who can attain to anything great if he does not feel in himself the force and will to inflict great pain? The ability to suffer is a small matter: in that line, weak women and even slaves often attain masterliness. But not to perish from internal distress and doubt when one inflicts great suffering and hears the cry of it — that is great, that belongs to greatness."

In other words, the Übermensch is free to do nearly anything. The pain, distress and even death of others is not of importance to him, only his goals are what matters. And this is exactly what Django becomes (wonderfully developed and with great understatement by Jamie Foxx) as some critics have noted, and given Django negative reviews because of it. Django, they note, is not concerned with the welfare or indeed freeing of any other slaves but Brunnhilde. And they are correct. In one particular scene, so that he might reach his goal, he allows an escaped slave to be torn to pieces by dogs. Something that King tries (and perhaps would have been successful at) stopping but Django will not let him - least it might interfere with his ultimate goal. This is something that continues to plague King - leading in part to "hand-shake scene", as a flashback during it would indicate. This I believe is no "accident". Tarantino is clear in his intent. And throughout, especially the final two thirds of the movie, Django shows little regard for other slaves.

Django as a "freeman" is as much a victim of the violence and mistreatment done onto him and those around him as are those still enslaved. Rather than endorsing violence, as some reviewers seem to think, Tarantino seems to be telling us that extreme violence, slavery and racism will only breed more violence and leave the individual permanently damaged. In the same manner that Hitler distorted Wagner's Siegfried, violence onto others - especially the innocent - can have a similar effect. Django maybe the hero - and we are left cheering for his success and will certainly also feel his "righteous vengeance" - but Tarantino wants us to know that Django has been left irreversible damaged by the injustices around him. Such wrongs, such mistreatment can neither ever be forgotten or more importantly repaired in the individual

Oh. Its a fine cinematic experience also. Tarantino is nearly on as fine a form as during Pulp Fiction, and perhaps in the middle section shows a maturity that bodes well for the future. Go see it.

Directed by	Quentin Tarantino
Produced by	Stacey Sher Reginald Hudlin Pilar Savone
Written by	Quentin Tarantino
Starring	Jamie Foxx Christoph Waltz Leonardo DiCaprio Kerry Washington Samuel L. Jackson Walton Goggins Dennis Christopher James Remar Michael Parks Don Johnson
Music by	Elayna Boynton
Cinematography	Robert Richardson
Editing by	Fred Raskin
Studio(s)	A Band Apart
Distributed by	The Weinstein Company (USA) Columbia Pictures (International)
Release date(s)	December 25, 2012 (United States)
Running time	165 minutes[1][2][3]
Country	United States
Language	English
Budget	$100 million[4]
Box office	$380,448,000[4]

Review: Cloud Atlas. Time Becomes Space

2013-02-25T20:30:00.000-08:00

"But life is short, and truth works far and lives long: let us speak the truth". (Arthur Schopenhauer, 1818).

"O Brahmana, it is just like a mountain river, flowing far and swift, taking everything along with it; there is no moment, no instant, no second when it stops flowing, but it goes on flowing and continuing. So Brahmana, is human life, like a mountain river". (Buddha)

"Here time becomes space" (Parsifal, Richard Wagner)

Anyone with even the fainest knowledge of film history - or those that have actually experienced some of it - will note an interesting phenomenon: often the movies that have gone on to be considered both "classics" and redefined or influenced future cinema in someway, were either, (and frequently both on initial release) box office or critical failures. At the same time, there were a small, but not always un-influential group of critics who seem to see something else in such film and praise them greatly. This often leads to the strange phenomenon of such movies appearing simultaneously on "best" and "worst" movie of the year lists. Such movies have included, although many younger readers might find it hard to believe: 2001: A Space Odyssey, Blade Runner (the back tracking by critics over these two movies in particular over the years has been amusing to behold) and even Citizen Kane. Cloud Atlas, has so far shown an initial pattern very similar to these landmark movies.

Lets look for example at a small section of the critical response:

Even as I was watching Cloud Atlas the first time, I knew I would need to see it again. Now that I've seen it the second time, I know I'd like to see it a third time ... I think you will want to see this daring and visionary film ... I was never, ever bored by Cloud Atlas. On my second viewing, I gave up any attempt to work out the logical connections between the segments, stories and characters. Roger Ebert Chicago Sun-Times

"Finally, what sinks "Cloud Atlas" is not the largeness of its ambitions but the lack of skill it displays in terms of writing, directing and acting". Kenneth Turan Los Angeles Times

Some will balk at its excesses, but breathtaking action, profound emotion and a dark sense of fun make this the most ambitious, original movie event in years. Hannah McGill The List

The best thing about Cloud Atlas is that it could, and should, turn into a properly divisive film... but one has to ask: does it allow for immersion? Even as we applaud the dramatic machinery, are we being kept emotionally at bay? Anthony Lane New Yorker

It's funny, violent and prodigiously romantic; it has immense heart and more gorgeous cinematic moments than I can describe. Andrew O'Hehir Salon.com

And on it goes, with negatives making up the majority of reviews (a score of 66% on Rotten Tomatoes if such things influence your film viewing).

I am about to step out on a limb here, I can hear the branch cracking as I balance precariously on the end, but I will predict the same amount of back peddling from those so dismissive of Cloud Atlas as I saw from the same critics around other movies already mentioned.

Cloud Atlas is an adoption of the wonderfully written and executed 2004 novel by David Mitchell scripted, produced and directed by Lana and Andy Wachowski (Matrix) and Tom Tykwer (Perfume). The movie consists of six separate but ultimately linked stories. These range from a 19th century story of slavery, abolition and murder to the tale of a post-apocalyptic society living in a small community in the distant future. Between these are the stories of: a post romantic composer in the 1930's and his relationship to an aging, once famous composer unable to move beyond the Romantic tradition (perhaps my favourite story of the six); a conspiracy story set in the 1970s involving the oil industry; a publisher in the present day in a rather convoluted tale of psychopathic writers and a nursing home, and finally a tale set firmly somewhere between Scott's Blade Runner and Margaret Atwood's "Hand Maids Tale" - at least visually. Each tale is not told chronologically, one following the other, but instead we find ourselves moving backwards and forwards through them as the film progresses. Ultimately however, each tale is closely connected. How these connections are made may ultimately be up to the viewer.

A superb cast (even Tom Hanks, of whom I have not been a great fan of for a number of years) play multiple roles across each story.

Cloud Atlas: Behind The Scenes

While one might normally find a disparity in style in a movie with three directors (even if the Wachowski 's can be counted as one voice) this is not the case and instead one feels that you are clearly watching one single movie rather than six short stories ones. If there is an exception than it is Tom Tykwer 's section set in the present day, which somehow develops into an Ealing Comedy during its mid section. However, given the number of film references put into the other stories, perhaps this is deliberate. If it is, then somehow it misfires here as it seems oddly out of place. Perhaps though, repeated viewing may change this perspective. I felt a similar, if lesser, twinge of doubt with the introduction of Matrix movie type action in one of the Wachowski's sections, but this quickly started to make narrative sense.

But what is all about? While there certainly seems to be certain themes running throughout the movie - interconnectedness, that a soul can become a "hero" in one set of circumstance a "villain" in an other (even if they need to fight against their "darkness"), that no matter where you are in time and space there is a commonality to the human experience, that love will ultimately conquer, that there is some truth in notions of Metempsychosis (whether literally or biologically is upto the viewer), etc, etc - ultimately, the viewer is left to take away their own message. What is certain is that Cloud Atlas is a far less a complex movie or story than many critics seem to have found it. If they do find it as such, then perhaps the Hollywood machine is right to keep churning out empty headed action "flicks" - it clearly knows the intellectual demands of the average critic better than we think.

Anyway, whatever message you take from it ,if any, why not simply enjoy the journey of a beautiful, cinematic experience that in just under 3 hours never once drags - testament I think to its cinematic and story telling pedigree. It is due to ambitious movies like this that I can continue to believe that film is still a valid part of the arts - while still remaining ultimately "cinema"

Cloud Atlas Press Conference

Directed by	Lana Wachowski Tom Tykwer Andy Wachowski
Produced by	Grant Hill Stefan Arndt Lana Wachowski Tom Tykwer Andy Wachowski
Screenplay by	Lana Wachowski Tom Tykwer Andy Wachowski
Based on	Cloud Atlas by David Mitchell
Starring	Tom Hanks Halle Berry Jim Broadbent Hugo Weaving Jim Sturgess Doona Bae Ben Whishaw James D'Arcy Zhou Xun Keith David David Gyasi Susan Sarandon Hugh Grant
Music by	Tom Tykwer Johnny Klimek Reinhold Heil
Cinematography	Frank Griebe John Toll
Editing by	Alexander Berner
Studio	Cloud Atlas Production X-Filme Creative Pool Anarchos Production
Distributed by	Warner Bros. Pictures
Release date(s)	September 8, 2012 (TIFF) October 26, 2012 (North America) February 22, 2013 (United Kingdom) March 15, 2013 (Japan)
Running time	171 minutes[1][2]
Country	Germany[3][4][5]
Language	English[3][4]
Budget	$102 million[6]
Box office	$107,989,814[7]

Oscars 2013 - The Winners

2013-02-24T21:27:00.001-08:00

Best supporting actor
Christoph Waltz, Django Unchained

Best short film (animated)
Paperman

Best animation
Brave: Mark Andrews, Brenda Chapman

Best cinematography Life of Pi, Claudio Miranda

Best visual effects
Bill Westenhofer, Guillaume Rocheron, Erik-Jan De Boer: Life of Pi

Best costume design
Jacqueline Durran, Anna Karenina

Best make up and hair
Lisa Westcott, Les Miserables

Best short
Curfew

Best documentary short
Inocente

Best documentary
Searching for Sugar Man

Best foreign film
Amour - Austria

Best sound mixing
Andy Nelson, Mark Paterson and Simon Hayes, Les Miserables

Best sound editing
Zero Dark Thirty and Skyfall

Best supporting actress
Anne Hathaway, Les Miserables

Best editing
William Goldenberg, Argo

Best production design
Rick Carter, Jim Erickson: Lincoln

Best original score
Mychael Danna, Life of Pi

Best original song
"Skyfall" from Skyfall

Best adapted screenplay
Chris Terrio, Argo

Best original screenplay
Quentin Tarantino, Django Unchained

Best director
Ang Lee, Life of Pi

Best actress
Jennifer Lawrence, Silver Linings Playbook

Best actor
Daniel Day-Lewis, Lincoln

Best picture
Argo

Watch Now: Prometheus: The Directors Cut

2013-02-24T17:20:00.001-08:00

Well, OK perhaps not quite, but you might as well have a look while your here? Right? Oh, go on.

Reefer Madness: Or "Go Tell Your Children"

2013-02-23T05:57:00.002-08:00

Financed by a church group in 1936 under the title Tell Your Children, the movie was renamed Reefer Maddness when it was bought for general cinema release by Dwain Esper. Originally designed as a morality tale to dissuade cannabis use among teenagers, Esper, an early exploitation movie director and producer (and one time exhibitor of the mummified body of Oklahoma Outlaw Elmer McCurdy) re-edited the movie to turn it into the legend of an exploitation movie you find below.

Whether its is worth your time to view it in full (It is. Nothing even by Ed Wood can compare) - as found below - can be decided by quickly viewing the following clip.

See, never say I don't provide public information. You have been warned.

By the way, as an interesting aside, director, Louis J. Gasnier, had been, prior to the arrival of the "talkies", a highly successful Hollywood director. See for example, the somewhat legendary, and much copied and even parodied, serial "The Perils Of Pauline". After retiring from directing, he went onto make a number of "guest" appearances in other movies. His last being as elderly Frenchman in the Steve McQueen war film Hell Is for Heroes in 1962. He died aged 87 a year later

Directed by	Louis Gasnier
Produced by	Dwain Esper
Written by	Arthur Hoerl
Starring	Dorothy Short Kenneth Craig Lillian Miles Dave O'Brien Thelma White Warren McCollum Carleton Young
Distributed by	Motion Picture Ventures New Line Cinema (rerelease)
Release date(s)	January 15, 1936
Running time	68 min.
Country	United States
Language	English
Budget	$100,000

Review: The Lincoln Lawyer. Can Hollywood make "Hollywood" movies for grown-ups again?

2013-02-19T16:44:00.002-08:00

Finding just one of the following things in a movie is likely to provide solid evidence that it's not going to be very good: a film based on one of those books that fill the stands at train stations (who the hell does read Andy McNab and considers his output either literature or even readable anyway?) , a handheld camera operated by an infant who has just had a sugar overdose and can't keep bloody still (it's one, - although far from the only - reason I dislike Dogme 95 so much), or if it stars Matthew McConaughey (all Romcoms should be taken out and shot - humanely or not I really don't care.) Imagine then my surprise to find, right from the opening credits, a film containing all three that was not only good, but worth more than one run through

The Lincoln Lawyer, (directed by Brad Furman - who now sits firmly on my "to watch list") is a thriller, perhaps a sort of "neo-neo-noir", and the best film that Michael Mann never directed - either in the 80's or 90's. By this I mean it is "old fashioned Hollywood entertainment" but entertainment dense in characterization that is echoed across a large cast of of characters . And these are people that have conversations, long conversations that actually make some sense within the logic of the movie and to which you not only really need to listen to but more importantly want to listen to. Oh, don't get me wrong, there is - should you need such a thing, and who doesn't occasionally - suspense, "action" and "twists and turns" but most importantly it is a "grown-up", movie for adults that is "talky" but not in away that is desperately trying to win "best picture" (its no Lincoln - forgive the reference)

Matthew McConaughey (at the best I have ever seen him. Perhaps he is simply aging well. Either that or he is getting to old for romcom cinema goers - whoever they might be - and feels the need to up his game a bit) plays Los Angeles County criminal defense attorney Mickey Haller. Haler runs his business out of of his black Lincoln Town Car (hence the title). Not the most ethical of attorneys, Haller, who specializes in defending clearly guilty criminals of various types - including the members of a local motercycle gang - is not above conning his clients out of more money then needed. When his driver Earl (Laurence Mason), notes at one part, after he has successfully convinced the aforementioned motorcycle gang to pay him an extra $10, 000 for something he has no intention of doing, "You know what? You would've done all right on the streets. " Haller replies " Shit. Where do you think I am, Earl? "

Its better than its trailer would suggest by the way

Going around his usual daily routine of bribing court bailiffs and bail bondsmen (putting them on his Christmas list as he describes it), he happens across the case of Louis Roulet (Ryan Phillippe), a Beverly Hills playboy who is accused of the brutal beating of prostitute Reggie Campo.

Haller believes the wide eyed and fresh faced Roulet when he tells him he is innocent - having simply been at the wrong place at the wrong time. And sets out to defend a case he believes will be easy but quickly grows into the sort of story found in the best novels of Dashiell Hammett - or perhaps more accurately Jim Thomson. He may even find some sort of ""moral redemption" along the way - maybe

Matthew McConaughey is supported with the sort of quality supporting casts rarely found in a big studio movie nowadays. This includes LA itself which is shot beautifully and atmospherically by Lukas Ettlin. - despite the irritating, and irrationally occasional use of a shaky handheld camera .

Scriptwriter John Romano, takes the best seller by Michael Connelly and one suspects turns it into a far better story than the one he found. He certainly does a wonderful job of tying together a large cast of apparently unrelated characters even if I am far from convinced about the final revelation.

The score, provided by Cliff Martinez adds just the right amount of atmosphere but is somewhat overshadowed by a soundtrack that more than ably uses the music of Bobby Bland (who's "Aint No Love In The Heart Of The City" sets the tone during the opening tile sequence)", Citizen Cope, Gang Star, etc (The full sound track can be heard below)

Actually, listen to the soundtrack, pour a class of Southern Comfort and then sit down and watch this movie - would ya? Your life may not be changed but for 119 minutes you may start to believe that Hollywood can once again produce "Hollywood" movies, that simply wish to entertain, for grown-ups.

Directed by

Produced by

Richard Wright

Scott Steindorff

Screenplay by

John Romano

Based on

The Lincoln Lawyer by

Starring

Music by

Cinematography

Editing by

Jeff McEvoy

Studio

Lionsgate

Lakeshore Entertainment

SKE Entertainment

Stone Village Pictures

Distributed by

Lionsgate

Release date(s)

March 18, 2011

Running time

119 minutes

Country

United States

Language

English

Budget

$40 million[1]

Box office

$85,507,593[2]

Review. Margaret Thatcher, The Iron Lady: Or The futility of Power.

2013-02-16T14:15:00.000-08:00

"And on the pedestal these words appear --
"My name is Ozymandias, king of kings:
Look on my works, ye Mighty, and despair!"
Nothing beside remains. Round the decay
Of that colossal wreck, boundless and bare
The lone and level sands stretch far away.' Ozymandias: Percy Bysshe Shelley

Back in 1974, when I was probably to young to, I saw Roman Polanski's "China Town". While there is much to remember from this film - an excellent cinematic experience, dealing with a number of different subjects - one of things that oddly stuck with me for many years was the fact that the provision of domestic water in the USA was run by private companies. That a corporate entity might make a profit from providing such a basic necessity as water seemed somehow repugnant and out and out mercenary. So much so, that after seeing the film I had to check that it was correct.

Move forward to 2013 and I would suspect that a younger generation might not understand why I found that somewhat distressing. This is just one of Thatcher's legacies. Another, perhaps even more relevant now, is the credit card - or indeed accepted notions of domestic credit in general. Again, when I was younger, taking any form of loan was something one might do, but you kept it secret. You certainly would not have flaunted it. There was, in the UK, something of a social stigma about needing to borrow money. Move forward to Thatchers 80's and such notions seemed to disappear overnight. Not only did people not hide any loans that they might have but "having good credit", and more importantly proving so, became something of a mark of economic, and in some places social, acceptance. People opened their wallets and an ever increasing series of credit cards would be proudly displayed. Credit card not enough? What about a Gold Card, or a Platinum card.? You don't have one? Oh dear what on earth could be the matter with your "credit rating"?

These are just two of many more legacies left to the world by Thatcher, Reagan and working partner Murdoch. For better or worse - the final decision is yours - Thatcher changed the UK into what it is today and her legacy can still be clearly felt - right up to and beyond, the international money markets collapse in 2008. It would thus seem impossible for a combination of director and writer making a film about Thatcher to not address these issues. However, this is exactly what script writer Abi Morgan and director Phyllida Lloyd have somehow managed to do. What both are interested in, a story told many times and far more effectively, is the ultimate futility of the desire for power.

Oh yes, it deals with other issues: feminism, dementia, maybe even love, but these are all superficially dealt with or remain hangers upon which to place its major theme. Indeed, so desperate is it to underline its one single thought that it will happily distort the past to prove its point. Did you know, for example, that without fault, (although Norman Tebbit remains conspicuous by his absence) Thatcher's cabinet were in favour of social equality, high taxation of the "rich" and against cuts in welfare spending? No, well they were according to Lloyd's film. Thatcher was the sole voice, her Milton Friedman dominated economic policies hers alone, while she battled against a party and cabinet so liberal, "wishy washy" and troubled by social inequality it remains a mystery why they did not sit on the same benches as the two Dave's (Steele and Owen).

The story is told in flashback from the present day, with Thatcher struggling with dementia and haunted, literally, by the ghost of her deceased husband Denis . Her favourite son, Mark, having moved to South Africa and never visiting, seems to have abandoned her (either that or he is lost in the desert again) . Indeed, ultimately even the ghost of Denis leaves her. All really the result of her relentless search for power - its lonely at the top you see. Many of these flashback sequences are told with a combination of newly filmed footage and the last resort of the low-budget movie, archive footage (maybe it had spent its entire budget to get Meryl Streep to wear enough prosthetics to make Anthony Hopkins moan in Sacha Gervasi's Hitchcock).

And while on the subject of Meryl Streep both her and and Jim Broadbent, are few of the only redeeming features of this movie, even if both must act their little hearts out through the aforementioned prosthetics. A fine performance from both.

Apart from being so determined to tell a story that could have been better told using a different life, Phyllida Lloyd's greatest crime to the cinematic form is to produce a movie that looks, in the main, like a late-night Channel 4 or BBC 3 TV movie rather than a true cinematic experience. The archive footage does not help.

"You have always been alone" says the ghost of Thatcher's husband as he finally leaves her. Yes! Yes Phyllida Lloyd! We get it! A lesson admittedly hard won by some. Its tough at the top. "Power" is ultimately useless, we should simply spend time with our loved ones and life's a bitch and then you die. Shelly told us this and in only 6 lines.

Directed by	Phyllida Lloyd
Produced by	Damian Jones
Written by	Abi Morgan
Starring	Meryl Streep Jim Broadbent Anthony Head Richard E. Grant Iain Glen Olivia Colman
Music by	Thomas Newman [1]
Cinematography	Elliott Davis
Editing by	Justin Wright
Studio	Pathé Film4 Productions UK Film Council Goldcrest Films
Distributed by	The Weinstein Company (US) 20th Century Fox (UK) Pathé (International)
Release date(s)	26 December 2011 (AUS) 30 December 2011 (US) 6 January 2012 (UK & IRL) 15 February 2012 (France)
Running time	105 min
Country	United Kingdom France
Language	English
Budget	$14 million
Box office	$114,943,631

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Total Recall 2012: or "We can dumb it down for you wholesale"

2013-02-09T14:10:00.001-08:00

2 Out Of 5 Stars

Clearly Len Wiseman wanted to remake another P.K. Dick story turned film, Blade Runner. Instead he remade Total Recall. Maybe he got the stories confused? Maybe he couldn't get the rights to remake Blade Runner. Maybe he thought better than to risk remaking a better directors film? Who knows, but he remade Total Recall and now we must all suffer. The odd thing of course is that 1990's Total Recall isn't as good a movie as film fans memories or nostalgia for late 80's kitsch movies staring the ex-governor of California, and general misogynist, Big Arni make it out to be. Like many of P.K.Dick's weird and wonderful stories, it has yet to filmed adequately. So Wiseman's job, and with a budget of $125,000,000, should have been made easy. But no. Even after hiding it in enough lens flair to make J. J. Abrams blush, he still manages to make a flat, unintelligent and simply boring mess. Oh, well.

Guess what? At the end of a 21st century a global war devastates the earth, leaving much of it uninhabitable. Honest! But, not to worry, for some strange reason both the UK and Australia are OK. Maybe the orchestrator's of the final world war just liked "Neighbours" and "Coronation Street" and felt that destroying the homes of both series would leave them with only re-runs to watch? Or maybe they had holiday homes in both countries? Your guess is as good as mine but there you have it.

Most of the jobs and economic wealth are in the UK. Sorry, I mean "The United Federation of Britain - UFB). This means those poor sods from Australia - sorry I mean The Colony - must travel to the UK each day to mindless and dangerous jobs working in factories making robot policemen that the UK then uses to suppress Australians further. Why? Again who knows. Maybe Coronation Street is more popular than Neighbours?

One of those working stiffs is Douglas Quaid (Colin Farrell). He has to travel from Australia to the UK every day on a device known as the the Fall", a "gravity elevator", which travels through the Earth's core between Australia and the UK - very quickly. Sadly, "The Fall" (not to be confused with a rather interesting British indie band) seems to have little purpose but to set things up for a rather standard action sequence in the third act. Handy that.

Not surprisingly, Quaid is rather bored of this commutator run everyday, his equally boring job and one assumes his economic suppression by those evil Brits (who oddly are all American and speak with American accents - as do all of the Australians). So he visits an outfit called Rekall, a company that implants artificial memories. Its owner tells him that he can implant any memory he wants and whatever memory is implanted Quaid will believe he has had and experienced. Now he will have some happy memories while taking that commutator ride every day and screwing robots together that are at the same time part of the cause of his economic repression. Who wouldn't? You? Well, you clearly don't star in a film scripted by Kurt Wimmer and Mark Bomback who have taken an intriguing short story and idea, originally carefully crafted by Philip K Dick and turned it into the drivel you have been reading about so far. Anyway, back to the plot.

Quaid wants to remember being a spy. Not any old spy mind, but a double agent super spy - as you do. Easy, says Rekall and they make it so - or do they? As he is being injected for his memory implants he discovers he is a super-spy, his memories having been erased, that his wife Lori (Kate Beckinsale) is also a spy but an evil one set to keep an eye on him by UFB Chancellor Vilos Cohaagen (Bryan Cranston - who camps it up wonderfully and is clearly the only person aware of the nonsense he is in). And so, as they no doubt say in the publicity material somewhere, a journey for one man to discover the truth and fight for justice begins. There is also the possibility that none of it is real and Quaid is suffering from a psychotic delusion caused by a misfire in the Rekall process. Alas, this is handled more poorly than in the original movie and no one really cares - least of all the audience by the end.

So how do I know that Wiseman really wanted to remake Blade Runner? Because "the Colony" is a big budget, faithful and rather convincing re-imaging of Scotts future LA from that movie. Its rather good actually. And makes the first act rather interesting. It thus makes it so much worse when, in the second act we travel to the UK which looks like the UK now - but with the odd hover car. Its boring, flat and so is the script, acting, art direction and directing in this, long, oh so long, section. Not only does it look like a different movie but it looks like Wiseman lost interest in directing it and left it all-up to a poor second unit director to manage. Maybe he did - the lens flare, certainly becomes conspicuous by its absence in this act. And alas the script follows the same pattern. The final act - and return to "the Colony - improves things a little but things never return to the opening acts far better realized conception.

If you must watch this movie then walk out after the first act, go for a bit to eat and at the very most return for the final act. You'll be less disappointed. Alternatively don't go back, but watch the first act, go to Rekall and ask them to implant the memories of a decent second and third act instead. Clearly I couldn't afford that last option - or did I???

Wotan.

Directed by	Len Wiseman
Produced by	Neal H. Moritz Toby Jaffe
Screenplay by	Kurt Wimmer Mark Bomback
Story by	Ronald Shusett Dan O'Bannon Jon Povill Kurt Wimmer
Based on	We Can Remember It for You Wholesale by Philip K. Dick
Starring	Colin Farrell Kate Beckinsale Jessica Biel Bryan Cranston John Cho Bill Nighy
Music by	Harry Gregson-Williams
Cinematography	Paul Cameron
Editing by	Christian Wagner
Studio	Original Film
Distributed by	Columbia Pictures
Release date(s)	August 3, 2012
Running time	118 minutes^[1]
Country	United States
Language	English
Budget	$125,000,000^[2]
Box office	$198,467,168^[3]

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

"In space no one can hear you moan": Disney announce Star Wars Spin--Off movies.

2013-02-06T10:52:00.002-08:00

Lets be honest, after the Star Wars prequels, Jar Jar Binks - and even without Lucas - the announcement that Disney was to take over and continue the Star Wars series, some of us were left with a deep feeling of dread - or was that just me?

OK, so things improved a little when we were told that the first part of the post-Return of the Jedi trilogy would be directed by J. J. Abrams (assuming he can learn to restrain the use of "camera flare" of course) but what are we to make of the latest announcement?

It now seems that in addition to the already announced next Star Wars trilogy, Disney are to release a number of stand alone Star Wars films featuring characters from the series. While Disney Co has remained silent as to what form these will take, EW claim, not that unrealistically, that two of the spin-off projects will include a Han Solo "origins" movie and a film dedicated to the "adventures" of Boba Fett, to be released between 2015 and 2021.

Whether these will be cinema releases is unknown although given Disney's propensity to dismantle their own franchises with a series of straight to video releases anything is possible.

Am I worried worried? Nearly as much as when I first saw "The Star Wars Holiday Special. Maybe we will get Lumpy and Itchy spinoffs?

Prometheus: Or Ridley Scott remakes 2001 Space Odyssey in his own image

2013-02-05T13:22:00.001-08:00

4 out of 5 stars

Prometheus is less a prequel to Alien - although it is - than it is a remake of Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Albeit one that may ultimately deny 2001's Nietzschean origins and philosophy . It is certainly a film in Scott's image rather than that of 2001's original creator. I was going to call to this review, "Prometheus: or 2001 for the ADHD Generation" but thought it might suggest I did not like the movie, although I do. Or even that it was a lesser movie , which it is not. Its just a very different type of movie. But why then this comparison? Not only has Scott himself compared his film to Kubrick's undenied masterpiece, but he has filled Prometheus with references to it: in the script, visually and even in the dialogue (Scot steals dialogue directly from 2001). It is even possible that Scott references Kubrick's movie more times then he does his own "Alien" - and he does that often enough as one would expect from a film set in the same universe. However, Scott's film is a very different beast, both to 2001 and Alien, and people going to see it for its similarities to either maybe very disappointed.

Firstly, while Kubrick takes his usual leisurely approach to his narrative, Scott packs as much into a few minutes as any summer blockbuster. Much more so even than in Alien. Here the "action" is relentless. Special affects abound, as do explosions, "chase scenes" and out and out "gore". Add to this, that much of the movie takes place in a vast alien exterior (or should that be interior?) means not only faster pacing then Kubrick but faster pacing even than Alien. Given this and that in Prometheus we lose the claustrophobia of the Nostrama together with H.G Giger's wonderfully, claustrophobic, Lovecraftian set designs and it would be easy to conclude that in the hands of even a good director we might have a poorer film. But this is not so. Whatever Scott's faults in this movie - and there are certainly some - this is not one of them. And somehow, during all of the explosions, chase scenes and gore, the film manages to throw enough ideas around to have lead to an entire industry of websites dedicated to investigate and argue them.

Also, whereas Kubrick's film seems to be an exploration and endorsement of Nietzsche's philosophy of the Übermensch, Scott's film may very well - especially I would suspect in the next parts of the expected trilogy - turn out to be an out and out rejection of it. The film starts with self sacrifice, in this case the first "Engineer" who, by giving up his own life, generates life on a new planet. And this is a theme that runs throughout the movie. Self sacrifice is central to Prometheus' narrative structure and forward momentum. There are also persistent references to Christianity - the Prometheus lands on the alien moon LV-223 on Christmas day, The "Engineers" seem to have started their final plan (which for those have not seen the film I better not reveal) just after the Christian crucifixion (in an interview Scott has stated there maybe a connection) and this film's Ripley wears a Crucifix to which constant reference is made. And similar references abound

Nietzsche of course was famously critical of Christianity and its impact on civilisation - especially in the area of ethics and notions of sacrifice. Although people that insist Prometheus is ultimately a Christian work maybe sadly disappointed. In an interview about the movie Scott called religion "the greatest evil". If this trilogy is in anyway about religion or Christianity then it may turn out to be closely aligned to Gnosticism or the Christianity found in Richard Wagner's Parsifal (interestingly, the films central character, Elizabeth Shaw, has a childhood memory that is to suspiciously like the Buddhas first encounter with death to be more than co-incidence. The Christianity in Wagner's Parsifal is very closely entwined with Buddhism - as influenced by Schopenhauer ).

But enough of the comparisons, and on to the movie itself.

Prometheus starts as a dark shadow moves across an unnamed planet very similar to an unpopulated earth. Slowly and majestically this shadow crosses an expansive landscape till it stops above a waterfall and related expanse of water ("In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters". Genesis). Standing above this waterfall is what the movie calls an "Engineer". One of the pilots of the craft from the first Alien film whose elephantine head we discover to be a helmet. He drinks from a vial and dies, falling into to the water from atop the waterfall his DNA begins to untangle and life is born.

We move forward in time and two archeologists, Elizabeth Shaw and Charlie Holloway have discovered a cave painting in Scotland similar to many they have found in many other locations. This consists of an elongated figure pointing at a group of planets.

Again we move forward in time and space to find ourselves on the space craft Prometheus at the end of an nearly 3 year journey to reach the moon LV-223, believed to be the moon indicted in the cave paintings

During the journey the crew has remained in stasis, with only a strangely Laurence of Arabia obsessed android, David (played splendidly by Michael Fassbender) to monitor the crew and man the ship. On arrival, the first to come out of stasis is the icy, unemotional, Meredith Vickers (Charlize Theron in fine form).

The rest of the crew is then awakened and finally told why they are at their destination (echos of 2001 again). Following a survey of the planet an artificial structure is discovered. On investigation inside, they find humanoid statues, rooms filled with metallic cylinders, walls of alien writing, alien technology, the bodies of dead "Engineers" and the beginning of what they like to say in promotional material, "a race to save humanity from final destruction."

The script originally written by Jon Spaihts and then rewritten by Damon Lindelof in collaboration with Scott, keeps things moving adequately for even the most "blockbusting" of summer blockbusters, while throwing enough ideas around to stimulate some thought afterwards - even if it is nowhere as clever as one suspects Lindelof thinks it is. There is alas an over use of deus ex machina - especially in the final act although the criticism of most - that the script leaves to many things unresolved and unanswered - is easily understood given, as I have noted, this is the first part of a trilogy.

Overall, the film has a solid cast although I have some reservations about Noomi Rapace's Elizabeth Shaw. Her transformation from "mild mannered" archaeologist (yeah, I know but I didn't write the script) to Prometheus' answer to Ripley is simply to quick and unbelievable. Whether this is the fault of the script or Noomi Rapace will no-doubt become apparent in the next instalment although I suspect the former. However, at this stage her character simply lacks the "toughness" or "presence" of Sigourney Weaver's Ribley to fully carry the expectations of the movie in its final act. Another concern is Guy Pearce's Peter Weyland. Why on earth take a 45 year old actor and cover him in rather obvious prosthetics to make him look like an 86 year old? Is there a shortage of older actors in Hollywood at the moment? And a note to Mr Pearce, when an actor plays an elderly character shuffling while bending over slightly is not convincing anyone.

However, the "star" of this movie is Ridley Scott. Time and again Scott has shown himself to be a master creator of believable worlds. From Blade Runner's dystopian film noir inspired future earth, to Gladiator's Rome to Alien's "space Truckers" and the original Engineers space craft.While at the same time being able to generate ideas that leave academics in film to continue to write books about them. Hollywood has many fine directors in its service but few with the artistic vision and mindfulness to mise-en-scene that Scott has. Given that he has cited Milton's Paradise Lost as a major inspiration for this series I for one cannot wait to see where his imagination takes us next.

Directed by

Ridley Scott

Produced by

Ridley Scott David Giler Walter Hill
Written by

Jon Spaihts Damon Lindelof
Starring

Noomi Rapace Michael Fassbender Guy Pearce Idris Elba Logan Marshall-Green Charlize Theron
Music by

Marc Streitenfeld

Cinematography

Dariusz Wolski

Editing by

Pietro Scalia

Studio

Scott Free Productions Brandywine Productions Dune Entertainment
Distributed by

20th Century Fox

Amazon.co.uk Widgets

Cowboys and Aliens: Or how I learned to stop worrying and look for the Wagner references

2013-02-02T22:55:00.003-08:00

3 out of 5 Stars

The bankers destroyed the world . Inhumane, soulless demons. Working deep within the earth - out of sight, out of mind. They raped the land and stole the gold - while hypnotising you. "Everything is fine" they made you believe. "Nothing to see here". But not everyone. No sirree. Because there were some, like you, who - while not fully understanding the "demonic" nature of the "great manipulators" - benefited from participation with them. Or at least you did until their unthinking, unemotional lust for gold turned on you too. Yeah, there was clearly something-up. Don't pretend you didn't know something was wrong because you did - didn't you?. Oh, most of us might have been totally hoodwinked but you? Well you knew it all along didn't you? Deep down? You may have ignored it, pushed it to the back of your mind, but there was something up - wasn't there? But not to worry because there is still time for you to redeem yourself. Time to awake. You can turn your gaze on the Nibelungen, see through their manipulations, wake the sleeping masses, redeem the world and return the gold to the Rhinemaidens You may need the help of the god like powers of Siegfried and Brunnhilde to do so but you will - and without you even they are nothing

And thus we have the plot (or at least subplot) of Cowboys and Aliens, an entertaining if confused, episodic and ultimately disappointing movie that, while owing much to Richard Wagner's Ring of the Nibelungen opera cycle (or at least a Marxist reading of said work - either consciously or unconsciously) and the recent economic "meltdown", is ultimately only saved by much of its cast - especially Harrison Ford.

It starts well enough, with Daniel Craig (the movies Siegfried) arriving from nowhere and thankfully looking less like a steroid addicted Sid James then he has in the new Bond movies. I had fears of Carry On Cowboy - see video below - but had no need to worry as he puts in an enjoyable, if somewhat shallow, performance. He's a man with no name, no memory, the fastest gun in the west, and of unknown motives. And he wears a rather strange bracelet that helps provide him the means to help detect, and ultimately defeat, the aliens. So far so, if we ignore the bracelet, Sergio Leone. But this is a movie of mixed sub genres and influences and when he arrives at a local "one horse" town we are, if alas far to briefly, entering the "wild West" of Fred Zinnemann's High Noon or Howard Hawks's Rio Bravo (the director cites John Ford and Sergio Leone as influences). And of course in keeping with such movies, this is "old" "Hollywood's rather clean, rather sanitised version of the West - that most "new westerns" have reacted against. But despite this, it remains the movies best "chapter" and it is a pity the (many, many - far to many) screenwriters decided to branch out from here. We are quickly introduced to the rest of the cast, including the central figures of Harrison Ford as the wealthy cattleman of dubious ethics (he needs Wagnerian redemption - but will he manage it?), and the mysterious traveler of Olivia Wilde (the movies Brunnhilde); a generally fine supporting cast and possibly some of the most boring, shallow, CGI aliens to appear in a big budget movie in a long time.

Quickly the aliens appear, kidnap a series of local residents (for reasons that make no sense) and a "quest" movie begins. Daniel Graig's character seeks to find out who he is and his obvious relationship to the aliens, Harrison Ford's odious rancher seeks to win back his equally odious abducted son and Olivia Wilds "mysterious" character has motives of her own - but these might prove too great, if rapidly obvious, a spoiler to reveal.

And of course along the way, both Daniel Greg's Man with No Name, and Harrison Ford's "Evil Rancher" will gain redemption - whether they want it or not.

The movie throws Wagner references at us by the dozen - or at least I think it does. Daniel Graig is Siegfried, his bracelet a cross between Siegfried's sword Nothung and the Ring (indeed there are hints at the end he may not be entirely human - if you look); Olivia Wilde is Brunnhilde - she even "awakens" returning to our world emerging from a ring of fire - her fate to redeem the world is ultimately Brunhnhilde's; the aliens are the Nibelungen living deep underground, fearful of the light and with an unsatisfiable need for gold.

Carry On Cowboy.

While enjoyable, the movie itself is ultimately let down by a screenplay with so many many holes - an illogical episodic mess - that no director could save. So disjointed are its various "chapters" that it feels as if it was originally written as a series of TV episodes (it wasn't) It may have been written by a series of screenwriters of known talent but together they seem to have lost the ability to produce a cohesive story. When you have script written by, count them, 5 writers, from a story written by 4, you end up with a story by committee whose members had very different ideas and seemed incapable of merging them successfully. If only, more than workmen like director Jonathan Kolia (of whose work I am not normally hardly a fan - Elf, Iron Man 2, etc) had had the guts to take the screenplay and edit it himself into a cohesive story. Alas, in an interview he seems to suggest the opposite, "It was very well laid out, well planned, and there were a lot of discussions with a lot of actors who called me to task on things that seemed too convenient, so we made sure we earned each step". So there you go, a committee of 6 screenwriters and 4 original writers, to which we must add a committee of actors. How one wishes for a true Auteur.

If only the movie had stayed truer to the influences of John Ford or Howard Hawks's Rio Bravo and remained a character study locked in a small town. And if you think this idea would not have worked than I can assure it already has. In 2009 Syfy released the low budget TV movie "High Plains Invaders" which examined the Alien/Cowboys themes with oddly greater success - if alas, without any Wagner references.

Maybe with the inevitable - if lower budget - sequel? Drop the committee but keep the Wagner - please?

High Plains Invaders

Directed by Jon Favreau

Produced by Brian Grazer

Ron Howard

Alex Kurtzman

Roberto Orci

Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

Screenplay by Roberto Orci

Alex Kurtzman

Damon Lindelof

Mark Fergus