Then What?

I feel no need to give a comprehensive review of Avengers: Endgame (Disney Marvel 2019; directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo) because it has already been extensively reviewed. Rather, I will say that I like the way that Disney Marvel chose to end this phase of the Marvel Cinematic Universe.  The plot was mostly resolved, and I suspect that any unanswered questions will be addressed in subsequent movies since they don’t seem to involve the original characters.

Yes, their were some logical flaws and a couple of confusing visual sequences, but the splash panel scenes were terrific. Various beloved characters suffered injury, died, grew old, retired, came back to life, were reunited with their friends and families, and so forth. In other words, this paralleled real life, and the movie hit many of the right nostalgic notes. The big question remains. Then what?

Overall, I think the MCU has been a good escape, a prolonged fantasy from within which we can re-examine reality. Its characters are not real, but they have become friends of our imagination over the last eleven years. Losing any of them can produce a mild sense of grief. It is very human to desire permanence and immortality, to think as if the people and things we love will continue forever. You could say we were designed for it.

The cinematic gods are mortal, and so are the actors who portray them. Disney Marvel will continue churning out entertaining movies and making a huge pile of money. Eventually, we all die, and it behooves us to seek answers to that ultimate question…

THEN WHAT?

A Portrait Of Insanity

Consider the following excerpts from Orthodoxy by G. K. Chesterton:

The madman’s explanation of a thing is always complete, and often in a purely rational sense satisfactory. 

Now, speaking quite externally and empirically, we may say that the strongest and most unmistakable MARK of madness is this combination between a logical completeness and a spiritual contraction.

Such is the madman of experience; he is commonly a reasoner, frequently a successful reasoner. 

The madman is the man who has lost everything excepts his reason. 

Thanos, the brainchild of Jim Starlin in the Marvel comics and in the Marvel Cinematic Universe, is the personification of these ideas about madness. He is a nuanced madman: cruel with a twisted sense of compassion, a logical thinker who reaches intellectually compelling yet abhorrent conclusions. He is not irrational; he is rational – make that super rational. This was demonstrated in Avengers: Infinity War (2018 from Disney Marvel, directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo), and it was perhaps the aspect of the movie with which I was most impressed.

I have often heard the phrase, “that’s subjective,” stated to refute opinions and arguments. The simplistic implication of this is that objective thinking is right and that subjective thinking is wrong. This is misleading. Taken alone, each of them is wrong. Objectivity places some very necessary constraints on subjectivity while subjectivity informs objectivity. Objectivity relies on logic, and the potential weakness of logic is that it must be based on a premise. If the premise is wrong, logic, even perfect logic, built upon this foundation can produce atrocities.

Hitler and his minions demonstrated this with their Final Solution. The Holocaust was the creative, logical product of one of the most advanced scientific civilizations of its time. The destruction by Thanos of 50 percent of an interplanetary population is a final solution writ large. The justification: overpopulation, suffering, and ecological imbalance (solved very logically by mercy killing on an incomprehensible scale). A big picture which ignores individuals is the product of ignorant objectivity uninformed by a subjective understanding of the worth of an individual. Such numerical morality plagues policy making in real life as well as in fantasy.

Subjectivity informs the premise on which logic is based, and to ignore this is madness. I look forward to this week’s release of  Avengers: Endgame.

A Concise Review

After seeing Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom (Universal Pictures 2018; directed by J. A. Bayona), I came to the conclusion that there was one reason to make this movie: use those CGI dinosaurs to turn a profit. Here, then is my abbreviated review:

Stomp!

Chomp!

Aahhh!

No, I really mean it.  AAHH!!

Thanks, Blue!

They’re out, and the franchise never ends…

 

Righteous Raptor?

I’m not even going to apologize. I’ve spent a good part of the last week trying to keep my four-year-old granddaughter, Gracie, busy, so this week’s post is going to be a lazy extension of last week’s. By the way, Gracie likes dinosaurs. So in honor of Gracie, let’s talk about the velociraptors in the Jurassic Park/Jurassic World franchise (Universal Pictures). By the way, her mother will not yet allow her to see these movies.

To begin with, they’re not really velociraptors. They are most likely a larger species of raptor named Deinonychus, but who cares? They’re scary and interesting, and they add tension to a plot.

While I find it difficult to imagine a movie in this franchise having spoilers, I suppose I should say that this post might have some. In Jurassic Park, the raptors chase people and kill them.

In The Lost World: Jurassic Park, they chase people and kill them.

In Jurassic Park III, they chase people and kill them…

… with the added twist that much of this is to protect their eggs. Good parenting!

In Jurassic World, they chase people and kill them, but it could be argued that the people are bad. Oh, and the raptors are trained.

Eventually, they help Tyrannosaurus rex protect some people from Indominus rex. Only a raptor named Blue survives along with Rex and the people.

Hey, look! Blue and Rex are friends!

Good Rex! Good Blue! Now let’s kill some evil humans to help Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard in Jurassic World: Fallen Kingdom.

 

 

Bad Rex, Good Rex

Michael Crichton never described Tyrannosaurus rex as anything but dangerous in his two novels, Jurassic Park and The Lost World, but director Steven Spielberg took certain liberties and instilled more character into this monstrous reptile in the movies which bore the same names (1993 and 1997 Universal Pictures).

Let me say right away that the introduction of T. rex into the first movie remains one of the greatest reveals of a monster in cinema. Rex tries (unsuccessfully, whew) to kill children trapped in an electrical car during a thunderstorm while the power is out.

01 Jan 1992 — A tyrannosaurus rex terrorizes people trapped in a car in a scene from the 1993 American film Jurassic Park directed by Steven Spielberg. The sci-fi adventure stars Sam Neill, Laura Dern, and Jeff Goldblum. The film is an adaptation of Michael Crichton’s novel of the same name. — Image by © Murray Close/Sygma/Corbis

So, this dinosaur starts out as bad but then kind of turns good by the end of the movie.

It does battle with the Velociraptors and thereby saves the humans by giving them time to escape.

Ah, but in The Lost World: Jurassic Park, Rex is evil again, killing lots of people, eating a family dog, and wrecking San Diego. Bad Rex!

But wait, it’s okay! The adults were only trying to protect their offspring, and the happy family is reunited.

In Jurassic World (2015 Universal Pictures, directed by Colin Trevorrow), the T. rex once again gets to play the hero by doing battle with Indominus rex, thereby saving more humans.

These roles of harming and helping humans were also played by the gods in Greek mythology. In this respect, our dinosaur friend becomes something of a fickle and very big, reptilian god.

Good boy, Rex! Good boy!

Takes On The Soul

Any film dealing with the topic of artificial intelligence must also take on the heady topics of consciousness and self awareness. I wish I could remember the name of the researcher, but she was quoted in a research journal as saying that, no matter how much we learn about the physiological workings of the brain, we will still be no closer to explaining the subjective experience we call consciousness. Still, be it neuroscience or science fiction, we find the underlying concept that the soul is merely physical: patterns of electrochemical activity traveling along organic, neural circuits. If this assumption is correct, then truly artificial intelligence can be created in the laboratory. Then again, the creation of artificial intelligence does not automatically preclude the existence of a nonmaterial soul in human beings.

Concentrating on a neo-noir approach and grotesquely distopian imagery, Blade Runner (1982 Warner Brothers, directed by Ridley Scott) touches on this theme but pushes it more into the background. Owing more than a little to this visual approach, it is considered as one of the best science fiction movies of all time. There is a poignant emphasis on the desire of the replicants to continue living, and a sense of tragedy therefore underlies the story.

Starring Harrison Ford, an effectively villainous yet nuanced Rutger Hauer, Daryl Hannah, and an evocative Sean Young,  Blade Runner was loosely based on Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep?, written by Philip K. Dick.

The movie which more satisfyingly explores my stated theme is Ex Machina (2014 Universal Pictures, written and directed by Alex Garland).

There are mind bending discussions with several layers of deception. These serve as information dumps which advance the plot without dragging it down. Rather, they heighten the suspense.

But the two men played by Oscar Isaac and Domhnall Gleeson  revolve around the androids chillingly played by Alicia Vikander and Sonoya Mizuno.

Two elements that really resonated with me were the psychological study of the android under the auspices of a type of Turing test. This involved the transformation of a machine into a woman within the perception of “her” interrogator.

I was intrigued by the concept behind the physical nature of the artificial brains of the androids. That particular visual made my mind race, and the accompanying explanation of forming and removing connections (as our own brains are constantly doing with synapses between neurons) made proper but not tedious reference to certain findings of neuroscientific research.

As a warning for those who might object, there is some nudity which I felt was not essential to the plot, and there is a bit of violence, as well. This is dark, disturbing stuff, but it is extremely well made. I think it appropriate to give credit where credit is due.

Burning Books

First, there was the book by Ray Bradbury. In retrospect, the author said that he considered himself a fantasy writer and that Farenheit 451 was his only science fiction novel.

Then came the movie (1966 Universal Pictures)…

… and then a remake by HBO starring Michael B. Jordan and Michael Shannon.

Aside from the book itself, I consider the 1966 movie a beautifully stripped-down piece of art. Directed by the famous Francois Truffaut, associated with the French New Wave in cinema, it achieves a distinctive look (making effective use of the color, red) which has aged surprisingly well. I like science fiction that depends more on concepts than on special effects, and this is another good example from the pre-CGI era.

The story depicts a conformist, illiterate society which watches rather than reads. Firemen burn books to prevent the public from engaging in critical thought.

Justification for this is provided in the argument that knowledge makes us discontent and that this leads to unhappiness. The film therefore implies that happiness is not the determining factor in the quality of human life and character, an assertion that modern culture in the west might regard as heretical. The individuals in this society are infantilized, narcissistic, and chemically dependent – all to keep them in a state of happiness. They “read” comics without words…

… and gaze naively at widescreen television monitors mounted on walls.

Remember, we’re talking 1966, here. Some of the warnings in this movie are more true today than they were then. The citizens in this society inform on each other. Is this really so different from outing or vilifying people on the internet? It should make one think carefully before clicking. We are not all of us qualified journalists, and that includes many journalists (hint: fact checking and source verification).

Oskar Werner plays a fireman with a developing sense of curiosity and conscience. Julie Christie plays two roles as his wife and as a teacher in the literate underground.

Two scenes really haunted me. One was the burning of a hidden library. The woman who owns it chooses to burn with her books rather than turn informant.

The other scene shows the “Book People” memorizing and reciting books  to prevent them from being lost forever.

If you like an intellectual ride that doesn’t depend on eye candy, this is a movie worthy of your consideration.

 

A Different Kind Of Green Alien

I originally saw The Andromeda Strain (1971 Universal Pictures; directed by Robert Wise) in the theater. I was a high school biology student, and I was impressed at the time by how much science was actually in this picture. It reminded me of my classes and even of some of my teachers.

Based on the book of the same title by Michael Crichton (at the time a medical student who is shown in the background during one scene), the film contains a good amount of scientific background information, and it is a good science procedural as well as techno thriller. The pacing is slower, allowing more time to think while watching. Robert Wise was an excellent and well known director, and this is far from being a B movie.

Robert Wise and a young Michael Crichton.

The plot unfolds at an intriguing pace, and this  movie contains elements of horror, suspense, and mystery.

The special effects were excellent for the pre-CGI era, and the look has aged well. Production values were good, taking advantage of real scientific equipment for many scenes. The underground research facility was well-designed.

What really intrigued me was the discovery and description of the extraterrestrial pathogen. This is perhaps the most original concept for an alien life form that I have seen in a movie. Keep in mind that this idea was groundbreaking at the time of the book’s publication and the subsequent release of the movie.

If you haven’t seen this, I heartily recommend this refreshing view from an earlier time in the development of science fiction.

 

 

Superhero Armageddon

By the end of Avengers: Infinity War (2018 Disney Marvel; directed by Anthony Russo and Joe Russo), I felt like I’d been worked over, and one young woman a couple of rows in front of me was bent over in her seat and sobbing (NEWS FLASH! At last report all of the actors in the movie were still alive, attractive, popular, and wealthy). I’ve decided not to review this movie. It has already been reviewed to death, resurrected, and reviewed again. Instead, I will make a short series of smugly insightful comments.

Insightful Comment 1:

It’s all about combinations.

This is both a strength and a weakness. While it is interesting to see characters together in novel combinations, there can also be too many irresistible forces and too many immovable objects.

Don’t try to understand why anyone is winning at any particular point in time. It’s not about logic. Stuff just happens with spectacular (and sometimes innovative) special effects. In that respect, consider the formula. The team suffers abject defeat, rallies (often with a stirring, inspirational speech), and goes on to a dramatic victory (often with unresolved plot elements to set up future stories). Did anyone really expect this superhero movie to be any different?

Insightful Comment 2:

The bad guys are really bad.

In particular, Thanos (well played by Josh Brolin) is an interesting, metaphysical villain. Originally conceived by Jim Starlin ( a trippy writer whose name appears in the credits) he is philosophical and mercilessly logical, which brings up another characteristic. He is very principled, albeit with very twisted principles. I like this kind of nuance in a villain. It deepens a story.

Insightful Comment 3:

There will be a reset. The first installment of a two part storyline in this genre should not be expected to end well for the good guys. If what I have just written is a spoiler for a superhero Armageddon , what else did you expect? Remember the formula, and take into account the number of superheroes and villains. By the way, do we really expect Disney Marvel to slaughter its cash cow and leave it dead?

Insightful Comment 4:

The outro tells us that you-know-who will be introduced. I look forward to seeing the development of this character.

In summary, this movie kept me absorbed and entertained, and it did pretty much what I expected.

For now, I’m getting superhero fatigue and am preparing to sign off, but I will definitely be in the theater for the next few installments of the MCU. To paraphrase Jack Black…

This isn’t a review. It’s a tribute!

 

John Everett Millais

I just found another Pre-Raphaelite painter whose name I didn’t know but who made some works which I recognize. The paintings shown in this post are ones I don’t recall having seen before.  Compared to some of the other Pre-Raphaelites, his work seems centered more on portraits and accounts from the Bible.  His name is John Everett Millais, and he was evidently quite popular during his lifetime.

The Return of the Dove to the Ark (1851). This is taken from the account of Noah and the Ark from the book of Genesis.

Victory O Lord! (1871). This is from the account of a battle in which the priests needed to keep the hands of Moses aloft during the Exodus of the Hebrew nation.

The Tribe of Benjamin Seizing the Daughters of Shiloh (1847).  This event comes at the end of perhaps one of the most disturbing stories in the Bible. It is found in the book of Judges.  The Bible is not a book for the faint of heart. Then again, it is.

Esther (1865). From the book of Esther, this evidently shows her preparing to go into the king of the Medes and Persians to plead for the lives of the Jews in captivity.

Christ in the House of His Parents (1850).