I should explain the name "Berkeleian" while I'm at it, though. Two years ago, I took a philosophy course at my high school, and we were assigned to read Sophie's World. The book culminated in a fourth-wall breaking sequence in which the author establishes a quirky book-within-a-book plot, centered around the philosophy of one George Berkeley. This philospher indicated that any knowledge of the world is to be obtained only through direct perception. It follows that we can only further our understanding of our personal perceptions, but will never know the true nature of the world, in an idealized state. (We could be a brain in a jar, or a character in a book, and our consciousness would not allow us to realize it.) I took to this idea immediately -- the idea of altered states of reality, and parallel universes, intrigues me greatly (though I'm staying as far away from drugs as possible). Hence, I've adopted the name as a student of his ideas.
Ahem. Now to the main event. It's been relatively easy for me to avoid discussing films this year. I've felt the cinematic selection to be more boring than ever, and with little time and budget, it's easier for me to rent from Netflix. Still, I've kept up with a few films, like District 9 and Ponyo (both good). Recently, I went to see Shane Ackerman's 9, and was surprised by how much I liked it. After some discussions, though, it's clear that this film has divided audiences -- either they love it, or they hate it. I liked it, so I'm going to defend myself here. I will try not to impose my beliefs too much, but will instead articulate what qualities 9 had that interested me personally.
A quick summary: 9 takes place in a post-apocalyptic future (of all things), in which a war between humans and machines have reduced the Earth to a barren wasteland. (Or at least, one part of the Earth; we never see much beyond one main city.) With this film, we've come to another in a long, long line of post-apocalyptic films. Here are some more: WALL-E, Terminator Salvation, 2012, The Road. Then there's the new Nostradamus Effect series on the History Channel that tests the validity of various doomsday predictions, and there's the Half-Life 2 game I'm currently playing. Clearly, there's an obsession here. I did not have high hopes for 9 because it did not market itself as anything other than another dystopian future movie. The opening scene, in which our doll protagonist 9 discovers the nature of his surroudings, is not inspired or original. Once 9 moves out into the world, though, the film gets more interesting. We meet other characters and beasts. Little details of the world pop out at us - as well they should, considering the detail of the animation at this miniscule level. The world becomes surreal and visionary all at once. It's invigorating.
So, then, here is what I liked about it. The characters are varied and likeable. The ballet-like, quieter scenes work so much more. I think that may partly be because the characters can talk, but choose not to in their exploration of the world. The storytelling -- which is not the same thing as the (some say predictable) plot -- is inspired. I was drawn into this story. Surreal details move from background images to important plot points. Oh, and the vision is amazing. Character and set design look great, especially the little burlap protagonists. Sure, the movie has its faults -- overly dramatic changes in character, action-scene direction that made my head spin. And it's uneven: the previous world is not emphasized as much as, say, WALL-E, and the means by which the humans die is unoriginal. We've seen it in Terminator, I Robot, and others. But I was willing to overlook this because I'd found a movie that did storytelling in a way that I really liked. It's rare that I find a story that tries, and succeeds, to be unpredictable and good. With this and Coraline under its belt, Focus Features is really doing well with animation this year.
My other short note is on the new hosts for At the Movies. I may be the only person I know who watches this show, but I was saddened to hear that Ben and Ben would be departing it. I liked their discussions and agreed with a lot of their points. The new hosts have more experience with newspaper reviews than TV, probably because ABC wanted the show to have more credibility. My viewing experience was that they had more sustained, intelligent commentary on the films, but their discussion was somewhat lacking. They didn't seem like they wanted to disagree with each other -- but that's precisely what movie discussion is! Everyone's going to see something different in a movie, and it's impossible to fight that. I'll give the hosts a few weeks to find their footing in what is obviously an unfamiliar setting for both. And I'll grant that the show still gives you that little pleasure when you discover the name of a really good indie film you'd never heard of before. (This week it was Big Fan. By the way, their reviews of 9 were middling and good, respectively.)
I'm hoping that someone's actually reading this -- if not, fine, I'm mostly writing for myself -- but I invite you to discuss the things I've read, seen, listened to, etc., on this blog. I think this post was pretty successful, so I'll maybe be adding in reviews of video games and music albums. Still, I'll keep the focus mostly on books and story. That's most of what I have time for, anyway.
No comments:
Post a Comment