There’s a scene in District 9 when the main character, after enduring a lot of pain and humiliation, has to make the choice of either running into battle guns ablaze or retreat. He chooses the latter knowing full well that his actions are driven by fear and selfishness.
District 9 or “D9” is many things all rolled up into a hard to describe package. Among them it’s a sci-fi adventure with all the elements you’d expect like blaster guns and an enormous spaceship. It’s also an unrelenting social commentary and an action-packed romp that refuses to let down its guard.
The effects and cinematography compliment each other quite well and at times it’s hard to distinguish between the two. That said, they are not of the slick variety that other films convey, but the grimy texture is beautiful and perfect for the portrayal of a enslaved race of aliens living in South African slums.
It’s an unforgiving, ravished and selfish environment, leaving barely any room for survival. It’s a film that is best experienced without digging for holes in the plot (of which they are a few) or making assumptions dealing with the character portrayal or progression.
I enjoyed it because it didn’t reveal too much of itself and yet what it did expose was raw (human and alien) emotion, flaws in the human fabric and a detached feeling of humanity, or at least I felt detached at times.
George Lucas has created some wonderful movies and is undeniably a visionary filmmaker, story-teller and influence in the film industry. Recently, evidence of this has surfaced in the form of a PDF outlining the “Raiders” story conference.
He’s also responsible for some real stinkers. Movie stink that could quickly foul a room full of underdeveloped daisies and seldom come up in conversation for fear of one being exiled or worse, thrown to a bunch of ravenous movie critics. Now I’m beginning to feel nostalgic for the cartoon, The Critic, but anyways…
Howard the Duck is perhaps the worst movie on George’s resume (yes, fouler than even Clone Wars), failed miserably at the box office and yet it retains a charm all its own. There are even days when the movie strangely hovers around in my thoughts from time to time.
If this were VH1’s Behind the Music, this is the part when the guy would say.. “And now, the story behind the story.”
It all started with some comics
From Wikipedia:
[Howard the Duck] first appeared in Adventure into Fear #19 (Dec. 1973) and several subsequent series have chronicled the misadventures of the ill-tempered, anthropomorphic, “funny animal” trapped on human-dominated Earth. Howard’s adventures are generally social satires, and also often parodies of genre fiction with a meta-fictional awareness of the medium. [Wikipedia]
If you were to pick up a Howard comic during this time you’d notice very little difference between him and Donald Duck. This was intentional on the part of its creators but for obvious reasons wasn’t carried over in the movie.
Quack, Quack!
The movie adaptation, released in 1986, retained some of the traits from the comic in the form of its star, Howard, who was still ill-tempered and anthropomorphic. Instead of doing an animated feature, which would’ve been an ideal presentation, the film was instead live-action and the duck would be part animatronic puppet, part diminutive actor.
It starred a very young Lea Thompson and Tim Robbins. Tim Robbins, up until this point (with Top Gun’s release looming) had been known for bit roles in TV and film. Lea Thompson was (and will probably always be) known as the Marty McFly’s mother Lorraine in Back to the Future.
Together, they were supporting players to their feathered star and despite the sub par script and kooky special effects, managed to give somewhat convincing performances. However, there is something to be said about the human/duck relationship that is, to this day, uncomfortable to watch. I don’t think I was ever fully up to speed on the “birds, ducks and bees.”, but I digress.
Above all us, Howard the Duck, like The Dark Crystal, was a childhood favorite of mine because it was something I enjoyed watching with my family.
It was a fantastic, awful, bewildering and grossly underrated cult classic.
If you haven’t seen NBC’s Heroes, I’d suggest either Tivo’ing it or watching it every Monday (9PM/EST). Next to Lost, it’s been one of the only shows in recent years that I’ve been so involved with — including having side conversations with friends and family — and that’s due to a few factors that make the show so engrossing.
Apart from the great acting, the writing continues to amaze me because the story is chock full of interesting twists, turns and free falls.
There are so many layers and angles the writers have chosen to explore and the story itself is rich in character exploration and interaction. At it’s surface it seems like just a show about people with various talents and powers, but if you look further you begin to unravel the puzzle and mythology that is Heroes, which transcends the small screen in the form of an online comic and web blog.
Over the course of the first season I’ve made some mental notes (mostly spoiler-free) and I’d like to share some of those with you. In turn, I invite you to share your own, as I know we all have our own thoughts and theories on where the story arch might lead and where it’ll continue to go.
Theories on Heroes
Biblical names used for some of the main characters; Gabriel (arch angel), Mica, Eden and Peter.
Overall story arch (so far) has a deliberate sense of urgency and foreshadowing: some plot points uncovered, questions both answered and unanswered
Reminds me a bit of Steven King’s The Stand in that a group of people, who previously had no contact with each other, have come together for a greater purpose
The writing is multi-faceted and intriguing, much like Lost, and while it’s intentionally serialized it does seem more self-contained than Lost.
The characters themselves and their stories are intriguing because of the emotional state they share; urgency and for the most part a deep rooted nonacceptance of their talents, almost a resilient self-doubt.
Hiro (named appropriately) comes across as the glue holding everything together. He seems to be the favorite for most viewers and that’s because of his personality and willingness to work within the limitations of his power.
Mr. Bennett (Claire’s father and codenamed: HRG for Horned Rim Glasses) seems almost as if his alignment is neutral. He’ll protect those he cares for, but also obeys his superiors’ wishes. The writers have mentioned that he is a but a cog in the bigger wheel that is his employer and at the moment their true intentions and/or motives are still unclear
The Haitian, while mysterious and obeying of HRG’s commands, seems like he has his own motives beyond the scope of his employer
Now, what about your theories? If you have some, please share by commenting or sending me an email at erik(at)kartooner.com.
KCRW’s The Business hosted by Claude Brodesser-Akner is both a radio show and podcast dealing with the inner workings of the business of Hollywood.
Claude’s interviews with directors, screenwriters, advertising executives and actors/actresses are often fascinating, if not enlightening, especially if you share an interest in how films are created like I do.
In his interview with actor/director Jon Favreau entitled “No Special Effects, It’s Really Director Jon Favreau”, Jon reveals his love/hate relationship with CGI effects and why home brewed effects are still relevant and useful. His philosophy is that while computer generated imagery has its place (namely a toolbox of endless possibility) it can also cloud the visual aesthetic of a movie.
While CGI has improved over the years, providing the backbone for things like sci-fi vistas and mythological creatures as well upping the ante on disaster sequences it’s also — in most cases — immediately recognizable if it doesn’t blend in with live action.
Recently Favreau was chosen to direct the film adaptation of Iron Man, a task not to be taken lightly and even though the film itself has a much bigger budget than his other films, he’s also made the decision to budget the special effects. His reasoning is two-fold; that the film’s budget is targeted at a specific amount and to effectively blend CGI with live action without going overboard.
In all honesty, this is something that I wish more directors (including George Lucas) would come to terms with. Audiences are typically overwhelmed with joy when a superb CGI sequence is pulled off but to echo Favreau’s thoughts, in most cases it’s easily noticed and can take you out of the movie, detaching you from the film’s otherwise engrossing atmosphere and aesthetic.
Yet, to play devil’s advocate I suppose it’s a tricky thing to avoid and I’d imagine why most directors and producers go out on a limb blindfolded, hoping that whatever is put together by their masters of illusion comes across successfully not only in a visual manner but also allowing various CG elements to interact with live action in a realistic way.