Why Darth Vader Is Really the Hero

Darth Vader is the archetypal villain; even his theme song is enough to denote evil.  After all, he kills his own men and destroys innocent planets for fun.  Yet, I believe that he’s the hero of the Star Wars series.  (I’m only counting the films.  I don’t care what the extended universe says happened on Stavromula Beta or whatever, we don’t mention that here.)

Seriously, screw this.

Let’s look at the facts.  Anakin Skywalker was prophesied to restore balance to the force, but turned to the dark side and had all the Jedi except for Obi-Wan and Yoda killed.  Both of whom exiled themselves to desolate lands.  When you first meet Obi-Wan and Yoda (in the original trilogy) they seem like wizened hermits devoted to spiritualism.  It’s easy to forget that the Jedi used to have a skyscraper and an army of clones.

They take a vow of poverty, like the pope.

The Jedi were extremely powerful and, for a group that’s supposed to be operating for the sake of the light side of the force, did extremely well financially.  With their new army, is it that hard to believe that they’d convince themselves that it was okay to do bad things for good reasons and vice-versa?   Imagine if the Empire were run by a council of Jedi, instead of two Sith lords.

While most people point to Vader saving Luke as proof of his inherent goodness, that was the worst thing he could have done.  The force has the power to corrupt even the best of men, and if Vader, Palpatine, and Skywalker had died on the Death Star II, everyone who knew how to use the force would be dead.  Anakin Skywalker was supposed to bring balance to the force by killing everyone that could use it for their own means.  The same human weakness that made this drastic action necessary is what prevented him from letting his son die.

So don’t forget, Vader eliminated the Sith, and prevented Jedi control of the universe.

Truly, he was the hero the galaxy deserved.

How to Make a Good Superman Movie

         The reason it’s almost impossible to make a good Superman movie is because Superman is perfect.  Not just physically, but morally.  If you take that away, you take away everything that makes him Superman.  The first two movies worked because the first was about him discovering his abilities and the second was about him facing a moral dilemma, choosing between Lois Lane and his duty as Superman.  The fact is, his idealism is why people like him.  So instead of changing him, why not change the world he inhabits?  Instead of the cold war era moral certitude that went hand-in-hand with “truth, justice, and the American way,” put him in today’s society.

        At what point is he overstepping his boundaries?  Would a real-life Superman be morally obligated to overthrow brutal dictators?  What good is having a nuclear arsenal if one man can stop all your missiles single-handedly, and you can’t hurt him?  Who is he accountable to? 

        The story would be the logical progression from the first two movies. Part 1: Superman hones his ability, and becomes a force for good.  Part 2: He decides to dedicate himself to his position as Superman, instead of his civilian life (including personal relationships).  Part 3: He learns the limits/consequences of his actions. 

        The story would start with Superman coming back after years, maybe decades, of absence (I know Superman Returns did that, but bear with me).  So he gets back (having aged much less than an average person), and everyone is understandably excited.  But the world is drastically different.  He would stop a military action against civilians in a stand-in for Syria, and the international reaction would be extremely negative.  The military will be trying to stop him, and will contract out to Lex Luthor to develop technology for a contingency in which Superman would need to be killed/contained.  The big thing would be the moral quandary for Superman.  Even at the cost of alienating governments, and in the face of plummeting public opinion, should he do what he thinks is right?  He has to come to terms with the god he could be. 

        Luthor’s plan would pay homage to the original Superman movie.  He would be secretly selling a nuke and guidance system to a North Korea stand-in.  However, unbeknownst to the Koreans,  the guidance system would allow Luthor to remotely launch the nuke, and crash it into the San Andreas fault.  Not for beachfront property, but to cause a disastrous earth quake.  And the only construction firm big enough and prepared enough to take over the government contracts for a reconstruction project are owned by Luthor, making it a multi-billion dollar payout. 

        Superman stops the nuke, but at this point, he’s completely disillusioned.  Instead of sending the nuke into space, he hurls it back to a Pyongyang stand-in, destroying the city.  When he discovers that Luthor was behind it, he goes nuts, and almost kills Luthor.  Luthor makes some comment along the lines of “This is what you really are.  You’re not a hero, you’re not even human.”  And Superman lets Luthor live, if only to prove to himself that he can still hold that moral high ground.

Titanic 3D: Timely or Tasteless?

            On April 15^th, 1912, the RMS Titanic and 1,517 passengers sank to the bottom of the freezing North Atlantic Ocean.  The tragedy instantly made the headlines of newspapers on both sides of the Atlantic (with a few exceptions: The Christian Science Monitor’s headline that day read: Passengers Safely Moved and Steamer Titanic Taken in Tow), and has continued to be a massive source of interest to this day, eclipsing the notoriety of other disastrous voyages, like those of the Lusitania or Hindenburg.  And now, less than three weeks to the centennial of the event that has so captured the imagination of the public, I am faced with a moral quandary: Is the release of Titanic 3D an act of commemoration or exploitation?

            On the one hand, it is an area of public interest, especially as the centennial approaches.  Furthermore, the movie itself is well-regarded and made tastefully.  It doesn’t wallow in disaster footage.  At its heart, it is a love story, set aboard the Titanic.  It was released in 1997.

            I can’t believe that it’s a coincidence that the film is being re-released less than two weeks before the anniversary of the Titanic disaster, although the official website doesn’t mention it.  But even if the release date’s significance is intentional (which I assume it is), does that mean it’s exploiting the disaster, or just using the fact that it’s going to be back in the public consciousness?  If a movie is done tastefully, and represents the tragedy in a human way, is it really so bad?  And don’t you wish you could see the characters kiss… in 3D!?

            Look, I don’t hate 3D.  As far as I’m concerned, it’s just another tool that can be used to tell a story (the immersive visual world was the only thing that made Avatar watchable).  And movies that are filmed in 3D by a capable director can have a new, exciting layer added to them.  Titanic was not filmed in 3D.  The conversion process from 2D to 3D lowers the video quality, but you can charge an extra $3 or so per ticket.  This is where I draw the line on tastelessness.  The movie is set almost entirely on a boat, which makes me wonder why the 3D is even necessary (oh, right, $3 or so a ticket).  This is a case of a gimmicky use for 3D that serves no purpose to the film, and in this case it’s just shameful. 

            The sinking of the Titanic has been so romanticized in culture, that we forget that over 1,500 innocent men, women, and children DROWNED.  A way to commemorate what was, in no uncertain terms, a tragedy, is not to find the gimmickiest way to make money off of it.  If you want to see Titanic in theaters, I urge you to see the 2D version.  If for no other reason than the footage would look better.

In Defense of Adam Sandler, et al.

Like many movie-lovers, I’ve been disappointed by the string of awful movies by actors who have been historically great.  Actors like Adam Sandler (Happy Gilmore), Jim Carrey (The Truman Show), Nicolas Cage (Leaving Las Vegas), and Eddie Murphy (Trading Places).  And I’m sure anyone reading this is familiar with the immediate backlash against “Jack and Jill,” which, as of writing this, has a 3% fresh rating and 38% audience rating on rottentomatoes.com.  Like many others, my first thoughts on seeing the awful trailer were along the lines of “Why are you doing this?” and “You used to be so funny!”  After thinking for a while, I stopped blaming Adam Sandler and other actors like him for their flubs, and here’s why:

They Didn’t Make the Movie

Adam Sandler was, undoubtedly, the big draw for moviegoers to see “Jack and Jill,” and as such, he’s the name everyone associates with it.  But a quick check on imdb shows that he was, at best, minimally involved with the production outside of acting.  There were three writers, six executive producers, three producers, one co-producer,and one associate producer.  In all fairness, Sandler's name appeared twice on that list.  But the fact remains that he did not have creative control of the movie (so if you want to blame someone, blame the Director Dennis Dugan, whose imdb awards page is officially the saddest thing I’ve seen all day).  But he was still the lead actor in the movie, so that’s still his responsibility, right?  Well…

The Movie Was Awful, Regardless of Acting

Let’s look at The Wicker Man.  One of the most commented upon aspects of the gigantic flop was that of Nicolas Cage’s acting.  Honestly, it was pretty awful.  But let me ask you this: If you replaced Cage with any other actor, would it have been a good movie?   And I don’t mean “a better movie,” because a better performed version would still be shit.  Why? Because the movie as a whole is terrible. 

Should an actor try his/her best, even if the movie is terrible?  Sure.  But then again, acting is an entirely different kind of job.  As long as they get asses in seats, it doesn’t matter to their bosses whether or not they put on a great performance, because after all…

This is Their Job

We in the audience like to think of movie stars as idealistic visionaries who hold the search for truth and aesthetic beauty above such common concerns as money.  We in the audience are (for the most part) wrong.  I’m sure all actors wish that they could do nothing but prestige pieces, make only movies that they feel are cinematic achievements in excellence.  But then reality sets in because a) a majority of movies are of average or below average quality and b) the crappy movies have a better chance of success. 

Don’t believe me?  In 2009, Robin Williams had three mainstream releases.  The first was Old Dogs, in which Williams and John Travolta have take care of twins (wacky hijinks ensue, and they learn important lessons about family).  Of 106 critic reviews on rottentomatoes, only 5 were positive.  It grossed $96 million internationally.  The second film was Night at the Museum 2: Battle of the Smithsonian, in which he plays Teddy Roosevelt as part of an ensemble cast.  This one did better on rottentomatoes, receiving 70 positive votes to 93 negative.  It grossed $413 million internationally.  He was also in a movie called World’s Greatest Dad, an R-rated dark comedy where he plays a divorced father and failing English teacher until his son accidentally kills himself and becomes a cult icon at the school Williams teaches at.  Of the 115 critic votes on rottentomatoes, 102 were positive.  It grossed about $200,000.   The well-reviewed, risky movie earned .03% of the combined gross for the other two mainstream movies released in 2009. 

An actor’s job is to act and to get people to go to the theaters.  If they can earn more money and do both by being in a crappy movie with a larger audience, it’s not just their right, it’s the smart thing to do.  Because they can’t buy things with prestige.  So why don’t we cut the actors a break, and take a look at ourselves, because they wouldn’t keep making these shitty movies if they weren’t so damn profitable.

Outdated Movie Review: Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance (2002)

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is a South Korean film, and the first part of Park Chan-wook’s “Revenge Trilogy” (it’s a trilogy in terms of theme, the stories don’t connect).  While Old Boy (2003) is unquestionably more famous, I believe that Sympathy is the superior film.

It is very rare for me to see a film, and be left speechless.  Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance is as much a tragedy as it is a revenge story, maybe even more so.  While I’ll admit, I’m not a very good judge of acting unless it’s very good or very bad, none of the actors were bad.  Song Kang-ho (who played Park), in my opinion, particularly stood out.

The violence is over the top sometimes, but it is by no means obtrusive nor is it detrimental to the movie as a whole.

The movie stands out due to its story.  In almost every revenge story, from Hamlet to a Liam Neeson action flick, there is an obvious bad guy.  This villain will often be given some sympathetic aspect, but in the end the audience knows who to root for.  Not so in Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance.  This is a revenge story about good people who make bad decisions, and the damage those decisions cause to themselves and the people they care about.

"The Room" Explained

While most people like the room because of the horrible acting, stupid story, and overall horribleness, it actually tells a very subtle story that you can only find by reading between the lines:

Claudette is the head of a drug syndicate.  Everyone except for Johnny and Denny are aware and/or  involved in this.  Lisa is in a relationship with Johnny so that she can use his connections at the bank to launder money.  She was forced into the relationship by Claudette, who values the success of her business over her daughter’s well-being, which is why Lisa doesn’t just leave Johnny nor does Claudette get upset when she’s told that Johnny hit her.

            The phrase “breast cancer” is actually code for an informant close to the heart of the operation and Claudette is worried that the house is bugged.  This fear is later given weight by the tape recorder Johnny uses to spy on Lisa.  The informant is, in fact, Peter. The syndicate members start to suspect him, as evidenced by Mark holding him over the edge of a building.  In Peter’s final scene, they all change into tuxedos.  This is because Mark wants to make sure he is not wearing a wire.  When Peter is driven off by the taunting, Mark follows and kills him.

            The scene with the drug dealer on the roof is especially important because this isn’t one of Claudette’s dealers.  Claudette and Lisa are worried that someone is trying to make a move on their turf by coming after someone close to them.  Despite Johnny’s wishes, Mark convinces him not to call the police and takes care of it himself. 

            Mike and Michelle (the couple that have the chocolate and blowjob scene early on) are near the top of the organization.  They are responsible for collecting the money from everyone beneath them, and pop in to Lisa’s house sporadically to drop it off.    Mark is the enforcer, and Lisa is heir to the top position. This is why Mark is able to meet Lisa and Johnny at any time of the day.  It is also why they never have to pay at the café, which is just a front for their illicit business.

            The photograph of the spoon and overall lack of personal effects in Johnny and Lisa’s house is due to Lisa’s inability to settle down in one spot.  She was raised in a volatile and violent environment in which she would have to move at a moment’s notice and leave everything behind.  Her inability to maintain a sense of normalcy includes her relationship with Johnny, whom she doesn’t love and is being forced by her mother to stay with.  She starts sleeping with Mark to take control of her own life and hopes that Johnny will find out and leave her.

            Mark’s feelings towards Lisa are more complex.  He has legitimately come to like Johnny, but he doesn’t want to upset Lisa because he is afraid of Claudette.  He does eventually develop feelings for Lisa, if only because of her position of power within the syndicate. 

            At the party, the character Steven is introduced.  After Peter was killed, Johnny’s tape recorder was discovered, leading Claudette to believe that there was another traitor.  Steven’s job was to find out who in the syndicate could be trusted. 

            When Lisa sees that Johnny was the one tapping the phone and he was just trying to see if she was cheating on him, she realizes that she can use this to make Claudette get rid of him.  She calls Mark, partly because she wants to see him, partly to spite Johnny.  This sends Johnny into a rage, ending with his suicide.  At finding his body, Mark flees before the police arrive.  While Lisa will always be bent to her mother’s will, she is at least free of the relationship she was forced into.