I very much wanted this to be a good movie, and when you look at it on paper, it should have been. You have Charlize Theron and Chris Hemsworth, both great actors who have proven themselves. You have a classic story that almost everyone is familiar with, and if you believe the trailers then Snow White and the Huntsman was going to be a good dark take on the basic Snow White theme. How could it have failed?
Fair warning, explaining this will involve spoilers, so even after I've said this is a piece of dreck you still want to see it, I'd recommend reading no further.
First point against the movie is that there's no continuity. Things just seem to happen. For example, early on Snow White escapes by slashing at the Queen's evil brother with an iron nail and then locking him in the cell she was held prisoner in for about a decade, then Snow proceeds to sneak away. Before she's out of the castle the evil brother has somehow escaped the cell. No explanation is given; we never see how he gets out. This may not seem like much, but it's the first example of things just happening for no apparent reason. Another good example is later on when Snow White is storming the castle. After she and her troops are in the defenders suddenly remember they have boiling pitch/oil to drop on the attackers. Yes, I know Snow needs to live so that the Queen can take her heart, however, the Queen isn't shown telling the troops this and has been keeping the fact she needs Snow White's heart a secret to everyone but her brother then entire movie!
Next point against the movie, the dwarves are in it far too little (and no that is not a pun). And it's not like they just went out and hired a bunch of random people to play the dwarves. No, they hired the likes of Bob Hoskins and some other really good character actors and then somehow digitally shrunk them to dwarf size. WHY? I would have much rather seen them hire and use unknowns for those roles who fit the physical stature required and had them around for a greater portion of the movie. As it is, when one of them died saving Snow White I didn't care as they'd been around for less than twenty minutes at that point. What's even worse is, the dwarves get one of the best scenes of the movie late in the film as part of storming the castle. Gah!
The third strike against the movie, and I actually feel a bit guilty about this one, is Kristen Stewart. Now, I went in wanting to give her a chance, really I did. I think the Twilight movies are terrible, but that could easily be because their source material is garbage. I wasn't going to hold acting in them against her, and in fact I don't think I've actually seen any movie she's been a major part of, so I could have been really surprised by her performance in Snow White and the Huntsman. Sadly, I was not.
Ms. Stewart does not currently have the acting chops to pull off the role they asked of her. Most of the movie she appears to be dazed and confused, and the one major scene that required her to deliver a moving and motivating speech flopped completely. Really, I was waiting for one of the troops around her to yell out "Why the hell are we following this dumbass?". Sigh. It might have been that Kristen Stewart just didn't have the voice to pull that moment off, or that eventually she might have the skill to do something like it in a later movie, but at this point I probably won't go and see any film she's a major part of. Oh, and in regards to the meme I've seen floating around about Charlize Theron being much "fairer" than Stewart, Kristen actually looks rather beautiful in this film and definitely fits the Snow White template, she just hasn't developed the acting skills to pull off what the part required.
The only person who pulls off a good performance in this movie is Chris Hemsworth. He plays the Huntsman as almost a Han Solo like rogue with a heart of gold. Hollywood seriously needs to find this guy a fantasy trilogy (something non-superhero) to star in as he could pull it off. His acting was of Shakespearean quality and depth. Charlize Theron on the other hand, well, she gives a great performance as I expected but the dialogue they provided her was terrible, and realizing this she went for the whole Jeremy Irons in the Dungeons and Dragons movie route and starting chewing up the scenery. I half expected a scene where she'd be gnawing on the magic mirror.
There are other problems with this movie. The ending was unsatisfying and the whole movie tried to find a balance between reality and fairy tale that just didn't work for me. If you still want to see it then good on you, but I don't hold out much hope you'll enjoy the experience.
Saturday, June 2, 2012
Friday, June 1, 2012
Of Narrators Unreliable
I find it oddly amusing that the last two fiction books I've read or are currently reading have unreliable narrators. So much so that I decided to take a moment and comment on the whole idea of unreliable narration and what it means for literature in general and genre fiction specifically.
The two books that prompted this are Above by Leah Bobet, which I reviewed previously, and Ninjas Vs Pirates Featuring Zombies by James Marshall. So, if both books have unreliable narrators, does this mean they're essentially the same?
Hell, no!
The best way to describe Above would be lyrical and magical, like a hipster indie-band with a sarong wearing lead female singer who has this crunchy granola-girl attractiveness going for her. NVPFZ is more like a coke-snorting stripper who just dropped some acid. The only thing in common between the books is the unreliable narrator, but in both this is an essential element, and what pulls them out of what could have been cliche, almost pedantic, territory.
Okay, I should probably define what an unreliable narrator is for those who don't know or are curious to know what I think it is. An unreliable narrator is one tell the story from a certain viewpoint but with a bias that may lead them to, unknowingly or knowingly, distort facts to fit their view of the world, therefore anything they tell you about what happened in the book cannot be taken at face value. Seems simple enough, right?
It's actually not simple at all.
The first question that needs to be asked is, when do we know not to trust the narrator? This can be a hard thing to determine. While reading Above, it took me quite a few pages before I decided the narrator was unreliable. There were hints of it early on, but I was pretty deep into it before I was sure he couldn't be trusted and that everything related could just be the imaginings of a chemically imbalanced mind. It didn't detract or distract from my reading, and in fact I'm actually rather impressed that Scholastic published such a book targeted for the YA audience. Now, as for NVPFZ, right from the beginning it's obvious that the narrator is unreliable as the entire prologue is one giant run on sentence, and it's not that short of a prologue. So, in answer to this question, it varies from work to work and from reader to reader. Keep in mind though, always be a little bit suspicious of first-person narration.
The second question is, why? Why use an unreliable narrator at all? Shouldn't all stories be told as straightforward and simply as possible, and shouldn't genre fiction strive to be clear and fast-paced and so on?
No actually.
Genre fiction is as much literature as literary fiction. To say that it needs to be restrained to one set of tools is ludicrous. Don't get me wrong. I love clean and simple prose, such as what Asimov, Heinlein, and Scalzi have produced (yes, I put John Scalzi in the same grouping as the other two - say what you want about his writing but I enjoy it and find that his books have nice, clean prose that is easily read), but that doesn't mean genre fiction can't be complex, dense, intricate, and arcane. I mean, just look at Filaria. It's easily a university level read and qualifies as genre fiction in my books (and I don't think it's coincidental that both it and NVPFZ are published by Chizine - if ever there was a literary genre fiction house, it's them).
More importantly though, and as I've alluded to above, both NVPFZ and Above benefit from the use of unreliable narration. Above could easily have become a garden variety tale about freakish outsiders and how they need to be pitied and so on, a topic that's been covered in movies and books before (heck, the author even admits that the old TV show Beauty and the Beast was an inspiration, or at least her anger at the show was one). As for NVPFZ, let's be honest, the subject matter is so ludicrous the only way it could be anything other than a fanboy wank was to hide something deeper inside it and make the narrator unreliable enough that the reader goes hunting for that deeper meaning, and Marshall (from what I've read so for, as I haven't finished it) pulls it off.
The third and final question, at least for me, is it only "literary" genre fiction that uses unreliable narrators, and/or is it only first person narration readers should be cautious with. The answer to both is, of course, no. (I'm beginning to wonder if I'm a rather negative person - I keep saying no)
Truth is, all narrators could be considered unreliable because every narrator exists to tell a story from the point of view the author. Now, there will be varying degrees to this, and in a lot of cases it will be hard to pick up on, but go read, as an example, A Song Of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin and tell me which characters are villains and which aren't. It gets harder the farther into the series you get, doesn't it? That's because even though the story is told in third person, it's third-person limited meaning the reader is as close to being inside the head of each character as they can be without the narration switching to first person. It's subtle, and probably most people won't pick up in it, but it proves to me that genre fiction, and genre fiction writers, can be both literary and tell a good story without one sacrificing the other.
The two books that prompted this are Above by Leah Bobet, which I reviewed previously, and Ninjas Vs Pirates Featuring Zombies by James Marshall. So, if both books have unreliable narrators, does this mean they're essentially the same?
Hell, no!
The best way to describe Above would be lyrical and magical, like a hipster indie-band with a sarong wearing lead female singer who has this crunchy granola-girl attractiveness going for her. NVPFZ is more like a coke-snorting stripper who just dropped some acid. The only thing in common between the books is the unreliable narrator, but in both this is an essential element, and what pulls them out of what could have been cliche, almost pedantic, territory.
Okay, I should probably define what an unreliable narrator is for those who don't know or are curious to know what I think it is. An unreliable narrator is one tell the story from a certain viewpoint but with a bias that may lead them to, unknowingly or knowingly, distort facts to fit their view of the world, therefore anything they tell you about what happened in the book cannot be taken at face value. Seems simple enough, right?
It's actually not simple at all.
The first question that needs to be asked is, when do we know not to trust the narrator? This can be a hard thing to determine. While reading Above, it took me quite a few pages before I decided the narrator was unreliable. There were hints of it early on, but I was pretty deep into it before I was sure he couldn't be trusted and that everything related could just be the imaginings of a chemically imbalanced mind. It didn't detract or distract from my reading, and in fact I'm actually rather impressed that Scholastic published such a book targeted for the YA audience. Now, as for NVPFZ, right from the beginning it's obvious that the narrator is unreliable as the entire prologue is one giant run on sentence, and it's not that short of a prologue. So, in answer to this question, it varies from work to work and from reader to reader. Keep in mind though, always be a little bit suspicious of first-person narration.
The second question is, why? Why use an unreliable narrator at all? Shouldn't all stories be told as straightforward and simply as possible, and shouldn't genre fiction strive to be clear and fast-paced and so on?
No actually.
Genre fiction is as much literature as literary fiction. To say that it needs to be restrained to one set of tools is ludicrous. Don't get me wrong. I love clean and simple prose, such as what Asimov, Heinlein, and Scalzi have produced (yes, I put John Scalzi in the same grouping as the other two - say what you want about his writing but I enjoy it and find that his books have nice, clean prose that is easily read), but that doesn't mean genre fiction can't be complex, dense, intricate, and arcane. I mean, just look at Filaria. It's easily a university level read and qualifies as genre fiction in my books (and I don't think it's coincidental that both it and NVPFZ are published by Chizine - if ever there was a literary genre fiction house, it's them).
More importantly though, and as I've alluded to above, both NVPFZ and Above benefit from the use of unreliable narration. Above could easily have become a garden variety tale about freakish outsiders and how they need to be pitied and so on, a topic that's been covered in movies and books before (heck, the author even admits that the old TV show Beauty and the Beast was an inspiration, or at least her anger at the show was one). As for NVPFZ, let's be honest, the subject matter is so ludicrous the only way it could be anything other than a fanboy wank was to hide something deeper inside it and make the narrator unreliable enough that the reader goes hunting for that deeper meaning, and Marshall (from what I've read so for, as I haven't finished it) pulls it off.
The third and final question, at least for me, is it only "literary" genre fiction that uses unreliable narrators, and/or is it only first person narration readers should be cautious with. The answer to both is, of course, no. (I'm beginning to wonder if I'm a rather negative person - I keep saying no)
Truth is, all narrators could be considered unreliable because every narrator exists to tell a story from the point of view the author. Now, there will be varying degrees to this, and in a lot of cases it will be hard to pick up on, but go read, as an example, A Song Of Ice and Fire by George R.R. Martin and tell me which characters are villains and which aren't. It gets harder the farther into the series you get, doesn't it? That's because even though the story is told in third person, it's third-person limited meaning the reader is as close to being inside the head of each character as they can be without the narration switching to first person. It's subtle, and probably most people won't pick up in it, but it proves to me that genre fiction, and genre fiction writers, can be both literary and tell a good story without one sacrificing the other.
Friday, May 25, 2012
The Dork Review: Men In Black 3
Let's keep this short. Men In Black 3 is a fun movie and you should go see it. There, done.
Not enough? Sigh, okay, I'll continue.
I have to admit, going into MIB3 I was a little worried. The first movie was awesome, but number two, well, smelled a little bit like number two if you catch my drift. Not like a fresh pile, but one that's been sitting around in the sun a bit and still smells a bit if you get too close. A pile of meh if you will.
MIB3 doesn't have this problem. It takes all the elements that worked in the first movie, the otherwordly weirdness and Will Smith's physical comedy, and dials them up to eleven. Add in a truly threatening villain, an unexpected scene that's both heartwarming and heartwrenching at the same time, and Josh Brolin doing a superb Tommy Lee Jones impression and you get a fun movie. And really, that's all I wanted when I wen to the theater tonight.
As I said, this is a fun movie well worth the ticket price. Oh, and keep an eye out in the background for a nice little callback to a well-loved character. You'll know them when you see them.
Not enough? Sigh, okay, I'll continue.
I have to admit, going into MIB3 I was a little worried. The first movie was awesome, but number two, well, smelled a little bit like number two if you catch my drift. Not like a fresh pile, but one that's been sitting around in the sun a bit and still smells a bit if you get too close. A pile of meh if you will.
MIB3 doesn't have this problem. It takes all the elements that worked in the first movie, the otherwordly weirdness and Will Smith's physical comedy, and dials them up to eleven. Add in a truly threatening villain, an unexpected scene that's both heartwarming and heartwrenching at the same time, and Josh Brolin doing a superb Tommy Lee Jones impression and you get a fun movie. And really, that's all I wanted when I wen to the theater tonight.
As I said, this is a fun movie well worth the ticket price. Oh, and keep an eye out in the background for a nice little callback to a well-loved character. You'll know them when you see them.
Monday, May 21, 2012
The Dork Review: At The Sharp End
At The Sharp End: Canadians Fighting The Great War 19-14-1916 by Tim Cook is actually a few years old. The copyright on it is 2007, and I've actually wanted to read it for a few years now. Usually I prefer to review books closer to their release dates and that come from smaller presses cause, hey, the big guys have marketing departments and there are tons of other outlets that will talk about them.
So why did I chose to review At The Sharp End? Two reasons. First, it's really, really good. Second, it covers a part of history that more Canadians should be aware of since a lot of our identity came out of the conflict the book covers.
Sometimes it can be hard to read history books, especially military history. They can be dryer than most deserts, thick, and mired in minutia. At The Sharp End is definitely a thick book, but it never feels dry and presents minutia is such a way it isn't a morass of detail sucking the reader in and clubbing him over the head until he falls asleep.
The book moves at a good clip, covering a wide variety of subjects, with vivid descriptions and the actual words of Canadians serving on the front lines of the conflict. For such a thick book I was surprised how quickly I got through it, even considering I'm already a pretty quick reader as it is.
For anyone interesting in the Canadian contribution in the First World War, this is an important book. For any military history buffs, this is an important book. For any author needing to know how to depict life in the trenches and what the troops suffered, (the reason I finally got around to picking this up), this is an important book.
I hope you have a chance to read it.
So why did I chose to review At The Sharp End? Two reasons. First, it's really, really good. Second, it covers a part of history that more Canadians should be aware of since a lot of our identity came out of the conflict the book covers.
Sometimes it can be hard to read history books, especially military history. They can be dryer than most deserts, thick, and mired in minutia. At The Sharp End is definitely a thick book, but it never feels dry and presents minutia is such a way it isn't a morass of detail sucking the reader in and clubbing him over the head until he falls asleep.
The book moves at a good clip, covering a wide variety of subjects, with vivid descriptions and the actual words of Canadians serving on the front lines of the conflict. For such a thick book I was surprised how quickly I got through it, even considering I'm already a pretty quick reader as it is.
For anyone interesting in the Canadian contribution in the First World War, this is an important book. For any military history buffs, this is an important book. For any author needing to know how to depict life in the trenches and what the troops suffered, (the reason I finally got around to picking this up), this is an important book.
I hope you have a chance to read it.
Friday, May 18, 2012
Even With An Outline, Things Still Manage To Sneak In
I've probably mentioned before I'm writing a book. Right now I'm about nine chapters in and over 20,000 words written in the last 4 weeks, which for me is a good pace. Fast enough that I'm getting words on the page but not so fast I feel overstressed. It's working.
I'm an outliner when it comes to writing, meaning for anything over a short-story, (and sometimes for those), I start by putting together a detailed outline for each chapter down to the scene level. So you'd expect that writing the book after that would just be filling in the blanks, so to speak.
Well, no. And here's why.
Even with an outline, my writing process is still pretty fluid. As I go along, especially this early in the project, I'm finding scenes I don't need that I plotted and cutting them out, scenes that I'd put in later need to be moved forward a bit, and material I never expected to fit in sliding into the most unexpected places.
Let me give you an example along with a bit of background on the book.
My main character is going to be an eastern-style, Shaolin-and-Japanese-Buddhist-influenced monk, and the order he's in shave their heads. My character being a curious sort, he asks why and the monk teaching him answers. Seems reasonable, right? What I didn't expect was that the answer that made the most sense, to me at least, ended up dragging in some background material that I didn't think would fit because a lot if it involves the different "races" I'd created to fill the empire that surrounds the tiny section of land my story takes place on. Characters of those differing ethnicity are unlikely to come up as the section of the world my story is set in is rather homogenous and were more or less created when I was world-building because I wanted a diverse population inside my fictional creation, but still, it's nice to know they're out there.
(How diverse things will be still remains to be seen. If this turns into a series, editors and publishers willing, the second book will have a much more diverse cast as the main character moves on to a wider world.)
It remains to be seen whether or not this scene will survive in its current form when I go to edit the book later on and if (hopefully when) I get editing requests from an editor prior to publication. I hope it does, as I think it builds on the world and gives it depth and has is a great piece of showing how a certain character thinks without drubbing the reader over the head.
I'm an outliner when it comes to writing, meaning for anything over a short-story, (and sometimes for those), I start by putting together a detailed outline for each chapter down to the scene level. So you'd expect that writing the book after that would just be filling in the blanks, so to speak.
Well, no. And here's why.
Even with an outline, my writing process is still pretty fluid. As I go along, especially this early in the project, I'm finding scenes I don't need that I plotted and cutting them out, scenes that I'd put in later need to be moved forward a bit, and material I never expected to fit in sliding into the most unexpected places.
Let me give you an example along with a bit of background on the book.
My main character is going to be an eastern-style, Shaolin-and-Japanese-Buddhist-influenced monk, and the order he's in shave their heads. My character being a curious sort, he asks why and the monk teaching him answers. Seems reasonable, right? What I didn't expect was that the answer that made the most sense, to me at least, ended up dragging in some background material that I didn't think would fit because a lot if it involves the different "races" I'd created to fill the empire that surrounds the tiny section of land my story takes place on. Characters of those differing ethnicity are unlikely to come up as the section of the world my story is set in is rather homogenous and were more or less created when I was world-building because I wanted a diverse population inside my fictional creation, but still, it's nice to know they're out there.
(How diverse things will be still remains to be seen. If this turns into a series, editors and publishers willing, the second book will have a much more diverse cast as the main character moves on to a wider world.)
It remains to be seen whether or not this scene will survive in its current form when I go to edit the book later on and if (hopefully when) I get editing requests from an editor prior to publication. I hope it does, as I think it builds on the world and gives it depth and has is a great piece of showing how a certain character thinks without drubbing the reader over the head.
Sunday, May 6, 2012
The Dork Review: Above
Above is the last of my Ad Astra reads, and I may have well saved the best for last. Unintentional of course.
(Oh, and don't worry. I won't be making any puns with the title. I'd like to think I'm ABOVE such behaviour... oh wait... whoops. Nevermind.)
How I understand it is that Above is supposed to be aimed for the Young Adult audience, and I can see that. Young protagonist, no graphic sex, and it's published by Scholastic who put out Harry Potter and The Hunger Games (At least in Canada they do). That being said, I still think it can be seen as an adult book as well.
Now, I don't mean adult in the sense that most do. Adult does not have to mean a work contains excessive swearing or sex (or is pornographic). No, Above is adult in the sense it has beautiful language and is told by an unreliable narrator. The author, Leah Bobet, has crafted an exceedingly gorgeous book that is told to us by a home-schooled storyteller (identified as a Teller in the book) that actually sounds as if it was told by a home-schooled storyteller and not an English student high on absinthe. The writing is amazingly consistent and transparent. It never feels artificial, never feels forced. As a writer myself I understand how hard that is to achieve, so I must tip my hat to Miss Bobet for doing such a superb job.
The best part is, that after finishing the book, I'm still not sure if the narrator was crazy and the whole thing was a delusion. It's almost of if this is Schrodinger's plot. It can be both real and unreal at the same time.
If Above is what kids are reading these days then there is hope for the future. If you have kids, please go out and get them a copy. You'll be doing them a huge favor and expanding their minds greatly.
(Oh, and don't worry. I won't be making any puns with the title. I'd like to think I'm ABOVE such behaviour... oh wait... whoops. Nevermind.)
How I understand it is that Above is supposed to be aimed for the Young Adult audience, and I can see that. Young protagonist, no graphic sex, and it's published by Scholastic who put out Harry Potter and The Hunger Games (At least in Canada they do). That being said, I still think it can be seen as an adult book as well.
Now, I don't mean adult in the sense that most do. Adult does not have to mean a work contains excessive swearing or sex (or is pornographic). No, Above is adult in the sense it has beautiful language and is told by an unreliable narrator. The author, Leah Bobet, has crafted an exceedingly gorgeous book that is told to us by a home-schooled storyteller (identified as a Teller in the book) that actually sounds as if it was told by a home-schooled storyteller and not an English student high on absinthe. The writing is amazingly consistent and transparent. It never feels artificial, never feels forced. As a writer myself I understand how hard that is to achieve, so I must tip my hat to Miss Bobet for doing such a superb job.
The best part is, that after finishing the book, I'm still not sure if the narrator was crazy and the whole thing was a delusion. It's almost of if this is Schrodinger's plot. It can be both real and unreal at the same time.
If Above is what kids are reading these days then there is hope for the future. If you have kids, please go out and get them a copy. You'll be doing them a huge favor and expanding their minds greatly.
Friday, May 4, 2012
The Dork Review: Marvel's The Avengers
I just got back from seeing this movie, and while I'd normally wait and think a bit before posting a review I just couldn't with this one. I don't think my opinion is going to change if I take eight hours to sleep and have my subconscious work on it.
IT WAS FREAKING AWESOME!!!!!
My friends and I left the theater raving about this movie, going over our favorite scenes, repeating some of the best lines. It's been awhile since I've enjoyed a movie this much.
So why should you go see it? The Avengers is the big payoff from all the other Marvel movies. This is what they've been building up to these last few years. This is what a superhero movie can truly be.
None of the heroes played second fiddle in this movie, and I mean none. Joss Whedon is a master of working with ensemble casts and it really and truly shows with this movie. Even characters one would deem minor, such as Agent Phil Coulson, get their time in the sun and have a real and true effect on the story.
There was action, drama, humor, and complete and utter heart. Sitting in the theater I believed in this world, in these people. Each and every one of them was a complete and real character, and each one was truly a hero in their own way.
The highest compliment I can give this movie is that even the parts I saw coming a mile away were still awesome, and never left me sitting smugly in my seat saying to myself "Yeah, saw that one coming."
Go and see this movie. Then see it again and catch the bits you missed because you were laughing or cheering too hard. At the end of the movie the entire audience I was in actually started clapping.
Oh, and there are two stinger scenes at the end, one near the beginning of the credits and one at the very end. Both are worth waiting for.
IT WAS FREAKING AWESOME!!!!!
My friends and I left the theater raving about this movie, going over our favorite scenes, repeating some of the best lines. It's been awhile since I've enjoyed a movie this much.
So why should you go see it? The Avengers is the big payoff from all the other Marvel movies. This is what they've been building up to these last few years. This is what a superhero movie can truly be.
None of the heroes played second fiddle in this movie, and I mean none. Joss Whedon is a master of working with ensemble casts and it really and truly shows with this movie. Even characters one would deem minor, such as Agent Phil Coulson, get their time in the sun and have a real and true effect on the story.
There was action, drama, humor, and complete and utter heart. Sitting in the theater I believed in this world, in these people. Each and every one of them was a complete and real character, and each one was truly a hero in their own way.
The highest compliment I can give this movie is that even the parts I saw coming a mile away were still awesome, and never left me sitting smugly in my seat saying to myself "Yeah, saw that one coming."
Go and see this movie. Then see it again and catch the bits you missed because you were laughing or cheering too hard. At the end of the movie the entire audience I was in actually started clapping.
Oh, and there are two stinger scenes at the end, one near the beginning of the credits and one at the very end. Both are worth waiting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)