Alleys. By Ongredost’s beard, I hate the alleys that weave throughout the city. With day breaking soon, I’ll never find my way back to the meeting place in time. Then the guard’s will take her away from me forever.
I wheeze and pant. The taste of blood poisons my gums. My palms find my knees and I'm doubled over. Blue flashes scatter across my closed eyelids as I psych myself up to run again.
After five or six strides, I stop again. I’m vomiting.
Dawn’s rosy fingers creep from the horizon. Gnawing at the inside of my cheek is all I can do to not stop running. It can’t end like this. I won’t let it.
The guards have gone crooked. When the King was in charge, we were better off. There was law and order, especially from the officers of the peace. But now things have changed. No one has any moral obligations. All that matters to the guards is the jingle of a coin purse.
The sun is moments away from rising when I turn the corner and find the meeting place hidden at the end of Scorpion Alley.
“Kyra!” I shout. I’m surprised by the roar that escapes my chest.
She’s bound and gagged. There’s nothing but a muffled response. The author of her chains pulls tightly and her head lifts. My love is choked to silence. By the emerging light I can see tears clouding her eyes.
I run forward with all my might and throw myself down before the captain of the guards.
“Here,” I stammer and hold up a satchel. “This is what you want.”
The captain rips the satchel from my hands. He draws it open to find the Nyx plant. He raises the shrub up to examine it in a ray of sunshine that has splashed into this corner of the alley.
“Don’t,” I scream, attempting to rise to my feet. The guard behind me forces me the ground and garrotes me with his halberd.
It’s too late. The roots and tendrils are singed and seared by the sunlight. The creamy orange petals and verdant leaves wither and fade into soot.
The captain flexes his fingers and palm. The dying plant drops to the ground. It crumbles to dust. He sneers and kicks me in the forehead. The oak of the halberd presses into my throat hard as I recoil.
The last thing I see before I black out is Kyra’s darkened figure being dragged away down the alley. The sun has risen and the blackened figures are burned into my sight.
Thursday, December 29, 2011
Monday, December 12, 2011
Significance
Have you ever stopped and considered the significance of the number five? 5. Five.
Outside of it's placement between 4 and 6, is it even important? Is it just a comparative, i.e. 5 is less than 6 but greater than 4?
Rather than thinking of it in a comparative sense have you considered five as just five? Like five gold rings? Have you ever pictured those rings? (No, not the Olympic rings)
Take away the rings and just picture five.
What is five? A placeholder?
Anyhow, we all know there is only one ring to rule them all.
Outside of it's placement between 4 and 6, is it even important? Is it just a comparative, i.e. 5 is less than 6 but greater than 4?
Rather than thinking of it in a comparative sense have you considered five as just five? Like five gold rings? Have you ever pictured those rings? (No, not the Olympic rings)
Take away the rings and just picture five.
What is five? A placeholder?
Anyhow, we all know there is only one ring to rule them all.
Wednesday, December 7, 2011
Plot-hole or Plot-well? A Film Rant
Having recently watched The Fountain again, I'm reminded why Daron Aronofsky is such a good director. (Fun aside, he may be the only director whose feature-length body of work I've seen in it's entirety).
Anyhow, I think one of the reasons I like his movies so much is because he explores different worlds, and makes them palatable to anyone: Pi's creepy dip into the world of government conspiracy and high brow math/computer work, Requiem for a Dream's path into the dark world of narcotics and pharmaceuticals, The Fountain's dip into rebirth, spirituality and enlightenment, The Wrestler's stunning portrayal of a man faced with the reality of and weight of his life choices, and Black Swan's chilling portrayal of a woman so focused on achieving her goal that she loses all balance and moderation.
These films present questions that are sometimes left open to interpretation, or conclusions that are just a modicum of horrors, pains or stress to come. Yet I appreciate that in being cerebral and deep, Aronofsky gives the viewer a chance at seeing his vision, or at the very least a hint of conclusion. He doesn't hide his story from the viewer and cause confusion as a way to make the audience discuss his movies. His films just are.
It also made me think of another director with whose movies I hear Aronofsky's compared to often--Christopher Nolan.
Now Nolan's work has been highly enjoyable to me. I liked Inception and Memento and the Batman films, but I find much lacking in his work, and if you've been around me anytime in the last three years when one of his movies hit theaters, chances are you've heard some of my rather strong opinions on his films.
Warning: The Dark Knight spoilers follow!
For instance, in The Dark Knight I had trouble with the ending, and the fact that Batman ultimately made a choice to kill Two-Face, and not the Joker. (For those who think that Two-Face either isn't dead, or that he wasn't meaning to kill him, I disagree with y'all. Count the seconds when Batman goes off screen while Harvey has Gordon's son and then attacks with a lunge that takes all three of them over the edge. Batman is a calculating fellow, knows his own strength, and is the owner of two nifty bat-equipped arms. He is quite capable of grabbing the edge and saving only one of them, and knowing all this, he lunges and chooses the boy, effectively choosing to kill Two-Face). Not killing the truly evil villain, but the neutral one (perhaps further drawing a Jesus parallel, viz., Revelations 3:16) made me quite angry and unable to enjoy to that movie for over a year.
Now, I enjoyed Inception and Memento, as I said before, but what I find to be lacking in both of those films are the plot-holes.
In Inception, I could care less about the ending, and what I'm going to talk about are these aforementioned holes.
Inception spoilers ahead
1) The fact that they were able to be kicked out of the first level inside Fischer's dreams by the stewardess even though the plan had been clearly sped up and the first level was a war zone, and then Fischer & Uncle have a bonding moment after they get kicked back there and the van crashes. What a nice, sweet moment. News flash, the bad guys are still out there, shooting and killing. You are stuck there for a WEEK before waking and the stewardess has no way of being contacted, and yet here you are waking up without being killed and sent to limbo. Sorry, not buying it.
2) Fischer and Ariadne were able to be kicked from within Limbo to the third level (after Ariadne and Dom conveniently use the machine to go down there in the first place) without anyone to help kick them back from the third level itself. I'm sorry, since when did falling within the level itself act as a kick? I do believe the kick had to come from the level above you!
Those are just a couple, but they sure do rankle. Now, I feel like Nolan knows they exist, and that they're holes, but tries to dissuade the audience from noticing them by making the plot as convoluted as possible, as difficult to follow as possible, and dazzle you with special effects in a Michael Bay style, effectively telling the audience: "Hey, these aren't plot-holes, these are plot-wells! Look, you can draw up your own conclusion in this bucket!" To that I say, good day, sir.
Yes, Inception was visually stunning and enjoyable without over-diagnosis, but I saw the movie three times in theaters to "get to the bottom of it" only to realize that it was just a sham. Fun to watch, but a sham.
Wait, Mike, maybe all the plot-holes mean that Dom never woke up in the first place and the he was in Limbo or a dream world the whole time! If so, then why would Nolan credit older children?
Here's the further problem I have with his plot-holes. Nolan just likes to throw out as many choices for the audience as possible so they make their own conclusion or they not be a real one. This is an act of nothing other than wishy-washyness and lukewarmity. It's quite distasteful and makes me lose respect for him as a storyteller.
"Drink from my plot-wells, America! Make my movies net over a billion dollars!"
Memento spoilers now!
Making a film complicated for the sake of hiding your inabilities to write a coherent story, as well as throwing as many possible scenarios in to the mix to add flavor is just plain lazy, just like in Memento. There were so many additional frames thrown in at the end of the movie: Was Leonard's wife a diabetic and he killed her? Was she not? Did he finish it and go home to her and get that tattoo? Was he really in an asylum? So many choices! Whatever shall I do!
I shall call it what it is: crap. He doesn't have the balls to stand behind a completed and solidified story arc, so he slams the audience with all the possibilities, effectively ruining any clear message or answer. Is it brilliant? No. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it a sign of depth? Hardly. Shitting on a canvas doesn't make art. Not plot-wells. Plot-holes. Big, fat ones.
I've heard people say they had to watch Memento multiple times to "get it." There's nothing more to get than the first viewing gives you. There's nothing any chart can add to it. It lacks a definitive quality. But it's just postmodern! No, it's crap writing.
The way I've learned to cope with and enjoy these three films of his in particular, is to watch them and just turn my brain off, and just avoid thinking about that. Kinda like watching a Michael Bay film.
Now, he can tell a conclusive story and it's quite enjoyable. Watch The Prestige. The movie is kind of predictable, but it works. The direction/acting is fabulous, the visuals are stunning, and the story is compelling. It has no glaring plot-holes, and it overall works as a film. (Besides, who doesn't love Bowie in a feature?)
Now, I guess the reason I bring this all up, is because I consider myself somewhat of a storyteller, and I guess I'm old school in the sense that a story should conclude.
That rant was a lot longer than I had anticipated, but if you've read this far, I'd suggest you watch The Fountain. You don't have to, but I liked it. That movie is meditation in a film. It just is. There's a lot to it, it might take a couple of times to put together some of the finer points, but it just is. And it is enjoyable.
I guess I'm tired of poor story crafting be taken as a sign of depth or intelligence. Kind of like not talking doesn't make you deep.
PS - I take any and all credit for coining plot-well if it has not been used before. =D
Anyhow, I think one of the reasons I like his movies so much is because he explores different worlds, and makes them palatable to anyone: Pi's creepy dip into the world of government conspiracy and high brow math/computer work, Requiem for a Dream's path into the dark world of narcotics and pharmaceuticals, The Fountain's dip into rebirth, spirituality and enlightenment, The Wrestler's stunning portrayal of a man faced with the reality of and weight of his life choices, and Black Swan's chilling portrayal of a woman so focused on achieving her goal that she loses all balance and moderation.
These films present questions that are sometimes left open to interpretation, or conclusions that are just a modicum of horrors, pains or stress to come. Yet I appreciate that in being cerebral and deep, Aronofsky gives the viewer a chance at seeing his vision, or at the very least a hint of conclusion. He doesn't hide his story from the viewer and cause confusion as a way to make the audience discuss his movies. His films just are.
It also made me think of another director with whose movies I hear Aronofsky's compared to often--Christopher Nolan.
Now Nolan's work has been highly enjoyable to me. I liked Inception and Memento and the Batman films, but I find much lacking in his work, and if you've been around me anytime in the last three years when one of his movies hit theaters, chances are you've heard some of my rather strong opinions on his films.
Warning: The Dark Knight spoilers follow!
For instance, in The Dark Knight I had trouble with the ending, and the fact that Batman ultimately made a choice to kill Two-Face, and not the Joker. (For those who think that Two-Face either isn't dead, or that he wasn't meaning to kill him, I disagree with y'all. Count the seconds when Batman goes off screen while Harvey has Gordon's son and then attacks with a lunge that takes all three of them over the edge. Batman is a calculating fellow, knows his own strength, and is the owner of two nifty bat-equipped arms. He is quite capable of grabbing the edge and saving only one of them, and knowing all this, he lunges and chooses the boy, effectively choosing to kill Two-Face). Not killing the truly evil villain, but the neutral one (perhaps further drawing a Jesus parallel, viz., Revelations 3:16) made me quite angry and unable to enjoy to that movie for over a year.
Now, I enjoyed Inception and Memento, as I said before, but what I find to be lacking in both of those films are the plot-holes.
In Inception, I could care less about the ending, and what I'm going to talk about are these aforementioned holes.
Inception spoilers ahead
1) The fact that they were able to be kicked out of the first level inside Fischer's dreams by the stewardess even though the plan had been clearly sped up and the first level was a war zone, and then Fischer & Uncle have a bonding moment after they get kicked back there and the van crashes. What a nice, sweet moment. News flash, the bad guys are still out there, shooting and killing. You are stuck there for a WEEK before waking and the stewardess has no way of being contacted, and yet here you are waking up without being killed and sent to limbo. Sorry, not buying it.
2) Fischer and Ariadne were able to be kicked from within Limbo to the third level (after Ariadne and Dom conveniently use the machine to go down there in the first place) without anyone to help kick them back from the third level itself. I'm sorry, since when did falling within the level itself act as a kick? I do believe the kick had to come from the level above you!
Those are just a couple, but they sure do rankle. Now, I feel like Nolan knows they exist, and that they're holes, but tries to dissuade the audience from noticing them by making the plot as convoluted as possible, as difficult to follow as possible, and dazzle you with special effects in a Michael Bay style, effectively telling the audience: "Hey, these aren't plot-holes, these are plot-wells! Look, you can draw up your own conclusion in this bucket!" To that I say, good day, sir.
Yes, Inception was visually stunning and enjoyable without over-diagnosis, but I saw the movie three times in theaters to "get to the bottom of it" only to realize that it was just a sham. Fun to watch, but a sham.
Wait, Mike, maybe all the plot-holes mean that Dom never woke up in the first place and the he was in Limbo or a dream world the whole time! If so, then why would Nolan credit older children?
Here's the further problem I have with his plot-holes. Nolan just likes to throw out as many choices for the audience as possible so they make their own conclusion or they not be a real one. This is an act of nothing other than wishy-washyness and lukewarmity. It's quite distasteful and makes me lose respect for him as a storyteller.
"Drink from my plot-wells, America! Make my movies net over a billion dollars!"
Memento spoilers now!
Making a film complicated for the sake of hiding your inabilities to write a coherent story, as well as throwing as many possible scenarios in to the mix to add flavor is just plain lazy, just like in Memento. There were so many additional frames thrown in at the end of the movie: Was Leonard's wife a diabetic and he killed her? Was she not? Did he finish it and go home to her and get that tattoo? Was he really in an asylum? So many choices! Whatever shall I do!
I shall call it what it is: crap. He doesn't have the balls to stand behind a completed and solidified story arc, so he slams the audience with all the possibilities, effectively ruining any clear message or answer. Is it brilliant? No. Is it lazy? Yes. Is it a sign of depth? Hardly. Shitting on a canvas doesn't make art. Not plot-wells. Plot-holes. Big, fat ones.
I've heard people say they had to watch Memento multiple times to "get it." There's nothing more to get than the first viewing gives you. There's nothing any chart can add to it. It lacks a definitive quality. But it's just postmodern! No, it's crap writing.
The way I've learned to cope with and enjoy these three films of his in particular, is to watch them and just turn my brain off, and just avoid thinking about that. Kinda like watching a Michael Bay film.
Now, he can tell a conclusive story and it's quite enjoyable. Watch The Prestige. The movie is kind of predictable, but it works. The direction/acting is fabulous, the visuals are stunning, and the story is compelling. It has no glaring plot-holes, and it overall works as a film. (Besides, who doesn't love Bowie in a feature?)
Now, I guess the reason I bring this all up, is because I consider myself somewhat of a storyteller, and I guess I'm old school in the sense that a story should conclude.
That rant was a lot longer than I had anticipated, but if you've read this far, I'd suggest you watch The Fountain. You don't have to, but I liked it. That movie is meditation in a film. It just is. There's a lot to it, it might take a couple of times to put together some of the finer points, but it just is. And it is enjoyable.
I guess I'm tired of poor story crafting be taken as a sign of depth or intelligence. Kind of like not talking doesn't make you deep.
PS - I take any and all credit for coining plot-well if it has not been used before. =D
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
