Movie Review: Up in the Air

Warning! Reviews and Discussions may include Spoilers!

Up in the Air, starring George Clooney.

I liked Up in the Air quite a bit. The actors are all appealing, even if their characters are not. The film is nice to look at, and the story is always interesting. My only problem with the film is the ending.

George Clooney plays Ryan Bingham, a man whose job is to go from city to city and fire people for companies that are unwilling to do the dirty work themselves. It is a job he is good at. He can handle all of the various reactions of the terminated employees, from shock to disappointment to anger. Bingham is always in the air, flying from job to job. He has become completely isolated and unattached, has no friends and rarely talks to and never sees his family. He is so isolated he has come to advocate the lifestyle. He is a part-time motivational speaker. His message is to "Empty the Backpack" of everything from material goods to friends and family. All these things just weigh you down, he claims, keeping you from moving fast. And that is what Bingham wants to do, move fast, because according to him people are sharks, and if they don't move fast they die.

So the movie seems to be about Bingham's journey from this position to one where he realizes that he does need people, including family friends and lovers. The movie does a good job of this. You can see the transition in the way Bingham interacts as he is thrown in with a new co-worker, finds a lover, and decides that his family does matter and he can make a difference in all of these peoples lives. In the first part of the movie, we find out that Bingham's biggest goal in life is to become only the seventh person to get ten million miles on his airline club card. When he reached this goal, we see that it doesn't mean much to him anymore. His goals have changed. he can't even complete his motivational talks now.

But the ending cuts this transition off abruptly. He is left alone again, in his home in the air. Does he stay in touch with his family, after saving his sister's wedding and providing a generous gift so that his sister and her new husband can achieve one of their dreams? Does he ever hear again from his now former co-worker, after demonstrating that she has earned his friendship and respect? Does he ever try to reach out and find someone else to love, after finding out that his previous effort was based on a lie? We don't know. All we know is that at the end, George Clooney's character is doing the same things he was at the beginning.

Book Review: Life of Pi

Warning! Reviews and Discussions may include Spoilers!
Life of Pi by Yann Martell.
First, let me point out that I listened to the unabridged audio book version from Audible.com, and it has a significant problem. I am of the habit of peeking into printed versions of books I am listening to to get an idea of how far into the book I am, one of the things I miss compared to reading a printed version. I discovered that the audio version of Life of Pi is missing an entire section at the beginning of the novel! While this section is listed as an Author's Forward, it is actually part of the metafictional presentation of the book, which is framed as being told and researched by a fictional author who is a character in the book. This Author's Forward section contains a wealth of material that is crucial to understanding Yann Martell's themes and goals in the context of the Life of Pi. I actually enjoyed the tale quite a bit. The narrators of the audio book version are among the best I've listened to, and the material was engaging on multiple levels. But if you get the audio book, I recommend you drop by a bookstore and read the beginning before you start.

As I mentioned, there are many levels presented in Life of Pi.

First, there are multiple stories told. There is the framing story about a less than successful author who stumbles upon the main character, Pi, interviews him and does some additional research into his life. There is the story of Pi's early life up until his family leaves India for Canada. And there are two different versions of what happens to Pi after the ship carrying he and his family is wrecked in the Pacific Ocean.

The two main stories are Pi's early life and how he survives the shipwreck for seven months alone in a lifeboat with an adult Bengal Tiger. These tales are rich in detail and characterization. There are humorous bits, dramatic stretches and some grisly but believable details. I found these parts of the story entertaining on the entirely surface level I generally expect from the books I read.

Ah, but there's more! Life of Pi is one of those books well suited to the kind of analysis required in college English classes. I am no longer in college, so I have no need to provide a well organized, consistent, well argued look into the ultimate themes put forth by the author. Instead, I can just wing it and throw out a bunch of junk as it comes to mind!

Story and belief are clearly on the author's mind, as is the relationship between the two. The desire to accept the better story is expressed in relation to both and the two versions of Pi's survival at sea.

One of Pi's quirks, something unique to his character, is that he professes belief in Hinduism, Islam and Christianity. Therefore he truly believes in none of them. He is looking for something greater, and the details are not important. He believes that God is a good story, no matter the context of the religion, and he likes that story. He uses aspects of each faith to frame his experiences during the survival portion of the tale, whichever faith is convenient at the time in helping him get past whatever horrible obstacle he is currently facing.

Pi tells two tales of his survival at sea. In one, he is the only surviving human, but he is trapped in a lifeboat with a Tiger, and also initially with a zebra, and orangutan, and a jackal, all of which the tiger soon disposes with. In another, Pi is accompanied initially by his mother, the ships chef, and another crewman. In that version, murder, cannibalism and brutality ensue. The story of Pi's early life is really a part of the tiger tale, since it does nothing to support or enlighten the other survival story. The tiger tale is long and rich in detail, and is believable until late in the story when Pi becomes temporarily blind, meets another blind castaway, and stumbles upon an island of flesh devouring algae populated by lemurs. The other story is short and blunt, and doesn't seem to fill out the entire seven month period of Pi's ocean travails.

Which story is true? There are some facts which are undeniable, and if both stories do not support those facts, then they are not true: the date when the ship sank, when Pi was discovered, the contents of the boat and survival gear, the condition of the lifeboat, the health of Pi himself. The tiger tale is carefully constructed to explain all of the facts despite its fantastical elements, which even Pi admits are hard to believe. The more human tale does not go very far in trying to explain the evidence, but the listeners inside of the novel prefer its facts if not its story.

There are parallels between the two tales. The author basically knocks you over the head with a two-by-four pointing them out, and I won't go into detail about them here.

So again, which story is true? This is where it gets all weird and meta. Because obviously both stories are false. This is after all a work of fiction, not based on reality. The author makes up both tales of survival, makes up the whole Life of Pi, and the reader can believe whatever he or she likes. I believe this is why the author is so explicit about comparing the tale of survival with and without the tiger. If the fabulism and symbology of the tiger tale were the point, he would not analyze them directly in the story. They would be left as an exercise for the reader. In the end, his point is that the facts of this story, or any story, are not really important and will not make a real difference to you at all. What is important is a tale well told, and the enjoyment the reader can get from such a tale.

Movie Review: Sherlock Holmes with Robert Downey, Jr.

Warning! Reviews and Discussions may include Spoilers!

I have to think that people these days aren't really that familiar with Sherlock Holmes. After all, the books while classics are over one hundred years old. Sherlock Holmes movies peaked with the Basil Rathbone versions, and those don't even seem to make it to television anymore with the exception of an occasional showing of Hound of the Baskervilles. There was a fairly recent go from Britain of filming all of the original Conan Doyle stories for television. I tried watching and found them somewhat dull, and I'm a fan.

When I was a kid, I loved watching the Basil Rathbone Holmes on television. There seemed to be one on every week. I read all of the original stories and books. I was pretty excited about Nicholas Meyer's Seven Percent Solution update on the Holmes mythos. Now my kids seem to know about Holmes, but I don't think they've seen a single older Holmes movie or read any of the literature. Holmes is part of the modern zeitgeist, like King Arthur or Robin Hood.

Now comes the Robert Downey version of Sherlock Holmes, and maybe because it is advertised as an action film, my kids very much wanted to go see it.

It turns out it's pretty good. Yes, it's an action-adventure flick. I talked to my father about it and he said that's just not Sherlock Holmes. But I remember a lot of chases, disguises, and gun play in the original stories. I think it works really well, and there is still plenty of the cerebral activity that sets Sherlock apart from the normal man.

Robert Downey is excellent as Holmes. The audience can clearly see how Holmes observes every detail around him and analyzes how people and facts are related to the case or problem he is working on. We also see Holmes as an addict. He is addicted to problem solving, to working on a case. Not just any case, as we see when Watson goes through the mail and Holmes tosses off solutions to peoples' request with no more effort than casual conversation. Holmes must have a true conundrum to work on. This is very true to the original character. If Holmes is not properly occupied, he finds ways to distract himself: experimenting on himself, experimenting on the dog, inventing silencers for dogs, fighting and using drugs.

Jude Law is fine as Watson, and the repartee and physical interplay with Holmes provides much of the humor. Law also helps move Watson away from the older cloddish image established by Nigel Bruce in the Basil Rathbone version of Holmes. Law is actually much closer to the printed version of Watson, who was a veteran fresh from the fighting in Afghanistan.

I am somewhat ambivalent about Guy Ritchie's direction. His depiction of Holmes' thought processes, though limited to fist fights, works very well, and there are some lovely shots and some nice camera movement. But at other times, the framing and editing flow just don't work and disrupted my suspension of disbelief.
As to the story, I won't go into any detail. Suffice it to say that I think it works as a Holmes story. There are mystifying events that eventually are explained by Holmes, and everything seems to make sense. Some liberties are taken with the Holmes canon, such as the treatment of Irene Adler, Moriarty and Watson's fiancée, but none that take away from the story and none that will be noticed by any but real Holmes buffs. The only thing I found odd was the choice to place the story right at the moment when Watson is leaving his co-occupancy of 221B Baker Street for his marriage, as I would think this might cause problems in the inevitable sequel with getting Holmes and Watson together again.

TV Review: 24 Season Premier

Warning! Reviews and Discussions may include Spoilers!

See old Jack Bauer ("Call me Grandpa")! See Jack drop the President's name! See Jack sneak through New York! See the old discarded mattress in the garbage! See Jack make it into a bandage for his wounded informant! See Jack Axe Attack! See Jack dodge bullets! See Jack dodge...um...a shoulder mounted rocket propelled missile?

24 used to be really excellent television. It hasn't been quite so excellent the last few years. This season still could go either way. I guess that is part of the fun. They've moved it to New York after pretty much trashing all of Washington, DC last season. Los Angeles took seven whole seasons to completely trash! But luckily, the President happens to be in New York at the same time as Jack. You'd think they'd outlaw that by now in the Jack-verse. "Sorry, Jack, the President has to come to town for a UN thing! You'll have to go to Idaho for a while. And we want you gone at least a week before she arrives and we'll be in touch about when you can come back, OK!" You would also think the head of CTU would get a clue about what happens when Jack shows up. "Uh, Jack Bauer's here? I'm not feeling too good. I think I might be out for a couple of days. And don't try calling me! My phone isn't going to be working either!" So we have the beginning of some kind of crisis, currently an assassination threat but sure to expand, and voila! A typical 24 setup.

Of course 24 is watchable whether it turns out to be actually good or if it just turns into another We Can Top Last Season With Bigger More Outrageous Threats to the City, the Country, the Planet, the Universe! (evil cackling) Because you can always play the 24 Jack-verse guessing games!

• Who is the CTU mole? I'm currently leaning toward Weaselly Computer Guy, because Girl Who's Not Really Who She Says She Is is too obvious. Besides, he's weaselly. And a computer guy.
• Who will bite the big one? I don't know that anyone is safe this time, even Chloe. It goes almost without saying that the head of CTU is a goner, and he deserves it because he's quite the dilweed, which is of course one of the job requirements for head of CTU. And Jack will die and be resurrected, though this is not to be confused with another 24 game: Who will come back from the dead? I was surprised that Freddie Prinze made it through the first show. He's either gone or they're planning on him taking over for Jack. I expect that Weaselly Computer Guy and Girl Who's Not Really Who She Says She Is won't make it. I have my doubts about Secretary of State Ethan. He already acts like he's dead. And Generic Middle Eastern Country Brother With Bad Hair. Because he has bad hair. And Tony! Yeah, kill Tony again! Maybe more than once!
  
• Who is behind it all? There are a lot of candidates for this one. There's Generic Middle Eastern Country Brother With Bad Hair. There's Generic Middle Eastern Country Spurned Wife. There is Generic Middle Eastern Country Daughter With Few Lines. Or maybe Far Too Young To Be Chief Of Staff Guy. Since this is 24, you can't rule out characters we haven't seen, like The President's Ex-Husband, The President's Daughter, Generic Middle Eastern Country Father, Mother, Father-in-law or Mother-in-law. Or maybe CTU itself is the bad guy! All of CTU is the CTU Mole! Because on 24, more of anything is better! But I'm going with Reporter Woman, because it can be part of the Fooled you once, fooled you 27 times 24 theme. She's really suspicious! No, she's just having an affair with the Generic Middle Eastern Country President! She's really an assassin after all, but she works for someone completely different! Oh, sorry, she works for the government and was trying to save the Generic Middle Eastern Country President! Oops, turns out she's really the Ultimate Criminal Mastermind, and a weapons expert and super-duper black belt Kung Fu expert as well!
  
• What is the bad guy's motivation? Right now I'm thinking that the Vaguely Russian Terrorist bought a bad refrigerator from the Generic Middle Eastern Country President and had some borscht go bad killing his entire family!!! Because, you know, there has to be some reason they explicitly stated that Generic Middle Eastern Country President was an appliance salesman before going into politics.
  

My place for reviews...

of movies, books, games or whatever!