Western Wednesdays: No Name on the Bullet (1959)

Given my love for the western genre I've decided to try to write more about the genre. I'm going to attempt to post a new western related article every other Wednesday. I'm gonna call it Western Wednesdays ('cause alliteration ftw). This week I'll be reviewing the somewhat obscure psychological western No Name on the Bullet...

     No Name on the Bullet was released in 1959. It stars Audie Murphy and Charles Drake and was directed by Jack Arnold and written by Gene L. Coon (who later became a producer and writer for Star Trek).

     No Name on the Bullet is a somewhat subversive western. It takes the concept of a lone gunman who goes into a corruption filled town and sets things right and turns it on its head. This town certainly has some corrupt elements but it functions peaceably despite this. When John Gant (Murphy) rides into town this tranquility is immediately disrupted as everyone begins to panic and turn on one another, each wondering who Gant has come to kill. It's the kind of plot that might work well for a horror film. Trying to quell the madness is the town's doctor Luke Canfield (Drake) who sees Gant's presence in the town as a kind of epidemic, one that he's not equipped to cure. He and Gant have an interesting relationship and develop a certain mutual respect for one another. But there's a real contrast between these characters and their world view. Canfield believes in the value of human life and devotes his life to helping others stay alive. Gant views life quite differently. In his view most people have inner demons and are guilty of some crime. The doctor only serves to drag out their miserable, sinful lives. He, on the other hand, puts an end to them and dispenses justice which places him on a higher moral plain than everyone else because he's the only one who can see past the absurdity. Given the way the townspeople react to Gant's presence it would seem he has a point and this presents a continual challenge to Luke's ethical worldview. What Gant misses, and what becomes apparent when his intended target is finally revealed, is that people can make amends for their past mistakes and better their lives and the lives of those around them. The script does have some problems however as the actions of the townspeople don't always make a lot of sense. Some of them continue to fear for their lives when it should be obvious that Gant has no interest in them.

     Despite this issue Coon's psychologically driven script is easily the strongest part of the movie and it brings out the best in Murphy who gets to display a darker side here than he usually would. Casting an actor that audiences were used to seeing as an upstanding hero as, basically, the villain of the piece was a rather inspired choice and helps to reinforce the subversive nature of the film. Jack Arnold's direction is fairly effective, adding a forboding sense to the proceedings but it's also a bit by-the-numbers. Charles Drake is well cast as the upright and compassionate Luke Canfield. The supporting players, all seasoned character actors, also put in solid performances, especially R.G. Armstrong as Luke's down-to-earth, supportive father and Willis Bouchey as the pragmatic Sheriff Hastings. All in all No Name on the Bullet is a somewhat pedestrian western that's elevated by it's unique premise.

Score 8.5/10

Suicide Squad and Why Critics Matter

     I probably won't review Suicide Squad. I find myself with nothing of real interest to say about it that hasn't been said already. So here are my thoughts in a nutshell: Suicide Squad is lacking in a consistent tone, vision or narrative structure and somehow, despite having a fairly novel central concept for a film in this genre, it feels like every other superhero movie ever made. In addition to this, despite being filled with easter eggs and references to the comics, the writers of the film don't seem to have a very good grasp of who these characters are. So much for that. On to the main point of this article...

     The release of Suicide Squad has reignited a controversy about movie critics that's been going on for a long time now. Someone's even started a petition to shut down Rotten Tomatoes. The question is: are critics hurtful or helpful to the film industry? As I'm (sort of) a critic myself I strongly feel that critics are not just a helpful but an important part of the industry. I should clarify that if you enjoyed Suicide Squad or BvS that's fine, your entitled to your opinion buts there's no reason to begrudge critics of their own.

     A complaint I often hear is that critics are too critical. But being "critical" is a critic's job. The whole point of being a critic is to analyze a piece of art and determine whether or not we think it's worthwhile. Some argue that art is completely subjective and therefore the whole thing is essentially pointless. I wholeheartedly disagree. There are certain objective standards that can applied to any art-form. The main thing is to determine what the intention behind any given piece is and then to decide a) was this a worthwhile endeavor and b) does it effectively achieve what it was intended to. A movie like say, Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen fails to meet the first criteria because it's a cynical cash grab that's designed to appeal to the baser instincts of its audience. The fact that it does this successfully is beside the point. On the other hand a film like say Star Trek V: The Final Frontier meets the first criteria because it's an installment in a beloved and successful franchise which its fans have a vested interest in seeing continue. But it utterly fails to meet the second criteria due to weak writing and terrible special effects. Finally you have a film like Batman and Robin that fails to meet either criteria.

Disparity much?

     It is not my intention here to reduce film criticism to some sort of litmus test of movie quality. This is simply the way, in a broad sense, that I personally tend to asses to overall quality of a film. Obviously a critic can and should go into more depth and try to appreciate a film from different angles. My point is that critics are, in a certain sense, guardians of quality and good taste in the film industry. If the recent DC films have proven anything it's that critical consensus can have an impact on the financial performance of a film, even if this is not always the case (look at the box office of the Transformers or Twilight films for proof of this). Why is this a good thing? Because it would be easy for movie studios to look at success of Micheal Bay or Roland Emmerich films and decide to make more films that are soulless spectacle with little to no heart or narrative coherence. When movies like Batman v Superman and Suicide Squad under-perform it makes them reconsider this strategy and pay more attention to what critics are saying. In other words, if critics continue to pan these movies and audiences continue to look at this and spend their hard earned money elsewhere, maybe, just maybe, DC will finally take note and release a movie that's actually good.

Star Trek Beyond Short Review

     Of all the films coming out this summer Star Trek Beyond was probably the one that I had the least confidence in. Everything released in advance of the film made it look like it the people involved didn't understand the essential appeal of the franchise. After all the director of Fast and Furious hardly seems like the right choice for a heady Sci Fi film. As a huge Trekkie this was rather disappointing, especially as the franchise celebrates its 50th anniversary this year and Beyond is the only thing Paramount is releasing. It turns out that my fears were unjustified however because Star Trek Beyond is easily the best Trek film since the release of Star Trek: First Contact (1996) or possibly even before that.

     The success of this film comes down to the script, written by Simon Pegg, who also play's Scotty and who co-wrote many of Edgar Wright's best comedies, and newcomer Doug Jung. These two writers seem to get Star Trek in a way that the previous writers, Alex Kurtzman and Robert Orci, did not. The plot of the film is fairly simple. When the Enterprise is attacked by a mysterious alien swarm the crew becomes stranded and separated on a planet run by an enigmatic alien named Krall who captures most of the crew. Kirk, Spock, McCoy and Scotty must team up with another of the planets inhabitants, Jayla, in order to rescue their friends and escape. What makes it work is the interaction between the cast members. This was always one of the stronger aspects of this new rebooted series but the script for this film really gives them a chance to shine. Karl Urban as McCoy, who was sidelined in the first two films, is particularly good here and has a lot of chemistry with Zachary Quinto's Spock, who finally seems much more like the character from the original series. Chris Pine continues to shine as Kirk and his character has finally matured and feels much more confident sitting in the captain's chair then he did before. Simon Pegg, John Cho, and Zoe Saldana are all solid as Scotty, Sulu, and Uhura respectively and each of their characters is given something to do. Uhura's relationship with Spock works much better here than it did in the last two. She also has some nice moments with Sulu after they are captured by Krall. Pegg's Scotty has pretty good chemistry with newcomer Sofia Boutella's Jayla, who's a scavenger and, like Scotty, something of a technical wizard. Anton Yelchin (RIP) also puts in a solid, final performance as Chekov and both he and Leonard Nimoy are paid tribute to in subtle, classy way that doesn't distract from the plot.

     If the film has a weakness it's that Lin's direction is not great. Visually this film reminds me, far too often, of a network TV show one might watch on ABC or the CW. This is somewhat ironic I suppose as this film feels more akin to an episode of TOS than any Trek film since Insurrection which was released 18 years ago. Beyond is also somewhat light on thematic depth. The overall theme is basically constructive unity versus destructive self interest which is fine but not all that much is done with it compared with some of Trek's more nuanced stories of yore. Nevertheless, given the surprising amount of subtle character moments and the renewed sense of optimism found in this film along with the promise of a new TV series coming next year, Trek is on much more firm footing than is has been in a long while.

Score: 8/10

X-Men: Apocalypse - Brief Thoughts and Video Review

It's been awhile but the Brothers Thre3 have finally posted a new video review. I'll also give some more in-depth, spoiler filled thoughts below...

     Since shooting the review I have seen the film a second time. The main theme of the movie is the search that most people go through for a sense of purpose or belonging. On one side you have Kurt Wagner, Jean Grey, and Scott Summers, who find this through Charles Xavier and, to a lesser extent, Mystique. On the other hand you have Storm, Pysclocke, and  Angel, who find this in Apocalypse. So far so good right?

     Unfortunately there are two problems with this. One is that while Charles vision for a future where humans and mutants work together and help each other has always been clear Apocalypse is not given a clear vision to contrast with this. All he really ever says is that he wants to tear down the world and "build a better one". What this new world will look like is less clear. The other problems is that most of these characters get only minimal development or, in the case of Psylocke and Angel, none at all. Instead much time is given to fleshing out Apocalypse's fourth follower, Magneto. As Thomas stresses in our video review this is problematic because we've already spent a lot of time developing Magneto's character in the past and his arc in this film feels simultaneously repetitive and counter-intuitive.

     At the beginning of the film Magneto has given up on his quest to lead Mutant-kind to its (in his opinion) rightful place as the dominant species on earth. Instead he's living in Poland with a new wife and daughter, supporting them by working at a factory. When it's discovered that he's a mutant, his family wind up dead in a rather contrived sequence and he's left aimlessly searching for revenge as he was at the beginning of First Class. He winds up going through sort of a reverse of his arc in that film, this time following a violent and destructive leader only to have a change of heart and stand with his friends in the end. Despite this, it really feels, by the end of the film, like he's in a really similar place to where he was at the end of First Class rendering the whole thing rather pointless.

     As I mentioned in the video there's a missed opportunity here for socio-religious themes. Apocalypse fancies himself a god and wishes to destroy and replace the technology that he see's as a new, false god. This presents an opportunity to comment on post-WWII existentialism and how this might create a vacuum that a powerful being like Apocalypse could exploit. Unfortunately the film never goes in this direction, nor does it do anything very interesting with these concepts.

     The movie has other problems as well. There are subplots, involving Quicksilver and Moira Mactaggert that feel distracting and tacked on. Quicksilver's has an arc that is unresolved and Moira's presence through much of the film feels really awkward as she doesn't really understand what's going on until the climax. There's also a completely pointless scene where William Stryker captures Mystique, Beast, Moira and Quicksilver and Jean, Scott and Kurt must rescue them with some help from a conveniently placed (though admittedly cool) Wolverine cameo. There's also a scene where Magneto, in a fit of rage, destroys Auschwitz which, to me, felt a little insensitive.

     With that said the movie still works overall. There are some fun action scenes. The plot though a little thin and unfocused at times, is at least coherent. Finally, though Apocalypse doesn't offer a very interesting foil for him, Xavier is just as compelling as ever and I can understand why Jean, Cyclops, Nightcrawler, and, ultimately, Storm follow him. The film is at its best when it's focusing on their side of the story. In the end X-Men Apocalypse is more uneven and disappointing than bad.

Score: 7/10

Les Miserables Review/Reflection

     I've never reviewed a book on this blog before. Although I love books I'm not as knowledgeable about literature as I am about film. But I had an experience while reading Les Miserables that I really wanted to right about. This novel touched me emotionally in a way that no book for a long time (or maybe ever) has.

     Before reading this book I had seen the 2012 musical film and really enjoyed it. One scene in particular got me a little choked up. But that was a more superficial emotional response. The book touched me on a much deeper level.

     There is a scene early on in the novel where the ex-convict Jean Valjean is given a meal and a place to sleep by the local bishop, Myriel. Everyone else in the town has denied him food or lodging up to this point because of his status as a convict. Notwithstanding the bishop's act of kindness Valjean steals some of his few valuable possessions, silverware, and flees into the night while the bishop sleeps, only to be caught by the police and brought back to the bishop's house. Valjean claims that the bishop gave him the silverware as a gift. Rather than expose this lie and condemn Jean Valjean back to prison the bishop backs up his story and gives him two silver candlesticks in addition to the silverware. The bishop tells him to see God's will in this act and to reform his life. This scene is very touching but what happens next is what really got to me.

     At this point, Jean Valjean, accustomed to nothing but misery and bad treatment from others, broods over the bishop's words and actions. Should he turn over a new leaf and dedicate his life to God? While this is going on Valjean meets a young urchin called Petit Gervais who is carrying a 40 sous piece which he drops. Out of malicious habit Jean Valjean covers this sous with his foot and, when confronted by Gervais, chases him off. Afterward, realizing what he's done and disgusted with himself he vows to honor Bishop Myriel's wishes and become an honest man,

     Believe it or not, I had an experience many years ago that parallels Jean Valjean's. Having come home from adoration one day I found that mom had made my favorite cookies, oatmeal raisin. My little sister, who often annoyed me decided to try one and, not wanting her to have one before I did I intentionally cut in front of her to try and prevent her from getting one. My dad noticed and scolded me for it. Usually I might have shrugged this off but something really struck me in this instance. Why had I done this? My little sister certainly meant me no harm, she just wanted a cookie like me. Why would I want to deprive her of that? I was coming face to face with my own selfish , malicious human nature. Subsequently I wept, out loud, in front of my father. I also made a kind of resolution never to act in this way again. Of course I have not perfectly lived up to that but I did change toward my sister. Things that would have annoyed me before no longer really bothered me.

     Reading about Jean Valjean's transformation in Les Mis brought me back to that moment. and made me realize, again, how much it had shaped me. There are plenty of books and movies that have moved me emotionally but none have connected with me so much at a personal level.

     I also connected with the character of Marius. His experience of moving away from royalism and toward republicanism and the rift this causes between him and his Grandfather reflects my own shifting political views of late and the inner struggle this has caused me as I've moved away from some of my parents political views. I also appreciate that Hugo's own views are somewhat moderate. While I can't agree with his unquestioning support of the French Revolution, given all the violent turmoil it led to, I was grateful that he did not fall prey to atheistic anti-clerical attitude of many of his peers. On the contrary, despite the fact that it was banned by the Catholic Church at the time of its publication, I was surprised to find Les Miserables to be, generally, a very pious work.

     Finally I would like to briefly address the two biggest potential problems with Les Mis, its astronomical amount of plot contrivances and Hugo's predilection for lengthy digressions from the text.

     Les Miserables is filled with plot contrivances. Characters that have past history with one another keep meeting, by pure chance, at very convenient moments in the story. At one point, for instance, Jean Vlajean is on the run from the police and takes shelter in a convent where a man he was saved just happens to work as a gardener. This man then helps Jean Valjean escape the police. The reason I don't really mind these kind of coincidences, which would usually strike me as lazy writing, is that there is a theme of divine providence which runs through the narrative and these contrivances reinforce this theme.

     Hugo also fills the book with some rather lengthy discussions about the Battle of Waterloo, the argot (jargon) of French criminals, Paris street urchins, and cloistered religious orders. This may be irritating to some but as a student of history I found it really interesting to look at these events and institutions through the eyes of someone who lived through it. It helps to place the reader in the historical period in which the story is set. It also gives the novel an epic feel. This is not just a book about some people living through the tumultuous period of post-Napoleonic France, it's the story of that period itself.

     I don't usually like to say that any piece of art is among my favorites without giving more time for it to really sink in but in this particular case I feel fairly confident in saying that Les Miserables is now one of my favorite novels.