Further Thoughts on Adaptation and Rebooting

Why do we have an image here of the heinous film Van Helsing? Before I proceed, let me say it was one of the worst films I have ever seen.

So - may I also say, for me, it was one of the most disappointing films ever. I am a major Universal monster film geek, and was hoping that this film would capture the essence and update the whole cycle. The beginning of Van Helsing echoed that essence; what followed was simply dreadful. It did not follow the heart and soul of the originals. Why am I bringing this up?

Well for one, Star Trek, as my "review" below says, did a pretty good job of following the original. Except for, say, their handling of McCoy, that movie made an homage to the original by simply updating the sensibility of the whole narrative for the audience today. It worked.

What really fuelled my thoughts of Van Helsing though was watching Speed Racer, the movie, the other night. As a six and seven year old, I watched the Speed Racer cartoon every day after school. I don't like race cars and auto racing - unless it's done Speed style. When the film came out a year or so back, I obstinately decided there was no reason to see it. How could live action Speed possibly compete with my memories of cartoon Speed?

As with Star Trek, the Speed Racer film worked admirably. The essence of the entire film was distilled throught the cartoon. If it was part of the cartoon, it was somehow melded into the film. What was added, for the most part, allowed our "modern" sensibilities to digest the film and usually worked to add to the cartoon-fan's enjoyment. Maybe Spridle giving the finger to the villain was a touch too much, but overall, this was fun. Nothing more than that, but for the cartoon series fan, that was enough. It was cool.

So I am still holding out hope that the Universal monsters will make a return somehow. But when an old, scholarly vampire hunter becomes an acrobatic Hugh Jackman, you know you are on the wrong track. This was not a sensitive update for the fan. It was a slaughter of all we held dear. Universal made very calm, psychological monster films, set in a fantasy reality where monsters didn't want to rule the world. They just wanted a victim or two. Van Helsing was a kung-fu movie.

Splitting it Up

For various reasons, I have re-structured this blog. From now on - Beyond the Veil will try to stick to it's original mission of film blogging. Politics (and other nonsense) will hopefully be left by the way side.

All Comics blogging will be posted at Modern Mythology.

As I proceed warily in graduate school, separation and clarification seemed more important than just blogging randomly and posting funny videos. Not that there's anything wrong with that, but others do it much better!

Star Trek: The ReBoot

My pre-concern with the new Star Trek film was that it seemed as if it was messing with the original series. Thankfully, it messes with the original series.

History: When I first discovered Star Trek, it was the early seventies. In re-runs, the entire three years was being shown episode by episode. It's not as if I could get the DVD's from Netflix and watch Season 3. The fantastic fan had to wait for television programmers to show old movies and re-runs. Legends of celluloid were created simply by lack of viewing availability. There were only a few magazines devoted to science fiction, fantasy and horror movies, namely "Famous Monsters of Filmland". God bless, 4E Ackerman. When I discovered Star Trek, thankfully I also discovered comic conventions and fandom. Before Star Wars popped the entertainment bubble wide open for the fantastic fan, only Star Trek had audience enough to provide the fandom ephemera that is so standard today.

I watched Star Trek every weeknight for four months. My family hated me. And I loved it. But by the time the first movie came out, things had already begun to change. I found that first Star Trek film boring, by the standards of a fourteen year old who was firmly in the Star Wars camp by then. When The Next Generation came around, maybe eight years later, I watched it a little. I liked it. But it just was not the same as those early days. I know there were other shows and other movies, but it seemed like endless Hollywood recycle once again.

So - I was told I should see this new Star Trek. I was wary - I saw the trailer, with Kirk speeding in the old car particularly jarring for me. I was then told again to see it - and everyone else then told me to see it. Everyone that said this was someone whose opinion I trusted. So -

By re-booting the original show, they made a very fun film. I had not seen an episode in many years, but as a formative influence, it all stuck in my head. This film played on many of the lines and dynamics of the original and because of that I found it mighty fun. One of my favorite original episodes is "The Menagerie", a two part episode in which Captain Pike is disfigured and disabled, and Spock is on trial for helping him. In the new film, I thought they honored Pike well, even showing him in the wheelchair again, but this time, still able to talk. Pretty cool.

Mostly, everything was played for a laugh. Which is OK, I guess, as I laughed and enjoyed most everything. But then again, is it really funny to still be making fun of Chekov's accent? The voice recognition gag was funny though...

Mythically speaking, the cosmic birth of Kirk was well-done, though perhaps a bit dramatic. A fellow student wrote this spot-on review http://www.mythicthinking.org/2009/05/10/star-trek/, basically speaking to the Spock/Kirk dynamic of the film.

But here's the real problem I had - the original show to which ample homage is being paid was not a duality. Kirk and Spock had a go-between, a heart that was between Spock's mind and Kirk's penis. His name was McCoy - Bones - a huge part of the show that is generally neglected. Just as McCoy is neglected in the new film. When he first shows up on screen, drinking from a flask, I thought he was supposed to be Scotty. He is then played for laughs - cantankerous, giving out his famous "I'm a doctor, not a..." line, but never becoming the third piece to the puzzle that he was in the show. See "The City on the Edge of Forever" and "For the World is Hollow and I have Touched the Sky". Bones was real, and he was needed to mediate at all times. Here's to DeForest Kelley.

I am definitely grateful that William Shatner was not in it, though.

Your Mission: Define Mythology

Really. The problem I am faced with in studying myth has been mentioned here before. Basically, myth has many different definitions. The average person on the street, when confronted by the word, usually has only a few ideas. "A myth is a lie" or "A myth is a story of how the world began" or "A myth is about the Greek gods" are at least better answers than the most common: a snicker. And I'm not talking Peanutalicious here.

Never do I hear: "A myth is a symbolic narrative used to understand human psychology (often employing the use of the dialectic to combine opposites to form a new idea)". That's my latest definition. My problem is that by using Depth Psychology to understand myth, I am entering a world in which understanding myth becomes a very personal journey.

That is not a problem for myself, necessarily, because the frontier of Depth Psychology makes sense to me more and more. Though I fought against some parts of it earlier, the concepts are not so new to my own internal thoughts. I didn't know all the terms and exact ideas of the most astute Dr. C.G. Jung, but feel like I had internalized a lot of his concepts already. However, those snickers re-echo in my mind, hammering home the question that usually follows: "How are you going to make money with a degree in Mythology?"

I always ignored that question, for oh so many reasons. But at the outset of this adventure I assumed I would land the way I always do, at least NEAR a soft bed of flowers. But this personal facet of learning how myth relates to the human psyche, and how it is necessary to bring your brain into a healthy state of co-existence with your unconscious - how can I express it to that every day man in the street? For the most part, they don't care too much. Remember, the first question was about money. The ones that do care are usually my friends, and I expect they care only because they, well, don't want to snicker. For all you west coasters reading this, remember, I'm from the city they used to call "hog-butcher for the world". Poor pigs! For my friends that actually are interested - all three of you I think - THANKS!

I'm not someone who has the patience to teach personal journey stuff (it's personal right?), but it is almost a requirement to be an individuated soul to get this approach to myth. The few friends I mentioned above, as I think about it, are pretty together. So they get it.

I guess I'm just wondering if the world at large has any interest in this stuff. Seems art and the unconscious are the first things to be ignored in the pursuit of more money. I could sure use a Snicker's.

To Blog or Not To Blog? And what to Blog about?

My wife asked me to explain everything I know about blogs because, apparently, her company was going to start a blog. It made me question why and what for people blog, and I decided a company blog, in most cases, is utterly useless.

But it also made me question why I blog, which is one reason I haven't done so regularly lately. I always feel like there needs to be a hook - a reason for my existence in the blogosphere. And my original reason seems outdated, or at least unfocused, after beginning grad school. I am trying to focus, but have not been that lucky yet. So - while I continue to ponder my own why's - here's something completely unrelated. And, I think, awesome.

We watched "Iron Man" with Robert Downey Jr. today. Enjoyed it. May blog about it somehow. But not today. Today - it made me think of the worst animation for a superhero cartoon superhero show ever. The old Marvel Superhero Show - or whatever the name was. But they had awesome opening tunes.

I give you - the cocktail hour theme song for: IRON MAN.

The Mythic Dimension of "Frost/Nixon"

The film "Frost/Nixon" is an interesting film to examine from the mythic dimension.

But first, myth is an incredibly charged word because it is used in so many different ways. The one thing I have learned in 5 months of Mythological Studies in grad school is there is very little consensus on what myth actually is. Suffice it to say, the common usage of "Myth is a lie or untruth", has so little validity in the reality of how myth is used that it is basically a nonsensical statement. That being said though, it is a common view held by a large amount of people. Let the mythic education begin.

For my purposes, myth is: thought that produces a narrative that includes opposites, paradoxically combining those opposites to produce a new understanding of how the two actually work together, and possibly create something completely new. This is a working definition that I am constantly re-thinking, but the dialectic that is created by myth is a very useful tool to analyze any narrative.

So - "Frost/Nixon". The mythic dimension became readily apparent in this film with the realization of the opposition of the two sides involved. The self-important, political heavyweight Richard Nixon, being interviewed by the gregarious, entertainment lightweight, David Frost. Physical and cultural opposites, their outlooks are from two different worlds. Nixon apparently only agreed to the interviews because Frost was seen as a pushover. The fallen president thought he had the platform on which to change his image enough to allow his re-entry into the political world. The powerhouse of Nixon's forceful personality is brilliantly portrayed by Frank Langella in an extraordinary performance in the film.

Michael Sheen as David Frost complements the Nixon force, however, by being just as forceful, just as determined, in a wonderfully understated role. The key in the film becomes a phone call that Nixon makes to Frost, in which the ex-president makes the challenge of the interview into a personal challenge. He claims, rightly for many reasons, that Frost is just like him. He also claims that Frost has no chance of besting him. Frost rises to the occasion because as determined as they both are, he knows there is a difference.

The mythic dimension, then, is in the meeting of the two worlds - the entertainment and the political, actors of two different stages, coming together at an incredibly important historical moment. The trust of America's people in its leaders was in meltdown. The political news was unable to even procure an interview with Nixon. If they were, it seems that Nixon would have been unable to admit he was wrong to such a force. His adamant personality suggests he would have held fast.

But when faced with his opposite, the change took place. His spirit was affected. With a newsman, the story, ultimately about admitting injustice and the emotions of a beaten down egotistical politician, could never have developed. Nixon's guard was down, he felt superior to his opposite, but the opposite is not superior or inferior - it is equal in opposing force. The conflicting emotions arose from having no choice but to coalesce in the middle of calm and fury. Truth, which is after all what confession is, arises when the paradoxical opposites are combined.

The guess is that Nixon's personal catharsis was good for him, mentally at least. But what did it do for America? Though the confession of wrong doing was needed by our country's people, it was a turning point of trust. By hearing the admission, there was no going back to trust. Politicians have always been corrupt, but the enormity of the President being involved scarred our ability to trust forever. It is a good thing to be wary, but also very tiring. The steady erosion of confidence that was publicly marked by Nixon's resignation has gone downhill since. Have we reached the turning point yet, in which we regain faith in what we suppose we have always stood for?

Jason Lutes "Berlin: City of Smoke"

One of my favorite comic artists, storytellers I should say, is Jason Lutes. He tells a story in comic form that is extremely cinematic, but has an extra edge because it is not film. It's a comic. His line is exact and his detail impeccable. I have been meaning to write about Jason's work for a while now, but always find I don't want to dissect it. I just want to savor it.

One of his most amazing pages is that of a clarinet player, broken down into many small panels. By the layout and the spacing between the panels, I could hear the music. I love his work. Here is a link to an interview I did with Jason a long time ago. I once had a dream of opening a comic art gallery, store and animation cinema.... (I'm not quite sure THAT dream has died yet!)

"Berlin" is an incredibly dense and intricate tale of the city of Berlin between World War 1 and World War 2. It is political, romantic, funny, scathing and heartbreaking. The first two graphic novels have now been released. The third will probably take another three years or so. Following is a brief video of him that I put up here just because I had never known what he looked like when I stumbled on this.