Introduction

I'm starting out with an introductory post describing how the items in this blog will correspond to a certain structure. Below is a summary of the types of posts you are going to be reading on this blog, each post being categorized under a particular header which will describe the aim, goal and purpose of such posts along with a terse example of the subjects in question where applicable:

Clichés, Tropes & Trends

Meditation on ongoing clichés, trends or tropes extant in numerous works in a particular genre. Particularly those which are extant currently or that appear to be returning to the scene along with ruminations on what appear to be new clichés under development. These posts will not focus on any specific creative work but generally will use citations of numerous works in order to illustrate the frequency with which the noted trend is used.

Example - The universal power which compels a person fall over when running for their life and why they are never able to simply get up again with anything like the speed a normal person would use when under such pressure and with such motivation to flee.

Above is only an example of a cliché and not an example of dissection and consideration; a real post would naturally be longer by an order of magnitude considering many things around such a reoccurring thing.

Dialogue In-Depth

This is a film centred category; in a novel or other written work dialogue is presented in a static manner and can easily be subjected to long-term scrutiny, this is not uncommon and authors often load important statements within miscellaneous sentiment. While this is also done in films the chronological factors of the medium make in-depth review difficult. Deeper meaning can be found in statements made incidentally (possibly interjected by the creator) aside from the direct intent of the characters statement. Consideration of the in-depth implications of such statements when regarded in static terms, how what is being said can say more than is expressly intended will be the focus of such posts to study the spoken word with the same scrutiny and care as is reserved frequently for the written.

Example - In the film I, Robot a prejudiced character attempts to belittle a particular Robot (presented as a variety of new life-form) by asking ‘Can a robot write a symphony or turn a canvas into a beautiful masterpiece?’ to which the character responds ‘Can you?’ a perfect riposte not only in context but to all who attempt to enlarge themselves via distant relation to greatness. An attempt to prove superiority through inference to a relationship justifies ideas like hereditary succession and is a hollow argument; people with brown hair do not posit that the achievements of famous brunettes make them better people, extrapolating the sentiment to larger groups (race, sex, species) is equally redundant.

As there is little enough to be said over each individual part of dialogue such posts will present either that of an entire film for consideration or a great many quotations which centre on a particular theme or subject.

Sequels (or Remakes) In Contrast

Comparison of remake or sequel with original; exploration of whether the two films share the same thematic qualities or whether they are different in underlying statement. These reviews will not attempt to foreword any objective attempt to distinguish based on quality (though I may make my opinion known) or entertainment value but will simply serve as a place in which to get an in-depth comparison of the deeper qualities of sequels or remakes in contrast with the original and what separates them or brings them together.

Example - If one accepts The Terminator as a film about the anxiety surrounding replacement of humans by technology and a statement on the overall amorality of such creations then it could be extracted via comparison with its sequel that the two films share much in common in thematic terms; the second film deals with the replacement as an established fact and how projection of human qualities onto human creations can be for the better (or worse) but continues to press home the point that a machine is still a machine and though it may resemble or even behave like a man it cannot exceed the sum of its parts as can a person. In the sequel the Terminator ‘grows,’ but only within the limits of his program (which is designed to grow) he cannot continue to live, lacking the ability to fully integrate himself into the human world and he cannot choose to destroy himself for the greater good in light of this fact; too human for the former and too inhuman for the later he is in the end subject to the control of the same outside intelligences through which he was created.

Included in this category will be exploration of some films being remade who's remake I have no desire to see, nor will see, in an attempt to explain why I do not think a remake is at all required or can be justified as a creative work rather than a financial venture.

Comparison Of Works

Exploration of works with similar stories and themes; sequels and remakes (and reboots) notwithstanding this category will look at films or other works who's themes are similar or which deal with the same subject whether superficially or otherwise, contrasting the two works so as to analyse which more effectively exploits the concepts, frames the issue, and so on.

Example - District 9 and Avatar, both films about exploitation and culture shock. Wildly different as they are in tone, setting and conclusion they both highlight similar sentiment however District 9's approach to the subject matter seems more adult to me, lacking the simplistic manipulative qualities of Avatar's superficial attempt to sympathetically portray its Aliens. Avatar's logic is geared to backfire vastly and its proposed message of acceptance is in fact very divisive; by way of making its non-human protagonists 'good aliens,' it says nothing for the moral implication of subjecting 'bad aliens,' to such treatment while District 9 on the other hand delivers a more sobering message that while populations, groups, species, and so on may have bad qualities, may be dangerous, may seem unworthy of consideration, within there are always individuals blameless, innocent, being unfairly treated. To put it bluntly Avatar seemed to me to suggest that exploiting the Naavi is bad because they are good, peaceful and attractive, while District 9 suggested exploiting Prawns was bad because despite being largely portrayed as ugly, dirty, destructive, antagonistic, and generally unpleasant they were nevertheless sentient beings of considerable intellect and sensitivity, or to put it very bluntly Avatar's position was 'Don't abuse attractive, peaceful groups of people because they're attractive and peaceful,' to District 9's 'Don't abuse ugly, antagonistic groups of people because they're people.'

These posts will detail the plot and other matters regarding both works, and all critique will for my part attempt to be delivered in an objective fashion unless I am qualifying it as personal opinion viz what I felt about X or Y.

Infernal Citations

Examples of abysmal double-standards or immorality. Whenever a movie's in-universe treatment of a particular character or group is outrageously unfair or discriminatory without that unfairness being noted within the film, without it being a point of focus inside the story or by any character or agency in-universe. If the above elements are true I feel that such occurrences can only be the result of ingrained subjective attitudes held by the creators, writers, directors, etc., that they are disseminating a sneaky and pervasive form of propaganda perhaps even completely unknowingly.

Example - In the movie Hellboy the titular figure is essentially kept prisoner (albeit quite comfortably) by the Bureau of Paranormal Research and Defence. It is explicitly stated several times he is not allowed to leave the premises unless escorted or for a particular purpose such as while on a mission. We see that this character's restraint may have something to do with his behaviour (he is aggressive and even violent) however it is stated to be due to his unusual appearance inciting panic in normal persons. A former member of the Bureau however one Liz Sherman is free to come and go as she pleases with no reasons offered as to why this is so and the only reasonable inference that can be made is that she looks normal. While it is true - she looks normal - this character is an exceptionally dangerous menace to society in general who is shown to have almost certainly killed a few dozen innocent people for no justifiable reason due to her uncontrolled psychic abilities, yet this character (it is directly stated) cannot be detained by the Bureau against her will, but the title character can. This seems outrageous to me; I cannot help but assume that such a ridiculous in-universe situation can only be due to the fact that the character is female and her abilities are represented as a traumatic burden therefore the writers probably feel we will sympathize with her. This is rooted in the infernally stupid and discriminatory assumption in popular media that women have an unquestionable status as victims of anything and everything; a woman who has killed dozens of people because she refuses to be detained somewhere she cannot cause such damage is presented as someone we should sympathize with because (gasp!) she kills people (which is sad for her) and can't live a normal life (boo-hoo!) what a demented premise. I feel no more sorry for this homicidally neglectful criminally insane psychopath than I would for a blind person who insists on driving a snowplough through Time Square.

When I post infernal citations I will usually link to useful supplementary material so people can read up on the alleged discriminatory trends or calumny as I realize many people have their own theories on what constitutes discrimination, on who can be victimized and so on. For that reason, so I do not have people questioning my inferences as being plucked from my own imagination (though no doubt some will regardless) I will attempt to inform on the phenomena itself, its prevalence, to provide some objective proof that such things do occur. The above citation, for example, can be highlighted and reinforced by examination of the criminal justice system in most Western countries; I could post literally hundreds of examples of women who have committed violent crimes but in the media and elsewhere been held up as victims, even lionized for their actions which often incur only very mild (if any) punishment.

Spotlight Review

Full review of a particular work, taking into account all of the above sections. A spotlight review will contain analysis of extant tropes, of dialogue (good and bad) infernal citations where applicable along with much more in the way of plot summary and quality of overall thematic elements. I will not write an example of this sort of post as it would take too long however stay tuned if you're interested since my first post will be a Spotlight Review.