Change Your Image
Kalachakra
Reviews
Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)
This isn't a bad film, just different....
Honestly, a lot of the negative reaction to this film, aside from it's flat dialogue (a well known trait of George Lucas films, but also present in the original Star Wars), came from the fact that people had rigid expectations. They wanted a space western, full of Han Solo type characters, epic classical warfare, and a visual style that was identical to the original.
Lucas however had always planned the Star Wars saga like an epic novel; the era of the Republic was always going to be one that was markedly different from the era of the Empire. He displayed a remarkable understanding for how history unfolds, and how humans doom themselves. His goal was also not merely to produce entertainment, but actual art; something that spoke about timeless truths. The Jedi may not articulate it very well, but there is a depth of real philosophy at work under the entire film. One of the sources of inspiration for him, was the idea that certain truths are beyond culture, and have been expressed many times in different ways. He wanted to express them again, in a way modern people could understand, no matter what their cultural background was.
It isn't actually a bad movie.
Compared to some recent attempts in Hollywood to craft a perfect film, painting by numbers, with scene after scene of music-video like cool (but shallow) ideas, which results in utterly bland entertainment - this is actually interesting. It is interesting because it does not try to be perfect - no film can be; by not trying, you often end up with something more imaginative.
It has actual substance.
The Jedi order, the Republic, the galaxy, it's planets, it's species, it's people - they are all caught in a time of change, yet have no understanding of the forces shaping their lives.
The Jedi order, hold a historical position that is like a mixture of Roman legionary, Knight Templar, or martial artist monk. The influences underpinning them are surprisingly diverse. They share traits from many different cultures; monastic communities from medieval Europe or Asia, mysticism and philosophy that wouldn't be out of place in ancient Europe, ancient India, ancient Persia, or ancient China.
In other words, they represent a certain tradition that has been present in all human cultures, in all times. They represent the best of that tradition, and not the corruption and dogma that it so often became associated with.
The force they fight is nothing less than the problems that our civilisation deals with to this very day. They fight the worst tendencies in our lives, the ones that determine whether we are happy or not - whether a politician is corrupt or not - whether we hurt others or not - whether we are comfortable in our own skin or not - whether we can maintain a relationship or not. Anger, hate, fear, bigotry, self-doubt; all the psychology that we know collectively as "evil" - and the people who use it. These forces manifest as corruption, exploitation, slavery, war, racism and are exploited by opportunists and fanatics - the antithesis of the the Jedi order. It is the story of the decline of a civilisation, and the decline of a single man.
In short, it is actually a very good film.
Worth your time, worth deep consideration, worth multiple viewings.
Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)
Why the Star Wars prequels deserve due recognition....
People habitually criticise George Lucas.
A far cry from the days when he was seen as an untouchable cultural genius on the same plain as J.R.R. Tolkien, Gene Roddenberry, Joss Whedon, or Stan Lee.
For all it's flaws, the prequel trilogy, is one of the most important cultural works of our age. I think George Lucas, in spite of perhaps not being the best writer of dialogue, is something more important: one of those writers who manages to articulate the timeless truth about how we should live. J.R.R. Tolkien was also accused of being someone who couldn't write characters, yet his book, firmly grounded in subtle English culture and morality, inspires billions.
At a time when civilisation is mired in self-doubt, bombarded by a huge variety of opinions.... people (especially adults exposed to competition, blame, guilt and shame) have lost their sense of what is good and bad in life.
Is there such a thing as right and wrong, or are these just culturally-instilled? The Romans thought that keeping slaves, and having them kill each other for other people's entertainment was fine. Who is to say they were wrong, in an age when 50 different religions, and 500 different cultures, all say different things?
This is an example of the confusing reality that we live in, with every TV show, film, comic, novel or game, having a different opinion on history and morality. It's pretty easy to either lose self-respect, or hate others, in a confusing storm like that. Either way, they lead to anger, hate.... and a dark life.
The Star Wars saga, and the prequel trilogy in particular, show how a man can lose self respect, and become an addict. Someone who fears everything, and who's fear becomes hatred. Anakin Skywalker believes what many people now believe; that we can change ourselves for the better, become more powerful, take control of our fate.
The truth is that we have no control over what will happen to us in life; all we can do is try our best to be happy, and not be afraid. A person who thinks they can control the world, will inevitably hate themselves, because the universe is too big, with too much momentum, for us to ever have certain power over it. The illusion of the self-made man makes us hate ourselves and others.
Anakin's long journey toward self-hate and hate of others, concludes in Revenge of the Sith.
The peaceful Jedi order, for all their many flaws, were a people who strove to accept themselves and others. They tried to do some good under unfortunate circumstances, and to understand the mysteries of life a little better. They did not believe in the cult of self-improvement. Their training was not to become the ultimate swordsman, or the greatest seer. It was a constant journey of learning, and not everyone agreed on what path was best, with Jedi like Qui-Gon Jinn and Mace Windu taking different approaches. They tried to do what good they could, embraced difference, and the spirit of the law. They were never perfect, but strength of character can give a person respectability.
Anakin had different ideas. His personality was torn. Perhaps in many ways he was a victim of his own prophesy. Having been told he was the chosen one, he perhaps believed that he could change the galaxy. Fundamentally, where other Jedi knew the limits of reality, Anakin believed that with enough power, a person could shape their own destiny. This has never been true. The last straw that finally broke him, was the idea that he could prevent his wife's death, if only he could learn force magic powerful enough. Think about this. Nobody can prevent death. It was futile, and failing, he would blame himself where others wouldn't.
Like an addict, or people suffering from the neurosis of modern life, he experienced a thrill, followed by the inevitable shame. Like so many people, he sought to explain his pain, and his dread by projecting it's cause outside of himself. Such people reason like addicts. Addiction is a mental problem as much as a physical one, and does not require a drug. The circle of blame widened and widened, until his views were so different and illogical compared to a healthy man's reasoning, that we couldn't understand him anymore.
Why didn't Obi Wan feel guilt and self-hate, for failing his apprentice? Because, for all Obi Wan's flaws as a man, he never believed he had control over the world. He just tried to never wrong anyone. He refused injustice when he noticed it. He did his best.
The Sith played on the weaknesses of their times, and rode the current, hardly needing to do anything. If the Confederacy won, they world gain a droid army. If the Republic won, they world gain a clone army. A million short sighted politicians with no strength of character could not see the weakness of their system.
A film will never be perfect; rather by not trying, they often become more interesting. Attempts to craft perfect films, with no blemishes, have resulted in some of the blandest 'experiences' in living memory.
The Avengers (2012)
Finally, Joss Whedon gets the recognition he deserves!
Finally, Joss Whedon gets the recognition he deserves...
After creating some of the most compelling, intelligent and entertaining TV shows of all time - Buffy, Angel, Firefly, Dollhouse - he brings the same mastery of writing ensemble casts to the big screen, and people see what he is capable of.
Just give the guy a blank cheque, and let him write all the sci-fi and fantasy he wants.
Far from being immature entertainment, his previous masterpieces all respected the intelligence of the audience, and contained characters that were so likable and charismatic, that it was impossible not to tune in each week.
Here, he does what he did in Buffy, Angel and Firefly, but he does it with a massive budget, and some of the most famous superheroes in the world. Who else could have written and directed a film starring Iron Man, Thor, The Hulk and Captain America, but doing them all justice? Not only that but also doing justice to Nick Fury, Hawkeye and Black Widow. His trademark aptitude for writing strong female protagonists really came through with Black Widow.
Go see it - then watch all of Buffy, Angel and Firefly.
Agora (2009)
Excellent historical film
What a fantastic movie, covering such an important moment in western history for the first time. The rise of the power of the Christian cult in the Roman cities, and how this effected classical Greco-Roman culture.
The film presents a compelling vision of life in classical Alexandria. The historical detail was superb. The Greco-Egyptian deity Serapis was indeed worshipped in this period. The mixture of Hellenic and Egyptian culture was spot on. The recreation of the Library and Serapium was a wonder to behold, perfectly in line with what we know about the period.
We cannot know whether the Early Christian Church (or it's followers) were really responsible for as much strife as the film suggests. But it is plausible, given accounts of the era (such as the real-life stripping and murder of Hypatia and widespread destruction of pagan temples). Given our present experience with religious fanaticism, it is easy to see how a new religion claiming to have a universal answers was likely received by both hungry new converts searching for meaning and existing communities.
The film is not suggesting that all Christian Martyrs were fanatics elevated into propaganda figures. I am guessing this perceived suggestion is what some Christians found objectionable. No doubt some people will read the film in this way, one cannot help that. Some however, may well have been provocateurs, harassing their neighbours and then reaping the fear and outrage it provoked. Isn't it interesting that those pagans who died for their beliefs, aren't also considered Martyrs by the Christian Churches? They were persecuted too, but but their beliefs were 'wrong' of course.
At the end of the day, neutral people in the middle of the two paranoid and bigoted communities, are often the ones who suffer the most unjustly. Hypatia is depicted as a true humanist; she does not care what cult people follow, and is only concerned for the welfare of human beings. Between the two reactionary factions, remaining humane and independent becomes impossible, as it has for so many millions in conflicts across the world in our own time. She, like so many other humans, ultimately faces the choice of joining or dying.
Immortals (2011)
Under rated movie
If you go into this movie expecting a direct adaptation of the legend of Theseus, and then don't adjust your expectations when you realise that it wasn't what the director had intended, you are obviously going to be disappointed.
But I think the film has merits...
Basically, the Titans in this movie are a metaphor for the component of human psychology that is often called 'id'. They are a pantheon of gods that preceded the Olympians, and represented the unrestrained base drives such as uncontrolled libido and hatred.
We know in real mythology that Cronus (most important Titan) devoured his children out of paranoia, like in the famous painting 'Saturn Devouring His Son' by Goya. This is a group of archaic gods that cannot control themselves, and think that the gratification of their immediate needs at the expense of others is all there is to life.
The implication is, that just as the Olympians chained these archaic Titanic forces beneath the earth, so too humans are rational beings that can control their subconscious drives (using rational judgement to overcome their worst potential, which would be to become raving idiots ruled entirely by fickle emotions - their inner Titanic nature). We aren't simply ruled by violence, unrestrained sexual drive and bigotry as a species, thanks to our capacity for logical choice and honesty.
Some people like to suggest that violence and brutal competition are 'just human nature' whenever they hear anything barbaric in the news. On the contrary, we are rational beings, quite capable of exercising rational judgement and restraint. The hallmark of civilization is the ability to curtail crimes of id, including religious bigotry and ethnic cleansing, which appeal to fear (the enemy of civilization) and our animalistic desire to eradicate those who we fear in the most painful and terrifying way we can devise.
This implication is supported by various scenes in the movie. The Olympian gods for example talk about how the Greeks (Hellenes) are destined to create a civilization and rationality (however flawed it may be). They are clearly aware of the bigger picture.
Hyperion is a reactionary force, and threatens to take his country back into the past. He is the threat to this civilized future - an all-powerful dictator ruled by his id. This is the point at which Greece will either tip toward civilization or back toward tribalism. His actions in the movie demonstrate that his personality is like that of a Titan. He wants to populate the world with images of himself - you can't get a much more clear idea of his empty existence than that.
This is contrasted by Theseus, who embodies the hallmarks of future rational civilization. Unlike Hyperion's army, which scars and dehumanises itself, hiding behind ferocious masks, in place of true courage - the Greeks are encouraged to fight for others, and to exercise careful control of their fears - to fight in spite of their very human concern for their lives. This is the difference between a professional soldier who confronts their fear with restraint and a fanatical zealot (such as a Viking Berserker or some Religious Crusader), who attempt to remove their fear of death with fanatical fervor and self-deception, and by attempting to scare their enemy with barbaric acts.
Of course, in our consumer culture, it is often the fanatic who is today glorified - Vikings berserker are cool - average fearful men and women acting in solidarity and performing a dangerous action in spite of their better judgement aren't so much. It is ironic that a violent movie where the barbarians get cool costumes should be the one to deliver this message, but the Greeks themselves never shied away from using such themes in their own stories. At the end of the day, the Titan in us is dangerous because it is appealing.
One such story tells of how humans were created; from the ashes of the Titans, and of the flesh of the Gods. This is why each of us possesses the ability to be Titanic or Divine, to follow our id, or our logic.
In case you doubt this psychological interpretation of the movie - bear in mind, this is the guy (Tarsem Singh) who made 'The Cell'.
Mo gong (2006)
Based on the novel/manga Bokko (Mohist Attack)
Around 500 BC, the four greatest civilisations in the world - Greece, Persia, India and China - had a flowering of philosophy, perhaps due to the spread of urbanisation.
In Europe, Greek philosophers like Socrates, Plato and Aristotle lived, and schools like Stoicism, Cynicism, Platonism and Scepticism flourished.
In the Middle East, mainly within Persia, but also conquered territories like Egypt and Judea, monotheism like Zoroastrianism and Judaism flourished.
In India, some of the most sophisticated and rational systems of spirituality and psychology developed in Buddhism, Jainism, Ajivika and Vedic philosophy.
In China, the 100 Schools of philosophy flourished, which included Confucianism, Taoism, Legalism - and Mohism - the latter being the subject of the film.
While many cultural supremacists like to exaggerate the differences between countries, all of these philosophies fundamentally dealt with the same human condition, and shared a lot in common - for example, Stoicism and Buddhism were both intended as rational systems for coping with life and enhancing the mind - much of their wisdom revolves around acceptance that humans have limited power over the external world, so it is more rational to change oneself.
Mohism, one of China's great contributions to human understanding, was suppressed by the first emperor of China when he burnt all the books of non-sanctioned ideologies (the Qin state followed Legalism) - and was further forgotten during the subsequent Han dynasty which promoted Confucianism - the ideology which remained the most influential in China, Korea and Vietnam.
Surviving works were absorbed into the Taoist canon, and attempts to study Mohism are difficult thanks to it no longer being a 'living' tradition with an experienced lineage going back to it's founder. But what we do know, is that Mohism was similar to Buddhism and Christianity - a universalistic philosophy that believed in compassion toward all other humans. Mozi, it's founder, is said to have negotiated peace between kingdoms on the verge of war, and enhanced the fortifications of the kingdoms facing attack to dissuade violence.
In this film, the protagonist is a Mohist tasked with defending a settlement during the Warring States period around 450 BC. Elements of Mohist philosophy are demonstrated in his actions, making it interesting film for anyone with inclinations toward learning. It is also a pretty good action film or drama, as other reviewers will point out.