Steve Nizer notified me this afternoon that my columns are bleak, uncalled for, and most importantly, hurting web traffic. I responded with some choice phrases. He with a few of his own. I threw a chair. You get the idea. Anyway, short story long, he tells me he has some blackmail on me. So until I go all stealth on his ass and steal back the... *cough*... you'll be privy to some boring ass lists, mundane observations, and New York Jets jokes. Again, not that interesting. Yawn. But I will try, and in the meantime, here are some things to keep you busy while trying to escape this boring column:
1) Video games can be art. As a film history buff, I was shamed to see an icon condemn an industry with such pettiness. That's right: Roger Ebert said video games cannot be art. Computer games were always a treat as I grew up, but following graduate school, purchasing a PS3 and XBox360 alerted me to the dawn of a medium much akin to the transition from silent to sound cinema. That's right: video games are transcending their initial clunkiness and are beginning to take the place of cinema outright. This year, I have had the privilege this year to play games with fantastic sense of place, rich textures, even richer stories, and breathless freedom. Mass Effect; Uncharted; Red Dead Redemption; Assassin's Creed; Gears of War. Yet calling them games is part of the trouble. Ebert notes that because these games are controlled by players, they are ever-shifting experiences and thus cannot be art. But these are not just simulations or reenactments of life: they are artistic statements of ideology and philosophy that guide players to a greater message or theme. Take Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2's mission that involved shooting civilians. An American soldiers masquerades as a Russian to infiltrate a terrorist organization. One of the initial tests involves killing an airport full of innocent Russians. Without spoiling any of the plot, this mission pushes the player to consider his or her actions. To continue, he or she must kill innocents. The drive to "survive" the experience pushes the player. Whereas many would tune away from a film posing such questions, the drive to complete the experience and to achieve full immersion compels players to continue. This desire to become immersed makes video games the most efficient medium for delivering complex ideas. It is a trojan horse medium: what appears a very simple and banal package actually has immense hidden potential and power. No wonder they are so popular: despite their graphical splendor, they are not showy. This past year, Ezio in Assassin's Creed and John Marson in Red Dead Redemption were the broken men forced to make tough choices. Film had nothing on them. And we were there making those choices hand-in-hand. Behind the idea of "mere" immersion, these "games" pull their rich puppet strings with such authority. And while consciously we don't always notice these strings, subconsciously, we're the one's pulling them thanks to the meticulous scenarios and artistic integrity video game makers put into their craft. Ebert, before he passes, should take the plunge. He might not have been born at the advent of film, but he is not too late to get in at the ground floor of the medium of the 21st Century.
2) TV Standouts: Fringe beats Mad Men. Quality television hit its hayday in the early and mid 2000s. Many critics bemoaned the end of quality. Sure, Battlestar, the Wire, and the Sopranos are off the air. But let's not forget what is working. Everyone knows Mad Men. But few truly, truly understand its nuance. If you've watched a few episodes, you might as well not have watched it at all. Get in there and watch all 52 episodes, everyone of them is worth it. This is a show about the little things, and missing an episode pretty much throws off the viewer to the show's rich tapestry. I credit the show with having enough faith in its audience to pay attention to the power of a glance; the pangs of a slip of infidelity. And because of this faith and trust in its audience, I look forward to continuing to watch Don well into the future. But, besides the cliche of crediting Mad Men, I have to say my favorite show of the year is Fringe. Since the beginning of the series, Anna Torv has led a fantastic ensemble cast with a quiet, fierce reserve. And some have criticized her and her character, Agent Olivia Dunham, for this silent strength. Many stuck in the female stars of yesteryear need a bubbly woman. They need flirtations and showy clothes. Agent Dunham wears drab clothing. She is intense. Her heart is buried deep down, not on her sleeve. And because of these qualities, not despite them, she is the toughest protagonist, male or female, I have ever seen on tv. No matter what life throws at her, which is a lot after three seasons, she is there fighting. At the show's start, Torv's performance was criticized for being so sterile and cold. In retrospect, she did what was asked of her: she was the character. In its third season, the show adds a second dimension to its sci-fi toolbox. On the otherside is another Agent Dunham, the same biologically, but having different life experiences. With this other Agent Dunham, Torv shows her true colors: she is one of the best actresses on tv. She can do bubbly, and she can do cold. And man oh man, can she act. And the show, well, let's not sell it short: it is the best on tv. Production values, story-telling, acting stable--all top notch. JJ Abrams found popularity with Lost, but he found his high-mark with Fringe. It moves to Fridays at 9 on January 21st, so catch it and tell a friend or two. Also of note: Supernatural, Damages, and Chuck. Fun genre to Tivo or whatever you do to get your tv kicks.
3) Movies that impressed. While this year, both critically and financially, had a down tick from the previous few years, a handful of films made the year worth it. For most filmgoers, Inception appears to be the choice for best film. While I ultimately would give the movie 5 stars, it tried so hard to be different past that necessarily being a good thing. This is what makes it pale in comparison to Nolan's work on the Batman series. Where those two films knew they were genre and perfected the concept, Inception spends more time building its film identity from scratch. While this makes it profound beyond belief, it also leaves it with a few structural warts and a protagonist that is an afterthought. Let's talk about Leo. Compare his lead character to the ones found in the year's other best films, Winter's Bone and Black Swan. Both films have a protagonist that must make sacrifices and tough choices like Leo, but achieve greater ends because they compel the viewer. Leo's character lacks humanity, a Kubrick residue, while Bone and Swan have heart beneath their chilly subject matter. And both films succeed because we care about the trials of their heroes (or anti-heroes). Inception, on the other hand, is more concerned with side characters. Critical praise points out Page and Gordon-Levitt as standouts, but mainly ignores DiCaprio. I believe he did a great job, but his lead is superficial compared to those in Winter's Bone and Black Swan. But... look what I'm talking about: Inception. I guess despite these supposed problems (at least compared to my other two faves this year), it is the film everyone, including me, is talking about. And that says something. It is impressive, warts and all. Too bad the Oscars are bound to fall to The Social Network, a fun movie more concerned with being cool than making any sort of real, lasting statement. So check out all three, if you get a chance, and the Social Network as well, if you want to see what will win best pic.
2011 promises to be a great year, but before jumping in, make sure you appreciate 2010 fully. Video games came of age, great tv continued its winning streak, and a few movies really impressed. And what more can you ask for? Well, me being truly vulgar again. But the ball is in Steve Nizer's court, and until he let's up, there won't be any ball jokes anytime soon. Balls!
No comments:
Post a Comment