Favorite Characters: Luke Smith (The Sarah Jane Adventures)

“I was born running…”  Does it get much more companion than that?

Anyway, this is Luke, adopted son of the one and only Sarah Jane Smith.  In some ways, he’s the “sci-fi shortcut” character, the easy way to fit in some technobabble or do the unexplainable on occasion.  But he’s also a great kid learning about the world and who he is within it, and his lovely relationship with Sarah Jane is made of win.  (A few pilot spoilers.)

Luke is “born” in the first episode of The Sarah Jane Adventures.  Though made from human DNA, he was bioengineered by a nefarious race called the Bane for the purposes of studying humans.  He’s been growing but dormant for some time, and it’s not until Sarah Jane and Maria come along that he’s activated and finally wakes to the world.

Given his unconventional origins, Luke isn’t your typical kid.  His Bane-made mind is both photographic and off-the-charts brilliant (shades of Zoe, without the occasional arrogance,) while his social skills are non-existent.  The latter isn’t surprising, since he’s experiencing everything for the first time and doesn’t know how people behave.  Now, socially-awkward geniuses are a dime a dozen in fiction, but the characterization really works for Luke.  Understanding people is his Achilles heel, and in interactions, he can be sweetly ignorant, startlingly earnest, or shyly hesitant, depending on the situation.  The difficulty of saying or doing the right thing can be a source of worry for him; while he’s not especially concerned with the usual teenage preoccupation of “fitting in,” he sometimes equates his social struggles with proof that he’s not “properly” human. 

These fears and frustrations really add to the character.  This archetype has a tendency to be portrayed as largely emotionless – particularly when you get up to walking-supercomputer-level geniuses like Luke – but he has a ton of emotions he’s still trying to figure out.  He can be scared, confused, and concerned, he can feel like an outsider who doesn’t know where he belongs, he can be curious, he can laugh, mess around, and be reckless, he can be stubborn and hyper-focused, and he can be caring, brave, and selfless.  He has intense reactions to getting into a quarrel or having to say goodbye because he’s never experienced these things before, and he’s not sure what’s going to happen.  In this way, despite his brilliance, he’s still kind of childlike.  His relationships with Sarah Jane, Maria, Clyde, and later Rani are so important to him, because to them, he’s not a lab rat or a weirdo or a freak.  He’s just Luke, and whoever that is, it’s okay.

Oh yeah, and he saved the world on the day he was born, did I mention that?  Luke is an instrumental member of the team, and, sci-fi shortcut or not, his knowledge is often the key to saving the day.  Whether he’s remembering a crucial, little-known fact of vital importance, doing insane mathematics in his head under extreme pressure, or rigging up neat bits of cool technology, the gang would rarely get the job done without him.

Steve Jobs (2015, R)

Barring some extraordinary circumstance, this will be the last Oscar film I get the chance to see before the ceremony next Sunday.  It’s one that I was a little skeptical about – though I can’t deny that Aaron Sorkin writes them well, I wasn’t sure we strictly needed another “abrasive tech genius” biopic from him – but I found it to be pretty interesting and really well-made.

Almost the polar opposite of a comprehensive biopic, Steve Jobs is incredibly laser-focused.  With the exception of a few well-placed flashbacks and montages of news coverage to get from one segment to the next, the entire movie depicts the buildup to three separate product launches:  the Macintosh in 1984, the Next in 1988, and the iMac in 1998.  Yep, buildup – the running around and behind-the-scenes drama (both professional and personal) that goes on in the 30-40 minutes prior to each launch.  Naturally, abrasive tech geniuses generate their fair share of drama.  Jobs’s chief conflicts concern his partner Steve Wozniak, Apple’s CEO Jeff Sculley, and his unacknowledged daughter Lisa.

Considering that this film is at least 90% talking, it held my attention quite well.  I don’t find Jobs to be a particularly likeable figure – not surprisingly – but he’s an intriguing one.  The pull between his blind stubbornness/refusal to consider what customers are looking for (insisting on a closed system that’s incompatible with everything else) and his savvy vision for the potential of personal computing (promising products for which the technology doesn’t yet exist, trusting that it’ll be able to catch up to him) keeps him from being one-dimensional.  Even as I hate the way he treats everyone around as expendable, I like the way he shapes the world to fit his imagination.  (He’s still awful, though.  Seriously – piece.  Of.  Work.)

Screenwriter Aaron Sorkin was the main creative name I heard behind the film, which, given The Social Network, makes sense.  However, until I started actually watching it, I had no idea that it was directed by Danny Boyle (where to start?  Trainspotting, 127 Hours, National Theatre Live’s Frankenstein, Shallow Grave…)  Sorkin’s smart screenplay is definitely a big part of the reason such a talky film works as well as it does, but Boyle’s work is instrumental, too.  His deft hand and originality is evident all throughout the effortlessly gorgeous direction.  Since so much of Apple is tied to its unique style and inventive advertising, Boyle was an excellent choice to put this story on film.

It’s no surprise that everyone in the fine cast delivers a strong performance.  Our nominees for the film are lead actor Michael Fassbender in the title role and supporting actress Kate Winslet as Joanna Hoffman, his long-suffering “work wife.”  Fassbender plays all the various facets of Jobs with equal dedication, while Winslet is a solid, grounding presence throughout the film.  Jeff Daniels (Sculley) and Seth Rogen (Wozniak) also do really well in their big scenes with Jobs, and I enjoy all three actresses who play Lisa at different ages.

Warnings

Language and sexual references.

Straight Outta Compton (2015, R)

I’ll admit it.  I could have seen this one in theaters – it was at my local cinema for quite a while, during the summer when I had plenty of time to see movies – and I chickened out.  Even though I’ve seen other Black-themed movies in theaters, this one seemed more personal somehow, like I’d be intruding if I went to see it (dumb, right?)  Anyway, Netflix made me pay for my foolishness by sitting on the DVD for a month before they started sending it out, and I just finished watching it.

The film follows the story of the rap group N.W.A., with the strongest focus on members Ice Cube, Dr. Dre, and Eazy-E.  The guys get together in the late ‘80s with a vision of “reality” rap that tells how life really is for young Black men in the streets of Compton, California.  Their music is as popular as it is incendiary, and the group soon finds itself coming up against pressures from without (charges that their lyrics are immoral, irresponsible, and even criminal) and within (the conflicts that always seem to arise with money and fame.)

In some ways, the movie is very much a classic musical biopic.  As with any such picture worth its salt, great emphasis is placed on the cast and how well they capture the real-life musicians they’re portraying.  Now, I could tell you shockingly little about that, since I went into the film knowing shockingly little about N.W.A., but everything I’ve heard suggests that Jason Mitchell (Eazy-E,) Corey Hawkins (Dr. Dre,) and O’Shea Jackson Jr. (Ice Cube – Jackson is Ice Cube’s actual son and spitting image) are all spot-on.  I can tell you that these actors are hugely engaging, their rapping sounds great, and their performances easily carried me through the two-and-a-half-hour runtime; at one point, I thought that the group seemed to be finding big success too fast, only to realize that I was already a third of the way into the movie. 

The script hits a lot of musical-biopic hallmarks as well.  There’s the unlikely rise to fame, the “in it for the music” early devotion, the large living, the contract disputes, the inevitable rifts and falling-outs, the rock bottoms, and the comebacks.  However, Straight Outta Compton sets itself apart in the genre as well.  The screenwriters, who snagged the film’s only Oscar nod, have great material to work with in N.W.A.’s story.  Pushback over the group’s lyrics and themes leads to stranger-than-fiction moments like a warning letter from the FBI over their song “Fuck the Police,” and when the guys begin to fall out, it isn’t just behind-the-scenes drama playing out in the tabloids – it plays out in rap battles, with escalating disses in dueling albums.  Additionally, the powerful backdrop of police violence in LA, coming to a head in the Rodney King trial and the LA riots, starkly represents how much we still need change. 

All in all, an incredibly solid film with an excellent cast that tells its story well.  From what I hear, it definitely hits home for late-80s/early-90s hip-hop fans, but it’s still very accessible to someone uninitiated like me.  Remind me again why it isn’t this year’s Walk the Line at the Oscars?

Warnings

Tons of language (including numerous N-words and explicit sexual references,) sexual content (including sex scenes and nudity,) violence, drinking/drug use, and thematic elements.

News Satire Roundup: February 14th

Sunday, February 14^th – And we’re back!  First up was Scalia’s death and McConnell’s vow to oppose any Obama-selected replacement.  I liked the point that his main argument, following an unwritten convention, goes against Scalia’s famously literal interpretation of the Constitution.  The Chipotle story was all right; John’s disgust for Bud Light, McDonald’s, etc. can be funny, but sometimes, I wonder if there’s any food he likes.  And obviously, a New Zealand MP being hit in the face with a dildo was always going to be great.  The main story looked at voter ID, and the hypocrisy, bureaucratic BS, and insanity was in full force.  Highlights:  the ID-issuing office that’s only open four days this year, proponents of voter ID laws “ghost-voting” for colleagues at House sessions, and the guy who accidentally alluded to the less-touted “benefit” of voter ID when he pointed out how votes for Obama decreased in an area after a voter ID law was instated.

(Note:  my main source for Last Week Tonight videos, other than HBOGO, is the show's YouTube channel, and they usually just put up the main story.)

Of course Last Week Tonight would return on a week that The Daily Show was dark!  In order to offer more than a one-paragraph post, I thought I’d just write a bit more on the show in general.  One thing that’s struck me about Trevor’s version of The Daily Show is how much I appreciate the frequent interviews with Black filmmakers and performers.  Don’t get me wrong – I love the more issue-focused interviews, and given the choice, I’d almost always pick a guest like Dalia Mogahed or DeRay McKesson.  However, some of Trevor’s interviews with Hollywood folks have really sparked my interest in films that 1) I knew very little about, or 2) had heard of but didn’t really get.  For a while, I’d done a lackluster job of checking out more stories about PoC.  Much like workplace diversity, consuming diverse stories doesn’t “just happen” – you have to seek them out.  Without that conscious effort, my limited exposure wasn’t getting the job done. 

Good on The Daily Show for getting my butt in gear.  First, there was Spike Lee and Nick Cannon two nights in a row, both promoting Chi-Raq.  I’d seen IMDb banner ads for the film, but I had no context for what it was about, and still images weren’t enough.  Actually hearing about it, its Aristophanes origins, and its message was all I needed to move it to the top of my must-see list (now, if only it had been in a theater where I could see it instead of waiting for the DVD!)  I’d had a similar banner-ads-only intro to Beasts of No Nation, but Trevor’s praise of the film when he interviewed Idris Elba definitely piqued my interest, and it’s now one of my favorites for the year.  I knew more about Concussion, since I’d seen the full trailer for it in theaters a few times before it came out, and I was already thinking about seeing it; Will Smith’s remarks on the show sealed the deal for me.  And then there’s Creed.  I was intrigued enough by the few TV spots I saw to check out some reviews, and heir overall glowingness enticed me, even as I was skeptical to learn it was a Rocky movie.  Still, I wanted to see it and was disappointed when it left my local theater in less than two weeks.  After Ryan Coogler came to The Daily Show, though, that disappointment turned to full-on woe – now I really wanted to see it!  The strength of that interview made it an absolute Oscar-season requirement for me, even though it only got one nomination and I had to drive 60 miles to get it.  And it was amazing.

Of course, white interviewees have made me interested in their projects as well (like Brie Larson for Room,) while other films don’t tempt me at all, regardless of race (Jack Black, Will Ferrell, Marlon Wayans, and Ice Cube were fun, but I’m still not seeing Goosebumps, Daddy’s Home, Fifty Shades of Black, or Ride Along 2.)  It’s not about watching whatever the show tells me to; it’s about getting a good introduction to something I wouldn’t otherwise come across.

The Revenant (2015, R)

I’ve now officially seen all eight nominees for best picture – go, me!  Unfortunately, my main takeaway from this film was, “How is this up for best picture when Creed and Beasts of No Nation aren’t?”  I’ve heard pretty divided opinions on the movie, but mine definitely falls on the side of overly long and unengaging (a few spoilers by necessity.)

Hugh Glass serves as a guide for a group of fur trappers in the American frontier of the 1820s.  However, when Glass is savagely injured in a vicious bear attack, one of the men who stay behind to look after him until he succumbs to his wounds is too impatient for nature.  He betrays Glass in a devastating way and leaves him for dead.  The bloody-but-unbowed Glass moves heaven and earth to stay alive, make it back to the trading post, and take his revenge.

I think I’m coming to the conclusion that I’m not quite an Alejandro González Iñárritu person.  I’ve been lukewarm on other Oscar films of his that have earned huge acclaim (Birdman and Babel,) and I feel much the same here.  With all three, I can’t deny that they’re visually stunning – Emmanuel Lubezki’s cinematography is on wonderful display here, making great use of his talents for gorgeously filming nature and employing incredibly-long single-take shots – and the acting is excellent, but the stories keep letting me down.  Watching this film, I kept thinking of other survival movies (127 Hours, Castaway, The Martian, Into the Wild,) as well as frontier movies (3:10 to Yuma,) revenge movies (The Count of Monte Cristo,) and frontier revenge movies (True Grit,) and The Revenant doesn’t match up to any of them.  It seems to confuse drawn-out physical suffering with emotional storytelling, it feels like it goes on forever, and I came out of the two-and-a-half-hour+ movie not knowing much of anything about who Glass is, other than hardy, determined, and ready to call down the wrath of God.

That suffering ≠ gripping emotions confusion applies to the acting as well, I’m afraid.  I won’t pretend that Leonardo DiCaprio isn’t up to his usual fabulous standards, because he is, but this role gives him so little in the way of meaty scenes to work with.  While he’s long-overdue for an Oscar and the smart money says he’s probably winning this year, I’d be a little disappointed to see him get it for this film (especially when Matt Damon is so compelling in another survival movie, the aforementioned The Martian.)  Tom Hardy, up for supporting actor, is a little more interesting; his Fitzgerald is an intriguing lowlife with a remarkable knack for justifying his most depraved actions.  The film also features former Weasley brother Domhnall Gleeson.  This is the fourth film I’ve seen Gleeson in since Christmas (the others being Star Wars:  The Force Awakens, Ex Machina, and Brooklyn,) and I think I like him best here – he’s very good as the compassionate but pragmatic leader of the expedition.

One last remark:  something I do love is Glass’s relationship with his son, Hawk.  They have a strong us-against-the-world vibe, and since Hawk is half-Pawnee, I really like that he and Glass speak to one another in his native language.

Warnings

Violence (including major goriness and a sexual assault,) language, and drinking.

The Danish Girl (2015, R)

So I did see it.  I debated – even apart from the cis-playing-trans uncoolness, the reviews were fairly lukewarm – but in the end, I decided to see it.  First, I can’t have an opinion on something I haven’t seen.  Second, it sounds like Alicia Vikander may likely win best supporting actress.  Finally, the only other option I had for a third Oscar film this weekend was 45 Years, and Charlotte Rampling’s remarks on #OscarsSoWhite have lessened my interest in that film.

Einar Wegener, celebrated landscape painter, is on the edge of a precipice.  Einar’s wife Gerda recently needed Einar to fill in briefly when a ballerina, a model for one of her own paintings, didn’t show.  Wearing stocks and slippers, legs draped with tulle, something that’s hidden inside Einar for a very long time begins to unlock:  Einar is trans.  At first, Gerda thinks her husband’s newly presented femininity is a game they play, for titillation or amusement, but Einar is on her way to truly finding herself for the first time.  As she goes deeper and deeper into living as Lili, her “play” identity, she hopes she can make Gerda see her for who she really is.

I’ve heard this film described as a transgender movie for cisgender people, and I’d say that’s accurate.  In addition to using all the “trans tragedy” tropes (extreme fear/shame, horrifically barbaric “medical treatments,” teary conversations about identity, violent transphobic brutes, and numerous “transform in front of the mirror” scenes,) the trans basics are also a bit muddled.  Lili and Gerda speak of “Einar” and “Lili” as if they’re two separate people and Lili “becomes” one or the other depending on how she’s dressed.  To be fair, the 1920s didn’t really have words for transgender identity, so I could buy Lili and Gerda not knowing how to talk about what they’re going through.  And on the first point, I don’t mean to downplay violence, medical ignorance, or psychological turmoil; obviously, these things weren’t uncommon then and, for many, they continue today.  However, these struggles are often thought of as the trans narrative that it’s a bit, “Of course this is the story they elected to tell.”  The story does get points for its depiction of Gerda’s complicated journey and the ultimate message that Lili’s only choice is to be who she is.

On a positive note, the film looks exquisite.  The costumes are to die for (Lili lived in a terrible era for trans women’s rights but an excellent one for trans women’s wardrobes,) and the Denmark landscapes are gorgeous.  I like the way the paintings are realized in nature.

Alicia Vikander (lately of Ex Machina) is very strong here as Gerda, struggling to find the best way to love her husband as she comes to grips with what’s going on.  And lead-actor-nominated Eddie Redmayne gives a classic Oscary performance as Lili.  That sounds dismissive, and it is a bit.  While he obviously does well in the role, I’m distracted by the Oscar-baity-ness of it, the unfairness of his casting, and my overall iffyness with the character.  I don’t begrudge Lili being generally shy and terrified of what she’s doing in asserting her identity, but it also takes guts to break from society’s conventions like that, and unfortunately, a lot of Lili’s characterization is so timid and fragile that we don’t get much chance to see how tough she obviously is.

Warnings

Sexual content (including sex scenes and nudity,) violence, drinking/smoking, and thematic elements.

Cops (1922)

Gotta love Cops – it’s been one of my favorite Buster shorts for quite a while.  With sharp humor, inventive storytelling, and fantastic stunts, it’s a must-see for any budding Buster Keaton fan.

Charged by the girl he loves to become a “big business man,” Buster’s attempts to come up in the world aren’t exactly what he’d hope for.  Despite stumbling into some early luck, he then proceeds to get hoodwinked, finds himself saddled with a monumentally uncooperative equine partner, and, thanks to some horrendous wrong-place-wrong-time syndrome, winds up the subject of a truly epic police manhunt.  Just another Tuesday, right?

Any discussion of Cops obviously has to start with the colossal chase sequence, featuring a veritable horde of the Keystone boys in blue.  Watching the short this time around, I was struck by a few things.  First, the chase is quite a bit shorter than I tend to think, covering only a third of the 18-minute short.  And second, having recently reviewed a number of Buster’s other independent shorts, I think the cop chases in The Goat, Neighbors, and Daydreams actually have a higher proportion of really creative evasions on Buster’s part.  I think, due to the sheer volume of officers here, Buster is able to get away with just using the sight gag of his little fellow being chased by legions of cops, so it’s a bit short on the really original, Bustery escape stuff.

Which isn’t to sell the chase scene short.  Buster still gets in some excellent licks.  He nicely subverts the “hide behind a traffic cop” technique he’s used before, and the ladder gag is a comic masterpiece.  His final triumph might come off as a little too simple, but I just love it; it’s very sly and endlessly Buster.  (Also, not for nothing, out of all the times Buster has had to flee from officers of the law, this short gives them the most credible reason to be after him.  Not that it’s actually Buster’s fault, but an unfortunate mishap makes everyone very understandably think him an immensely shady character who needs to be stopped.)

The preceding two-thirds of the short are nothing to sneeze at, either.  The gags and story flow into each other really well, informing one another, building the humor, and moving the plot along.  Everything involving Buster and the horse cart is amazing, my personal favorite moments being the mechanical turn-signal and Buster’s restless pacing on the moving cart.  Everything just comes together splendidly, making for a really satisfying viewer experience.

This short also features – you guessed it! – Virginia Fox and Big Joe Roberts.  Both have almost ridiculously-small parts, but it’s nice to see them all the same.  Fox is Buster’s rather imperious girl, while Roberts plays the police chief.

Warnings

Slapstick violence and an act of anarchy.