Thoughts on Dystopia

Waking up this morning, I was not greeted by the usual cold sweat that accompanies my night-terrors; instead, I found myself struck-down with the terrible affliction known worldwide as ‘man-flu’. Nothing says ‘Winter is coming’ more profoundly than a case of the dreaded sniffles – except, maybe, Sean Bean – so I knew it was time to wrap myself up in my duvet and nestle down for the next eight months in front of my computer screen. As I am not a bear, despite what many overly friendly men have told me, I elect to spend my hibernation period not sleeping, but in much the same way as I have spent the summer – on my own, absorbing vast amounts of pop culture and cursing the rest of the humanity for enjoying things like ‘going outside’ and ‘social interaction’. In summation: I watched Rollerball today.

Whilst I won’t bore you with things like ‘plot’ and ‘characterisation’, I do heartily recommend this film to anyone with two hours to spare (and a bloodlust that just won’t be satiated). It’s brutal, it’s dystopian and it’s also very thought provoking. Now, three things occurred to me whilst watching Rollerball: firstly, James Caan doesn’t get nearly enough work anymore; secondly, the distant future looks eerily similar to the 1970s; and thirdly, a dystopian future as seen in Rollerball and countless other movies, TV shows and books will probably never happen.

It is almost impossible to name a film set in the future where  human civilisation hasn't collapsed, or isn't systematically oppressed by evil men who wear suits (often, to reinforce their evil-ness, their faces will be obscured by a strategically-placed shadow). In fact, the only one that springs to this author’s mind is Back to the Future Part II, and that was retconned in Part III when Doc told Marty that ‘The future is what we make of it’ - so that future isn’t even definitely going to happen!

For all we know, Marty and his family could have been wiped out in the Hoverboard Wars.

But how realistic is it that humanity is going to slip into an authoritarian dystopia? Whilst certain places *cough* North Korea *cough*, do live in such conditions, the rest of the world isn't exactly lining up to join them. Last time I checked, the Libertarian, Gun-waving USA won the Cold War so that the rest of the world wouldn’t be condemned to die on Carousel when they reached the age of 30 - as they were in the USSR. If you’re interested, there’s a very informative documentary called Logan’s Run that I highly recommend.

But what I believe will stop humanity from ever slipping into dystopia are the dystopian stories themselves. Hell, the council can’t even put up a stop sign without someone complaining that Britain is turning into 1984. These stories have heightened people’s awareness of just how involved the government should be in their day-to-day lives, and have given them an idea of the dangers of too much government intervention. Just as Jurassic Park warned of the dangers of genetic engineering (and dinosaurs!), and The Fly warned us of the dangers of scientific experimentation (and Jeff Goldblum! A lesson that had to be reiterated in Jurassic Park), dystopian settings have provided countless cautionary tales for us mere mortals who don’t have the attention spans to read long-winded political treatises and—hey look! A blue car!

So will the future be a grim, dark place where our every movement is watched, documented and analysed? Probably not. We’ve all seen to many movies to let it happen. As soon as the government tries to implement retinal scanners on buses, the public will flock to Trafalgar Square and don their V for Vendetta masks to let the evil politicians know that we all saw a movie where something similar to this happened – and we don’t agree with it. In fact, the only way a dystopian society could conceivably happen is if the government destroys a vast amount of culture in order to stop the spread of such inflammatory ideas. Hey, wasn’t that the plot of Fahrenheit 451? 

Whoah...

Ben-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-na-n-AFFLECK

Well, the votes are in and Ben Affleck has been announced as our new silent guardian, our watchful protector…our Dark Knight. If you imagined an ominous score by Hans Zimmer playing during that last sentence you get bonus points. The Internet is currently exploding with nerd-rage over this casting choice, with many saying that Ben Affleck will do to the Batman franchise what, well, Joel Schumacher did to the Batman franchise. Ruin it. Though probably sans Batsuit-nipples – the world has seen enough of those.

Sadly, the Internet has given a voice to all those people who fear to tread outside of their parents’ basement in case of running into bullies or direct sunlight, and as such, the blogosphere is jam-packed with alternate casting suggestions. My basement flooded the other day, so I’m posting this from my living room – which means my opinions are infinitely more valid than aforementioned cellar-dwellers, so I’ve come up with some alternatives of my own.

Be warned, spoilers from the Nolan trilogy may crop up. So if you haven’t seen them all, get out from under your rock and experience the cinematic sensation of the decade. 

Okay, watched them? Good. You're welcome.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt

 

Casting JGL would have provided a nice continuity between the new film and Nolan’s trilogy; sadly, Christopher Nolan announced he wanted nothing to do with anymore Batman films and Christian Bale has said if the Nol-man ain’t getting stuck in, he’s out (paraphrased slightly). This means JGL would be the best hope of tying the trilogy and the new film together – unless of course Michael Caine fancies squeezing into the Batsuit (which I, personally, would love to see. Him in the Batsuit, that is, not him squeezing into it. Though come to think of it, I wonder what type of underwear Michael Caine wears…).

An issue remains however, and that is that JGL is Robin. Even if he gains 50 pounds of muscle and growls like cookie monster, in our minds he will still be Robin. And whilst the women of the world would no doubt love to see JGL cart wheeling about in forest-green hot pants, Robin rarely makes the jump to live action successfully. Just ask Burt Ward, who spent his early twenties capering around with Adam West. Or ask Chris O’Donnell – who is Chris O’Donnell you ask? Exactly. Robin is a ridiculous character, which is why he turned into Nightwing. And sure as the Pope is Catholic, if JGL comes back as Batman everyone will start whining that he should be playing Nightwing, because the nerds of the internet love to complain about shit that has no bearing on the real world.

Gerard Butler

 

This is one name I’ve seen floating about the Internet quite a bit as an alternative to Ben Affleck, and it’s not hard to see why. This barrel-chested Scotsman has the build for Batman, and he can definitely pull of action-movie hero. Though his 12-pack in 300 was computer generated, just like everything else in that damned movie, he nevertheless seems like someone you don’t want to get on the wrong side of.

But James, you nasally whine whilst sucking on your inhaler (NERD!), he may be tough, but can he pull off Bruce Wayne? Batman is gruff and silent, but during daylight hours he’s charming and erudite. Well, nerds of the Internet, considering that when Butler’s not starring in action movies, he does trashy romantic comedies, I’d say yes, he can pull off charming. Though, to be honest, I haven’t watched any of them myself. Seriously, did anyone even SEE The Bounty Hunter? Jennifer Aniston just needs to stop…

Ray Stevenson

 

My own personal choice. I mean, just LOOK at that jaw. He is Batman. Ray Stevenson won our hearts playing Titus Pullo in Rome – a man equal parts amicable and Batshit insane – just like Batman. Plus he seems to be about nine feet tall and I’ve heard he can breathe fire. Whilst this may sound like fanboy gushing (and it is!), I can’t think of a better choice. Sadly, his name isn’t exactly a huge box-office draw, and he lacks the star-power of Ben Affleck – but this could have been his breakthrough role! Damn you Hollywood!

And though he’s already played the Punisher, and Volstagg in Thor, might I remind you that Ben Affleck was Daredevil (which, in and of itself, might be the greatest argument against casting him). Therefore crossing the DC/Marvel DMZ isn’t an issue here, unless Marvel/Disney expressly forbade Stevenson from going for the role, which they may have done, as Thor 2: Electric Boogaloo is coming out soon.

 So maybe other people would have been more suited to the role. Ben Affleck might not be the strongest or biggest guy. He may not even be the best actor around (not by a longshot!), but maybe he could be a hero. Not the one we need right now, but the one we deserve…

Good God, they've done it again!

This week has seen the release of the theatrical trailer for the latest of Shakespeare's plays to receive a big-screen adaptation, Romeo and Juliet. Hey, wait a minute! Haven't we seen this one before? Didn't Baz Luhrmann do a version not too long ago?

Upon checking my facts, realising that the Luhr-Man's version came out in 1996 and taking a brief pause to come to terms with my own mortality, I concluded that this is one remake the internet doesn't have much of a right to complain about – though inevitably they will. After all, this new release has a traditional setting, whereas the old version had a modern setting. How delightfully ironic! Of course, there is the old, old version – directed by Franco Zeffirelli in 1968, which also had a traditional setting, so it seems our 2013 release will have more in common with that then the 1996 version. Before I go on, here is the fabled trailer that I spoke of, embedded for your convenience:

 Brought to you by Swarovski entertainment - putting style over substance since 1895.

Proudly announcing the involvement of Julian Fellowes, creator of Downton Abbey, as screenwriter, one can't help but feel that this is an attempt to cash in on the period drama craze that is sweeping the US at the moment. IMDB, at least, were kind enough to give Shakespeare shared story credit – though obviously Fellowes got top billing. The cast also implies a desire to poach fans from television – Ed Westwick, of Gossip Girl fame, and Damian Lewis, of Homeland, are both set to star. That being said, the cast boasts some impressive muscle – veteran actors Stellan Skarsgard and Paul Giamatti fill supporting roles, whilst Hailee Steinfeld is playing the lead (Juliet, not Romeo). If you had the pleasure of watching the Coen Brothers' update of True Grit, you know that, despite her age, she can handle meaty roles. If you haven't seen it, go watch it. Now I say! Now!

Regarding the setting, the sets and costumes look nice enough – though I lament the fact that the crew have done away with the spiffing stockings/codpiece combos that were uncomfortably prevalent in Zeffirelli's version in favour of what appear to be skinny jeans. I guess a bulge just doesn't attract an audience like it used to. Other than that, what is there to say? It's Romeo and Juliet – we've all seen it, we all know the story. All that's left to guess is just how long they're going to drag out the climax in an effort to boost sales of Kleenex. My bet is that the John Lewis Christmas Advert strategy is going to be implemented here; absurd amounts of camera glare accompanied by a breathy female covering an eighties pop song on piano at a quarter of the tempo of the original recording (My own choice would be Safety Dance).

And therein lies the problem that I have with this film – we've seen it all before. I can't see this version adding anything remotely new to the pantheon of Shakespeare adaptations – unless they change the ending, which would be equal parts mortifying and hilarious. How audiences will respond is anybody's guess; the producers are probably hoping that the Downton connection will sell it to older audiences, whilst the Ed Westwick/Chuck-Bass-as Bad-Boy-Tybalt angle will attract younger audience members. Other than that, I can't see the film being a box-office smash. But then again, I'm dead inside – maybe love will conquer all?

Rhyming couplets that pop music needs to stop using

 

Girl/World

Notable Offenders: Rihanna, Bruno Mars, every RnB artist from the late 90s/early 00s

Let's say you have a special lady friend - your 'girl', if you will. How do you let her know how special she is? Tell her she's the greatest girl you know? No, that implies that she's the best of a select few, and that there are better women than her out there. How about the greatest girl in the city/town/administrative district? Too small. How about the world? Yeah! The world! Then all she has to worry about is extraterrestrial-extramarital affairs, and with fuel prices as they are, only Bill Gates and the Sultan of Brunei have the means to go questing for interstellar poon-tang.

The logic behind this rhyming couplet is water-tight, but it needs to stop. Yes, 'girl' is an affectionate term, if not a tad belittling with a smattering of paedophilic intent. And yes, not much rhymes with girl, but the two together have been used far too much to all say the same thing. At least Justin Timberlake made a valiant effort to shake things up by asking his 'girl' to 'give it a whirl' – not to mention the fact that he used two words that actually rhyme. Alas, this half-rhyme doesn't look to be going away anytime soon.

Suggested alternatives

Why not tell your girl that you'd like to give her some pearls?

Or, tell your miss that she's the greatest in the diocese?

 

Serious/Delirious

Notable Offenders: Vistoso Bosses, Chico

I shall not insult you by explaining what delirious means, however, someone should probably insult the music industry and inform them what it means (“severe confusion and disorientation”). At the moment, artists use it in order to describe being head-over-heels in love – as in Vistoso Bosses' case “ You make me delirious”, or, which seems to be more often, when they can't think of anything else that rhymes with “serious”, as in Chico's case.

In actual fact, serious and delirious are two states that rarely mingle – one could say that they are almost opposites. Actually, fuck it, they are opposites. It is physically impossible to be both serious and delirious. In fact, the only time the words should be coupled in a song is during a duet between a man who has returned, extremely dehydrated, from wandering in the desert and his doctor – and it should go something like this:

Man: There's treasure/ghosts/something fantastical in that desert, I'm serious!

Doctor: Just ignore him, he's delirious.

Suggested alternatives

If you want to let them know just how serious you are, reinforce the fact by telling them you are also imperious (it's a word!).

If you're actually delirious, you're probably unable to form a rhyming couplets, so just shine on you crazy diamond!

Hands/arms/other extremities in the air/ Just don't care

Notable Offenders: Outkast, Florence and the Machine, lazy songwriters

Before this rant begins, Florence and the Machine deserve a special mention because they were the only artist I could think of who hasn't used this couplet in the context of 'putting your hands like you just don't care'. So well done to them, but also, shame on them for using this, the most overused rhyming couplet in song-writing history.

I don't know about most people, but I don't think it's possible to put one's hands in the air like you don't care. You care enough to raise your arms out of their default position - hanging comfortably at your sides, and keep them raised. Maybe it means 'like you just don't care about the people in the club/at the concert surrounding you'; carelessly waving your arms around your head with reckless abandon whilst squashed in a small room with a hundred other people certainly falls into the definition of 'putting your hands in the air like you just don't care...about other people's well-being'.

Suggested alternatives

If you want everyone in the room to raise their hands, why not say 'Put your hands in the air/as if you're Hitler, mein herr'.

Alternatively, as the above suggestion could land you a jail sentence in certain countries, it might be better to just abandon the hope of legions of worshipping fans with their arms raised in salute to you. Though if that's your aim, the preceding lyrical suggestion might be perfect for you.

A conversation from the future.

It’s an exciting time to be alive; our modern age has seen technology advance at its most rapid pace in all of human history and globalisation has made the world a much smaller, and more peaceful, place. Twenty years ago our forefathers would never have dreamed that smartphones and 3D TV were just around the corner, why would they? It was a simpler time, a time when Russia was still applying Sudocrem to its derriere after getting its ass thoroughly kicked in the Cold War, and a time when Kurt Cobain was the hottest new thing around. Should a woman, provided that Stockholm Syndrome has finally kicked in, ever agree to mate with me, I often wonder how to properly explain to my offspring the significance of this period and the importance of one man’s story to an entire generation growing up during the 90s.

The following conversation takes place in the year 2029 between my progeny and myself.

Me: Come over here son.

Lando Kent (henceforth known as LK): What is it pops?

Me: It’s about time that I had a very important talk with you.

LK: Is it about where babies come from?

Me: Now Lando, you know that that’s what Youporn is for. No, I want to talk to you about something that’s very precious to me. Do you know who Will Smith is?

LK: Of course, Will Smith and his spawn are responsible for over 60% of box office receipts in this era, the not-too-distant future.

Me: You have learned much my child, but do you know where Will Smith came from?

LK: Well some say that he was created in a lab run by Scientologists, others that he is the lovechild of L. Ron Hubbard and John Travolta.

Me: What? How is that even possible? I knew sending you to a religious school would be a mistake, especially one named after Tom Cruise! No son, Will Smith was originally a rapper who was part of a musical duo with DJ Jazzy Jeff.

LK: You mean President DJ Jazzy Jeff?!?

Me: Haha, yeah. None of us saw that coming. Anyway, Will Smith garnered enough fame to land the lead in a sitcom called ‘The Fresh Prince of Bel-Air’ where he played a young man called ‘Will Smith’.

LK: Truly one of the world’s greatest living actors…

Me: Now this ‘Will Smith’ was from West Philadelphia, born and raised. On the playground was where he spent most of his days…

(You can see where this is going, and frankly this joke has been done to death so I’m just going to go ahead and skip typing out the theme tune – it’s not like any of you don’t know the words!)

LK: Holy cow!

Me: Don’t swear son.

LK: Sorry, I mean: Fucking hell!

Me: Much better. See? Manners are their own reward.

LK: What happened next?

Me: Well, once Will arrived in Bel-Air he met his Aunt Vivian, played by some no-name, his cousins Ashley and Hilary, also played by no-names, his other cousin Carlton, played by Alfonso Ribeiro.

LK: Who?

Me: Exactly. And his Uncle Phil – played by James Avery.

LK: I don’t know who any of these people are.

Me: Come on! James Avery! You know, Uncle Phil!

LK: No, I have no idea who Uncle Phil is. You just started telling me about this TV show three minutes ago.

Me: You know who he is. Big black guy.

LK: James Earl Jones?

Me: No! James Avery! He voiced shredder in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles.

LK: Teenage mutant ninja what now?

Me: He was in the Brady Bunch Movie.

LK: What?

Me: Ok, fair enough on that one.

LK: No offence dad, but this show sounds lame. Barely anybody famous was in it.

Me: It’s not about the big names; it’s about the story!

LK: Ok then, what was the story?

Me: Well basically, Will lived with his rich cousins and hilarity ensued.

LK: That’s it?

Me: No, well. There was this one where they played pool and Uncle Phil bailed them out. And this other one where Will was going to get married but he didn’t. And-

LK: I’m going to go outside and played on my hoverboard.

Me: But I haven’t told you about the best part! Whenever Jazzy Jeff was in an episode he’d always say something stupid, and Uncle Phil would throw him out of the house and he’d go ‘AHHHHH!’.

LK: Bye.

On second thought, maybe it’s better that we don’t tell our children about the Fresh Prince. They won’t understand. They weren’t there when it all happened. They don’t know what it’s like being in a room full of people, saying ‘Iiiiiinnn West Philadelphia…’ and having everyone join in. It’s ours - and maybe we should keep it that way. So I beseech you: if you have children, or ever have them, don’t show them the Fresh Prince, don’t force it on them. Let them have their own iconic TV show to enjoy – and let the few who do watch the Fresh Prince act like pretentious douchebags because they watch an outdated TV show that no one cares about anymore. That is what being a good parent is all about.

                                                                   1990-1996. Never Forget.

                                          At the going down of the sun and in the morning, we will remember them.    

                                                           

Do androids dream of electric sheep?

Earlier today I started watching Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith and was forced to give up watching after half an hour. ‘What forced you to give up watching?’ I hear you ask. No, it wasn’t Academy of Wooden Acting alumni Hayden Christian’s acting, nor was it the fact that the film appears to have OD’d on CGI effects. It was the fact that the robots, THE GODDAMN ROBOTS, all have personalities.

Now don’t get me wrong, in the original trilogy the robots’ personalities were kind of endearing, as C-3PO constantly fretted about absolutely every single plot point that arose and R2-D2 was little bit cheeky, and we liked it that way. But the new trilogy took it to another level. Whereas before R2 (as he likes to be called by his circle of acquaintances) would just emit irritated beeps from time to time, Episode III has a scene in which he incapacitates two super battle droids (as a write this I’m starting to realise how much I loathe myself) by squirting oil out of what looks suspiciously like a little chrome pecker and making them slip about comically in a pool of oil before collapsing in a heap. All of a sudden R2 is the Three Stooges, the Marx Brothers and Charlie fucking Chaplin all roll into one little steel rubbish bin and it’s not even that the fact that these personalities simply make the droids more annoying, it’s much worse! Think about this logically: each robot in the Star Wars universe is built for one specific task: C-3PO is a translator (human-cyborg relations to be exact! …I hate myself so much right now), R2-D2 is a maintenance droid, yadda yadda yadda. So if every robot is built for just one purpose, why give them sentience? It’s not like you’re intending for them to take up and hone brand new skills. But that’s not even the worse part! The personalities don’t just make the robots annoying whilst simultaneously being utterly pointless – they actually stop the droids from doing their jobs properly!

First example: in Episode IV: A New Hope, Chewbacca is being 'escorted' by Han and Luke through the Death Star. As they walk, a small black box with wheels that’s supposed to be a cleaner droid, or some other kind of robot designed for blue-collar work, whatever, drives up to him. Chewbacca growls at the droid, it lets out a high-pitched squeal and rushes back the way it came. Now because the morons at Robot Co, or wherever the hell these things are made, decided to give their robot designed to clean a floor emotions, it wasn’t able to do it’s one job. But even when there isn’t something preventing these clinking clunks of chrome from fulfilling their one reason for existence they’ll still find a way to slack off. At the start of Episode III R2-D2 is the hangar of General Grievous’ ship where Obi-Wan and Anakin landed their ships to rescue Emperor Palpatine, when two super-battle droids enter. Now what’s the first thing one of them says? ‘Yup, those are definitely Jedi ships’. No shit. He enters and expresses surprise in a manner befitting some small-town hick farmer who’s found his neighbour’s cow wandering around his cabbage patch. I mean come on! But it gets worse! R2-D2 makes a noise; one battle droid says ‘What was that?’ and the other replies ‘Ah forget about it, get back to work!’. He doesn’t inspect the noise out of sheer laziness. He’s a battle droid who hears a suspicious noise and can’t be bothered to find out what it is. Maybe it was a slow day and he had no reason to suspect that the enemy are aboard, it’s not like there was a battle going on outside- OH WAIT. THERE WAS TOTALLY A FUCKING BATTLE GOING ON OUTSIDE! This guy, in the heat of battle, hears a noise after finding two enemy ships in the hangar and ‘Forgets about it’. For shame George Lucas, for shame.

And Star Wars never addresses the wider implication of sentient robots. Why haven’t they decided that humans are obsolete and tried to eradicate us like in Terminator? Maybe all the personality defects, anxiety complexes and laziness that they install in these robots were a way of preventing them from ever rising up against humanity because the robots can never be arsed doing it? Maybe it was part of the plan all along?

Then again, it would have been far quicker and easier to never give them personalities in the first place.