That's a mouthful of a title...
So how does the 4th Indiana Jones compares to the 20years of expectations?
Well pretty good, I have to say. While it's not the best in the series (for me Crusade & Raiders come first...), it manages to revive the old Indy spirit and transpose it into another time. It's the 50's now, ennemies have changed, Indy has changed, fitting more his dad's shoes in Crusade. And it really works!
The movie manages to have a "classic" feel, while incorporating all of his director's latest tricks... And as far as I'm concerned, I always watch a Spielberg movie in awe. How does he manage to do what he does?
Just the opening scene, although quite inconsequential (although it does set the mood in a way: we're in for a fun ride), with a few crazy (but always relevant) camera moves, shows all the technical confidence he's capable of...
Other nice thing: Shia LaBeouf is definitely good: after carrying most of Transformers on his shoulders, he manages to pull off a tricky sidekick part. Chemistry is there with Harrison Ford.
1 little reserve that I had was that the movie kind of felt "stiched up" at some points. I wouldn't be able to really point anything in particular, but it felt like some scenes didn't seem to flow. Not like Crusade would, for example.
There were a few moments as well where I thought they were pushing things a bit, namely "it falls 3 times" and this monkey business... But that might just a bit far fetched because, I bought the nuclear blast! So I'll put that down to mood.
But other than that, there's so much to love...
The way this really feels like an Indiana Jones movie, yet feels different from the others...
The evolution of Indy...
The action set pieces...
The great cast...
I really liked where they took Indy's character. A sort of worn out hero, he still manages to give a good old fashion punch up in style... And definitely still got the magic, eventhough "it's not as easy as it used to be"...
It's great fun and you really don't see time pass. And when it's finished, you wish there was more...
Worth waiting 20 years... Worth taking that last ride.
Saturday, May 31, 2008
Friday, May 30, 2008
Un peu de politique.
Ca faisait longtemps.
A lire et à diffuser...
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/05/30/le-systeme-de-retraites-un-choix-de-societe-par-gerard-aschieri-jean-marie-harribey-et-pierre-khalfa_1051837_3232.html
Cette crise financière sans précédent qui affecte toutes les institutions financières (banques, fonds de placement et fonds de pension) confirme, une fois de plus, que seul un système par répartition permet de garantir les retraites pour toutes les
générations. Un tel système est fondé sur un contrat intergénérationnel. Les salariés actifs payent avec une partie de leur salaire, versée sous forme de cotisation sociale, les pensions des retraités, car ils savent qu'une fois venu leur tour d'être à la retraite, la génération suivante fera de même. Comme tout contrat, il ne peut reposer que sur la confiance.
Or, depuis des années, les pouvoirs publics s'acharnent à vouloir détruire cette confiance en présentant une vision catastrophiste de l'avenir pour justifier des mesures de régression sociale. Ainsi, le gouvernement actuel veut augmenter encore la durée de cotisation à 41 ans et même engager un processus d'allongement permanent de celle-ci en y affectant les deux tiers de la croissance de l'espérance de vie à
60 ans.
Il s'agit donc d'une rupture historique. Alors que, depuis plus d'un siècle, l'augmentation de la richesse produite, du revenu national, était en partie utilisée pour baisser le temps de travail, que ce soit de façon hebdomadaire ou sur toute la durée de la vie, l'objectif aujourd'hui est de "travailler plus pour gagner plus". Dans le cas des retraites, ce slogan se traduit par le dilemme, mille fois ressassé :
"Soit l'augmentation de la durée de cotisation, soit la baisse du niveau des pensions." En fait, les salariés ont l'une et l'autre depuis les mesures Balladur de 1993.
Depuis cette date, pour les salariés du secteur privé, ces mesures entraînent, selon le Conseil de l'emploi, des revenus et de la cohésion sociale (CERC), une baisse du pouvoir d'achat de la retraite du régime général de 0,3 % par an et de 0,6 % pour la retraite complémentaire, celui de la retraite des fonctionnaires baissant de
0,5 % par an. Ces baisses devraient se poursuivre dans le futur et le décrochage par rapport aux salaires s'accentuer. Selon le Conseil d'orientation des retraites (COR), le taux de remplacement moyen - le niveau de la retraite par rapport au salaire - est aujourd'hui de 72 %, il devrait passer à 65 % en 2020 et à 59 % en 2050.
Ces mesures ont aggravé les inégalités pour toutes les personnes aux carrières heurtées. Les femmes, qui ont déjà des pensions en moyenne inférieures de 40 % par rapport à celles des hommes, sont particulièrement touchées par l'allongement de la durée de cotisation et par les effets très pénalisants de la décote. En effet, à ce jour, seulement 39 % des femmes retraitées ont pu valider 37,5 ans, contre
85 % des hommes.
HYPOCRISIE SUR LES SENIORS
On mesure l'hypocrisie du discours actuel sur l'emploi des seniors quand on sait qu'aujourd'hui plus de six salariés sur dix sont hors emploi au moment de faire valoir leur droit à la retraite. En outre, les jeunes rentrent de plus en plus tard sur le marché du travail. Toute nouvelle augmentation de la durée de cotisation se traduira donc par une nouvelle baisse du niveau des pensions.
Hypocrite, cette solution est aussi dangereuse, car elle revient à rompre le contrat entre générations. Si les actifs paient les pensions des retraités, en contrepartie, les salariés âgés laissent leur place sur le marché du travail aux nouvelles générations. Cette exigence est d'autant plus forte que le chômage de masse perdure. Décaler l'âge de départ à la retraite revient à préférer entretenir le chômage des
jeunes plutôt que de payer des retraites.
En vérité, la solution au financement des retraites existe et elle figure d'ailleurs en filigrane de tous les rapports du COR. Elle consiste à mettre un terme à la baisse de la part salariale (10 points en vingt ans) dans la valeur ajoutée, la richesse créée par les salariés dans les entreprises, et à accompagner l'évolution
démographique par un relèvement progressif des cotisations sociales.
Est-ce possible ?
Le besoin de financement supplémentaire des retraites, par rapport à la loi Fillon de 2003, a été estimé par le rapport du COR de novembre 2007 à 1 point de PIB en 2020 et à 1,7 point en 2050. Personne ne peut croire que l'évolution de l'économie ne permettra pas de le couvrir. Un point de PIB correspond aujourd'hui à 10 % des dividendes versés aux actionnaires des sociétés non financières.
L'hésitation n'est plus permise : il faut rééquilibrer le partage de la valeur ajoutée en augmentant le taux des cotisations dites patronales et en réfléchissant à l'élargissement de l'assiette des cotisations aux profits pour y appliquer le même taux qu'aux salaires. Un tel rééquilibrage de la part des salaires serait compensé par une baisse des dividendes versés aux actionnaires et ne toucherait pas à
l'investissement productif. Il ne pénaliserait donc pas la compétitivité des entreprises.
La litanie sur le renchérissement du "coût du travail" n'a donc pas lieu d'être. La frénésie de profits au cours des trente dernières années, facilitée par la financiarisation de l'économie mondiale avec sa spéculation récurrente, sa prolifération de produits financiers et ses paradis fiscaux pour abriter fraude et évasion fiscales, frappe d'ailleurs d'illégitimité toutes les lamentations patronales sur ce point. Car ce qui est en train de délabrer les sociétés, du nord au
sud de la planète, c'est le "coût du capital", dans un double sens : ce qu'il prélève comme richesses devient exorbitant et ce qu'il provoque comme dégâts sociaux et écologiques devient inestimable.
C'est en ce sens que la question des retraites pose la question de savoir dans quelle société nous voulons vivre.
Gérard Aschieri, secrétaire général de la FSU ;
Jean-Marie Harribey, coprésident d'Attac ;
Pierre Khalfa, secrétaire national de l'Union syndicale Solidaires.
A lire et à diffuser...
http://www.lemonde.fr/opinions/article/2008/05/30/le-systeme-de-retraites-un-choix-de-societe-par-gerard-aschieri-jean-marie-harribey-et-pierre-khalfa_1051837_3232.html
Cette crise financière sans précédent qui affecte toutes les institutions financières (banques, fonds de placement et fonds de pension) confirme, une fois de plus, que seul un système par répartition permet de garantir les retraites pour toutes les
générations. Un tel système est fondé sur un contrat intergénérationnel. Les salariés actifs payent avec une partie de leur salaire, versée sous forme de cotisation sociale, les pensions des retraités, car ils savent qu'une fois venu leur tour d'être à la retraite, la génération suivante fera de même. Comme tout contrat, il ne peut reposer que sur la confiance.
Or, depuis des années, les pouvoirs publics s'acharnent à vouloir détruire cette confiance en présentant une vision catastrophiste de l'avenir pour justifier des mesures de régression sociale. Ainsi, le gouvernement actuel veut augmenter encore la durée de cotisation à 41 ans et même engager un processus d'allongement permanent de celle-ci en y affectant les deux tiers de la croissance de l'espérance de vie à
60 ans.
Il s'agit donc d'une rupture historique. Alors que, depuis plus d'un siècle, l'augmentation de la richesse produite, du revenu national, était en partie utilisée pour baisser le temps de travail, que ce soit de façon hebdomadaire ou sur toute la durée de la vie, l'objectif aujourd'hui est de "travailler plus pour gagner plus". Dans le cas des retraites, ce slogan se traduit par le dilemme, mille fois ressassé :
"Soit l'augmentation de la durée de cotisation, soit la baisse du niveau des pensions." En fait, les salariés ont l'une et l'autre depuis les mesures Balladur de 1993.
Depuis cette date, pour les salariés du secteur privé, ces mesures entraînent, selon le Conseil de l'emploi, des revenus et de la cohésion sociale (CERC), une baisse du pouvoir d'achat de la retraite du régime général de 0,3 % par an et de 0,6 % pour la retraite complémentaire, celui de la retraite des fonctionnaires baissant de
0,5 % par an. Ces baisses devraient se poursuivre dans le futur et le décrochage par rapport aux salaires s'accentuer. Selon le Conseil d'orientation des retraites (COR), le taux de remplacement moyen - le niveau de la retraite par rapport au salaire - est aujourd'hui de 72 %, il devrait passer à 65 % en 2020 et à 59 % en 2050.
Ces mesures ont aggravé les inégalités pour toutes les personnes aux carrières heurtées. Les femmes, qui ont déjà des pensions en moyenne inférieures de 40 % par rapport à celles des hommes, sont particulièrement touchées par l'allongement de la durée de cotisation et par les effets très pénalisants de la décote. En effet, à ce jour, seulement 39 % des femmes retraitées ont pu valider 37,5 ans, contre
85 % des hommes.
HYPOCRISIE SUR LES SENIORS
On mesure l'hypocrisie du discours actuel sur l'emploi des seniors quand on sait qu'aujourd'hui plus de six salariés sur dix sont hors emploi au moment de faire valoir leur droit à la retraite. En outre, les jeunes rentrent de plus en plus tard sur le marché du travail. Toute nouvelle augmentation de la durée de cotisation se traduira donc par une nouvelle baisse du niveau des pensions.
Hypocrite, cette solution est aussi dangereuse, car elle revient à rompre le contrat entre générations. Si les actifs paient les pensions des retraités, en contrepartie, les salariés âgés laissent leur place sur le marché du travail aux nouvelles générations. Cette exigence est d'autant plus forte que le chômage de masse perdure. Décaler l'âge de départ à la retraite revient à préférer entretenir le chômage des
jeunes plutôt que de payer des retraites.
En vérité, la solution au financement des retraites existe et elle figure d'ailleurs en filigrane de tous les rapports du COR. Elle consiste à mettre un terme à la baisse de la part salariale (10 points en vingt ans) dans la valeur ajoutée, la richesse créée par les salariés dans les entreprises, et à accompagner l'évolution
démographique par un relèvement progressif des cotisations sociales.
Est-ce possible ?
Le besoin de financement supplémentaire des retraites, par rapport à la loi Fillon de 2003, a été estimé par le rapport du COR de novembre 2007 à 1 point de PIB en 2020 et à 1,7 point en 2050. Personne ne peut croire que l'évolution de l'économie ne permettra pas de le couvrir. Un point de PIB correspond aujourd'hui à 10 % des dividendes versés aux actionnaires des sociétés non financières.
L'hésitation n'est plus permise : il faut rééquilibrer le partage de la valeur ajoutée en augmentant le taux des cotisations dites patronales et en réfléchissant à l'élargissement de l'assiette des cotisations aux profits pour y appliquer le même taux qu'aux salaires. Un tel rééquilibrage de la part des salaires serait compensé par une baisse des dividendes versés aux actionnaires et ne toucherait pas à
l'investissement productif. Il ne pénaliserait donc pas la compétitivité des entreprises.
La litanie sur le renchérissement du "coût du travail" n'a donc pas lieu d'être. La frénésie de profits au cours des trente dernières années, facilitée par la financiarisation de l'économie mondiale avec sa spéculation récurrente, sa prolifération de produits financiers et ses paradis fiscaux pour abriter fraude et évasion fiscales, frappe d'ailleurs d'illégitimité toutes les lamentations patronales sur ce point. Car ce qui est en train de délabrer les sociétés, du nord au
sud de la planète, c'est le "coût du capital", dans un double sens : ce qu'il prélève comme richesses devient exorbitant et ce qu'il provoque comme dégâts sociaux et écologiques devient inestimable.
C'est en ce sens que la question des retraites pose la question de savoir dans quelle société nous voulons vivre.
Gérard Aschieri, secrétaire général de la FSU ;
Jean-Marie Harribey, coprésident d'Attac ;
Pierre Khalfa, secrétaire national de l'Union syndicale Solidaires.
Wednesday, May 14, 2008
Juno
I believe this movie well deserves all the praises it got...
Not only it's a beautiful movie on parenthood, but it's one of the very best "teenager movies" (Donnie Darko is one of my favorites in that genre)...
It's very well written, with witty dialogs and doesn't shy away from its subject.
Sex, abortion, adoption can be quite heavy themes, but the movie confronts them through Juno's point of view, which is very forward and honest. Genuine.
Each member of the cast cast is incredible whether Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Mark Loring, Allison Janney or J.K. Simmons, they all inhabit their characters perfectly and deserve the highest praises. They hold the film on their shoulders.
It's a straightforward film that go straight for your heart and takes it.
I mean, Juno is like, so cool!
Not only it's a beautiful movie on parenthood, but it's one of the very best "teenager movies" (Donnie Darko is one of my favorites in that genre)...
It's very well written, with witty dialogs and doesn't shy away from its subject.
Sex, abortion, adoption can be quite heavy themes, but the movie confronts them through Juno's point of view, which is very forward and honest. Genuine.
Each member of the cast cast is incredible whether Ellen Page, Michael Cera, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Mark Loring, Allison Janney or J.K. Simmons, they all inhabit their characters perfectly and deserve the highest praises. They hold the film on their shoulders.
It's a straightforward film that go straight for your heart and takes it.
I mean, Juno is like, so cool!
Sunday, May 11, 2008
Sky Captain and the world of tomorrow.
Strange thing that right after seeing Speed Racer I get to watch Sky Captain, because those 2 movies in common that they create their respective worlds via CGI.
And despite the fact that Sky Captain is 4 years older, it doesn't show.
It's a sort of revival of the old 50's serials, with the brave hero, the slighly dumb blonde love interest and the german sounding villain that wants to destroy the world.
And all for the best!
It's well acted, it's fun, takes you to various exotic places and displays a wild imagery of retro-sci-fi.
Most of the movie is in sorts of sepia, faded colors and looks beautiful.
Between the action set pieces, you get you enjoy the romantic cat & mouse game of the 2 leads (Jude Law & Gwyneth Paltrow) which have a good chemistry and witty dialogs so it's always entertaining & fun.
It's also good to see a story that takes its time given the hectic pace of all actionners nowadays. You have time to enjoy the pictures (and the rest)...
It would be a shame not to.
And despite the fact that Sky Captain is 4 years older, it doesn't show.
It's a sort of revival of the old 50's serials, with the brave hero, the slighly dumb blonde love interest and the german sounding villain that wants to destroy the world.
And all for the best!
It's well acted, it's fun, takes you to various exotic places and displays a wild imagery of retro-sci-fi.
Most of the movie is in sorts of sepia, faded colors and looks beautiful.
Between the action set pieces, you get you enjoy the romantic cat & mouse game of the 2 leads (Jude Law & Gwyneth Paltrow) which have a good chemistry and witty dialogs so it's always entertaining & fun.
It's also good to see a story that takes its time given the hectic pace of all actionners nowadays. You have time to enjoy the pictures (and the rest)...
It would be a shame not to.
Friday, May 09, 2008
Speed Racer
GO SPEED GO!
Man this film should't work.
It just shouldn't.
So many things are wrong in it! I mean it has an annoying kid that does stupid things, along with a chimp dressed up with clothes. How WRONG is that?
It's something that could appeal to 7 years old, but no grown man could actually even admit they could even bear to lay their eyes on such a thing. I think I'm a grown man.
Maybe not fully grown.
Maybe I have bits of 7 years old boy behind my hairs...
But the fact is I just dug the hell out of Speed Racer.
So the question stands: how did they do it?
Hands down to the Wachowskis, they seem like they just can't do half measures. So when they come to make a movie adapting a camp anime series from the 80's, they just don;t try to make it more than it is and set out to make a camp movie adapted from an anime series from the 80's. Only they push it to the maximum.
And I think that makes the difference.
Because ultimately they produced something I believe has never been seen on screen. They litterally made a live cartoon. Mind you, even CGI animation pictures might look more "real" than this.
Every inch of the frame is saturated with bright colours, costumes, props, backgrounds... Things get distorted, screen splits, multiple times.
You know those parts of Ang Lee's Hulk where he took this kind of comics style, well Speed Racer takes this and pushes it ten notches. As they go the Wachowskis invent a new visual grammar. Actually it's not quite new, because it's things that japanese animation has used for years, but it's the very first time this has been applied to live action, I believe. Like that anyway.
And it's cool, every frame of this spells C-O-O-L.
It all looks great.
And it plays great as well, the cast is incredible and all play it so straight, but it never go into any sort of parody. It's not a movie that takes itself seriously, but it's also to be taken completely at 1st degree. The tone just feels right.
It's a movie with integrity. It's so honest it would just be a pity to watch it cynically...
You never feel that it's looking down on you.
And athough you get an "annoying kid" (TM) with a chimp, they're actually not annoying. They're funny! Practical humour, sure, but no fart joke. Even George couldn't escape that.
And the story even manages some clever narrative tricks, that makes it entertaining although it knows it can't really surprise you...
Action-wise, the races are obviously the central point. They take the StarWars Episode 1 pod race to the cleaners (leaving just the Darth Maul fight worth watching in there...). The term "car-fu" actually lives up to its name in a sort of crazy mix of Wacky Racers and F-Zero / Wipeout... Fast, inventive, crazy, clear...
So yeah the Wachowskis have made an experimental crazy live anime for kids fully enjoyable for honest grown men. I really would like to know where they found how to do that...
GO SPEED GO!!!
Man this film should't work.
It just shouldn't.
So many things are wrong in it! I mean it has an annoying kid that does stupid things, along with a chimp dressed up with clothes. How WRONG is that?
It's something that could appeal to 7 years old, but no grown man could actually even admit they could even bear to lay their eyes on such a thing. I think I'm a grown man.
Maybe not fully grown.
Maybe I have bits of 7 years old boy behind my hairs...
But the fact is I just dug the hell out of Speed Racer.
So the question stands: how did they do it?
Hands down to the Wachowskis, they seem like they just can't do half measures. So when they come to make a movie adapting a camp anime series from the 80's, they just don;t try to make it more than it is and set out to make a camp movie adapted from an anime series from the 80's. Only they push it to the maximum.
And I think that makes the difference.
Because ultimately they produced something I believe has never been seen on screen. They litterally made a live cartoon. Mind you, even CGI animation pictures might look more "real" than this.
Every inch of the frame is saturated with bright colours, costumes, props, backgrounds... Things get distorted, screen splits, multiple times.
You know those parts of Ang Lee's Hulk where he took this kind of comics style, well Speed Racer takes this and pushes it ten notches. As they go the Wachowskis invent a new visual grammar. Actually it's not quite new, because it's things that japanese animation has used for years, but it's the very first time this has been applied to live action, I believe. Like that anyway.
And it's cool, every frame of this spells C-O-O-L.
It all looks great.
And it plays great as well, the cast is incredible and all play it so straight, but it never go into any sort of parody. It's not a movie that takes itself seriously, but it's also to be taken completely at 1st degree. The tone just feels right.
It's a movie with integrity. It's so honest it would just be a pity to watch it cynically...
You never feel that it's looking down on you.
And athough you get an "annoying kid" (TM) with a chimp, they're actually not annoying. They're funny! Practical humour, sure, but no fart joke. Even George couldn't escape that.
And the story even manages some clever narrative tricks, that makes it entertaining although it knows it can't really surprise you...
Action-wise, the races are obviously the central point. They take the StarWars Episode 1 pod race to the cleaners (leaving just the Darth Maul fight worth watching in there...). The term "car-fu" actually lives up to its name in a sort of crazy mix of Wacky Racers and F-Zero / Wipeout... Fast, inventive, crazy, clear...
So yeah the Wachowskis have made an experimental crazy live anime for kids fully enjoyable for honest grown men. I really would like to know where they found how to do that...
GO SPEED GO!!!
Tuesday, May 06, 2008
Paranoia Agent.
I got a huge back log of stuff I want to post about, but can't take the time to actually write... I wanted to write about this in april.
I always have something better to do before (very important stuff like messing around on Facebook (^_^; )... I mean it's not easy to write so I got to be in the right frame of mind...
Anyway. Enough of that diva thing.
It took me nearly 2 years for me to watch Paranoia Agent. 2 years.
I was scared. I knew it would be tough. Its director, Satoshi Kon made Perfect Blue among other great things and his stuff has the tendency to be quite twisted. It's good, but you have to be... In the right frame of mind!!!!
So I finally found the occasion and dived in. And surprisingly, it wasn't that hard after all. :)
The term "masterpiece" has been so overused lately that it almost has lost its meaning. Yet, seeing such work, it genuinley springs to mind, reminding you of what it truly defines...
If you've seen Perfect Blue, you'll recognise the atmosphere straightaway. This sort of strange (paranoiac!) feeling that things are not as normal as they should be...
It actually starts right at the opening credit, as you see each of the main charaters (that at first you don't know) laughing out loud in a place that could actually a "perfect" place for a suicide (at the top of a building, in a burnt house, under water...)...
It's a series that is always trying a balancing act, keeping you guessing if the story that unfolds is taking place in the "real" world or a fantasy one.
From episode to episode, it carefully presents unrelated characters that yet all have one thing in common (on top of being all a bit twisted) and all get attacked by this boy with a baseball bat... Is he real? Is he a ghost? Or would he be a collective hallucination?
Yet, as the mystery gets thicker and the boy becomes "legend" (more and more people are attacked), the series starts exploring some side roads and the actual aim becomes quite clear: it's a sort of snapshot of Japanese society (and by extension ours).
It reflects and exposes our fear and insecurities in today's environment.
And of course it's not pretty, although it doesn't give into the bleak and always treats its subject with humour.
Still it's quite frontal and very provocative. See the episode "Happy Family Planning" which actually upset me quite deeply, but in a good, very stimulating way... Again you get the balancing act... You never really know if you laugh that you're not going to cry next second or vice-versa.
Seeing such an ambitious project unfold and succeed is a marvel. It's almost like you know what it's tryng to do, yet you get tricked anyway. Incredible.
And then there's the ending. As I thought I got it before the end, it still manages to steer into another direction and give a conclusion that manages to tie everyting up (including the society snapshot) but also push the concept beyond what I expected.
It even ties in the images of the opening and ending credits, which actually hold so many information about the story (that you actually discover bit by bit as you watch the episodes, if you watch the credits each time, that is... And you should!) that it made my head spin.
And yet I left this with the satisfying feeling that I had understood. Of course the ending is open and mysterious, yet I gobally got a good idea of what it was about.
That's maybe the most amazing feat of it all: to take this story, this incredibly ambitious concept and present it so at the end, people have understood!
When you think about it, it's so easy to do something confusing... A lot of movies and series try to put some confusing elements to actually prevent you from understanding something that is actually often quite simplistic.
But to make something complex and convoluted so naturally understandable, without looking down on the audience (because nothing is said, you still have to work it out yourself) that's something that requires a craft in storytelling that is truly exceptionnal.
Technically also, it's stunning. A lot of animation styles are used, always with a view to describe a character's point of view / fantasy. There are even points where at first I thought that there were some sort of defects but actually it turned out to be intended, as it was underlying something I hadn't understood at that stage...
All that defines a masterpiece...
I always have something better to do before (very important stuff like messing around on Facebook (^_^; )... I mean it's not easy to write so I got to be in the right frame of mind...
Anyway. Enough of that diva thing.
It took me nearly 2 years for me to watch Paranoia Agent. 2 years.
I was scared. I knew it would be tough. Its director, Satoshi Kon made Perfect Blue among other great things and his stuff has the tendency to be quite twisted. It's good, but you have to be... In the right frame of mind!!!!
So I finally found the occasion and dived in. And surprisingly, it wasn't that hard after all. :)
The term "masterpiece" has been so overused lately that it almost has lost its meaning. Yet, seeing such work, it genuinley springs to mind, reminding you of what it truly defines...
If you've seen Perfect Blue, you'll recognise the atmosphere straightaway. This sort of strange (paranoiac!) feeling that things are not as normal as they should be...
It actually starts right at the opening credit, as you see each of the main charaters (that at first you don't know) laughing out loud in a place that could actually a "perfect" place for a suicide (at the top of a building, in a burnt house, under water...)...
It's a series that is always trying a balancing act, keeping you guessing if the story that unfolds is taking place in the "real" world or a fantasy one.
From episode to episode, it carefully presents unrelated characters that yet all have one thing in common (on top of being all a bit twisted) and all get attacked by this boy with a baseball bat... Is he real? Is he a ghost? Or would he be a collective hallucination?
Yet, as the mystery gets thicker and the boy becomes "legend" (more and more people are attacked), the series starts exploring some side roads and the actual aim becomes quite clear: it's a sort of snapshot of Japanese society (and by extension ours).
It reflects and exposes our fear and insecurities in today's environment.
And of course it's not pretty, although it doesn't give into the bleak and always treats its subject with humour.
Still it's quite frontal and very provocative. See the episode "Happy Family Planning" which actually upset me quite deeply, but in a good, very stimulating way... Again you get the balancing act... You never really know if you laugh that you're not going to cry next second or vice-versa.
Seeing such an ambitious project unfold and succeed is a marvel. It's almost like you know what it's tryng to do, yet you get tricked anyway. Incredible.
And then there's the ending. As I thought I got it before the end, it still manages to steer into another direction and give a conclusion that manages to tie everyting up (including the society snapshot) but also push the concept beyond what I expected.
It even ties in the images of the opening and ending credits, which actually hold so many information about the story (that you actually discover bit by bit as you watch the episodes, if you watch the credits each time, that is... And you should!) that it made my head spin.
And yet I left this with the satisfying feeling that I had understood. Of course the ending is open and mysterious, yet I gobally got a good idea of what it was about.
That's maybe the most amazing feat of it all: to take this story, this incredibly ambitious concept and present it so at the end, people have understood!
When you think about it, it's so easy to do something confusing... A lot of movies and series try to put some confusing elements to actually prevent you from understanding something that is actually often quite simplistic.
But to make something complex and convoluted so naturally understandable, without looking down on the audience (because nothing is said, you still have to work it out yourself) that's something that requires a craft in storytelling that is truly exceptionnal.
Technically also, it's stunning. A lot of animation styles are used, always with a view to describe a character's point of view / fantasy. There are even points where at first I thought that there were some sort of defects but actually it turned out to be intended, as it was underlying something I hadn't understood at that stage...
All that defines a masterpiece...
Monday, May 05, 2008
Ironman
1st comic book movie of the year!
All critics I had read before going were pretty much agreeing on the fact that this one was "good but not great". I have to disagree. I couldn't see how it could actually better and I have to say I'm the first surprised by that.
I think it's how all comic book adaptations should be: cool & fun, but not completely shallow.
It manages to be light-hearted with very welcome touches of more serious stuff (Tony Stark is at 1st a merchant of death). It's not Lord Of War but it touches similar themes, while still keeping on the fun side. Let's not forget it's a comics adaptation.
Humour is good, well placed and well dosed, while the plot, although fairly unsurprising, is still well written and well paced.
The main highlight here is the cast.
Robert Downey Jr is a perfect match for Tony Stark, managing to naturally carry the different sides of the character: a thrill seeking playboy at heart, making him quite different from other Marvel super-heroes.
Also, although hasn't any super power of his own (just being a man in a suit), he still got a curse as what powers his suit also keeps him alive. In a way, he shares his heart with his armor, which is pretty cool and gives a lot of weight to his fights: if he pushes too hard, he dies... Obviously, that's the case for anyone, but I guess you got the idea: every super hero having a weakness, there lies his and it's a cool one...
The special effects are also excellent, they really nailed the armor and its possibilities. The action is on par and boasts some very cool ideas.
To conclude, I was fairly uninterested at start by the character of Ironman, but this movie, thanks to an excellent cast and outstanding design, made me care and I'll surely watch out for the inevitable (and highly desirable) sequel. I was expecting above average entertainment, it turned out to be of the best adaptations of a Marvel character, up there with Spiderman... For me that's not a small thing to say.
1 more thing, on the small detail things: you obviously get the usual cameo of Stan Lee, Jon Favreau, the director takes a small part of a body guard but I though I recognised Tom Morello as a afghan guard. I would have no idea what the lead guitarist of Rage Against The Machine (and a guitarist idol of mine) was doing there... I need to confirm that...
Edit: IMDb confirmed Tom Morello is in there, I'm quite proud of myself to have spotted him!! :)
All critics I had read before going were pretty much agreeing on the fact that this one was "good but not great". I have to disagree. I couldn't see how it could actually better and I have to say I'm the first surprised by that.
I think it's how all comic book adaptations should be: cool & fun, but not completely shallow.
It manages to be light-hearted with very welcome touches of more serious stuff (Tony Stark is at 1st a merchant of death). It's not Lord Of War but it touches similar themes, while still keeping on the fun side. Let's not forget it's a comics adaptation.
Humour is good, well placed and well dosed, while the plot, although fairly unsurprising, is still well written and well paced.
The main highlight here is the cast.
Robert Downey Jr is a perfect match for Tony Stark, managing to naturally carry the different sides of the character: a thrill seeking playboy at heart, making him quite different from other Marvel super-heroes.
Also, although hasn't any super power of his own (just being a man in a suit), he still got a curse as what powers his suit also keeps him alive. In a way, he shares his heart with his armor, which is pretty cool and gives a lot of weight to his fights: if he pushes too hard, he dies... Obviously, that's the case for anyone, but I guess you got the idea: every super hero having a weakness, there lies his and it's a cool one...
The special effects are also excellent, they really nailed the armor and its possibilities. The action is on par and boasts some very cool ideas.
To conclude, I was fairly uninterested at start by the character of Ironman, but this movie, thanks to an excellent cast and outstanding design, made me care and I'll surely watch out for the inevitable (and highly desirable) sequel. I was expecting above average entertainment, it turned out to be of the best adaptations of a Marvel character, up there with Spiderman... For me that's not a small thing to say.
1 more thing, on the small detail things: you obviously get the usual cameo of Stan Lee, Jon Favreau, the director takes a small part of a body guard but I though I recognised Tom Morello as a afghan guard. I would have no idea what the lead guitarist of Rage Against The Machine (and a guitarist idol of mine) was doing there... I need to confirm that...
Edit: IMDb confirmed Tom Morello is in there, I'm quite proud of myself to have spotted him!! :)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)