Movies and Museums

These two things have taken up a rather large chunk of the time I've spent in the DC metropolitan area. I don't regret that at all. Good thing, too, since that's what I did yesterday. I saw Hellboy 2: The Golden Army. I would tweak the title to read The Golden Duet instead. The duet designation can refer to my two favorite scenes in the movie, which ran back-to-back, or to the actual duet that occurs in movie. You can't go wrong either way. Both were reminders of why I like going to see movies in the theater, because they were just so much fun and so well done. For me, going to the movies is supposed to be an entertaining experience. I don't mind the serious stuff now and then, but I'd rather enjoy myself. The torture porn and scary stuff isn't really for me. I have an overactive imagination as it is, so I don't need any help dreaming up horrible things that could happen to me.

As for the film itself, it's directed by that nice Spanish gentleman who also did Pan's Labyrinth, which got such good reviews. He brought that same visual creativity to Hellboy, and it looks wonderful. The action was okay, nothing that thrilled me. I would like to have seen more of Jeffrey Tambor's character, but I guess I understand why they didn't use him that much.

Two other things that bothered me: 1) Selma Blair is a real downer. She never smiles or looks happy. Maybe she was depressed by bad acting. 2) I never felt any real threat from the bad guy. In movies and in pro wrestling, they say the hero is only as heroic as the villain in villainous (only they probably use simpler words like "good" and "bad"). This bad guy didn't seem all that remarkable. Good fighter, but that's about it. There's no real sense that this guy actually can win, even though we know he's the bad guy and will lose in the end.

This is sort of the opposite of the problem I had with the recent Superman movie, if you will allow me the hubris of quoting myself:

"The only major critique I have would be that I didn't really feel a lot of suspense or danger. He's Superman, for crying out loud. He's going to save the day, and come out pretty much unharmed in the end. Not anybody's fault, but it's just the nature of the adventures of Superman, I guess."

It's hard to feel suspense with Superman vs Luthor because he's Superman. It was hard to feel suspense with Hellboy 2 because Prince Nuada is not like a Doomsday or Darkseid or any of the other titanic bad guys that have challenged Superman.

One more note: I found the Elvish language interesting. It's not the soft, gentle, flowing stuff you get in Lord of the Rings. It's a bit harsher, more earthy. I don't know what they based it on, but it sounded a little Teutonic to me, a reminder that elves originated in Germanic mythology.

--------------------

Some years ago I started to think that everything in life could be related back to one of two things: The Simpsons or Hitler (who said anything about Hitler?). So it was no surprise when I was playing this scene over in my head yesterday:

Professor Frink takes over the kindergarten class, drawing equations and
free-body diagrams on the blackboard to explain the workings of one of
those things that kids push which makes the balls pop.

Frink: N'hey hey! Ahem, n'hey, so the compression and expansion of the
longitudinal waves cause the erratic oscillation -- you can see
it there -- of the neighboring particles.
[a girl raises her hand]
[sighs] Yes, what is it? What? What is it?
Girl: Can I play with it?
Frink: No, you can't play with it; you won't enjoy it on as many levels
as I do.
[he chuckles as he plays with it] The colors, children!

After the movie I wandered over to the Ripley Museum to see the exhibit of Jim Henson's creations, the Muppets first and foremost. It was nice. Not mind-blowing, but nice. They have an 18-minute film showing highlights of Henson's career. At one point a little girl was sitting to my right. As scenes from the old Muppet Show (one of the five greatest TV shows of all time) and Sesame Street and The Dark Crystal rolled by, I wanted to tell her, "You have no right to be watching this. You don't appreciate it on as many levels as I do." I somehow managed to restrain myself.

Media Studies

I'm not the only person who has felt a little disturbed watching this Travelers Insurance commercial. A girl at Sign of the Whale said something to me when it came on during the NCAA Tournament. The part that gets me is the strange man walking up to children who are out all alone, offers them a ride, and they just hop on with him. Didn't their parents ever tell them not to speak to strangers? I don't mean to sound like I'm sounding disaster alarms, because it is just a commercial, but the thing that always comes to mind when I see it is, "That's really not a good idea, children. Tell him to get lost."

----------

The Washington Post has the first in a series of articles about the disappearance of Chandra Levy and the ensuing investigation. I quote:

"The serial will show how the sensational nature of the media coverage quickly overwhelmed the investigation."

I wonder how the Post will evaluate its own coverage of the case. I seem to remember an article or two showing up in its pages along the way. Who gets labeled "sensational"? I do remember walking the halls of the Rayburn Building that summer and seeing a line of TV cameras outside Gary Condit's office, so the label probably applies to someone out there.

I can confirm that the scandal led to some interesting Letters to Leaders on Congress.org. One asked Condit if he pooped in his pants when he heard a verdict ("Was it large?") and another told him how popular a cute guy like him would be in the big house.

The last serial I paid attention to in the Post was its extremely long and detailed rundown of the DC lobbying industry and the role my former company, Cassidy & Associates, played in the business. I thought they did a pretty good job.

----------

I'm not sure if the current state of the Chicago Cubs qualifies as a media event, but it probably will later this year if the Cubs remain in playoff contention the rest of the season. As you may have heard, the Cubs have not won the World Series since 1908, leading us to the magical 100-year mark. (I once saw a t-shirt that read 1907-08 Back to Back World Champions. I love that stuff). There will be talk of drama and futility and curses and all that on every sports-related (and some non-) that you can think of. So that gives me an excuse to talk about this:

There are those who point to history--ancient and recent--as a reason why the Cubs are of no concern when it comes to the playoffs. They'll choke in big games, lose games they should win, fold when the pressure's on, etc. Whereas some other team--oh, I don't know, let's pick one at random--the St. Louis Cardinals, know how to win and are therefore much better in close games and big games than the Cubs. There's actually an argument to be made for that, seeing as how the Cards are 3 games over .500 in 1-run games, while the Cubs are just one game over.

However, there is zero argument at the moment that can support the Cards actually being a better team than the Cubs. The Cubs have more run, hits, walks, stolen bases and home runs, and a higher batting average, on-base percentage, and slugging percentage. Their ERA/runs allowed, hits, and home runs allowed are all lower. The Cubs' run differential is almost five times greater, and a few days ago was exactly six times greater. Don't forget the 5.5 game lead.

There's my small contribution to the best rivalry in the Midwest.

The Great Captured Wonder

Over the weekend I wandered into DC with the intention of seeing a movie at Gallery Place, probably Wall-E. But jeezum crickets, the lines were long, and it's not something I want to see that bad. Long lines means crowds, crowds mean crowded theaters, and crowded theaters get on my nerves. And people younger than me, to make it even worse. Bah.

So I kept wandering on over to E Street Cinema, stuck my head in, and was pleasantly surprised to see Mongol starting in about 20 minutes. I've always found Genghis Khan and the rise of the Mongol Empire to be a very interesting subject, so I was pleased yet anxious when I heard they were making a movie about his life. I hadn't really paid attention to release dates, so it was a bit of good fortune that I stumbled on it when I did.

Let's get the standard stuff out of the way first: This is a really good movie, very well made, which tells a very specific story in a very specific way. I think the acting is good, though I sometimes have trouble determining such a thing in foreign-language films. I don't know what the dialogue is supposed to sound like, so it throws me a little bit. The scenery is great, the girl playing Borte is pretty (at least I thought so, an acquaintance disagreed), and all aspects of the movie come together well.

On to particular thoughts on the story:

When I think about Genghis and his eventual empire, I think BIG. At its height the empire covered over fifteen and a half million square miles. The phrase "Mongol Horde" brings to mind visions of vast numbers of men on horseback thundering across the steppes. So I was a little caught off guard at how little of that there is in the movie, mainly because the story focuses on Genghis as a man and his individual relationships with a select group of people: his father, his wife, and his blood brother Jamukha. For the most part, it's very small in scope for a man who would cast such a large shadow later on in his life.

Another thing that keeps the vast armies off the screen: Genghis is always getting captured by his enemies and put in chains. The guy is good at getting away, but largely stinks at staying free. That may be some of the "liberties" that the director took with the script to fill in some holes, but I have done some reading that mentioned at least to imprisonments of Genghis before he became the Great Khan.

My acquaintance said that this was just the first in a trilogy about Genghis, but I haven't seen that mentioned anywhere else. I hope it turns out to be true, and wonder if it will follow just Genghis himself or extend beyond into the later conquests of the horde. I'd sort of like to see the battle tactics that Mongol generals used to conquer China, conquer Central Asia, and kill tens of thousands of Western knights in a single battle.