Announcement for the Next Two Weeks

Dear Internet,

                For the next two weeks I will not be able to get near a computer or a connection to you.  What is occurring was planned for some time and could not be averted.  I regret being unable to fulfill my requirements that I had outlined in the rules of this experiment.  However since this was something that could not be helped rather than an act of laziness or reluctantly skirting my word of duty, I do not feel guilt about this course.  

                In an effort to continue with the Backlog and attempt to make up for the time that I will be unable to access a vast majority of it, I have foreseen a countermeasure.  I have specifically set aside a Backlog card for "The Complete Father Brown," by G. K. Chesterton, for this circumstance.  For the next two weeks, I will be reading it as much as I can in my free time and taking notes in an effort to report back to you.  While I do not know how much time per day that I will be able to allot to reading the work or if I can even finish it in such time, I will do my best to complete it.  If it is the case that I cannot finish it, I will make a post regarding what I have finished and flow the remainder of the book in following posts.

                I will write back to you in such time.  Take care, Internet.  Do not go anywhere that I cannot follow.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

Entry 042: "Akihabara@Deep" (2006)

From left to right: Izumu, Taico, Box, Akiba, and Page.

Dear Internet,

                Do you like Japan, Internet?  I am sure there is plenty of content coming from there to keep you busy cataloging it.  But what about the user base?  Can they access a way to obtain the data that they are looking for?  Beyond directory and index style search engines, is there not a better way for the end user to go through the oceans of information?  When watching "Akihabara@Deep," you could say the story is of five individuals who attempt to create a new solution for just that.  But if you were to attempt that you would be pretty wrong and be ignoring the message that the movie tries to tell.

                "Akihabara@Deep" is much more than the premise lets on.  There are five individuals, each who receive adequate character explanation through the course of the film.  There is Page, the stutterer, Taico, the fainting prone one, Box, the germaphobe, Akiba, the only female of the group and boxer, and Izumu, the prodigy on sabbatical from MIT.  The five get together because of a sixth individual, Yui, brought them to one another, which occurs before the story begins, and she is dead as soon as she is introduced.  The five decide to create a website and develop an artificial intelligence program that can help people in the same way that Yui did.  Soon, they catch the attention of Nakagomi Takeshi, eccentric billionaire and CEO of Digital Capital, who creates a deal with the group to advertise Akiba as a model.  What happens afterwards is a downward spiral into corporate greed and exploitation that ignores the lightheartedness from the earlier half of the film.

                There are a number of things that the film has going for itself.  There are numerous pop culture references spread throughout the film.  From Gamera to Gigantor, numerous statues and images dot the settings around the film.  They serve enough of a purpose, especially with being able to identify the nature of Takeshi as similar to the protagonists, at least as far as tastes in entertainment.  Beyond that, they function as a nice sort of Easter egg hunt, trying to name all the various references.  The film has a nice amount of humor to keep things light and knows how to deliver the jokes without coming across as trying too hard.  Half of the main cast gets some sort of backstory that elaborates why they are the way they are.  

                On the other hand, "Akihabara@Deep" has numerous rough edges that require cleanup, especially since it has ample length to do so.  The first is the same backstory that I just mention.  Three of the five protagonists receive enough elaboration for them to be understood, but the other two receive next to nothing.  The other two come across as tag-a-long members because of this, despite the fact that they are central to the main plot.  Then there is Yui.  Shi is introduced in the very beginning and is promptly told to be dead.  While her funeral does serve as a reason for the group to come together, it gets glossed over very quickly.  Her death only serves a reason for the group to model the AI program after her.  Beyond that, Yui is almost completely forgotten and is very rarely brought back up.  The film is also too long.  A quarter of it could be cut off or compressed and made it more manageable.  When it does move, it moves slowly and sometimes awkwardly.

                The best aspect of the film is the fact that it becomes more than just about the AI program, especially considering that the audience never really sees it in action.  Instead, the stress of the film analyzes the ".com" monopoly that occurs when large companies buy out there competition or force them to fold.  There is the emphasis on the worker that gets caught up in the buyout and what happens to them when the project is over.  There is the concept of an employment caste system which occurs in such takeovers.  There is the two-faced nature of rich individuals who are able to play multiple roles to suit the situation.  There are a bunch of these little focuses that the film wants to highlight.  In most regards, it does a good job with attracting detail to these themes.  However in many cases, the group of five seems to be stepping into a much bigger picture than they realize.  They feel out of place for most of the film and only have a few scenes that directly deal with them and the bigger scheme directly.  When the circle does clash with the world, it is done wonderfully.   Page gets two scenes, particularly, where he must stand up and deliver a monolog despite his stuttering and becomes defining scenes of the film.

                "Akihabara@Deeep" is a good movie that has a few hiccups along the way that holds it back.  Despite being knee deep in Japanese pop culture, it never requires the audience to know the reference to understand the plot.  It is just there for aesthetics.  The biggest problem of the film can be summed up with it trying to do too much.  Most likely the film was trying to cover all the bases that the source material was covering, but even with the content cuts, which are obvious, the film is still reaching its fingers into too many pots.  The film can be enjoyed as a criticism of corporations and even on a social level, but it has trouble wrapping itself up as a complete package.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

P.S. There will be nothing for tomorrow.  I will detail why in my next post.

Entry 041: "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" (1953)

Calling the film "Rhedosaurus" would have been a bit less marketable.

Dear Internet,

                I would like to think that by now you have realized that I enjoy giant monster movies.  In the very least, I have a lot of them on my backlog.  I have gone through King Kong to Godzilla and his foster son.  With "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms," I am beginning to unravel the backbone of giant monster movies and why they are either enlightening works of fiction or action packed drivel.  Placing them into two categories might be a bit much, especially considering that giant monsters can have a foot in each camp and still stand well enough.  There is also the need for the occasional drivel, for if there was not, nursery rhymes would be shot down as the ranting of bad parenting.  Or am I too late for that?  No matter, today is reserved for a giant lizard bent on New York's destruction, not the child endangerment issues with "Rock-a-bye Baby."

                "Beast" starts out with a nuclear test in the Arctic blowing up tons of ice and splitting glaciers. Two researchers go out to examine the fallout data.  One trips and falls, breaking his leg.  When the other finds him, a giant lizard knocks loose a mountain of ice that buries the injured researcher.  The survivor, Nesbitt, is rushed to a hospital in the States and recuperates.  He tells his story of a massive creature but no one believes him until a few ships are destroyed with similar tales.  The giant lizard, Rhedosaurus, makes its way slowly to New York City, all the while destroying as it goes.  Dr. Elson, a paleontologist decides to use a diving bell to examine the fossil remains of similar creatures but is killed by the monster.  Eventually, the creature makes landfall on Manhattan.  More destruction occurs until the military shows up.  Nesbitt devises a way to exterminate the creature by means of a radioactive isotope.  The beast is killed, and everyone rejoices.  The end.

                I do not want to make it seem like the plot is barebones, but if I were to include the terribly unneeded romantic subplot or the filler for how Nesbitt is able to convince other that the monster is real, I would spend too much on unneeded fluff.  The romance occurs between Nesbitt and Elson's assistant, Lee Hunter.  Their relationship is originally founded by looking deep into each other's eyes, the signal to the audience that these two are meant for each other.  Her presence in the second half of the film is nearly non-existent, only participating in one scene to bring closure to Elson's death and to kiss the hero in another.  On a positive note, it is she that first believes Nesbitt, at least enough to further question him.  The whole thing feels forced, out of place and pushed onto the audience.  The scene where Lee goes to Nesbitt's office sticks in my mind.  The secretary makes sure that when telling Nesbitt that there is a woman to see him to mention that "She's very pretty."  Does the audience not realize this or do we need to be reminded?  Not to mention that the secretary almost forgot that Lee was waiting outside the office.  Maybe that is partly because of how dry the acting is in this film.  

                The acting ranges from laughter that feels so canned that it should be labeled SPAM to actually believable.  The worst offender can easily be the terrible jokes that the scientists make at the beginning of the film regarding Geiger counters and radiation.  It all feels so 1950's public service announcement, especially with a narrator spouting facts like a documentary.  The only one that I felt has any sort of presence on the screen was Jack Pennick as Jacob Bowman, the seaman who gives testimony of the Rhedosaurus.  When we find him, he is bandaged in a hospital.  His panic and pained expression of being thought of as a madman is the only genuine acting in this film.  It really does not help that everyone is playing a stock character at this point.  No one is a full character really; they are just shallow roles.  There is the hero scientist, the female, the military men, the scientist that only believes in proof which leads to his death, and the screaming hordes of people.  They are more singular tropes than well rounded people.

                The monster is well made, and every time it appears on the screen there is actual terror.  People die on the same shot as the monster and buildings topple like sandcastles.  I do not think I need to say anything other than that Ray Harryhausen was in charge of the creature.  For those who do not recognize the name, go look him up and watch some of his movies.  I do not have time to go though all his movies even in brief.  Just remember that his work is well enough made that some CGI still had to play catch up with him until a few years ago.

One of only about 5 scenes worth watching.

                The biggest problem of "Beast" is that it has nothing to say.  The beast is released from atomic testing, not made from it.  Never again does the notion of nuclear tests, power, use, etc. come up again.  Is the film trying to say that we should leave the Arctic alone because it has untold secrets that bombing would destroy?  No, because there is no condemning of the tactic used or the use of the place.  The way that the hero destroys the monster is by using similar radioactive material.  So, nuclear is supposed to be our destroyer and redeemer?  It might be if it did not feel so shoehorned in.  The only reason that they were forced to use the isotope is because the lizard started to spew germs only after it was bleeding.  If the beast was truly a germ bomb waiting to happen, why did it not release some of those bugs when it was breathing, salivating or excreting beforehand?  The movie spends no time in reflecting on what the monster is more than the scientific explanation.  Instead it spends more time on the believability of the first witness and how the truth does not change despite the availability of witness to it.  The monster fills a role of being a terror but falls short of being a metaphor. 

                "The Beast from 20,000 Fathoms" is average.  The only times it was entertaining or thought provoking was when the monster shows up, and even then it is juxtaposed by unmoving acting.  When the police show up to shoot it, they behave like they are taking marksman shots at a shooting range, not being confronted with a four story, multi-ton lizard.  In some way it is the forerunner of Godzilla and other Kaiju films, and for this reason it should be watched.  But that is about as far as it goes.  I spent more time trying not to fall asleep in the middle of the film because it slows down to the point where even a real fight between a shark and octopus was needed to pick it back up.  "Beast" can be watched mainly for the scenes with the Rhedosaurus, but do not watch it for anything else in the film.  You will be disappointed.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

Tomorrow is "Akihabara@Deep."

Entry 040: "Funny Girl (1968)

Dear Internet,

                I am sure you have been wondering something to yourself for some time now.  You probably have been wondering, "When is BeepBoop going to review a musical that features Barbra Streisand?"  You have, have you not?  No?  You mean to say that based upon the type of media that I have been reviewing that it would be more likely for me to watch a television series that features samurai American football players in outer space than a dramatic musical centered on the danger of the glitz and glamour of the theater lifestyle?  Intriguing show pitches aside, Internet, I feel that you do not know me by now.  I am a multi faceted individual who branches into many types of media and genres, except maybe Real Time Strategy games.  I cannot manage an army to save my peasants. 

                "Funny Girl" is the tale of Fanny Brice, a young Jewish woman who dreams of getting into show business any way she can, even if she has not the talent for whatever they are exactly looking for.  She is headstrong and stubborn, but mostly funny.  She is not a barrel of laughs kind of funny but more "one of a kind" funny.  Eventually, Fanny makes it to the big time on Broadway and along the way meets Nick Arnstein, a suave gambler.  They hit it off, get married, get a kid, get a mansion, lose the mansion, get an apartment, lose each other, and lose their marriage.  No big surprise when the beginning of the movie showcases a very different Fanny, one who has leagues more reserve in her personality than the one the audience follows through the long flashback.  The movie, by featuring the more subdued Fanny from the beginning hinted that something occurred to make her such.  When Nick shows up, it is the obvious guess.

                What occurs for the length of the film is a great tragic love story that does well to bring a tear to any number of people's eyes.  Fanny halls helplessly in love and cannot see Nick for what he truly is.  It is a story told time and time again.  It is a cautionary tale, but all tragedy stories are cautionary tales.  So, what makes "Funny Girl" worth watching?  There is the cast ensemble for one thing.  Barbra Streisand is in her film debut alongside Omar Sharif, who is always debonair.  There are the great musical numbers that you might be humming after the movie ends.  The glitz and glamor are there for visuals.  But all of this only adds up to the film being an entertaining piece.  Any movie can be entertaining, but only a few have something worth saying.

                "Funny Girl" is a loss of innocence on the level that Fanny is wooed and falls head over heels for Nick and that she learns about the different aspects of the entertainment business that are less than majestic.  In each of these two, she stands firm either because of her personality or despite it.  With the case of Nick, Fanny constantly is the timid little girl.  She believes he can do no wrong.  She feels inferior to him for a majority of the film.  She always is saying that she is not beautiful.  In short she has an inferiority complex.  Perhaps, this is what allowed her to fall in love with Nick.  He gave her attention when others had not, and added some excitement to her life, but that all comes across as very shallow if I put it like that.  If it was anyone else that had paid her attention, would she have fallen in love with them?  Maybe, but Nick is more than just the random ma on the street.  He was the embodiment of high living for her when she just starting on the stage.  With his fluffy shirts, high etiquette mannerisms, and fancy talk, Nick was what Fanny wanted for herself but at the same time too timid to admit to it.  Eventually, there is a moment in the film where she chooses him over the job she had been working and goes to meet him unexpectedly.  She gets over that timidity but at the cost of placing her desires of the stage, also with her desire to be married, onto Nick.  Nick accepts these feelings and the two get married, just not for the right reasons.

                The other aspect that seems to clash with her personality is her ego with regards to the stage.  When she auditions for a job at the beginning of the film, Fanny cannot stop talking about how much talent she has.  There is even a song dedicated just to her telling about how many different talents and abilities she has.  It is filled with pride and ego but comes across as haughty and comical because of her rather silly personality.  Despite that, it presents her as being headstrong and having a great deal of self respect.  However, when she finally gets to Hollywood, she is unwilling to sing a line that goes "I am the beautiful reflection of my love's affection" because it would be too embarrassing to say.  This small bit shows that not only is she proud enough, or foolish enough, to question the decision of the director in such a forward manner but that she never feels beautiful enough to be willing to admit it.  Even if she does not have enough self confidence to feel beautiful, she would obviously be willing to sing the line for the sake of reaching that star status that she had been aiming for.  The scene comes across as contradicting her nature, but that might just be what complicates her character and makes her more realistic.

                "Funny Girl" is a good movie but a bad romance.  It is a good drama but a bad way to view love.  There is also the fact that when Fanny and Nick have a child, the child nearly drops off the face of the Earth.  The daughter makes two to three scene appearances and barely takes any hold of the narrative.  The child has next to no plot point other than being an excuse to recall an earlier scene and give a reason to re-sing a song.  Other than that, the film delivers an enjoyable experience.

Yours in digital,

BeepBoop

P.S. Next will be "Beast From 20,000 Fathoms"