Gun powder meets lasers

I quite like a good po-mo mash up of genres. Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz for example. Gotta love a Rom-Zom-Com or a Slasher-Cop flick.

And the combination of Western & Sci-Fi has worked before - Joss Whedon's uber-brilliant-and-tragically-short-lived Firefly is a perfect case for this.

But I can't say I've ever been the hugest fan of the Western genre. Deadwood was entertaining, but I only saw a couple of episodes with Irish, and I haven't touched on it since. It seems incredibly blokey to me - battling the frontier, men against the elements, men against each other. There is also an inherent racism in Westerns. Them damn Injuns! The Native Americans and Mexicans are so far removed from mainstream, their otherness screams loud and clear in their sullen facial expressions and lack of brimmed hats. And as for women? Whores and virgins abound, except for a few hard-as-nails she-males, leathered and weathered from that same battle against the land. There also seems to be this overarching obsession with the father-son relationship... Doing daddy proud or some such macho nonsense.

The third installment of Back to the Future was always my least favourite.

I guess that formula has always just... bored me. It is the kind of films my grandfather watched. Long silences that I suppose are meant to build tension. Grubby faces and squinty eyes - oh won't someone give that man a pair of shades?

But still, with Jon Favreau at the helm, the icon of Harrison Ford, the hotness of Daniel "Mr Pout" Craig and Olivia "Turquoise Eyes" Wilde, how could I resist a little bit of excitement about Cowboys & Aliens?

What have I said about expectation management?

Like all westerns, this one starts off slow. We have stage coach robberies, and shoot outs on dusty streets. An amnesiac protagonist always helps in the exposition of information, because they can hide behind the idea that the character learns as we do. And Daniel Craig makes amnesia look pretty darn attractive. Plus there is the added mystery of that weird angular manacle...?

Hey Harrison! How cool is my Indiano Jones outfit?!

Anyway, it starts off slow. And there are a few brief moments of action, mostly when the aliens attack, and steal away the townsfolk. Lasers, and retracting chains, and exploding buildings. And flight craft that resemble beetles. But that's about it for pace. Key feature of the Western: move SLOW.

So the Wild West has been taken over by the hungry-for-gold space crabs. Closely resembling the "Prawns" from District 9, the invading forces take that idea of Vagina Dentata to a whole other level. In fact, the phallic and vaginal imagery goes a little bit bonkers in this genre mash up. And it's possible I am viewing in through my own post-feminist lenses, but it all just got a bit too much for me. The huge phallic spaceship. The guns, and pulsing hot rod weapons. The protruding digits from mucusy, triangular fleshy caverns.... This is not just me, is it?

I think the point they were trying to get at is that money ruins us all. Corruption and power and violence and green are all inextricably linked. When you get the money, you lose perspective of the important things. Like the love of your wife, the respect of your community, the motivation to be a good man (because really, it's all about the men in the Wild West!) and the decency to other living things. Aliens want gold, and they're happy to destroy everyone in their path to get it. Which is not a huge stretch from Daniel Craig's Jake (before he went all forgetty) and Harrison Ford's Dolarhyde (pron: Dollar Hide. Man who runs cattle for a living... Really?) before their purposes were united by a common alien enemy. So yeah, I get the point of the film. I see the moral, through all the glowing blue lasers exploding green blood.

Doesn't mean I have to like it though.

Cowboys & Aliens didn't really arrest me. I don't think there is quite enough sci-fi in it for the geekiest of us, but if you're into the dusty westerns, it may work for you

Teacher Geek

This arvo I have been totally Teacher Geeking out. Trawling twitter for teachers to follow. Discovering blogs. Finding resources. Signing up to edmodo.com.

And rediscovering Wordle!!

Here is my current Wordle for The Mixed Metaphor!! I wonder what it will look like in a year's time? A month? A week?

The Strangest of Choices

Who'd be an English teacher?

When Trial time comes around, Year 12 kiddies freak out a little (if they give a crap) about a simulation of the HSC experience.
And some teachers bauk at the amount of work that involves for us. Set the exam, copy the exam, check the exam, supervise, collect... and MARK.

There is a certain amount of envy I have for elective teachers. Art has 10 students. Geography has 5. Granted, those teachers need to mark all sections of that one paper.

I still have fifteen essays to go.
 In 2 weeks I have marked 95 essays.
A total of 110.
There is only so many times you can write You have some interesting observations of the text here, but you need to work on your essay structure. Greater focus is required on techniques and how meaning is created. Always ensure you include a direct quote from the text to support your ideas.

HSC students, let that piece of information be a guide to all essays you write for English. I may well just get it tatooed on my arm. Nah, probably not, it is permanently etched on my brain as it is.

Sell Sell Sell!!!!

Sometimes, as Mother to 110, you spend vast chunks of the day talking to teachers, counsellors, executive staff and SAS about students. Some days it is one specific student. How you can get him to break a pattern of behaviour, how you can get him to build some positive feedback and positive experiences in his life. Some days there are so many emotional coins invested in someone that when that individual (and sometimes you need to be reminded that he is just a child) tries very hard to push you away, to openly and publically disrespect you, to demonstrate that he is "doing alright" on his own... It smites a fair bit.

Last night felt a little bit like an Emotional GFC. My wise and very experienced mother told me when I started teaching that she has seen a pattern of female teachers taking the experiences of teaching far more personally than the male members of staff.

And I KNOW it is not personal. I KNOW it is written into the job description that a 14 year old boy must be emotionally stunted, must challenge authority and push boundaries. But in a vulnerable moment, I was exposed.

This morning it feels quite difficult to get back into the middle of that educational and emotional stock exchange. If I could just store all my emotional banknotes under my mattress, and take only apathy into the work place, there are times when I would.

Greening out

I don't usually get political on this site.

I did once, and it turned out to be my most popular post ever. Which is getting WAY more hits now than it ever did. Not that it is the meaty, political contents of my Q&A loving brain. If you didn't read it, I am basically comparing Tony Abbot (Or Mr Rabbit as careless/amused journos are liable to call him) to Bert of Bert & Ernie fame. Yeah, not the biteyest of satire, or the most profound of observations.

And the reasons I don't rant politics much is because of my job. Being an English teacher, we are often painted as radical lefties trying to brainwash the younger generations into joining our unions, saving our planet, and closing the gap between Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal people in this country. I know. We're outrageous. Just ask Miranda Devine. (Her going back to the Daily Tele has totally reduced my paper-reading anger levels...)

But I have to be very careful NOT to try to saturate my students with the contents of my own brain. I need to teach them HOW to think, not WHAT to think.

But.

(There is always a But.)

Today I went to a "rally" that was "organised" by Get-Up, the lefty-left-left-left advocacy group who want things like basic human rights, equal rights for genders and sexual preferences, a sustainable future for our country and planet, and other unreasonable demands. This "rally" was a Say Yes To Carbon Pricing, an attempt to show support for the "tax" and generally try to indicate that here in West Bubblefuck, we are not actually a bunch of red-neck bible bashers who want to mine and pollute to our hearts content.

Except it seems we are.

I reckon there were only about 60 people there. Granted, I am pretty rubbish at estimating numbers, so there might have been anywhere from 50-100, but to my dodgy eye, it looked a bit like 2 classes worth of greying hippies. But it was a pretty insignificant number, in this city of about 50,000 that we live in. Hence the sarcasmo "inverted commas" when I mention the term "rally."

Here in West Bubblefuck, our local member is Tony Windsor, one of the most powerful men in the country, holding the balance of power in his brown, leathery farmer hands. He was a National Party Member, until they screwed him and his seat over a few too many times, and he went Independent.

And while he is not a hard core, global warming advocate, he holds the belief that most people do. If the actions of humans are in any way impacting the climate of our globe, then we should change our behaviour. And if there is a chance that our actions are NOT affecting the climate, then what have we got to lose by NOT pumping pollution into the air/water/ground?

This is what irks me about climate change Deniers. (Which does include some of my nearest and dearest. And most of my students.) Approximately 97% of SCIENTISTS believe that humans are changing the climate of the earth. But Deniers have read something that someone said about people not having any impact on the climate of this planet, and because it was more safe and comfortable and status quo, they chose to believe THAT person.

Not the economists. Not the experts. Not the resounding majority of the scientific community. But the person with the vested interest in mining/coal burning/deforestation.

So when 3 of these 60 people started ARGUING with the speakers at this "rally" I realised that not all of these 60 people were believers, some of them were shit stirrers who wanted to pick a fight. Yes, shouty man next to me, it is a PROVEN SCIENTIFIC FACT that Australia is the BIGGEST polluter per capita. Lots of space/mines/machines/cars? Not many people? BINGO!! Yes, China DOES pollute more than us. But here is the thing about the phrase "per capita" - it means per head of population? And yes, we make more than them in that particular ratio...

And I also know that the term "carbon" is all wrong, especially when discussing emissions and taxes etc. What with us being carbon based life forms. And carbon being a kind of essential thing for us all to get by. But they had to pick an element to fixate on, and some of the others already have too many connotations. And the fact is that listing all the pollutants on the name of the tax is just not feasible.

The Daily Tele/my students/my BF/my aunt/my mother's aunts/talk back radio hosts and listeners may all believe that Ms Gillard is charging us "another big tax" but I hope nobody crumbles. I hope Mr Windsor realises that there are more than 60 people in his electorate who believe in him. Put the price on. Pay the $10 a week. Get the rebates back. Let the government put some more money into research of power sources that don't involve pumping toxins into everything.

How about we stop treating the planet like we, in this generation, in this century, in this species, in this country, in this economic climate.... like we are not the be all and end all of this planet.

Galactic Green Peacekeepers

My love affair with Hollywood's love affair with comic book movie adaptations continues. They keep pumping them out, and I am that audience member that keeps flocking to see them. (Can a single person flock?)

I do try to avoid seeing and hearing reviews BEFORE the film comes out (which makes watching David & Margaret a little tricky!) but I managed to catch some of  the reviews for The Green Lantern by osmosis. SMH Film blogger gileshardie said on twitter:

"THE GREEN LANTERN. Ummm. Yeah. If you like films. Or if you like yourself. Just don't see it. More flaw than film."

Both Margaret AND David saw flaws in the film, but gave it 3.5 and 3 respectively.

And I could see where they are coming from.

The vast tracts of backstory voice over in the start of the film, if they happened to be the opening paragraph on a Year 10 Short Story assignment (because that might give you an insight into where my life is this week!) I would have scrawled in the-not-as-demoralising-as-red blue marking pen something along the lines of "Start with ACTION. SHOW, don't TELL" - so NOT the most engaging of opening scenes.

The premise is all about a superarmy of fearless green suited warriors from around the universe who use the power of Will, and are charged with a mission to fight Evil. And the grandaddy of Evil is Fear, the only force in the universe more powerful than Will.

So... Complex scifi alterno-reality to create, and a voice over backstory is prob the only way to do it with any kind of brevity... But I still reckon they could have woven it into the story, so we could have found out when Hal found out.

Hal.

Ryan Reynolds.

Most certainly NOT a flaw of the film. Very much flawless. And spends a fair whack of the film flaunting his flawless figure. Sigh!

He is utterly convincing as an irresponsible, impulsive, emotionally retarded manchild. I know some of them, so I find them easy to recognise.

And Blake Lively is near perfect as the female interest, Carol Ferris. Mostly she is not a totally insipid damsel in distress, but there are moments when we lapse into those comic book stereotypes. She is, as she and all female counterparts in comic book movies are meant to be, smoking hot. There are some shots of her that I imagined could have come directly from the original DC pages - the framing, the perfecting drawn hair, the unrealistically red lips... Comic book perfection in a way that can only be drawn. Kind of reminds me of Jessica Rabbit...

For a change, the chemistry between Reynolds and Lively is pretty... lively (sorry, that was terrible, even by my standards...) and starts off pretty sparky from the get-go.

And in keeping with comic book traditions there is the Compulsory Alliterative Character. In this case, the evil fear minion, Hector Hammond. Part elephant man, part Fear's magic wand, the very attractive Peter Sarsgaard does a pretty good job uglied up. Scrubs down alright.

The special effects are phenomenal. Sparky & I heartily agree that 3D films are nauseating, distracting and do little for the cinema experience. So we managed to catch a 2D screening. And while I know that if I saw it in 3D, I would have left with a headache, nausea and a general feeling of malaise, I actually think there is a possibility they could have done some good things with that tech this time. The Big Bad Fear Monster, part dragon, part octopus, would have been incredible launching out of the screen. The asteroid belt, and the Lanterns' translucent green weapons of Will (ie whatever they imagine) and all the flight scenes had the potential to make 3D work quite effectively. Of course, you will have to see that for yourself. Because I won't be doing it for you.

AFTER the tedious intro, the early scenes are snappy. And being Ryan Reynolds, hilarious. They have pace and characterisation and interest, which is tricky for a Meet The Characters on what I'm sure the producers hope will be a franchise. We see Hal selected to join the Feds of the Universe. That transition from irresponsible to dutiful is highly entertaining. Once the action starts, however, things get a little more predictable, with the set pieces and raised stakes. Hal becomes less unpredictable and spontaneous, and much more... boring superhero-y.

I once read an article (and do you THINK I can find it??) that said that superheroes are by their very nature boring and reactive. Their day to day life of tedium is only challenged when a more interesting supervillain comes along with big plans to shake things up and take things over. And after we meet Hal and learn about what he can now do now, he joins the boring ranks of the Dean Cain/Christopher Reeve era Superman, or a Val Kilmer/George Clooney style Bruce Wayne (Michael Keaton has too much sarcasm, and Christian Bale is WAY too dark to be Captain Goody Goody).

Lantern is about a bajillion times better than Captain A-MEH-rica.

Kick arse action, totally unrealistic scifi goodness.

Things That Shit Me About Captain America

Yes, comic book films are not meant to be High Art. Yes, they are generally the schlock that Hollywood rolls out to bring in some guaranteed coin. Yes, the scripts are usually fill-in-the-blanks, predictable drivel to tie together the action packed set pieces.

But I love them.

Usually.

Captain A-Meh-rica however, kind of gave me the shits.

Here's why:

1. The "Yay" America Attitude.
Yes, I was prepared for it. I mean, it IS in the title after all. But I wasn't prepared enough to not let it shit me. And yes, there are a few token characters from other countries, flung against the Nazis and their suped up uber-scientists. But they are pretty tokenistic.

2. The Historical Inaccuracies
I'm not really a stickler for History. Making things entirely Realistic or True is not necessarily what I am all about. I LOVED Inglourious Basterds. Fantasy & SciFi stuff makes me happy. The X-Men franchise is totaly not plausible, but I have so much love for it. And I have no problem with scientific divisions of the military creating super soldiers with serums and rocks that wield the power of the Gods.
But I have great issues with the portrayal of women at the front line of WWII.
Peggy Carter (Hayley Atwell) is smoking hot. 1940s lips and hair to die for. Pencil skirts that make me wish I had hips like that. Great dialogue, and a kick arse attitude. And I could almost believe that she was an intelligence agent. I could almost believe she was working behind the scenes to bring about the downfall of the Nazis. But it really shat me when she was firing off a machine gun in the advancing line, next to commanding officer Tommy Lee Jones with other soldiers dissolving into blue sparks beside her. Completely naff and disrupting.

3. Derivative to a point of vomitous

I realise in this post-modern context we all live in that nothing is original any more. Every new piece of art (did you know comic-book films are art?) comes from somewhere else. Another Marvel film is always going to be saturated with enough intertextuality to sink a MAD Magazine, especially when it is set to be part of a whole series of Avengers films. So I am aware that OF COURSE this film was never going to be a stand alone piece.

But I think they took it too far.

When making an alterno-fantasy about battling the Nazis, it is difficult not to lean towards Raiders of the Lost Ark. And in Star Wars, when George Lucas named the Empire soldiers after the German Stormtroopers, he really did twist up the ideas of fantasy and history. Director Joe Johnston just had to make his Nazi Hydra Soldiers look like blackfaced Star Wars style Storm Troopers, and Boba Fett's your uncle... Bad guys!

A shot for shot recreation of the pena-climactic chase sequence from Return of the Jedi, however, was completely surplus to requirement.. The coathanger rope to knock the bad guy down? Check. Left some surprise explodey things behind to blow the next bad guy up? Check. Two dudes on very fast motorbikey things trying to overtake through the scrub in the other lane? Check. I thought at any moment the Ewoks were about to jump out and help.

 

4. Bobble Head SFX

I think it was kind of cool that the film included a pre-buff Chris Evans, before super powers, super strength and super cut abs. But seeing his enormous head on his tiny body through the wonders of CGI just made me disconcerted. I mean, supporting that weight would cause some serious neck strain.

5. The lack of attention to the AMAZING support cast.

Yeah, Chris Evans, chiseled jaw, rippling muscles, blah blah.

What about Dominic Cooper?! Huh? He of History Boys and The Duchess fame. Casting wise, he is pretty perfect for a Robert Downey Jr Daddy. Suave, cocky, liable to make mistakes and not admit them. But where was his dialogue? Where was his screen time?  Give me Cooper over Evans ANY day.

And Our Hugo? Weaving is the antagonist, and he plays the sociopath like an expert indeed. But there just wasn't enough opportunity for us to see it.

But the biggest tragedy of the cutting room/story editing has to be Stanley Tucci. I love him. I have loved him forever. Not in a want-to-jump-his-bones kind of way, but in a could-watch-him-forever kind of way. As a character actor, he is so versatile. Puck in A Midsummer Night's Dream. The husband in Julie & Julia. The dad in Easy A. The tragic clown in The Devil Wears Prada. But my all time favourite Stanley Tucci film is The Imposters. Farcical hilarity, with Oliver Platt & Billy Connolly. But I digress.

Surely with a character as complex as Dr Abraham Erskine, escaping the Nazis to use his scientific formula for the good guys instead, could have been given more of a role? I know, the Hero needs the motivation to rage against the enemy, but... I don't need to offer solutions to my whinges do I?

Unfortunately, we didn't stick around to see the teaser for the next Avengers film at the end of the final credits. I've heard it's special, and I probably should have made the time for it, but I was so blerged out by
the whole film, I thought it time to go.

Only see this if you... plan on seeing the next ones? Iron Man it ain't.