Gould's Book of Fish

I recently completed a novel by Richard Flanagan entitled Gould’s Book of Fish: A Novel in 12 Fish (which a friend loaned me in exchange for letting him borrow Flann O’Brien’s The Third Policeman—an equally bizarre book). I was so thrilled with the book that I just had to write about it.

Gould’s Book of Fish tells the tale of William Buelow Gould, a convict living in the Sarah Island penal colony on Tasmania in the 1800s. Upon arriving on Sarah Island, Billy Gould’s rudimentary artistic skills are put to use, and he is forced to paint pictures of fish for one of the prison keepers. Though resistant at first, Gould eventually becomes obsessed with painting fish, and reaches a point where his sense of reality is blurred and he cannot help describing men in terms of fish and fish in terms of men.

Along the way, Gould meets a cast of highly idiosyncratic characters, including the megalomaniacal Commandant, the pervert Roaring Tom Weaver, an aspiring scientist known as “the Surgeon,” Gould’s secret lover Twopenny Sal, and the murderous pig Castlereagh—and experiences many misadventures in his interactions with them.

Though most of the locations in the book are real places and many of the characters are historical individuals, their roles in the book are almost completely fictionalized. Flanagan, through the “journal” of Gould, audaciously rewrites history, while steadfastly defending his right to do so—maintaining that what is presented in the book is the “true account,” which was covered up by those who wanted to keep the world from knowing what atrocities really took place on Sarah Island.

Adding to the bizarre character of the book, there are abrupt, intentional changes in voice (from first to third person and back again) and in point of view (from a limited to an omniscient narrator). The absurdly wonderful thing about these shifts is that the narrator specifically references them, and either explains (in the former case) or downright refuses to explain them (in the latter case).

However, Gould’s Book of Fish is so much more than simply a bizarre rewriting of history. In the midst of the strangeness, Richard Flanagan manages to make some profound statements about the nature of man. Fish is essentially a tale that exemplifies the heights to which man aspires, and the depths to which he more often sinks. It highlights man’s often-futile search for significance, and his struggle to love a flawed world and accept an even more flawed self. The seamless blending of the absurd with the profound is actually what, in my mind, makes Flanagan’s book so impressive. For example, early on in the book, Gould responds to the critics who denounce the crudeness of his work in this way:

"They diminish me with their definitions, but I am William Buelow Gould, not a small or mean man. I am not bound to any idea of who I will be. I am not contained between my toes & my turf but am infinite as sand.
"Come closer, listen: I will tell you why I crawl close to the ground: because I choose to. Because I care not to live above it like they may fancy is the way to live, the place to be, so that they in their eyries & guard towers might look down on the earth & us & judge it all as wanting.

"….[T]he truth is never far away but close up in the dirt, in the vile details of slime & scale & filth along with the Devil, along with the angels, & all snared within the earth & us, all embodied in the single pulse of a heart—mine, yours, ours--& all my subject as I take aim & make of the fish flesh incarnate."

Reading Level: 8/10

Accessibility: Moderate

Re-readability: High

Humor Level: Very dry. And absurdist.

Overall rating: 9.5/10

Best euphemism: “dancing the old Enlightenment” (you just have to read the book)

new blog name

So I've decided to tentatively change my blog's name to "The Black Lodge" (an homage to David Lynch's Twin Peaks), for a number of reasons:

1. It's (slightly) less cheesy-sounding than "The Film Addict."

2. This is my attempt at a "fresh start" of sorts for my blog--in which I aspire to start posting on here more regularly.

3. The name change also indicates some slight change in focus of the blog:
a. Content--I am trying to expand the scope of this blog to include not only movie reviews, but also book reviews as well as whatever else catches my fancy to write about.
b. Theme--At the same, time I am attempting to narrow my focus (mostly) to topics that are in some way odd, bizarre, or downright absurd. I will also strive to highlight movies (books, etc.) that the average reader is less likely to be familiar with, in an effort to introduce him or her to new things. Hence, one will never see a review of Inception here; though the movie is fittingly surreal--and well-loved by me--it is too mainstream to fit in this blog.

So wish me luck!

The Fourth Kind

I was supposed to be seeing 2012. Not that I had a strong desire to see the latest disaster movie, but it was a free prescreening. I decided I could look past what was sure to be a shallow plot and nonexistent character development, and enjoy the great special effects—at no cost to me. Unfortunately, by the time I got to the theater, all the tickets were gone; so my friend and I had to choose another movie to watch. I really didn’t care to see The Fourth Kind, but it was the only film we could agree upon from the slim list of options. And so it was that I saw what is now my most hated movie.

This movie sucked me in. Yes, I almost completely believed that the “footage” I was being shown was real. However, you should know that I am not a gullible person. In fact, I pride myself on being a fairly discerning person—which is why this movie made me so angry.

The central idea behind The Fourth Kind is a gimmick. That’s all the movie really is: one extended gimmick. Now, I have no problem with movie gimmicks in general: most are obvious and acceptable. For example, the opening and closing “messages” of Paranormal Activity were gimmicks that attempted to create the illusion of reality. No one was actually expected to believe that it was real; it simply enhanced the mood created by the film. What The Fourth Kind does, however, is completely different—and completely unacceptable. When a movie actually attempts to convince its viewers that what is being shown is true, it violates the unspoken trust between moviegoer and filmmaker—a trust that should be taken seriously and should not be broken lightly.

Before The Fourth Kind, the angriest a movie had made me was Funny Games, another film in which the unwritten agreement between director and viewer is broken (albeit in a different way than in The Fourth Kind). Since then, I have come to understand the purpose of the “funny games” in Funny Games, and would even go so far as to applaud its director for the way in which he carefully and deliberately provokes both anger and careful reflection in viewers (though I would never recommend the movie to anyone, because of how thoroughly unenjoyable it is to watch). The only reason that I can see for The Fourth Kind doing what it does, however, is to create some cheap, ill-gained scares from gullible audiences (of which I unfortunately seem to be a member).

In my defense, though, I was not at any point during the film completely convinced of its veracity. Some of the questions that kept nagging me included the following:

• Would this psychologist really have videotaped all of her counseling sessions like this?
• Did all of these people really give permission for video of their counseling sessions to be released in a movie like this?
• Why does the woman telling her story on tape seem to be heavily made up to appear pale and gaunt?
• And why have I never heard of any of these events?

However, the methods of deception were so elaborate that my doubts were sidelined for the entirety of the movie.

In fact, the only reason this movie even gets one star from me is because of the impressive lengths (or is it depths?) that it goes to sell its elaborate hoax. The movie’s poster itself claims that it is “Based on the Actual Case Studies.” The opening and closing five minutes of the movie are very serious presentations from Milla Jovovich and the film’s director about the “actual” events in the film, information about what the “real” people from the film are now doing (and how they responded to the making of the film itself), and exhortations to “decide for yourself” what you believe about the “facts” and “footage” that the movie presents. The makers of The Fourth Kind even went so far as to post fake news stories and obituaries online before the movie was released, so that people who wanted to “do their homework” before seeing the movie would be convinced that it was based on a true story.

Besides the ridiculous efforts the filmmakers went through to sell their hoax, The Fourth Kind really has nothing of merit to recommend it. Any scares that might have otherwise been conveyed by the movie’s “actual footage” gimmick are ruined by the cinematic effects used in the “dramatization” parts of the movie. The constant use of the split-screen is both nauseating and distracting. The loud “scary” music and aerial panning of treetops seem thrown in randomly, and do nothing to enhance the movie. Even the well-known Hollywood actors who perform the “recreation” of the events are pathetically lacking in their acting. Milla Jovovich’s painful performance as psychologist Abigail Tyler causes me to wonder: was she trying to showcase her acting ineptitude? Shown in split-screen next to the “footage” of an unknown actress portraying the exact same events at the same time, Jovovich’s performance is sadly unconvincing.

The Fourth Kind is unsuccessful however you look at it. If you believe that the footage is true, then the scares are only a result of deception. And the movie is not at all scary if you go into the theater knowing the truth—that it is all fake. Definitely skip this one.

Intelligence Level: 5/10

Scare Factor: Very Low

Violence Level: Moderate

Humor Level: Nonexistent

Overall Rating: 1/10

Worst Line: “Every scene in this movie is supported by archived footage.”

“Moral of the Story”: The ninth circle of hell is reserved for murderers, traitors, and Universal Studios execs.

The Foot Fist Way

In the slew of crude, mostly-unintelligent comedies that have been released in the last few years (e.g., Pineapple Express, Observe and Report), Danny McBride’s small, usually-random performances are consistently the greatest laugh-inducing moments for me. I would almost go so far as to say that he is the redeeming factor in these movies, but that might be a little excessive praise.

This high view of Danny McBride’s comedic abilities consequently led me to high expectations for The Foot Fist Way, a film in which he plays the lead role as an inept Tae Kwon Do instructor. Unfortunately, as funny as the concept sounded, the execution was terrible. I now understand why McBride is usually confined to bit roles; alas, it seems he is unable to carry a movie on his own acting and comedic skills. Of course, it didn’t help that there were zero supporting actors in the first half of the movie that could play off McBride’s humor, or even add any laughs of their own. It was also unfortunate that most of the acting in the movie (besides that of McBride himself) was absolutely terrible—especially that of Mary Jane Bostic (as McBride’s wife). Her acting talent seemed to be more on par with wannabe porn star than Hollywood comedy co-star.

Perhaps The Foot Fist Way would have been better if it had stuck to the off-the-wall, random humor-driven plotline that movies like Napoleon Dynamite and Hot Rod capitalized so well on. Instead, this movie adopted a more straightforward plot, and tried to incorporate the humor into the storyline—which didn’t work well at all. In addition, much of the humor did not only fall flat—it was cringe-inducing. What is meant to be awkward humor often comes off as uncomfortable; and the “shock” humor is merely distasteful. (Does anyone really think it is funny to watch a grandmother get beaten up by a grown man?)

Admittedly, there were a few good one-liners through the course of the movie, but they were not enough to carry the movie for the full hour-and-a-half running time. The movie also did get better as it went, but by the time it picked up I had already begun to check out.

In short, I would suggest you stay away from this one. If you’re looking for a movie full of random, ridiculous humor, and have seen Napoleon Dynamite one too many times, then I recommend Hot Rod. It has plenty of Danny McBride, and it will make you laugh.

Intelligence Level: 3/10

Scare Factor: Non-existent

Violence Level: Average

Humor Level: Meh…

Overall Rating: 4/10

Best Line: “…And thank you for this meal—that I paid for myself.”

“Moral of the story”: Don’t marry a woman who looks and acts like a porn star—she will probably cheat on you.

Jacob's Ladder

I found this lesser-known movie on a list of best films in the so-called “mindfuck” genre. So I went online and requested Jacob’s Ladder from my library. The fact that the only copy in the entire Chicago library system was a poorly-working VHS seemed to be an indicator of the overall popularity of the film. Needless to say, I didn’t have high hopes for the movie.

However, though I wouldn’t use words like “phenomenal” or “amazing” to describe Jacob’s Ladder, I actually did find it quite entertaining. From the opening scene (which includes bad pot, psychedelic music, and mass hysteria/slaughter) to the ending (which leaves the viewer to draw his own conclusions about the events of the film), Jacob’s Ladder confused, disturbed, amused, and generally screwed with my mind. But that’s why they call it “mindfuck,” right?

The film employs hallucinations and flashbacks quite effectively (or visions and jumps in time, depending on how you choose to interpret the overall movie). And though it’s not strictly a horror movie, Jacob’s Ladder includes several scenes that are creepier than the majority of horror movies made in the last ten years (I’m thinking of one hospital scene in particular). Think Drag Me to Hell meets “An Occurrence at Owl Creek Bridge,” throw in a Vietnam vet and Macaulay Culkin’s ghost, and you have a pretty good idea of what Jacob’s Ladder is like.

I’ve seen better mindfuck movies (Donnie Darko and The Machinist, to name a few); and I’ve seen better trippy movies (like Eternal Sunshine and Being John Malkovich); still, for what it was, Jacob’s Ladder was a thoroughly engaging movie. Don’t go out of your way to find a copy (like I did); but if you have to choose between Jacob’s Ladder and, say, 12 Rounds, definitely watch the former. Then again, pretty much anything is better than watching a pro-wrestler run around trying to reenact the plot of Die Hard 3.

Intelligence Level: 7/10

Scare Factor: High

Violence Level: Graphic

Humor Level: Nonexistent

Overall Rating: 6/10

Cheesiest Line: “If you're frightened of dying, and you're holding on, you'll see devils tearing your life away. If you've made your peace, then the devils are really angels, freeing you from the Earth.”

“Moral of the Story”: Don’t take experimental drugs in Vietnam.

Where the Wild Things Are

For 94 minutes I felt like a kid again.

As anyone who grew up reading the book knows, the plot of Where the Wild Things Are is threadbare at best. Kid misbehaves, gets sent to his room without dinner, and goes on a simple imaginary journey to a land filled with “Wild Things,” while learning a valuable lesson about family. As much as I loved the book as a child, I was skeptical as to how well it would translate into a feature-length film. Knowing that Maurice Sendak lent his approval and assistance to the making of the movie, however, gave me at least some cause for hope.

I should have placed more faith, though, in Spike Jonze’s directorial abilities. Having directed such favorites of mine as Being John Malkovich and Adaptation, he now earns a new level of my respect for his brilliant adaptation of Sendak’s classic children’s book. Rather than letting the slight nature of the book limit him, Jonze uses the book as a sort of springboard for creating something far grander than the book itself—while still remaining faithful to the original.

I don’t think I’ve ever seen a movie that captures the essence of childhood as perfectly as Where the Wild Things Are does. There is an indescribable way in which Jonze (through Sendak’s work) pulls you in and makes you experience Max’s life—both the real and imaginary parts—through the eyes of a child. Jonze somehow succeeds in stirring up in adults joy and excitement, as well as fear and anger, in the way that only a child experiences these feelings. Even much of the dialogue seems like it was written by a child—not in the sense of “dumbed down,” but in the way that it captures a child’s quirky imagination.

I was impressed with the depth of meaning within the interactions among Max and the Wild Things. Each of the creatures represented some part of Max’s personality or his relationship with his mother and sister, yet lacked the clear-cut, compartmentalized method by which adults organize their outer and inner lives.

Also impressive was the way that the costumes, animatronics, and CGI were blended seamlessly, creating some of the most convincing creatures that I have seen in a movie.

Because the film is geared mainly toward adults, it tends to be less appropriate for children than you might expect. Some slow-moving scenes may bore children; and the dark themes and sometimes-violent content may be too much for young children to handle. In addition, the meaning of the movie can be fully appreciated only by those who have passed into adulthood and can view childhood in retrospect.

Conspicuously absent from Where the Wild Things Are were both the underlying agenda and simplistic positive message that are all too prevalent in movies. It did not attempt to give children (or adults) unrealistic expectations of life; nor did it try to convince viewers to view the world in a particular way. While this lack of clearly distinguishable “moral” may bother some people, I took pleasure in the movie’s simple embracing of all of life, both the good and the bad. I walked away from the Where the Wild Things Are refreshed and encouraged, delighted in the childhood experience I had just been given à la Maurice Sendak and Spike Jonze.

Intelligence Level: 8/10

Scare Factor: Average

Violence Level: Moderate

Humor Level: Several laugh-out-loud moments

Overall Rating: 10/10

Best Line: “Whoa! He has a double re-cracker!”

“Moral of the Story”: Reliving what it feels like to be a child can be therapeutic.

Paranormal Activity

Spoiler Warning: This review contains minor spoilers.

This is what American horror needs more of. Amidst a wave of mindless, gore-filled sequels and remakes, Paranormal Activity is a proverbial breath of fresh air.

A few weeks ago, a friend invited me along to see a new horror movie called Paranormal Activity, which he claimed was supposed to be the scariest movie ever. Tired of the current trends in American horror films, I was hesitant to spend money on yet another scare-free horror flick. Not having heard much about it (this was before the nationwide release of the film), I talked to a few people and did a little bit of reading online. Though still hesitant to believe the growing hype, I was intrigued enough with what I found that I decided to give this movie a chance—by spending my hard-earned twelve bucks on it.

Those twelve bucks were well spent.

Paranormal Activity brings terror back into the horror genre, with subtlety and suspense rather than the usual blood-and-gore or endless jump scenes—neither of which create true scares. The first hour or so of this low-budget masterpiece plodded along pretty slowly, developing suspense while throwing in a number of laughs to ensure the audience’s continued attention and enjoyment. The last 30 minutes amped up the intensity several levels, leaving me gripping my armrests through the nerve-wracking denouement. Maybe it was just the energy drink I had before going to the theater, but I was even jittery while walking out of the theater to the car.

The Film:
• The handheld camera style of filmmaking in Paranormal is used the most effectively that I have seen in a movie, outshining Blair Witch, Cloverfield, and even Quarantine in its mockumentary approach.
• For the first five minutes or so of the movie, Katie Featherston’s acting bothered me a little, because she didn’t seem completely natural in her speaking and mannerisms. Then I realized that her acting was perfect, for she behaved just as most normal people do when they know they are in front of a camera—with a hint of unconscious affectation.
• The plot of the movie is one area that seems to be a bit lacking; however, I realize that the point of the movie was not to develop a complex storyline but to create an environment that would scare the crap out of people. Which it did—very effectively. Still, I think it could have used a bit more backstory/explanation of what was going on with the demon and how it related to Katie’s past.
• The one other aspect of the movie that I somewhat disliked (but more in retrospect than while at the theater) was the fact that there seemed to be a low rumbling noise every time the “demon” manifested itself in some way, almost as a cue that something crazy was about to happen. At first I thought it was an actual noise in the house, but neither character ever commented on it, so I am forced to assume that it was an addition to the “soundtrack” to clue me in to the fact that I should really pay attention—which was completely unnecessary, since my eyes were already glued to the screen.

I would like to congratulate and thank first-time director Oren Peli, for making a movie that I will not soon forget. Pure genius? Or sheer luck? Also, kudos to Paramount Pictures, for having the good sense to release the original film instead of going through with the planned remake. I strongly doubt that a few million dollars, some cheesy CGI effects, and B-list actors would have done anything to improve Paranormal. In fact, the opposite is much more likely.

As a closing note, I must say that I was fortunate to have seen Paranormal before its nationwide release, and well before it topped the box office, for I was able to watch it on its own merit, without comparing it to what was being said about it in the media. In that sense, the hype is unfortunate, because it can tend to give people impossible expectations for how scary the movie will be. But at the same time, I am very glad that Paranormal is getting the recognition it deserves. Is Paranormal Activity overrated? Yes, but not by much.


Intelligence Level: 6/10

Scare Factor: Extreme

Violence Level: Very Low

Overall Rating: 9/10

Best Quote: “Everything’s going to be all right now….”

“Moral of the Story”: Don’t screw with demons. They will screw you back.