Thursday, March 22, 2007

BSG Season 4 Extended to 22 Episodes--and Cancelled?

On March 21, 2007, SyFy Portal reported that SciFi Channel extended its order for BattleStar Galactica's (BSG) 4th season from 13 to 22 episodes.

Normally, this would be a good thing--except a "source" close to SciFi says the extra episodes are for letting Ron Moore and his brain trust wrap up the series.

Can't say I'm surprised. Ratings have been low during BSG's third season even though the show is critically acclaimed and won the Peabody award for an awesome second season.

This season, the main storyline of finding Earth has been sidelined, especially during the second half.

Several weeks have been devoted to filler episodes on secondary characters with Earth still as far away as ever and no contacts with the Cylons.

IMHO, this is due in part to the limited number of story arcs available within the Colonial fleet without outside elements brought in, like the Battlestar Pegasus in the second season (some of the best TV ever produced).

The producers/writers are hampered in part by the fact that they can't bring in bumpy-headed aliens without actor James Olmos (Admiral Adama) leaving the show.

To sidestep this, I feel that the Colonial Fleet can come across settlements of humans left behind by the 13th tribe on its trek to Earth. This is a device used with great success by Glenn Larson on the original series. These humans can possess markers which help point the way to Earth for the Colonials--after putting them through hell, of course.

I for one would like to see what'd happen if the fleet comes across a Class-M world populated by a technologically advanced society, which can hold off the Cylons, only it's not our Earth.

Or what would happen if the democratic Colonials ran into a sector of space controlled by a space-faring totalitarian human society that wanted to enslave them?

It also didn't help that the show became a soap opera rather than a drama when the producers decided to start up a romantic triangle between the characters Apollo, Starbuck, and Dualla. The triangle became increasingly unpopular among fans as Season 3 went on. And Starbuck was taken on a character journey that made her increasingly dysfunctional with no rhyme or reason.

If BSG ends in the fourth season, Moore and company have themselves to blame for running out of ideas and feeding their audience lackluster filler episodes and unsatisfying character developments.

I kinda half-wish I'd asked about intern spots when I attended a writers meeting where BSG writer/producers David Weddle and Bradley Thompson talked about their show. It was fun spitballing with 'em about BSG and DS9.

But I made the decision to focus on fiction and film, and I'm content. Really. I am. :-)

Sunday, March 11, 2007

Review: "300"

I had a sneaking suspicion the new film "300" wouldn’t work for me, but since I had this blasted itch to see something new (despite ever rising theater prices) I took the plunge.

Unfortunately, my feelings were dead on.

Movies like "Letters From Iwo Jima" reflect the contemporary belief that any war movie worth its salt must capture the horror of armed combat.

"300," on the other hand, believes it's enough to capture the fun of watching a war movie on a weekend afternoon. Set to stylized action and crunching guitar riffs, the film is cartoonish and as subtle as a spear thrust to the head.

Based on the well-received comic book miniseries from "Sin City" creator Frank Miller, this would-be historical epic is loaded with wall-to-wall graphic violence and gore (swordfire, arrowfire, slashings, stabbings, beheadings, creature attacks and explosive mayhem), male and female nudity, simulated sex and some sexual violence, and some sexually suggestive talk and humor. It’s a faithful-to-a-fault adaptation that recreates specific panels from the comic. How this R rated film avoids NC-17 is anyone’s guess. A thin plot, puffed up dialogue, and underdeveloped characters do nothing to leaven the film’s long battle scenes. The fighting makes up almost half the film’s 144 minutes.

The film is based on the Battle of Thermopylae, where 300 Spartan warriors died almost to the last man to delay an invading Persian army of millions (these events also inspired a 1962 movie version, "The 300 Spartans").

Scottish actor Gerard Butler ("Phantom of the Opera") stars here as Leonidas, the king who led the Spartan defense. In this version of events, his numbers were reduced because Sparta’s ephors, sacred priests, and key politicians taking Persian gold declared a sacred holiday to hamstring the army from mobilizing. So with hand-picked troops serving as his personal guard, Leonidas takes a "stroll" to northern Greece. There he joins with fearful Greek allies to block key mountain paths and funnel the Persians into a narrow pass dubbed the "Hot Gates," where the defenders can face a few hundred by dribs and drabs.

The Persian king Xerxes (Rodrigo Santoro, Brazil’s "Tom Cruise" cum "Lost" TV actor) sends wave after wave of soldiers at the determined Spartans. Leonidas and his comrades slaughter thousands, but can't hold the line forever. Back home, Queen Gorgo (Lena Headey) hopes to rally the full Spartan army. The duplicitous councilman Theron (an oily Dominic West) clearly implies that the price of his support is her.

But after taking payment, Theron reneges on his deal. The queen collects with interest, though, when she plunges a sword into his stomach. A handy purse loaded with Persian Darics, or gold coins, then spills to the ground, exposing Persian duplicity in the Spartans’ midst. By this time, it’s too late as Leonidas and his band finally fall to Xerxes’ minions.

Unlike the earlier, sedate by comparison 1962 film, which got most of the history right, "300" obsesses with giving the Spartans credit for every Persian slain at Thermopylae. So much so it misses their true noble sacrifice, that once Xerxes outflanked them, the 300 Spartans (as well as 700 Thespian soldiers) remained on the battlefield to cover the retreat of the rest of the Greek army.

This Alamo-like sacrifice unites Greece against Persia the following year at the plain of Platea, where Dilios finishes his story of Leonidas’ stand and leads the charge against the dread Persian hordes.

Co-writer/director Zack Snyder ("Dawn of the Dead") borrows the computer-crafted look of "Sin City." The fakery makes the stupendous slaughter digestible, and the wholesale dismemberment and blood-squirting can be done digitally, with "Matrix"-style acrobatics.

The fanciful depiction of the horrific battle also allows Snyder to integrate fantasy elements - the Spartans battle a giant ogre, and there's another creature with crab-claw hands who executes ineffective generals at the whim of Xerxes, who himself looks like a seven-foot-tall Dennis Rodman after a shopping/piercing spree.

The cinematography lacks the rugged vitality, and the dynamism, of Miller's drawings, though. Miller's "300" pictures leap off the page; on the movie screen, they roll over and play dead. The film has a poreless, waxen quality, as if all sensuality had been airbrushed out of it: the Spartans glow, while the Persians gleam darkly. The actors struggle valiantly to take hold of their characters, but deep down they know they've donated their bodies, and their faces, to science.

The film owes a debt to "Gladiator" as well as the "Lord of the Rings" movies. "Rings" co-star David Wenham appears here, narrating a few segments as Dilios, a one-eyed survivor of the Spartans’ stand.

Butler's blustery performance was clearly inspired by Russell Crowe, though it has none of Crowe's subtlety.

There's something to be said for a movie that pauses amid an orgy of violence to show us an actual orgy - Xerxes' tent houses a harem of naked, squirming bisexual slave girls, a few of whom are amputees. The movie, obsessed with machismo, seems to suggest that the Persians need to be stopped because they are sexually ambiguous. Ironic since the washboard-abbed Spartans in their scarlet cloaks and brown loincloths look ready to break into a chorus of "YMCA" any second.

Clearly, this isn’t "Letters From Iwo Jima." "300" makes no bones about embracing the glory of war (or the glory of a comic strip based on a movie about a war), and romanticizing the Spartan warrior culture ("never surrender, " "never retreat," "hope for a beautiful death") that entranced Miller as a boy.

Miller chose well with Thermopylae . It’s a cinema-ready event that produced dialogue that no dramatist could improve, recorded by Herodotus and repeated here. "Come back with your shield, or on it," says Gorgo to Leonidas. When Xerxes asks the Spartans to lay down their arms, Leonidas says, "Come and get 'em." And when a Persian general brags "Our arrows will blot out the sun, " a Spartan answers "Then we will fight in the shade."

Along the way, "300" does give us a sense of why Thermopylae is considered pivotal to history. It casts the Spartans as defenders of Western civilization (freedom and self-rule and "reason") against Xerxes, a self-proclaimed man-god supported by slave armies who fought with whips at their backs. The Spartans had slaves, but did their own fighting.

Generally unknown to most people is that in the following century, the Spartans went on to establish an empire of their own—and fail miserably. A bastion of democracy and freedom indeed. Also left out is the fact that prior to the Persian invasion of Greece, Athens and Sparta had tried to incite uprisings among several of Persia’s neighboring subject peoples. Freedom to the ancient Greeks equaled freedom to aggrandize themselves. The Spartans were oligarchs, while the Athenians were democrats. Athenian democracy was for Athenians, though, not other Greeks much less foreigners.

Here's an article that goes over how well "300" matches up with history.


"300" has caused a stir in Europe, where debate has begun on whether the film is an apologia for Bush's Iraq adventure or an apologia for anti-occupation suicide missions.

I’ll go out on a limb and guess this won’t matter much to Millers' fans. They're concerned with more important things, like how to disable and defeat an ogre by first cutting his hamstring, then stabbing him in the eye and slicing him open at the neck.

Sunday, March 04, 2007

REVIEW: "LETTERS FROM IWO JIMA"

"Letters From Iwo Jima," Clint Eastwood's spare and poetic companion piece to "Flags of Our Fathers," is an engrossing and revealing look at that same World War II battle. This time it’s told from the viewpoint of the doomed Japanese soldiers who want to believe the propaganda that tells them they are destined to win because "Americans are weak-willed and inferior. ... They let their emotions interfere with their duty...."

"Letters" is the film I was hoping for from "Flags": a war narrative, expertly told, powerfully acted and filled with moments of brutal truth and savage grace.

"Flags" looked at Iwo Jima from the U.S. point of view, focusing in particular on the Marines and the Navy corpsman who became symbols of American heroism when a photographer snapped a picture of the men raising the flag atop the Iwo Jima mountain that the Japanese called (we learn in "Letters") Suribachi. The movie jumped back and forth in time, and played out somewhat like an overlong thesis paper: Eastwood tells us from the start that the film is going to critique the ways in which military action and sacrifice are spun into myth by government propagandists, so we learn little new by the time the movie ends 132 minutes later.

"Letters" avoids this problem by pretty much adhering to a linear narrative. Although the film opens in the present day with diggers on Iwo Jima uncovering a cache of Japanese letters from the war, the story quickly moves into the past, and we soon forget we are watching a sort of flashback.

As a chronicler of one of the most monumental battles in modern history, Eastwood not only has the scope of vision to show how, on a grand scale, the battle progressed for the defenders in strictly military terms, but also the little details about the Japanese soldiers themselves. A lesser director would have gone for stock heroics or brave samurais committing suicide. This is a quieter, braver film than that, preferring to focus instead on real-life people.

The script, whose Japanese dialogue is translated through subtitles, is by newcomer Iris Yamashita, with story input from one of "Flags"' screenwriters Paul Haggis ("Million Dollar Baby," "Crash," and "The Black Donnellys"). Credit is also given to the letters for home written by the Japanese soldiers who defended Iwo Jima and the personal correspondence of the commanding Japanese general Tadamichi Kuribayahi, titled "Picture Letters From Commander in Chief."

As in "Flags," we see how soldiers become unwitting fodder for their country's war effort. The flawed "Flags" tells the story of the three American men who obeyed their superior officers and willingly accepted the guise of heroic mascots in a public relations blitz to raise support for the war on the home front. "Letters" instead focuses on the 36-day battle for the island of Iwo Jima. We're confronted with images of Imperial Japanese military men who not only are expected to serve their emperor and suffer starvation, disease, and overwhelming odds in his name but also die by either their own hand or the enemy's rather than face the cultural ignominy of defeat. Again, Eastwood uses the muted color palette employed in "Flags," rendering the island's muck and caves in nearly black-and-white tones, brightened only by the flash of a gun muzzle or iconic flag.

In "Flags" we saw how the Americans were lured onto the beaches of Iwo Jima by the silence of the Japanese who were holed up in the island's mountain caves while holding their fire until the troops became sitting ducks. "Letters" takes us inside those caves, where the outnumbered Japanese soldiers--suffering from dysentery, hunger, and demoralization--still held onto their ideals of dying honorably for their country. Just a handful of men we are shown think through their objectives for themselves.

When the Americans finally appear, swarming ashore in well-armed, well-fed waves, the Japanese fight, but more out of a sense of their backs being to a wall (propaganda having told them that the Americans are not only weak and emotional soldiers, but savages who won't take them prisoner) than any airy notion of Duty or Honor.

These men could easily be stand-ins for the members of the American Confederacy. Theirs is a story of individuals fighting a losing battle valiantly, which is always romantic. And, in this case, epic.

The structure of "Letters" is fairly basic, following a mix of soldiers from different ranks as they get ready for the inevitable American invasion. It's the dead end of the war, with the Japanese Combined Fleet and air force almost entirely destroyed, and the island's garrison digging in for a desperate last stand--Iwo Jima was the first island considered actual Japanese territory to be assaulted by the Americans, and so had extra significance.

The screenplay brings to life four indelible characters, all of whom know there is little chance they'll leave the island alive. Lt. Gen. Kuribayashi (Ken Watanabe of "Last Samurai," "Batman Begins," and "Memoirs of a Geisha") is the untraditional officer, in command of Iwo Jima’s garrison. He fights with the irony that, having spent time in the United States before the war as a military attache, he reveres Americans and understands the industrial and resource mismatch Japan faces.

Saigo (Japanese pop star Kazunari Ninomiya) is an irreverent young baker who just wants to stay alive to see his newborn daughter.




The aristocratic Baron Nishi (Tsuyoshi Ihara) is a famous equestrian who competed in the 1932 Los Angeles Olympics.

Private Shimizu (Ryo Kase) was trained in the elite school for the Kempeitai, the Gestapo-style military police charged with maintaining Japan’s internal security and the people’s patriotism. But Shimizu found himself shipped off to Iwo Jima for disobeying orders to kill a dog. We see, as well, the old-guard officers who would shoot any soldier who tries to surrender, and who, when defeat seems inevitable, order their men to die with honor by blowing themselves up with grenades. Eastwood's depiction of the horrors of war--and the atrocities committed on both sides--has a shocking intimacy.

At Iwo Jima--where, presumably, the stars of "Flags" are elsewhere storming the beaches--a cross section of post-feudal, pre-modern Japanese society mounts a defense of the volcanic island (of black sand and no charm), which is considered part of the Japanese homeland. The dichotomous relationship between the officer class and the enlisted men in the Japanese force is one of the more poignant aspects of "Letters."

Some like General Tadamichi and Baron Nishi, who live the imperial tradition of bushido as an honorable birthright. Gentlemen warriors both, they sip wine and bemoan this age of mechanized warfare and the mindless, dehumanizing nationalism gripping their beloved homeland.


Other officers, like Lieutenant Ito (Shidou Nakamura of "Fearless") have made it into a form of fundamentalism that ultimately proves poisonous to the Japanese cause.


"Letters from Iwo Jima" somewhat dispels the barbaric image of the Japanese soldier who history has taught us would commit suicide before being caught and would kill his fellow soldier rather than allow him to surrender. And though many Japanese did follow their emperor’s murderous and suicidal orders, "Letters" also shows the other humanistic side of the soldiers who longed to be home with their loved ones; who didn’t want to die rather than be captured; and who didn’t necessarily believe that this piece of rock was worth getting killed over. Not one to take sides, Eastwood doesn’t mince images in portraying the brutal side of the American soldiers either, particularly when they assassinate in cold blood two Japanese soldiers who had surrendered in good faith.

Unlike in "Flags," Eastwood spends more time exposing the back-stories of the soldiers and, more interestingly, the claustrophobic surroundings they were forced to live in during the battle. These young men were stationed in miles and miles of tunnels built within the mountain caves, and the viewer senses the dour and unsanitary living conditions these soldiers had to endure, and the psychological damage that such a confinement can create. In fact, while there were more battle scenes in "Flags," here most of the action takes place within the caves with focus centred almost exclusively on the characters' emotional and spiritual downfall.

Context can magnify the impact of art, and it seems obvious that "Letters from Iwo Jima" derives some of its current power from the fact that the United States has been embroiled for almost four years in a war in Iraq against a foe that is little understood by Americans.

Whatever profound differences distinguish the current conflict from World War II, a similarity is the reality that the enemy (on every side) is defined most forcefully in ways that are expedient to the political aims of the war's promoters--in ways that demonize the "otherness" of the foe.

Part of Eastwood's achievement in "Letters" is to erase this otherness. "Be proud to die for your country," a Japanese officer tells a soldier, just as his American counterpart might; "Always do what is right, because it is right," an American mom writes her soldier son in a letter read aloud in the film by an admiring Japanese translator. Another of Eastwood's achievements is to demonstrate that the ideas conveyed by these quotes can be contradictory, even if some people might consider such a notion subversive.

Such messages would be ineffective if "Letters from Iwo Jima" weren't a frequently exciting film and a model of classical movie storytelling and craftsmanship. Just as "Unforgiven" is a Western and "Million Dollar Baby" is a fight film, whatever ideas those Eastwood features might otherwise convey, "Iwo Jima" is thoroughly rewarding as a straight war movie. (The leisurely buildup to the carnage might frustrate those more interested in explosions than emotions, however; the sirens heralding the first U.S. attack don't sound until 45 minutes into the 142-minute film, and the invasion itself doesn't occur until 11 minutes later.)

Upon Tadamichi’s arrival to Iwo Jima, Kuribayashi orders an immediate halt to all the trench-digging at Iwo’s black-sand beaches much to the dismay of convention-bound officers overseeing their fortification. The beach will fall to the Americans no matter what, he argues; the battle for the island will have to be fought from under Iwo Jima. He orders his men to excavate miles of tunnels connecting the island's caves instead of relying on machine-gun bunkers on the beaches to stop the enemy.

By the time the massive U.S. armada is spotted on the horizon, more than 18 miles of tunnels have been dug under Iwo's crust and throughout Mount Suribachi, the volcanic mass anchoring the island (and atop which the American flag would soon be raised).
The American commanders figured it would take five days to capture Iwo Jima, a barren volcanic island, and make it a beachhead for their final attack on Japan.
The Japanese were badly outnumbered, their fleet was destroyed and fighter planes had been redeployed to defend the Mainland. Ammunition and medicine was in short supply, dysentery was raging, morale was low, and the Japanese troops were subsisting on a diet of worms, weed soup and foul water. Told that death defending the "sacred homeland" island of Iwo Jima is an honorable fate, the wry Saigo says of a fellow soldier's expiration: "Kashiwara died of honorable dysentery."


But the battle rages on for a remarkable six weeks, at a cost of 20,000 Japanese troops Only 136 surrendered to the Americans, who took over 7000 casualties. This Alamo-like last stand, masterminded by Kuribayashi, anticipated the tactics of the Viet Cong used against American soldiers in the Vietnam War.

Kuribayashi's unconventional strategy is derided especially by the more fanatical officers like Lt. Ito, though. Ito leads a mutiny after U.S. troops take Mount Suribachi--the famous raising of the flag is seen, strikingly, from a great distance. Ironically, Ito is one of the few taken prisoner by the end.

"Letters" has some of the same problems as "Flags," though, most notably a certain cool remove from its subjects, though it benefits from a much tighter focus and a higher quality of acting. Eastwood seems at times unwilling to really throw the viewer into the savagery of the fighting (Iwo Jima being one of the most vicious and drawn-out battles ever waged), almost as though he knows that by giving us more thrilling battle scenes, he may be shocking viewers, but he'll also be thrilling them. It appears that one of the great progenitors of American cinematic violence has finally just become sick of it all. He knows that however brave the soldiers, smart the strategy, or necessary the struggle, war is always by definition a bloody waste. The tragedy of this film is not just that the Japanese soldiers on Iwo Jima died for no reason, but how many of them died knowing it.

While it lacks the theoretical complexity and timely importance of "Flags,"
"Letters" is a significant development in the genre: No American war film, let alone one made during a time of war, ever embedded itself so deeply in the enemy camp. Even "Tora! Tora! Tora!" relied on Japanese filmmakers to tell the "other side" of the attack on Pearl Harbor.

Tellingly, Eastwood offers a very different version of a "Flags" scenario in which a young Marine is yanked off the battlefield and sadistically tortured to death. Here, a seriously wounded U.S. soldier is pulled into a cave and tenderly nursed by Lt. Colonel Nishi, and the act of mercy leads to the film's strongest moment. He tells the American boy (in one of two brief English-language segments) of a long-ago visit from Hollywood royalty Douglas Fairbanks and Mary Pickford. As Nishi translates aloud the dying soldier's final letter from home, the Japanese soldiers draw closer, each hanging on every word as if it had been written by his own mother.

In a magical instant, all that separates two nations at war disappears. This is sentimentality of the best kind, a touching display of male bonding amid terror and aching loneliness.

Even as it promotes understanding, the movie doesn't dilute reality. The harsh conditions of Japanese military service and the grim finality of certain Japanese traditions aren't denied. We see an officer beating two "unpatriotic" soldiers with a bamboo cane, and ritual suicide with grenades is depicted graphically.

Like its predecessor, "Letters" is staggeringly impressive as a technical achievement; one can only be amazed and inspired that Eastwood chose to tackle the most logistically complicated and ambitious movies of his career as a septuagenarian (he's now 76). Like "Flags," the movie is almost entirely leached of color; only the explosions of bombs and the sunburst of the Japanese flag add shades of red to the brown and gray.

Unlike "Flags," the movie was complicated by its language: "Letters" was shot in Japanese, with English subtitles translating the dialogue for U.S. viewers, which may discourage the casual U.S. viewer. "Letters" is a hit in Japan, though. Apparently, the language barrier that existed between Eastwood and his actors didn't hurt the film. In the case of "Letters," it would never have worked without the Japanese dialogue, the tone of the language being as essential to the characters' identity as their devotion to duty and resolve to fight to the death.

Directed by Eastwood without a false note, this is a powerful, brilliantly acted film that presents war as a necessary kind of hell in which there are no true victors. Superbly acted, unblinking and unhysterical, it looks beyond politics into the hearts and minds of the men we needed to call "the enemy," and lets us see ourselves.


Conceived after the first film was in production and made at a fraction of the cost, its director dismissed it in early interviews as "my little indulgence." "Letters" was supposed to be a tag-on coda to "Flags." If "Flags" is more complex in its ambitions and structure, the leaner, simpler "Letters" is even more emotionally devastating. Eastwood’s movie stands in the company of the greatest antiwar movies.