Behold, the technology magic show!
Look on as the helpless writer heaps math and science words on top of a steamy scene excreted from the script-o-matic. "Maybe we can use the Pradeep Sen method in order to see into the windows." The script-o-matic, a dehumanizing machine which turns once-inspired writers into prisoners churning out the same pre-digested copy week-after-week, makes for great formula television. I imagine the typical writing conditions to be somewhere between a porn shoot and the cellar where naked people are kept in the dark and amputated limb by limb by cannibals in The Road. This is not hyperbole.
The flurry of animations and keyboard clattering helps the terminology babble to dazzle the viewers until they are too disoriented to think about the scene.* A slight tingly feeling around the temple is normal. That's confusion. Don't worry, there's always a dumb guy in the scene who doesn't get what's happening so the writer can slap you in the face with his diction. No viewer left behind. If you do, somehow, start to fall behind you can use the musical tempo cues to know when something exciting is happening and start breathing out of your mouth.
These shows fall into the genre of drama, sometimes the sub-genre crime drama, but I think more apt terms might be procedural porn, or forensics fantasy. Were it actually dramatic, the emotional needs of the multi-dimensional characters would be fascinating enough. Viewers would never need be laid down to watch the mobile spin in each episode's obligatory laboratory scene. Unfortunately in order for the plot driven "drama" to be easily digested the characters need to be flat, and that precludes having emotional needs. The absence of need leaves a gap which is, apparently, filled by characters staring at computer screens going "blah blah blah enhance blah." Procedural porn continues to fascinate viewers and annoy me, particularly the quirky lab worker who exists to please the leads with her offbeat fashion and uncanny skillz with the com poo tah. Wait...quirky and smart? I stand corrected. Some characters have two dimensions!
This jargon-spitting speed-typing is the low budget equivalent to Michael Bay's incoherent spatial assault in the Transformer films. Or if you prefer, it's the high budget version of youtube jump cutting. It's the opposite of art and degrading to anyone who hasn't mentally checked out. If you're a regular viewer of Numb3ers, CSI:Doesn't Matter, Law & Order: Special Victims Unit or the show under some other title, I should break it down. You are watching a show where you are being fed formulaic shit, hit over the head, then powdered and put in a crib. You are the special victim. Somewhere a writer is having his passion buried under your stupidity. It is my hope he's able to configure each episode's permutations while wondering, is this Satire?
This is:
*like this sentence
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Showing posts with label media. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 1, 2011
Megan is Missing is a horror/movie
Megan is Missing is so amateur it hurts. Horror should hurt, but for different reasons.
I doubt I could write dialogue that felt more contrived. Scene-after-scene of forced merrymaking and “friendship” assaulted my sense of humanity. It was as if some Google algorithm gathered up blog and youtube comments and wrote a script to try and convey teenage life. Now, if Google did that it would be interesting. Good job Google! You're a pre-sentient algorithm and a keyword like “friendship” is indistinguishable from other data. A for effort. But IMDB confirms this film was created by an actual human being so it is not interesting, just bad. To get a taste of writer/director Michael Goi's writing ability, check out the summary on the back of the box:
The whole script is like this. They're friends because you're told they are!
Have you ever seen a movie where a 14 year old incredulously explains being face-raped by a camp counselor? I hadn't either, until about 20 minutes into this one. The point where she begins to describe, with a smile, turning blue, is when I began examining this movie from arms-length like a piece of art. Why is the scriptwriter putting these words in her mouth? Why is the scriptwriter explaining how much cum the molester deposited in her mouth? Most of all, what does this scene do for the movie? Ostensibly the graphic recollection is some sort of characterization; typically horror films attach you to characters in the first half and kill them off in the second. But after seeing the whole film I'm convinced the playful 10-year-old throat fucking scene is just there to be controversial.
Then I began to wonder what it meant about me that I was still watching, and how people might view me if they knew I was watching a film where a teenage character verbally reenacted forced sex with glee. Not because I thought the scene was realistic and I fear for the souls of the teenagers but because the role of sexual taboo in our society is so active I'm forecasting the potential impact this post will make on my future careers. “Says here on your resume you watched Megan is Missing, a terrible film.” A moral person would have turned the film off rather than consider it's effectiveness as a film, right? Writing this review was the scariest part of the film for me.
Then there was the equally sensationalized party scene. Parents be warned, if you give your 14-year-old ten dollars, she's going to spend it on the entrance fee to a “party” in a furniture-less abandoned house where they love Heineken and videotape everything. Boy do they love Heineken. But there is also cocaine, pills, and sex, so for ten dollars it's a bargain. Some of the savings is due to the lights being off, but the kids are well-practiced in relying on flashlights to take their hits, so relax. If you want a movie that deals honestly with sexualization and drug use in teens I recommend Thirteen. Because Thirteen is sincere it is potentially much more horrifying than this painful excuse for a film.
I enjoyed the Dateline-esque news show portion. Its flashy graphics and cloying host highlighted the way victims are exploited by shows like America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, and even Doctor Phil, and more broadly the way the media sensationalizes. After its dramatic reenactment I was finally convinced that this film was a satire about well-meaning parental obsession with violent “predators,” akin to the 1st world fascination with 3rd world cannibalism in Cannibal Holocaust. But I have had to adjust my conviction after seen the film in its entirety, as satire seems outside the ability of the writer/director given the failure of the film in so many other areas.
Clearly the final scenes are Goi's attempts at horror, but it was unclear what he achieved. I concede I got a good jolt that made my hair stand up, but the rest was a pain to watch; more boring than anything, and I'm not referring just to the rape scene. The human imagination is the most powerful tool a filmmaker can harness to create fear, so darkness and keeping horrible things out of the frame are generally effective. But Goi managed to turn this sort of space-for-thinking into naptime with the extended cuts that dull rather than enhance emotional turmoil. If you want to see an excruciating rape scene that fully conveys the brutality of the act check out Irreversible. If you want someone to exploit rape for shock value--and fail--watch Megan is Missing.
At times unbearable to watch, Irreversible is a finely made film that explores dark qualities of human nature. The moments that turn your stomach do so because they treat their subjects seriously and honestly. When a rape is the cause of the plot and a means to explore vengeance and sexuality in otherwise normal people, it would be senseless to turn it into montage. The Irreversible rape scene is almost 10 brutal minutes long. After a few seconds viewers don't want be there anymore, but the filmmaker doesn't let them off the hook. Just as the rape victim can't close her eyes and make it go away, neither can the viewer. By unflinchingly refusing to cut away, Irreversible affirms the reality of rape within the scene, and in the context of the entire movie creates a parallel urge in the viewer to exhibit justice on the perpetrator.
Goi doesn't cut away either, but there's no hook to be on. Megan is Missing fails to humanize its characters in the first place, reducing the seriousness of rape to an off screen gag. If you haven't seen the movie you can get the same sense by imagining a single pane comic. In it, a husband and wife stand in the kitchen looking down at a broken vase. His speech bubble says “that makes me sad, honey.” “Honey” is the author's means of conveying life-long love and commitment (see: DVD back cover). Now Goi, having chosen an object for his tragedy, decides to shock the viewer by making the comic into a full-page spread, showing the vase tumbling senselessly to the floor and painstakingly shattering. Would this comic shock you? No, it's a vase. Thankfully vase-breaking isn't as important an act as rape, because if the comic was about rape you'd be staring frightfully into the unmasked id of a sociopath for whom rape is a really scary thing that scares parents, and therefore belongs in the Sunday paper. The only shocking part of the comic is when you wonder why a full-page comic doesn't find the time to examine why they are so concerned about a broken vase. Seems important, no?*
I wager this film will be effective only for dumb parents, so shocked at the lives their teenagers might be living they get tunnel vision and see past the glaring failures as a horror film. Everything has been done better. The parts where we're supposed to care for the characters is tortuous, and the parts where we're supposed to watch them suffer is not torturous. As a satire about the way the media conjures fear of predators in parents, I felt the film was much more successful. But is it satire?
Michael Goi:
The next Tommy Wiseau?
*For more on the connection between Goi, Wiseau, and the unexamined concern for a vase, check out An Important Film.
I doubt I could write dialogue that felt more contrived. Scene-after-scene of forced merrymaking and “friendship” assaulted my sense of humanity. It was as if some Google algorithm gathered up blog and youtube comments and wrote a script to try and convey teenage life. Now, if Google did that it would be interesting. Good job Google! You're a pre-sentient algorithm and a keyword like “friendship” is indistinguishable from other data. A for effort. But IMDB confirms this film was created by an actual human being so it is not interesting, just bad. To get a taste of writer/director Michael Goi's writing ability, check out the summary on the back of the box:
The whole script is like this. They're friends because you're told they are!
Have you ever seen a movie where a 14 year old incredulously explains being face-raped by a camp counselor? I hadn't either, until about 20 minutes into this one. The point where she begins to describe, with a smile, turning blue, is when I began examining this movie from arms-length like a piece of art. Why is the scriptwriter putting these words in her mouth? Why is the scriptwriter explaining how much cum the molester deposited in her mouth? Most of all, what does this scene do for the movie? Ostensibly the graphic recollection is some sort of characterization; typically horror films attach you to characters in the first half and kill them off in the second. But after seeing the whole film I'm convinced the playful 10-year-old throat fucking scene is just there to be controversial.
Then I began to wonder what it meant about me that I was still watching, and how people might view me if they knew I was watching a film where a teenage character verbally reenacted forced sex with glee. Not because I thought the scene was realistic and I fear for the souls of the teenagers but because the role of sexual taboo in our society is so active I'm forecasting the potential impact this post will make on my future careers. “Says here on your resume you watched Megan is Missing, a terrible film.” A moral person would have turned the film off rather than consider it's effectiveness as a film, right? Writing this review was the scariest part of the film for me.
Then there was the equally sensationalized party scene. Parents be warned, if you give your 14-year-old ten dollars, she's going to spend it on the entrance fee to a “party” in a furniture-less abandoned house where they love Heineken and videotape everything. Boy do they love Heineken. But there is also cocaine, pills, and sex, so for ten dollars it's a bargain. Some of the savings is due to the lights being off, but the kids are well-practiced in relying on flashlights to take their hits, so relax. If you want a movie that deals honestly with sexualization and drug use in teens I recommend Thirteen. Because Thirteen is sincere it is potentially much more horrifying than this painful excuse for a film.
I enjoyed the Dateline-esque news show portion. Its flashy graphics and cloying host highlighted the way victims are exploited by shows like America's Most Wanted, Unsolved Mysteries, and even Doctor Phil, and more broadly the way the media sensationalizes. After its dramatic reenactment I was finally convinced that this film was a satire about well-meaning parental obsession with violent “predators,” akin to the 1st world fascination with 3rd world cannibalism in Cannibal Holocaust. But I have had to adjust my conviction after seen the film in its entirety, as satire seems outside the ability of the writer/director given the failure of the film in so many other areas.
Clearly the final scenes are Goi's attempts at horror, but it was unclear what he achieved. I concede I got a good jolt that made my hair stand up, but the rest was a pain to watch; more boring than anything, and I'm not referring just to the rape scene. The human imagination is the most powerful tool a filmmaker can harness to create fear, so darkness and keeping horrible things out of the frame are generally effective. But Goi managed to turn this sort of space-for-thinking into naptime with the extended cuts that dull rather than enhance emotional turmoil. If you want to see an excruciating rape scene that fully conveys the brutality of the act check out Irreversible. If you want someone to exploit rape for shock value--and fail--watch Megan is Missing.
At times unbearable to watch, Irreversible is a finely made film that explores dark qualities of human nature. The moments that turn your stomach do so because they treat their subjects seriously and honestly. When a rape is the cause of the plot and a means to explore vengeance and sexuality in otherwise normal people, it would be senseless to turn it into montage. The Irreversible rape scene is almost 10 brutal minutes long. After a few seconds viewers don't want be there anymore, but the filmmaker doesn't let them off the hook. Just as the rape victim can't close her eyes and make it go away, neither can the viewer. By unflinchingly refusing to cut away, Irreversible affirms the reality of rape within the scene, and in the context of the entire movie creates a parallel urge in the viewer to exhibit justice on the perpetrator.
Goi doesn't cut away either, but there's no hook to be on. Megan is Missing fails to humanize its characters in the first place, reducing the seriousness of rape to an off screen gag. If you haven't seen the movie you can get the same sense by imagining a single pane comic. In it, a husband and wife stand in the kitchen looking down at a broken vase. His speech bubble says “that makes me sad, honey.” “Honey” is the author's means of conveying life-long love and commitment (see: DVD back cover). Now Goi, having chosen an object for his tragedy, decides to shock the viewer by making the comic into a full-page spread, showing the vase tumbling senselessly to the floor and painstakingly shattering. Would this comic shock you? No, it's a vase. Thankfully vase-breaking isn't as important an act as rape, because if the comic was about rape you'd be staring frightfully into the unmasked id of a sociopath for whom rape is a really scary thing that scares parents, and therefore belongs in the Sunday paper. The only shocking part of the comic is when you wonder why a full-page comic doesn't find the time to examine why they are so concerned about a broken vase. Seems important, no?*
I wager this film will be effective only for dumb parents, so shocked at the lives their teenagers might be living they get tunnel vision and see past the glaring failures as a horror film. Everything has been done better. The parts where we're supposed to care for the characters is tortuous, and the parts where we're supposed to watch them suffer is not torturous. As a satire about the way the media conjures fear of predators in parents, I felt the film was much more successful. But is it satire?
Michael Goi:
The next Tommy Wiseau?
*For more on the connection between Goi, Wiseau, and the unexamined concern for a vase, check out An Important Film.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)