Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Bojnice Castle, Slovakia.
Click on the image to enlarge.
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
I’ve been a fan of Alex Garland since I read his novel The Beach years ago. The Danny Boyle adaptation was lame, but I did enjoy the Boyle-Garland collaborations 28 DAYS LATER and SUNSHINE. Oh yeah, the Garland-written-and-partially-directed DREDD reboot was pretty boss, too. So I was primed to enjoy EX MACHINA and did for the most part. The movie plays like HER meets FRANKENSTEIN but written as a European chamber play/sex thriller. But the movie could’ve lost 20 minutes and I thought the ending was predictable. The actors are all interesting. The growing sexual tension and manipulation between Domhnall Gleeson and Alicia Vikander is fun to watch, and I particularly liked Oscar Isaac, here playing a cross between Sergey Brin, Mark Zuckerberg, and Steve Jobs. This is the third movie I’ve seen with him (the other two being INSIDE LLEWYN DAVIS and THE TWO FACES OF JANUARY) and I’ve come to like him quite a bit. He has those sad, angry, contemptuous eyes that make me wonder what he’s going to say and do next.
Eddie Pensier writes:
EX MACHINA surprised me on several levels. First of all, the pace is fairly meditative: not a lot strictly “happens” in the first hour, and it’s definitely more talk than action. (It could, without a lot of trouble, be converted into a stage play with three speaking roles not unlike SPEED-THE-PLOW.) Secondly, it operates on an intellectual level higher than most sci-fi movies. There are some pretty deep meditations on the nature of consciousness and humanity, and the film doesn’t pretend to have the answers to every question–the ending leaves a lot of ambiguity in the viewer’s mind. Garland and his cinematographer Rob Hardy produce some stunning visuals, my favorite being the (mild spoiler) Bluebeard-like scene where Caleb discovers closetsful of Nathan’s previous, discarded AI experiments (end mild spoiler).
Of the three excellent main actors, I was most impressed by Alicia Vikander’s Ava, who pitches her performance at just the right level of is-she-or-isn’t-she to intrigue us (and Gleeson’s appealingly schlubby Caleb). However, her bird-like head movements, each accompanied by tiny electronic sounds, along with the glowing plasticky sheen of her artificial skin, never lets us forget what (who?) she really is. Oscar Isaac too manages to keep the smarmy technobro trappings to a minimum while bristling with obvious intelligence.
Sax von Stroheim writes:
Based on his previous works, my take on Alex Garland was that he was trying to smuggle in ideas, themes, and characters from J.G. Ballard’s science fiction novels into more standard genre movies. This was clearest with his screenplay for SUNSHINE, partly because the turn from Ballardian sci-fi to a last act that devolved into standard scary movie shtick was so pronounced. So, I thought that on his own movie, working on a smaller scale, without the need for the conventional tactics that marred the end of SUNSHINE, he’d give us something that hewed closer to the Ballard novels that seem to be his major inspiration. And that’s kind of what we get in EX MACHINA: an Everyman engaging in a battle of wills with a Man Who Would Be God, with the evolution of humanity (or post-humanity) at stake. But it’s only “kind of” what we get, because, as it turns out, even on his own, working on a smaller scale, Garland goes for a turn towards more conventional genre fare by the end, which doesn’t quite mar the movie, but makes it more familiar, and more comfortable, than the sci-fi novels (by Ballard and others) that inspired it. While I can’t say I didn’t like it — it’s smart, the acting is terrific, there’s a low-rent Edgar Ulmer vibe to the production that I really dig — I also wasn’t terribly moved by it — it engaged my intellect more than my imagination (it doesn’t help that it looks pretty cruddy). It’s one of those movies that I didn’t mind sitting through, but where, on the way home, I couldn’t help think of other, similar movies that I had liked better (Ulmer’s own, for example, or, thinking of other recent small scale indie sci-fi, Brandon Cronenberg’s ANTIVIRAL). And, although it’s completely unfair and unreasonable of me, I guess I’m a little disappointed that Garland’s own ambitions aren’t quite as grand (or at least as refined) as I had imagined them to be.
Eddie Pensier writes:

Peter Wegner, Dog With Gas Mask, 2013
Related
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
1. Don has sold his penthouse — for $85k, or $492k in 2015 dollars — and is now homeless. “This place reeks of failure,” his real estate agent says. Pardon me, but I’ll take a half mil “failure” any time.
2. California geography shout-outs this episode: Beverly Wilshire Hotel, Palos Verdes, and Biltmore in Santa Barbara. I’ve been to a couple of hoity-toity lawyer events at the Beverly Wilshire and it is indeed a swanky place. We also get accurate directions to Hanna-Barbera studios, right off the 101 in Universal City — “Sunset to Highland to Cahuenga”.
3. Traveler’s cheques have pretty much disappeared, right? I remember my family getting some for a trip to Canada in 1986. I’m guessing we were the last people to use them.
4. Happy to see Captain Pike (aka Bruce Greenwood) show up to woo Joan. Now how soon before some geek argues that MAD MEN and STAR TREK take place in the same universe?
5. Joan in that blue dress.
6. It’s probably unlikely, but I’m hoping we get more from Ted Chaough before the season is out. I liked when he was the cocky pissant challenging Don.
7. New York geography: The Oak Room at The Plaza and we find out that Joan lives on 12th St.
8. I don’t have a screenshot, but we get brief glimpses of The New Yorker and Newsweek magazines in this episode. Some of my UR comrades have worked for both of those publications.
9. My favorite line of the episode goes to Mathis who yells at Don, “You don’t have any character, you’re just handsome. Stop kidding yourself!” Take it from me, someone who has quit two jobs in the past year — there are few things more satisfying than telling off a shithead boss as you walk out the door.
10. My second favorite scene was watching Sally’s teenaged friend throw herself at Don and Don being only too happy to flirt back. Jesus, Sally is gonna be one fucked up teenager, isn’t she?
Paleo Retiree writes:
Despite all the bitching and carping we here at UR like to indulge in, we aren’t just a bunch of negativity-mongers. (Critics, patooie.) Many of us make our own creative contributions too. Try this, and this, and this, and this, and this, and this. In fact, please give ’em a try. Expressing yourself may be easier than ever these days, but audiences are getting harder and harder to scare up.
Recently my wife and I were delighted to see a video pop up on YouTube of a performance of a short play of ours. The actress is Karen Grenke, a souful/funny genius who always makes our material look its best, and the director was Jason Jacobs, a miracle maker who we’ve worked with many times and who we look forward to working with again. The event where the performance took place was a celebration at the Nuyuorican Poets Café of the launch of “Best Monologues from Best American Short Plays.” (Our piece was also selected for “Best American Short Plays, 2008-2009.”) Hey, we’re award-winners, doncha know. Hope you enjoy. And if you don’t: for God’s sake either don’t tell me about it or lie. Honesty isn’t always a virtue.
Paleo Retiree writes:
Steve Sailer was kind enough to highlight a comment I made on his blog about the demographics of the American book publishing world from 1985ish to 2001ish, a stretch when I was professionally covering the field. (I dropped about a half a dozen comments on Steve’s posting, so if you’re in that kind of mood, scrawl down and give those a look too.) Ah, the memories … Especially of the hundreds of fancy lunches I enjoyed, paid for by money that in a just world would have been going to authors instead of into my belly. Although I couldn’t be more happy about being retired, I do miss those fabulous meals — Manhattan’s great restaurants are really something to experience. In any case: many thanks to Steve, who these days always seems to be on an inspired tear of one sort or another. If you value his work as much as I do, why not make a donation?
Related
Paleo Retiree writes:
I enjoyed Mark Berkson’s hyper-basic (one-half to four lectures per major religion) Great Courses series very much. My beefs with it first, but only because complaining is so much more fun and easy than praising. It wasn’t the anthropological lecture series of my dreams. I’d have enjoyed some looks at animism, tribal beliefs, and Egyptian, Mesoamerican and Mesopotamian religions, as well as a few tours through the main ongoing debates over what’s a religion and what’s not. Is our current regime of multiculturalism / feminism / diversity / PC / neoliberalism taking on some characteristics of a religion, for instance? (I sure think so.) The course’s worthy “If only we understood each other we’d get along better” framing struck me as pretty silly. Why shouldn’t intellectual curiosity be understood to be reason enough to justify going through such a series? And, perhaps predictably, Berkson’s treatment of Islam seems as concerned with preventing listeners from hating the religion as with presenting and explaining it. Berkson in fact seems to have intended his Islam lectures as a corrective to some imagined wave of anti-Islam vindictiveness. Since despite checking the news most days I’ve remained unaware of the angry mobs in the U.S. that are apparently clamoring for attacks on Muslims, I did roll my eyes a few times during these particular lectures.
OK, it’s a pretty earnest experience. But, all my ungallant carping to one side, I also found it to be a super-clear and very informative series of talks. If you’re like me, you’ve run across 3/4 of this material before but only in a scattershot, higgledy-piggledy fashion. Berkson lines it all up in very easy-to-digest order. He speaks clearly and well; he has a lot of enthusiasm as well as a major gift for organization; and he supplies just the right amount of historical context-setting to make the beliefs, dogmas and developments comprehensible. And for what the course wants to be he gets the generalization-level just right. That strikes me as a very big accomplishment. (A writerly note: It’s fascinating how the demands of speaking hyper-basically can — somewhat paradoxically? — make a person come up with interesting things to say, as well as interesting ways of saying them.) For a few minutes, my head felt very clear, and that’s something I’m always very grateful for. Verdict: A first-class (if slightly, and forgivably, square) shot at Major Religions of the World 101.
Related
Blowhard, Esq. writes:
Bernardo Bellotto, “View of the Grand Canal and the Dogana,” 1743.
Click on the image to enlarge.