European Contemporary Arts Practitioner

FILM REVIEW

MAN OF STEEL, 2013, directed by Zack Snyder.

★★ out of ★★★★

In a plot reminiscent of the first two original Superman movies (SUPERMAN, 1978, directed by Richard Donner and SUPERMAN II, 1980, directed by Richard Lester), Superman aka Kal-El aka Clark Kent’s origin story is re-told with some twists and before long the once-banished General Zod (Michael Shannon) and his Hench Kryptonians attempt to invade Earth and battle the famed hero. It is unfortunate that the titular superhero’s latest reboot attempt is a dud. As fans left cinema screens a wave of disappointment escaped from them like Kryptonite leaving Krypton.

———————————————
SPOILER ALERT: SIGNIFICANT PLOT POINTS

———————————————

Despite the best of intentions, MAN OF STEEL does not live up to either Snyder or Nolan standards, bombarding audiences with headache levels of CGI which include poor AVATAR-like flying creatures in the opening scenes, unnecessary action sequences from Russel Crowe’s supposedly soft role as Jor-El (Superman’s father), and fight sequences that will make you so stiff you will feel like a plank of wood. Cavill’s acting brings a nomadic quality to the hero that works to an advantage alongside the mortal heroine and love interest Louis Lane (Amy Adams), but the supporting cast do not perform their best efforts in their respective roles.

Whilst the marketing campaign leading up to the film’s release was well planned, the overall product of this collaboration between director Zack Snyder and producer Christopher Nolan (aka the ‘co-director’) was not up to standards for many fans for several reasons. One such complaint was the ending where Superman – under desperation apparently – kills General Zod which as true fans know Superman would never perform as his 75 year history has proven, the Kryptonian has always found a way to disable even the most dreaded villains when backed into a corner.* It also comes as surprising when considering that throughout the three ‘Dark Knight’ films directed by Nolan (2005-2012) Batman (Christian Bale) faced incredible odds and temptations to break a similar code yet never took such action against either thugs or super-villains. It is a sad case where the movie trailer was better than the film itself, promising audiences and fans a chance to explore the mythology of the man behind the ‘S’ shield, which it only half delivers. MAN OF STEEL even manages to demonstrate how much creative control producer Nolan had in an interrogation scene that mirrors one in THE DARK KNIGHT, 2008, and the use of a non-linear story which comes across as lazy, clear that Snyder does not know how to direct a film with such a substantial budget. This is certainly not another BATMAN BEGINS Nolan-esque reboot up to standard.

The film’s direction and writing suggest a comparison between Superman and Jesus Christ as saviours sent to Earth to redeem and protect humanity under the care of adoptive parents, which though a clever interpretation is flawed by relentless reminders that we are watching a superhero/drama/action/science fiction where CGI and special effects outweigh heart and soul. Even the use of regular Nolan composer Hans Zimmer presents a dull score that bores you incomprehensibly and that cannot match John Williams’ fantastic theme from SUPERMAN, 1978*. The movie’s soft moments though awe-inspiring are quickly pushed aside by blundering visual effects, and post-911 exploitation as air-crafts prepare to crash into New York City stand-in Metropolis followed by more explosions than any previous acts of terror in history.

Overall, this critic is not hoping for a sequel whilst SUPERMAN RETURNS from 2006 directed by Bryan Singer is already starting to appear the better Superman reboot.

———————————————

Among it’s inconsistencies, MAN OF STEEL leaves this critic asking one question: If the Kryptonian scouting ship landed on Earth approximately 20,000 years ago how is it possible that the ship contains the 33 year-old’s trademarked Superman costume? Were the Kryptonians a race of oracles or just the best tailors in the universe that they could predict when someone would need a superhero suit in the future?

*’Man of Steel Controversy: Does Superman Go Too Far?’ by Leslie Gornstein http://tinyurl.com/m46ff5t

*’Man of Steel: 7 Reasons the “S” Stands for Sucks’ by Amarpal Biring http://tinyurl.com/m67o2q9

FILM REVIEW

STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, 2013, directed by J. J. Abrams.

★ out of ★★★★

The highly anticipated sequel to 2009’s reboot of the STAR TREK film franchise disappoints in almost every means at it’s disposal. However, our villain shines like a gold statue in a silverware shop as the new younger crew of the USS Enterprise find themselves pitted against an adversary that bests them in every way.

INTO DARKNESS finds the crew of the Enterprise in the frontier of space performing their duties as silent protectors of other civilisations with an ever rule-breaking cocky Captain Kirk (played by Chris Pine) having been demoted. Meanwhile, a mysterious former agent of Starfleet known as John Harrison (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) destroys a secret installation and manages to attack several admirals and captains before being pursued to the farthest reaches of space where the crew of the Enterprise will learn shocking secrets that reveal the true enemies and friends.

Whilst the first in the new franchise of STAR TREK films was well received in 2009 and would have garnered 2 out of 4 stars from this reviewer, INTO DARKNESS delivers less awe than a serving of tiramisu and can only be justified by its lead villain Kahn this time played by Cumberbatch with exuberant passion and a ferocious aura that reminds us why this baddie is probably one of the greatest film villains of all time, and an excellent addition to the best film antagonists in recent years. Superior to the Romulans in physical and mental strength, as our human crew, Kahn represents a favourite of director J. J. Abrams’ auteur in recent years: catastrophes/menaces spawned out of human ingenuity seeking vengeance against their captors with humanity as hero and villain. If it wasn’t the giant monster in the Abrams-produced CLOVERFIELD, 2008, then it was the alien in SUPER 8, 2011, or the meteorite in his co-authored film ARMAGEDDON, 1998. Personally, several directors of other genres are joining the science-fiction band-waggon with this reviewer dying to see Guillermo del Toro’s vision in PACIFIC RIM to be released this year which should follow a del Toro theme similar to Abrams [del Toro was here first]. It becomes apparent that the two keywords of this picture are “feel” and “loss” with a theme of “terrorism” coursing through the veins of INTO DARKNESS‘ heart, as acts of personal revenge and heroism all reveal consequences. Unfortunately, Abrams’ direction confirms that he has very little to teach his audiences about cinema, and that if he is not paying homage to the pictures of Steven Spielberg in SUPER 8, then he is trying to dumb-down the beloved STAR TREK franchise for a target audience of twelve year-olds who most likely have never seen an episode let alone a film from the original series.

If Trekkies were expecting INTO DARKNESS to be their EMPIRE STRIKES BACK then they may very well be upset by how it “does not feel like a STAR TREK movie”, producing a script of cheesy metaphors (apparently still utilised in the distant future) as well as numerous references and performances befitting an otherwise rubbish ‘Beverley Hills 90210’ school play production of Star Trek. The ending also has little resolve losing it’s momentum, and demonstrating why it could alienate fans of the franchise; and whilst it leaves room for a sequel, it probably does not deserve such a feat. It is very difficult to accept that some critics actually wish to see INTO DARKNESS receive Academy-Award nominations#, whilst a Best Supporting Actor nod for Cumberbatch is more likely, although the Academy is famous for not always embracing the science-fiction genre. If what we have seen of Abrams’ work is to present us with any clues to the ditsy direction of the highly anticipated new title in the STAR WARS saga (EPISODE VII (2015), then fans could very well be disappointed, and should expect heart and soul script-writing to be replaced with mechanical robotic direction and tasteless performances from the young folks.

Here’s hoping to an improved follow-up and until then “Live Long and Prosper”.

#’Summer Movies with Oscar Potential’ by Thelma Adams http://tinyurl.com/nlxjaym

HIGHLIGHTED UPCOMING FILM

PACIFIC RIM, 2013, directed by Guillermo del Toro

The director of BLADE II, the HELLBOY films, and PAN’S LABYRINTH doing a sci-fi summer blockbuster about giant robots battling giant monsters? Ridiculous you say? Far from it – del Toro has come a long way since writing and directing unique World Cinema films with either a horror or fantasy flavour as evidenced when he made his first “mainstream” transition with Blade II (2002); often dubbed the best film of the Blade trilogy; which he infused with his love of fantastical creatures in a horror setting.
But his pet project was always the titular character of the HELLBOY films (2004, 2008) which also featured his muse Ron Pearlman in the lead role of a good-guy demon battling to protect humanity. Even the word “humanity” is a key to understanding del Toro’s oeuvre, as his characters often represent the best-and-worst of our species (e.g. courage, greed, curiosity, evil, etc.). The point is, humanity is depicted in his films as being the cause of their predicament (e.g. the mechanical vampire-like device in CRONOS, 1993, or the titular mechanical army in HELLBOY II: THE GOLDEN ARMY, 2008) and for this PACIFIC RIM should be no different, as the Kaiju (giant monsters) in the film arrive not from space but from the Pacific Ocean [alluding to the BP Oil Spill of 2010 and other such disasters] and before long, humans are forced to build giant robots to battle the creatures in a fight reminiscent of the Titan-Olympian battle from Greek mythology.

You might think “monsters coming from the ocean battling humans? doesn’t that sound like CLOVERFIELD (2008) produced by J.J. Abrams [who also wrote and directed the Spielberg-homage monster film SUPER 8 (2011)?” and the answer is not “yes”. Whilst that symmetry of origins for the lead monster(s) is similar it no-way represents unoriginality and artistic depth, as personally CLOVERFIELD and SUPER 8 were far from being “excellent” – CLOVERFIELD was nothing more than an MTV movie with annoying human characters and SUPER 8 was little-more than a rip-off Spielberg cinema, which demonstrates Abrams over-rated spectacle and left this reviewer in boredom for STAR TREK (2009 – on that note the new STAR TREK INTO DARKNESS, 2013, seems a right snooze-fest, and gives little hope that the direction in STAR WARS EPISODE VII, 2015, will be any good because of Abrams).

Although it has been 5 years since del Toro’s last film (HELLBOY II), this film should demonstrate that whether Hollywood has succeeded in recruiting him, del Toro is very much an auteur and chooses his projects carefully, and makes them into visual splendors regardless of the budget or box-office gross. If you are a fan of his cinema, or just enjoy the Kaiju monster movies of Japan such as Godzilla, maybe even just want to watch a decent summer blockbuster, then PACIFIC RIM should be the choice you make.

Mock Artist Talk +4

Q: A few weeks have passed since your debut solo show ‘Grandfather’ at Airspace Gallery from 25 January to 2 February. Where did the motivation to create the surprisingly different paintings featured in the show come from?

A: Most of the paintings with two exceptions were created in 5-minutes each over the two weeks before the exhibition, and like their debut in the aforementioned show, they were shown without hesitation, and with a long-awaited desire to just… paint. You always hear that expression “do not think too much” but you need to actually experience its message to understand it.

Q: With more colour and far-less abstract visual imagery, do the new paintings differentiate from your chosen themes of nationalism and/or identity?

A: No because much like the dictionary there are numerous definitions of the same word – much like different brands or styles of compasses all of which still lead you in the same direction. An example to examine is the painting ‘Polish Sausage (Kabanos)’ [see enclosed image] which includes a facial portrait made of eponymous sausages, topped with some Euro currency notes, and finished with a toxic looking puddle-of-a-smile. The chosen national icon of Poland (being half Polish myself) is the Kabanos which can at first look a tad pruney and skinny but is actually treated with almost as much respect as the farmers who harvest it, and the butchers who make it. Plus, there is a slightly non-realistic depiction of the Euro currency as a means to frame the narrative of the painting as not just being about sausages but also financial recession and a lack of culinary choice.

Q: There is a visual link with one of the paintings to Philip Guston [born 1913 died 1980] an American painter whom has been an influence on yours and many others’ practices for his abstract and figurative work that often transcended the cartoonish aesthetic. Was this intentional and where there other works that were made from an intended influence?

A: Well one other painting was almost a close gloss paint replica Francisco Goya [born 1746-1828] with “cartoonish” alteration that is well received, and not strictly speaking but the crown object in another painting was conceived from the famous ‘Keep Calm and Carry On’ posters, and one featuring a snake, a cowboy hat and a blue jean leather bag seemed to very loosely originate from the Kings of Leon [American band, formed 1999] track ‘King of the Rodeo’ as symbols of the capitalist West (as a metaphor). Other than that, the paintings came from original intent, motivation and inspiration from items seen in everyday life that have a sense of pride bestowed on them like pub signs.

Q: From graduate to graduate artist-in-residence; what does the future hold for the practice?

A: Possibly applying for Masters studies or art courses in painting to increase knowledge of the medium, continue networking and developing the career prospects. There are ideas floating around for a self-organised group painting show in London because the time away from the capital was been lovely and it is terrific to return to the city that bore me and that I hope to exhibit in more often. Sculpture will likely not be continued again for a very long time due to lack of resoures, space and knowledge & comfortability with the medium to be able to craft it in this day and age. If there was a further education course to study in the future with a provided studio, tutors and mentors then sculpture might continue in the form of portable clay works that would act as forms for new paintings.

I Moustache You a Question About These Contemporary Paintings

Attached to this post are two images of sketches to new paintings that have yet to be produced physically.

The first image contains sketches of the proposed ‘moustache paintings’ (see post #21), and an ‘ivory painting’ that much like ‘Gold’ (2013, see image) would depict an object of greed and defective use repeatedly. As a possible symbol of nationalism and a good or bad memory to different communities, both gold and ivory have tantalised not just societies in the western hemisphere but across different continents, as these mere trinket inanimate items have the power to start and end wars. In this conversation, the proposed depiction of smoke-pipes into this practices visual palette would not necessarily replicate that of influential contemporary painters such as Ryan Mosley (b. 1980) working today, but rather continue the progress of representing this eccentricly iconic object in contemporary painting as one of many dinosaur bones in the Natural History Museum.

There are sketches of proposed paintings that include a rasping, sweating tuba on a sculpted pedestal; a cave mouth constructed from stalagmites and stalagtites; and a star being fired from a circus cannon.

Further sketches in the second image include a panel full of strangely hooded shopping carrier bags; moustaches; abstract clay sculptures; ideas for a portrait featuring an Amish hair style; a bearded skull; a socialist realist star sculpture; a gangsta bandana; boiled eggs; and a cut-out face portrait featuring a triangular nose and moon-shaped mouth. However many of these ideas will become a reality is yet to be established, though out of the sketches shown from the second image the most coherent seem to be: the moustaches, and the hooded shopping carrier bags.

What this means is that the practice has NOT and will NOT sell-out, suddenly changing visual styles and imagery just to grab a chance at becoming a profitable painter capable of selling work. This is not capitalistism, this is evolution.