oddbirdarts-D. Anthony Boman

The new ‘reboot’ of Star Trek is one of the most highly successful exploitation action/special effects films that I have seen in recent years. But, this ‘not your father’s Star Trek’, lies somewhere between the canon of Ed Wood and Roger Corman rather than that of George Lucas or Steven Spielberg. And it certainly will have the same cult following of other similar exploitation action films.

Directed by J.J Abrams, the beginning of ‘Star Trek’ makes it known that this is a film packed with well used and borrowed plot devices and you just might as well sit there and take it. As the antagonist appears through a wormhole, it is a very angry Romulan out for revenge with his spaceship from a future time. He proceeds to attack a Federation vessel. Nothing new here and at the most, these scenes are a made for television teaser. Cramming as many explosions and confusing action scenes into the first ten minutes of the film, it’s ‘Alias’ or ‘Lost’ in style and form. At its best, spaceships both large and small, bursting into fire with metallic bits flying towards the audience, is not drama but more exploitation action film tricks.

The film jumps ahead in diegesis to have us experience the young James T. Kirk hopping a ride in a stolen car and nearly escaping death by clawing his way out of a canyon. In this ‘Trek’, Kirk is a genius bad boy with issues. He is a sort of action hero ‘Will Hunting’ with a shot of fraternity pledge thrown in for good measure. Kirk clawing his way out of situations and cheating death is a recurring theme in the film. And Abrams uses it often in action filled special effects laden scenes that can only be related to splatter and action exploitation films of the seventies and eighties. If we can see one Romulan immolated on top of the nasty planet destroying drill thingy, well then, two or three should be better. This is typical of the exploitation genre.

The second recurring theme in ‘Star Trek’ is the notion of being different or being the outsider and being shunned for it. Abrams uses this as the motivation for Spock throughout the entire film. The film takes this premise to the ultimate with the destruction of the planet Vulcan. Never really touching on any tangible Vulcan experience of the horror of the planetary apocalypse, the film relies on the exploitative special effects to distance itself from the cinematic reality that it has created. Now the entire race of Vulcan will know what it is like to be Spock but, is not identical enough to Spock to actually gather any insight or wisdom from that realization.

The film hinges on these two themes. When it digresses from them it becomes mired in meaningless exposition. This is mostly supplied directly from the alternative reality Spock that has been trapped in this ‘Star Trek’ reality by the antagonistic Romulan. The director uses television brand exposition in the film when the exploitative aspects of special effects can not be used. In this way, ‘Star Trek’ avoids any intentional emotional or intellectual attachment. This extends to the superimposed titles that the director uses to remind the audience of where we are. By using the superimposed titles we never have to think about the place and time and accept the exploitative effects action as it unfolds on the screen in its entirety. This allows the audience to leave the obvious questions unanswered. Why does Kirk’s Iowa have a canyon? Was this from the last World War? What is the ‘Red Matter’ besides a convenient plot device? The questions linger as the special effects in true exploitation film form never go beyond what is needed by the shaky plot line to give the audience a roller coaster ride adrenalin rush.

It would look as if Abrams and company are either unable or just do not want to follow any semblance of a plot in this version of ‘Star Trek’. They surgically removed the science from the fiction. And in doing so, took the very heart out of ‘Star Trek’, the faith that human beings will one day learn to be at peace with what they are and take control of the science and technology that they create. And be able to create from that science, technology and self knowledge, a responsible, honest, trusting, and truly compassionate society that values and respects the individual.

The film becomes a soulless husk of whiz bang exploitative special effects without a chewy gooey center. But, if you enjoy high budget special effects exploitation movies with plenty of explosions, a nonsensical plot that is full of holes and worthless television form exposition, frat boys and sorority girls doing the nasty on that shiny white plastic that can only be found in the Apple store, you will enjoy J.J. Abrams ‘Star Trek’.

If you tried the incontinence crackers without asking Grandma’s permission.

incontinence crackers!

Yummy!

Conveniently located next to the bathroom tissue.

I’m not entirely sure. I rented the Oliver Stone film ‘W’ the other night and was fairly confused by what it was trying to say. I am a fan of Oliver Stone as a director and think that ‘Platoon’ was one of the most realistic and intellectual war films ever produced. The theme of good and evil that is represented by the opposing realities of the two sergeants is one that comes to symbolize the dichotomy of not only the Vietnam War but, every war ever fought, externally or internally.  Charlie Sheen gives a portrayal of a dog face soldier that is at once sad, sympathetic, and heroic. Not an easy job. According to the Vietnam vets that I have spoken to, the only other film that comes close to depicting the experience was ‘Hamburger Hill’ a much more bloody and darker film.

In fact, I am surprised that ‘Platoon’ was produced. But, then again, the 1980’s was a different era in terms of art and finance.

I also thought that Stone’s ‘The Doors’ was an exceptional film. Val Kilmer gives a brilliant performance as Jim Morrison. Not one that you can  easily forget, as the tortured genius of the man is apparent in his mystical beliefs that he can not reconcile with his intellectual reality. This conflicted energy expresses itself not only in his self-destructive tendencies but, also in some ageless music and poetry.

So, you can see that I have high expectations when it comes to an Oliver Stone film. ‘W’ begins with a real grabber of an opening scene. The young ‘W’ is being hazed by the fraternity that his forefathers have pledged well, for a century, give or take. I thought, well this is going to be good, I’m going to see some insights into what made the man who became one of the strangest and, this is my opinion, worst presidents of recent times. Unfortunately this is where the insight stops. The film continues in flashback form. I was always taught in film classes to never write a script in flashback unless you really have to, and I think ‘W’ is the perfect example of the reason of why you should not. It uses the camera as the symbolic MacGuffin of ‘W’. The moving back and forth in time, becomes an annoyance to the mimesis, as the scenes are often full of the same themes, parent and child envy and angst, power and the struggle for it, both in personal relationships and the worldly broader sense, and ultimately religion and politics where the power  becomes action. Of course, these are the themes that permeated the Bush presidency in his own brand conservative values. And like the Bush administration the  scenes soon become caricatures of the original emotions and issues. Leaving me scratching my head and mumbling to myself:” What’s the point? I know this and I think that most people know this or know it by now.”

By the end of the film though, I was conflicted, and perhaps this is the message that Stone wanted to send, somehow ‘W’ is a sympathetic character, perhaps even likable, and this is because he was tragic and lived in tragic times. He was flawed and surrounded himself with even more emotionally distant and broken individuals than he may have realized. I think that in giving us that glimpse of ‘W’,  Stone gave us another glimpse of his talent.

Though the structure of the film may seem a little wonky, the acting is superb and I really enjoyed watching the scenes between Josh Brolin as George W. and Elizabeth Banks as Laura. They have a chemistry together that gives the film a more human existence. I became disappointed in the film, I think, at the point when Stone didn’t delve deeper into their relationship. But, that’s just my preference. James Cromwell, gives a cranky and sad edge to the senior Bush, who has to contend with living in the past and a son that he felt was unworthy to be a Bush, much less a president of the United States. I absolutely loved Ellen Burstyn as Barbara, opinionated and emotionally fiery she is a contrast to her rather stuffy husband. Jason Ritter as Jeb Bush is electric in the few scenes that he has. And Richard Dreyfuss is incredibly menacing and evil as VP Cheney.

‘W’ wasn’t really a great film but, it was good. Especially for an evening when ‘Mythbusters’ is in reruns. It is pure Oliver Stone and if you’re a die hard fan, you’ll like it and want to add it to your DVD collection.

To the GVAA. That is the Goleta Valley Art Association of which I am a proud member.

I have always enjoyed the shows that the GVAA has. I love to see the variety of different artists and their art that may or may not have any meaning beyond the act of creation.

Some artists to take a look at that I have enjoyed:

Patricia Doyle

The Nienows-Judy and Warner

Chris Chapman

Please stop by their sites and check them out. And maybe buy a piece or two.

Meanwhile, I will work on my latest canvas.

My entry for Illustration Friday and the theme “Contained”.

Flash CS4 and Illustrator CS4.

Enjoy my mad scientist humor.

See the full image here!

Later,

Daryl

I have a very clear addiction. This addiction started in my childhood. I am unabashedly a fanatic of 1960’s television. It’s what I grew up on. It was my baby sitter after school. If any of you were like me you came home to only three networks and maybe a dozen independent television stations here in southern California in the late sixties and through the seventies.

And those independents had to fill the air time. And they filled it with the classics. Of course they weren’t classics at the time and I had no idea that an entire network would prey on the nostalgia of these shows many years later.

At that time, it was just me and the teevee. Fun!

I think that I would be a different person if not exposed to Gilligan’s Island, The Munsters, My Favorite Martian, and I Dream of Jeannie. What wonderfully incredible insanity that I had the privelage of! It was existential and absurd in the best sense. The afternoon would fly by and I knew that dinner would be ready by the time I had finished my comedy trip.

Then of course it was time for the serious stuff. Star Trek. My personal favorite. And still the original series gives me goose bumps sometimes even now, as it did when I was ten. Star Trek has grown on me every year since I first tuned in to the reruns that KCOP 13 in Los Angeles, was so kind to run at six every night. Now I have the DVD’s and can watch anytime. But, it’s just not quite the same without the Cal Worthington commercials. Go see Cal! Go see Cal! Go see Cal!

Star Trek is one of pieces of television that have become more than just…well a television show. As I grew older and watched the episodes again and again, I realized that it had the power of a Shakespeare play. But, that was an obvious comparison, as Gene Roddenberry admired the Bard and I think at least subconsciously tried to emulate him. The best episode of TOS has an underlying character study at its heart. The conflict of the characters are often inner conflicts of ideas and reflections. The very stuff of Hamlet and Macbeth.

Though there is more to it. It is also one of the best westerns that ever appeared on network television. As I did research for a paper in one of my film classes, I came across the analysis of the western genre by Will Wright. Many of the Star Trek TOS episodes follow the basic western genre laid out by Mr. Wright. Of course this was the heyday of westerns on television. Gunsmoke, Bonanza,  and Wagon Train topped the ratings. And this was not lost on Mr. Roddenberry as he pitched his show not as science fiction but, Wagon Train to the Stars.

I still love the simplicity of the sets that looked to a preteen as if they had been stolen from some mad scientist’s lab. The acting of the principal characters has become almost a cliche today. William Shatner as Captain Kirk has become a caricature of the pregnant pause. Yet, he has his moments. Kirk is a thinker as well as an action character and Shatner expresses this Hamlet like sense of anguish brilliantly in several episodes.  Leonard Nimoy as Mister Spock gives us emotion in an unemotionless character. We see the heart in the intellect and the effect is nothing less than spectacular. And last, but not least, Deforest Kelley as Doctor Leonard McCoy, is subtle in the most perfect way an actor can be. I recall the ‘Jouney to Babel‘ episode in which McCoy figures prominently, Kelley’s acting is in the moment, even when he is secondary in the scene.

Yup, I really thought Star Trek was cool. And I still do.

Now don’t get me started on Wild, Wild, West.

Hi!

I am starting this new blog to do some blatant self promotion of my art work. Of course I am a very opinionated guy, so this may be an adventure in ranting.

At least occaisionally.

Art should appear soon!

Perhaps today.

Later,

Daryl