Prometheus

Synopsis:
The year is 2089. Humans have been doing lots of archaeological digs, and have found a recurring star map in most ancient civilisations across the world. They decide to fly there, with the hope that they might find new information about human history and where we come from.

It’s been quite a long time since I’ve seen Alien. A boy convinced me to watch it when I was 13 or so, and it struck me as a little silly: if three or four successive crew members have ‘gone missing’, while individually looking for crew members that have ‘gone missing’, it is NOT a wise idea to head off on your lonesome to find them all! Honestly.

So, Alien didn’t quite rock my socks. I thought about watching it again prior to seeing Prometheus, but as Prometheus is a prequel, I figured it probably wouldn’t be much use! And, thankfully, I was right. Prometheus holds its own excellently as a standalone film, with an open ending that left me wanting to finally rewatch Alien.

As those who have seen Prometheus’ trailer will know, it’s essentially a montage of explosions and Stressful Things, and in that sense the film doesn’t fail to deliver. I’m at the delightful stage where I have begun to appreciate films that try to scare me, without having watched so many that I am numb to all suspense. As such, this film had me white-knuckled! All the promised explosions, lots of exploring creepily empty planets, and plenty of alien lifeforms thrown in for good measure.

Beneath its sci fi/horror aesthetic lies a surprisingly spiritual heart. Our heroine Elizabeth Shaw is a Christian, and for her, the mission means delving into the mystery of human creation. The film suggests that spirituality and faith are part of being human, and that all of us want to find our purpose. A grand topic to address, indeed, and while it lacks the depth that such a topic deserves, it does succeed in asking the right questions of the audience: to what length would you go to, to meet your maker?

By a long way, the best part of Prometheus is the visuals. The special effects are phenomenal, and the landscapes shown are equally impressive. The opening, in which we spend minutes just panning over beautiful tree-lined mountains and valleys, sets the tone for a film so dedicated to aesthetics. I suppose in this sense it is somewhat like Avatar; spaceships, aliens and a sky high budget to bring it to life.

The film falls down in its plot, a complaint also made against Avatar. There are many inconsistencies, and things that are frankly ridiculous. For example, the crew is only briefed on its mission on approaching the planet, suggesting that a selection of the most elite scientists on Earth were willing to board a spaceship for two years without being told why. The scale of the film distracts from these plot holes, though most audience members will be left scratching their heads when the credits roll. The Guardian published a fuller list, for those not concerned about spoilers.

All in all, Prometheus is the next in what I expect will be a long line of exquistely grand blockbusters to rock the cinemas this summer. Its lack of subtlety and patchy plot is compensated for by its artistry and spiritual reflection, while still providing a good few scares and a tear to the eye.

Beautiful but brainless, I don’t think Prometheus’ popularity will last much further than its stint in the cinemas.

Film **/Movie ****

Tangled

Well. Well well well.

I must say, I'm a massive fan of the old Disney Princess films. I don't care if they're gender normative and oppressive to the fairer sex, the dresses are FABULOUS and the songs are catchy. So, when Disney started promoting Princess and the Frog, I was quite excited to get all the old childhood thrills back - but I was disappointed. There was only one (or maybe two) memorable songs, but I reckon it was the setting that put me off entirely, it was so modern! A princess story is not a princess story unless there are horses and carriages everywhere, and towers and castles and whatnot. Otherwise it's just a regular musical! Hmph.

Promo of Rapunzel!

Anyway. So then, the promos for Tangled began, and I wasn't nearly so enthused. I didn't want Disney stealing even more of the princess world in my head, without express permission. But then, the artistry. I mean, I'm a bit of a magpie for shiny beautiful things (in case you didn't realise) so when these pictures came out, my insides CRIED with the prettiness of it all. There was a dress! And a tower! Could it be any more perfect? I think not.

Pretty pretty tower

So, I went to see it in the cinema, and then rewatched it last night (on BluRay, even more beautiful! *swoon*). And I've got to say, it almost TOTALLY lived up to my expectations. It was mainly the characters, they were SO funny, but without the cocky pop-referencing of Shrek, and emotionally rounded without being (too) cheesy. The wee chameleon sidekick was adorabubble, I WANT one. The villain wasn't as sinister as she could've been, and her villain song was nowhere NEAR up there with the greats, but she was still super evil, which was good enough for me.

Pascal: Fo' Lyfe

I think my only complaint would be the songs. Having seen it twice now, I ought to have at least one of the songs in my head, but I really don't. Can't remember a single one. Which is such a shame, 'cause the soundtracks are normally the best bit! But I would still watch this film again, just for its wonderful sense of humour and the truly stunning CGI throughout.


RATING
Fresh! So fresh.

Shock of Your Life - Adrian Holloway

I’ve just read Shock of Your Life, by Adrian Holloway. This is the first Christian book I have read (aside from the Bible!), and it was recommended by a friend. It’s the story of three teenagers - the non-Christian, the lukewarm Christian and the red-hot Christian - and their discoveries upon dying and reaching the afterlife.

I don’t often read things recommended to me (my own ‘To Read’ list is far too long to add to!) but the afterlife is not something I think I’ve ever heard a preach on. It’s also a very short book, and can be read in an afternoon, which is deliberate; Holloway writes at the end of the book to explain that some concepts are simplified to keep the minimal length, as (in his words) no teenager is going to read a spiritual book if it’s going to take them longer than a day.

So, I began this book with high hopes for Christian fiction! And it started quite well. However, it does read PRECISELY like a middle-aged man pretending to be a teenager, and the cheesiness is cringeworthy, but you learn to wade through it. Whenever a point is made from the Bible, Holloway puts it in bold text, which was really helpful. Another of his stated aims was to encourage teenagers to pick up the Bible for themselves, which I think was successful; I was wanting to look it all up! Of course, this resulted in a bunch of overly-contrived, ‘Wow, you mean that’s in the Bible? And I never knew? Man, I wish I’d read the Bible when I had the chance!’ kind of lines, but you know, as I’ve said, you get used to it.

The first two chapters, on the non-Christian and the lukewarm Christian, were really great in terms of challenging Christian reading. The non-Christian reminded me that you can’t expect people to really know about the gospel if you don’t tell them, whereas the lukewarm Christian showed me what happens when you accept Jesus but not his grace: a life of sin and guilt and feeling condemned, when you’re actually not, and missing out on chillin’ with God. Both admirable messages, that I want to continue to be reminded of for the rest of my life.

But, then there was the red-hot Christian. The red-hot Christian was an example of a teenage girl living for Jesus, which you’d think would be encouraging, right? No chance. She was perfect. I’m not kidding, genuinely perfect. She did about as much sinning as the man Himself. I really don’t know what Holloway was trying to get at, because I don’t think anyone at all could even attempt to relate to her. I mean, she had a ‘past’ and whatnot, but (in one of many contrived conversations) a friend asked her if she’d sinned much (I can’t remember the exact phrasing, forgive me) since becoming a Christian, and she replied that she hadn’t failed in her devotion to God once. Again, admirable, but in this case totally unachievable. We’re human, God knows that, and if he thought we didn’t need constant help then he wouldn’t have given us a Bible. And sexist too! Another perfect Christian ambles into heaven, this time a charming young chap, and he talks about how he struggled with - wait for it - football and porn. Predictable much. Obviously, he successfully overcame these obstacles and was never troubled by them again, only reinforcing the idea that it’s possible to be perfect. If it were possible to be perfect, we wouldn’t NEED God’s grace! And I really hate it when people ascribe lust as an issue only to men, because it’s just so entirely false. It’s archaic! And it makes the women who struggle with it feel like there’s no help out there for them. From my experience of church (about two years worth) I’d thought that these attitudes were dying out and church was becoming a lot less pigeonhole-y and actually starting to help EVERYONE where they needed it. Maybe not.

Finally, the attitudes of these Christians towards their faith was a little...un-Christian. They emphasised how they talked to people who hated them, and did good where they weren't wanted, which is great. But, they said that they did it because they wanted to get greater rewards in Heaven. That is totally wrong and contrary to what Jesus wants of us. It's true, that the more diligently you try and live for Jesus, the greater your crown or mansion (or whatever heavenly rewards are measured in) will be, but the minute you do your good deeds for that, you've undermined them. By doing good deeds out of greed, selfishness and superiority, you've tarnished the good heart that Jesus was trying to cultivate in you. You've become just as human as everyone else. Not something I want anyone, Christian or otherwise, to believe is acceptable.

So, in summary, this book was challenging and inspiring in parts, but sexist and contradictory in others, and cheesy and contrived as a whole. I don’t think I’d pass it on unless I asked the recommendee to stop after the first two chapters! And I definitely wouldn’t pass it on to my sister (a non-Christian teenager), she’d never listen to me about my faith ever again if she thought all Christians were as lame as Holloway ;)

RATING
Rotten! Probably not suitable for teenagers, or non-Christians. 

Mother and Son

So, I finally got round to watching Mother and Son, by Alexander Sokurov. As he directed Russian Ark, one of the most impressive feats of cinematography since the invention of cinema, I was expecting rather a lot from this feature, released five years previous, in 1997.

Screencap from the film

Mother and Son is the story of a mother and her son living alone in the (presumably Russian) countryside. She is dying of some debilitating illness, and the son tenderly cares for her every need.  What’s truly exciting about this film is its focus on the surroundings of the characters, as opposed to the characters themselves. We learn almost nothing about the lives of these two protagonists; instead the hills and valleys in which they live become a third character, more present and meaningful than either of the other two.

Sokurov achieves this in quite the artful fashion: he crafts an elaborate soundscape whenever the two step outside, showing us the magic that may be found in silence. We hear every twig that cracks beneath their feet, every whistle of a bird, every rustle of their clothing in the breeze. The steady silence is hypnotic, until you are entirely lost in the world in which they walk. In fact, I became so enveloped in the beautiful dreamlike scenery, that when I again focused on the actors (whose dialogue did not interrupt the film often) they seemed almost tawdry in comparison, and their acting became secondary in quality to the work of art behind them. Sokurov’s use of filters was also gorgeous; the opening scene is not unlike an impressionist masterpiece. When I watch films by myself, I tend to flick back and forth to Facebook and my emails and the like, but with this film, it was impossible. The impetus of the film was not carried in plot or in dialogue (which I can easily grasp without actually watching a film) but in the landscapes and the long takes of their walks, so I couldn’t look away.

All in all, I was hugely impressed with this film, though its characters were somewhat underdeveloped.

RATING
FRESH

Crime and Punishment

As part of my Russian Studies, I take ‘Golden and Silver Ages of Russian Literature’, which is a bit of a mouthful. Last semester, we covered ‘Crime and Punishment’, by Fyodor Dostoevsky. Negligent student that I am, I have only just finished reading it, so I thought I’d share some opinions with you.

Crime and Punishment is one of the most well known titles among Russian literature in the Western world, up there with War and Peace. Dostoevsky crafts the story of Rodya Raskolnikov, who has a fair few issues: he murders an evil old lady in a utilitarian fashion, but finds that he is not above the guilt and other repercussions that he imagined himself to be.

One of the things I loved most about this book were the women. The men were all flawed, manipulative and generally of bad character (except for the gentlemanly Razumihin), but the women showed strength, virtue, and just love. Rodya’s sister, Dounia, is devastatingly poor, but simultaneously possibly the most beautiful woman ever described in literature. I usually have trouble picturing fictional characters, and they go about rather faceless, but Dounia’s haughtily beautiful face is etched on my retina. Dounia is the embodiment of everything I want to be - hard-working, self-sacrificing for the good of others, spirited, but endlessly kind. Her efforts to mend her broken family are incredible, and Rodya’s love for her is one of the things that keeps him noble.

Sonia, the young girl forced into prostitution to provide for her family, is endlessly meek and shy, shocked when anyone of higher status addresses her, and so nervous that she runs from most people who try to talk to her. This timid little soul being sentenced to prostitution is heart-breaking; you can easily see that she’s still so young. Indeed, Rodya notes in surprise that, ‘not one drop of real depravity had penetrated to her heart’; despite her situation, she remains entirely pure and innocent. Rodya discovers the secret that keeps Sonia from the ‘depravity’ associated with her profession - her absolute faith in God. Sonia acts as the voice of virtue in the novel, encouraging Rodya to do the right thing and confess even when he could easily escape.

The mother figures in Crime and Punishment are also extraordinary. Rodya’s mother, Pulcheria (a name which really makes me chuckle) is perhaps a little naive, but so incredibly loving of her son and daughter. As she admits herself, she doesn’t always do the best thing by them (such as letting Dounia work for Svidrigailov, then get engaged to Luzhin) but her heart is totally and completely in the right place: the way she sends the last of her money to Rodya for his studies out of the overflowing pride she has for him and his lofty work - which makes it even more painful when he misuses the money and lies to her. Sonia’s mother, the tragic Katerina Ivanovna, embodies the downfall of an aristocrat’s daughter to a beggarwoman, and the scene where she hysterically forces her children to sing and dance in the street for money is heart-breaking, even more so when she berates them for not singing French and German songs, to show that they are ‘well-brought up children’. To see how much of a handful Katerina is, and even then see Sonia’s overwhelming love and self-sacrifice for her, is a true testament to Sonia’s purity of character.

Dostoevsky clearly did not have such a high opinion of men. Of the male characters, the only one I adored was dear little Razumihin, who was imbued with an almost puppy-like enthusiasm for Rodya’s wellbeing, voraciously ensuring his good health and safeguarding Pulcheria and Dounia. When we first meet him, he is as destitute as Rodya, yet still offers him work and other help. This endless (and usually unappreciated) goodness and charity goes to exacerbate just how proud Rodya is: even when his friends and family persistently try to help him, he rejects it all and sacrifices it on the altar of his own pride and superiority complex; he desperately wants to distance himself from the beggars that he sees as so overwhelmingly ‘ordinary’, something that is totally incompatible with his Napoleonic ideology.

I was told before reading this book that Dostoevsky was kind of like the Russian C.S. Lewis, and I expected to find strong Christian morals woven throughout the novel. On first completing the book, I thought it was nothing of the sort - Rodya is a terrible, terrible man, who spends his money unwisely and feels no sense of responsibility towards society or towards his family - he is perfectly happy to remain unemployed and live on the expectation that money will fall at his feet. An unchristian character before you even consider the murder! He is incredibly charitable, as is illustrated throughout the novel, which is a redeeming factor, but overall I was thoroughly unimpressed with Dostoevsky’s protagonist. However, upon reflection and some background reading, the story is littered with good Christian women, and some Christian men. The story is essentially a resurrection in itself, the story of a sinner brought to life. Dostoevsky threads the story of Lazarus the beggar into his narrative, which emphasises the new life a person has with faith, no matter what their earthly circumstances. Rodya’s bearing of Sonia’s cross mimics the cross of Jesus, and the suffering Rodya is bearing, that is later lifted. Lastly, it is only when Rodya humbles himself to accept the love of Sonia that he finds true peace, showing the beneficial nature of the love bestowed by God.

So, in summary.

Pros: Great exploration of the human psyche, and mental conditions. Fascinating. Also great portrait of poverty in early 20th century St Petersburg, and how poverty affects humankind. Great characters, you really feel for their troubles and will them on to better things.

Cons: Wildly confusing at times. Dostoevsky has an interestingly convoluted narrative style: a lot of attention is paid to small details and minimal attention paid to crucial facts. I had to keep flipping back to reread paragraphs.

Definitely going to have to read this again sometime, if only to better understand what on earth is going on!

RATING

FRESH

Greetings!

Hello, and welcome to my film and TV reviews!

I have always loved watching films, and my family have always spent time together by sitting together to watch the latest BBC period drama, or reality TV show of an evening. Since moving away, I have unfortuantely (or fortunately?) not watched nearly as much TV, which is great news for you, as I'll only review the choicest of programs ;)

Films are a different story. Growing up in a houseful of women, I have always loved the romcom, or maybe the occasional uplifting drama. This year at university though, I took 'Introduction to European Cinema'. A whole year's worth of artsy, independent cinema, usually dark (in both lighting and theme) and almost always in another language. Oh, how little I knew. Over the past year, I have been a rollercoaster ride through the world of cinema as an art form, and I must say, it's been fantastic. Unfortunately, I now can't watch any fluff without being infuriated by the bland, unrealistic characters and predictable plots. I know, I'm a despicable film snob. I'll try to be less snobby in my film reviews, but we'll see!

My next review is...Jersey Shore. OK, so maybe I still love some fluff! And then probably Mother & Son by Andrei Zvyagintsev. Back soon!

Samantha