Fantastic Fest '06 Piano Tuner of Earthquakes (with Existence)

It's not very often I walk out of a movie not knowing exactly what I've seen, but that's what's happened here.

It can be a good thing, in theory, to see something I don't quite understand. It can give me something to mull over, or something to examine. I can discuss abstract symbolism or the conflict of the rational mind and irrational art. I could ponder the nature of obsession, possession, and the dual nature of creation and destruction. I could almost admire the Phantom of the Opera-esque adaptation of a mythic morality tale like the The Nightingale.

I could marvel at the intricately animated automatons and be haunted by their purpose. I could stand awed by the dreamlike quality of the film's cinematography. I could be chilled by the isolation of the seaside setting, the nearby woods, and the elegant cage created by a brilliant madman. I could be seduced by the sultry housekeeper and protective of the naive Piano Tuner invited into this tableau.

Or I could be pissed off that I wasted this much time on a movie that began with a decent plot, OK acting, and wonderful art direction, but ultimately degenerated into a near-incomprehensible mess of sexual imagery, pretty animations, and an ending that makes the whole thing feel like it was a pastel, psychedelic hallucination brought upon by a bad night at the opera, insomnia, and a burlesque show.

Guess which one I'm leaning toward.

Famous Last Words: Huh?

Existence, on the other hand, was a wonderful short whose oddball images and cast of characters fit the premise perfectly. And the disorientation they create were perfectly suited to the journey the main character's on.

The biggest fictional history book I've ever read.

"Many books are to be read, some are to be studied, and a few are meant to be lived in for weeks. Jonathan Strange & Mr. Norrell is of this last kind." -Michael Dirda, The Washington Post

To which I add "No, sh*$, Sherlock. And also, whoever started touting this as the "adult's Harry Potter," should be shot. Aside from the magic, we're not even in the same genre. This isn't a fantasy, it's a Gothic Victorian historical.

Now, I pride myself on being a fairly voracious reader. When I decide I like something I'll burn right through it, stay up late, take it to lunch with me, whatever it takes to get to that next page, chapter, or verse. Which I suppose is my problem with this book, even after reading Jonathan Strange cover to cover, I still can't figure out if I liked it at all. Which is why it took me somewhere in the neighborhood of seven months to finish. I know I don't hate it, so that's something I suppose. There are parts I know I enjoyed, and I find the entire concept to be fascinating, but as an entire piece? I finished it weeks ago and I'm still scratching my head.

So let me attempt to elucidate, and yes, I'm using the fifty-cent term for a reason and not to sound smart. As defined by my handy online Merriam-Webster: elucidate... transitive verb : to make lucid especially by explanation or analysis a text; intransitive verb : to give a clarifying explanation. Which, in my opinion, is the whole reason this book was written. The author, Susannah Clarke, is so intent on explaining everything to us, the whys, the whos, and the whens, that I think she occasionally forgets that something has to happen in order to justify all these explanations. The book would move along for a bit and then come to a grinding halt of exposition, footnotes, "real-world" parallels, and general theory.

Part of this, I'm sure, is because of the structure she has set herself. In the most simple terms I can use, Clarke set out to write a historical novel in Victorian style, only with magic. Not a bad idea, but she took the "historical" part a bit too far. Don't get me wrong, she's done her research into the Napoleonic wars and it shows. I fact, I'd say the "war bits" were the best paced, and by far outstrip the rest of the book in clarity. Clarke bounces back and forth between Strange's adventures in the field and Norrell's maneuverings back in London almost effortlessly, and weaves them into the wider narrative fairly deftly. And it's blazingly obvious that she's planned out the fictional history of the magical side of things extensively.

Or should I say excessively? Footnote: 1 : a note of reference, explanation , or comment (see excerpt, 5th page) usually placed below the text on a printed page 2 a : one that is a relatively subordinate or minor part; footnote to architectural history. Now, I'm all for footnotes. They're great to clarify points, identify different schools of thought, or to prove that the author isn't just making stuff up. And that last reason is why Ms. Clark has used them here. I get that, it's a wonderful touch that adds that certain layer of "reality" to the whole piece. It feels like I could go look this stuff up if I wanted too. It's the "relatively subordinate" part she struggles with.

Footnotes are meant to compliment the piece, not become pieces of their own. Case in point- on page 61, one of the characters refers to a legal case involving magic. Clarke inserts a footnote, quite properly, to explain the relevance of the case to the conversation at hand. In any other text, the author would add a few sentences and we'd move on. (1) Heck, as this is a work of fiction, and the footnotes are a nifty device, I'd allow a few short paragraphs. Instead there's a page and a half of small-font text, at least three if not four pages if it were regular sized. To add insult to injury, the next footnote is longer, and includes actual dialogue. They do nothing to move the plot along, and they are a distraction, not a clarification to the reader. I should not forget what I was reading before I reach the end of the relevant footnote. If there were only three, maybe four the entire piece, I could forgive. But there's one of these babies in almost every chapter. (One stretches over five pages!!!) My history professors would flay me alive, these aren't footnotes any longer, they're appendices.

But if you can ignore them, or do what I do and finish the chapter, then go read the footnotes, then you can get through it OK. Clarke is still a little enamored of her own historical creation, as are most of the critics whose glowing reviews pepper periodicals everywhere, but they're not entirely wrong. Clarke adheres to the Gothic Victorian writing style she's chosen, even going so far as to reflect the appropriate gender bias in the treatment of Lady Poole and Mrs. Strange. Speech patterns, atmosphere, and class relationships are all accurate, and while the casual reader might get lost, or not even know where to begin, after awhile you can pick up the rhythm, and adjust your mindset to what's being presented. This is not an easy writing style to master, and while I think her editors should have been a little more liberal with their little red pens, it's not a total disaster.

My advise- If you like magic and a good gothic tale of mystery, magic and mayhem and can make it through books like Rebecca, Edgar Allen Poe's writings or even Dracula and Frankenstein without the language and style (all 846 pages of it) driving you up a wall, read it. You'll enjoy it. Just take it slow.

1. For example: Tubbs v. Starhouse an action in which Mr. Starhouse, a former employee of Mr. Tubbs, sued his employer for defamation of character by claiming that Mr. Starhouse was a faerie. The resulting strife caused Starhouse to leave Tubbs' employ and suffer unemployment and injury to his reputation. The courts found in favor of Mr. Starhouse, making him the first person to ever be declared "human" by the courts. It is also interesting to note that it illustrates the belief that, as recently as a few years ago, many Englishmen and women still believed that fairies walked among them. See, simple! Footnote- not footchapter!

Yo-Ho-Ho and a Bottle of... Huh?

I liked the movie, let it be known that all of the forthcoming nit-picking comes from a place of love. It was a good way to spend an evening.

But talk about your wasted efforts. This movie was not thought out, and seemed to be slapped together just to get a sequel into the theatres to hold us over to the main event in the finale. And that annoys me to no end. (This coming from me, a fan of the make-it-up-as-we-go-along show, 24!)

So, yeah, be ye warned, there are spoilers abroad in these high seas... Yarrr!

Of all the myriad plots that get set up along the way, not one is resolved. Yes, this is the second chapter of a trilogy, but something should have ended in the two and a half hours I sat there in the theatre, amused, but waiting. After all, in Star Wars, Luke started and finished his training, the unresolved sexual tension between Han and Leia was resolved, and the Millennium Falcon stopped trying to outrun people and began chasing after them. These were all endings, and yet they still served the larger story and allowed a segue into the finale.

The center plot here is the search for the infamous "Dead Man's Chest." And yes, it is found, (about 2/3 the way through) and everyone gets to chase after it, playing "hot potato" until it comes to rest. And then it isn't used, by anyone. At all. We just get to look at it and it's freaky contents- just sitting there. Waiting for something to happen, which won't until the next movie.

So on to the subplots, which include a romantic troika consisting, unsuprisingly, of Jack, Elizabeth and Will. It's set up with innuendo, that blinky compass of Jack's, and a "stolen" kiss. But while all parties are aware of the situation to varying degrees, no accusations have been made, and no relationships have been tested. But I'm sure the ensuing conflict will be wonderful.

It just won't happen until the next movie.

Family angst is aptly represented with Will and his father (played nicely by Stellan Skarsgaard), and it manages to go in a complete circle, with both Will and Bootstrap Bill ending in the exact same places they started. (Will free, Bill, not-so-much.) The only thing that changes is that by the end, Bootstrap has "hope" that his son will rescue him.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

The blackmailing greed of the East India Trading Company in the guise of Lord Cutler Beckett is on call, and they make for nicevillainss to replace the British Navy (in the guise of Commodore Norrington) from the last movie. And while I admit the upper hand they gain at the end was nicely arranged, but we're basically left with Beckett sitting at his desk, pondering his next move.

Which won't happen until the next movie.

And, of course, we have the evil Davy Jones. Whose scenes were nicely chewed by Bill Nighy, if almost spit out again by the freakish CGI-laden prosthetics/make-up that completely obliterated almost all of the actor's fine facial expressions. (More on this later.) Davy rants, Davy kills,Davy plays his organ with his tentacles (not a euphemism!), but he doesn't have the contents of chest, he doesn't have Jack, or Will, (or a clue for that matter) and that's pretty much how he started the movie. But he is going to have a lot of fun dealing with the person who did end up with the contents of his "locker."

But not until until the next movie.

The only resolved plotline is Jack's. And it's resolved violently. More or less. But not finally. He's not exactly encased in carbonite, but he still needs a' rescuin'.

Which won't happen (say it with me folks,) until the next movie!

See where a birdy can get her little feathers ruffled?

Now, back to that character CGI issue I mentioned earlier. This is what happens when a good concept is completely run off the rails by it's own nifty-ness. As I understand it, the concept was thus: The longer you served on The Flying Dutchman, the more you began to resemble the sea creatures and creepy-crawlies of the deep. Cool! They were so pretty, and so creepy, and so overdone that they lost all facial expression, and were used for shock value, not character laughs. And they weren't even done as well as they could have been, they all looked shiny and fake. I think something went wonky in integrating the prosthetics and the CGI.

The original pirates from the franchise, the cursed crew of the Black Pearl, had their moonlit CGI freakishness, but the rest of the time you could pass them on the street and not notice. (Well, you get what I mean.) The moonlight reveal was a way to deal with budget constraints, but it served the overall plot very well. And it allowed you to connect with some of the fine character actors that were being used. Frankly, Capt'n Barbossa would not have been half as scary, had he been a skeleton all the time. All things in moderation, my dears, especially in movie tech.

(And about that nifty concept- so far as I could tell after one viewing, it is never mentioned in the movie. The skeletal curse was a cornerstone of the last installment, here it's a gimmick, and one not even worth explaining. Sigh.)

All of this, plus the usual sequell pitfalls: resurrected gags, the same stunts (only Bigger! and Better!), and the in-jokes. Which, in all honesty, I actually I didn't mind so much, loving the first as much as I do.

But I have to say, the scene stealer for this flick- her. I have no idea who she is (character, not actress), or where she came from, but she's really cool, and she was the only character who had any clue what was going on. At. All. And she chewed her scenery the same way Mr. Depp did in the first movie which was great. Bravo! (Also- she gets the coolest set. This was one of those movies I look at and wish I was working props in Hollywood.)

And the ending twist? Wow. But if they don't explain it in a way the audience can buy, it will kill the next movie. You DO NOT just drop something like that in an audience's lap with out a really good reason. It becomes nothing more than a REALLY cheap stunt, and there will be hell to pay.

Final verdict- we're not keel-haulin' her yet. But if the final installment fails, she's walking the plank.

And then I'll go to Disney World.

Goblet of Embers

Raven's raving again....: happy, yet... becoming underwhelmed

This was an earlier blog entry from my personal blog about HP4.
It's a quick sketch, and may be revisited when the DVD's released.

Enjoy!