Time Travel for Confusion and Profit!
Monday, October 1st, 2012 01:08 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
retsukoIt seems that in every time-travel related movie/tv show/short story/etc. these days, there's a part where the characters complain about how time travel is a fundamentally headache inducing plot device. Invariably, these discussions are cut short, either by literal violence or by a sort of conversational misdirect, like silly words ("wibbley wobbley timey wimey... stuff") or a put down from one of the speakers that amounts to a bit of linguistic violence ("stop asking questions, stupid!"). I'm not sure what these conversations ultimately do for the script itself, other than add little moments of levity between action sequences, or provide an opportunity for the writers to appear metaphysical. Most of the time, I do love these moments because watching the characters do the mental gymnastics required to facilitate the plot without giving the viewer/reader a headache is funny.
First up on the headachy time travel front is "Looper", which is the movie that "Inception" wanted to be--exciting and intelligent, with great acting and a very tightly constructed script. Most of the time in movies today, I think to myself that the writers could have cut twenty minutes out of middle and nothing would be missed; in the case of "Looper", those middle twenty minutes were important and well-used. I really appreciate an action movie that doesn't assume that I'm an idiot. (On one hand, other movies like this are the Bourne movies and "Hanna".) And the other thing that I really appreciated about this movie was the fact that there was very little wasted time, that small plot points came back into play in realistic ways later in the script. Even one tense scene in the first 15 minutes that I almost forgot about turned out to be an important part of understanding who the main character was and why he ended up doing what he did.
But I'm getting ahead of things. If you've seen the trailers, you know the premise of the film: Loopers are specialized assassins, men paid to kill people sent back in time from the future, a future where time travel exists, but it's almost impossible to dispose of a body. The first half of this story mainly concerns what happens when young Looper Joe realizes that he has to kill his future self. In one timeline, he does, and we see the story unfold; in the other, his older self gets away, and the plan that he's trying to see through is the one that becomes the main storyline of the film. In the second half of the story, young Joe hides on a farm where Sara and her young son are trying to avoid contact with the outside world. The stories come back together once more, and the conclusion they reach is violent and startling.
Sara turned out to be my favorite character in the whole thing. It helps that she's played by Emily Blunt, an actress whom I adore (for a variety of reasons, some legitimate and some a little silly, too long to detail here), and who really does an amazing acting job. When she first appeared, I kept waiting for her normal, British accent, but it never appeared, and her American one sounded completely normal. After a few more minutes, I forgot that she was my favorite actress, and simply concentrated on the character. It's a pleasure to watch someone do something so masterfully. There's great acting from everyone else involved, too. Another actor of note is Pierce Gagnon, a child actor so good and creepy that I think someone should remake "The Omen" just so he can star in it.
The conclusion of the story, and everything that leads up to it, makes a lot of sense. I would have preferred a little less violence, but I suspect I'm in minority in this wish. Basically, I cannot recommend this movie enough--you will not be wasting your time; the story is engrossing but not pandering; and it's best to go in unspoiled, if you can. :)
In a semi-related genre, spoilers have been unavoidable for the mid-season finale of "Doctor Who". I made it there fairly unscathed, but in the interests of not ruining it for others: A lot has been said already about this ending for the Ponds/Williams, and while I don't think it was the most flawless ending for all involved, I do like that we have a definitive answer to the problem of Rory supposedly loving Amy more. The ending of "The Angels Take Manhattan" gave Amy a decisive chance to make the same sacrifice that Rory did for her, with an even greater risk attached to it. (He waited for 2,000 years, but *knew* that the Pandorica had to open again, whereas Amy did not know if she would necessarily be sent back to the same time and space that Rory was.) Her choice to take a chance to be with him, no matter what the odds, was very poignant. Seeing her name switched on the tombstone... well, it was a little jarring, but we had to imagine what time period they'd been sent back to. It seemed to me that if they'd gone back enough time to live to that age of mid-80s, it would have been probably the late 1940s/early 1950s of America... which means that the Second Wave of the Feminist movement hadn't been around yet, and not taking your husband's name was something that just wasn't done. So I'm simply going to assume that before they could both agree on reestablishing their identities, someone asked who they were, and Rory introduced himself first. And that was it.
I'm more worried about River's lines and role in this episode. On one hand, yes, being married to an ageless, thousand-year-old god is a tricky thing. But on the other... the Doctor doesn't like his companions getting older? I was under the impression he simply didn't notice those things. When we see Ten meet Sarah Jane in "School Days", he doesn't say, "oh, you're too old for me now, I have no interest in you"; instead, he immediately falls back into the rapport that he had with her before. And even in "The Power of Three", Brian made some reference to Amy and Rory getting older and wearing different outfits, and the Doctor didn't bat an eye. So that was a bit off, and it seemed out of character for River to say--after all, this woman knows about temporal romance, and the fact that they're not always going to see each other at their best, youngest moments. If River hadn't already died, I would have expected that they were going to kill her--that kind of fatalistic, "the world is against me" kind of talk is something I expect from characters with limited script lives, not from second-tier main characters.
And those damn angels. Dammit, Moffat & Co.: I didn't like those cutesy cherubs before and now I really hate them. D:
But all in all, it was a good episode, and I feel like this season, although it's been a bit heavy at times with the moralizing, has been very strong all around. As much as I like longer arcs, having stand-alone episodes has meant that there's been some more densely plotted short storytelling, and for the most part, that makes me very happy. So excited for the Christmas episode!
Side note, from the trailers: The Lioness Mother, who defends her child against almost all evil (even from BEYOND THE GRAVE), appeared in several trailers. There was the monster!Mother in Guillermo del Toro's "Mama", who appears to be Sadako's cousin, given her fondness for grotesquely bent limbs and stringy hair; contrasted with Judi Dench's mastermind!Mother/M in "Skyfall", where the strong intimation is that Mother loves you enough to kill you dead for plot purposes. I'm not sure what this heralds about feelings towards mothers right now, but it's a slightly nicer trend than zombies, so I guess I can get behind it.
First up on the headachy time travel front is "Looper", which is the movie that "Inception" wanted to be--exciting and intelligent, with great acting and a very tightly constructed script. Most of the time in movies today, I think to myself that the writers could have cut twenty minutes out of middle and nothing would be missed; in the case of "Looper", those middle twenty minutes were important and well-used. I really appreciate an action movie that doesn't assume that I'm an idiot. (On one hand, other movies like this are the Bourne movies and "Hanna".) And the other thing that I really appreciated about this movie was the fact that there was very little wasted time, that small plot points came back into play in realistic ways later in the script. Even one tense scene in the first 15 minutes that I almost forgot about turned out to be an important part of understanding who the main character was and why he ended up doing what he did.
But I'm getting ahead of things. If you've seen the trailers, you know the premise of the film: Loopers are specialized assassins, men paid to kill people sent back in time from the future, a future where time travel exists, but it's almost impossible to dispose of a body. The first half of this story mainly concerns what happens when young Looper Joe realizes that he has to kill his future self. In one timeline, he does, and we see the story unfold; in the other, his older self gets away, and the plan that he's trying to see through is the one that becomes the main storyline of the film. In the second half of the story, young Joe hides on a farm where Sara and her young son are trying to avoid contact with the outside world. The stories come back together once more, and the conclusion they reach is violent and startling.
Sara turned out to be my favorite character in the whole thing. It helps that she's played by Emily Blunt, an actress whom I adore (for a variety of reasons, some legitimate and some a little silly, too long to detail here), and who really does an amazing acting job. When she first appeared, I kept waiting for her normal, British accent, but it never appeared, and her American one sounded completely normal. After a few more minutes, I forgot that she was my favorite actress, and simply concentrated on the character. It's a pleasure to watch someone do something so masterfully. There's great acting from everyone else involved, too. Another actor of note is Pierce Gagnon, a child actor so good and creepy that I think someone should remake "The Omen" just so he can star in it.
The conclusion of the story, and everything that leads up to it, makes a lot of sense. I would have preferred a little less violence, but I suspect I'm in minority in this wish. Basically, I cannot recommend this movie enough--you will not be wasting your time; the story is engrossing but not pandering; and it's best to go in unspoiled, if you can. :)
In a semi-related genre, spoilers have been unavoidable for the mid-season finale of "Doctor Who". I made it there fairly unscathed, but in the interests of not ruining it for others: A lot has been said already about this ending for the Ponds/Williams, and while I don't think it was the most flawless ending for all involved, I do like that we have a definitive answer to the problem of Rory supposedly loving Amy more. The ending of "The Angels Take Manhattan" gave Amy a decisive chance to make the same sacrifice that Rory did for her, with an even greater risk attached to it. (He waited for 2,000 years, but *knew* that the Pandorica had to open again, whereas Amy did not know if she would necessarily be sent back to the same time and space that Rory was.) Her choice to take a chance to be with him, no matter what the odds, was very poignant. Seeing her name switched on the tombstone... well, it was a little jarring, but we had to imagine what time period they'd been sent back to. It seemed to me that if they'd gone back enough time to live to that age of mid-80s, it would have been probably the late 1940s/early 1950s of America... which means that the Second Wave of the Feminist movement hadn't been around yet, and not taking your husband's name was something that just wasn't done. So I'm simply going to assume that before they could both agree on reestablishing their identities, someone asked who they were, and Rory introduced himself first. And that was it.
I'm more worried about River's lines and role in this episode. On one hand, yes, being married to an ageless, thousand-year-old god is a tricky thing. But on the other... the Doctor doesn't like his companions getting older? I was under the impression he simply didn't notice those things. When we see Ten meet Sarah Jane in "School Days", he doesn't say, "oh, you're too old for me now, I have no interest in you"; instead, he immediately falls back into the rapport that he had with her before. And even in "The Power of Three", Brian made some reference to Amy and Rory getting older and wearing different outfits, and the Doctor didn't bat an eye. So that was a bit off, and it seemed out of character for River to say--after all, this woman knows about temporal romance, and the fact that they're not always going to see each other at their best, youngest moments. If River hadn't already died, I would have expected that they were going to kill her--that kind of fatalistic, "the world is against me" kind of talk is something I expect from characters with limited script lives, not from second-tier main characters.
And those damn angels. Dammit, Moffat & Co.: I didn't like those cutesy cherubs before and now I really hate them. D:
But all in all, it was a good episode, and I feel like this season, although it's been a bit heavy at times with the moralizing, has been very strong all around. As much as I like longer arcs, having stand-alone episodes has meant that there's been some more densely plotted short storytelling, and for the most part, that makes me very happy. So excited for the Christmas episode!
Side note, from the trailers: The Lioness Mother, who defends her child against almost all evil (even from BEYOND THE GRAVE), appeared in several trailers. There was the monster!Mother in Guillermo del Toro's "Mama", who appears to be Sadako's cousin, given her fondness for grotesquely bent limbs and stringy hair; contrasted with Judi Dench's mastermind!Mother/M in "Skyfall", where the strong intimation is that Mother loves you enough to kill you dead for plot purposes. I'm not sure what this heralds about feelings towards mothers right now, but it's a slightly nicer trend than zombies, so I guess I can get behind it.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2012-10-01 09:52 pm (UTC)He's concluded that the BIG ANGEL is his Halloween costume for this year.
no subject
Date: 2012-10-02 12:22 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2012-10-02 01:56 am (UTC)I took it more to mean that it's a reminder of their short life span compared to his long one. Agreed that he seems oblivious in general to their aging. What threw me was that her lifespan should theoretically be as long as his and she doesn't know that she's going to die...if that reality even exists anymore.
Something I started wondering about this morning was that in Silence at the Library she was given parole for murdering the Doctor, but now she says the person she murdered never existed...so she's not under arrest and can't be paroled. So, does she still die in Silence of the Library?
no subject
Date: 2012-10-02 02:18 pm (UTC)