'Breaking Bad' Gives You an Out, Do You Take It?

S

omething I enjoy putting in almost all of my writing is an out. An out is, as one may expect, an opportunity to escape a situation. In The Subliminal Hand, the protagonist, Daniel, has an encounter with another character who rather violently implores him to give up his mission. In the following scene, a broken Daniel returns home and has a bath and shave. I leave it up to you to consider what this signifies, but I know what it means to me. Daniel is offered an out, and I believe he is considering it. Nevertheless, midway through his shave, things go awry, and his out becomes trickier. Compared with the drama of the surrounding scenes, this scene seems like an unneeded pause, but, in fact, it's the most critical (and personal) moment in the story: the simple decision Daniel makes in it will govern the rest of his life.

The out is an important mechanic, not just for a character, but the reader (or viewer, et al.), as well. This bathroom scene is also important for you, because you're also being offered a chance to quit. From this point, you can believe two things: that he will quit, or that he will continue. The results of these two things are also up to you. So, if you quit, you can believe that whatever happens next will be great and the bad guys will fail and everyone will be happy. Or not. It's up to you. But, if you choose to continue, then you're putting all of those beliefs and wants in the story's hands, and conceding that whatever happens next, that will be what happens. Those beliefs and those wants will be nothing, and what will happen, will happen.

As Daniel places his life in his choice, you place your enjoyment (or not) or enthrallment (or not) in the story in your choice. Daniel's fate, as far as you are concerned, is tied to the choice you make during the bathroom scene. You will choose whether he succeeds or fails.

The Problematic Ethics of ‘Alien vs. Predator’

In Alien vs. Predator, Sebastian de Rosa (Raoul Bova) says to Alexa Woods (Sanaa Lathan), “The enemy of my enemy is my friend.”¹ The enemy in this film’s case is the titular Alien species, and the friend, therefore, is the Predator.

Alexa Woods, played by Sanaa Lathan, showing the mark of a successful hunt on her left cheek.

(via scifi-women.tumblr.com)

Why?

Later, Woods says, upon seeing the Queen, “You are one ugly mother...” (She trails off, but “fucker” would have been the next word.) It is said with clear hatred, but, again, why? As Alien vs. Predator’s main character, Woods takes on the task of fighting the xenomorphs alongside Scar (played by Ian Whyte), the main Predator. By the end of the film, they form a bond, of sorts, of the kind shared by two warriors (and from the looks they exchange after Scar unmasks, one imagines they would share much more in the pornographic remake), as well as sharing the acid-tinged symbols of a successful kill on their faces.

How does Woods come to this point? We can make our own reasons for siding with the Predators. Like the Aliens, they have two legs, two arms, a head, a mouth, and, presumably in the Aliens’ case, two eyes, so anthropomorphising is easy, but perhaps the Aliens are uglier, less methodical, more gruesome in nature, making it harder for her and us to identify with them. The Aliens appear to kill and capture without thought and feeling, while Scar appears to be intelligent and thoughtful. The Aliens are merciless; Scar spares the life of Charles Bishop Weyland (Lance Henriksen) - for a moment.

But it is here, that we encounter a problem the film itself seemingly attempts to avoid: that in anthropomorphising and siding with the Predators, they are choosing to ignore their past transgressions. There are examples of this occurring in history, such as Winston Churchill temporarily putting aside his problems with Joseph Stalin and communism to fight the advance of Adolf Hitler. In this case, however, one may argue that Churchill was, as the film says, making friends with the enemy of his enemy, with the sticking point being that the enemy alongside whom he was fighting was the lesser evil.

Can the same be said of Alien vs. Predator? Let us look at the facts, as stated by the characters themselves². In one scene, Sebastian de Rosa explains the film’s backstory to Woods, after (somewhat improbably) deciphering the “text” on the walls of the underground pyramid. First, the dialogue, and then a breakdown of what is being said actually means:

Sebastian de Rosa: Thousands of years ago, these hunters found a backwater planet. They taught humans how to build, and were worshiped as gods. Every hundred years, the gods would return. And when they did, they would expect a sacrifice. Humans were used to breed the ultimate prey. The hunters would battle with these great serpents to prove themselves worthy to carry the mark. But if the hunters lost, they made sure nothing survived. An entire civilisation wiped out overnight.

Alexa Woods: So, the humanoids³, the hunters, they brought those creatures here to hunt?

Sebastian de Rosa: And they use us like cattle. We're hosts for them to breed. The heat bloom was designed to lure us down here. This whole thing was a trap. Without us, there could be no hunt.

Okay, so, the Predators taught humans how to build (good), and for it, were worshipped as gods (bad). When they came to earth they expected, and were given, sacrifices (very bad); before ultimately using humans as tools to build themselves guinea pigs to hunt (really bad). Hunt, we will add, not for sustenance, but pride and glory (ego bad). And if they lost their game, what would they do? Destroy an entire civilisation (crazy bad). Finally, to bring the point home, we are told that, despite teaching humans to build (still good) and being treated as gods by them (still bad for humility), the Predators still used their home as a deadly playground (they don’t really care about humans bad), and used them as cattle for their own means (bad for humans; good for unintended vegetarian propaganda), right up to this very day, as evidenced by the fact that the characters of the film were purposely lured into the pyramid, so as to be impregnated and create the Aliens required for the Predators’ game (see, I told you they don’t really care about humans, so it’s still bad).

In this scene from the film, the Predators  are depicted as ruling over an

Aztec-like  civilization. (via avp.wikia.com)

What’s the one redeeming feature of the Predators’ time on Earth? They taught humans how to build. What did they do with those humans? They wiped them all out.

And what is the Alien species’ role in this? It is nothing but prey for the Predators, destined to be hunted down and slaughtered, endlessly, as long as glory is tied to murder.

Though the Aliens are merciless killing machines, as they were bred to be, how does the film legitimately justify its position in the end? Is the sentry gun that mindlessly shoots anything that moves as evil as the soldier who put it there? Evidently, the fact that the soldier is “humanoid” is enough.

Alien vs. Predator ultimately does a poor job of communicating its tagline, that “whichever wins... we lose”, but the point is nevertheless subtly made: the Aliens will inevitably appear elsewhere, and kill everything in their path until they themselves are eradicated; and when the time for another hunt arrives, humans will once again find themselves unknowingly manipulated for their one-time benefactors’ end. It is an analogy, but a fair one, that in watching this film, I was reminded of the ethics of big game hunting. Humans perceive animals like lions and tigers to be, much like the Aliens, mindless, voracious killing machines, whose sole purposes in life are to hunt and procreate. Some still attempt to hunt them for the thrill of it, and the justification for valuing a human life over theirs is that we are an intelligent species with the gift of self-consciousness, while they are thoughtless gunpowder-fodder, put here for our benefit by unknown, unseen gods.

Similarly, do the Predators view the Aliens and other inhabitants of Earth, and similarly, must we view Alien vs. Predator’s problematic ethics: while, once upon a time, Churchill made peace with a fiend to fight a force that believed it could stand dominion over the rest of the world, in this war, we are on that force’s side.

Notes:

¹ http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/quotes?qt=qt0322815
² http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0370263/quotes?qt=qt0322794 
³ As an aside, note that Woods uses the word “humanoid” to identify the Predators.
⁴ I acknowledge that Alien vs. Predator isn't a particularly good film.  In fact, the only reason I watched it was because, a) I'm a Lance Henriksen fanboy, and, b) I was on an Alien marathon and, naturally, had to watch the two crossover sequels.  Nevertheless, I believe that, despite the film's various problems, it is telling, in an age where major films have to pass through a test audience, that we can find the kind of problem encountered in this article.  Did the writers not see it?  Was it ignored for the sake of plot?  Am I seeing things that aren't really there?  It's all very possible, and a fascinating study in human nature.

Hunger Games and the Liandri Conflict

I just returned from a viewing of The Hunger Games in a surprisingly tiny theatre.  The film has a few big flaws (namely, the lack of real character development; failing, in my opinion, to push just how grotesque the event is and show a convincing progression of dwindling survival; the at-times odd character styling - when do they have time to shave? - and, worst of all, the nauseating, misjudged use of camera shake), but in total, the film's strengths (Jennifer Lawrence's performance; and the excellent use of sound and otherwise creative cinematography ) made the experience worthwhile.  When I can spend five minutes staring at a screen without realising I've been pulling the skin beneath my chin again, you know the film has done its job (although, one can argue whether pulling the skin beneath my chin is worth the over-priced commission).

All that is irrelevant, though, because what I actually want to talk about is a similarity that has been bugging me since I learnt of the film, and has not abated since watching it.  Mark Kermode has already referenced forebears such as Battle Royale, Year of the Sex Olympics, The Running Man, and Series 7: The Contenders, but what I haven't seen mentioned is just how closely The Hunger Games follows the path of Unreal Championship 2: The Liandri Conflict, the 2005 Epic Games video game about a tournament in which the goal is to be the last man/woman/alien/robot standing, literally.

One of the mechanisms driving the plot, much like with The Hunger Games (and more so Series 7: The Contenders), is the fact that it is framed within a futuristic television show (or something approaching it):

Get More: GameTrailers.com, Unreal Championship 2 - Story, PC Games, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360

The way the populace mindlessly laps up the violence and revels in the glorification of competitive murder is very much the same.

Now, this may be mere coincidence (after all, director Gary Ross claims to not have heard of Battle Royale; whether author Suzanne Collins has, I don't know); nothing is truly original, but I have to say what really made me blink twice was the scene in which we're introduced to the Capitol.  Right from the angle of the camera, which for comparison's sake, you can see here, to the look of the city and surrounding area.  Unfortunately, finding the perfect images was impossible, so here's a shoddy comparison:

Capitol in The Hunger Games

(As an aside, notice the apparent lack of street lamps in the image above, or the larger version here.)

City in background of The Viper Pit in Unreal Championship 2

(Can you tell how much CGI has changed in seven years?  There's a lot less blue.)  It may be difficult with these poor examples, but I'm having a serious case of déjà vu.  You can just imagine these two images being a pair of photographs taken from the opposite ends of a bay (not at the same time, of course, unless a second Sun has mysteriously appeared within the orbit of the Future Earth).

It's just remarkable how I could not shake this connection between these two entities, regardless of its legitimacy.  Although they are not exact, the similarities, in story, concept, politics, and visual design, are almost too numerous to be considered ignorant coincidence.  Many people, including the creators, may not have seen it, but I certainly did.

Embarrassment Never Felt so Good: Cynic Live, One

C

an you believe it: your eloquent Narrator humiliated himself in front of Paul Masvidal.  The ever-flowery penner who has no trouble constructing pretty collections of words was caught in the trap of too-much-to-say-with-too-little-time.  So, instead of reciting the thoughtful lines I’d prepared all week, I, first, giggled like a shy girl, and then burst into a monolithic rant on Cynic’s musical history, without a hint of beckoning, and even less context.  Yes, I told Paul Masvidal what his own music sounds like.

I shouldn’t be allowed near my heroes.  No matter how much I convince myself I won’t look silly, I always end up looking silly.  I’m like a kid that refuses to let go of a piece of candy, even though he’s full and has had enough.  Cynic and Intronaut are my candy.  And enough is not enough.  See, I’m sitting in the corner of a train station as I’m writing this.  It’s dark, cold (no matter how much I prepare, I’m never ready for the agony train stations throw at me), a wind keeps blowing into my face even though the doors are shut, and after getting just a hair over two hours of sleep today, my body is ready to quit.  And yet, I’m having no trouble slinging this together.  But put me in front of Paul, and I go all googly-eyed.

The chemistry of a lifelong friendship.

In my defence, though, Cynic gave me a ton to talk about, because their set provided it.  For example, Paul’s singing was so subversive it was almost beyond surprising.  He would prolong certain notes, distort others, and ignore some choruses all together, all to the point that singing along required one to stay on edge because we quickly realised Cynic weren’t going to be taking the verbatim route.  It gave the show an improvisational feel, and in hindsight, makes absolute sense – even if no one was expecting it.

The songs, too, were distorted.  I’m a big fan of “Integral”, the remix of the masterpiece “Integral Birth”, and they did something so brilliant it was utterly logical looking back at it, but equally unexpected because no one would think they had the balls to try it: rather than play only one of the two songs (a shame, because I’d love to hear both, but that’s impractical), they combined them, with Paul playing “Integral” as an overture, before the band collectively jumped into “Integral Birth”.  It was a stunning amalgamation that fit so perfectly one could have assumed it was but a single song originally composed as such.

Review: Alice in Wonderland (2010)

(via Wikipedia)

Year: 2010

Director: Tim Burton

Writer: Linda Woolverton

Cast: Mia Wasikowska, Johnny Depp, Helena Bonham Carter, Anne Hathaway, Crispin Glover, Matt Lucas, Marton Csokas, Lindsay Duncan, Jemma Powell, Frances de la Tour, John Hopkins, Tim Piggott-Smith, Geraldine James, Leo Bill, Michael Sheen, Alan Rickman, Barbara Windsor, Paul Whitehouse, Timothy Spall, Michael Gough, Sir Christopher Lee, Imelda Staunton, Jim Carter, Frank Welker

***

Meeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeh. Meh meh meh meh. Meh.

Seriously, though, meh. It has some neat ideas, and I actually couldn't watch it in the background half the time because of all the information on the screen, but Depp doing that silly dance out of nowhere was like taking a fish to my brain. And is it me, or does he randomly change his accent to an odd sort of Scottish? It was so devoid of context, like the "make your luck" line in The Dark Knight that was dripping in the rote filming process of single-camera cinema.

In fact, most of the film was devoid of context. Why is the white queen "good"? Does she even ever do a good deed? Does Burton mean to give her the sinister, psychotic edge I feel in her scenes? She looks like the villain, does that weird hand-waving thing with the creepy smile, forces Alice to risk her life for her while feigning freedom of choice, and then exiles her own sister. Going back to forcing Alice... seriously, man, like... seriously... man... that's totally what every leader of every country that has gone into a war of choice has done: wanna fight some war? Don't want to risk your own life? Or anyone you really care about? Great. Just look for some sap you've never met before, convince them they're destined to kill some Jabberwhythefuckwouldsomeonegivethemostterrifyingcreatureinthestorythestupidestnamethatremindsmeofanewokthathasmatedwithawookiebecausetheproofisinthefinalwordwocky, give them a "magic" sword, and woot, get them going before they go, "Hey, wait a minute... he make fun of our car there never was a cake!" Was Alice anything but a pawn?

When Plans Go Awry: Intronaut Live, Two

W

ell, seeing Intronaut for the second time didn't turn out as planned, even though it was much closer than last time.  Speaking to the band (mostly Joe for a couple hours) was, again, awesome, as was the first half of their set.  We missed the rest so we could catch the final train home, which, oh, joy of joys, was first late, and then cancelled as it pulled into the train station.

The collection of travellers were justifiably pissed, but there was nothing we could do.  Eventually, we hatched a plan to share a taxi with six other people, allowing the ride to be only slightly more expensive than the train ticket.  So, all was not lost... for us, anyway.

As the taxi stopped for a minute in front of the station, an old man standing beside it stared at me.  He had a hunch, long, black beard, unkempt hair, and the look of a bitter, defeated man.  Only minutes earlier, he had been standing alone while we tried to get a taxi home.  Before that, he was angrily asking an attendant why he wasn't allowed in the train.  When we exited the station, I felt his distress - we, too, were stranded.  But, then, there I was, safely on my way home while he stood there, watching everyone but him leave.

Man, that felt shitty.  I should have done something, more than just pondering aloud whether he was headed in the same direction.  There probably wasn't enough space (I believe adding us was the limit), but does it hurt to try?  In the end, I can only hope he eventually found his way home, whether it be on the first train of the next day or some other means. 

End.

(Updated: 12.03.14. Reason: formatting and grammar; I did not fix the otherwise terrible writing.)

Unforgettable: Intronaut Live, One

M

y memory of Friday, 3^rd of June, 2011, will not be forgotten until the senility of old age takes me.  I don’t say this as some hyperbolic trope with little meaning – it was truly a night to remember.Somehow, however, I’m not sure how to describe it all.  I could use one of the various over-used adjectives that permeate the modern English lexicon, or a long, structured examination of the day’s events, but, frankly, my tongue can’t grasp the words required to do that.

When I briefly spoke to Joe Lester after their set, the word I kept flubbing out through my star-struck quiver was “Wow!”  The word was the closest I could come to expressing my combination of joy, ecstasy, disbelief, and sheer awe.  By the time the band had started coiling their cables and the audience had dispersed, I was still standing in front of the stage, wiping the sweat and inability to comprehend what had just happened from my brow. 

I couldn’t believe it.  This was Intronaut.  In person.  Not two metres from me.  In the centre of the stage, Joe had played his bass; to his left and right, respectively, Sacha Dunable and Dave Timnick provided a harmony of guitar and vocals; and, finally, beyond them was Danny Walker, whose cymbal hits, fills, and blast beats were as precise as they were to the point.  Each member was in form, working as vessels through which the music flowed.

Review: Valley of Smoke

Year: 2010
Artist: Intronaut
Website: http://www.myspace.com/intronaut ; http://blogronaut.blogspot.com/

Geflügelzam! Amazon followed through on their promise to have Valley of Smoke delivered by the 19th, and after procrastinating for a while (I don't have the ROM drive on the netbook I use most of the time), I finally got to listen to it at full volume with a pair of good speakers, and then switched to headphones and have been listening to it non-stop since.

First, though, a teaser for ya:

Clouds Set, Three

I just got back from a showing of Moon in a local university's lecture hall. If you haven't seen this film, it's highly recommended, especially if you get the chance to view it on a big screen. There's much I could say about it, but I will only comment on one thing for now: the framing, use of colour, and use of focus combined with Clint Mansell's score make you lose your breath at times.

When people try to convince skeptics about the wonder of film, this is the example they should use.  Gary Shaw (DP) deserves whatever love he got for this, because he earned it.

Anyhoo, more clouds!

Download original.

Download original.

I love both these pictures. There's a great combination of colour and light that shows off the complex structure of these clouds.

Review: deUSYNLIGE

(via Wikipedia)

Also known as: Troubled Water
Year: 2008
Director: Erik Poppe
Writer: Harald Rosenløw Eeg
Cast: Pål Sverre Valheim Hagen; Ellen Dorrit Petersen; Anneke von der Lippe; Tone Danielsen; Trine Dyrholm; Trond Espen Seim; Terje Strømdahl; Frank Kjosås; Stig Henrik Hoff


There are so many things I could say here, but frankly, I believe that anything I say will be detrimental to your experience. I truly believe that. I went into this film only knowing its title, coming off a recommendation from, let's say, a friend. I hate that fact, because I genuinely hate the feeling of not knowing where something is headed. I can't handle staring into the darkness, because I get so tense waiting to see a flicker of light that I might as well drop dead before I ever see it.

But if I Wiki'd this before watching it, glancing at the plot, my experience would have been ruined. It would have done a disservice to all the effort the makers put into creating more than a story, but a living... well... well, I've already said too much.

So just take my advice: Don't Wiki this film. Don't try to find out beforehand what it's about. Don't read a review. Don't Google it. Don't watch the trailer. Don't go into it expecting anything. Just walk right into that darkness.
Look for it at your local rental store, look for it on TV, look for it online on Amazon or a place like Filestube, just go look for it. And when you find it, make sure you won't be disturbed for two hours and then let the river carry you wherever it may.

Trust me, you won't regret it.

Review: Alter Ego

ORIGINAL FORMAT: Apple ][, C64
ORIGINAL DEVELOPER: Peter Favaro
PUBLISHER: Activision

REVIEWED FORMAT: PC (ONLINE)
DEVELOPER: Dan Fabulich (with Peter Favaro's blessing and cooperation)
WEBSITE: www.theblackforge.net


What if you could live your life over again?