The Bounty

Wild deliberations, imaginatively bred, cerebrally adrift on contemplative seas, evocatively swelling disproportionately sly arrhythmically attuned courageously attired.

I imagine it's still tantalizing to freely circumnavigate the globe, it may have been done ad infinitum but must still impress vessel-type depending.

In The Bounty, the rigid captain has it in sight as a resolute goal, but gives up after inclement weather bombards his ships for weeks on end.

He still reaches his destination where his hearty men modestly indulge themselves, the tropical climate and easy living a well-earned break from life at sea.

But for the celebratory accomplished return trip he wants to test the stormy waters again, to stubbornly realize his lofty objective which was wisely abandoned with sobre regret. 

His men have grown quite sick of the imposition of discipline at sea however, and many of them miss their island comforts with far fewer rules and regulations and lashes. 

Fearing they'll never make it, they openly launch an audacious mutiny. 

Taking the ship wherever it may go.

Never to see their Native homeland again. 

The Bounty takes an imperious shine to top-down order and absolutist reckoning, affirmatively upholding old school codes of efficient conduct and divine faith.

Circumnavigating the globe would have no doubt been a noteworthy accomplishment, to look back upon in your senior years with loyal disbelief and rebellious fidelity.

Dying in the attempt would have been fruitless and perhaps even mad obsessions pending, although if the captain had been less severe he may have subtly won the crew over.

He isn't a loveable man though and relies more on codes and duty than artful persuasion, unlike his affable mutinous counterpart whom the crew adores with uncompromised feeling. 

To take a ship and just sail off into the wide open salient distance. 

Could you have purchased your own ship and done that way back when?

Is it even possible to do that now?

Flying to Vancouver's crazy expensive.  

Mary Queen of Scots

A young idealistic Queen takes the throne in brave Scotland, a queen as familiar with communal ethics as she is unaware of treacherous plots, her gallant attempts to ecumenically harmonize defiantly subverted by rank misogyny, her courageous desire to have a family, reproached by hearts diffused.

Woeful political intrigue, direst soulless plagues.

It's like at any time there are many conflicting interests, and every one of them thinks they're pursuing just objectives, and if they actually want to reify their ideas even though they rest in opposition, byzantine arrays of begrudged conflicting alliances engulf them, the steady mind keeping track of every variation, even if he or she can by no means lead.

The individual in power attempts to change things and can hopefully rely upon the discipline of her or his colleagues, as Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie) did in England for quite some time.

He or she must command differing degrees of respect, soothe aggrieved adversaries, yield when it's advantageous to do so, act at opportune times.

William Lyon Mackenzie King seems to have been a master at doing this from what I've read, perhaps because he proceeded inductively, that is, even though he had ideals he still had to balance manifold competing factors (personalities, internal and external opponents, divergent regional agendas, budgetary constraints, campaign promises, ethical expectations . . .), each with their own comprehensive sets of particularities, to implement them, so he studied individuals, learned what motivated them, learned when to trust and distrust those surrounding him, since he understood what conditioned their advice, and his incisive study allowed him to balance a relatively concrete house of cards for 9 then 13 years, with an enviable composure few could ever hope to possess.

He knew when to listen, when not too, and therefore gained the respect of the level-headed individuals within his government, and beyond.

There are no mortal gods, only women and men and clever narratives, William Lyon Mackenzie King at least had some support which unfortunately Mary Stuart (Saoirse Ronan) did not, her wise sympathetic ideas unsuited to the volatile times.

She was feisty though, and beautiful, and put up a good fight, won some key victories, and was loved by many.

If Mary Queen of Scots's as independent as it seems, a good match for its headstrong subject matter, director Josie Rourke certainly made the most of her finances.

Convincing battle scenes, impressive aerial shots, a huge number of extras travelling through landscapes which seem remote, castle dynamics, armour.

It's solid, a tragic tale passionately brought to life, myriad characters adding depth, historical sorrow, and contemporary vindications.

There's an incredible shot of Saoirse, which lasts for some time, during which I imagined her becoming more and more sublime as she ages, and continues to take on bold challenging roles.

Margot Robbie's great too, the film's very well cast (Alastair Coomer) and seems to have been taken seriously by everyone involved.

I was hoping for two or three earth shattering royal declarations, the magnanimous linguistic authenticity of which would resonate with incumbent thunder.

But you can't have everything, and the writing's still quite good (Beau Willimon and John Guy).

One of the best films I've seen in 2018.

Enriched through bright enchantments.

Safe House

Fittingly timed considering Canada's conservative government's introduction of the hated Bill C-30, Daniel Espinosa's new action flick Safe House presents a young CIA agent tasked with delivering a rogue fugitive possessing private governmental information to an undisclosed location in order to bring him to justice.

For agent Matt Weston (Ryan Reynolds), it's an opportunity to demonstrate his prowess and procure a more invigorating post.

For longtime fugitive (and former CIA agent) Tobin Frost (Denzel Washington), it's all just par for the course.

Frost has in his possession a file implicating several international intelligence agents in criminal activities. A mercenary by the name of Vargas (Fares Fares) seeks to pry it from his cold dead hands. Seeing nowhere to run, Frost turns himself in at an American Embassy in South Africa. He's taken to be interrogated at a safe house in Cape Town of which Weston is the "housekeeper." Vargas comes calling shortly thereafter, leaving Weston and Frost wondering which CIA agent coughed up the whereabouts of their hidden location as they frantically escape.

Into the unknown.

The film's anti-warrantless-police-online-surveillance agenda is highlighted during one of the chase scenes. Frost and Weston are fleeing Vargas and his men on the rooftops of a quiet shantytown. Some of the roofs aren't particularly sturdy and can't withstand the shock of the sudden tumultuous weight. Thus, as people simply try and enjoy their private life, mercenaries, fugitives, and intelligence agents come crashing unannounced into their homes, and then leave quickly, after having obtrusively disrupted their lives, in the pursuit of disparate self-serving agendas.

How does this relate to the ways in which Canada's conservative government has labelled environmentalist groups opposed to the development of the Northern Gateway pipeline as radicals within Canada and Bill C-30?

Well, it's cheaper to operate a mine/engage in oil and gas exploration/build a pipeline if you don't have to worry about reclaiming the land or behaving responsibly. But if you don't responsibly reclaim the land you create a toxic mess that leaves the area uninhabitable while people continue to live there. If you introduce a toxic substance into an ecosystem it has a lasting toxic effect.

Environmentalist groups seek to mitigate this effect so that such lands remain habitable and their drinking waters aren't irreparably polluted. If you are an environmentalist who has been labelled a radical by the government (as opposed to being labelled a responsible citizen who simply wants to have access to clean drinking water and doesn't want to have to clean up an industrial mess for the next century or so), whose to stop the police from monitoring your productive conscientious online activity and demonizing the sights you visit?

Demonizing is a strong word but so is radical and labelling environmentalist groups critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline development as radical is a form of demonizing, especially considering that a percentage of our elected opposition members of parliament are critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline, therefore I don't think I'm taking too much of a leap in thinking the police, through invasively monitoring your online activity after the passage of Bill C-30 because you are an environmentalist radical, can then take the next step of demonizing you within your community (hypothetically, some shitty anti-environmentalist law is passed after the passage of Bill C-30 [The Economic Stewardship Bill or something], it isn't debated in the House of Commons so media coverage is minimized, people aren't provided with the facts concerning the law and after someone breaks it they simply think that person's broken the law and are therefore a problem, the police having arrested the individual after monitoring their online activity without a warrant and discovering that by visiting a specific targeted sight they have engaged in radical illegal activity. They arrest that person, local media picks up on it, they are demonized within their community).

You think this is ridiculous? I repeat, labelling environmentalists critical of the Northern Gateway pipeline development as radicals is ridiculous, throughly undemocratic, and grossly irresponsible. Simply because they wanted to mitigate the environmental impact of industrial activity in their country in order to live a healthier life.

Environmentalists want jobs too and understand the necessity of mining and oil and gas exploration. They just want to ensure that it's done responsibly. The reason we have an environmental lobby is that these activities were not undertaken responsibly for centuries. It is not radical to believe that they will suddenly be responsibly undertaken without the influence of an environmentalist lobby.

In Safe House, Weston turns the situation around and releases Frost's file to the media who then begins to vilify the intelligence agents/governmental representatives mentioned within. Unfortunately, this ending indirectly supports Bills such as Bill C-30. Here we have a situation where invading the privacy of several organizations and making their private information public has positive results. By creating such a situation and making it seem cathartic, Safe House sinisterly supports the intrusive agendas of those seeking to freely invade our privacy and monitor our online activity by 'subliminally advertising' an example which motivates the invasion of privacy.

Although the roof crashing chase was a nice diversion.

Immortals

And the Titans were imprisoned deep within Mount Tartarus after losing a war against the Gods of Olympus. Humankind prospered in the aftermath until such a time as one rose up from lowly origins to seek the destruction of Ancient Greece (Reason) through recourse to military means. But in his blood lust, he made the critical error of murdering the mother of another of humble birth, thereby inspiring his wrath. With no other alternative but to eventually seek the other's annihilation, their armies mercilessly clash, sparing no one from their antagonistic fury.

And the Titans are unleashed once more.

But what does all this have to do with socio-politics and religion and is there a social democratic agenda sequestered deep within Immortals's narrative, eagerly seeking emancipation?

We know that both Theseus (Henry Cavill) and King Hyperion (Mickey Rourke) are roughly members of the proletariat and that the former is primarily concerned with protecting his family while the later seeks to conquer Reason. Theseus is counselled by Zeus (John Hurt, Luke Evans) in disguise to protect the weak and the infirm, while Hyperion lives by the code that might is right. The Titans are incarcerated deep within the earth but they were equals to the Gods prior to being shackled (an ideological battle was waged which stripped them of their material resources). Mineral wealth often lies deep within mountains. Mineral wealth (or petroleum wealth) can be used to attain prestigious cultural god-like positions. With the attainment of wealth and prestige a challenge can be made against the resident Gods (many of whom made their fortune the same way hundreds of years ago and due to the passage of time had their 'royalty' naturalized) in order to obtain political control. Two simplistic traditional ways of examining those within the proletariat who rise through the ranks to positions of power is to regard them as maniacal control freaks (Hyperion, Stalin) or altruistic equalizers (Theseus, Tommy Douglas). Theseus defeats Hyperion and therefore Immortals upholds the altruistic equalizer. But his victory is dependent upon the constant intervention of the Gods or the established concrete ruling elite. In the final moments, Theseus leaves the mortal world and travels to Olympus to live amongst them, leaving humankind behind. There are certainly places within the upper echelons for altruistic individuals, but a social democratic film would have its heroes remain within the mortal realm in order to achieve a material surplus from which his or her compatriots could level out the upper echelons themselves. But if Mount Olympus is thought of as being a legislative assembly as opposed to the halls of the ever rich, then Theseus's position within suggests that he could represent a defender of social democratic values, those espoused by Zeus (or Thomas Mulcair, Brian Topp and Bob Rae), the established order making room for new innovations in order to diversify and remodel its means of production, and be leading the charge against the fallen nouveau riche who were freed by Hyperion's savagery. But Mount Olympus doesn't strike me as being the best place in which to situate a social democratic political aesthetic, inasmuch as the politics of the oppressed are often not resolutely upheld by immortals. And much of the anger felt by Hyperion comes from the Gods turning blind eyes to humankind, or creating elitist structures with no practical outlets nurtured by a culture of snobbery that alienates the proletariat and results in them voting for conservatives (who use the practical outlets ignored by liberal snobs to subliminally manipulate them into preferring divisive racist imperialist alternatives [wherein they mistake subservience for freedom]). And it's Hyperion who wants to destroy them as a consequence, conservatively placing Hyperion in the guise of the social democratic activist, whose out to destroy the liberally motivated yet aloof elite (with the goal of converting the liberal elite to team conservative).

Thus, Immortals doesn't strike me as being pro-social democracy.

In regards to religion, Immortals uses the win scenario to elevate it. The film's situated in Ancient Greece and thereby overtly distances itself from 21st Century religious agendas while metaphorically supporting them, as every character comes to believe (by using Ancient Greece, the film's support for religion doesn't alienate its audience by bombarding them with religious images with which they are familiar which is a win strategy when it comes to eventually converting cynical unbelievers).

Better than Clash of the Titans but not as entertaining as Troy, Stephen Dorff's character (Stavros) steals the show that is perhaps best left for a Saturday evening rental.

Transformers: Dark of the Moon

The Autobots and Decepticons battle once again in Transformers: Dark of the Moon, one group caring for the future of humanity, the other, not so much.

Enjoyed the first act of the film as Sam Witwicky (Shia LeBeouf) struggles to find a job, competently dealing with the shocks of the working world while reservedly accepting that successfully defeating the forces of evil twice does not necessarily guarantee that one will find full-time rewarding employment. Nevertheless, he still finds a position in the mail room of an innovative company and proceeds to prove himself while impressing partner Carly Spencer (Rosie Huntington-Whiteley) and mollifying his ill-tempered father (Kevin Dunn).

Until fellow employee Jerry Wang (Ken Jeong) suddenly provides him with top secret intelligence regarding the Ark, a spacecraft which escaped Cybertron during its transformational Armageddon and proceeded to crash land on Earth's moon.

Reunited with Seymour Simmons (John Turturro), they then unravel a plot involving the stockpiling of pillars on the moon and the murder of many of the people involved with American and Russian moon missions.

It turns out an Autobot named Sentinel Prime (Leonard Nimoy) piloted the Ark away from Cybertron in order to ensure the Autobots's survival, but had really struck a deal with Megatron (Hugo Weaving) to betray them, believing that the future of the Transformers would pay more dividends in Decepticon hands.

With the help of Spencer's boss and Witwicky's rival Dylan Gould (Patrick Dempsey), the Decepticons conquer the earth and prepare to use Sentinel's technology to transport Cybertron to its solar system.

There are many quirky scenes that make the first act stand out, including the struggles of Alan Tudyk's character Dutch, awkward elevator encounters, and Sam and Jerry's discussion in the stall of a men's washroom. These scenes infuse the film with a catchy comedic sensibility that lightens the tension and disrupts the action, briefly, the sharp introduction of a distinct staccato which doesn't ruin the overall affect as it did in Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (the comedy in a Transformers film finally worked for me).

The film also features the significant transitions most of the characters have entertainingly negotiated since Revenge of the Fallen, which, I suppose, is one of the principle points.

As if we're all Transformers.

Transformers 3's second act is primarily concerned with the Autobot/human counterattack and the momentum fluidly built up beforehand stalls significantly. I suppose if you have a constructed bountiful world that is then devastated it makes sense to ensure that its dynamic isn't present in the Decepticon aftermath. But it also makes sense to then build towards a salient climax wherein that world's productivity is brilliantly revitalized, and Dark of the Moon does contain a climax and its origins are revitalized, but the content used to fill this traditional form didn't exactly motivate me, apart from the quasi-rapprochement entre Simmons and Mearing (Frances McDormand).

Nonetheless, its saving grace is represented by how it presents the ways in which the right perverts "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" maxim, by placing it in Decepiticon hands, who, basically want to bring their world to ours, or supplant Earth's culture with another, the imperialist few using their resources to destroy the longevity of the many, in the interests of the one, the dark of the moon (note the necessity of maintaining a prominent place for the study of First Nations culture within educational systems).