Archfriend: On Writing part 2: Writing

Just before I was struck by a certain tragedy, which caused me to fall into a deep depression, leading to repeated listenings of the most depressing Type O Negative (R.I.P.) songs such as "World Coming Down" and "Everyone I Love is Dead" and "Everything Dies", followed by a descension into the deepest abyss of the most depressing music ever made by an obscure band called Khanate (R.I.P.), dwelling in the darkest recesses of their 33-minute magnum opus "Hell Is Every God Damn Thing"...

Just before all that, I was about to write up a long self-motivational piece on writing, on why I write, and more specifically: why I don't write. But I'm feeling better now. I've since ordered a replacement copy of Pokemon White, which I'll have to play from the beginning all over again, but I don't mind, and I am now listening to the super-go-happy music of the J-pop trio PERFUME, who make such delightfully upbeat tracks such as "Oishii Recipe" and "Akihaba Love" and "Computer Shitty". I've also recently bought 13 Assassins on blu-ray, and I love that god damn movie, so it's hard to feel down right now. Right now, I can write about writing again. So here goes!

In part one I wrote about learning Japanese as one of the activities I want to continue this year under a more rigid régime. Another activity is writing on this blog. I've been terribly inactive the past few months, because I felt writing has become a huge strain. Anyone else who writes will agree: it's painful and time-consuming, and it doesn't get any easier. The more you write, the more you aim to get better, and better, and that means more to think about, and that's exhausting for the brain. If you want to be the best, it's going to hurt. When you know something's going to hurt, your initial reaction is that you don't want to do it. Just getting over your initial reaction is painful. It's like adding more fuel to your aircraft just to make up for the extra weight it's gained by adding fuel in the first place.

I guess one might conclude that I hate writing. This is true: I hate writing, but I want to write more. Why? This is the question one needs to ask before engaging any form of creativity, which I will ask again in different forms in my upcoming posts on drawing and music: Why do I want to write more, when I hate doing it?

There are many answers, and I will go over a few which George Orwell has outlined in his short essay Why I Write, but here I've thought about an answer for myself, and this is it: I like to read. Actually, I'll read anything as long as it's in legible English, that includes writing of my own. I suppose when I write, I am writing what I would ideally want to read, and that's where I find the joy of it all. But to re-iterate: it is the act of writing that pains me, and that is why I don't write as much as I want to.

This year I have resolved to write more, particularly in this blog of mine. For one thing, I know I am my own audience here, so quantity over quality is not an issue. That is why I have come up with a schedule to update this blog at least once or twice a week, on Tuesdays and/or the Weekends. I'm not worried about writer's block, as I know there is always something for me to write about. Last year I've wanted to write about many things but never did, but that was because of the pain, not because of lack of topics. This year, however, I want to write more, and so I shall, because I want to read, because I am reading, and I have read much.

George Orwell wrote an essay in 1946, called Why I Write, shortly after he wrote Nineteen Eighty-Four. He was in a bit of a rut at the time, and needed to refresh his mind on the purpose of writing. He died before he could finish what he was working on, but I picked up this essay (published by Penguin with a collection of some of his other essays) when I was in a rut myself, hoping to find a way out. It didn't have an immediate effect, but over time I've come to appreciate his conclusions, and adapted them to my own causes. I'll cut straight past the bulk where he talks about his early years and focus mainly on his four motives, which he mentions are not all equally weighted within all writers, and each motive varying from time to time within each individual writer themselves, according to their surrounding atmosphere.
1. Sheer egoism. Desire to seem clever, to be talked about, to be remembered after death, to get your own back on grown-ups who snubbed you in childhood, etc. etc. It is humbug to pretend that this is not a motive, and a strong one. Writers share this characteristic with scientists, artists, politicians, lawyers, soldiers, successful businessmen--in short, with the whole top crust of humanity. The great mass of human beings are not acutely selfish. After the age of about thirty they abandon individual ambition--in many cases, indeed, they almost abandon the same sense of being individuals at all--and live chiefly for others, or are simply smothered under drudgery. But there is also the minority of gifted, wilful people who are determined to live their own lives to the end, and writers belong in this class. Serious writers, I should say, are on the whole more vain and self-centred than journalists, though less interested in money.
This motivation, when weighted the heaviest, I think brings out the worst in a writer. I've asked the question "Why should I write?", but if there was an answer to the question "Why shouldn't I write?", it would be sheer egoism. If you think you are a born genius, with a god-given gift of prose to bestow upon the world, that all mankind should bow down in your mastery of language, then you are doing it wrong. Most likely your writing is terrible, and people will say so. It's not bad to have an ego, because you need it to start writing in the first place, but I recommend a humility to accept you are still learning, still open to exploration, and discovery, no matter what point in life you are in.
2. Aesthetic enthusiasm. Perception of beauty in the external world, or, on the other hand, in words and their right arrangement. Pleasure in the impact of one sound on another, in the firmness of good prose or the rhythm of a good story. Desire to share an experience which one feels is valuable and ought not to be missed. The aesthetic motive is very feeble in a lot of writers, but even a pamphleteer or a writer of textbooks will have pet words and phrases which appeal to him for non-utilitarian reasons; or he may feel strongly about typography, width of margins, etc. Above the level of a railway guide, no book is quite free from aesthetic considerations.
This one is the closest to resembling my own answer: I write because I like to read, and I like to read what I write. If I didn't like reading, or reading what I wrote, then I wouldn't bother. I couldn't imagine a more boring existence for myself, though. And once again, too much weight on this motive will bog you down, without the following two motives to come, you'll resort to writing about just trivial things, which in the end are just trivia, no matter how fancy your words flourish.
3.Historical impulse. Desire to see things as they are, to find out true facts and store them up for the use of posterity.
This motive, albeit short, I think has most importance. You can write your heart out all you want but unless you have something to write about, then your writing amounts to nil. Its description may sound like journalism at first, maybe a bit of egotistic want of being credited for a discovery, but this motive is true not just of writing, but of existence itself. In Renee Descart's simple yet profound quote: "I think therefore I am", he expressed existence as a consciousness. In Brandon Carter's Anthropic Principle, he expressed consciousness as a means of existence, that being here is proven by the fact that we are being here. Socrates expressed "not knowing is the path to knowing", and knowledge is at the heart of writing itself. What would we be without it?
4. Political purpose--using the word 'political' in the widest possible sense. Desire to push the world in a certain direction, to alter other people's idea of the kind of society that they should strive after. Once again, no book is genuinely free from political bias. The opinion that art should have nothing to do with politics is itself a political attitude.
Whether you're into politics or not (I certainly am not), I think it's true that all internal conflicts within every individual stems from their political environment. Jean-luc Godard was trying to prove this with his series Histoire(s) du cinéma, that all film, writing and art were products of the political surroundings of its time, one just needs to open their eyes and make the correlations. I think it's certainly true of my own conflict: why I don't write. I don't write because I'm exhausted, because I work full-time to make a living, that my time of leisure is waning at the limits of my expenses: the cost of living rises twice, maybe thrice, every year, and my paycheck only rises once, and not sufficiently. I feel like a proletariat, in Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels' The Communist Manifesto, and my mind goes over the opening sentence: "The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles". I feel I'm being exploited for my labour, and I'm not being compensated for it. I might need another means of income, maybe I should become a writer? An artist? A musician? I know other countries have it a lot worse, and there are places I would rather not be right now. Even right here where I am, I think it could be better. And so I crave, I want, and want, and write, to be better, to better, to bridge the gap between author and reader, between time and space and culture and personality. So God luck and good speed (plus wizard fight)!

And so I leave you, dear reader (that's me!), with one final piece: an excerpt from Kurt Vonnegut Jr.'s final novel Timequake. He wrote this book out of his love of books (as opposed to television), as well as a fine example of the four Orwell motivations above. But here, he moves past the why and on to the how.
Tellers of stories with ink on paper, not that they matter anymore, have been either swoopers or bashers. Swoopers write a story quickly, higgledy-piggledy, crinkum-crankum, any which way. Then they go over it again painstakingly, fixing everything that is just plain awful or doesn't work. Bashers go one sentence at a time, getting it exactly right before they go on to the next one. When they're done they're done.
I'm probably more swooper than basher, which probably makes me a bit girly, but so be it! I'm probably about ready to go back to sleep, as I've had enough swooping for these past two days (yes it took two days to write this up), it's done my head in.

Up next in this series, I'll be talking about drawing and illustration, or will I be talking about music? It depends whatever I'm in the mood for. Maybe I'll talk about something else entirely. That isn't to say, I don't have plenty to say about drawing and music, but the pain! O the pain!

Archfriend: On Hold

I discovered this morning that I've lost my Nintendo DSi LL, which I spent a lot of money to get it imported from Japan, along with my copy of Pokemon White (also imported from Japan). It fell out of my bag yesterday, and I've retraced my steps twice. It's gone forever. I'm a little traumatised, like a significant portion of my life has been suddenly erased, and there's no Ctrl+Z to get it back. It's a bit materialistic to say this about a mere electronic object, but it's kind of like losing a best friend.

Even though it can be replaced, it will take me a few days to get over this. I don't remember the last time I've been so careless...

Archfriend: On Writing part one

Last year, I never fulfilled my New Year's resolutions because I never made any. It's my tradition to not try and set goals to achieve, because I like to keep my mind free to move in any direction open to it. Recently I've grown older into the age of boredom. New things don't interest me much as they used to, so this year I'll set myself down and carry over last year's activities, only with more rigid régime.

The first activity was getting semi-serious about learning Japanese. Since 2005, I've been on/off with learning this infernal language, but it's mainly because I've been trying to teach myself through books. I'm too busy to take classes, and I don't know any Japanese speakers who can give me the help I need. After a while, I ask myself "why do you want to learn it anyway? Seems like a waist of brain power in the end." But I have plenty of reasons to learn it. Firstly: about half my DVD collections are Japanese films and animation, and I never feel that the subtitles are giving me the complete experience. There are so many subtleties in the language, even the things that go unsaid. Sometimes, there can be more than one interpretation, and the subtitlist (is that what they are called?) only has one to choose from. Secondly: I have some video games in the original Japanese language, before they were either ported to the Western world, or some that haven't been ported at all. I've managed to play them just fine, and enjoy them on some level, but I think there is more to gain from them if I could actually understand the language. Especially the one game I've been playing a lot lately, Pokemon White. Thirdly: I'd like to get into some Japanese authors, such as Haruki Murakami, or many others I haven't heard of yet, to read their novels as they were written, and not through the filter of translation, which always feels weird when you read them. When I read a book, I like to think I'm absorbing the text, being influenced by it and even discovering new things about my own language I never knew existed. I love foreign books because I'm interested by other cultures, and the underlying humanity from all parts of the globe, but I hate how I have to read them through a translation. The English comes off as really weird and unnatural, and the case is ever more present in Japanese. Case in point: here is an excerpt of "Audition" by Ryu Murakami (not related to Haruki), translated by Ralph McCarthy. Admittedly I only read this book because I enjoyed the movie by Takashi Miike.
THAT NIGHT, IN THE hotel room, they watched a triple bill of Rambo films. Midway through First Blood, Shige declared it a great movie, and he even shed a few tears at the ending. But with the second and third instalments he grew gradually disgruntled, and by the time they got to the final scene of Rambo III he was downright indignant.
 'What the hell is this? It's ridiculous! How's a guy on horseback gonna take down an attack helicopter with a bow and arrow? They must think we're all morons watching this crap. What's he supposed to be, Genghis Khan?'
 It was past two a.m. when the third film ended. Shige said he was going to get online and wanted the room to himself, because he couldn't relax with a computer illiterate looking over his shoulder.
 'Go have a drink somewhere, why don't you?' he told his father.
On the one hand, the book was amazing, and gave a much more psychologically involved account of the story than film could ever achieve. On the other hand, the language is so straightforward and flat, even exclamations like "What the hell is this?" seem somewhat reserved. Lately, I've been improving in my ability to read Japanese by playing Pokemon, and even if I don't understand all the words, I've found that I can easily pick up on the tone. The subtleties of politeness levels and familiarity levels, crossed with effeminate or masculine sounding words, or words with harsh consonants, or extended vowels, or diphthongs, etc. it all adds to a tone. When I read "'Go have a drink somewhere, why don't you?' he told his father.", I can't tell if he's being familiarly impolite, or downright rude, or even casually suggestive, just by the words themselves. I have to rely on context surrounding the dialogue, and if I have to do that, then there's something lost in translation. I know English text can be injected with tone, just go read Moby Dick: read it out loud! You'll know when Captain Ahab is yelling at the top of his lungs, or softly rambling in an almost-whisper.

Then try to tell me what is the tone of "Go have a drink somewhere, why don't you?".

What got me semi-serious about learning Japanese last year was when I managed to import a copy of the Nintendo DS game, My Japanese Coach, which is getting harder and harder to find these days. There are a few things this game does right, which no other interactive teaching aid, be it CD-ROM or activity book, ever did: it has a neat game-flow, which uses a kind of reward-based system. You are locked from any future lessons until you earn enough "Mastery Points" (MP) in your current lesson, forcing you to actually learn your stuff before you can move on. You earn MP by playing mini-games that involve a complete understanding of your words, your grammar and, later on, your kanji. Some mini-games were well thought out, and couldn't be beaten without a complete understanding of the lesson. Others were easily beatable without committing a single word to memory. What's more, is that if you upped the difficulty (which mostly just decreases the time-limits), you earned more MP, thereby getting through the lessons faster, spending less time repeatedly drilling every word into your brain. The game was a good idea, but its repetitiousness, its unappealing (plus limited) design and its reliance on the user to do most of the work themselves made it another boring academic textbook on the Japanese language like everything else I've tried. It became another disappointment that never took into account the user, who perhaps wants to enjoy the act of learning. To laugh, to cry, to fall in love, to be in awe, and so on.

It has made me want to take it upon myself to design a learning game of my own, to single-handedly change the face of edutainment. I want a game that teaches you Japanese, but does all the work for you, and all you have to do is sit back and enjoy. And by the end of it, whether you wanted it or not, all of a sudden you have the ability to read, write and speak Japanese. Who says this isn't possible? Why are all teaching aids half-designed by "experts" who say otherwise? Why can't learning be an adventure?

That's what I have in mind, a kind of adventure game, where the user can dictate the course of their learning, but only through unlocking one lesson at a time. I liked the "Mastery Points" idea of My Japanese Coach, so I want to incorporate that into my game, except I would want to give more substantial rewards, like, say, rare sexy video tapes of your teachers when they were young, and it becomes your hobby to gain Internet cred by giving them subtitles. Oh yeah, I should explain that my game is not entirely kid-friendly. If kids want to learn Japanese, they can go take classes, because it's not like they have a full-time job or anything. Most schools have Japanese classes included anyway.

An idea clicked in my head today about this game idea. At the New Year's Eve party I went to, we were all having a go at Wario Ware: Smooth Moves on the Wii. I was dying of laughter and admiration at the various instructions for holding the Wii-remote, the ones that are read out loud by some laid back sleazy guy who calls the Wii-remote "the Form Baton", rambling on and on about how to hold it for the up-coming mini-game, contrasted with an epic writing style begging for a more Shakespearian over-actor, spoken loud and grandiose. These segments were brilliant, and in some cases, I think most people would only play this game for these segments alone. It crossed my mind that instead of teaching you how to hold the "Form Baton", if he was to teach you how to write hiragana, katakana or kanji.

The game-flow of Wario Ware was also ideal. You are first given a map-screen, then one by one you unlock a new area and new characters to go on a new adventure with. In each adventure, you witness an amusing little story, then you start playing mini-games (more like mini-mini-games), and every now and then you are shown how to use the "Form Baton" in new ways. This game-flow seems ideal for the game idea I had in mind: First off you are open to a shop (for when you earn points), and two areas: one to learn nouns and one to learn hiragana and katakana. You earn very few points if you learn nouns written out in roman letters ("romaji"), so ideally you have to start off with hiragana and katakana. Once you have mastered the syllabary, you can then either move on to kanji for earning even more points, or learn some nouns. Once you have learned some nouns, you are then opened up to two more areas: verbs and adjectives. All of these areas start off simple, but get more and more complex when you have to get through conjugation, particles, grammar, phrases, conversations, and so on. But hopefully all the adventures should be sexy and fun as well as educational. I say "sexy" because language is all about connections: the connection of letters to form words, of words to form phrases and sentences, to form ideas and so on. And let's face it: the word "connection" is also a euphemism for "sex". Heck, every second word in the dictionary has sexual connotation, so I don't see why we should ignore it. We should embrace it! I wrote this down today: it is a simple instruction on how to draw the hiragana あ (imagine it read out loud by the sleaziest voice possible).
To master the hiragana あ, first begin at the left of the horizontal line, then ease your way to the right by motion of an effortless flick of the wrist, thus taking care of the first of three strokes: no more, no less.

The second stroke begins gently above left-of-centre of the horizontal line, crossing over it downwards, finishing off with a slight bend to the right, mimicking the natural endowment of man, and ready to penetrate the open loop of the final pass.

Here, we begin at a point somewhere between the ends of the first and second strokes, and move round clockwise in a circular motion, but moving over past the starting position as if to draw a half-hearted spiral. Hence by now it should have wrapped itself around the flaccid tail of the second stroke, hopefully ensuring a rigid unity once completed.
I mean, that's just a first-draft, coming from my mind just rambling on and on when it thinks about drawing a hiragana, but I've been coming up with some lurid stuff for many others, and can't see why this couldn't be applied to just about every hiragana, katakana, and kanji (all thousands of them). This stuff just writes itself!

I do want to make this game, but the only thing holding me back right now is my lack of completely understanding Japanese myself. I was hoping that making the game would force me to learn it, but I doubt I wouldn't end up lost and confused half-way through development. And so I want to take another crack at My Japanese Coach, only this time go from semi-serious to full-on serious, with exercise books and everything. Over the course of learning, more design ideas for the game should come to mind. I mainly need characters, which range from sexy, funny, to cute. And mini-games, or "Tests" as I will call them. And ideas for stories and adventures. And to stray away from the dryness of textbook examples, to keep myself sopping wet with ideas, new ideas, and fun.

(end of part one, next up: writing, and why I write, and why not?)

That whole thing about ghosts?

False alarm. I don't feel like doing it any more.

If I'm in a writing mood, I might do another movie review or something.

Oh, and the Jules Verne thing a couple posts below? Turns out there are abridged versions of his stories, published by Vintage. I saw the whole paragraph I painstakingly typed out in full reduced to a mere sentence: "For centuries explorers have attempted to reach the South Pole...". Now I feel cheated, going through such laborious text, more like documentation, lists upon lists of fish and underwater life I never cared about, all the minute technical details which I couldn't even follow, and all the other fat which could have been cut out to make a good read, not just by today's standards (it's not like I haven't read plenty of 19th century literature), and all of a sudden, there are versions available that actually do cut out all the fat! If I ever plan on reading his other books, I kind of feel obligated to find the Collins editions that retain the text complete and unabridged. It's a slog, yes, but at least I'm not being cheated.

What will be written next?

I don't write much these days. I'm still reading books, watching old & new films, and playing some video games every now and then, but it's not like I have the dying urge to write about everything I experience. It always seems bland to me to read a straight-forward review or analysis of something, even when it's humorous. It almost seems cold and mechanic to watch, read or play something and go to your blog and say "this is what I did". Where's the spin? Where's the angle? What am I getting out of it?

This is why I don't write as much as I want to, but I have something in mind which I'm currently preparing. What will it be about? I've seen some great movies lately: Immortals 3D, The Ides of March, Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol... I've read some great books: The Hobbit by Tolkien, We by Yevgeny Zamyatin, Dead Souls by Nikolai Gogol, not to mention the entire Chronicles of Narnia by C.S. Lewis, as well as all the film/TV/animated adaptations, plus a smaller book he wrote called Surprised by Joy, an interesting autobiography and thought-piece on religion. I haven't really been playing many video games, I guess there's Beat Hazard Ultra, an Asteroids-like shoot-em-up which customises itself depending on what music you play to it. This lead me to create two songs for it, which can be heard on my tumblr. But these, I won't be writing about for now. I have something else in mind.

What will it be? I can only give one word as a hint: Ghosts.

Jules Verne

There is no finer example than Jules Verne for a writer who suffered for their art and inflicts it upon the reader.

Case in point: In chapter 38 of 20,000 Leagues Under The Sea, Captain Nemo has steered his underwater vessel Nautilus into a strange isle within the Antarctic. He means to set foot where no man has set before: the South Pole. In this new land, he waits for the sun to shine its rays at noon, to determine his exact position. Apparently, it's been cloudy for the past two days, and this is the last day the sun will shine before it passes the equinox and doesn't rise again for another six months. Let's take a look, shall we?

 Captain Nemo, provided with a reticulated glass which, by means of a mirror, corrected the refraction, watched the sun as it disappeared gradually below the horizon describing an elongated diagonal. I held the chronometer. My heart beat quickly. If the disappearance of half the disc coincided with the noon of the chronometer, we were at the Pole itself.
 'Twelve!' I cried.
 'The South Pole!' answered Captain Nemo in a grave tone, giving me the glass which showed the sun cut in exactly equal halves by the horizon.
 I looked at the last rays crowning the peak, and the shadows gradually mounting its slopes.
 At that moment Captain Nemo, resting his hand on my shoulders, said, -
 'Professor, in 1600 the Dutchman Gheritk, carried along by currents and tempests, reached 64° of south latitude, and discovered the new Shetlands. In 1773, on the 17th of January, the illustrious Cook, following the 38th meridian, reached latitude 67° 30; and in 1774, on the 30th of January, on the 109th meridian, he reached 71° 15 of latitude. In 1819 the Russian Bellinghausen reached the 69th parallel, and in 1821 the 76th by 111° of west longitude. In 1820 the Englishman Brunsfield was stopped on the 65th degree. The same year the American Morrel, whose recital is doubtful, ascending the 42nd meridian, discovered open sea in latitude 70° 14. In 1825 the Englishman Powell could not cross the 62nd parallel. The same year a simple seal-fisher, the Englishman Weddel, reached 72° 14 of latitude on the 35th meridian, and 74° 15 on the 36th. In 1829 the Englishman Forster, commanding the Chanticleer, took possession of the Antarctic continent in 63° 50 of latitude; in 1832, on 5th of February, Adelaide Land in 68° 50 of latitude. In 1838 the Frenchman Dumont d'Urville, stopped by the icebank in 62° 57 of latitude, sighted Louis-Philippe Land; two years later, on a new point in the south, he named, in 66° 30 on January 21, Adelaide Land; and, eight days after in 66° 30 Clarie Coast. In 1838 the Englishman Wilkes reached the 69th parallel on the 100th meridian. In 1839 the Englishman Balleny discovered Sabrina Land on the limits of the Polar circle. Lastly, in 1842, the Englishman James Ross, with the Erebus and Terror, on the 12th of January, in 76° 56 of latitude and 171° 7 of east longitude, discovered Victoria Land; on the 23rd of the same month he reached the 74th parallel, the highest point obtained till then; on the 27th he was in 76° 8, on the 28th in 77° 32, on the 2nd of February in 78° 4, and in 1842 he returned to the 71st degree, beyond which he could not go. I, Captain Nemo, on the 21st March, 1868, have reached the South Pole on the 90th degree, and I take possession of this part of the globe, equal to the sixth part of known continents.'
 'In whose name, captain?'
 'In my own, sir.'
 So saying, Captain Nemo unfurled a black flag, bearing an N in gold, quartered on its bunting. Then, turning towards the sun, whose last rays were lapping the horizon of the sea, he exclaimed, -
 'Adieu, sun! Disappear, thou radiant star! Rest beneath this free sea, and let a six months' night spread its darkness over my new domain!'

THE THING (2011)

(I had this post left hanging half-written in my drafts for about a month. My friend decided to write up a review of John Carpenter's 1982 version, and so I have been compelled to continue where I've left off, which might explain the digression half way through)

I will start on a positive whim, and talk about what I liked about this film. I liked the design of the special effects of the monster thingy--from here on referred to as Thinga-me-bobs--which was impressively sketched out like something from the pages of The Necronomicon, or inspired by the manga Parasyte. The concept of the Thinga-me-bobs was creepy on its own, but then, tragiluckily, they had to go ahead and make a movie about it. I say the special effects were well done, I just take issue with they way they were employed.

Which brings me to what I didn't like about this film, namely: everything else!

The Thinga-me-bobs was quite horrifying, but they lingered on it too long, as if the production team had to pat itself on the back for a job so well done, but the more we see it on screen the sillier it gets. This is due to bad pacing, so let me talk about that for a second.

The Thing (2011) is a slow-paced film, which is good for a horror, for it can linger on the atmosphere and build the world around you. You get to know the characters, and you become more vulnerable to shock via loud screeching beasts from Hell. But this is a very boring film, crippled by sloppy writing leaning on "established convention" as a crutch. I'll talk more about the writing later, I want to bring attention to the actors first, and how they contributed to the aforementioned everything else.

Particularly Mary Elizabeth Winstead--from here on will be referred to as MEW--in the lead role, and who was admittedly the real reason I was attracted to this film. I enjoyed MEW in Scott Pilgrim vs The World as Ramona Flowers. She had a laid-back charm, and seemed to affect the way I interpreted her character in the comics (same couldn't be said for most of the other actors). The only other time I've seen her was in Death Proof, where she talked about peeing on some guy, and it was great.

MEW is distractingly beautiful, and I hope that beauty will never be ruined or wrecked by the likes of Zack Snyder or Brett Ratner or some other creep. And although I never saw that dancing movie she did, I hope her talents are recognised and exploited to full potential in the future. In The Thing (2011), however, I'm obliged to say she was a little too beautiful for this role. She was like a void, sucking in the light from the surroundings, rendering my eyes useless to the scenario whenever she was on screen. In her more grittier, muddier moments, I noticed how she would show her face, and behold, no grit or mud! Her face perfectly made up, her big round eyes glaring at whatever CGI thing is getting at her, no tears, no dirt, just MEW in all her unholy glory.

Her interaction with Joel Edgerton didn't so much lack chemistry, but produce an undesired effect. Edgerton--here on referred to as Edgerton (OK I'll stop that)--is basically an Australian-import with an undeniable presence. He's charming, handsome and buff, a true beefcake of a man. He's basically everything Sam Worthington should be. But then his flirty glances at MEW--who in turn gives a lacking response--end up making him out to be a creepy leering rapist, who you don't want to be caught in the same room with alone.

The Norwegians in this movie were awesome, but like the special effects, weren't very effective.

To get back to the writing/pacing, the first encounter between MEW and Edgerton takes place in a helicopter ride to the Antarctic base. Edgerton gives MEW a creepy glance, she returns it with confusion, he indicates headphones and she responds by putting them on. He asks her about a basketball team, she says she doesn't follow football, etc. Some other characters are in the helicopter, I guess, like the token black guy, but Edgerton warns her of a storm and jokes about being shacked up with a bunch of Norwegians. I don't know how long this scene goes for, but I would have cut the whole thing. Everything it establishes is either already established or it will be. All it really gives us is that Edgerton is creepy, MEW is creeped out, and we haven't even got to the Thinga-me-bobs yet!

There is a difference between slow-paced and boring. I've heard someone else say this before, and it's true. Another thing I find boring: predictability.

Some call it the Jack-In-The-Box trick, also known as The Jump Scare and it's inferior off-shoot The Cheap Shot. It goes like this: stuff is happening, then stuff stops happening, the music dies down, absolutely nothing is happening, but it feels like that maybe--BOO! Gotcha! Hahahahaha!

But seriously, the token black guy--OK, I'll call him Triple A--is looking at the ice-block, intensely, and someone behind him actually says "Boo!", and then laughs. And Triple A says "get the hell outta here fool!" and the guy walks away. Oh and then the Thinga-me-bobs jumps out of the ice-block.

And I'm like "pfffffffff".

I'm not against jump-scares, or even cheap-shots. It's all about how they're dealt with. A Jack-in-the-box will always work the same way, and when you consistently see the action coming to a complete halt, you always know what to expect: something's going to pop out, or a sudden noise hit the speakers, whether it's a scare or a false scare. It's a formula, and it's also a cliché. But they can still be employed with tact, since the whole idea of a scare is that the audience is not supposed to predict them.

For the best jump-scares, I will cite The Exorcist, directed by William Friedkin. The mother is on the phone, bearing some horrible news, the doctors can't explain what's happening with her daughter, and she seems to feel distressed over the sudden changes in her daughter's behaviour. She hangs up the phone, then looks up the stair-case with a sudden fright...PUDDUMPUDDUMPUDDUMP! the daughter comes spider-walking down the stairs! That scene makes my heart skip a beat, every time. There are plenty of jumpy moments in this film, but it's also just hardcore horror in every respect.

Cheap-shots are a harder kind to pin down. I would cite Jaws, directed by Stephen Spielberg. Hooper (Richard Dreyfuss) and Brody (Rob Scheider) drive their boat to another boat which is a sight for a recent shark-attack. Hooper decides to investigate, and scuba-dives underneath, against Brody's advice. Hooper finds a large hole, which looks like it's been bitten out. He feels around the hole's edge, and picks out a tooth. It looks like a shark tooth--BAM!

A severed head floats out of the hole. He drops the tooth and comes to the surface gasping for air.

Now that's what I call a cheap-shot!

The Sorcerer and the White Snake

The official Chinatown in Brisbane is in a suburb adjacent to the city called Fortitude Valley. There you'll find a line of restaurants and supermarkets. But the the unofficial Chinatown, where all the Chinese actually are, is in an out-of-the-way suburb called Sunnybank.

Sunnybank is so Chinese their restaurants display menus without English translations.
I'm even intimidated to buy a cup of coffee there, lest I don't know the proper way to ask for one. Their cinema however, located within the Sunnybank Plaza, owned by the Hoyts franchise, is a unique place whereby alongside exhibition of the regular mainstream selection, they also exhibit the occasional Chinese release that no other cinema could find an audience for. This is where I went to see the latest Jet Li fantasy epic 白蛇傳說之法海 (else known as the sorcerer and the white snake).

My personal impression of this film: it was all a bit silly for my liking. The story, while based in a fantasy make-it-up-as-you-go-along setting drawing from traditional Chinese mythology, at its core had some powerful moments. It contained the four elements of a proper epic: romance, melodrama, magic and mystery. The acting was top-notch, quality performances all around from the leading roles to the minute bit-parts. The special effects? They left much to be desired. But here's the problem: this movie was heavily reliant on the special effects. I didn't see it in 3D like I was supposed to, but I'm sure it wouldn't have helped. Quality melodrama and uncanny valley CGI do not mix well in my stomach, and my regurgitation makes an apt meta-metaphor for this pile of pretty colours passing itself off pitifully as a plausible light-show. But that's just my personal impression.

I wouldn't watch this a second time, I wouldn't buy it on blu-ray, but I don't regret the experience. The most interesting part about seeing this movie was seeing it with a Chinese audience, who were all listening to the words rather than reading the subtitles.

There was a scene of light comic relief, where Jet Li--who plays the head arbiter of a monk temple bent on exercising demons from the human realm--hitches a ride in a boat with his protégé to go take care of some demons or something. The boat is driven by a poor medicine man who aspires to run his own pharmacy, and the conversation about aspiration carries over to the protégé who says he aspires to one day become the head arbiter of his temple. Jet Li gets serious and asks something like "and where does that leave me? You want me dead, is that it?" I was half-way across rolling my eyes when I was caught by surprise from the big laughs coming from the audience behind me. I mean proper laughter. I don't know if there was something lost in translation, or if I'd missed some sort of cultural context, but something about Jet Li was apparently hysterical, and so I de-rolled my eyes back to their starting positions. And this happened a few times.

I get easily annoyed whenever I hear someone say they won't watch a film with subtitles. Their typical excuse is they don't feel they should need to use their head as much in reading and watching at the same time. A flimsy excuse to miss out on 50%+ of the greatest films you'll ever see! But now I have to wonder about subtitles: do they properly capture the essence and context of what the characters are saying? Could all of that even be translated into English? Take the above scene, for example. I know the Chinese are deeply rooted in a sense of hierarchy, that there is always a superior and an inferior. Jet Li's underling aspires to one day reach the top, but Jet Li corners him by taking it as an insult, considered to be the ultimate faux pas, pitting the poor guy in a sticky situation indeed. The best way to subtitle this, I suppose, is to translate what's not being said, like: "You wan't me dead, is that it? [Awkward!]"

Although I found the film wholly unsatisfying, I'm glad I saw it in the end. Seeing a movie is much better when you see it with the audience who it was meant for, and I felt like I was involved in something rare. Like a secret.