Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?
Rant: Why Is There No Science-Fiction Culture In Indonesia?
The recent release of two Indonesian science-fictional movies made me think: what happened to Indonesian science-fiction (SF) culture, or the lack thereof? The movies in question are, of course, Supernova: Ksatria, Putri, dan Bintang Jatuh which was based on popular novel of the same title and Garuda Superhero, an original Indonesian Batman-esque superhero. I reviewed Supernova and intended to review Garuda Superhero (I ended up just writing a first impression of the trailer). For my failure to fulfill my promise regarding the latter, I'm sorry. I know it may look like I'm a hypocrite, but by the time I found the time to watch it, it had vanished from my chosen theater and before the end of its second week it disappeared completely from all theaters in Jakarta except for one single viewing. I read other people's reviews and the bottomline is that Garuda Superhero is more or less as atrocious as my first impression and apparently is almost as terribly received by moviegoers. Most of the reviews states that aside from being extremely derivative, Indonesia isn't ready to make this kind of film. The question is, why?
To answer, we have to understand what is SF and where did it come from? So in this article I'd discuss the history of SF as we know it (namely Western SF, the biggest SF culture in the world) and also in other parts of the world especially Asia and Indonesia.
Disclaimer: I did read some sources regarding the topic, but by and large this article is absolutely non-academic and might just be the ramblings of a misguided, naive, ignorant 24 year old girl, but I try to do this article justice. Discussions are more than welcome, of course. And brace yourselves, it will be a long post.
SF, with a "science" modifier to its "fiction", is defined by the existence of "novum" of the scientific kind in its stories. Novum literally means "new thing"; that twist that differs it from a tale about ordinary life. So a man in love with a woman is not SF, but a man from 2400 that time-traveled to 1958 and then fall in love with a woman is SF. That example is a crude classification, and there are always some works with arguable definition of novum or science (James Bond and his gadgets sit nicely in the fringe of SF), but that is the general idea.
Hearing the word "science fiction" most people would picture complicated technology and unintelligible conversations about quantum physics and buzzwords about melting positrons. Deriving from that alone, it's not hard to imagine why Indonesia seemingly have no SF culture. Indonesia isn't and never was the cradling bed of science and technology. Not to belittle the work of great Indonesian scientists and engineers (BJ Habibie, Sedijatmo, Warsito Taruno are the famous ones, among many others), but scientific attitude is never part of the building blocks of Indonesian living.
The thing is, in actuality SF (as far as it is from gods and demons) had its roots deep in mythology. You can still see it to this day as SF and Fantasy are frequently classified together (and sometimes collectively called as "genre", which I admit is weird. A genre called genre.). Many people are a fan of both and both are usually featured in the same ;cons, and writers sometimes jump from one genre into the other. Stephenie Meyer, for example, who wrote the notorious vampire love story Twilight series, went on to write The Host about alien invasion (or for more hardcore SF fan: Ursula K. Le Guin wrote both The Left Hand of Darkness and the Earthsea series). SF and Fantasy are both very similar because they both have nova, although one in scientific sense and one in the supernatural. So the question is: how can Indonesia, that is forehead-deep in mythological nova, is so poor of SF? Why hadn't it evolved into SF?
The origin of Western SF can be traced back to "voyage extraordinaires" stories in Ancient Greece. Those are stories about adventures to new and foreign lands, sometimes even to the sky or the moon and stars. Of course physically they were unreachable at the time but they saw the moon etc and thought, what if? What if we could go there? In Indonesia, an overwhelming amount of folk and ancient stories were about good vs. evil and cautionary tales, but there were extraordinary voyages too like the wayang story of meeting Dewa Ruci deep into the ocean. Not only that, there were also other fantastical, marginally SF stories like the folk tale of Timun Mas, which for all we know might actually involve genetically modified infant. We even have Gatot Kaca, who is basically the ultimate superhero before superheroes.
But then Copernicus "emerged" in Europe. The history of western SF was a bit incredible to me because of how specific its development was, sometimes even (roughly) traceable down to a single person. In the 16th century it was Copernicus, with the outrageous (and accurate) Heliocentric theory. The church held the believe that the earth is the center and the only significant body in the universe, but with Copernicus's new theory came the realization that we are just a fraction of whole universe, and an insignificant one at that. Voyage extraordinaires stories still existed, but changed. Before Copernicus, the sky and the moon were usually portrayed in the divine or spiritual sense (as the extension of heaven or the heaven itself). But after, they became material—in the sense that they became an actual place protagonists could visit and meet wacky new creatures. That paradigm change was important in igniting true SF.
There were similarly important figures throughout the years who paved the road for today's SF: Mary Shelley ("Frankenstein" unified contemporary scientific advancement, fantastical elements, and realism to create the first real SF work), H.G. Wells (of The War Of The Worlds fame, whose primary influence is grounding/connecting SF to "the mundane and the present"), Hugo Gernsback (who popularized SF with the rise of pulp magazines), and..... George Lucas (whose Star Wars had HUGE impact in cinematic SF—or cinema, period.). And here is my reminder for readers that those are oversimplication in the most absolute sense. There were TONS of other influential people that I didn't mention like Jules Verne, Isaac Asimov, John W. Campbell, George Orwell, Philip K. Dick, Ursula K. Le Guin, William Gibson, Douglas Adams, the list could go on and on.
I am absolutely tempted to say that the reason Indonesia developed no SF is because we have no Copernicus, but that is cheating. Plenty of other regions developed SF from a separate branch than the west. Voyage extraordinares also existed in the middle east, and the Arab world had identifiable proto-SF work as early as the 12th century. Now middle eastern SF is still not as popular as the western, but genre work in Arabic language is said to be on the rise, although back in 2009 there was an op-ed lamenting the lack of Arabic SF (much like what I do now).
There were several notable SF-esque Japanese old tales like The Tale Of The Bamboo Cutter, but 1900s saw one of the first true SF work in Japan. After the world wars, Japanese SF were more influenced by American fiction but they were distinctively Japanese. Gojira (or Godzilla), for example, were conceived as physical portrayal of nuclear attack--an unfortunate but uniquely Japanese experience. Today, SF theme is very big in Japan and there are countless and countless Japanese SF work in the form of live-action, manga, anime, or even game. Many of them reached high recognition in the SF world, like Akira (the poster child of SF anime), Ghost In The Shell (definite inspiration for The Matrix movie), Paprika, Gundam/Macross/Evangelion franchises (oh yeah I had just lumped those into one!), 20th Century Boys, 1Q84, Battle Royale, Casshern, The Girl Who Leapt Through Time, etc.
Basically, SF emerged all over the place like a natural evolution, and that made the lack of it in Indonesia is all the more stark. "Everything not forbidden is compulsory" is a "rule" in quantum physics, and I believe it applies to literature too. People throughout history had always incorporated fantastical elements in their stories, some of them by rule must be of the scientific nature. There is a space or even need of SF in Indonesia, and somewhere, someday that niche will be filled. And, for reasons I'll explain, I'm actually optimist that it will be soon.
I must elaborate that when I say there's no SF culture in Indonesia, I don't mean there is absolutely no SF. There are recorded works, but they are patchy or hard to find (sometimes even with questionable quality). Djokolelono's Jatuh Ke Matahari (Falling Into The Sun), published in 1976, is regarded as the first Indonesian SF novel (which I observed is 100 years too late than others). If there was ever SF before and not long after 1976, it completely fell into the cracks of cultural history and I'd argue is therefore insignificant to its development. SF only regained its life again in 2000s, when novels like Supernova (Dee, 2000), Area X: Hymne Angkasa Raya (Eliza Handayani, 2003), Anomali (Santopay, 2004), etc. were published. To this day, Djokolelono also wrote several SF and Fantasy books for children, young adult, and adult. There were actually quite a lot of SF works in 2000s if we try to list them all, but few of them reached significant popularity or longevity and I'd argue the SF culture is still practically non-existent. Case in point; there is no SF section in the bookstore that makes browsing the bookstore painstaking, confusing, and likely result in no SF bought. I can't remember the last time we had local SF movie and it felt forever until we eventually have Garuda Superhero (and some still say that "we're not ready for it"). Also, aside from few enthusiasts like me, basically no one's talking about SF. Maybe I just hang out with the wrong set of friends, I don't know.
That said, Indonesia is not special in its stagnation. Several other SF culture in other countries struggled too. India's SF, despite its popularity, is regarded as "mediocre and derivative". Chinese radio, TV, and film authority issued guidelines to discourage, among them, time travel stories. And don't forget the aforementioned arabian essay.
But the 100 year gap of SF in Indonesia (only first emerged in 1976) compared to other regions is curious, to say the least. Provided that were true and there were no significant SF work of that period that fell into obscurity, SF in Indonesia have no direct line to the rest of Indonesian literature history (Jatuh Ke Matahari's author Djokolelono is actually a working book translator too, and it seems reasonable to say he was rather influenced by western literature). Lacking real sources about this matter, I resorted to wild guesses. In 18th and 19th century—a significant time of SF history in which it branched out to a notably distinctive genre—Indonesia was under the colonism of Netherlands (actually, Indonesia was colonized way before that by the Portuguese and Spain, since early 16th century). I know it's fashionable to blame things on the colonials (we do like to blame things on them colonials, don't we?), but I figured something must have happened around that time that made situations inconducive for the birth of SF. Proper education for native people were limited only to the elite and therefore, science were too. The development of science and technology is crucial to the emergence of SF, for obvious reasons. Science and technology eventually came to us, but they came fully formed from the west. We never had that anxiety of invention, which is important for the heart of SF. I'm just armchair-philosophing here, but that reasoning seemed probable enough for layman me. Although one might think that the influx of western literature especially during the time of VOC, combined with insurgent situation at the time should be a fertile ground for SF, but hey, apparently not.
Now that we've understood the history of SF here and in the rest of the world, it's time to ask: what should we do next? Quite a few of Indonesian SF lifted elements from Indonesian mythology, which is a great effort to make them "ours" and I hope people would keep tapping on that endless resource. But selfishly I'd like to see something that are more contemporary and speak more loudly (in a true SF fashion) about our condition now, because for me SF are best when they speak with social resonance (if you have a recommendation for Indonesian work, let me know). Poverty, gap of the rich and the poor, corruption, religious anxiety—mixed in with a little alien or dystopia—might be a recipe for truly compelling SF. I kept thinking something akin to Lord Of The Flies, which is weird because it's not SF but it could have been (it certainly is speculative fiction), would be awesome for us. In the realms of movies, I'd like to see more script-based SF (instead of pure visual spectacle), from independent and commercial filmmakers alike. There's no reason we can't produce lowkey projects like Pi, Safety Not Guaranteed, Seeking A Friend For The End Of The World, Timecrimes, 28 Days Later, etc (yes, I'm basically spitting out every title that comes into my head).
But the truth is, we may not realize it but SF in Indonesia is slowly and surely rising. Even now, there are two superhero movies slated for release in the next couple of years (Volt and Gundala Putra Petir remake, if fate permitting), and superheroes Bima Satria Garuda and Nusantaranger are gaining good grounds. Hopefully, other subgenres will follow. I hope the next time I write about the state of Indonesian SF, it will be in a completely different circumstance (possibly raving about The Golden Age that Indonesian SF were having).
Sources: The bulk of western SF's history is from Adam Roberts' book The History of Science Fiction. Other sources can be found through the link.
Edited to add (6/02/2015): So I had a trip to the bookstore today and gave myself time for a thorough browse. I found 5 seemingly-SF books (if not, then certainly speculative fiction): Zombie Aides (Satria Satire), Bumi (Tere Liye), Spora (Alkadri), Gerbang Trinil (Riawani Elyta), and Time[s] (Aya Swords). So SF lives, but some genre savviness (knowing the kinds of title and cover SF usually comes in) definitely help to pick them up from the rest. I bought 2 of them, Bumi and Gerbang Trinil, and maybe I'll give them a shoutout if they're good.
More Posts from Fly-metojupiter and Others
Music Shoutout: Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 1
There are good bands, and there are bands that makes you go, "Whoa, this is something that I've never heard before."
In no particular order and with no particular reason, these are somewhat unique sounds worth checking out. A few of these bands are actually already quite well-known in the indie world, but as with any alternative genre, fame is always relative.
1. Alt-J ( @altjband on tumblr ) In the sea of indie rock, Alt-J is really something else. I won't even try to describe their sound because I'll just fail miserably, but the mix of their nasally voice, weird lyrics, and layered arrangements really pulled everything together in the most distinct way. Their debut album "An Awesome Wave" reached quite the critical and commercial success. Their follow-up album, "This Is All Yours" has a more introspective approach, but is every bit as unique as the single-friendly Wave.
Honorable mention: Glass Animals. I heard Glass Animals being compared to Alt-J a lot by fans, for some reason. I tend to disagree because they don't sound remotely alike and I'm not even sure they belong to the same subgenre, but they do have similar spirit--at the very least, in their refusal to be ordinary. At any rate, they're worth checking out too. Click here to listen to Glass Animal’s “Black Mambo”.
2. Twenty One Pilots ( @twentyonepilots on tumblr ) Rap + indie rock. Their debut album, "Vessel", was cute enough. It was new, it was different, and basically it was a proof-of-concept that such odd pairing can work. "Blurryface" album though, was a piece of art.
3. The Cat Empire Okay, maybe I'm biased because they have "Cat" in their name. I'll also admit that I don't know much of their discography besides of their self-titled album which was released in 2003 (I also heard their newer albums aren't as good, at least a bit different). But with its fusion of ska, jazz, and Latin, damn if "The Cat Empire" isn't one of the most fun albums I've heard in a long time.
4. Wild Belle ( @wildbellemusic on tumblr ) If reggae is your jam, Wild Belle might be for you. Wild Belle is composed of siblings Natalie and Elliot Bergman. Natalie's beautiful thinly voice, along with reggae influences is the focus of their debut album, "Isles". But based on their newest single, it seems like their to-be-released sophomore album will be much different--I guess we'll just see. Recently they also had a collaboration with Major Lazer in "Be Together".
5. Milky Chance 'Stoner song' might be the best way to describe Milky Chance's sound. But don't let that description fool you, Milky Chance's songs aren't stupid nor simple--they're just damn delectable.
I hope you’ll like these bands! If you have any suggestions, I’m open to it. Meanwhile, visit a few of my curated music collection, and follow me for Unique Sounds Worth Checking Out Vol. 2!
Disclaimer: All videos embed and linked above are for promotional purposes only. Please support the artist legally!
Review: Hail Caesar! (2016)
Rating: 7.9 of 10
The latest film by producer-writer-director duo, Ethan and Joel Coen (The Big Lebowsky, No Country For Old Men, Inside Llewyn Davis), Hail, Caesar! is not an easy film to explain at first glance. It doesn't have a clear, definable premise, except maybe this decidedly vague description in its synopsis: Hail, Caesar! follows a single day in the life of a studio fixer who is presented with plenty of problems to fix.
I may warn you now that this review is written by someone who's not a fan of Coen Brothers work--but I'd also remind you that I always, always try to see movies objectively. Their movies are always artistically and narratively outstanding, but I always find their movies to be a tad too uncomfortable for my taste. There's actually an excellent video essay (by Every Frame a Painting, watch it here) on exactly how Coen Brothers’ shots differ from “standard” filmmaking, which actually made me feel relieved because it turned out there's an actual cinematographical reason on why I don't like to see their films despite them being of high quality.
But Coen Brothers don't really care about making things "commercial" or "accessible", they just do what they want to do--and in result they always succeed in making one-of-a-kind movies with singularly unique voice. They are experts in what they do so it’s no wonder that the critics love them, and in a lot of ways, The Coen Brothers are the guardians of the art of filmmaking.
Now back to the actual movie. Set in the 1950s, the leads are played by Josh Brolin as studio man Eddie Mannix, and George Clooney-in-silly-haircut as actor Baird Whitlock. There are also a number of cameos from big stars like Scarlett Johansson, Tilda Swinton, Ralph Fiennes, Channing Tatum (in a scene that included singing and tap dancing), Jonah Hill, and more. If that sounds a bit sporadic, it’s because Hail Caesar! is indeed somewhat sporadic, if only because of the nature of the story. The crux of the story is about George Clooney’s character who is kidnapped, but there are a lot of things going at once that are only connected by the end of the film. However, with a lot of things going on, they do not feel jumbled or overstuffed at all. Especially with how gleefully absurd those cameos are, you don’t really mind because they really do make the soul of the movie.
There are a lot of talents involved in this movie, but there are definitely some standouts worth mentioning such as Alden Ehrenreich (soon to be young Han Solo in upcoming Star Wars prequel movie), Veronica Osorio, Channing Tatum, and Tilda Swinton who are just charming in each of their roles. In midst of deadpan hilarity and caricatured characters, Coen Brothers also managed to sneak-in a few commentary/satire on things like religion and Christianity, capitalism, communism, and even on the movie industry--which lend some weight to the movie instead of being just another well-made absurd comedy.
TL;DR While it’s not the best movie that the Coen Brothers had ever made, Hail Caesar! is an excellent film, although for me, it’s just refreshing to see something as blatantly original as Hail Caesar!. But if you’re a fan of the Coen Brothers--or a fan of something that I can only describe as uncomfortable comedy--then this movie is definitely for you.
Review: Rurouni Kenshin Trilogy (2012-2014)
Overall rating: 9.0 of 10
Rurouni Kenshin, adapted from popular manga and anime of the same name (popularized in North America and Indonesia as Samurai X, referring to his cross-shaped scar), tells the story of one skilled assassin from Japan’s Bakumatsu Era who turned into a wandering pacifist, helping people along the way and vowed to never kill anyone again.
The live action trilogy consists of Rurouni Kenshin: Meiji kenkaku roman-tan (titled simply Rurouni Kenshin in the English world) which was released in 2012, followed by two-parter Rurouni Kenshin: Kyoto taika-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: Tokyo Inferno) and Rurouni Kenshin: Densetsu no saigo-hen (Rurouni Kenshin: The Legend Ends), both released in 2014. I just binge-watched all of them so it made more sense to me to do a comprehensive review of the trilogy. Besides, I just thought it’d be just a tad boring to read me raving about Takeru Sato (who played the titular character) three times over.
The biggest accomplishment these movies achieved, aside from hiring the right director for obvious reasons, was casting Takeru Sato as Kenshin Himura the Manslayer Battosai. Kenshin Himura was a difficult character to get right. He was a small, unassuming, baby-faced, soft-spoken person who had the weight of all Japan on his shoulders and swordsmanship skill of a god. Not only Sato looked exactly like how Kenshin would look like in real life, he was able to play just about every range of Kenshin’s in the most unobtrusive way, from Kenshin’s trademark goffiness, kindness, to his restrained composure, deafening sadness and powerful regret, and the bombastic rage that he eventually let out. Every once in a while he lets out quiet words of wisdom that are so excessively true your heart breaks, because you know it took a great deal of pain and mistakes to be able to say them.
The rest of the casts were great too, each one of them dissolved nicely into the characters that we have come to know and love from the manga and anime (I never read the manga, admittedly). Animes in particular are difficult to adapt into live action because animes in general operate in a wholly different reality. Jinei Udoh’s and Shishio’s powers weren’t exactly realistic, for example, but director Keishi Ohtomo was able to make them at least plausible. Even small things like clothes, hair, and behaviors of characters from animes might be harder to translate from animation into live action but Rurouni Kenshin was able to bring them come to life with grace.
The film was also absolutely beautiful to watch. The colors and cinematography were absolute striking, and so was the fighting scenes. Each of the fights are fluid, absolutely clear and delightful to watch, and definitely captured the magic of samurai fights that we have come to expect.
But the truth is, the three movies weren’t created equal. The first movie did a great job at introducing and sucking us into its world, for reasons above. TL;DR It was a great origin movie of a compelling character, surrounded by a hoard of interesting supporting characters. But more intellectually, what I really appreciated from this particular movie is that they hit the tone right with the violence. They were dirty, they were bloody (not overly so that it’s unwatchable) but enough to bring home the fact that killing, no matter the cause, is an ugly thing to do.
I found Kyoto Inferno to be the weakest installment. Shishio was a brilliant arc in the manga and anime, partly because they spent considerable amount of time building into the arc. The movie had such little time to tell its story in comparison that it was understandable that it would not have the same effect, but TL;DR I also found the film to have problematic pacing, and it felt particularly heavy and overwrought.
That said, The Legend Ends was brilliant. It started as the slowest of the bunch, and I appreciated the change of pace (without resorting to spoilers I'll just say it was refreshing to see someone who looks down on Kenshin for once). I have to say it built up nicely into the climax though, so don’t worry, it was every bit as intense as the others and the fights were every bit as exciting. TL;DR The Legend Ends was a very focused movie, especially compared to Tokyo Inferno, and that’s why I found it to be the best.
If I had to assign individual ratings for each film, I maybe would give them 9.0, 8.0, and 9.5 respectively (and a completely unscientific overall rating of 9.0). Collectively, they were such a great adaption that if you’re a Rurouni Kensin fan by any means, you maybe should watch them.
Review: Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)
Rating: 9.5 of 10
I've never really admit it before but I've always loved kid-becomes-spy movies like Spy Kids (2001), Agent Cody Banks (2003), and Alex Rider: Operation Stormbreaker (2006), even if quality is sometimes secondary. For me they're the ultimate wish-fulfillment: to be young with a very cool secret, gadgets, weapons, the ability to kick ass and escape from our boring lives, and maybe even get a pretty girlfriend along the way. And in Kingsman: The Secret Service, we could be very, very British too—which is always a code for being damn classy.
Before we start, although I did mention the (family-friendly) movies above, I have to remind some audiences that Kingsman is in fact closer to Wanted (2008) and Kick-Ass (2010) (fun fact: all three were based on Mark Millar's graphic novels but I won't open that can of worms), with the latter also directed by Kingsman's and X-Men: First Class (2011)'s director, Matthew Vaughn. If you are not familiar with those films, basically what they have in common is that they all have genuinely fun, inventive—borderline wacky but definitely cathartic—action and violence. It's not overly bloody or anything (most of them consist of quick-cuts or scenes that are so stylized they're beautiful) but it does require you to at least crack a smile when people's heads are blown off, otherwise you're missing half the fun. But don't worry, they're the bad guys.
The kid in question is Gary or Eggsy (Taron Egerton), whose father trained to become Kingsman but died when he was little. Agent Galahad (Colin Firth) is grateful of Eggsy's father for saving his life and wanted to return the favor by taking Eggsy into Kingsman too. And hence began young Eggsy's training to become a proper British spy.
And when I say British, I really do mean British. I don't know what it is about England (maybe a leftover from the popularity of James Bond), but the best fictional spies are frequently from that side of the pond. With Kingsman it's easy to see why. There's something reassuring (and effortlessly cool) that our hidden saviors are good-mannered gentlemen in exquisite suits with respect for top-shelf bourbon and impeccable gunwork. They have Arthurian code-names and weapons disguised as umbrellas, it doesn't get much more British than that. Colin Firth, our resident dapper Englishman, is surprisingly badass as Agent Galahad. Egerton is also brilliant as a working class kid trying to survive in the streets of London—also quintessentially British, in another way.
The movie (and Matthew Vaughn himself) states its love to "old" spy movies before the dark, grim, and gritty era: back when those movies actually had fun and less tortured, complete with its trademark crazy villains with crazier plans. The villain in this movie is Samuel L. Jackson with a lisp and name like Richmond Valentine, accompanied always by his false-legged killer butler/bodyguard. If that's not an old-Bond movie logic, I don't know what is. While expressing its love to old movies, Kingsman always felt new and shiny. It doesn't bow down to tropes and it really is a testament to the strength of the script that I never once felt like anyone is save, ever (and people do die in this movie). The action sequences are as exciting as they are beautiful, and they also have good use of music in action scenes, not unlike Kick-Ass whose soundtrack I loved.
TL;DR All in all, if you like good action movie, or just plain fun movie, you owe it to yourself to see this film. Just look at those gifs (or trailer). They're glorious.
Review: Fast & Furious 7 (2015)
Rating: 8.0 of 10
Furious 7 (obviously my preferred alternate title), naturally, is the 7th installment of Fast & Furious franchise, and every ounce of it just oozes everything we have come know and love of the franchise. TL;DR Basically if you love the previous movies you'll love this one, and if you loathe those films then... why are you watching this one anyway? The franchise, which had lived for an outstanding 14 years, had the money-making formula down to a science (it had to if it wants to stay on top of box office), but still managed to scramble new things from here and there. So let me break down the formula for you.
Family Dom Toretto (Vin Diesel) is all about family, a principle that he had carried from even back then in the first movie. The previous movie was quite clever at inventing a villain the exact opposite of Dom: someone that meant business and only business. In 7, the reversal was reversed again. This time, the villain Deckard Shaw (the always intimidating Jason Statham) was loyal to his family as much as Dom to his own, avenging his brother who died in the hands of our protagonist. In Dom's side, the loss of Han was palpable and a gaping hole was left, in the way that is rarely felt in an action-based movie when a brother was lost.
Insane car chases + amazing fights The theme this week is flying cars, ladies and gentlemen! Seriously, I've never seen that many cars flying in the air in any single movie, ever. It was like the writers were talking about how to make the car chase sequences exciting again, and one of them exclaimed in a half joking manner, "We make them fly!" and lightbulbs lit up in every one of them, scrambling to write ideas in their teeny tiny notebook. And every single moment of it was glorious. Was it realistic? Abso-freakin'-lutely not. But do we care? Not in the slightest.
The man-on-man (or woman, either way) combats were great too. It also includes incredible hand-to-hand combat between Vin Diesel and Jason Statham because otherwise, why the hell do you hire both of them in the same movie. And Dwayne Johnson firing machine guns to conclude things, because reasons. But my favorite moment was not even a fight, it was when Dom and Shaw goes on head to head with their car, and nobody flinched. It wasn’t only crazy, it was a great character moment too, showing how determined and relentless they both were.
The action sequences does run a bit heavy and long, leaving very little time for proper plotting or character building, but for the most part they still tread the line between excitement and overabundance pretty carefully.
Scantily clad women Some of you might be lying if you say you didn't come to watch Fast & Furious (aside for the cars, obviously)for the girls in bikinis who are not anywhere near a pool. The good news for you that do: yes, there are those girls. The good news for me and the ones that don't come for them: they were shot in such over-the-top way that I'm pretty sure they were added as a kind of mockery. It was bullsh*t and the movie knows it. Especially when there was a scene in the same movie in which Letty (Michelle Rodriguez) rescued Ramsey (Nathalie Emmanuel) after unsuccessful attempt by other guys, then Ramsey asks, "But who's gonna rescue us!?" and Letty answers in the most reassuring, "Nope, we're it." In this universe, women rule too.
Everybody's a badass It came to my attention that Fast & Furious is one of few action franchises that is truly inclusive. Everybody, not limited to race, age, and gender, can be a badass: from the furiously skilled Thai villain (Tony Jaa); a blonde, female bodyguard backed up by uniformed women in hijab; a female Spanish FBI agent; to middle-aged white guy (Kurt Russell), all had chance to shine. In a more intellectual role, there's also the English, woman-of-color hacker Ramsey. I was glad to see that Furious 7 followed the same pattern that the previous movies started.
Goodbye Paul Walker (mild spoiler) The biggest blow to the movie was the sudden death of Paul Walker who played main protagonist, Brian O'Connor. The filming was completed with the help of his brother as stand-in and CGI (yes, it was still as creepy as when Tron: Legacy tried to pull it off with CGI Jeff Bridges), but the result was a very sweet coda. Brian was shown retiring from his dangerous life to live with his happy family—his story concluded with a peaceful drive with his "brother" Dom. It was particularly heartbreaking if you realize that when Dom said he'd never say goodbye to Brian because he's his brother, probably Vin Diesel really meant it for Paul Walker too (they were really close in real life to, to my knowledge). Also heartbreaking: when they were in Han's funeral and they were all saying, "No more funerals." Damn, if only we knew.
As of now, Fast & Furious 8 might be happening in the future, even without Paul Walker. Like they said in the movie, it will be different, but hopefully it will be just as fun.
Web Shoutout: Academy Originals
Welcome to Web Shoutout, a series highlighting interesting places in the interwebs about movies and filmmaking! (Check out the previous Web Shoutout here)
This episode, I’m going to talk about Academy Originals, a Youtube channel of video series produced by The Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences, of the Academy Awards (or might be best known as The Oscars) fame. For all the problems existing inside The Academy Awards, almost surprisingly, Academy Originals consistently puts out extremely sincere and inspiring videos about people working in the industry. They usually feature dedicated, extremely talented people of professions closely linked to filmmaking--sometimes even professions you might have never heard about or thought about. They talk about why they do what they do, and how they do it, and they always leave me inspired (and makes me wish I can be that person). For anyone who loves to find love in filmmaking processes, this channel would certainly feed your soul every Monday.
Just check out these videos, hand-picked from the channel!
1. “Credited As: Creature Performer” - Tom Woodruff (Aliens, Jumanji, Zookeeper)
2. “ Academy Close-Up: Conservators” - Conservation team of Academy's Margaret Herrick Library
3. “Creative Spark: Theodore Shapiro” - Theodore Shapiro, Composer (The Secret Life of Walter Mitty, Tropic Thunder, The Devil Wears Prada)
4. Questions: What Was The First Movie That Scared You?
Subscribe to Academy Originals.
Review: Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 (2016)
Rating: 8.0 of 10
The first Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? (2002) told the unlikely teenage love story between the literary junkie, anti-establishment, mysterious Rangga (Nicholas Saputra), and the “it-girl” of her high school, Cinta (Dian Sastrowardoyo). A movie full of romantic poems and je ne sais quoi chemistry between the two leads (think Heath Ledger and Julia Stiles in 10 Things I Hate About You (1999)), AADC was a historic hit in Indonesian film industry, and 14 years later, we finally get to see what happens next.
Cinta and Rangga are now adults, and 10 years had passed without any contact from one another. Rangga now lives in New York, US and Cinta is engaged to be married to Trian (Ario Bayu), but one faithful day brought them together again in Yogyakarta.
True to its spirit, of course, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 also brought back Maura (Titi Kamal), Karmen (Adinia Wirasti), and Milly (Sissy Prescillia) as Cinta’s BFF (Alya’s disappearance is addressed in the movie, if you’re wondering). They do still have distinct personality--Maura is girly, Karmen is protective, and Milly is the slow-one--but I’m relieved to say that they do not adhere to their stereotypes too much, which is a flaw I found in the first AADC. Surprisingly, Milly is an excellent ice-breaker and comic relief, and she actually ended being one of my favorite characters, along with her husband and fellow former AADC co-star, Mamet (Dennis Adishwara). Karmen is the only one to show any sign of passage-of-time in her character, although a lot of times her signs of growth conveniently goes away when its not related to plot.
But why are we back if it’s not for Rangga and Cinta, anyway? A true definition of a whirlwind romance in its first movie, AADC2 managed to update their story into a grown-up world. 10 years of feelings dumped into a few hours, AADC2 is filled with love, heartache, and nostalgia. But oddly, AADC2 is very understated in each approach, as if to say that “Yep, we’ve grown up, alright”. In fact, instead of its own predecessor, AADC2 reminds me a lot of Before Sunset (2004) instead (which is not a bad thing at all), especially when AADC2 walks us though all these different faces of Yogyakarta that we don’t often see. Rangga is also a little bit different in this movie--less standoffish, more loving--which makes sense for the character, although unfortunately we get to see much less of his subplot than Cinta’s. However, Cinta is every bit as how we remember her last time, and all of it ultimately paid off with a sweet, although somewhat clunky, ending.
TL;DR With a more adult approach to love, Ada Apa Dengan Cinta? 2 is a worthy continuation of the story of Cinta and Rangga.
Review: People Like Us (2012)
Rating: 8.0 of 10
People Like Us is story about one Sam (Chris Pine), a twenty-something salesman who had to come home for his father's funeral who he hated, and discovered that his father had another family and another daughter (Elizabeth Banks) that he knew nothing about.
Imagine the brattiness of Captain James Kirk from 2009's Star Trek (who Chris Pine also played), put the character in a funeral and family drama, and basically you'll get something exactly like People Like Us. The lead character Sam was something that all of us like to hate: an alpha-type, cocky, over-achiever, money-chasing salesman who would put a bulldozer through a church and the books of law if it fit his needs. Elizabeth Banks' Frankie, meanwhile, was something of a different breed: a single mother struggling to meet her needs and put her life in order.
People Like Us is a simple story about people trying to connect with each other. No gimmicks, no obvious twist-and turns (aside from the core premise); it's just one of those quietly engaging films about people who have no idea why they're doing what they're doing. We get to slowly understand the father and what his family went through his life, as we get to know Sam's mother (Michelle Pfeiffer) and her past, his job, Sam's childhood, and Frankie's life in general. Those details, scattered throughout the movie like a puzzle of life, put layers into the characters in a seemingly obvious family drama. It put a sense of earnestness in an otherwise heavy-handed film.
TL;DR Written and directed by Alex Kurtzman (yes, that Alex Kurtzman. Roberto Orci, his screenwriting partner also wrote in this film.), People Like Us is not a perfect movie, but it's a surprisingly layered one. In all honesty, your enjoyment of this movie might depend on how much you tolerate Chris Pine's Sam (Olivia Wilde is still underused, though), but if you like family drama it's not a bad movie to spend your time with.
Rant: Being A Good Person On TV
Being a superhero is hard, but everybody knows that. They've got tons of people to save, friends to protect, and villains to defeat--all while maintaining secret identity and a full-time day job. Considering how evil and able their enemies tend to be, it's not hard to comprehend that sometimes they might be tempted to go down to less than noble means--whether that means killing, cheating, lying or whatever. I sometimes imagine that maybe, in their position, I'm gonna be more "creative" too, but that's not the case with the heroes I'm gonna talk about in this post.
Particularly, Barry Allen of The Flash, and Scott McCall of Teen Wolf.
(It's easy for me to talk about The Flash with some degree of dignity--since the show was well received by critics and fans, but I'm actually a bit nervous to talk about Teen Wolf. Yes, that remake of a failed old movie that nobody asked for, that has "Teen" on its title, airs on MTV that no longer stands for “Music”, and its entire existence probably piggybacked on the popularity of the tween-monstrosity called Twilight. And I assure you now, it's legitimately good.)
We live in a cynical world, especially in entertainment. Morally-grey and morally-ambiguous protagonists aren't only numerous but seems to be a trend that only gets stronger: most popularly started with The Sopranos and cemented today with the likes of Mad Men, Breaking Bad, The Walking Dead, Girls, Scandal, and Game of Thrones, people seemed to devour their stories and it's easy to see why. People love relatability, and people always want a good redemption story (whether it's earned or not). We like to see characters that don't always do good, or don't always do evil, because we know we sometimes do both. People were always drawn to flawed characters (case in point, Hamlet), because we know that we are flawed too.
A hero who's perfect is boring, because we always know what that person would choose in any given time. That is like an unspoken mantra of TV and film, and I used to firmly believed in it. Superman would never work on screen, they say, because he’s too good. But after watching and enjoying Teen Wolf and The Flash for years, I know that that’s not the case anymore.
In stark contrast to it's sister show Arrow, The Flash had decidedly different tone: it was fun, lighter, and more optimistic. Barry Allen (Grant Gustin), its central character, also had one determining characteristic that set him apart from Oliver Queen (Stephen Amell) from Arrow: that Barry is the kind of hero that always find another way (in Felicity's words). Whenever things get tough and the only solution in sight is to kill or let someone get killed or hurt, Barry would always try to find another way to save the day, sometimes in no regard of his own safety. Actually, Oliver would usually eventually get there too, but more than often not, it was only after much deliberation and plea from his friends and colleagues. But Barry is such an inherently a good person who just would NOT compromise to evil, a rarity among the Batmans, Daredevils, even Man of Steel’s Supermans of today, and other bunch characters--superheroes or not. And obviously the show’s formula works extremely well too, because The Flash quickly became CW’s most popular show (even surpassing its parent show), earned hardcore fanbase, received critical praise, and concluded its first and current season with a satisfying finale.
Similar thing could also be said about Scott McCall of Teen Wolf. His defining character is that he wants to save everyone and everything (even his enemies), and he trusts basically everyone (even his enemies). He is a good person almost to a fault, and I believe he is actually the better example of the two regarding the point I'm trying to say, because of 2 things: One, Teen Wolf has been going for 5 seasons and is a living example that it's not only possible to make compelling show (excepting the terrible season 4. Ugh.) out of a genuinely decent character, but it's also sustainable. Two, for its dark overall tone. It's easy to think Barry's shameless optimism is due to the fact that The Flash is an light-toned show, but Teen Wolf isn't particularly light (it's a horror series) and most times it has a general sense of looming dread. So tone shouldn't be a hindrance to having a goody-two-shoes lead protagonist.
We don’t really know the direction that The Flash is going with its second season--maybe Barry's belief would evolve into something more morally grey, we don’t know. But with Teen Wolf, I think, it’s save to say that an honorable lead character is doable. The show handled it the right way, too. They made Scott’s goodness not only central to the heart of the show, but also to the plot (with him being a True Alpha). We also get to see how he influences the people around him, and how he consistently made his friends become better persons. And Scott’s not even the extent of a “good” character on the show: ordinary people such as Sheriff Stilinski can be relentlessly good too. And that’s the important message, I believe, that we can be good if we try. It doesn’t get more uplifting than that.
I’m sorry that this rant is a bit vague if you’ve never seen the shows because I don’t have enough memory to spit out any specific examples (I’m terrible at remembering plot) but the point is, being a good person isn't boring. Actually, being a good person is fuckin' hard. Have you ever tried to do exactly zero bad thing in a day--no lying, no running over the red light, no badmouthing your coworkers and overtiming your lunch break, no using work’s copy machine for personal use, no sneering at that bum across the road, and no disturbing that sleeping kitten? It’s effin’ hard. But if you have time-traveling impostor or body-altering supernatural doctors chasing after you? I bet that’d be an extra, extra hard thing to do and the struggle they go through to just not give in is worth a watch.
My point is, I think it’s time to abandon the long held belief that good people are boring. On the contrary, in my opinion, how they can stay noble regardless of obstacle is a journey worth seeing.
Review: Jupiter Ascending (2015)
Rating: 7.0 of 10
The truth is, Jupiter Ascending is not a bad movie. It's just a completely mediocre one, and honestly that's almost as bad--or even worse--than being plain bad.
A space opera straight from the hands and minds of the Wachowski siblings (from the legendary The Matrix, Cloud Atlas), Jupiter Ascending tells the story of Jupiter (Mila Kunis), a young house cleaner unhappy with her life. After being chased and prodded around by mysterious creatures, with the help of one ex-space military (Channing Tatum) she found out that she was the exact genetic copy of a galactic queen and was set to inherit the Earth. (It might worth mentioning that Tatum's character, Caine, was said to be half-dog and half-human. Take that as you will.)
One thing I could say about Jupiter Ascending is that the visual is very striking. If anything, the Wachowski are gifted with excellent eyes for uniquely breathtaking science-fictional images and technologies. There’s more creativity in the design of this single movie than a dozen blockbusters in recent years combined, but unfortunately they felt empty because there's no plot or soul to back it up. The clothes and spaceships were astonishingly beautiful, the planets magnificent, the flying boots were really, really cool, and the action were actually pretty exciting, but there's a large sense of "So what?" looming over the entire film.
The core of the movie was meant to be held up by the romance between Jupiter and Caine, and that's where the movie falters. Not only there were no chemistry between the two lead actors, the protagonist herself was completely unengaging with almost no agency, and it made that much harder to connect and emote. There's a world of ideas buried beneath the intricate visuals--I even quite liked the randomness of the plot as it introduces us to multiple characters, if only a little meandering--but I ended up caring for the characters as much as I care for a paperbag. Which makes it a shame, because Jupiter Ascending really do have a potential to be great.
TL;DR In the end, Jupiter Ascending is a very pretty movie without a purpose, with it's only saving grace is that it has a really, really cool title*.
*Yes, I really do love planet Jupiter.
-
snmreports liked this · 8 years ago -
fly-metojupiter reblogged this · 10 years ago
Hi, I'm Inka, a movie enthusiast and movie reviewer (with a penchant for music, pop culture, and generally cool stuff, if that's okay).
87 posts