Hey kids! It’s Wednesday, and that means it’s time for a Book Report. I realized, rather belatedly, that I didn’t have an Author Spotlight last month, and so I shall do my best to make up for it now.

Today I want to focus on one of my favorite authors. When asked by Barbara Walters what he would do if he had six months to live, he responded, “Type faster.”

The term “robotics” was coined in 1941. In 1920, the word “robot” was introduced to the public via Czech playwright Karel Čapek in his play Rossum’s Universal Robots. While Čapek’s play presents the basic idea of man-made machines replacing the human laborer, much of what we now consider robotic and robotic behavior stems from the author who coined the term “robotics” (in a science-fiction short story, of all places): Isaac Asimov.

Born in Russia in 1920 (though his family moved to Brooklyn when he was three; he never learned to speak Russian, his parents always spoke to him in English and Yiddish), by the time of his death in 1992 Asimov had become one of the most prolific authors of all time, having some hand in the writing or editing of nearly 500 books and over 9000 letters or postcards (postcards being his favored way to respond to fan mail). His works have appeared in nine of the ten major categories of The Dewey Decimal System, the sole exception being the 100s: philosophy and psychology (which I actually find to be a bit strange, since his work has helped to define, almost entirely, our psychological and philosophical conception of robotics).

Asimov studied—and eventually earned a Ph.D in—biochemistry, and although he was a tenured professor in biochemistry at Boston College, he actually made more money writing than he did teaching. Asimov loved science, and firmly believed that science-fiction would help direct the discoveries of science-fact.
In “My Own View” published in The Encyclopedia of Science Fiction (1978) he writes,

“Individual science fiction stories may seem as trivial as ever to the blinder critics and philosophers of today — but the core of science fiction, its essence, the concept around which it revolves, has become crucial to our salvation if we are to be saved at all…It is change, continuing change, inevitable change, that is the dominant factor in society today. No sensible decision can be made any longer without taking into account not only the world as it is, but the world as it will be …This, in turn, means that our statesmen, our businessmen, our everyman must take on a science fictional way of thinking.”

Also, in “How Easy to See the Future” published in Natural History magazine (1975) he writes, “Science fiction writers foresee the inevitable, and although problems and catastrophes may be inevitable, solutions are not.”

Possessing an amazing intelligence (he did get a Ph.D in biochemistry, after all), he was was a reluctant vice-President of Mensa International, calling certain members of the organization “brain-proud and aggressive about their IQs”. Of course, he also stated that the only men he would admit to being less intelligent than were Marvin Minsky and Carl Sagan.

Asimov’s contributions to literature are astounding and expansive. He was the first author to combine science-fiction and mystery, advocating that science-fiction was a merely a flavor that could be added to any genre and not a genre limited to itself. He coined the term “social science-fiction” to describe a new trend in the 1940s of science-fiction authors (following the trail blazed by Asimov and Robert Heinlein) writing less about space opera and gadgets and more about the human condition.
He was friends with Kurt Vonnegut, who once asked him, “How does it feel to know everything?” (To which Asimov replied that he only had the reputation of knowing everything, which made him very uneasy)
He also was a friend to Arthur C. Clarke, and during a cab ride along Park Avenue in New York, they formulated the “Asimov-Clarke Treaty of Park Avenure”, where Asimov was required to insist that Clarke was the best science-fiction writer in the world (reserving second place for himself) and Clarke was required to insist Asimov was the best science writer in the world (reserving second place for himself). In Clarke’s book The Report on Planet Three (1972), the dedication reads, “In accordance with the terms of the Clarke-Asimov treaty, the second-best science writer dedicates this book to the second-best science-fiction writer.“

The Three Laws
One of the most enduring marks Asimov made on the world was his view on robotics (and his invention of the word). In 1950, Gnome Press released I, Robot, a collection of short stories Asimov wrote between 1940 and 1950 that had originally been published in the magazines Super Science Stories and Astounding Science Fiction. The majority of these stories contained an invention of his: The Three Laws of Robotics, which dictate all robotic behavior.
Law 1: A robot may not injure a human being or, through inaction, allow a human being to come to harm.
Law 2: A robot must obey any orders given to it by human beings, except where such orders would conflict with the First Law.
Law 3: A robot must protect its own existence as long as such protection does not conflict with the First or Second Law.

Formation of these Laws enabled Asimov to write robot stories that differed from the trend of most authors to conclude their robot story with a Frankenstein ending.

…one of the stock plots of science fiction was… robots were created and destroyed by their creator. Knowledge has its dangers, yes, but is the response to be a retreat from knowledge? Or is knowledge to be used as itself a barrier to the dangers it brings? With all this in mind I began, in 1940, to write robot stories of my own — but robot stories of a new variety. Never, never, was one of my robots to turn stupidly on his creator for no purpose but to demonstrate, for one more weary time, the crime and punishment of Faust. (1964, in his Introduction to The Rest of the Robots)

Much of Asimov’s writing concerning robots from then on dealt with ways it may be possible—or seem possible— to break the Three Laws. Indeed, in some of his final books, there is the implication that some of the most long-lasting harm came from robots following the laws too perfectly.
Today, most scientists working on artificial intelligence view the Three Laws as incredibly idealistic, more suitable for literature than actual applied science. On the other hand, most of those scientists would also admit that without the three laws (and a fourth, the Zeroth Law, added in a later novel: “A robot may not harm humanity, or, by inaction, allow humanity to come to harm”), their sense of direction in applied robotic science would not be nearly as clear.

Foundation
The Foundation Series might be for Asimov what The Dark Tower was for Stephen King: A vast storyline that ends up tying together, in one way or another, most of the science fiction he wrote. In 1966, the series won a special, one-time-only Hugo Award for “Best All-Time Series”. Asimov wrote that when he first heard about the award, he assumed it would be going to Tolkien’s Lord of the Rings.
Originally, the books were a collection of short stories, like I, Robot. Asimov wrote the stories as a sort of science-fiction retelling of Gibbon’s The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire.
Gradually, Asimov began to tie in references to other work, including his Robot novels, as well as his Empire series (which begins with A Pebble in the Sky, the first novel Asimov published that didn’t have an origin in a magazine). By the time of his death, the timeline for the Greater Foundation series spanned 20,000 years and one and a half million words.
Other writers have also contributed to Asimov’s fictional vision of the future. Orson Scott Card, Harry Turtledove, Greg Bear, and David Brin, among others, have all contributed stories in long and short form concerning the Foundation.

Other Work
Among the many hundreds of works that Asimov contributed to, Nightfall is one of the more interesting to me. The short story appeared in Astounding Science Fiction when Asimov was 21. It was his 32nd published story. In 1968, the Science Fiction Writers of America agreed that it was the best science-fiction story ever written up to that point.
The story’s genesis comes from a discussion Asimov had with his editor over a line from Ralph Waldo Emerson’s poem, Nature.

If the stars should appear one night in a thousand years, how would men believe and adore, and preserve for many generations the remembrance of the city of God!

From that discussion came the story of a planet, similar to Earth in every way save one: Instead of only one sun, this planet had six, the result being the people on this planet had never been in darkness. Until there comes a day where darkness falls.
Towards the end of his life, Asimov took the short story and expanded it into a full length novel with Robert Silverberg. In addition to the very interesting concept of a planet experiencing darkness for the first time, the story delves into the social, scientific, psychological, and historical ramifications of such an event, providing a very interesting examination of the human psyche in the process.

Two other novels I find incredibly interesting are his Guides.
In 1981, Asimov released his Guide to the Bible (his Guide to the Old Testament was originally published in 1967, and the New Testament was published in 1969; the version released in 1981 just combined them). Beginning in Genesis and going in order, Asimov analyzes the historical, geographical, and political setting of each book, adding biographical information about the main characters. Rather than being an analysis of the spiritual quality of the mythological aspects of the book, Asimov examines the secular aspects of each book with intellectual commentary.
In 1970, Asimov published his Guide to Shakespeare, in two parts. Applying the same rigorous research to the Bard as he did to the Bible, Asimov’s guide examines every play Shakespeare wrote or co-wrote (that hasn’t been lost, anyway) as well as the two epic poems The Rape of Lucrece and Venus and Adonis. Asimov divides his guide into sections based on the setting for each play, either Greek, Roman, Italian, or English (with Hamlet getting lumped into the English section so there didn’t have to be a one-play Danish section), and then organizes the plays in each section chronologically, making allowances for plays not based on actual events or people. Then he makes note in each play of how much is real history, how much is anachronistic, and offers short biographies of the original versions of characters, where applicable.
Asimov’s Guides serve to widen the readers comprehension of the material, which allows for a greater appreciation of it. I strongly recommend giving either a read if you are interested in classical or religious literature.

Until next time,
Still paddlin’ the old knew…
_-Akatzen-_

Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

The Oscar telecast is over, which means it’s time for people to remark freely on all things Hurt Locker and Avatar for the next few minutes, and hopefully a Basterd or two will appear.….

Got that out of your system? Good. As your Sgt., I feel it is my duty to brief you on the telecast. There’s so much to discuss, but I’ll break my report into two sections: 1) The Awards — the worthy and the shocking; 2) The production — the useless and the touching. Sometimes, they blend.

AWARDS:

(By the way, I turned out to be spot-on with my predictions, even with Cinematography(Avatar?) )

• HURT LOCKER MADNESS: Not a lot of surprises in the main categories. The Hurt Locker picked up SIX awards out of nine nominations, a strong haul for a film that barely made it into 600 theaters in America and was made for 1/250th (give or take) the budget of Avatar. Best Picture, Director, Screenplay, Sound Editing, Sound Mixing, and Film Editing. I don’t have a problem with most of these awards, but the editing of the intertwined storytelling in District 9 should have emerged victorious, and Inglourious Basterds showcased better writing than any film in recent memory. The Hurt Locker had the momentum of winning nearly every major award this season, and the “David” angle in the “David vs. Goliath” scenario that Avatar created. Happy or not, like it or not, The Hurt Locker is the victor. (Screenplay?!)

(*Note: I’ve gone on and read some other pundits and reporters write-ups who say that Hurt Locker will be forgotten ten, twenty years from now, but that Avatar will be the one film remembered. To them I say…okay. When Annie Hall beat Star Wars in the 70s, people were saying the same thing; when Forrest Gump beat Pulp Fiction and The Shawshank Redemption, people, again, were saying the same thing. And look how well the “losers” have withstood the test of time. But we’re not talking about twenty years from now, we’re talking about NOW — or, to be more specific, last year.*)

On to other awards and items of interest…

All acting awards were predictable and mostly worthy. Kudos to Sandra Bullock, who won for a mediocre role in a less than mediocre movie, but who gains “classy points” because she picked up her Razzy Award the night before the Oscars (the Golden Razzies, for those uninitiated, are handed out every year for the “worst in film.”) It’s her sense of humor…that’s why they like her.

Fisher Stevens has an Oscar. Let that marinate.

Fisher’s Oscar: 20 years in the making.

Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire surprisingly beat Up in the Air for longest unnecessary title Best Screenplay. Also defeated:  District 9. I like how Geoffrey Fletcher’s reaction was honest-to-God shock. That’s how you accept an award.

Someone needs to explain, and I mean right now, how Avatar wins for Best Cinematography.…I’ll wait.

It’s a shame that District 9’s visual effects achievements got overshadowed by Avatar, but what can you do?

THE PRODUCTION:

• Hosts: Twice the hosts, twice the fun. You’re producing the Oscars, you decide to have TWO hosts this year: Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin. What do you do? Give them a semi-comical monologue and then pull out the magician’s hat and make them disappear for the rest of the show. Seriously, were it not for an occasional quip by Martin when introducing a presenter, I wouldn’t have known the show had a host this year, let alone two of them.

(Watch their monologue here.)

Angle’s Angle: More screen time for any host, one or two!

• CONSTANT CONTACT: Meryl Streep and George Clooney were the two major cutaways all evening, a fact recognized by Clooney when he waved the camera away at one point.

Angle’s Angle: I appreciate the cutaway to an audience member as much as the next person, but give us some variety, give us some change. I don’t want to see Clooney wave us away, but I also don’t want to watch him watching the show for three hours.

• JOHN HUGHES TRIBUTE: The class of the simple introduction by Molly Ringwald and Matthew Broderick became lopsided and dull when, after the montage of Hughes’ classic scenes, members of the Brat Pack appeared on stage to say one thing each…and then walk away awkwardly like high school kids at a dance.

Angle’s Angle: Bring out the Pack first, then the clip reel. Move it right along.

• VISUALS: Best Cinematography Award is presented…without images or clips of the nominees. Best Actor/Actress awards are presented as follows: a brief montage of all nominees’ performances, five other actors talk up each nominee for not only acting well but being great people, then the presenter comes out, the presenter lists the nominees, the winner comes up and gives a speech which absolutely obliterates the :45 second rule. Total time to present Best Actress: ten minutes. Total for Best Actor: ten minutes. Total time wasted: eight minutes.

Angle’s Angle: SHOW A PIECE OF THE FILM’S NOMINATED. In an awards show dedicated to the visual medium, WHERE WERE THE VISUALS?? The chat-party that was featured last night did many things, all of them negative: Wasted time, deflated the energy in the latter half of an already body-less show, disrespected actors in the supporting categories by not giving them the same treatment earlier, and disrespected the audience at home who tuned in to WATCH a show, not listen to people TALK about how great things were last year. Also disrespected Cinematographers, who GIVE US THE IMAGES that later become iconic.

• BEST SONG: Perhaps one of the wisest decisions in this year’s Oscarcast, the show did away with live performances for each nominated song, instead crumbling the category into a simple presentation, featuring a ten-second clip of each song in the context of the movies they were in.

Angle’s Angle: Good choice.

• BEST ORIGINAL SCORE: Nothing tops the appearance of Yo-Yo Ma and Itzhak Perlman at the Academy Awards in 2001, playing themes from all nominees. Lasted five minutes, and was very moving. This year, as in a few years past, we got to sit through dancers interpreting all of the scores, no doubt from the mind of choreographer and co-producer of this year’s telecast Adam Shankman. Dances were okay, the music was moving.

Angle’s Angle: Shorten the dancing, lengthen the clips and celebrate the music. Itzhak returned four years ago for a solo run at this idea, but it wasn’t the same without Yo-Yo.…

That’s all for this year’s Oscar Telecast! Despite my disagreements with the way the producers produced, and the way the awards are awarded…I will still tune in next year, and the year after that, and I’ll continue to watch the films, the winners and the “happy just to be nominated.” Because that’s a Sgt.‘s duty.

Permission to speak freely in the comments below: Granted.

Sgt. Angle

Greetings readers! If you have been checking out our site this week, you might have noticed that we have begun running our blogs in a slightly different manner. I know that change can be scary, so I just wanted to give you a run down of what you can be expecting from us here at Semantink every week:

Every Monday you will get to read the newest strip in our web-comic, THE UNDERGROUNDS. You can also find an archive of all posted UNDERGROUNDS strips at the-undergrounds.com.

Tuesdays still give you Sgt. Angle and his weekly Cinegasms column, dealing with all things movie.

On Wednesdays Akatzen regails you with his weekly Book Report delving into the world of books that don’t have pretty pictures.

Mr. Wolff still owns Thursday with his Hump Day Rant.

Friday sees new Semantink blogger Dr. Cellus delve into all things paranormal on his blog Cognitive Alchemy.

Saturday gives you Admiral Eo’s Soft Shoe Diaries, wherein the good Admiral looks into the world of theater.

Sunday, you will be stuck with me as I talk comics in my weekly Comicopea column.

Not a bad line up right? Well our new blog schedule is just the tip of the iceberg in terms of news here at Semantink. Over the next few months, our site will be getting a bit of a face lift courtesy of the fine gentlemen at SanBox Inc. All of the content that you love will still be here, but the whole place will be prettier and easier to navigate.

For our MYTHOI lovers, I have some great news, our latest issue of the MYTHOI Birth series, TAROS will be out this week. Here is the cover art to the upcoming issue to whet your appetite:

April is going to see the last issue of MYTHOI Births, TOUCH, hit the internet. As always, MYTHOI will be brought to by the electrifying team of James Ninness and Jed Soriano.

The MYTHOI Birth series coming to a close means two things, 1) MYTHOI proper will pick up again in June with issue #2, and 2)the MYTHOI Birth graphic novel will be available around the same time. All of our MYTHOI issues are available for digital download, but this graphic novel will be the only place you can find the whole Birth series collected in in one place. The GN will be chock full of original content as well, so make sure you pick up a copy when it comes out!

This fall we will be launching two new series, THE HEAVEN’S and SIM-I. THE HEAVEN’S will be written by James Ninness and illustrated by spectacular newcomer Turbo Qualls! THE HEAVEN’S is a steampunk power struggle set on the alien desert world of Terra. Joe Pezzula will be writing SIMI-I, the madcap tale of a super intelligent monkey trying to evade vaporization. I will have more information and pretty picture-tude on these soon.

Next month is also the start of convention season for us here at Semantink. We will be at WonderCon and Wizard World Anaheim in April, The Phoenix Comicon in May, the world famous San Diego Comic Con in July, and the Alternative Press Expo and Long Beach Comic con in October.

So, to make a long story short (too late), 2010 is an exciting year for us here at Semantink, and I just want to say thank you for being a part of it. Keep an eye out here for more details on our upcoming projects, and if you have any questions you can always drop me a line.

Benjamin Glibert

My name is Admiral Eo and this is the “Soft-shoe Diaries”.

Our first bit of news, as you may have already guessed, is all about the new Broadway musical, SPIDER-MAN. That’s right, Spider-man is now being developed as a full stage musical adaptation with a nice little budget reported to be around $47,000,000. I’ll give you a second to let you recount the zero’s.

Now most of you are probably thinking, “this is the worst idea ever known to man, Spider-man doesn’t dance!” Well, you couldn’t be more wrong. He does indeed fly now, so get past yourself and accept it. Lets take a deeper look into this new musical world as I believe it will help you understand better where my calmness is coming from.

Spider-man will be singing and dancing to the music of Bono under the direction of Julie Taymore. Julie Taymore is brilliant when given the chance to direct for the stage. (SIDE NOTE: Go see Disney’s The Lion King on Broadway. It’s incredible.) As long as The Green Goblin isn’t a puppet I think this has every chance in the world to be successful and blow all of our minds.

I think Julie Taymore has some great ideas and great grasp of what a Spider-man Musical should be. Lets wait to see what she can bring to the table. Remember, nothing could be worse than this.

Ouch,

Admiral-Eo

I feel that a sort of introduction is in order. First, let me introduce myself as obscurely as possible. I feel that in some ways, there is some comfort to the anonymity that one has on the internet. Of course, being a voice in the dark has its  own implicit set of moral obligations and responsibilities. I will uphold those responsibilities by giving credit where credit is due and setting forth the large disclaimer that this site does not offer any sort of attempt to present hardcore facts. This site sets forth a conversation. I am a student (not a real Ph.D. or at least not yet), and I am a lover of learning. What I find interesting is the kind of information that we deem worthy or acceptable, and the kind of information that we deem ill-founded or illogical. This is really at the heart of the kind of content you will find in these posts. Herein, I am offering a view (supported by others when appropriate) of the paranormal. Of course, the paranormal covers quite a large amount of territory to discuss. I am open to any avenue of discussion; I feel free to explore anything from mythology, religious beliefs, ghosts, astronomy, astrology, technology, and pretty much anything else that is perceived as that which is beyond or outside the normal.

Obviously, the above comment has its own assumptions, specifically the problem of what one defines as “normal.” I will venture to define the normal as whatever a group of people or society encounter regularly and have incorporated into their practices and routines. Thus, whatever a group of people does in the course of daily survival will be considered normal while everything else would be paranormal. Clearly, discrepancies are possible between what one group considers normal and what another might consider the paranormal. The utilization of specific technologies, cognitive practices, and daily rituals define the “normal” for a civilization.

Essentially, I am expressing that the paranormal is not just the varied bumps in the nights, or the stories told in the dark around campfires at unnerving hours when our imaginations are at their most aroused; the paranormal is that which is beyond the limits of our everyday understanding. The paranormal is comprised of elements that are found in the everyday experiences we have in which the laws that we so rigidly adhere to in our lives are broken or otherwise turned on their heads, and the opposite shown to be true: the impossible made possible. The official title of this blog is “Cognitive Alchemy,” and this is what I wish to try and accomplish. I feel that there is a movement in recent days that tries to explain the mystical, supernatural, and paranormal in scientific terms. A popular television program like “Mythbusters” (Discovery Channel) highlights this move toward secularization. Essentially, I feel by exploring these issues in text and online-discussion, we can try to make comprehendible the incomprehensible; we can strive to turn gold into lead.

An avenue that most people do not consider when they hear the word “paranormal” is the role that technology plays. There is a fantastic quote that comes to us from Arthur C. Clarke on the topic of technology; he states, “Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.” I don’t know if the modern man can truly appreciate the complexity of perceptions that occurs when a group of technologically advanced people encounter an inferiorly advanced group. A scenario that highlights what I am saying may have been played out during the settling of this country. Imagine a native-American who has no idea what a rifle, bullets, or a horse, are. Suddenly, our poor native-American encounters a mounted cavalry rider who shoots his rifle, killing his comrade. How much of this sight would the native-American understand? Would he even see the action? Or would he just know the result? This is just one example of a conflict of technology. Likewise, how would the cavalryman possibly understand the cognitive technology utilized in a spirit-vision? Could the cavalryman even see the visions as omens and divine interferences? Or would he just know the result? There are many different kinds of technologies and magics and the beauty of Arthur C. Clarke’s quote is that it shows the intimate relationship between the two; essentially, Clarke reminds us that magic is technology, technology is magic.

Hopefully, I have given you a little glimpse of the kinds of material that I will be covering throughout this blog. Next week, I’ll take a look at mind-reading.

First of all, know this: pesticide makes Kermit a transvestite.  Moving on…

Next I want to apologize to those of you who missed our time together last week because of The Undergrounds.  I know it was difficult, but trust me, it was worth it.  Benji’s been working with five writers and an artist to put that little web comic together and, well, writers and artists are about the most difficult people in the world to work with, so give the man some slack.  The comic itself is pretty damned funny, especially if you’ve ever spent time in customer service…

Now, to the topic at hand: The Academy Awards.  This Sunday Hollywood is going to blow some smoke up their asses, let it mingle for a while and then burp in our faces with the biggest sham ever, the Oscars.  A group of rich people swooning over one another, ranting about how great they are and how important their work is to the world… Please.  Anyways, these fascists elitists fleshy bags of hot air will, at the very least, entertain us; I’m sure someone will have a nipple slip, somebody will rant about the environment when they win, someone will end up saying something crazy like “midget-mayonnaise” for no reason, and hopefully, if we’re really lucky, somebody with some talent, not connection, will win an award they deserve.  But doubtful.

So, in lieu of the good Sgt. Angle’s picks, I’m here to give you my wishes-that-weren’t, not predictions, for this years Academy Awards in the following categories: Best Actor, Best Actress, Best Cinematography, Best Director and Best Picture.  Shall we?

Best Actor:  Cung Le

I speak a language called FukYooUp!

Last year a little sci-fi gem called Pandorum came out and it was, without a doubt, one of the most fun films in the genre I had seen in a very, very long time.  Not only did the movie have some solid work in the writing, directing and production department, but it managed to surprise me at the end, something films rarely do effectively these days.  One of the actors, real life fighter Cung Le, portrayed Manh, a badass mofo with a huge spear and a foreign language.  Cung Le spent the whole movie flipping, slashing and fighting, something that keeps me interested and holds my attention (I know, weird, right?).  Pandorum itself was fantastic and if you haven’t seen it, you’re doing yourself a disservice.  Cung Le wins because he could fuck any of the Academy’s nominations up, without special effects.

Best Actress:  Sasha Grey

I’d take her serious…

I don’t need to introduce this beauty, but I will anyways.  Sasha Grey has been in some of the more timeless pieces of the last few years, including: Teenage Peach Fuzz 3, Spunk’d 8, The King of Coochie 4, and Soderbergh’s latest (and the film for which she wins this award), The Girlfriend Experience.  In the The Girlfriend Experience, the talented Miss Grey plays an escort, which is acting, because she is not an escort in real life, she is an adult film star — totally different!  The drama deals with the escort managing her clients and her personal life in the days of the 2008 election.  You see?  Politics = drama!  The film scored varying reviews, but I can’t see how anyone would oppose a movie where we follow this fine femme around for two hours, can you?

Best Cinematography:  M David Mullen

If she were a mute, she’d be perfect.

Most of you may not know who M David Mullen is, but you probably know his work as a cinematographer…  Love Pig?  Now Renting?  Lipstick Camera?  No?  Me neither.  But I do know his 2009 release: Jennifer’s Body.  Being a cinematographer is hard work. According to Wikipedia, “The title is generally equivalent to director of photography (DP), used to designate a chief over the camera and lighting crews working on a film, responsible for achieving artistic and technical decisions related to the image.”  So, when you see something beautiful on the screen, don’t thank the director, thank the cinematographer!  In Jennifer’s Body we got two moments of beauté (that’s French for “beauty”): A make out scene with Megan Fox and Amanda Seyfried and a topless Megan Fox — you, Mr. Mullen, are a master of your craft.  Now please understand, I still think Ms. Fox is a moronic piece of white-trash, but she is an extremely hot, moronic piece of white-trash, so there you go.

Best Director:  Zach Snyder

But, where’d he get the mask?

Fuck the haters.  I know he took out the squid and I know that Watchmen is still a better book than movie, but here’s the bottom line:  Zach Snyder took what was, for all intensive purposes, Hollywood’s wetdream/nightmare property and made a damned fine film.  It’s beautiful.  It’s as true as we can hope for any comic book ground through the Hollywood machine.  It gave us an awesome Rorschach.   And if you’ve seen the extended cut with the Curse of the Black Freighter woven throughout, it’s beautifully told cinema.  You can disagree with me (it wouldn’t be the first time), but Zach Snyder deserves a hearty bow-down from all you geeky bitches for pulling off one of the most difficult comic book franchises-to-film ever.  Even if you hate the film you must respect the doors he’s opened.

Best Film:  The Hangover

Really though, who hasn’t woken up with a tiger?

As Comedies go, I don’t ask for much — just make me laugh!  At some comedies I laugh a little, at others, I laugh a lot.  At The Hangover, I laughed my fucking ass off all three times I saw it!  The cast is perfect.  The humor is spot on.  It starts with funnies and never stops — I heard jokes for the first time on my third viewing because I had laughed through them the first two times.  Does this movie make me question what it is to be human?  No.  Am I a better person after seeing it?  Probably not in the existential sense.  But here’s why The Hangover is the BEST film of 2009: It was exactly what we needed — all of us.  2009 could’ve been better in a lot of ways.  I wanted escape.  I got a hilarious romp through the eyes of four not-all-too-smart guys in the land of hedonism and unadulterated pleasure.  I left the theater and I was genuinely happy, more than I can say for some animated/blue-people/depressing films I saw last year…  Oh yeah, and Mike Tyson was in it singing Phil Collins — automatic win.

That’s it kiddies.  Enjoy this Sunday (if you can).  Maybe next year we’ll see some actual talent get an award, like whoever stars in the Burton/Bekmambetov film coming out where President Lincoln fights vampires…

Until next time,

Mr. Wolff

Back to Semantink

Hey, kids! It’s Akatzen with another Book Report. I hope you didn’t miss me too much last week. With The Undergrounds rolling out the introductions, it would have been downright petty of me to insist on keeping my day reserved for Reports. Besides, I’m looking forward to more of The Undergrounds as much as you are. You are, right?

Anyway, in honor of the newest addition to Semantink, I thought I’d review one of my favorite modern horror fantasy novels. While it may not be all that scary, it sure is a lot of fun! The book I’d like to discuss is Nightwatch by Sergei Lukyanenko.

No, it’s not based on the Rembrandt painting. A movie version of the book came out in 2004, directed by Timur Bekmambetov (director of Wanted and producer of 9). I do have to say, however, that you should read the book before you see the movie, because the two are barely similar and the book is better (And if you accidentally see Nightwatch starring Ewan McGregor, you’ll be even more confused, since that has nothing to do with the novel and is actually a remake of the Danish film Nattevagten). Published in Russia in 1998, the novel took the country by storm, elevating Lukyanenko to the same level of popularity as many other high fantasy authors (in fact, when the movie came out in Russia, it ended up grossing more than The Lord of the Rings).

The novel centers around two groups of supernatural humans (known as Others), who live among normal humans. The two groups are the Light Others and the Dark Others, and a long time ago they fought each other in a vicious war. The Light Others get their power from the positive emotions of people around them, while the Dark Others feed off of negative emotions. During the war, they realized that neither side could get the upper hand and the endgame would be annihilation of both the Light and the Dark, so the leaders of both sides established a Great Treaty, and also an Inquisition composed of Light and Dark Others to arbitrate. They also formed two Watches, the Night Watch and the Day Watch. The Night Watch is a group of Light Others who are in charge of policing Dark Others and making sure they abide by the Treaty, while the Day Watch is Dark Others policing the Light.
All types of magic and myth show up in these books: Magicians, Wizards and Witches, Vampires, Werewolves, etc. are all explained as Others who follow the Light or the Dark.

The reason Others can do extraordinary things is because of The Twilight (some translations call it The Gloom, which might be better, since it helps people avoid comparisons to certain crappy novels written for tweenage girls — and also adults with tweenage mentalities). The Twilight The Gloom is a world existing just underneath the regular world, colors and sound become less vivid, but emotions are heightened. A human becomes an Other when they enter The Gloom for the first time, and all Others can enter The Gloom at will, though at a price. While The Gloom allows Others to perform deeds which seem, to regular humans, miraculous, the price is that Others must give The Gloom their energy to perform these deeds. An Other who loses his energy inside The Gloom becomes absorbed into it, and lost forever.

The book’s protagonist is a Night Watch operative named Anton, a low-level Magician who finds himself caught up in high-level scheming. In addition to the urban horror-fantasy setting of the novel, what makes the book so interesting is the battle between Light and Dark and good and evil. Light Others tend towards the altruistic, acting for the good of the many, while Dark Others tend to act selfishly, acting for the good of themselves. What this book does amazingly well is show how blurry the lines between Light and Dark and good and evil really are.

The book is divided into three parts: Destiny, Among His Own Kind, and All For My Own Kind. Each part is a complete story in and of itself, and while each story feels like a separate entity from the other stories, by the end of the book you can see how they are actually all connected.
Readers familiar with Star Wars (the Force) and Harry Potter (magic) will see many recognizable elements, but their portrayal is a unique and refreshing change. In particular, I appreciated how the legends concerning monsters and magicians were explained to work in this world without completely changing their mythology (the way Meyer did in her books-which-shall-not-be-named).

The film version of Night Watch actually only covers (extremely loosely) the plot of Destiny, the first story of the novel. The movie’s sequel, Day Watch, covers a highly bastardized combination of Night Watch’s other two stories, which is a real shame, since the novel’s sequel (also called Day Watch) is a series of three stories writing from a Dark Other’s perspective.

There are actually four books in the series: Night Watch, Day Watch, Dusk Watch (released in America as Twilight Watch), and Final Watch. Each book provides an examination of good and evil from different perspectives, and as a morality tale the reader discovers how much of a Grey Area between the two sides really exists.

So give ‘em a read and make sure you come back Monday for another read of The Undergrounds.
Until next time.

Still paddlin’ the old knew…
_-Akatzen-_

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

Shape up and sit down this coming Sunday, March 7, for the 82nd Academy Awards ceremony, live on every coast imaginable. I’ll tell you my predictions for who will emerge victorious in a bit, but first a quick briefing about this year’s ceremony — what makes it “different” from recent years, what makes it similar, and the moments you need to look out for the most.

This year’s creative team and show producers are Adam Shankman and Mustache Man Bill Mechanic. Shankman’s work as a director is known by you, though you may not realize it: The Wedding Planner, A Walk to Remember, Cheaper by the Dozen, Hairspray. He is also a well-respected choreographer in both movies and theater, and promises to bring a light-hearted sense of humor to the proceedings (he also hired Good Charlotte’s Joel Madden to DJ the party during commercial breaks…yeah).

Bill Mechanic is former Chairman/CEO at Fox Studios, who was allegedly fired because Fight Club “flopped.” He has since produced The New World and Coraline.

Bruce Valanche is a veteran writer of the Oscars’ patter. He is back.

The show is bouncing off of last year’s mildly successful broadcast, which had the highest ratings in three years and was produced by Dreamgirls director Bill Condon. Condon declined to return, wanting to focus on his upcoming projects. Maybe it’s a good thing, but his decision could also prove fatal as Shankman and Mechanic are aiming to bring in the “younger crowd” by having the likes of Taylor Lautner, Kristen Stewart, Zac Efron and Miley Cyrus present a few awards.

Oscars are for closers.

The problem with the Academy’s aim for younger viewers is that the intentions are immediately contradicted in the choice of host — or, for this year, hosts — in Steve Martin and Alec Baldwin. Martin has hosted before, and Baldwin has seen a recent resurgence of popularity and exercising of his comedic chops on 30 Rock (an NBC program, you can be sure). Nevertheless, both are more familiar to an older crowd.

Rumors swirling in recent weeks have it that the Academy Board turned down the idea of Borat and Bruno star Sacha Baron Cohen as host of the Awards show, worrying that his brand of humor would somehow bring down the show’s pedigree. Because when you’re having the stars of Twilight and the non-acting-actors Zac Efron and Miley Cyrus present an award, you’re really turning up the talent factor.

For the record, Baron Cohen joins Tina Fey, Steve Carell, Ben Stiller, and Jason Bateman as presenters — all of whom are also potential hosts for future broadcasts.

There are other ways the producers are trying to bring in the audience this year — including an online vote to choose a designer for the outfit worn by the Award Escort — and these tactics only go on to prove that the Academy is now less concerned about actually honoring the best in the industry than they are about scoring ratings for the broadcast. Here’s hoping they don’t repeat the Round Robin of Super Compliments which plagued last year’s awards (five people to TALK about a performance without SHOWING us why Penelope Cruz deserved to win, or Heath Ledger, etc. This is a VISUAL MEDIUM!!!!!) Seriously. It took about 4 minutes to present each acting category, and there was nary a clip to show us why.…

But I digress.

On to the predictions!

You can get a full look at the nominees here. I will only cover a few select categories below, in the interest of space and time. Feel free to chat back below and tell me who you think should win. I want a full briefing on your reasons.

1. Best Actor: Jeff Bridges.

• Jeff Bridges in “Crazy Heart”
• George Clooney in “Up in the Air”
• Colin Firth in “A Single Man”
• Morgan Freeman in “Invictus”
• Jeremy Renner in “The Hurt Locker”

Dark Horse: Jeremy Renner — An adrenaline junkie who diffuses bombs in Iraq, tuned perfectly to the material and setting, one with his environment.

2. Best Actress: Sandra Bullock

• Sandra Bullock in “The Blind Side”
• Helen Mirren in “The Last Station”
• Carey Mulligan in “An Education”
• Gabourey Sidibe in “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
• Meryl Streep in “Julie & Julia”

Dark Horse: Helen Mirren — up against two rookies and Meryl Streep, who now gets a nomination because she woke up in the morning, Mirren has the strongest shot against the inexplicable front-runner that is Sandra Bullock.

(**Note that I won’t go into the supporting categories. If Christoph Waltz and Mo’Nique do not win — for Inglourious Basterds and Precious, respectively — then I will eat my boots.**)

3. Best Animated Feature: UP. Up actually has a strong chance of winning best picture, but enough Academy members will still vote for it here. Secret of the Kells is the nominee out of nowhere, here, a little film that has yet to be released wide in the U.S.A. You can find the trailer here.

• “Coraline” Henry Selick
• “Fantastic Mr. Fox” Wes Anderson
• “The Princess and the Frog” John Musker and Ron Clements
• “The Secret of Kells” Tomm Moore
• “Up” Pete Docter

Dark Horse: Fantastic Mr. Fox. As amazing as Coraline looked, the throwback style of Wes Anderson’s Fox is enough to impress even the most adamant Pixar fan.

4. Cinematography: Though Inglourious Basterds featured some of the best camera work in recent memory, Avatar’s pioneering new 3D technology and dedication to world creation gives it the advantage here.

• “Avatar” Mauro Fiore
• “Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince” Bruno Delbonnel
• “The Hurt Locker” Barry Ackroyd
• “Inglourious Basterds” Robert Richardson
• “The White Ribbon” Christian Berger

Dark Horse: Inglourious Basterds. Because there’s never a Tarantino film that fails to show you something unique.

Bigelow with her DGA Award.

5. Best Director: Bigelow all the way. She has the momentum, the DGA award, and The Hurt Locker is a strong film because of its’ direction more than anything else. Cameron certainly proves that dedication can make anything beautiful, but it’s not enough in a year where Bigelow can become the first woman to receive this Oscar. Standing ovations abound.

• “Avatar” James Cameron
• “The Hurt Locker” Kathryn Bigelow
• “Inglourious Basterds” Quentin Tarantino
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire” Lee Daniels
• “Up in the Air” Jason Reitman

Dark Horse: Tarantino. In a weird way, voters might cancel each other out in the duel between Cameron and Bigelow. Tarantino could emerge the deserving victor.

6. Best Picture: The Hurt Locker. It currently has the momentum, and voters may feel that Avatar’s technical achievements greatly outweigh any overall story or feeling in Cameron’s opus.

• “Avatar”
• “The Blind Side”
• “District 9”
• “An Education”
• “The Hurt Locker”
• “Inglourious Basterds”
• “Precious: Based on the Novel ‘Push’ by Sapphire”
• “A Serious Man”
• “Up”
• “Up in the Air”

Dark Horse: Up. Seriously. Precious is too bleak and lost steam in the recent campaigns. Up in the Air is highly regarded, yet is recognized as a manufactured film (made for awards), A Serious Man is a nod to the respected Coen Bros., An Education is similar to Up in the Air in its’ intentions, District 9 remains a genre pick, though its’ presence here is definitely worth something, and I’m still under the belief that The Blind Side is the result of a huge practical joke. Inglourious Basterds re-wrote WWII history, and, though it’s Tarantino’s best since Pulp Fiction, it hasn’t got the regard that Hurt Locker does. Up, being only the second animated film nominated for Best Picture in history (first was Beauty and the Beast) is very well-respected, very entertaining, and people most remember the first ten minutes as pure genius storytelling in pictures — no dialogue needed!

Enjoy the show, and until next time,

You are dismissed!

Sgt. Angle