Hey, kids! It’s Wednesday, and that means it’s time for another Book Report.

One of the most amazing stories in modern literary history took place on a cool and misty late autumn afternoon in 1896, in the small village of Crowthorne in the county of Berkshire, as reported by American journalist Hayden Church in July of 1915.

The story is of a conversation between Dr. James Murray, Editor of the Oxford English Dictionary, and the enigmatic Dr. W.C. Minor, who was among the most prolific of the thousands of volunteer contributors whose labors lay at the core of the dictionary’s creation. For very nearly twenty years these two men had corresponded regularly about the finer points of English lexicography, but they had never met. Dr. Minor seemed never willing or able to leave his home at Crowthorne. He was unable to offer any kind of explanation, or to do more than offer his regrets.
Dr. Murray, who himself was rarely free from the burdens of his work at his dictionary headquarters, had nonetheless wished to see and thank his mysterious helper for quite some time. By the late 1890s, with the dictionary well on its way to being half completed, official honors were being showered upon all its creators, and Murray wanted to make sure that all those involved—even men so apparently bashful as Dr. Minor—were recognized for the valuable work they had done. He decided he would pay a visit.

Once he had made up his mind to go, he telegraphed his intentions to arrive by train to Crowthorne just after two on a certain Wednesday in November. Dr. Minor sent a wire by return to say that he was indeed expected and would be made most welcome.
At the railway station a polished coach and a liveried coachman were waiting, and with James Murray aboard they clip-clopped back through the lanes of rural Berkshire. After a couple of miles the carriage turned up a long drive lined with tall poplars, drawing up eventually outside a huge and rather forbidding red-brick mansion. A solemn servant showed the lexicographer upstairs, and into a large room with a glowing coal fire and a wall covered with portraits of gaunt-looking men. There was a large oak director’s desk, and behind it, a portly man of obvious importance. Murray advanced toward the great man, who rose. Murray bowed stiffly and extended his hand.
“I, Sir, and Dr. James Murray of the London Philological Society and editor of the Oxford English Dictionary. And you sir, must be Dr. William Minor. At long last. I am most deeply honoured to meed you.”
There was a brief pause, then the other man replied:
“I regret not, sir. I cannot lay claim to that distinction. I am the Superintendent of the Broadmoor Criminal Lunatic Asylum. Dr. Minor is an American, and he is one of our longest-staying inmates. He committed a murder. He is quite insane.”

As the story goes, Doctor Murray—astonished, amazed, and filled with sympathy—begged to be taken to Doctor Minor, “and the meeting between the two men of learning who had corresponded for so long and who now met in such strange circumstances was an extremely impressive one.”

What an amazing story, right? First published in Washington D.C.‘s Sunday Star, and then a few months later in England’s Strand magazine, Hayden’s story of the meeting between Murray and Minor took the literary world by storm.
Unfortunately, the story is nothing more than an amusing fiction.

Lexicography: n, the act of making dictionaries

In 1999, Simon Winchester published The Professor and the Madman: A Tale of Murder, Insanity, and the Making of the Oxford English Dictionary, a book of meticulous investigative journalism which tells the full story of Doctors Minor and Murray. In my opinion, the true story is much more interesting than the story published by Church.

The project of compiling the OED was a daunting one. When James Murray was hired on as editor in 1878, the project had been underway already for nearly twenty-five years in one form or another, but with Dr. Murray as editor, the project gained the proper focus and direction that would lead to its publication in 1928, thirteen years after Murray’s death.

Lexicography is a difficult process. When we want to know what a word means today, we can open any number of dictionaries to find it. We can even simply type in “Define:[word]” on Google, and the search engine will come up with a list of sites that offer definitions for the word. How easy it is to take such a tool for granted.
When Shakespeare wrote his plays, he had no dictionary. He either had to reference from other literature or have an intuitive understanding of the words he chose. It’s an idea somewhat hard to wrap your mind around, isn’t it?
During the compiling of the Oxford English Dictionary, the editors did not have other dictionaries to derive definitions from, because they didn’t exist. What the editors had to do was find as many possible instances of a particular word getting used in a sentence throughout all of literature, compile those sentences together, and determine the proper definition (or definitions) of the word based on how authors used the word in their sentence.

Think about that for a second.
The average human knows about twenty thousand words, merely four percent of all the words compiled in the OED. For the more than half a million words found in the dictionary, the editors would have to browse millions of books to compile enough sentences using each ward to determine a proper definition: an impossible undertaking without volunteers.
Which is exactly what Dr. Murray did.
He sent out letters and listed ads in magazine and newspapers, asking for volunteers. The task of the volunteers was simple: as they conducted their regular reading habits, if they happened upon a word they felt could contribute to the dictionary, they were to write that word down on a slip of paper and include the book they found the word in, as well as the sentence containing the word. The editors would then organize the slips of paper by word, read all of the sentences, determine which sentences best represented the use of that word, and then create a definition of that word using the sentences as examples.

Insanity: n, a spectrum of behaviors characterized by certain abnormal mental or behavioral patterns.

One such volunteer, Dr. William C. Minor, directly contributed to the definitions of around ten thousand words. The only trouble was that Dr. Minor was incurably insane, guilty of committing murder (though legally found not guilty by virtue of insanity), and held at the Broadmoor Asylum for the Criminal Insane “until Her Majesty’s pleasure be known”, which more or less guaranteed a life sentence.

Dr. Minor was a victim of schizophrenic paranoia. He recognized that he killed a man, and showed great remorse over the incident, including setting up a large fund to help the widow. During his many lucid states at the Asylum, Dr. Minor would often paint, write, and read. Indeed, his room more resembled a library than a cell in a loony bin. Because he essentially had nothing better to do, Minor devised a system of his own to assist the editors of the dictionary. So while other volunteers may have sent in thousands of slips which may or may not have been useful, Minor’s system allowed the editors to directly request help on words, to which he was readily able to supply the correct references and sentences.
Dr. Minor’s efforts did not go unnoticed by Murray, and they wrote letters to each other regularly and Murray visited often, the pair forming a strange friendship built upon their love of words.

Simon Winchester’s book covers the lives of these two extraordinary men, uncovering the actual details of their first meeting, and ways these two men helped contribute to the most comprehensive dictionary of the English language to appear in print.
Fascinating and impeccably researched, The Professor and the Madman is a great read for anyone who appreciates a lexicography or philology (a love of language), likes history, or just appreciates a damn good yarn. Full of intelligence, horror, and heartbreak, Winchester’s novel is indeed what New York Time Magazine called it: “The literary detective novel of the decade.”

Sgt. Angle Reporting for Duty!

Opening credits can do great service to your film, set your tone, introduce some exposition, or not even appear at all. One of the finest examples of the importance and value of the opening credits, under the audience’s, is in Hitchcock’s Rear Window. We look upon the yard through the window of L.B. Jeffries, and only in the end realize that this is our stage, every thing we see will become necessary, and it’s only the finer details that will really matter.

Recently, I came upon some mind-blowing opening credits, from Gaspar Noe’s new flick Enter the Void, which premiered at Sundance this year. Check out this sucker:

Watching that acid trip made me think of some other memorable opening credits from the past. Below are just a handful.

1. SE7EN

Far and away one of the greatest credit sequences of all time. Grungy, disgusting, sickening. Totally immerses us in the dark criminal world of a character we don’t want to meet but who haunts the entire story and main characters.

2. ZOMBIELAND

Perfect song, perfect amount of gore and the slow motion really makes us focus on the situations and the people involved, the desperation, because that’s what the movie will be about, in the end. Great integration of the credits and the people throughout.

3. WATCHMEN

Great use of comic-book panels as exposition, and under the guise of a credit sequence. The use of Bob Dylan further accents the socio-political undertones of the entire movie, and these images are just plane awesome.

4. ED WOOD

Sets a clear tone for us, places us in a time period that is not the present, includes the cheesy effects and sly use of black and white. This is the one clip I could find, but I think placing the credits in the context before and after help perfectly set the piece’s mood and tone.

5. RAGING BULL

Reveals character. Subtle, single-camera location, lets us know that, thematically, this fighter’s life will always revolve around the ring. his life is a boxing ring.

There are also a ton of great examples from TV shows…perhaps we will visit those in the near future, right here on this site!

Sound off in the comments below on some of your favorite credit sequences, and why.

Dismissed!

Sgt. Angle

Greetings all!

This past week, several of my fellow Semantink bloggers touched on upcoming comic-to-film translations that they found interesting. Sgt. Angle looked at the upcoming Green Lantern film while Mr. Wolff gave his take on Captain America. I thought that I would follow suit by looking at the comic book to film adaptation that has me the most excited: The Mighty Thor! While Mr. Wolff might say that being more excited about Thor than Captain America makes me “a moron”, I would just like to point out that Thor will feature the warriors three, A group of three (duh) Asgardian warriors who can outdrink, outwench, and out fight anyone. For that reason alone, The Mighty Thor should be a movie that has people excited.

With any comic book-to-film translation, my first question is always “what will the story be?” Why? Well, tell me that a Spider-man movie is being made, and I’ll get excited, tell me that a Spider-man movie is getting made focusing on “The Clone Saga” and I’ll say “up yours” and never watch the thing. So with 50 years of continuity and the whole of Norse mythology to draw upon, what will The Mighty Thor be about? Marvel has given their synopsis which is about as clear as soup:

Marvel Studios expands its film universe with a new type of superhero: THOR. This epic adventure spans the Marvel Universe; from present day Earth to the realm of Asgard. At the center of the story is The Mighty Thor, a powerful but arrogant warrior whose reckless actions reignite an ancient war. Thor is cast down to Earth and forced to live among humans as punishment. Once here, Thor learns what it takes to be a true hero when the most dangerous villain of his world sends the darkest forces of Asgard to invade Earth. Kenneth Branagh directs this fantasy epic which stars Australian actor Chris Hemsworth as the ancient Norse god, Tom Hiddleston as his evil brother Loki, Natalie Portman as Jane Foster, a young woman who befriends Thor on Earth, and Anthony Hopkins as Odin, Thor’s father and king of Asgard. Expect to see agents of S.H.I.E.L.D., previously seen in ”Iron Man,” to make an appearance, further forshadowing the coming of The Avengers!

Not much there to go on, but there are some important things that we can pull from this. First, we are going to get al film that is set on both Asgard and Earth, which is awesome. If you look at all the best Thor stories, from Lee to Simonson to Jurgens to JMS, all of them feature Thor not only kickin’ it up in Asgard, but also down on Earth. Second, the story will have Loki, which is a necessity. You can’t have an X-men movie without Magneto, and you can’t have a Thor movie without Loki, period. Third, there’s going to be a war, and every story is better if there is a war involved. War might be hell, but its usually fun to watch on the big screen. The only thing that I didn’t see here is any mention of Donald Blake, Thor’s tether to Earth.

Not having Blake (or at least back ups Eric Masterson or Jake Olsen) involved as a Thor counterpart is troubling, but hopefully as more details emerge about the project, that character will be involved. This sounds like it follows pretty closely in the vein on the old Stan Lee/ Jack Kirby stories, wherein Thor started out as Kind of a douche. Just getting to see Thor interact with the whole of the Æsir is a pretty exciting proposition though, and of course that means appearances by The Warriors Three! Consider me in.

Next up, lets look at the production team for the film. Films usually succeed or fail based on the director’s vision, and no where is that more obvious than in comic book films. Look at Ang Lee’s Hulk, and you can see what happens if a director doesn’t have a connection to the material. Mark Steven Johnson used Daredevil to illustrate that you must not only love the source material, but actually have talent. Joel Schumaker, well, you get the idea. So, does Thor director Kenneth Branagh have the chops to make a great Thor film? I’m not entirely sure. Branagh is a well known name, but not because of his directorial prowess. In fact, while he has 13 movies to his credit, he hasn’t done anything close to the scale of Thor, the closest being his directorial debut, Henry V. Now, the Branagh movies that I have seen have been mostly good, I love Dead Again, and enjoyed Sleuth, and his Shakespeare movies are always excellent, but I worry about him being able to handle a big budget movie well. Still I will give it a chance, I wasn’t sure about Favreau on Iron Man and that turned out pretty well. One last note about Branagh, if he was going to play a part in this movie (which he tends to do in his films) he would be a dead ringer for ladies man extrodinaire, Fandral the Dashing, leader of The Warriors Three!

Another important factor in a big movie like this is who will be handling special effects. Luckily, it seems that Thor is in good hands, with BUF Compagnie handling the bulk of the SFX work. In case you don’t know what BUF Compagnie is (and why would you, they are French) it is a great SFX company that disd some of the SFX work for films like The Dark Knight, Avatar, The Prestige, and a whole host of other movies. Thank goodness, because if theres gonna be a war in Asgard, there’s gonna need to be fire-demons and ice giants fighting Hogun the Grim , and I don’t want some dude down the street rendering them out on his basement computer.

The last part of the production puzzle is, of course, the producers This movie is being handled by Marvel Studios, which is fine by me. They did me right with Iron Man and the latest Hulk, so I can’t complain. I will say that Marvel just signed a deal to use the facilities of  Raleigh studios for their next four projects, but I have no idea how that will affect the quality of the films.

Another important part of the movie is always the casting. Jessica Alba is hot but she is not Sue Storm, and that’s all I could think of while watching Fantastic Four. On the flip side, Robert downey Junior IS Tony Stark, and Iron Man was great because of it. So who is going to be strutting around as Thor? Chris Hemsworth. Yeah, the guy who played Kirk’s dad in the new Star Trek. I’m not entirely sold on this one, but until someone starts letting me cast movies, I can’t do much besides hope.

The rest of the cast that Branagh has assembled is perfect. Anthony Hopkins as Odin? Perfect! Rene Russo as Frigga? Well done! Stellan Skarsgard, Tom Hiddleston and Kat Dennings? Yes, Yes, Yes. Oh, and Natalie Portman will be starring as well, so fanboys can start drooling in anticipation. I know that you are all concerned, so I’ll tell you, The Warriors Three have been cast as well, with none other than Ray Stevenson (Punisher: War Journal, Rome) playing Volstagg the voluminous. I feel really good about the cast, even with a mostly unknown playing the part of Thor.

A big factor in this movie is how it ties into the Marvel movie universe. Captain America, Iron Man and the Hulk all fit together pretty well, but how do you make a movie about angry blonde gods fit in with street level action? This is going to be a fine line that Thor is going to have to walk, especially if the Thunder god himself is going to be in The Avengers movie that Marvel has planned. If pulled off correctly, this could be a great launching pad for the Avengers, especially if you consider the fact that the avengers comic book was started when norse god Loki started s#!t and a bunch of marvel heroes had to team up to lay the smack down on him. If this movie doesn’t fit with the rest of the Marvel slate then an Avengers film would feel uneven, or just fail. Not too much pressure on Branagh right?

There are plenty of questions going into Thor, and all of them scare me. Will Branagh be able to handle a movie this big? Will a no-name actor be able to hold the spotlight against a very talented cast? Will the movie fit within the Marvel films universe? How much screen time will the Warriors Three get? Even with all these questions, this movie has got me pretty excited, but we still have to wait a year to see how it turns out. Luckily, Kick Ass comes out in a month or so to keep us all tided over. Thanks for stopping by folks. See you all next week!

Well the past couple of weeks has been a bit of bad news so I thought I would bring up our saturday mornings a bit. Catch Me If You Can is a new musical based on the book which was turned into a movie by Steven Spielberg at Dreamworks studios a while back. This musical is incredible! The music, the imagery, the cast, everything in this soon to be broadway production is top-notch!

The musical is created by the same team that took the original film of Hairspray to the stage and they obviously know a thing or two about adapting films to musicals. Having said that, I love Catch me if You Can. It was a great caper filled with twists and turns to leave you wanting more. If you have not seen it, go to your local blockbuster and rent it.

I meant to post on Mind-Reading last week, but there was a story out there that kept me from committing to it (the link is posted below.) Instead, I hoped you enjoyed the brief peak at ESP. So, let’s look at mind-reading. There’s really a good amount of complexity to this one. After pausing and thinking about the term, one could draw the conclusion that we might pay a psychologist to read our mind. And this is precisely where the term originates from; the OED (Oxford English Dictionary) provides this definition: “the act or process of discerning (or appearing to discern) what another person is thinking” (n.). This indicates that the term is really pretty new. There is an entry in the OED that shows a perfect example of how mind-reading was meant to be understood: “1882 Catholic World May 282 Historians of Mr. Froude’s stamp. are endowed with that strange gift of ‘mind-reading’, but, what is stranger still, they read the most secret thoughts of people who have been dead and buried for centuries.” So let’s take a look at who the original mind readers are, and what the author above could have possibly intended by saying that they read the “thoughts of people who have been dead and buried for centuries.”

The origins of mind reading, as established above, originate from the idea of having a mind that is separate from actions or appearance of a person. In other words, the concept of people having a conscious that is a separate space that is private and cut-off from the external world in which we all interact is essential in developing a space in which a person can “read.” In simpler terms, people had to believe that there was a text, a book of the mind, that existed for reading. The internal space was indeed explored significantly by none other than Sigmund Freud. The biggest contribution that he posited to psychology (I am speaking incredibly generally) is the emphasis he laid on a separation between the conscious and the unconscious mind. Essentially, he argued that people could be doing things (acting in ways) that they are not even aware of why (the reasoning or mental processes involved in getting a person to behave that way) they are doing them. What is interesting in looking at Freud’s examinations, is that Freud not only applied his research to his patients, but he began to see if literature would hold up to his speculations. Why literature you may ask? Well, think about it. When you go to the psychologists, he doesn’t read your mind by bonding with you like some weird Avatar creature. He stereotypically asks you about your mother. There is the connection: speech and text offer a written insight into the mind. Speech and language are how we allow people to read our minds.

So, to de-mystify this a bit, let me offer this mundane account of mind-reading. A dude comes home and, in front of his roommate, proceeds to punch a hole in the wall. The roommate is probably going to say something like, “Dude! Why’d you punch a f***ing whole in the wall?” And the aggressive guy is going to respond with something that will give some kind of insight into his inner workings. In essence, the roommate that watched the punching of the wall is attempting to read the mind to try and understand why he would punch the wall. Pretty boring, right? Essentially, psychologists try to do the same. You repeatedly cheat on your spouse? Why? How does that make you feel? They’re asking questions to try and discern a rational pattern of logical events. Now, assuming that you’re able to give a (if not still twisted and warped) logical response that follows somewhat rationally, then you can be diagnosed. The responses you give, in term themselves give insights to a particular way of acting that may be universalized. Other people may have the same reasons (again, perhaps twisted and warped, but still reasons) that can be stated rationally. If you give absolute gibberish as your response, well then your mind is inaccessible to everyone and you become bat-sh** crazy. Example: Charles Manson.  There’s a link in being able to explain yourself and being sane, and lacking that ability and being crazy. You’ll notice that Charles Manson can’t seem to explain himself very well here; how would you classify him?

Where the mundanality of the term “mind-reading” comes to us is in the exploration of technology. The earliest form of alleged mind-reading (not future reading) ability that I encountered in youth was the folks at carnivals that try to guess your weight or age. They use the information they have at hand to make an incredibly informed guess at the reality. The odds are stacked in their favor, and as we all know, the exceptions are usually pretty surprising. Let’s begin expanding the idea. If you’ve used a web-browser, the machine is attempting to read your intentions of where you want to go by reading your mind and making predictions about your spelling habits and where you’ve gone in the past. Essentially, every time you use a search engine, the computer is reading your mind. Speaking of mind reading computers…this was the article that was holding me up. I am used to computers being able to read your physical motions, but this computer is able to receive information about the way your neurons fire up and then make a prediction based on a limited number of options. Doesn’t sound as impressive as “Telepathic Computer” but it really is the same process that we use to delve into a person’s inner thoughts. Essentially, the computer is using the same process of determining information as the carnival guesser, but the computer can gather a lot more information. When going through school, I was told of machines that are mounted to the eyes in order to determine how people read texts. This does appear to take it one step further in also determining the way in which your neurons fire when experiencing text (or film or whatever). Now, what is interesting to consider is how a complete mind-reading machine, capable of predicting your speech based on your emotions, might impact philosophical concepts like free-will and fatalism. Not quite sure what next week’s topic will be, but I’ll see you then.

Strap in.  This is a long one.

Hollywood is on a comic book movie roll.  The Spider-Man movies didn’t jump the shark until Parker got his emo-boogie on in 3.  The Batman franchise was reinvigorated when Nolan helmed Batman Begins and broke records with The Dark Knight.  X-Men 1 and 2 were both fantastic and Iron Man was a success, throwing Marvel’s hat into the ring again after a brief moment in suck after X-Men 3.  Ed Norton and Louis Leterrier gave us a kick-ass Hulk movie (finally) with the Abomination looking beautiful as well.  Over the last decade countless other films have been making the crossover from page to screen as well (some you may not recognize as graphic novels): American Splendor, Road to Perdition, 30 Days of Night, and Kick Ass to name a few.

But it hasn’t always been great…  For years the translation was murky, at best.  After Burton, Suckmaker blew his ass all over comic fans with Forever and & Robin, proving that he’d never actually read a comic in his life.  Singer’s Superman has mixed reviews, but at best it’s an “I’ll watch it if I’m bored” film.  And if you go back further you can find more examples of translation-de-shit: Ang Lee’s Hulk, Nick Cage in Ghost Rider, and who can forget Halle Berry’s Catwoman (a film unsurvivable, even by Halle’s twin pair of Monster Balls).

Making a comic film is still a gamble.  And while things seem to be getting better, fans everywhere still get nervous with each announcement that one of there favorite characters is getting the big screen treatment.  Thus my dilemma with Captain America: The First Avenger.

The seeds for this one were planted a couple years back when Marvel announced plans to make Iron Man, Thor, Hulk and Captain America before releasing an Avengers film — fans everywhere went gag.  Then Iron Man came out and we all wet our pants.  For the first time ever we realized that it was possilbe for the Avengers film to really, truly happen (and for that God Bless you Mr. Favreau).  But we got a bit more…  In one clip of the film, Tony Stark is in his lab and we get a glimpse at Cap’s shield itself.  Geeks rejoiced.  But the goodness still wasn’t over.  At the end of the film, for those patient enough to sit through credits, an even bigger surprise: Sam, Motha-Fuckin’ Jackson strolled in yappin Fury styles.  It was, without a doubt, one of the greatest moments in the history of the geek community’s relationship with Hollywood.  And for that moment, we will always be grateful.

Things got even more real when The Incredible Hulk came out.  Now this film didn’t see the same level of love that Iron Man did, which is a shame because it was perfect.  Much Like the latest Castle romp, Punisher: War Zone, the film stayed true to the comic book and wasn’t received well by the crowds (PS: I will fight any of you bitches that says differently about Punisher because you are wrong and stupid).  Despite it’s lackadaisical numbers, we got another moment of Marvel madness at the end of The Incredible Hulk when, Tony Stark shows up blabbering about the Avenger initiative after the credits! Shit got really real…  But in a DVD-only exclusive, we got to see a frozen Captain America in the ice!

So, where are we now?  Well Brannaugh’s shooting Thor and managed to pull in quite the cast (Portman, Hines, Hopkins, Russo, Skarsgaard and Jackson to name a few).  But to be honest, I’m kind of “whatever with that one.  It’s Thor.  He’s great, but he’s no Captain America.  Disagree?  That’s fine.  You’re a moron.  Besides, Brannaugh is a fantastic Director so I’m not much worried about that project.  Now, Captain America: The First Avenger, or, The First Avenger: Captain America, or whatever the hell they’re calling it starts shooting in June, and this one has me all twitterpated.  Here’s  a couple reasons why (and if you don’t know anything about Captain America, I suggest you get familiar at this, his Wikipedia page):

The Director.  Joe Johnston is in the hot seat, fresh off of the Wolfman.  Yeah.  That Wolfman.  Now Wolfman wasn’t terrible, but it wasn’t mind-blowingly good either.  Perhaps we should look at Mr. Johnston complete body of work to get a better grasp on the situation.  So, in complete fairness, here are the last seven movies directed by Johnston (before Wolfman): Hidalgo, Jurassic Park III, October Sky, Jumanji, The Page Master, The Rocketeer, and Honey, I Shrunk the Kids.  If you’re like me (and you probably aren’t) you’re thinking, wow, I really wish I had a picture of that girl from The Rocketeer staring into a mirror all nakey (see right).  Or, if you’re a more normal human being (which sucks for you), you may have noticed a theme in Johnston’s line of work.  Keyword: mediocrity.  None of his film are terrible, but none of them are edge-your-seat, smack-a-hooker, lick-a-midget awesome either.  It is with that in mind that I wonder, is this the man to bring Captain America to the big screen?

The next anxiety-inducing cluster involves all of the rumored actors to be filling Cap’s boots.  Aintitcool.com broke the news in February that there was a particular list of potentials for the role — all of them scared the hell out of me.  If they choose one of these kids, I hope I’m wrong and that they knock it out of the park, but for the record, I’m voting for nay on each of ‘em.  The list includes (Click for a pic): Chace Crawford (Gossip Girl), John Krasinski (The Office), Scott Porter (Friday Night Lights), Mike Vogel (Cloverfield), Michael Cassidy (Privelaged), Patrick Flueger (Brothers), and Garrett Hedlund (Tron Legacy).  As a reminder, this is what Cap it supposed to look like:

On Tuesday it broke that there might be a light at the end of the tunnel.  Yahoo is reporting that Channing Tatum may be up for the role.  Yes, the guy from Step Up.  So why do I see this as good news?  Well, for starters the guy is agile — he’s a fucking dancer!  In the agility department, the next best choice for Cap is Jason Statham!  Second, he looks the part.  Seriously.  And finally, he’s got some acting chops, not big ones, but they’re there!  I know I’m going to take some heat for this, but I think this is the man.  I’d say Chris Evans, but he blew his load on those flaming pieces of shit called Fantastic Four.  I know there are a ton of actors out there, but if we end up with Tatum, things could be a lot worse — just look at the list we mentioned!  Please don’t misunderstand me, I can think of a list of actors that are both better qualified and better suited to don Cap’s costume, but I’m being realistic — the studios won’t let that happen.  Does Tatum have issues?  Yes.  But if I have to choose between him and the guy from The Office, it’s not even a choice.

Now I don’t want to leave you all scared, so let me throw out this little tid-bit of gloriousness: The Red Skull casting is spot-the-fuck-on.  Agent Smith himself, Hugo Weaving.  I couldn’t be happier about this choice.  I know a few people that have said, “as long as he changes his voice he’ll be fine.”  Really?  I think this guy’s voice was made for this role.  Let him take it and run with it.  As a matter of fact, let Weaving play all the roles and direct the film — I’d be happier with that than the Johnston/Tatum team up I’m getting now…

I am very scared about this film.

Until next time,

Mr. Wolff

Back to Semantink

Hey, kids! Welcome back to the Book Report. And happy St. Patrick’s Day! Go do something fun and slightly irresponsible.
Before we go anywhere, I would be most remiss (and probably in trouble) if I didn’t mention the new Mythoi: Birth that came out Monday, featuring Taros. I strongly urge you to give it a read, and if you haven’t read any of the others, you really should. It’s good stuff.

We now return you to your regularly scheduled program.

One literary genre that I’ve yet to mention is the roman à clef (French: “novel with a key”). This genre might be more recognized by the name “Faction”, a novel which describes real life, under a façade of fiction.
The upcoming film The Ghost Writer is based on such a novel, titled The Ghost by Robert Harris, where the author is hired to ghost write the memoirs of a former Prime Minister named Adam Lang (ie. Tony Blair) and uncovers details that may imply the Prime Minister is guilty of war crimes.

Why does a child molester have to make movies that look so interesting?

Other roman à clefs include The Devil Wears Prada, Primary Colors, The Things They Carried, Postcards From the Edge, A Scanner Darkly, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas, The Bell Jar, the novels of Jack Kerouac and Lara Ingalls Wilder, The Sun Also Rises, and The Picture of Dorian Grey.

The particular roman à clef I wish to cover for Semantink is called Shantaram, by Gregory David Roberts. Roberts readily admits that he combined people to create characters, and that he invented other characters and events to help the plot or theme come together as a novel, but the basic plot elements of the book and of his life are more or less the same.
After losing his wife and daughter in a divorce, Roberts turned to heroin for comfort. To feed his addiction, he committed a string of robberies using a fake gun. When he was finally caught, he was sentenced to nineteen years in prison. He escaped, in broad daylight, and began his life as a fugitive. All this happened (to the character and the author) before the book even begins.
The book covers much of his life as a fugitive in Bombay (now called Mumbai), India. Just reading the author synopsis intrigued me enough to open the book, and after reading the first page I knew I had to finish. It’s that kind of book. Hell, I was hooked after reading the first paragraph.

“It took me a long time and most of the world to learn what I know about love and fate and the choices we make, but the heart of it came to me in an instant, while I was chained to a wall and being tortured. I realised, somehow, through the screaming in my mind, that even in that shackled, bloody helplessness, I was still free: free to hate the men who were torturing me, or to forgive them. It doesn’t sound like much, I know. But in the flinch and bite of the chain, when it’s all you’ve got, that freedom is a universe of possibility. And the choice you make, between hating and forgiving, can become the story of your life.”

What follows is a wonderful, heart-wrenching, (and at almost 1000 pages, epic) story of love and hate and forgiveness. A story so fantastic, it is difficult to believe that much of it really happened.
Roberts has two additional novels, a prequel and sequel, planned. Johnny Depp loved the book so much he convinced the studio executives at Warner Bros. to buy the movie rights, with the film expected to come out sometime in 2011.

That’s it for me on this particular Wednesday.
Until next time,

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

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

In color salute to St. Patrick’s day, this week’s Cinegasm Experience is in Green Theme. I present four ‘Movies Green’ to stir your stew. Ingest without caution or hesitation.

At ease.

1. GREEN ZONE — The latest political film by director Paul Greengrass (green!!), starring Matt Damon as a US soldier who questions his orders as the WMD tolls remains at zero despite a so-called reliable source code-named ‘Magellan’.

The Stew: Inspired by the book “Imperial Life in the Emerald City: Inside Iraq’s Green Zone” by Rajiv Chandrasekaren, Brian Helgeland (L.A. Confidential) keenly adapts the analytical observations and facts of the U.S. involvement and transition of power in Iraq into a gripping thriller. Paul Greengrass is a director known for revising the Hollywood thriller with sequels The Bourne Supremacy and The Bourne Ultimatum, as well as pointing a shaking camera at controversial stories in order to present an objective, factual case and allow the watcher to come away with his/her own conclusions (United 93, Bloody Sunday).

Greengrass entered my sights as a director a few years ago. I want to watch everything he makes, but I also find fault in his overuse of hand-held cameras. I don’t like his extreme closeup style of shooting fight scenes, and think the shaky cam he’s become known for only adds to confusion while detracting from visual storytelling. It certainly didn’t help, however, that his two Bourne movies were as intricate and complex as The Theory of Relativity our federal banking laws, but there really is no excuse for vomit-inducing camera run-around techniques.

I went into a screening of Green Zone expecting much of the same, but instead was surprised and pleased, thrilled and satisfied. The plot is of the complex variety, but thanks to a limited number of characters and a very linear unfolding of events, it’s relatively easy to follow. The camera (in the hands of Barry Ackroyd, who lensed United 93 and was recently nominated for The Hurt Locker) swings in all directions, but focus always returns to Matt Damon or Greg Kinnear, depending on whose POV we’re currently focused on.

The Rifle Salute: Four out of four rifles. There are moments where the film feels like one extended sequence after another rather than chopped up scenes, a great feeling where you can look at your watch and think a scene is over, and then you’re immediately carried into the next sequence, or the next problem for Miller. Also, there is temptation to highly criticize America’s harsh decisions and forced hand (embodied by an especially good Greg Kinnear), but don’t let the film fool you: You’re meant to walk out of the theater understanding all sides, though not necessarily agreeing, and hopefully open the door to further research, discussion, and conclusions, which will all lead to better understanding in the future.

*Declassified Fact: Paul Greengrass was once circling an adaptation of WATCHMEN.

2. THE GREEN HORNET — An adaptation of the classic 60s TV series that featured Bruce Lee. This time around, Seth Rogan dons the mask while Jay Chou (Curse of the Golden Flower) picks up Lee’s Kato character.

The Stew: Cast includes: Oscar winner Christoph Waltz, who will play Chudnofsky, an LA crime boss and rival/villain to the Green Hornet, as well as Cameron Diaz, Edward Furlong, Tom Wilkinson, and Edward James *freakin’* Olmos. Script is by Superbad co-writers Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg, and after Stephen Chow dropped the chance to direct and co-star, great imaginitarian Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind) took up the reins. Will this be all-out comedy? light action comedy? or just plain fun in the lightest piece of the prism? Find out in December.

*Declassified fact: Movie will also feature an appearance by the band ANVIL!

3. GREEN LANTERN — Director Martin Campbell (The Mask of Zorro, Casino Royale) takes a stab at the comic book world, expanding the on-screen DC Universe with Ryan Reynolds starring as Hal Jordan a dude who falls in love with jewelry a dude who becomes the bearer of a powerful green ring that allows him access to an intergalactic peacekeeping organization, among other fun powers. Mark Strong and Peter Sarsgard take up the villain roles as Sinestro and Hector Hammond, respectively. Tim Robbins rounds out the powerhouse casting, and somehow Blake Lively was not kicked off when she wandered on set.

The Stew: Your Sgt. is unhappily not familiarized with the Green Lantern’s history, suffice it to say that Ryan Reynolds is a dude that is easy to watch and support, while Mark Strong’s recent villainous workshop in Sherlock Holmes means he’s an actor you must keep a watch for in the coming months. Martin Campbell can direct action and fight scenes fairly well, so here’s hoping his first comic-book venture ends up smart and on the level. Will the Green Lantern’s universe feature a reference to Metropolis and the infamous Dark Knight? If DC Entertainment can orchestrate a multi-movie universe a la Marvel, full enjoyment will truly spill out from the page to the screen. At least Warner Bros. can handle big-budget action. Be thankful FOX does not have its’ hands on this one.

*Declassified fact: This movie will play in 3D theaters, though it’s not likely to actually be filmed seteroscopically.

4. GREENBERG — Another quirky character piece from writer-director Noah Baumbach, which he cooked up with Jennifer Jason Leigh after they worked together on Margot at the Wedding. Though the script captures that same neurotic and prickly, direct dialogue as Baumbach’s previous films, there is little delightful-ness to look forward to when the film debuts in April (yes, your Sgt. has read the script).

The Stew: Film stars Ben Stiller as a miserable New Yorker who comes to Los Angeles to housesit for his brother, and ends up sparking a fling with his brother’s oddball assistant (Greta Gerwig). Greenberg complains about nearly everything, feels aimless at 40, and doesn’t even try to find a successful path for himself. The story reads like a twenty-something hipster tale, but for a 40-year-old group of characters — as if Baumbach wants us to believe that uncertainty and unwillingness to face disaster are traits that haunt all generations, young and old. Connect this film, then, with his wonderful 90s era Kicking and Screaming, his adolescent daze The Squid and the Whale, and Alexander Payne’s About Schmidt, and you can thus relate to all American age groups.

What’s likable about Baumbach’s work is his focus on character interactions. People are a bit oddball and say what’s on their mind, letting their mouths run-off without thinking of consequences. People act and do out of the moment, rather than pre-meditated consideration. But at times, that’s frustrating (notably in Margot at the Wedding, which contained numerous scenes where characters avoided confrontation or sparked a chance for confrontation and conflict, chances which were inexplicably ignored by other characters…).

Baumbach is a constant collaborator with Wes Anderson, and the difference in their directing is that Anderson is able to give a serious conflict an admirably comedic twist, while Baumbach relishes in showing us the nitty gritty of it all.

*Declassified fact: Greenberg almost starred Amy Adams and Mark Ruffalo.

You are dismissed!

Sgt. Angle