Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

You may remember a time when the movie of a legend meant something more than cliched war scenes and epic battles.

I am epic. Look in my eyes.

When Braveheart graced global eyes, we swooned at the rhetoric of the main character and at the love story that we all, as men and women, wish to obtain. When Gladiator appeared, we gave it a hearty clap and went on our merry way, knowing that Maximus could save our day.

With Ridley Scott’s rendition of Robin Hood, we cock our heads to the side and wonder: who the hell is this sword-toting warrior, and why am I watching him?

(*Minor spoilers ahead*)

Robin Hood gives us a Middle Ages wartime take on a beloved character, and spends almost every minute of screen time building up the great leader only to tear away his leadership in the resolution, and subsequent “sequel setup” comprising of a few last minutes on the screen so we can finally utter, in two words of realization, “Oh, yeah.”

(*End minor spoilers*)

The problem with a movie like Robin Hood is that, as a movie, it’s not all that bad. The acting is pretty on the ball, the fight scenes are expertly shot and the comedic moments are, for the most part, timed properly. The violence isn’t brutal (though the pG-13 rating is a bit light), and the villains are properly built with motivation (OK, Godfrey’s reasoning isn’t exactly explained, though Mark Strong’s cockeyed tooth kind of makes up for it).

The problem lies in the filmmaker’s assumption that we’re automatically familiar with the story that will happen…later. It’s esoteric, it’s for anyone familiar with the Robin Hood legend already.

Except that it’s not. And therein lies the problem. The film doesn’t know if it should be the type of “expositional epic” that will explain something in “part II,” or if it should be a stand alone story about a guy happened to be named Robin, who can shoot a mean arrow.

At the start, I just wanted to get to Robin Hood and the familiar man/myth I’ve come to know and love through fox re-enactment and Disney. By the middle, I was anxious to see how the outlaw would be born. Not once did I think that this movie would stand on its’ own without the legend in the back of my mind. I don’t think there is a way to enjoy the movie without knowing about Robin Hood to begin with.

Some might say that Robin Hood: Prince of Thieves, that stellar Kevin Costner adventure film from the early 90s — is also a prequel for the Robin Hood legend. It is, except that it explores the characters and villains we know — Sheriff of Nottingham, for one — and also takes us deep into the life of Robin Hood, starting with the Crusades and ending with him in the midst of his thievery.

A man becomes an outlaw because the king has declared it so. But the outlaw becomes a hero when the people declare his bounty unjust, and his actions just. Walking into a classic story meeting our character already an outlaw, it’s easy to find him endearing, and easy to root for him. We invent his backstory, we invent where he came from and what brought him to make these decisions, and we see the outcome.

Prequels rarely work. See: Phantom Menace. See: Red Dragon (film). See: X-Men Origins: Wolverine.

Upcoming, we’re going to have the prequel to Planet of the Apes (NOT a reboot, which Tim Burton already destroyed years ago).  Caesar:Rise of the Apes will be directed by Rupert Wyatt, and the apes will be mostly CGI, with many story and name nods to the original film.

We’re also seeing the Alien prequel, to be directed by Ridley Scott — who also recently stated that there will actually be TWO films, the storyline leading up to his original Alien. Again, we’re faced with possibly zero characters (ahem, Ripley) who would have appeared in later films, but we’ll get a sense of the first people to actually meet the alien species, and possibly get a nod to the ships that we eventually meet in the original films. But we’re also not going to have to bother with a “Lt. Ripley origin story,” something that might’ve just ruined her as a character.

We may, though, get a version of the chest-popper scene more similar to this one:

When I think of ruining the mythology of a series, I also think of Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines.  Terminator: Salvation just added insult to injury. Keep in mind, though, that these two films aren’t necessarily terrible on their own, it’s just that they take the world of their respective stories too far. Terminator 2: Judgment Day expanded upon the already set universe in a unique way, advancing present day technology and proving the point that the first film tried to make. T3 and TS took the mythology set up and squeezed every last ounce of imaginative juices out of it all, ruining any hope we had of creating that future for ourselves. One thing we love about movies and all stories, as humans, is the exercise of our own imaginations.

See, movies, unlike books, have a start and a definite end — or are supposed to — and leave the rest of the characters’ lives to our imaginations. It’s the only time, while experiencing movies, that we really get to stretch our creative muscles and imagine. You read a book, you see it all in your head. You read a comic, you can imagine the voices, the tone, the ambient noise. You watch a movie, everything is on the screen, within the frame. But when the frames stop rolling, you can only imagine what will happen next.

This happens with television shows, too — jumping from season to season, or when a show ends too soon, you hope for the best for your characters — or the worst, depending on your view.

Back to Robin Hood. I know the myth and legend of Robin, I know about the Sheriff, and King John, and Maid Marion, Little John, etc. What I didn’t know was how he came to be the outlaw hero. And now that I’ve seen it…it’s too much history. The mystique gives his aura an invincibility that only helps tell his story. Mystery is good. It’s time to stop explaining everything and leave a little mystery.

May you remain mysteriously at ease, soldiers.

Sgt. Angle.

Sgt. Angle reporting for duty!

This weekend, most everyone in the USA and the world got to see Robert Downey, Jr. and Don Cheadle whip some ass in Iron Man 2. But what also graced the screen was the eyeful of deliciousness Scarlett Johansson in a skin-tight black uniform as she twirled and drop-kicked a hallway full of bad guys.

She is watching you watching her…

The sexy action girl is nothing new to cinema — Halle Barry did tried it a few years back with Catwoman; Angelina Jolie nailed it with Lara Croft: Tomb Raider, and Ann Perillaud perhaps started it all (thanks to Luc Besson’s imagination) in Le Femme Nikita. Since the early ‘90s, sexy women with big boots, big guns, and the flexibility of Gumby’s younger self have taken cinematic screens by storm. One needs only to think of Catherine Zeta Jones (whatever happened to her?) easing her tight body through the red laser sensors in Entrapment…where was I? Are these “strong” characters, or simply sexy women who can maneuver their bodies to seduce you into falling in front of their bullets?

For a strong female role, one would look most naturally towards a Katherine Hepburn character (Bringing Up Baby, Adam’s Rib) or Meryl Streep or Ellen Burstyn or Diane Keaton. A woman who is as smart as the man, a woman who is even in control of every event unfolding whether we know it or not. Strong women know what they want, or if they don’t, they have a strong motivation for remaining unsure. Oh, and they can control the hell out of a scene.

For the action-oriented women, a strong role one should always refer to is Ellen Ripley, of the Alien franchise. For a role originally written for a man, Sigourney Weaver took the depth of the character to new heights. She is a woman in a man’s world, she doesn’t emanate sexuality, and she can kick ass while getting the job done. She doesn’t need skin tight dresses, high heels, or nudity to show that she is a strong woman. She uses her smarts and her skills, NOT her sexuality.

Not that there’s a problem with women who use sexuality as a means to an end. But it is becoming too large of a crutch.

Sarah Connor, of the Terminator franchise (hmm, yet another written by James Cameron…) is also an example of a strong woman, a bad-ass who doesn’t thrust sexuality in our faces as a means to get what she wants. Sarah is a pawn in her own fate, and the fate of the world, and rather than succumb to the helpless situation of defeating a machine that will not stop, she fights, sometimes brutally.

A woman who fights is not necessarily a strong female, but a woman who fights with a greater purpose, an honorable purpose, is much more powerful.

And then you have women like Leeloo (Milla Jovovich) in The Fifth Element, who runs around in the movie mostly in little to no clothing. But her innocence as a character, as a being who rarely exists, is enough to overthrow the overt sexuality in the character and bring her to a new level, a respectable level of a person lost in a conflict, unaware of her surroundings.

In The Matrix, Carrie Ann Moss opens the entire series in a skintight black leather suit, kicks ass using back flips and forward flips, shot in cool matrix-cam slow-mo, then casually leaves the room. The rest of her time in the overall story is spent looking cool within the matrix, and appearing to be innocent and “just” sexy on the ship. As a character, she is a freedom fighter, but as a movie presence, she is eye candy. Just like Monica Belluci was in her few seconds of screen time.

Lara Croft: Tomb Raider. The female Indiana Jones, some might say. Tight shirts, highlighted curves, oozing with sexuality as she climbs a rope or flips into a secret passageway. Like her character in Wanted, Jolie simply overflows with sexuality, such that any hope of character development or interation is entirely lost. Look at her in Mr. and Mrs. Smith, yet again, for evidence that her own sexuality is her only weapon. Again, it’s not necessarily a weak thing for a woman to use sex to get past obstacles. It’s just a crutch, one used far too often these days.

In The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, Lisbeth does, at one point, use sex as a defense mechanism, as a weird way of putting up a wall between her and a guy that she likes. But it works, only because we see her use sex in a much more cruel way as a defense against abuse. Her motivations are set up, and her experiences — as we’ve seen them — make the use of sex understandable and a part of her character, not just eye candy on the silver screen.

She will not sex you up. Only mess you up.

And what do all these lovely ladies bring us to? I would say the hybrid, the woman we saw this weekend. ScarJo played  the Black Widow, and fights in the ultra sexy body suit, using moves that would make a gymnast cringe. And she does it all without seducing, without thrusting cleavage in our faces (make no mistake, there is cleavage, there is an amazing body, but her body is not the weapon, nor is she trying to seduce anyone). One could chalk this up to Scarlet’s screen presence, or lack thereof, but I think she’s smarter than that.

I guess I’m just making the case that we don’t need a woman who looks good and uses herself just because she looks good. I’d rather a woman be a fighting machine and oh, by the way, she looks great, too, rather than “let’s try to bang her and hope that she can fight, too”.

A woman with a gun is a powerful woman, and can give you a sexy look, but a woman with only her fists who doesn’t waste time looking you up and down is a much more confident, stronger, and powerful woman.

What do you think? What makes a strong female character to you, either in action films or in other films? Sound back below, privates!

You are dismissed!

Sgt. Angle

The theme for today’s post is modeled after a quote I recall from Einstein: “I know not with what weapons they will fight WWIII with, but I know for certain that WWIV will be fought with sticks and stones.” Machines are the other side of the mystical art of combat. The way that humans incorporate technology into our arsenals says a lot about the society behind it. One-inch punches and hypnotic combat are pretty cool, but in the face of today’s technologies, they just don’t hold up. What good is being able to knock down twenty men when there’s a machine that can clear two city blocks in the blink of an eye? Of course I still root for those that wish to practice hand-to-hand combat as a medium for self-discovery, but I think it is worth showing what mechanics and techy-minded people have come together to accomplish for the good or woe of society. With today’s advances in robotics, there is a new fear that is beginning to emerge about the kinds of warfare that we can expect. Some of these fears are legitimate, but the overall gist is that humans are being taken out of direct combat and leaving robots to do the damage and absorb the hurt. Rather than trying to express a morality driven article about how the machines are going to kill us all, I’ll let you decide if these (sometimes hidden and sometimes unnoticed) technologies pose the kind of threat that people like the one who wrote this article here are beginning to ponder. The first, and very likely the most popular and recognizable, of the technological weapons is today’s unmanned drones.

Here’s two videos that show what these drones are capable of. Rather than imagining these command centers are obscure locations deep beneath the earth, it is kind of remarkable that the command centers themselves can be mobilized to accommodate their needs optimally. What is also pretty striking are the amount of sensors and cameras that these drones have. They describe themselves as a soldier’s “third eye” which is also a metaphor for ESP. It’s kind of interesting. Here’s the video that shows a crew from a Predator Drone.

Here’s a shorter clip that shows more of the devastating capabilities that the Predator’s have:

Here’s a pretty interesting conversation with some military guy about the effectiveness of the MQ-9 Reaper drone. He describes it as a “hunter-killer,” which is kind of scary to me and should be to anyone who ever watched Terminator. The flying heli-jets of death from that movie were also called hunter-killers. Terrifying? Maybe, but it certainly shows that the fine people behind the film Terminator knew their stuff and made a pretty remarkable and true prediction about military combat in the future. Here’s the clip:

But technology is a funny thing. For all this fancy stuff, there are a few problems that have arrived. Iranian and Iraqi forces who oppose the US have used Russian software that was meant to intercept satellite TV signals to hack the feed from the Predator drones. Perhaps the most frustrating part about this is that the software only cost $26. Not $26 million. Just $26 to essentially defeat a $4 million dollar device. Here is the link to the Popsci website. In addition to developing the ability to hack into the drone’s eyes, the drones are still vulnerable to other kinds of attacks. Here’s a sixty minute news story that shows some of the facts about the limitations of the drone.

Clearly these machines are not as indestructible as governments would want us to believe. But the point is that they are out there, and they are being built better and faster every day. Many people believe that these are the harbingers of future warfare, so let’s see what else is out there.

Here’s a really good talk about the “robot revolution” that is “upon us.” P.W. Singer in this talk tries to shred the mythic incredulity of popular opinion on this topic. What he does in this talk (which took place last year) is express the incredible explosion of robotics and their application for war. Another thing that he tries to do is convince the crowd that the “Terminator” situation is not realistic. But that’s a hell of a claim to make. Of course the guy whose profiting from the assembly and proliferation of robot soldiers is going to tell you that they are safe and actually safer than a flesh and bone soldier. Here’s the clip:

Next week I’ll cover some in more detail some of the robots that you just saw in that footage. But consider this: What effect will taking human beings out of the killing position of war do to our society? What does it say about us that we want something else to do the killing and take the losses for us?