inkni

[inkni]

What Does “Five Essential” Mean?

In introducing our current Battle Royale topic, I described how Garrett, Mark, and I would seek to settle on “Five Essential Movies About SuperHeroes.” While it’s possible that, at some point in our conversations, we’ll discuss our five favorite superhero films or the five MASH we think are best made (or five we think should be avoided at all costs), what does it mean to select “five essential” such flicks?

By this, in short, I mean: if you were an utter novitiate to superhero movies who wanted to get up to speed on their cultural import and impact, which five movies would be essential viewing for you? Or, similarly but slightly distinct, which five MASH might we nominate for inclusion in the National Film Registry’s list of “culturally, historically, or aesthetically significant films”?

Ideally, I’d like to see this become an ongoing feature: we INKers shifting the cultural conversation away from impossibly opinionated arguments about “the best” to deeper probing of “the essential.” Doing this should provoke richer engagement precisely because it always forefronts the question, What attributes are central to this thing?

Other potential Five Essential topics moving ahead, with a purposeful & cheeky emphasis on the quirky:

What are five essential gaming peripherals? (The Game Boy’s Game Link cable? Kinect? The 1985 N-Zap?)

…five essential drinking games?

…Pixar movies?

…songs for the playlist you make when you’re crushing on somebody?

…puzzle games?

…playgrounds to visit if you’re an adult in the Midwest? ;D

Stay tuned for more superheroic clashes to come!

[inkni]

It’s Time to Take Stock of Superhero Movies

Dear Mark and Garrett,

We’re living in a post-Infinity Wars world now, wouldn’t you say? It’s Disney’s universe, and we’re just leasing space in it? The current resurgence in this “genre” of films (is it truly a discrete genre?) dates back to our own coming-of-age; now that we’re all entering our late-stage twenties, I declare it’s high noon for us to ponder this past.

As such, I hereby challenge you both to a Battle Royale podcast in which no man or woman may live the ring until we have settled on the Five Essential Movies About SuperHeroes (MASH).

What say you?

For your convenience as well as that of our loyal, neglected readers—and to begin biasing the pot early—I have included below the cut a definitive timeline of MASH worth watching. (Plus some shade cast towards junk films you two trash heaps probably recall fondly. *cough* Thor *cough*)

Please respond at your earliest convenience.

Love,

Melian The Dark Knight Has Already Won This Contest Joker

******************************************

What follows is a list, presented chronologically, of MASH I am nominating as worthy contenders for our Five Essential list. For each entry, when possible, I assign my own star rating* as well as any notable thoughts / qualms / qualifications / praises that come to mind. Later on in this Battle Royale Spectacular, I will perhaps pen a post providing more detailed defenses for my own FEMASH.

*these star ratings are an adapted, kinder form of my usual 4-star rating system—specialized for MASH. were I to rate these along the usual system, too many of the scores would clump together and likely only one would be 4/4

1998

Blade, 3 out of 4 stars: Good film, fun horror elements, important for its role in rebooting superhero films after the conclusion of the Batman debacle and for having a Black lead (which didn’t occur again until this year, as far as I can tell).

2000

Unbreakable, 4 out of 4 stars: Its closest analogue is probably Logan, which wouldn’t be released for another 17 years. A drama that centers a superhero, instead of dramedic superhero antics on film. (Regarded by all as M. Night Shymalan’s best movie, before his talent got lost in a broom closet.)

X-Men, 3.5 out of 4 stars: Kicked off the best run of superhero movies that exists, IMO! As Vulture tells it: “In retrospect, it’s astounding how good the casting in X-Men was. At the time, superhero movies were still mostly a dead letter in Hollywood, and the marquee names of the day wouldn’t touch a movie like this. So Bryan Singer took the Moneyball approach: Almost everyone he snagged was either undervalued in the market (Patrick Stewart and Ian McKellen), underestimated as a pretty face (James Marsden and Rebecca Romijn), or a near-complete unknown (Hugh Jackman).” Hard to think today of some of those names as other than marquee!

2002

Spider-Man (2002), 3.5 stars: Remains the best superhero origin film ever. Is this just my nostalgia haze talking? It can’t be!!

2003

X2: X-Men United (2003), 4 stars: Generally regarded as the peak of the original trilogy, and not for bad reason.

2004

Spider-Man 2 (2004), 4 stars: One of my absolute, all-time favorites across the board. The pinnacle of the “classic” sort of superhero tale.

Hellboy (2004), 3 stars: Just before he created one of the most perfect films ever in Pan’s Labyrinth, Guillermo del Toro made a superhero film! With real, beautiful, grounded costumes in lieu of CGI! Lead character played by Thanos!

The Incredibles (2004), 4 stars: It counts—they’re Supers!

2005

Batman Begins (2005), 3 stars: I’m waffling on the score of this one. Strong elements and fresh, distinctive take on the hero. But definitely the least enjoyable of the trilogy for me to watch.

2006

X-Men: The Last Stand (2006), 4 stars: This is my highly unpopular opinion. I have met other fans of it over the years, but we live secret lives. So many hate this film. I find the Dark Phoenix arc to be marvelously, painfully told—works both as a fantastic climax to a trilogy and as a twisted sort of love story.

Superman Returns (2006), 3.5 stars: Technically a sequel to the ’70s films, but no need to bother with those (I never have). It was derided upon its release, but has grown strong over the test of time: a thoughtful, introspective, alternately chilling & uplifting film. (Post-#MeToo, though, ouch... Guess I have to recollect that same pain when thinking of the Bryan Singer and Brett Ratner-directed X-Men films as well!)

2008

The Dark Knight (2008), 5 out of 4 stars: I hate to cheat my reviewing system, but this is just beyond.

Iron Man (2008), 3.5 stars: The movie that kicked off the MCU and thus changed the course of cinema. Probably isn’t as good as I remember it being—and maybe the fact that I don’t care enough to rewatch it is likewise a troubling sign…

Hellboy II: The Golden Army, 3.5 stars: Everything about the original minus the bad plus more of the good.

Hancock, 3 stars: Even though I rate it lower, I’d actually probably rewatch this movie over many on this list. It’s refreshing seeing original content (I know—a contradiction in the superhero genre), with a clearly flawed protagonist. Feels like it set the (far more comedic) groundwork for 2012’s Chronicle

2010

Kick-Ass, 4 stars: A superhero black comedy. Was the funniest superhero movie until Deadpool came along. Strong script crushes it with the “wannabe superheroes” trope.

2012

The Dark Knight Rises, 3.5 stars: Deserves a 1/4 for its bizarrely shitty reactionary politics—and so depressingly soon after the anarchist glory of The Joker! (lolol.) But still an incredible romp. (I’m a Nolan fangirl, yes.)

The Avengers, 3.5 stars: It’s the big one! The one with the true Joss Whedon touch, so I appreciate it… but honestly, almost want to downgrade it to 3/4 just because of how sick I’ve become of the tone almost every subsequent MCU film has aped from this flick.

Chronicle, 3.5 stars: “Superhero stories have long been derided as power fantasies for emotionally stunted adolescent boys. [This film] takes that criticism and turns it on its ear, asking what would happen if emotionally stunted adolescent boys actually got to live out such power fantasies. It’s unsparing in its answer: They’d raze the world.” Had flaws, but this movie has stuck with me sooo hard for six years now.

2013

Iron Man 3, 3.5 stars: Iron Man 2 is trash. One of the only films I have ever walked out on (admittedly, partially cuz I was seeing it for free on a Friday night during college and my friend and I decided we had more fun shit we could do). I will mention it nowhere else in this post. But this film struck me as a stellar return to form. That being said, I don’t remember it all too well five years later…

2014

X-Men: Days of Future Past, 4 stars: Somehow took the mediocre X-Men: First Class prequel and melded it with the dormant original “trilogy” (making it technically no longer that), with the result being the best film in the series ?!? (I consider films whose titles explicitly center Hugh Jackman to be spinoffs.)

Captain America: The Winter Soldier, 3 stars: The best of the Cap films. Its strength comes from its willingness to stand along amidst was the quickly thickening morass of the MCU. (A problem to which its sequel fell hard.) Could be 3.5/4, but hasn’t stuck with me overly at all.

2015

Avengers: Age of Ultron, 3 stars: Not that much noticeably worse than its predecessor in my book, and yet certainly less fresh for being a retread. Better villain than many MCU films!

2016

Deadpool, 4 stars: Snatched Kick-Ass’s crown as the best R-rated superhero film until Logan came along a year later. Kicked off the wave of current superhero films that are all now defying genre conventions and tones.

X-Men: Apocalypse, 3 stars: It’s good. I’m hoping the sequel focused on Dark Phoenix will be better—comes out February 2019.

2017

Logan: Okay, I haven’t seen it yet—it’s a long non-story how that’s come to pass—but I will soon and it’s going to be near the top of my personal list. Fight me.

Wonder Woman, 3 stars: She’s a lady! (Just try to forget that the Israeli actress strongly supports blowing up Palestinians… I guess that’s modern feminism for you.) Honestly, I just hate period pieces and boring war movies, and this functions as both. Also, dreadfully uninteresting villain.

Spider-Man: Homecoming: Can’t rate it yet. I’ve seen it called even better than Spider-Man 2, though? Apparently it really captures the humor & mirth of the comics, while serving up one of the MCU’s few decent villains.

Thor: Ragnarok: Also haven’t seen this one yet, but it’s apparently leaps and bounds better than its two Thor predecessors and functions as a true comedy throughout. I’m interested in the improvisational work they did; additionally, I must worship at the feet of Ms. Blanchett.

2018

Black Panther, 4 stars: Some—just a few—of the tropes locate it within its MCU, and they kept it from vaulting quite as high as it could have for me. But, I mean, this is one of the most important movies of this century, superbly executed from every possible angle. Unreal! Surreal! So real!

Avengers: Infinity War, 3.5 stars: This movie feels impossible to score for me. Still can barely can even discuss it. It’s so much… so exhausting. I was overwhelmed—but I was certainly never bored. Would much sooner discuss this film for an hour than either of the first two Avenger films for five minutes, if that means anything!

Deadpool 2, 3.5 stars: It’s in many ways a retread of the first film, but done so well that who gives a shit. Domino was a blessing; there were standout sequences galore; the jokes landed largely with aplomb. Bravo!

Notable Films I Did Not Nominate

Captain America: Civil War (2016), 2.5 stars: It truly is Avengers 2.5 (befitting my star rating for it). If you want to have a shot at understanding Infinity War, this is the third most important movie to see beforehand behind Age of Ultron and the next entry below; other than that, it mostly did a bad job of handling a good (albeit unoriginal) idea.

Guardians of the Galaxy (2014), 2.5 stars: A competent movie. I just didn’t care. Many love it. To me, it’s space opera following overly predictable beats; I’ll admit i prefer my superheroes earthbound. (Alas, turns out this film is super important to understanding the superior Infinity War…)

Doctor Strange (2016): Haven’t seen it, might eventually. Questionable Orientalism featuring white dude, but looks fine.

The first two Thors, 2008′s The Incredible Hulk, Ant-Man, GotG 2: Eh.

Films That Are Okay

Watchmen (2009), 2 stars: READ THE BOOK. BEST BOOK.

X-Men: First Class (2011), 2 stars: Mostly worth seeing so you can fully understand its amazing follow-up, the aforementioned Days of Future Past.

Big Hero 6 (2014), 2.5 stars: Solid animated film tackling grief.

Films to Avoid Outright

My Super Ex-Girlfriend (2006), 1.5 stars: Mostly adding this to the list ’cause it’s hilarious to me it was ever made!

Spider-Man 3 (2007), 1.5 stars: A horrible conclusion to what should have been a fantastic trilogy. Director was kept from making the film he wanted by relentless studio interference. (I hear tell we’ll be getting a whole new take on Venom this fall…)

Ghost Rider (2007), 0 stars: Some say the R-rated sequel has more fun with itself and is thus more fun to watch, but I will never know because I’ll never indulge it after this movie ruined my life in two hours. Sooo horrible.

Captain America: The First Avenger (2011), 1 star: Gross American jingoism wrapped in terribly executed camp. So many of the worst elements of superhero origin stories bundled into one movie.

Man of Steel (2013), 1 star: Crappy movie that kicked off the DC cinematic universe. Legendary for its unheroic indifference to civilian life, but mostly is just long, sloppily written/plotted, and boring.

Suicide Squad (2016), 1.5 stars: The tragic continuation of DCCU’s attempts to play to edgy teens. Harley Quinn was awesome, but just watch her best scenes instead

Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice (2016): For any who doubted it, surely this cemented just how much the DCCU sucks. (I’ve avoided it.)

Justice League (2017): See above.

Green Lantern (2011), Fantastic Four (2005/2015), etc.: a lot of iconic characters have been in bad films!

Films I’m Curious About

Batman: Mask of the Phantasm (1993): Style of the old cartoon show, but apparently contains a story told so well that Warner Bros. got it a brief theatrical release!

Daredevil: Director’s Cut (2003): Supposedly quite a bit better than the original iteration…

Hulk (2003): I mean, it’s directed by Ang Lee. Even if it’s a failure, it must be an ambitious one.

Sky High (2005): “It’s a bit like Mean Girls meets The Avengers, but it’s also its own delightfully unique creature that deserves much more applause than it gets.”

Punisher: War Zone (2008): The only superhero film directed by a woman until Wonder Woman came along. Gritty!

Thanks for accompanying me on this time-traveling journey! Look forward to more detailed nomination posts before we ultimately duke it out to create our Five Essential list.

[inkni]

Spielberg: ‘Netflix Films Shouldn’t Be Eligible for Oscars’

Some distinctions are fading: “limited series” vs. “television show,” for instance. Big Little Lies starts as a limited series and then gets “renewed” with new material as a show; Fargo is adapted from a movie as a limited series—ostensibly because it has a clear end point from the outset?—and then runs for numerous seasons. By that measure, aren’t all shows “limited”? Nothing runs forever.

Nevertheless, that distinction still has some ontological/etymological weight to it: an adaptation of a book that will run on a TV network for only four hours in total, in one year, is different from Grey’s Anatomy that will probably reach a thousand episodes across multiple decades and has generated over $2 billion for Disney.

In contrast, “television movie” vs. “‘real’ movie” has always been arbitrary: it’s not at all about content and all about form/distribution. If Return of the King had originally aired on TNT instead of in theaters, I’d argue it would still artistically be worth a crap ton of awards like those record-tying Oscars it got. But of course, in 2003 nothing would have ever aired like that on TV. “TV movies” were some sad, low-budget messes the Emmys felt obliged to honor and knew nobody gave a shit anyway cuz back then only Garrett watched the Emmys.

But nowadays! Amazon will spend a reported $500 million on a “Lord of the Rings television series.” It is nigh laughable to argue that Mudbound was, in terms of quality, lesser than other Best Picture nominees like The Phantom Thread. So this distinction between “TV movie” and “cinema movie” is arbitrary on its face.

The question then becomes: is it an arbitrary distinction worth making? Those who love theaters would say yes, absolutely, and I can well see their point. Netflix has made no secret of its desire to hasten the destruction of movie theaters. Directors like Christopher Nolan cherish physical film and want to see past practices like 70mm projection return on the big screen—I applaud this—but the tide of “watch from the comfort of your home theater” is against them.

Spielberg’s call for Netflix’s flicks to be banned from awards contention is a dirty trick, trying to beat back the commercial juggernaut via rules when winning via ticket sales won’t do… but that doesn’t make it the worst idea?

I was distressing only last night about how Netflix has won the war for my attention: both shows I’m currently watching, Wild Wild Country and Altered Carbon, I am spending time with because they are easy. Heck, they got me to watch an episode of World’s Most Impressive Homes or Whatever It’s Called. I find myself too lazy to try booting up Hulu or Amazon Video, let alone torrent any of the shows on “my list” (we all have a list these days) and then connect my laptop to my TV. Yikes.

Maybe it is time outright for a “War of the Worlds” between Netflix and all the rest of us it’s swallowed.

[inkni]

Leave Ariel Alone!!!

Above: live footage of how Disney is treating Ariel, except Disney isn’t that effing sexy. :hearteyes:

No, Disney. Bad corporation! Droooop it. Drop it! Don’t make me say it again. No treat for you!

I’m hopping off this hype train, boys. I refuse to be complicit. Hey, hey—ho, ho—Disney live-adaptation remakes have got to go!

First they came for my Alice in her Wonderland and I said nothing, because who really cares about a one-off nonsensical failure.

Then there were those two Snow White movies in the same year and I said nothing, because one was Fox and the other Universal, and even though one involved Alan Menken, it didn’t seem to count.

Maleficent reacts to hearing the news of Disney’s remake plans.

Then they swiped at the mistress of all evil, Maleficent, and I still said nothing, because I was really conflicted. She is my favorite and I wanted her to shine. And it was okay. She wasn’t evil anymore and that was infuriating, but some of the backstory was touching. And at least it was fresh.

Then they scooped up Cinderella’s ashes and I said hmm, but it was actually better than the original (which was kind of a snooze), and Kenneth Branagh is a beast, so fine.

Then they squatted out some Mowgli kid and I said they’re doing a single one of these every year aren’t they oh gawd how long till they snag the good ones, after which I proceeded to ignore it cuz ScarJo’s casting (playing the voice of Exactly Herself But From A Snake’s Mouth) was such a joke.

Then last month they came for Belle and I said welp that didn’t take long for them to raid and plunder the Second Golden Age, but at least it’s not The Little Mermaid.

And finally, they announced they were coming for Ariel, but there was no one left to stand up but me And The Other Thirteen Movies On This List. (Plus several others on Garrett’s.) Wait——together we could stop this drivel-river!!

Don’t be confused: that truly garbage trailer you saw recently for a live-action version of The Little Mermaid was not actually the Disney one. Which will surely manage to be even worse, since it’ll destroy a classic film in the process. (But yeah, side note: hilarious seeing these other studios trying to ride the wave and cash in on this new Disney trend. I mean, those two non-Disney Snow Whites in 2012 each made good money, so surely there’ll be even more up for grabs now that you’re actively misleading people into the thinking the Real Little Mermaid Has Please Stood Up.)

Just... take it all back, Disney. I don’t care whether Chloë Grace Moretz is or is not playing Ariel in your movie or in some other faker mermaid movie. I don’t want it. (We also don’t want Emily Blunt as Mary Poppins, Reese Witherspoon as Tinkerbell [okay, but maybe I’d watch it], a movie you pretend is a live-action reboot of The Lion King when how can that be possible; they’re all animals, or that Mulan script we all know you commissioned whose star is a white guy who goes to China and falls in love with Mulan.)

Go watch this clip from the making of TLM focusing on Ursula’s design and Sherri Stoner’s role as the live-action Ariel model! Live-action Ariel already exists!!illuminati

Mostly—and holy crap it took me a bit to make it to my point—I don’t want you ruining Ursula. And you will ruin Ursula. I could survive Maleficent cuz again, at least it offered a new idea and it’s not like the original character was ever much beyond I Am Evil, Hear Me Dragon. But Ursula is a persoooon. (Should have called this post “Leave Ursula Alone!” but that’s not as clickbait-y.) She is a fat queer femme icon of villainy. You can cast her dumb sister Morgana as whomever you’d like in some stupid Little Mermaid 2 adaptation, because she is dull and cliché and no one likes her. But Ursula’s character model and persona were based on the legendary drag queen Divine. It is going to be impossible to recapture that with any casting you engage in. It will suck.

Are any of these movies gonna have good Disney villains? By which I mean, deliciously evil ones? Starting to feel doubtful. At the least, though, could we stick with that Maleficent trend and keep it new? Cruella De Vil is getting her own movie. Okay... (Please don’t try to make us sympathize with a puppy-killer >_>) Chernaborg is getting the treatment as well? (Or, Chernobyl Chernie, as we like to call him around the office.) I’m intrigued... though that’s kinda wack af lul idk.

Bottom line: if you’re gonna Mermaid it up, the only legit option is to cast 44-year-old Alyssa Milano (who inspired the character design) as grown-up overworked mom Ariel, so we can see whether it was truly worth it to sprout two legs and a p***y and walk on land in wedlock. Good luck, Disney!

One of us... One of us... One of us...

[inkni]

For the Next Remake, We’re Going the Distance

With Beauty and the Beast’s epic live-action reveal less than a week away, the INK team and I are proposing which Disney animated classic should be pulled out of the vault next and reimagined with beautiful humans as the cast (but still keeping some stellar animation).

I think it important to note that “pulled out of the vault next” really means “put on to the Disney docket for slated production.” And when I say “remake,” I mean one true to the original film—none of this business that Maleficent was a remake of Sleeping Beauty. (Since when was Aurora ever relegated to side piece for the bitter witch in the classic? Never. That’s when.) The list to pull from here is, oddly, much shorter after some research. So that we’re all on the same page, here’s the list of animated classics recently released in live-action format or confirmed to be in production:

Alice in Wonderland — kicking off the live-action remake trend Cinderella Tarzan — (sorry, Margot Robbie) The Jungle Book Beauty and the Beast Mulan — release date of November 2, 2018 The Little Mermaid — planned remake from original composer Alan Menken and Hamilton star Lin-Manuel Miranda Snow White & The Seven Dwarfs — with new songs supposedly coming from La La Land’s musical maestros Aladdin — coming to us from the studio that brought us The Lego Movie Dumbo — supposedly under the direction of Tim Burton The Lion King — to be directed by Jon Favreau, Atlanta’s Donald Glover and OG James Earl Jones already attached Peter Pan James and the Giant Peach The Sword in the Stone

Okay, now that the roll call is over, off to the next best and brightest remake: Hercules. I had considered the trippy fanfare of oldie Fantasia as next to consider, but the Hercules myth just seems a touch more accessible. I honestly can’t remember the main plot of Fantasia—too entranced by the visual tricks and splendor—and I don’t think I’m the only one there. So Hercules already has my vote.

Now, timing could be an issue. Hercules is, at its core, not terribly different from a superhero flick. Supernaturally endowed demi-god takes on full-fledged gods to prove himself to pops and go on some rollicking adventures? We’ve heard of that plot summary before. There is an intense inundation of such films in the movie market by Marvel and DC. Both companies are currently doing major work making superhero comic books mainstream—and don’t look to be stopping anytime soon. If Hercules were to come out while all this is still happening, it could either fly too close to the sun, per audience superhero fatigue, or ride just as high.

By the time Disney churns out the rest of the above planned releases, I’m guessing it will be about 5 years later. I think we movie fans have accepted that superheroes are pretty much part of our daily lives, so I’d think Disney would expand on that expectation and leverage Hercules’ classic status to provide a nostalgic alternative to all the first-time comic book adaptations flooding the market.

From a casting perspective, if Disney just had to give in to the comic-book craze, they could simply re-cast Thor’s crew in Hercules. Chris Hemsworth and Tom Hiddleston very much look the parts of Hercules and Hades, respectively, though Hiddleston would likely need some serious makeup to get that “aged god” look. Natalie Portman doesn’t look far off from Hercules’ love interest/side kick Megara. And Anthony Hopkins has basically played Zeus before, so....yeah.

I am still pushing for Hemsworth as Hercules, but the other roles could easily be recast. I could see Jeff Bridges bringing some macho swagger to Zeus, with Sandra Bullock or Marisa Tomei or Rachel Griffiths sprinkling Hera with maternal grace. James Woods, the original voice actor for Hades, could easily reprise his role in the live-action format. As for Megara, Brie Larson or Felicity Jones or Emma Stone would more than do her justice. Grab a tried-and-true action director, like J.J. Abrams or James Gunn or Matthew Vaughn, and you’d be all set.

Disney is clearly not slowing down on reanimating its vaulted classics. They know nostalgia is a powerful incentive for audiences flocking to these live-action remakes, so the biggest question to me revolves around timing (or lack thereof). I’d be kind of surprised to see a Princess and the Frog remake coming to the big screen anytime soon. But I think Hercules’ blend of iconic and nostalgic might just tell the gospel truth.  

[inkni]

Sleeping in the Shower, Showering in Bed

I am one of those sad slops who lusts afters small houses. I still fantasize about “Das Rotorhaus” I gave a speech on for my Mandarin class in ninth grade:

I mean, c’mon—it rotates! Anyhow, this got me thinking: can I kill two birds with one comfy stone? Dream up an invention that both moves me closer to my small-home fetish and would just be all-around awesome?

Of course I can. Introducing the showerbed!

(Performing a Google image search for this phrase was… an interesting quest.)

Baths are nice, but I was never much one for them. As sort of mini-sensory-deprivation experiences, they’re kinda neat (or maybe they’re more about subtlety of experience—gentle sloshing of water in tub, and whatnot). I tend to crave more sensory overwhelm than anything, though. The feel of water cascading over me, the churning white noise of it: the shower is my element. Most of the poems I write begin in or include at some point a trip to an overlong shower. I am fond of seating in showers, and yeah, I have been known to lie down in the shower before.

So I thought: how can I turn this water-waste up ten notches?! Enter the showerbed. What started as my idea for a shower you could just lie comfortably down in was kicked up several notches by Mark’s post supercharging the La-Z-Boy. I now want to achieve my smaller-home dream by making my bed that plush surface on which I also shower!

None of these images really grasp the thrust of the point, though. Up until now, “shower beds” have been confined to the realm of spas and for the hygienic use of people with disabilities. (Both great things, to be sure!) But my showerbed will be more: full-service foam luxury reclining pillowed comfort, with the ability to be plunged into steaming showery soaking wet goodness at a moment’s notice.

“How can a bed made of comfortable foam or foam-like material possibly be soaked in water and still function at all well, let alone ever become dry again while avoiding transforming into a mildewy hell??” you ask? Fuck if I know! The Teslas of our time will decide this. Genius grants will be established and doled out to anyone putting forth a viable theory.

It is high time we stop living in this hellscape where I have to crawl naked from the bed to the bath and beyond. The showerbed will be the crux of the cornerstone small house of our future collective dreams.

(And stay tuned for version 2.0, which will have a waterproof Nintendo Switch built into the nozzle!)

[inkni]

Listen in as we announce the topic for Week 24 that you already know: one life-improving invention we’ve been craving!

[inkni]

Listen in for some further discussion of Arrival and Oscars drama!

[inkni]

Podcast #23 wrapping up Week #23: listen in as we discuss Trolls, Hell or High Water, and Arrival—three 2016 movies you missed but must see!

[inkni]

Cuz Stepford’s Got Nothing on Me

I doubt my proposed invention for this week’s theme is going to be much of a shock to really anyone, especially considering it was (unintentionally) hinted at in the topic announcement. Though Mark was teasing me when he snapped that I need dress-shirt ironing life support (and, oh my, will I be playing into that now), he hit on exactly what I pretty much need. Some kind of automated ironing board, my very own domestic dress-shirt French press, would be a Godsend.

Now, I know, cue the #firstworldproblems and #yuppylife hashtags, but this invention hits at the very monotonous tasks that prompted the invention of household staples like the dishwashing and laundry machines. (Of course, this invention could already be out there. I’m assuming it’s not.) My work and, occasionally, casual wardrobes mean button-down shirts are a daily standard, so you can imagine my frustration in having to iron button-downs week in and week out. There are some routine tasks that a guy just isn’t prepared to take on forever. And, no, I don’t want to drop buckets of money bringing shirts to the dry cleaner because I’m just not about that continual expense. 

Brainstorming might take me into left field here, so bear with me. I’m thinking about a setup and setting in the clothes dryer, or a separate machine that could stretch and press the wrinkles from the clothes. A dryer with such a setup would have a be built a little taller so that the shirts could actually be hung (off a built-in hanger or some other such appendage). That way, while they’re still wet from the washer, gravity and the dryer might be able to set the shirts right. I’d think other clothes from the wash might not be able to tumble-dry while the shirts are being dried, so perhaps a separate compartment to the dryer where one or the other set of clothes could go. 

For the latter idea, I envision something kind of like the kitchen machines that press all the air from your vegetable or frozen meat packages, just in a cool space pod-like device. Novak Djokovic’s hyperbaric chamber never looked so domestic. You stick your clothes into the chamber, hit the appropriate clothing setting, and let the machine press away. Open it 15 minutes later a bam: wrinkle-free shirts ready to wear or hang up. 

For me this invention would be huge to save endless hours of dress-shirt ironing torture, but it could also apply to a multiplicity of other clothes (dresses, pants, etc.) At the end of the day, this idea could be a total bomb. I’m kind of looking forward to someone commenting on this post with a sassy response and a link to such a device. Till then, my iron and I will continue to engage in a relationship of disgusted necessity.

sadsadsa 

[inkni]

Invention Time!

This week the mission was to come up with an invention that would benefit our lives and make them easier. I enjoy these kind of ideas because it is fun to let the creative juices flow. Onward we go!

So I love video games. They are my primary stress relief when I have had a rough work day or just need some alone time. So the invention I am thinking about would be combining a bunch of menial tasks that distract from video games into one element. That element being a comfy sofa chair with a variety of amenities. Now these chairs do exist (I am actually sitting in one right now lul) but I would add some new features that no other chair would have. Drum roll please as I list these features...

1. My cat is a big snuggle bug. She loves to lay on my lap and just sleep the day away. When I play video games it can be a bit bothersome because at times I have to move her to go to the bathroom. Now anyone who has owned a cat knows the stare a disturbed cat gives when upset. To remedy this situation I would have a tube hidden in the side of the chair that when activated would let me pee into it and then have that tube transfer the liquid into the toilet. Now I know everyone is wondering about the other end. The chair cushion would have an opening where excrement would be transferred through a larger tube to the toilet. These tubes would be self cleaning of course and activated with the press of a button. Now my cat can sleep and be happy at the same time. 

2. Every video game player has had that moment when the batteries die in the controller during a crucial part of the game. You have to jump up and frantically search for those AA batteries and in turn tear up everything in your residency. (Only to find out your crazy mother put them in the freezer to lengthen battery life after reading an article.) Your team ends up hating you and your friends yell at you for countless hours until you feel like the excrement mentioned above. This chair would have tiny compartment near the front of the armrest that would contain AA batteries. Now the player can get back into the game without missing too much of the action. There is even a tiny dispenser that dumps the old ones into oblivion so you can feel good about not polluting the world anymore then you have.

3. Every gamer knows that food and beverages are essentially when playing video games. But a lot of us resort to eating chips and snacks that aren’t the best for us. Have no fear my friends because this chair also comes with your own personal robot chef. Use the screen located on the armrest to pick a meal that your chef will prepare and feed to you. So now you can be healthy and not a miss an ounce of that sweet gaming action. 

4. Another feature I would add is a sleeping mode. When this is activated the chair would lower the headrest and lengthen/widen to make a comfortable cot. This would be helpful when I need a quick nap or a break from the video game action. This mode would also help for movie nights on Netflix or other video streaming services. This cot would also have a temperature module that would lower or raise the heat of the cot. Blankets and pillows would be stored into the headrest and easily accessible. 

5. Finally every gamer needs music to listen to during an intense battle or fight. This chair would be equipped with Bluetooth speakers built into the base. A remote would be available to select what music service I’d want to listen to during the action. This isn’t really a revolutionary feature because gadgets like Alexa do the same thing but this would be more for convenience and to make the chair look even cooler. 

Thanks for reading and if you have any more features that you’d think would be stellar feel free to comment!

[inkni]

The Poetry of Science Fiction

Arrival is a film in which a linguist aids the U.S. government in helping learn and translate an alien language in order to forestall the potential global conflict arising from the perceived threat brought by interstellar ships hovering in odd locations around the planet.

But moreover, Arrival is a movie about empathy, and the ways in which language is key to not just understanding, but compassion and connection as well. It argues that the ways in which we construct our thoughts in fact in turn shape our minds and the thoughts they produce.

In this sense, what is on screen is invested as much in art as in science fiction; I love it for both these things. Arrival was truly my favorite film of 2016, and one of my favorite films (sci-fi or otherwise) ever.

Before I continue, for relevance’s sake, I’ll point you to this piece arguing why Arrival deserves (but of course won’t receive) the Best Picture award at tonight’s Oscars. Such earthbound stuff isn’t my focus here, though.

Science fiction is my favorite overall genre of film, and I have a great passion for the “first contact” narrative within it. Contact is an exemplar of the form, and I am constantly evangelizing about the director’s cut of James Cameron’s The Abyss to anyone who will listen. (Spoiler alert: it features aliens! …or are they?) 2001: A Space Odyssey and Interstellar operate similarly, even though they are more about humankind connecting more deeply with itself than about self-introspection prompted by true extraterrestrial encounters.

What I enjoyed so much about Arrival, though, is in many ways how it sets aside an investment in science. I have not yet seen Solaris, the sci-fi classic about what becomes of the scientists orbiting a planet that can essentially think / study them in return / shape their thoughts, but it and Arrival seem to share an interest in consciousness from a philosophical and psychological perspective in a way that excites me greatly. With its particular focus on language and translation, Arrival hit me deep in my poet feelings—and seeing it alongside my poet friend surely enhanced this.

Afterwards, she and I spoke breathlessly and without irony about how we might have undergone attempting to learn the orthography of the heptapods (so named because of their octopus-like form of radial symmetry, but with seven legs)… and of how we ourselves as poets might in our work be the alien envoys to Earth. In the space-shape of a poem, in a closed unit of meaning escaping time with no beginning or end line absent narrative, what are we communicating to future readers in separate galaxies of meaning? How does the way we link together words, alternately struggling against & embracing multiple & coexisting grammars & semantics, allow us to access new or different planes of thought or experience?

We came and have come to no conclusions—as is fitting, I suppose; you’ll understand better my meaning once the credits roll—but any movie that elicits this in me is worth a visit and a repeat visit. I can’t wait to experience it again, and urge you to check it out for yourself sometime soon!

[inkni]

The Return of Westerns?

I'll admit I have not done my Oscars duty this year. There are very few of the films up for the little golden man tonight that I have seen. But there is one that will do the trick here: Hell or High Water. Assuming Mark and Melian have not seen it, which I think is a safe bet, this is one movie from 2016 for them and the entire INK readership to check out. 

Director David McKenzie takes viewers on a rather thrilling ride through the adventures of two brothers fallen on hard times. Divorcee Toby (Chris Pine) and ex-convict Tanner (Ben Foster) begin pursuing bank robberies as a way to pay off various debts—or, in Tanner's case, to sustain the thrill of the chase. As one would expect, they don't pull off more than a robbery before they draw the attention of law enforcement authorities. From there, things get a little interesting. I won't spoil it for those who've not seen it, so I'll leave the plot summary at that. 

I'd categorize this film as a neo-Western, and while I enjoy a good Western here and there, I am by no means a devotee of the genre. Hell or High Water is a pretty standard cat-and-mouse thriller. What really intrigued me is the film’s exploration of family dynamics. Because, at the heart of it, that's the primary thread weaving through the film. From the legacy of the brothers' deceased mother to the relationship between the thieving brothers themselves, McKenzie's film provides an interesting exploration of the bonds that are supposedly thicker than (high) water. As the brothers scurry from one bank to the next, their car rides, unusually contemplative moments, explore the men's conflicted feelings toward their deceased mother and their situation. The film is oddly honest in its recognition that parents aren't saints. Toby is struggling to make right his state in life after his estrangement from his ex-wife and sons. He seems to continue the example set by his mother, wherein parents aren’t always beacons of pristine morality. But he is determined to do what he thinks is right.

Toby provides the virtuous counterpart to his brother’s hedonistic drive throughout these robberies. Tanner seems to live for them, getting an adrenaline rush like no other. It’s clear the two brothers care for each other, but Toby seems to be using these robberies as undesirable means to a very desirable end: the survival of his family unit. He wants this money to help support and set up his sons, a legacy of utility from a perhaps absent father. Which suggests that his mind is always elsewhere. Tanner, conversely, is entirely caught up in the moment. He doesn’t want it to end. With their motivations moving in very different directions, it’s fascinating to see how they work with and depend on one another in this capsulated moment in time. 

Other than a strong screenplay, the film boasts equally strong performances. Jeff Bridges is sterling as the veteran sheriff on the chase for these robbers. He’s nominated for an Oscar tonight, but it’s nothing we haven’t seen from him before (True Grit, anyone?). Ben Foster as Tanner had the film’s most complex performance in my opinion. At times showy, Foster spends the film revealing the cracks in Tanner’s bullish drive. As the film progresses, it becomes clear that Tanner has been working quite hard to contain his doubts, fears, and uncertainty over the future. He desires stability so badly that he will force it, even in the most unstable of circumstances, a mix of Walter White and The Dark Knight’s Joker. It’s a powerful performance from Foster, an actor whose star might just be on the rise. Not to be forgotten is Chris Pine, who many would peg as the leading actor in this film. His Toby moves with quiet conviction, in both his love for his brother and in his drive for the future. It’s a reserved performance, perhaps a trademark of Pine’s, but one with an expressive mix of strength and grace.  

With four Oscar nominations, including one for best picture, Hell or High Water certainly was not slept on this awards season. It is not a film I would say I particularly adore, but it is one I respect. The vantage points from Bridges’ sheriff, from Toby, and from Tanner are all on display. McKenzie doesn’t necessarily ask you to root for one side over the other; he seems more interested in exploring what brought everyone to this clash and how they go about securing their respective agendas. Hell or High Water may lead to a renaissance in Westerns, or it may not. I won’t be holding my breath there. But I’ve now got my eyes out for both Foster’s and screenwriter Taylor Sheridan’s future endeavors.

Also, this:

[inkni]

Get Back Up Again!

So this week the gang and I are writing about one movie that came out in 2016 that the others have not seen. I chose the movie Trolls for this because it had a great soundtrack, awesome voice actors/actresses, and it took on some very real emotions that every day people have in their lives.

*Reminder to the readers out there. I am not a picky movie watcher. I will not bore you with statistics or reviews from crusty white critics who have no soul. I enjoy movies that make me feel something at the end or that have given me a new perspective on life. Trolls accomplishes all of this and does it in a very non threatening way. 

So here is a little background of the movie without spoiling a majority of the movie. Bergens are these unhappy monsters who believe that eating a colorful troll will make them happy. So the Bergens goal in life are to find where the trolls live and gobble them up. Eventually the Bergens capture a tree where the trolls reside and set up a plan to have everyone in the city eat them. The trolls escaped however and went back into hiding. Many years later the trolls were discovered by the Bergens and some were taken captive to be served as dinner. Poppy the princess of the trolls sets out to rescue her friends with the reluctant help of Branch the troll who lost his color and his positive mental attitude. Will they rescue their troll friends before they get eaten? Go watch it. Seriously. This synopsis was terrible but it is a GREAT movie.

When I watched this movie I was at a tough time in my life. I was a pretty negative person who always found the worse in things. It was starting to affect my work, relationships, and who I felt as a person. Throughout the movie I started to see how great it can to be positive in situations that aren’t so favorable. Poppy has never been outside of the troll village yet she happily keeps her head up even when she is in a terrible situation. I found myself starting to root for Poppy on her adventure and hoped that she succeeded. On the other hand I also saw how negative and depressing Branch could be and how it affected the people around him. I didn’t want to be that person you know? The world could use more happiness in it and this movie does a great job at reminding you of that. Whether that happiness comes from when the trolls hug every hour, or when they are just singing/dancing and having a great time together. This movie just made me feel really good inside.

Some other things to note about the movie...

1. The soundtrack is some of the happiest music you will find out there. It really brightens my day when I listen to it and my students love dancing and singing to it. It has so many positive vibes to it along with the vocal work of Anna Kendrick, Justin Timberlake, Gwen Stefani, and Ariana Grande. It even has some oldie tracks for the adults to enjoy.

2. The voice actors/actresses do a great job. Anna is great at voicing Poppy and Justin does a great job at being the depressing Branch. They work well together in the movie and in the songs they sing together. The supporting cast isn’t shabby here either. Gwen voices DJ and has her moments in the songs that show off her great vocals. Zooey Deschanel does a great job at being the lovable loser Bergen who is madly in love with another Bergen which is frowned upon.

3. It isn’t a long movie either. It is only 90 minutes and it flies by when you realize how much fun you are having with the movie. I guarantee if you watch this movie you will feel much more content with life at the end or at least feel like dancing around. In these troubling times these movies can be a welcome escape from the misery that news stories and world events can bring us. 

So go watch this movie! There is literally no harm in watching it. It won’t make you feel worse, scared, or sad like the other movie categories out there. My positive outlook on life has risen by at least 200% after seeing this movie. 

[inkni]

Listen in as we announce the topic for Week 23: one must-see movie you missed in 2016!