My pre-Oscars take on "The Revenant"

I'm a bit late* to The Revenant, one of three movies that came out last December with showdowns in the snow (The Hateful Eight and Star Wars Episode VII: The Force Awakens being the other two). But I wanted to makes sure I saw it before Oscar night, so that I might have an opinion of it regardless of its fate there.

The conversation that has developed around The Revenant since its release has, weirdly, focused on some of its more tangential aspects: how hard it was to film (it almost exclusively used natural light); whether Leo finally gets his Oscar; and, of course, the quickly-refuted but likely pop culturally immortal rumor that DiCaprio has a rather..., um...intimate experience with a bear. 

Having seen the movie, which tells the story of the epic quest for revenge of early American fur trapper Hugh Glass (DiCaprio) upon his fellow fur company man Fitzgerald (Tom Hardy) after Fitzgerald kills Glass' son and leaves Glass for dead in the frozen wilderness following Glass' mauling by a bear, I can confidently say that the above conversation points aren't really the most important parts of the movie. But nor are some of its elements that just felt a bit extraneous: namely, subplots involving crude Frenchmen and morally complex Native Americans, and the inscrutable, sometimes bizarre vision quests on which DiCaprio's glass sometimes journeys involving his dead wife.*

Yet some of the better aspects of The Revenant do, in fact, relate somewhat to the superficial conversations that have sprung up around it since its release. Alejandro G. Iñárritu, who won Best Director and Best Picture for last year's Birdman, clearly worked (and worked his actors and crew) hard to capture the visceral (the bear attack, multiple squirming-in-your-seats, quasi body-horror scenes, the climactic fight), the involving (an arresting opening battle between fur trappers and Native Americans, a precipitous trip through rapids filmed underwater), and the beautiful (every scene is technically proficient, but special marks for any shot of either nature by itself, or Glass set starkly against it). Leo's performance seems to have accomplished that difficult, mysterious task of turning the pre-Oscar conversation in his favor. His grunts and grit are impressive, though his immobile wordless gasping reminded me of nothing as much as this scene from SpongeBob, of all things:


As much acting as Leo does, however, it is Tom Hardy's Fitzgerald, in all his shifty, mannered, survive-at-all costs complexity who emerges as the more interesting character, and Hardy who gives the better performance. As for the bear, well...it's pretty brutal. Let's leave it at that.

The Revenant has all of this working in its favor. Yet The Revenant's most compelling characteristics have not featured nearly as prominently in the "conversation" surrounding it since its release: namely, its explorations of masculinity and morality.

Even if you know only as much about The Revenant as I have told you so far in this post, you can probably guess that it's a pretty manly movie, almost cartoonishly so at times. Maybe three female characters even appear on screen, and virtually everything else involves manly men doing manly male things: cauterizing a neck wound with gunpowder, disemboweling a horse to stay warm in its innards**, breaking a bone apart to suck on marrow, etc. This is not to say that women can't, or don't, do these things, but that the The Revenant is deliberately set in a time when men were not only more likely to be the ones doing them, but had to do so routinely (life is pretty hard when you don't have utilities or appliances, another probably unintended takeaway from The Revenant).

This sets up an interesting examination of the virtues and vices of manhood that probably wasn't meant to be the focus of The Revenant, but is there nonetheless. Foremost is the tender paternal relationship between Glass and his half-Native American son, whose death fuels Glass across miles of frozen wasteland for revenge even though, as Fitzgerald mockingly, almost devilishly, reminds him, it "ain't gonna bring your boy back." It is also in smaller moments scattered through the film, such as the rape of a Native American woman by a Frenchman (manhood wrongly understood) which receives punishment by castration when the tables are turned. And it's in a second--albeit perverse--paternal relationship between Fitzgerald and Jim Bridger (Will Poulter), with Fitzgerald cruelly tutoring Bridger in a way of life that prizes selfishness and survival above all else.

Morality in difficult circumstances, incidentally, is another probably intended-as-secondary theme of The Revenant that nonetheless stands out. The moral antipodes of the film, of course, are Glass and Fitzgerald. Siding with Glass is the obvious choice, but he and Fitzgerald remain parallel characters, manly men drawing from a particular set of skills to ensure their survival. As both men engage in violence and acts of questionable morality, The Revenant forces us to consider the messiness of moral decision-making, and to wonder why (or perhaps whether?) the choices Glass makes keep him on the moral high ground that Fitzgerald abandons early, if ever he occupied it.

But Glass and Fitzgerald are not the only explorations of morality The Revenant ventures. Other characters--such as Poulter's Bridger--also face choices, small and large, mostly concerning whether to make what seem like the easier, if unjust, choices, or to reject the sparse yet tempting logic of the state of nature by showing human compassion. Two of these moments involve sharing food, as befits a movie where the basic questions of survival loom so large. Others concern whether to indulge in momentary, heated passions--especially revenge--or to apply the heart's staying hand.

The Revenant's technical and dramatic proficiency and thematic complexity make for a very good film. I am not sure I am willing to call it great; it falls a bit short of Jeremiah Johnson, my gold standard for this genre.*** Though I could see it growing on me over time. We'll know tomorrow if it grew enough on the Academy to earn Leo the Oscar that he doggedly pursued across the frozen wilderness.

*This is in part because the weekend a strong blizzard hit D.C. closed down all public transportation and made me want to make an appropriate trek through the snow to see The Revenant, all the city's theaters closed as well.
**This makes at least three DiCaprio films in which his character is haunted by a dead wife, the other two I know of being Inception and Shutter Island.
***Star Wars did it first.
****I would say, however, that it's better than the underrated, very similar Seraphim Falls, which also follows the personal feud between two manly men of the distant American past (Liam Neeson and Pierce Brosnan) across the unforgiving wilderness, and also features some strategic usage of animal carcasses.

Where the 2016 presidential candidates stand on UFOs

George W. Bush secures an important endorsement.

The 2016 US presidential election process has people talking about all sorts of issues, such as immigration, inequality, and international affairs. And those are just the ones that start with the letter "i."

These and other concerns may seem important, but when considered relative to the infinite vastness of the universe, they don't really matter that much.

Far more important, however, is where these presidential candidates stand on perhaps the most important question mankind can ask: Are we alone in the universe? It is a question that I, among millions of others, often ask (including once in the Hillsdale Collegian). And it is question that, if rumors are to be believed (and why shouldn't they be?), our next president might become equipped to answer upon entering the White House in 2017.

Unless the aliens blow it up before then.

So, for the benefit of voters, and for all interested parties, in America and out, on Earth and off, I have prepared this helpful guide of where the candidates stand on UFOs. For extra helpfulness, I have ordered the candidates by their likeliness to pursue the truth about UFOs if elected president.

Barack Obama. I know President Obama isn't running for a third term, but he is a useful benchmark. As The Man, there is no way that the current President would pursue the truth about UFOs. In fact, if his facetious (?) comments on The Jimmy Kimmel show are to believed, the aliens wouldn't let him:


I won't grade Obama, since he's not running, but his failure on this front (he even denied participation in a secret CIA Mars teleportation experiment!) should disappoint his supporters. N/A

Sadly, no.

Jeb Bush. The Florida governor is no longer running, and good riddance: He is just as unlikely as Obama to have pursued the truth about UFOs. For Jeb is the son of George H.W. Bush, who as director of the CIA probably helped cover up evidence of extraterrestrials, and as president did not reveal any UFO secrets (despite once claiming, when asked about UFOs while campaigning, that "I know some, I know a lot"), and brother of George W. Bush, who as president also did not reveal any UFO secrets. Another Bush would have been no better. F

Bernie Sanders. Although the Vermont senator appeals to many young voters, he is not a friend of UFO disclosure enthusiasts. A reporter who asked Sanders about UFOs claims that Sanders "had no interest in the UFO question and gave me a flippant response." Sanders is no friend to those interested in extraterrestrial life. F

Marco Rubio. The Florida senator is a bit harder to discern. When a reporter asked him (14 seconds into this video, also posted below) if aliens are real, he simply laughed and said "I don't know." Agnosticism and humility on this question are better than outright denial or active cover-up, but Rubio could do better. C 



Ben Carson. Although he seems to have no opinion on the record about UFOs, he has expressed unorthodox theories about the pyramids (that they were used to store grain), much as Ancient Astronaut Theorists suspect the pyramids were built by/with the help of aliens (note: the two theories are not mutually exclusive). C+

Donald Trump. Trump is not himself interested in UFOs. They are, however, interested in him (do they know something we don't?). And one suspects that he would throw his lot in with UFO enthusiasts if he thinks he could gain more support by doing so. C+

Ted Cruz. Based on his public speeches, the Texas senator is, in all likelihood, a robot. And although this robot has not personally indicated any interest in UFOs, he did listen to his constituents' concerns the Jade Helm military exercise, and briefly employed a UFO enthusiast as part of his campaign. He could be secretly signaling an interest while wanting to keep the aliens confused. There is hope. B-

John Kasich. The Ohio governor is by far the best hope on the Republican side for UFO enthusiasts. He once devoted a segment of his TV show on Fox News to the UFO phenomenon:



He also promised to reunite the space rock band Pink Floyd, even though Richard Wright, its keyboardist, is dead. (Kasich will probably revive Wright with alien technology.)  B+

Hillary Clinton: Hillary is by far the best hope for UFO enthusiasts on either side of the aisle. When her husband, Bill, was president, he tried to find out everything he could; John Podesta, one of her closest advisers, is a notable UFO disclosure advocate. And Hillary herself has promised to do whatever she could to reveal the truth about UFOs if elected president. A+

So there you have it, folks: Where the candidates stand on by far the most important issue of 2016: extraterrestrial life. I hope this helps you make your decision. In a UFO enthusiast's ideal world, we'd have a Clinton-Kasich contest this fall, but alas, a world in which we still don't know the truth about extraterrestrial life is far, far, from ideal. It's a two-party system; we have to vote for one of them:



But somewhere in the clear night sky, hidden in the tapestry of stars and planets, lies the truth. And it can't hide forever.*

*Note, this post may or may not be entirely in jest.

I'm just sticking with Facebook "likes"

A day-ruining thought: These will be part of the record of our civilization when archaeologists excavate its ruins. 

Facebook is stupid. It always has been, and always will be. Yet it nevertheless has enmeshed itself in my life, like some kind of vicious parasite. Every time I try to remove it from my life, I find it has laid eggs in my social consciousness, which hatch and bring me back (boy that is a mixed metaphor, isn't it?).

Though Facebook certainly does not make it easy to stay. Since I joined--er, "was invited to" because that's how it worked back then--the site way back in 2007, it has gone through all sorts of changes. Remember when every status had to start with "is," and how overjoyed everyone was when that requirement vanished? (I believe I celebrated it with a stoic status that simply read "Jack Butler isn't). Remember when it introduced hashtags? Remember when you could start liking people's statuses (an occasion I celebrated with a status that read something like "wants you to like his status").

Facebook has made another change: It no longer limits one merely to "liking" a status. One can now "react" with the emoji-indicated responses of "love," "haha" "wow" "sad" and "angry."

Aside from contributing to the infantilization of our culture and to our steady return to hieroglyphics-based communication, Facebook's decision is just unnecessary. Then again, I have always been a stick in the mud about Facebook's changes. Though I can do nothing about the amount of likes my statuses receive (and long ago conceded to the "like" anyway), I have kept the third-person implication of Facebook's first status template, and have steadfastly refused to use hashtags on Facebook.

I shall react to this change similarly. Consider this my ironclad resolution, recorded for all of posterity, never to use anything other than a "like" to communicate my reactions to Facebook posts. I don't care if it becomes wildly inappropriate when this decision encourages people to start making statuses designed to elicit the new reactions (because now we'll have to decide which reaction is "appropriate"). Mark my words: This change will somehow make Facebook even worse than it already is. Join me and stick with the plain-old "like."

Star Wars: The Dark Side of the Moon Awakens

From my point of view, there is no dark side of the Force, really. Matter of fact it's all dark (image via Consequences of Sound).

Much as I am loath to remove the carbonite-clad case for why I should be Han Solo (originally posted here, and now permanently ensconced atop my blog as a page tab, linked here) from its privileged perch at the top of my blog, I think it is time to talk about something else.

I would have liked that something else not to be Star Wars-related, given how much I've written about all that since The Force Awakens came out last December. As I wrote here in anticipation of its release, I never really thought of myself as a huge Star Wars fan; I would say my incessant writing about the new movie since its release reflects more my reaction to the cultural moment it produced than my own fandom. At any rate, I would like to write about something else.

But like a skilled Force-user, or perhaps a large tractor beam, Star Wars keeps dragging me back. Indeed, how could I not say something about the recent revelation that The Force Awakens syncs eerily well with Pink Floyd's The Dark Side of the Moon, one of my favorite albums? Here are some of the purported syncs, via Consequences of Sound:

– When Poe (Oscar Isaac) wakes up in Kylo Ren’s (Adam Driver) torture chamber, the lyrics of “The Great Gig in the Sky” go, “I’m not afraid of dying/ Anytime will do,” and the song’s scream happens right as Poe opens his own mouth.

– “Time” plays while we witness the repetitive mundanity of Rey’s (Daisy Ridley) life making a living by scavenging old electronics.

– The “Us and Them” lyric “And after all, we’re only ordinary men” is sung right as Finn (John Boyega) tells Rey that Resistance fighters look like him. “Some of us,” he says. “Others look different.”

– Twice during the “Keep your hands of my stack” line in “Money”, someone grabs a lightsaber: First it’s Rey taking hold of Luke Skywalker’s (Mark Hamill), then Han Solo (Harrison Ford) grabbing Kylo’s.

– “Us and Them” again syncs with the battle of Battle of Takodana. As Finn surveys the battleground, the lyrics go, “God only knows/ It’s not what we would choose to do.” Then, as David Gilmour says, “Black,” the camera focuses on Finn receiving Luke’s lightsaber (oof). Just as Gilmour says, “Blue,” Finn ignites the blue blade.

– In what turns out to be his final scene, the camera focuses right on Han Solo as the lyrics, “I never said I was afraid of dying” are heard.

– During Kylo and Rey’s final fight, the “Us and Them” lyrics go, “Black and blue/ Who knows which is which and who is who,” echoing the fight between going to the Dark Side or staying with the Light Side of the Force.

– “Brain Damage” in almost its entirety seems to fit up with the movie’s final scene as Rey makes her way towards Luke: “The lunatic is on the grass/ Remembering games, and daisy chains and laughs/ Got to keep the loonies on the path.”

Longtime readers of my blog (if there are any) know that I've written about Pink Floyd syncs before. In that post, I discussed the most famous purported sync: that between Dark Side of the Moon and The Wizard of Oz. Most of that sync is dubious, but some parts align eerily well:



But I maintain as I did in that prior post that the best Pink Floyd/cinema sync is that between "Echoes," the 23-minute epic that takes up the entire second side of their album Meddle, and "Beyond the Infinite," the final segment of 2001: A Space Odyssey, both of which also happen to be about humans transcendence:


Pink Floyd: Echoes - 2001: A space odyssey [720p HD] from Davide on Vimeo.

Having not yet experienced the Pink Floyd/Force Awakens sync, I cannot say how it measures up to these two. But now I'm pretty determined to find out.