Time for James Bond to hang up his tuxedo?

 After seeing, Spectre, the latest installment in the Bond franchise last weekend, I can't help but think about how this should be one the last of 007's License to Kill adventures.

Before I go into that (admittedly controversial) idea, let's take a look at what has made the Bond movies so enduring over the decades since audiences were introduced to Dr. No back in 1962. I think the foremost of these reasons is escapism. For those of us born in the late 80's with no memory of the Cold War, it's hard to believe that a large current of apocalyptic fear hung over society in the 50's and early 60's, hidden behind the prosperity of those years. People in this time were often looking for an escape from that fear/cold war ideology and a return to the black and white morality of Second World War and an identifiable enemy. This is exactly what the Bond films gave audiences in the early years of the franchise with dastardly villains such Dr. No, the original Ernst Bloefeld, Goldfinger etc. It's surprising when you look at the 'classic' era of Bond (Sean Connery and Roger Moore) and realize how many times the Soviet Union is not the primary enemy. Yes, you get characters like KGB officer Rosa Klebb, but in even in her film “From Russia With Love”, the evil organization SPECTRE is the real enemy, not the Soviet government. Unlike the USSR (a horrific dictatorship yes but one that, on paper at least, was dedicated to building a better socialist future) SPECTRE's modus operandi seems to be nothing but profit and chaos. Thus, you have the Good vs. Evil dichotomy that audiences were looking for, instead of adversaries with shades of grey that were not popular in the early 60's. In the same vein, Bond's access to a License to Kill and destruction of civilian environments seem completely justified to combat an enemy that is bent on the creation of raw destruction for no visible purpose.

In addition to Good vs. Evil, Bond movies have also been able to adapt themselves to the 'look and feel' of the time period in which they were made. Just compare M's office in British intelligence from 1962's Dr. No with it's wood paneling to the glass and steel official building being constructed throughout the course of 2015's Spectre. If you want a feel for what people associated with power and wealth in the 60's, M's office would be a good example. Similarly, the intelligence HQ built in Spectre compares favourably with the condominiums and office buildings that grace city centres worldwide now. In addition to this, Bond's wardrobe also moves with the times. (Aside from that white jacket, which never EVER changes). This feeling that Bond's world is recognizable helps audiences fit themselves comfortably into the action and for someone of my age, gives a certain portrait of the earlier 20^th century that we are not personally familiar with.

With all this in mind, it's not really a surprise that James Bond is our most enduring action/spy hero. However, with the 24^th movie now on cinema screens, we have to ask ourselves some hard questions as to why this series needs to continue for the foreseeable future. Before going on I need to make the point that one can enjoy a set of films or piece of media while still criticizing aspects of it or questioning it's continuing relevance and this is the approach I'm taking here with Bond.

Having watched the Daniel Craig Bond films since 2006, it's clear the filmmakers are trying to continue the tradition of moving with the times and culture. In some ways, this has been very successful; as the recent movies have used plot lines based on current issues such as corrupt international finance (Casino Royale) and government surveillance (Spectre). Even more groundbreaking is that Daniel Craig has been set up as a more realistic hero. He feels physical pain, gets tired, has the fancy gadgets cooked up by Q fail at the worst possible moment and generally feels more like a human being than any other actor in the franchise. The latest films have even tried to give the character more emotional depth through his attachment to Vesper Lynd (Eva Green in Casino Royale) a reasonably independent and strong Bond Girl. Throughout the continuity of the Craig films, his close attachment to her and remorse for her death form key plot points. Yes, earlier films did also try to have this depth, most famously through George Lazenby's Bond marrying Diana Rigg, but none used it as a recurring plot device through several movies.

All of these aspects of the recent 007 movies should keep the franchise relevant in today's day and age but I feel that they're still past the best before date. Why? To start with, while your standard cartoonish villains that we all know and love have been replaced with the more contemporary

concerns of terrorists etc, we're still left with the facile situation that Ernst Bloefeld has been spending years and presumably absurd amounts of money killing Bond's girlfriends just to get back at him because he's.....wait for it.....Bond's half brother! I don't expect a movie in this franchise to have a plot based exactly on current events, part of the fun in these movies is the global mastermind as main villain. However, there are easier ways to get back at your half brother which makes that particular plot device is completely silly. This ruins any sort of suspense for the audience and to me, Spectre is less of a cool evil organization after learning of this motivation. While the early films also kept a sense of 'fun' in that SPECTRE was gloriously absurd in it's actions, lately we're led to believe that a world spanning secret organization is responsible for global terrorism, financial crimes etc. I almost wish the filmmakers had stuck to the tried and true formula of Blofeld launching rockets from a volcano base as it would better fit the Bond formula. The well intentioned attempt at making the villains contemporary falls flat as it just makes no sense. If audiences today are looking for a darker, grittier, more 'realistic' spy franchise, maybe trying to contort the Bond movies to fit that bill isn't going to work?

Secondly, I feel the most glaring aspect of 007's escapades is the sheer number of women he sleeps with. To some extent this is part of the over the top nature of the character and in the 60's, fit the playboy image that was trying to be created. Is it sexist? Most definitely but in the time period it also fit the sense of fun and attracted a core target audience to the films. Again, where all of this falls apart is when the studio attempts to update this for our day and age. As I said before, giving James a serious love interest in the form of Vesper Lynd was at attempt to make everyone's favourite mysoginist spy a bit more relatable. However, after her death he still sleeps with any female in a 500 meter radius and in spite of the fact that many are supposed to be intelligent professionals (For example, Madaleine Swann, Spectre's main Bond Girl, supposedly has medical degrees from BOTH Oxford and the Sorbonne) they just can't help themselves and still fall into Bond's arms. Again, if the movies had just wanted to recreate the 60's feel, this would still be utterly sexist but at least fitting the classic franchise type. However, in setting up an 'independent' Bond Girl the movies fail to do either of the things they wanted: appear less sexist while still trying to make the main character act like James Bond. Just like with the updated Spectre organization, this balancing act just doesn't work.

So, while there are very good reasons for James Bond to have been one of Western cinema's longest running action heroes, times have changed and trying to update the franchise to suit modern tastes while keeping the old formula is a plan that is failing. Even Daniel Craig is sick of playing Bond in spite of being contracted for one more film I'd say it's time to give moviegoers an action hero fit for the 21^st century!

"The Worst Movie Ever Made" The Room and my thoughts on cult cinema

I owe an apology to everyone since I haven't posted here in some time; it's been a hectic month at work, volunteering for the federal election (Vote Green!) and it wasn't until I needed to take a three hour bus trip down to Calgary that there was some sort of dedicated writing time. After Monday I'll be a able to treat you to more and longer posts. With that said, here we go! 

A few weeks ago, the local alternative cinema here in Edmonton held a screening of The Room; supposedly the worst film ever made but one that has built up an intense and very dedicated cult following.

Prior to walking into the theatre, I had honestly not heard anything at all about the film and from the moment I saw a box of plastic spoons for sale at the box office, I could tell that I was about to take part in a unique cultural experience. From the opening credits onwards, not only were we treated to a poorly plotted, badly acted, unintentionally hilarious piece of film; the actions of fellow audience members were as entertaining as the movie. Just as in Rocky Horror, everyone knew exactly when to throw piles of plastic spoons at the screen (for your information; whenever one of the many framed pictures of a spoon is shown in the film), which corrections to shout whenever a plot hole is in evidence or exactly how to make fun of the movie's odd choice of music. I felt like I was being initiated into a new religion, as opposed to just laughing at a bad movie.

I won't bore you with the overall plot details, which are mostly irrelevant at any rate. The movie is supposed to be an epic romantic drama; which it utterly fails at achieving. If you want a synopsis, there are a number of clips up on Youtube which do a far better job of this than I could do on a blog page. When thinking of The Room, I'm far more interested in why such a 'bad' film continues to gain a cult following; especially given that most of the audience on the night I attended would have been children when it was released in 2003.

Personally, while I still watch and greatly enjoy much of what "mainstream Hollywood" produces and am not claiming to be some sort of film hipster; the formulaic storytelling that we are increasingly subjected to at the local multiplex can get tiresome. Really think hard about Furious 7 and why on earth such a movie needed to be released in the first place. Seven of them? Really? How many times can street racing save the world anyway?

The endless parade of mindless sequels (with their months of hype and ubiquitous merchandise) can be quite depressing and the chance to break the mold, watch something completely different and take part in a group ritual activity so separate from what you experience when going to a 'normal' movie theatre goes a long way to explaining why screenings of cult movies such as The Room are frequently sold out.

These reasons, especially the chance to take part in a group ritual, also ring true to me as explanations for the popularity of other cult films, such as the Rocky Horror Picture Show. When attending a public showing of one of these movies you feel as if you are part of a larger community, as opposed to sitting in silence absorbing whatever Hollywood wants us to see.

What's more, the only cinemas likely to even consider showing a cult film are likely to be small, independent picture houses and the willingness of young people to support these businesses can also be linked to the Millennial generation's embrace of city life as opposed to cookie cutter, big box corporate experiences. (more on this in a future post)

With all of these things in mind, I feel that the popularity of The Room and similar cult films will only grow in popularity, especially as people desire increasingly to build new sources of community, support independent business and expand their film tastes. Instead of dismissing the cult film phenomenon as just another form of 'ironic' humour enjoyed by modern young people; instead we can see it as the very modest beginnings of a major cultural movement. 

Fallout 4 Preview

Bethesda will be shortly welcoming players back to the wasteland. The action moves from Washington D.C. and Nevada to the bombed out ruins of Boston. The first official trailer has been released and Bethesda  are touring major events to share the most exciting features. I was fortunate enough to see some footage at Gamescom Cologne. What can we learn from these snippets about the game we can expect?

Firstly, there are many familiar features. The story begins in similar fashion to Fallout 3. In the Fallout world, due to the fear of nuclear war, large underground vaults were built in which citizens could buy a place. The vaults were designed that they would be sealed and the residents could live in comfort without contact with the outside world. Fallout 3 begins when, out of the blue, the character's father makes a break for freedom. The character leaves the vault to try and find him. Fallout 4 also begins with a vault dweller leaving vault life behind for the dangers of the wasteland. The exact reason for this has been kept under wraps. The fact that the character's dubbed 'The Sole Survivor' would suggest it's not a happy story.

The S.P.E.C.I.A.L (strength, perception, charisma, intelligence, agility, luck) trait system returns but has seen significant reshaping. The points you allocate to each category alters the strengths and weaknesses of your character. The big change is that for each point, you unlock a perk. If you place all of your points on strength to bring it to the maximum 10, you unlock the full 10 strength perks, while the perks of other categories remain locked, at least for now. Players are required to put a great deal of thought into exactly what kind of character they want to be. Whether they want to be a strong gun wielding maniac, a stealthy assassin hiding in the shadows, or the lothario that can sweet talk their way out of any situation.

Regarding the other major additions, there's a real feeling that Bethesda has been listening to the fans while developing Fallout 4. They have rectified most players biggest bug bear. Previously, the player hasn't been able continue playing once the main storyline has been completed. With so much to explore in the wasteland, it's a great shame that an arbitrary finish line was imposed. To avoid a premature finish, players would have to postpone the main storyline to complete all of the side quests and fully explore the wasteland. As previously mentioned, in Fallout 3 the player's chasing their father, who always seems to be one step ahead. It felt pretty unnatural that you have to abandon the chase and go and do literally everything else. You can imagine the father sitting there for months wondering what the hell is taking you so long.

One of Fallout's primary innovations was the V.A.T.S shooting system in which players could choose exactly which body part they wanted to fire at when encountering an enemy. It allowed for greater strategy in combat and prevented the game from becoming the first-person-shooter it was never supposed to be. However, it did create difficulties of its own. Each shot you made through V.A.T.S cost action points. Once your action points were used, you must wait for them to replenish. That did not take long, but the player's ability to fight was greatly diminished. As mentioned, Fallout isn't a first-person-shooter and thus the character and weapons lacked accuracy when firing freely. The player was reduced to spraying bullets around or take a few pot shots. It was often the best course of action to simply duck, cover, and wait. The other draw back was that time paused while in V.A.T.S. This issue combined with the action point feature significantly affected the large set piece battles. Amidst the carnage of battle, time was regularly paused and the player would be hiding to recover their action points. It reduced the flow and spectacle of the biggest battles. In Fallout 4, V.A.T.S only slows time and the weapons have been altered to make the player much more effective when action points are running low. After seeing the footage presented, the battles look far more intense, and lack of pace will certainly not be an issue this time around.

The usual crowd of villains reappear, the sadistic raiders, the enormous super mutants, and the whole array of mutated wildlife. However, they have been tweaked to ensure they have not become stale. There's much greater video interaction with your enemies. The footage shows the character being lifted from the ground by a Deathclaw, and the critical hits are much more graphic and individual. The Feral Ghouls, which previously loitered in the shadows, now crawl out of spaces and holes throughout the world like spiders. If their legs have been blown off, they will continue to crawl along the floor to attack you. There's also a greater number of levels for enemies to ensure that the player still meets a challenge as they level up.

The major new feature that's generating real excitement is the possibility for the player to build their own settlement. The player will have total control of their new village, and will be required to provide the resources for their population and keep your new home safe from raiders.

However, concerns do remain. Many have criticised the graphics, which to me seems incredibly harsh. The wasteland looks stunning, and there's a great deal of added detail. The mechanics have been improved though character movement remains slightly clunky. What cannot be known yet, is whether the graphical glitches of Fallout New Vegas have been fixed. New Vegas did feel slightly rushed and there were numerous glitches. Occasionally, a creature would appear to sink into solid ground, or get stuck. Fallout 4 has been in development for a long time, and with advancements in that time, we can have confidence that the game will run far more smoothly.

There are further concerns that there's no level cap. There are complaints that the added choice of character development at the beginning while be lost as you go through the levels and eventually unlock every perk. However, the sheer amount of time it would take to reach that point ensures it will only be a concern for the most hardcore of player. For the completists out there, reaching the final point may even be an attraction.

The biggest worries I have are thematic. Fallout 3 contains my favourite gaming moment. When the character rolled the door of the vault open for the first time the light poured into the dim vault. The character pauses momentarily as he beholds the outside world for the first time. It was a jaw dropping moment, truly cinematic, and showed me how far gaming has come. I loved walking out into a wilderness as confused and lost as the character. There's a small destroyed village, scattered with remnants. Suddenly, you hear Yankee Doodle Dandy and an 'eyebot' flies past. It totally ignores you. I had no idea what to make of it. At the beginning of the game, the wasteland and what it contains is a mystery. Where do you go? What should I prepare for? You discover the wasteland alongside the character; growing in confidence, experience, and direction. Additionally, one of the most enthralling elements of Fallout is catching glimpses of the pre-war world the character never knew. Discarded clothes, the toy car abandoned on a shelf, the diaries and computer entries left behind by long dead individuals. Fallout's set in a 1950s style world. The wasteland's covered with advertisements and posters of smiling individuals enjoying the materialistic paradise of America; bright promises for a future never arrived. I truly hope that Fallout 4 doesn't diminish that sense of the unknown, and reduce the chances for the player to piece together the events of the past by explaining too much and providing too many answers.

Fallout 4 is released on November 10th

Nerd Culture in 2015: The Evil Empire or the Rebel Alliance?

  I need to admit right up front that I got the inspiration for the title from an excellent article by Laurie Penney of the British magazine The New Statesman: “On Nerd Entitlement”. In this piece she skewers the notion that your average white male nerd is the outcast of today's society. In fact, according to her thesis, since Silicon Valley is essentially run by white male nerds and even the biggest jock is able to name Marvel superheroes, nerdiness is no longer the social hindrance it once was. Unless of course, you have the added burdens of everyday sexism and racism thrown into the mix. To Penny, young women interested in the same nerdy pleasures as their male counterparts deal with all of these issues at once, while the men get to revel in a culture that increasingly accepts them. (There's a whole lot more to her article, where she delves into slut shaming, the construction of masculinity etc. I'm only going to focus on nerd culture here but I suggest that you take a look at the whole article, it's a good read.)

  As someone who considers himself a member of nerd culture, this thesis was hard to accept at first; especially since I certainly did not feel part of a privileged male elite culture when dealing with disdain for my interests in junior school. However, as I grow older and (hopefully) more thoughtful/mature, this thesis of nerd male entitlement does hold a lot of water. What hammered all of this home for me was the 2014“Gamergate” controversy. I'm not going to sum up Gamergate entirely here, as much as been written online about this, but essentially it revolved around an amorphous group of online culture warriors issuing very serious and disturbing online threats to several women either involved in the gaming industry or cultural critics focusing on the portrayal of women in video games. For a group of people, in their own estimation, on the margins of society, the male nerds involved in Gamergate come across as tribal and defensive in their attempts to browbeat women out of the industry.

  This brings me to the major point of this article; what's going on with 'nerdiness' right now? Gamergate is not the only manifestation of a seemingly vicious culture war within geekdom, but it's apparent that the tendency of nerd culture to form exclusive clubhouses is increasingly challenged both by the changing makeup of the community itself and the mainstream success of the culture in recent years. These are the trends that I'm going to discuss here.

  The 'clubhouse' mentality, to my mind, comes from the very beginnings of what we now know as nerd culture. When speaking to self identified geeks who grew up in the late 70's and throughout most of the 80's or 90's, one hears stories of their interests being belittled as childish and stereotypes of their utter social awkwardness being thrown in their faces. In this sense, forming literal (for example the stereotypical comic shop that makes no effort to help the uninitiated customer) or metaphorical (who gets to be called a 'real nerd') clubhouses has for a long time been a defense mechanism. I'd say that in some cases this can be a very positive thing as it provided a safe place where individuals were free to self actualize and enjoy the media and activities that made them happy. More recently, with openly nerdy pastimes becoming increasingly celebrated in mainstream popular culture and a broader demographic entering into games, comics and other such staples it would seem on the surface that the clubhouse mentality has no further reason to exist and the closeted nerds can take their rightful place in society. Instead of this utopia, we got Gamergate. Still, this backlash shouldn't be so surprising. As I said above, while there was genuine pain that caused the clubhouse mentality to form in the first place, within the walls there was a sense of shared belonging and camaraderie. This means that many clubhouse 'members' paradoxically feel threatened by the mainstreaming of nerd culture. All the pain meted out at the hands of the cool kids hurts all the more when those selfsame cool kids seem to steal the very things that gave one some peace. As we know, this narrative does not tell the whole story but it does explain the reluctance of existing nerd culture to embrace mainstreaming.

  However, Laurie Penney's article also correctly points out that that self defined nerdy women, although suffering from the same pain of exclusion, also frequently ended up excluded from the clubhouse. Unfortunately, much of the recent nerd backlash has taken a decidedly anti feminist trend; proving that even in disadvantaged groups, hierarchies exist; especially the enduring falsehood of gender stratification.

  Finally, we have the issue of misplaced nostalgia. New entrants to any culture can find themselves accused of not understanding and even destroying some form of essential goodness and this sentiment is easily seen in today's fandom. This kind of elitism among geeks is rampant; a good example of which was the widespread panning of the latest Ninja Turtles movie, as if a pretty mediocre 80's cartoon is too perfect to reboot in any fashion. In addition to a feeling of cherished clubhouses under threat and some truly despicable anti feminist ranting, misplaced nostalgia is the third major trend I see in the evolving nerd culture of 2015.

  In spite of all this negativity, backlash and showcases of the dark side of humanity through Gamergate; I do see a bright future for nerd culture overall. The very broadening of the base which has provoked these backlashes can only be a good thing, as any culture tends to be enriched when it's horizons are expanded. What's more, the mainstreaming of this culture offers opportunities for formerly disparaged and disadvantaged young people, both men and women, to have their interests respected by society at large. This can only be a positive thing; if the participants in Gamergate had not felt a need to be so defensive, would we have seen such a backlash? Now, in all fairness, this specific event was not strictly related to gamers and has a lot to do with sexism and online harassment. However, a nerd culture that is welcoming and open can go a long way to reducing these instances where traditional masculinity rears it's ugly head.. When everyone has the opportunity to express their interests in reading, gaming, writing speculative fiction, fandom etc, we have the opportunity to change the very nature of gender roles and what it means to express oneself within them.

  Recently, here in Edmonton I had the opportunity to attend Mini Spec: basically a series of talks on nerd related topics that serves as a opening event to one of the conventions held in the city. The event took place at a comic shop, traditionally one of the physical 'clubhouses' guarded by young male nerds. However, this was not your average comic shop. The two owners performed one of the keynote speeches and the topic was their efforts to open up to and welcome the changes in the culture and provide a space for self expression free from angry backlash. They also mentioned other spaces in the province of Alberta doing the same thing. Of course, these efforts are just limited to Western Canada but many mainstream news outlets, such as the Guardian, also have drawn attention to the fact that the recent San Diego Comic Con saw near gender parity among attendees and some watchers of the culture argue that fandom as a whole may be majority female within a decade or so.

  The whole point of this post is not to diminish the negative effects of Gamergate and online harassment in general. Rather, it's an attempt to come to grips with why such backlashes are happening and point out through a few examples that overall, geek culture is heading in a very positive direction and it's expansion and acceptance into the mainstream can have positive effects on society as a whole because of an expanded space for personal self expression.

Devils Advocate maiden post: A review of Mission Impossible, Rogue Nation. Some lighter commentary to start us off.

With some trepidation I set out to see the latest Mission Impossible film last weekend.....but before we continue with this tangent I have a few confessions to make.

1. I really would not have picked this as my first choice for an evening's entertainment but after moving to a new city and feeling a need to get out and meet new people, invitations to any movie just can't be turned down.
2. I also never went to see the previous MI installment, Ghost Protocol, as Tom Cruise was in the depths of his Scientology craziness back in 2011 and it was just a huge red flag for me.
3. I'm really trying to branch out, expand my film horizons and support cinema that doesn't come out of the Hollywood 'dream factory'.

In spite of all this, Mission Impossible, Rogue Nation has to be the best action movie produced by a major studio in some time. The plot is your standard convoluted MI fare, with a shadowy organization known only as the Syndicate seemingly working with disgraced spies from the world's intelligence agencies for nefarious purposes we never can really figure out. Don't worry, you only need to know they're nefarious.

Although this sort of plot may have been fresh and new to moviegoers back in 1996, it's old hat to us in the age of Wikileaks, Chelsea Manning and Edward Snowden. What really sets this move apart from it's action peers is that Tom Cruise legitimately still does his own stunts. It's hard to remember this because all we hear about lately about him is gossip and innuendo but I would argue that Mr. Cruise may be the last American action hero. On that first scene, it really is him hanging off the side of a transport aircraft. No stunt doubles, no CGI, just Tom Cruise, an airplane wing, and the ground beneath him. The fact that this is so rare in today's Hollywood makes such a scene all the more impressive and stands in stark contrast to the usual drivel placed in front of us as “Summer Blockbuster” fare. (Yes, Michael Bay, I'm talking about you)

In addition to Tom Cruise and his action chops, the other highlight of the film was the performance of Swedish actor Rebecca Ferguson and her portrayal of disgraced MI5 agent Ilsa Faust. The two do seem to complement one another on the screen and this dynamic partially makes up for the tendency of these movies to inflate the role of the hero and completely eclipse the role of supporting cast members.

This brings us to what I feel is the film's major flaw; although we're meant to focus our attention on Ethan Hunt (Cruise's character for those who don't know) the lack of character development time given to the rest of the impossible mission team is a waste of such good actors as Ving Rhames and Simon Pegg. It also made Ethan's risk taking to help other members of the team seem less believable. One could argue that in a movie like this, character doesn't matter; we just want to see Tom Cruise blow things up. In defiance of this belief I have two arguments. First, a talented ensemble cast is something that many films simply aren't able to secure and to have skilled actors relegated to forgettable roles is a crying shame. Secondly, and most importantly, we care about what happens to Ethan but with weakly developed supporting characters we're left wondering why he risks his neck to save them. Obviously, if you're sitting in the cinema watching this you just want to have a good time, preferably without analyzing all that much. Still, without being emotionally invested in a team of characters, their close calls with death just won't be exciting and that's what these flicks are all about, right?

This being said, I did enjoy the movie and felt that it was a breath of fresh air in a stale Hollywood landscape and encourage every one of you looking for an escape this week to head to your nearest cinema and check it out. Keep my criticisms in mind of course, but don't let that stop you from enjoying yourself at the movies.