Anarchist_Rationale

I have an ambivalent attitude toward superhero movies. On the one hand, I love seeing the icons of my childhood made real and put on screen. On the other hand, I am usually disappointed by the mediocrity of execution that makes up the majority of the genre, but then I feel that way about most things that play squarely to an established audience. Superhero movies, in my opinion, ought to be fun and inspiring. To me, superheroes are like Greek myths in that they are the personification of humanist ideals. They wear distinctive costumes and behave in bold gestures. Subtlety is not part of their presentation because their roots are in children’s entertainment, and the subject matter is usually some variation on childish power-fantasies (being super-strong or invulnerable to pain, for example). Bearing that in mind, I think it’s fair to say that the potential for superheroes being fascist bullies is almost unavoidable, which is why I tend to prefer the characters whose motivations are ...

They say you should never meet your heroes because you’ll likely be disappointed. This is sound advice because while art is a realization of ideals, artists are human beings full of flaws and contradictions. It is also a mistake to equate the art with the artist because the artist cannot be fully responsible for the way the art is received – the audience always has its own filter of prejudice and preoccupation. It would seem the less you know about the creator of something, the better you can enjoy it on its own merits, but I don’t value ignorance and find it helpful to understand what may be informing the artist’s choices. Keeping everything in perspective is the key to balancing the equation. I’m sure everyone has had some experience of idolizing someone, be it a movie star or singer or athlete, only to learn some unseemly detail of their private lives that forever taints the way they look at them. For myself, I have problems watching Mel Gibson in movies because of things he ha...

I love movies. I think they have always been my fondest art form. I love watching a narrative being presented visually as it unfolds, but I also appreciate films that work on other levels besides traditional story vehicles. Chiefly, I want to be entertained, but it would also be nice to have some aspect of life I never appreciated before illuminated. I do believe in the power of cinema to express ideas and values that are universal and I think the accessibility of the moving visual image makes it a superior medium for conveying ideas.   For me, entertainment is the most essential requirement. I want to enjoy the time I spend watching the movie. Illumination is a wonderful bonus, but often too much to hope for and a subtle art besides; nobody wants to be preached to. I love a good mix of the familiar and the bizarre, so I am biased toward science fiction and fantasy films, though I’ll be the first to say most of them fail – I have very particular standards. Nevertheless, I love...

Darren Aronofsky is one of my favourite filmmakers, an artist working in the mainstream but always testing its boundaries. His movies don’t always succeed with me, but even when they fail they are interesting. His latest, mother! , is probably my favourite movie of 2017 because it is simultaneously familiar and bizarre, a surrealist and highly symbological critique of humanity, complex, coded and dark as pitch. The movie most definitely does not take place in reality as we know it, operating instead by an intense dream-logic which starts out somewhat stifling and becomes more and more oppressive as the situation deteriorates. The point of view is entirely Jennifer Lawrence’s as the camera is with her at every moment, on her face or looking over her shoulder. She lives in a big house in the country with her husband, played by Javier Bardem, far away from anywhere. She is a happy homemaker and he is a poet with writer’s block. One day a stranger, played by Ed Harris, comes knocking ...