For as long as I can remember, watching Adult Swim until the wee hours of the morning has been almost a hobby of mine. Now that I am a college student its been pretty difficult to watch television, reason being, because my roommates and I can't even afford basic cable. Nevertheless, my favorite show in the Adult Swim franchise has to be "Aqua Teen Hunger Force" for its altogether surreal style of comedy and incoherent plot. Everything that happens in this show is strange, even when the characters are faced with conflict(which often results in their deaths) nothing really ever happens.
As I'm sure we are all familiar with the characters on the show, of the three anthropomorphic fast-food items, I personally like Meatwad. Meatwad, as his name suggests, is a wad of meat that rolls around and conjures mischief. Sure, his happy-go-lucky attitude might seem cute or harmless to most; however, it is very much the opposite. Meatwad is incredibly intimidating and might just pull a gun out of his meaty back pocket if you threaten him. At 38 years young, Meatwad can really show you a couple of things; even though, its been confirmed that he does suffer from mental retardation. Of all the characters on the show, I think it is Meatwad that most avid watchers of the show have come to love, he knows how to have fun, manipulate Frylock and Master Shake, and is often unpredictable.
According to his character bio on Adult Swim.com, Meatwad was originally a detective in the Aqua Teen Hunger Force, but I guess the creators of the show dropped this pretense; although, personally I believe this little aspect would've made the show even more ridiculous than it already is. We all know that Meatwad is currently unemployed and would rather watch television than work as a detective, but I thought everyone should know that he could've been a detective. Nevertheless, I feel like its always good to have Meatwad around, not just for comic relief, but because he can shape-shift into anything that he wants. If you need an Igloo, Meatwad is there to satisfy.
As far as his importance in the show, provided there is anything important in the show, Meatwad is definitely a catalyst for the other characters in the show. He drives our characters, especially Master Shake, to do incredibly stupid things that he almost never regrets, most of the time he even thinks it was his idea in the first place. Meatwad is often bullied by Master Shake, as Master Shake always needs to assert his dominance over the "Force"; however, Frylock is always there to protect Meatwad and help him out on something.
Honestly, this show is so fucking dumb, but maybe thats the reason it is so damn succesful and has developed such a huge following. But seriously everything about this show is stupid and yet so hilarious. Of course, it is mindless, it doesn't require for audience to look any further than the television screen, and for that, "Aqua Teen Hunger Force", I SALUTE YOU!
Monday, October 31, 2011
Monday, October 24, 2011
Week #9: Premise & "Without"
"Since all men are mortal and Socrates is a man, Socrates is mortal." Quite a logical argument you might say, valid and true, but just as vague as any other statement. In the film, "Without" I believe that the premise might also be as vague, yet just as simple, as the statement above. "Without" relies on this vague minimalism to create the distinct environment in which the main character has to live in. Our main character is simply trying to live her life and do her job; however, she is haunted by grief and utter loneliness which seems to grow exponentially throughout the film. At the root of her grief lies an extreme sense of confusion, mental imbalance, and vulnerability which manifest themselves as sexual exhibitionism on a broken webcam or to the catatonic patient that she is taking care of.
With that said, I believe that the premise of this film, in light of Egri, would be that "Loneliness & Grief, if left to itself, can lead to the destruction of oneself". Our main character is "without" so many things in her life, but most of all, it is love that she truly cannot live without. Every shot in the film seems to be up close and personal, illustrating in detail the activities of our main character's life. With every little activity, we as the audience, observe her breakdown take form. The problem with her environment is that she literally has nothing to sidetrack , or even delude herself from thinking about the death of her partner. Her soft-spoken attitude and overall shyness reveal an ironically overly sexual deviance which I think is also a symptom of the traumatic experience.
As it goes, the premise of "Without" is very similar to that of "Juno and the Paycock" where "Shiftlessness leads to ruin". In "Without" although our main character has moved from her original environment, I feel that mentally and emotionally she has not shifted or changed. Because she hasn't changed in this sense, her acceptance of all things begin to go a little haywire..the TV makes her angry and confused..she believes her patient is a con artist..she leads her neighbor on; even though, she is obviously not into that sort of person. True catharsis is nowhere to be found and eventually this leads her to ruin. Her breakdown at the end of the film proves that she hasn't accepted the death of her partner at all, and it translates in everything that she does.
She cannot live happily "Without" her love. Although it seems that she has so much, is able to work, and even able to exercise every morning, she has become a danger to herself and those around her. The vague nature of why and where the film comes from and takes place is crucial to how our main character forms. She, herself, is quite vague and unpredictable, and for this reason, our premise becomes even more versatile in the context of the this suspenseful film.
With that said, I believe that the premise of this film, in light of Egri, would be that "Loneliness & Grief, if left to itself, can lead to the destruction of oneself". Our main character is "without" so many things in her life, but most of all, it is love that she truly cannot live without. Every shot in the film seems to be up close and personal, illustrating in detail the activities of our main character's life. With every little activity, we as the audience, observe her breakdown take form. The problem with her environment is that she literally has nothing to sidetrack , or even delude herself from thinking about the death of her partner. Her soft-spoken attitude and overall shyness reveal an ironically overly sexual deviance which I think is also a symptom of the traumatic experience.
As it goes, the premise of "Without" is very similar to that of "Juno and the Paycock" where "Shiftlessness leads to ruin". In "Without" although our main character has moved from her original environment, I feel that mentally and emotionally she has not shifted or changed. Because she hasn't changed in this sense, her acceptance of all things begin to go a little haywire..the TV makes her angry and confused..she believes her patient is a con artist..she leads her neighbor on; even though, she is obviously not into that sort of person. True catharsis is nowhere to be found and eventually this leads her to ruin. Her breakdown at the end of the film proves that she hasn't accepted the death of her partner at all, and it translates in everything that she does.
She cannot live happily "Without" her love. Although it seems that she has so much, is able to work, and even able to exercise every morning, she has become a danger to herself and those around her. The vague nature of why and where the film comes from and takes place is crucial to how our main character forms. She, herself, is quite vague and unpredictable, and for this reason, our premise becomes even more versatile in the context of the this suspenseful film.
Monday, October 17, 2011
Week #8: Necessity of the Character Arc
As the observer, whether partial or impartial, we witness change in everything. Sometimes the change occurs in ourselves or in others, often manifesting itself outwardly, thus allowing us to truly understand the change that is occurring. It might be a change in our awareness, our dedication to something, or even our reluctance to change can take on its own form. As Vogler asserts, and as he is absolutely correct in his assertion, the internal journeys that our characters take in any given film directly correlates with how compelling or not the given film will be.
In "The Writer's Journey" Vogler uses the seminal film "The Wizard of Oz" as one of the main examples in order to further develop his points. What I realized was that "The Wizard of Oz" is probably one of the best stories ever adapted for film since it literally follows each and every one of Vogler's Journey points, while showing how the character arc changes each time these points are met. Our hero, Dorothy, is thrown out of the Ordinary World where her Awareness immediately increases, and after meeting with the Good Witch, she understands that she must GET HOME and does everything in her power, despite totally being at the disadvantage throughout the entire film, to overcome each and every obstacle, make some friends (which also despite their disadvantages manage to breach obstacles) and grow from a young, naive, girl into a master of adventure and hero for all those under the control of the Wicked Witch.
Now there are films, such as (500) Days of Summer, which we screened briefly in class, where I feel there was a huge character-relationship arc. Presented in a nonlinear format, they stuck to their same beliefs, same idiosyncratic behavior, and I felt that this was very much necessary to create the perfect climax of the film. Tom changes emotionally countless times in the film, thus his character arc follows a more complex route than that of his "soulmate" Summer.
Obviously, there are exceptions to Vogler's assertion since not all movies even require true concrete, somewhat relatable, characters for a story to exist. Then again, these films aren't quite compelling either. In essence, the character arc is what allows the hero's external journey to flow. If our two detectives in Se7en didn't change in response to the external world as it was laid in the plot..then we would simply be watching two 2-D stoic characters act on screen, devoid of emotion and human qualities, and as the audience our willing suspension of belief would cease to exist and would make Se7en dead and uninteresting. Vogler understands the value of purpose. In film, the purpose is to do one of the following: inform, entertain, or persuade...but if our hero or supporting characters don't change internally or in anyway for that matter..that will leave the audience to watch an uttering boring film where all they do is simply Walk In and Walk Out.
In "The Writer's Journey" Vogler uses the seminal film "The Wizard of Oz" as one of the main examples in order to further develop his points. What I realized was that "The Wizard of Oz" is probably one of the best stories ever adapted for film since it literally follows each and every one of Vogler's Journey points, while showing how the character arc changes each time these points are met. Our hero, Dorothy, is thrown out of the Ordinary World where her Awareness immediately increases, and after meeting with the Good Witch, she understands that she must GET HOME and does everything in her power, despite totally being at the disadvantage throughout the entire film, to overcome each and every obstacle, make some friends (which also despite their disadvantages manage to breach obstacles) and grow from a young, naive, girl into a master of adventure and hero for all those under the control of the Wicked Witch.
Now there are films, such as (500) Days of Summer, which we screened briefly in class, where I feel there was a huge character-relationship arc. Presented in a nonlinear format, they stuck to their same beliefs, same idiosyncratic behavior, and I felt that this was very much necessary to create the perfect climax of the film. Tom changes emotionally countless times in the film, thus his character arc follows a more complex route than that of his "soulmate" Summer.
Obviously, there are exceptions to Vogler's assertion since not all movies even require true concrete, somewhat relatable, characters for a story to exist. Then again, these films aren't quite compelling either. In essence, the character arc is what allows the hero's external journey to flow. If our two detectives in Se7en didn't change in response to the external world as it was laid in the plot..then we would simply be watching two 2-D stoic characters act on screen, devoid of emotion and human qualities, and as the audience our willing suspension of belief would cease to exist and would make Se7en dead and uninteresting. Vogler understands the value of purpose. In film, the purpose is to do one of the following: inform, entertain, or persuade...but if our hero or supporting characters don't change internally or in anyway for that matter..that will leave the audience to watch an uttering boring film where all they do is simply Walk In and Walk Out.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)