Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Reviews63
wgingery's rating
Though it may seem counterintuitive, nevertheless, take a moment and try on the idea that Blackthorne is a 'Ken.'
Immediately, so much that was puzzling about Blackthorne becomes intelligible: how he can be useless yet also sexy, central to the plot but also the object of derision.
And if Blackthorne is a Ken, Mariko becomes a Barbie (a woman deprived of agency), while Toranaga corresponds to America Ferrara (who, if you recall, is the one who schemes to subvert Ken's 'patriarchy.')
The reason for the correspondence is that underlying both shows is the same post-modern feminist notion of 'the patriarchy': straight white men have seized power unfairly, causing women and men of color to be 'marginalized.'
Accordingly, in order to rectify the situation, i.e., subvert the patriarchy, straight white men must be 'de-centered' and moved to the margins, while women and men of color have to be moved to the center.
Doing precisely that is what this 'reimagined' version of 'Shogun' is up to: 'de-centering' Blackthorne and replacing him at the center with Mariko and Toranaga.
Thus virtually the entire show is about Power - who gets to wield it, who does not, and where one fits in to the system.
This show ends with Toranaga standing godlike on a hill looking out over the water, contemplating the hills beyond, as though envisioning the future.
Plainly, what the show runners admire about their versions of Toranaga and Mariko is that they have succeeded in subverting the power system of their time and place.
Unfortunately, as many viewers have observed, this comes at a cost. It is hard to relate to them. One can admire this Toranaga and esteem this version of Mariko, but not truly love them.
The exceptions prove the rule. It's indicative of their position outside the constraints of feminist post-modernism that Fuji and Yabushige are the two most human characters, as well as the most popular.
Immediately, so much that was puzzling about Blackthorne becomes intelligible: how he can be useless yet also sexy, central to the plot but also the object of derision.
And if Blackthorne is a Ken, Mariko becomes a Barbie (a woman deprived of agency), while Toranaga corresponds to America Ferrara (who, if you recall, is the one who schemes to subvert Ken's 'patriarchy.')
The reason for the correspondence is that underlying both shows is the same post-modern feminist notion of 'the patriarchy': straight white men have seized power unfairly, causing women and men of color to be 'marginalized.'
Accordingly, in order to rectify the situation, i.e., subvert the patriarchy, straight white men must be 'de-centered' and moved to the margins, while women and men of color have to be moved to the center.
Doing precisely that is what this 'reimagined' version of 'Shogun' is up to: 'de-centering' Blackthorne and replacing him at the center with Mariko and Toranaga.
Thus virtually the entire show is about Power - who gets to wield it, who does not, and where one fits in to the system.
This show ends with Toranaga standing godlike on a hill looking out over the water, contemplating the hills beyond, as though envisioning the future.
Plainly, what the show runners admire about their versions of Toranaga and Mariko is that they have succeeded in subverting the power system of their time and place.
Unfortunately, as many viewers have observed, this comes at a cost. It is hard to relate to them. One can admire this Toranaga and esteem this version of Mariko, but not truly love them.
The exceptions prove the rule. It's indicative of their position outside the constraints of feminist post-modernism that Fuji and Yabushige are the two most human characters, as well as the most popular.
The theme of 'Oppenheimer' is connection: the present to the past, of course, but more importantly, one individual to another. It attempts to show how the effects of one man's actions, for good or ill, radiated out like ripples on a pond to affect potentially millions of other people.
The primary aim of 'Oppenheimer" is thus not to teach the history of nuclear physics in the manner of a documentary, but rather to give viewers an experience - the experience of wielding god-like powers together with accepting the responsibility for the consequences.
It is for this reason that "Oppenheimer" takes the form not of a public, objective narrative, but of an interior, subjective personal interpretation. Everything on screen has been filtered through the consciousness of either Oppenheimer (color) or Strauss (B&W).
This accounts for the rapidity, the abrupt cutting, the condensed dialogue, the abundance of characters and the sheer length. The viewer, almost overwhelmed by the multitude of connections, feels scarcely able to keep up,
If there is a flaw in the movie, it lies in the lack of preparation for O.'s sudden comprehension of his debt to others. As it stands, it doesn't quite make sense. What triggered it?
Ultimately, though, this is more than the story of one man, it is a story of a nation, as relevant today as eighty years ago. It is also - potentially - the story of Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well.
The primary aim of 'Oppenheimer" is thus not to teach the history of nuclear physics in the manner of a documentary, but rather to give viewers an experience - the experience of wielding god-like powers together with accepting the responsibility for the consequences.
It is for this reason that "Oppenheimer" takes the form not of a public, objective narrative, but of an interior, subjective personal interpretation. Everything on screen has been filtered through the consciousness of either Oppenheimer (color) or Strauss (B&W).
This accounts for the rapidity, the abrupt cutting, the condensed dialogue, the abundance of characters and the sheer length. The viewer, almost overwhelmed by the multitude of connections, feels scarcely able to keep up,
If there is a flaw in the movie, it lies in the lack of preparation for O.'s sudden comprehension of his debt to others. As it stands, it doesn't quite make sense. What triggered it?
Ultimately, though, this is more than the story of one man, it is a story of a nation, as relevant today as eighty years ago. It is also - potentially - the story of Artificial Intelligence (AI), as well.
Once, when Bernstein is shown being interviewed on live TV at his apartment, he reveals that he feels split between two sides of his personality; the performer and the creator.
The problem with this film, and, frankly, the reason I stopped watching half way through, is that, while we witness the endless antics of the performer, we never get a view of this creator.
The film doesn't dramatize his inner life; we never see it interacting and, most importantly, conflicting with his other side, the performer. We're given a few hints about his childhood, but Bernstein remains essentially a mystery.
While a shorter film from the wife's POV might have been entertaining, as it stands, there's simply not enough dramatic material here to hold the audience's interest for a two hour film.
As a result, like her, we're stuck on the outside, looking in, and that get's boring - very, very boring.
The problem with this film, and, frankly, the reason I stopped watching half way through, is that, while we witness the endless antics of the performer, we never get a view of this creator.
The film doesn't dramatize his inner life; we never see it interacting and, most importantly, conflicting with his other side, the performer. We're given a few hints about his childhood, but Bernstein remains essentially a mystery.
While a shorter film from the wife's POV might have been entertaining, as it stands, there's simply not enough dramatic material here to hold the audience's interest for a two hour film.
As a result, like her, we're stuck on the outside, looking in, and that get's boring - very, very boring.