Matinee: Mad Max: Fury Road

WITNESS MEEEEEEEE write this blog post...Okay, so it's cooler in the movie. This will be the first movie review I've done of a movie I've already seen. So exciting! If anything, this should add more insight and depth to my already insightful and depthful reviews. Let's get started.

Spoiler Warning: There will definitely be spoilers, particularly around the character of Max, plus spoilers for the original Mad Max Trilogy. It's been around since the 80's, if you haven't seen it by now, you need to ride your diselpunk deathtrap to Valhalla, but like, away from me. Just kidding, you clearly won't be going to Valhalla, shiny and chrome, if you haven't seen the originals. Sorry. I don't make the rules, Immortan Joe does.

The first time I saw Mad Max: Fury Road (2015), I was disappointed in it. I decided to give in a second chance in the interest of pop culture references (seriously, I yell "witness me" all the time). The second time, I loved it. I'll address both what I loved and what initially turned me off, as well as a quick refresher on the original Mad Max Trilogy.

I'll be honest, the first Mad Max movie (1979), is nothing to write home about. It lays the framework for Road Warrior, but we're just not quite into the S&M Leatherpocalypse we all know and love (seriously, were sex shops the first thing raided? Civilization has collapsed, better get out the leather harness' and gimp suits!). However we do meet Mad Mel...er...Max, and we get the backstory of his wife and child being murdered. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (1981) is the shining jewel of this trilogy, and also there is a dog which makes any movie 10,000% better. This is Mad Max is all his dusty glory, which takes the "maybe this is an apocalypse maybe this is just what Australia is like" setting of the first movie and turns in into the recognizably insane "no, no, this is definitely an apocalypse, see all the S&M gear?" world which will be parodied for years to come. 

"I hope you like leather, Mr. Squidward."

Max is our reluctant hero of a small settlement against the evil Lord Humungus (I mean technically you could argue there are no good guys and bad guys in an apocalypse, but we all know this is obviously false. The ugly ones are evil. Always). The third installment into the franchise, Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome (1985), ironically is not worth watching beyond the Thunderdome scenes. Set 15 years after the events of The Road Warrior, it yet again features Max being a reluctant hero, this time to a group of orphans. But seriously, Bartertown and the Thunderdome is the best part, it goes drastically downhill from there.

Plus Bartertown features Tina Turner, who looks better at 50 than I will ever look in my entire life.

Overall, all three Mad Max movies, all directed by George Miller, establish a pattern for Mad Max movies; Max is the aptly named angry protagonist, he is a "good guy" but also does bad things, and there is an excess of driving for a society where oil is gold. Like seriously, the oil/gas crisis can't be as bad as everyone makes it out to be, people have FLAME THROWERS.

This takes us to Mad Max: Fury Road, also directed by George Miller, a solid 30 years after the last Mad Max movie came out. The story for Fury Road is pretty linear, in the most literal sense of the word. Mad Max teams up with Furiosa to free the slave wives of Immortan Joe, a tyrannical ruler of The Citadel, who is not happy that his breeding stock has been stolen. "Let's escape this tyrant by driving out really far, then drive back the way we came." Literally, that is the movie. So it didn't win over audiences for it's compelling narrative, although an argument could be made that it doesn't need a complex storyline. It's also very difficult to place this movie within the Mad Max timeline. Given that, up to this point, the movies have flowed in a strictly linear fashion, it would be logical to assume that this movie takes place after Beyond Thunderdome. This feels a bit off though, as Tom Hardy looks a lot younger than Mel Gibson did in 1985. It could, theoretically, take place in the 15 years between Road Warrior and Beyond Thunderdome, but this is odd given that all the other movies have happened linearly to this point. Or, the ultimate "fuck you" to continuity (I'm looking at you, Star Trek reboot), it could take place in an alternate universe. This is suggested by the constant visions Max has of a little girl (in the original Mad Max movie, it is established that Max has an infant son, not a pre-teen daughter). The correct answer is, in fact, the first answer, which you wouldn't know by watching the movie, but would know by reading the comic book series that accompanied the movie.

#marketingscheme

The comic books, by the way, are an excellent backstory for the movie, and provide more information about the actual world of Mad Max, which is great if you're a nerd like me who's totally into that. Butttttt I'm not going to talk about the comic or the information therein because it isn't the movie, and in a perfect world, whatever movie you're watching should provide you with enough information to understand it. The Mad Max movies have a history of thrusting you into a completely alien world with little to no explanation, ballsy enough on its own, never mind that they literally created their own genre, and Fury Road is no exception. This doesn't work against the movie per se, but it certainly doesn't answer our questions about when exactly this movie takes place.

The largest flaw in this movie, again, apart from the basic story line (as a writer, story is important to me), is the character of Max himself. Mad Max is, as his name suggests, an angry person (much like Mel Gibson. This role probably wasn't much of a stretch for him honestly). Tom Hardy's Max is more like Sad Max. The character he portrays is less the angry, vengeance fueled road warrior we see in the original trilogy and more the shell of his predecessor, broken and haunted. Mad Mel was blindly charging towards whatever future lay out there for him in the wasteland. Sad Tom is running from something. The other problem with Max is that spoiler alert: he isn't the main character. This is a jarring shift from the original trilogy, and what made me dislike the movie the first time I saw it. How could you possibly have a Mad Max movie where Max isn't the main character? That would be like if The Dark Knight Rises, instead of having Batman as the main character, had Joseph Gordon Levitt's Pseudo-Robin character. Note that none of the advertising for this movie would change, it would be something you discovered once you sat down in the theatre. The fact that 90% of the advertising focuses on Max also leads any potential audience members to believe, with nothing to suggest to the contrary, that Max is the main character. Check out these posters.

Notice anything about them? I didn't cherry pick these by the way, these are the first four images that pop up when you google "Mad Max Fury Road Poster". Two of the posters feature Max exclusively. The third poster features Furiosa, but in a secondary position (less of her body is shown, she is "hiding" behind Max). The fourth poster is the strongest case for Furiosa being an important character, but again, she is in a passive role here (they picked a shot from the one, 10 minute scene where Furiosa ISN'T driving the War Rig). The official trailers, including the Comic-con trailer, also focus far more on Max than they do on Furiosa. Even the opening of the movie starts with the most Max will ever say in a gruff voice over, and the apocalypse's lamest car chase (seriously, Max loses his car in the first 10 minutes). After the introduction of Furiosa, we switch to her being the protagonist. That was bad. This wasn't a Mad Max movie. This was a movie that takes place in the Mad Max universe. It's an important distinction. Honestly, I was frustrated with Max in the sideline role (and also not, but we'll get to that). If you're going to reduce you TITULAR CHARACTER to a side role, you might as well go all the way. I would have preferred to see a cameo from the mysterious Road Warrior than Tom Hardy grunting his way through the two hour car chase that was Fury Road. As an interesting aside, the original title for the film was Mad Max: Furiosa. I would have preferred this 10,000%, since you find out in the opening title card that Charlize Theron is Furiosa. You would have known right away who was going to be important to this movie. Granted, I still would have been chafed that Max wasn't in the lead, but at least I would have some fair warning.

So that was largely what I disliked about Fury Road, and why I initially walked out of the theatre disappointed. Here's why I gave it a second chance:

That's right, Furiosa and the brides. "But Sassa, weren't you just complaining about Furiosa?" Hush child, all will be explained. While I was frustrated about being mislead about who the main character actually was, and that I feel like Mad Max should be the main character in his own franchise, Furiosa was a unique and refreshingly wonderful character. I hate the term 'strong female character' and I'm not going to use it, but Furiosa is dynamic, with motivation apart from "gotta get that D", and, perhaps most importantly, is not sexualized. You know who else in this movie isn't sexualized? I'll give you a hint; it's the four other women in the picture with Furiosa. Despite their costumes, the women are never turned into objects in the camera's eye. This is one of the themes of the movie, which they literally spell out for you when the wives escape.

Literally.

This may have to do with the fact that the film editor was George Miller's wife, Margaret Sixel, who had never edited an action movie before. Did giving the editorial power to a woman create a movie that was, among other things, about female empowerment? Perhaps. Likely it was a goal all along, and having a female editor helped expedite the process. Whatever the reason, it's refreshing to see in an action movie where typically, women are little more than eye candy for the lascivious viewer and camera.

What was also refreshing about Fury Road was its loyalty to practical effects.

Yes, this man was, in fact, strapped to a moving vehicle with a guitar that spat fire.

In a lot of ways, practical effects feel like a dying art form. Why do for real what you can have a computer do for you? This isn't to put down CGI, certainly it was used in Fury Road, and there are some things you can do with CGI that you simply can't do with real things, but practical effects age a hell of a lot better. Very little in this movie was CGI, right down to flipping the War Rig (a stunt that took one take, apparently). Practical effects add a flavor to a film that CGI lacks, a certain spice that makes it easier to suspend our disbelief. The cinematography itself was also gorgeous, by stylistic choice. Things are vivid and bright, adding another layer of unreality to this already crazy world. Miller did this intentionally, saying something to the effect of people in the wasteland wanting to see the beauty in things that might not be beautiful to us. This again reinforces the Furiosa viewpoint, as she is a character much more likely to want to see this than Max, who's view of the world is dull and bleak, much like in the original movies.

Overall, the Mad Max universe has this compelling way of drawing you in and captivating your imagination. The world, which doesn't burden us with world building, in intricate and complex, and you know that a lot of thought has been put into its creation and design. Despite the fact that Sad Max disappoints (it's partially not his fault) and the advertising campaign leads the viewer SERIOUSLY astray, Mad Max: Fury Road is a rich addition to the world of Mad Max, with again the distinction that it is not a Mad Max movie, but a movie set in the Mad Max universe. Furiosa is a compelling and complex main character who could easily spawn her own series. Basically, I'm glad I gave this movie a second chance.

witness meme

Nightfall

Hey look it's another book! One of those things this blog is supposed to be about. So awkward. And what's up with the 10 days of silence? No comment. I had a productive reading break, but didn't actually do much writing...or reading for that matter. Nevertheless, school is back in, and I have a bunch of entries to do to catch up (I've been watching a lot of movies). So, let's begin.
~We're going to say this one is spoiler-ish. Major plot points ruined? No. Minor plot points? Yes~
Nightfall was initially a short story written by Isaac Asimov (of I, Robot and the Foundation Series fame), and, according to the book jacket, "ONE OF THE MOST POPULAR STORIES OF ALL TIME". Alright, Asimov did great and interesting things for Sci-fi. But of 'all time'? Yo, Asimov, Imma let you finish, but Poe did one of the best stories of all time. Is that meme too tired? #swag.

OF ALL TIME

Okay, moving on and getting down to serious business, let's discuss things. Nightfall (the novel, we'll address the short story later) tells the story of Kalgash, a planet with six suns. Because of this, there is never night on Kalgash, the Kalgashians have a crippling fear of darkness, and they have no concept of stars. All of this is entirely plausible, given the parameters we've established. Here's where the plot comes in: Kalgash is heading towards an 18 hour period of night. No suns. No light. Chaos ensues.

The book is split up into three parts; Twilight, Nightfall, and Daybreak. In Twilight, we are introduced to the concept of 'Darkness Disorders' with a psychologist investigating the "Tunnel of Mystery", an attraction in which you ride through a completely dark tunnel for 15 minutes. People died, others went insane. Next, we're introduced to an astronomer who's stumbled on a new discovery concerning Kalgash's six suns. We meet an archaeologist who, while working on the oldest known "human" settlement, discovers 8 more, older settlements, buried beneath the earth. We also meet a reporter who I didn't think was important but was actually the main character, and a bunch of other people who are relevant to the aforementioned characters but overall are not super important. There is also a cult, the Apostles of Flame, who are constantly warning everyone that "The end is nigh(t)". They are generally ignored and ridiculed by the scientific community that represents 90% of the characters in this book.

Next, we get into the Nightfall section, which is, more or less, the original short story by Asimov. The timeline established in Twilight, where we can pass by months in a matter of pages, is compressed for this short, 24ish hour period when the eclipse occurs. Finally, we have Daybreak, which is honestly the most useless section of the novel, largely because we skip over all the insanity that happens at night. Literally, we go from, "The long night had come..." to "The first thing of which Theremon became aware...was that something huge and yellow was hanging over him in the sky." Seriously. You don't get to see the actual night, just the aftermath. No keeping up with the Kalgashians for you.

Okay, I'll stop, I promise.

Overall, the novel dragged. The concept was really interesting, but the text just didn't deliver. We don't see what happens in the dark, just a bunch of crazy people wandering around afterwards. It's difficult to get connected to any of the characters, we're kept at arms distance from all of them, and honestly, none of them are sympathetic enough for a reader to want to care about. Nightfall as a section is fine, but we actually don't need the build up, or what happens after. It should have stayed a short story. 

The most frustrating part of the novel is Daybreak. Things slow to a stop, and we're met with an overwhelming sense of "who cares". The aftermath is boring. What was also weird about Daybreak is its total shift in favor of religion at the end. Throughout the ENTIRE novel, the largest organized religion on the planet (the Apostles of Flame) are ridiculed and mocked. At the end of the novel, they're embraced as the only way. It's a sudden, jarring shift, and it takes all of two pages for the Apostles of Flame to go from villains to heroes. That's sloppy. It doesn't make sense for a number of reasons, especially given that their leader (Folium 66) is basically a symbolic representation of Satan (you'll note that F is the 6th letter in the alphabet, and that his name in the original short story was Latimer. Like Lucifer. Get it? SO CLEVER).
I had a lot of hopes for Nightfall. It was an interesting premise, and I was interested to see what would happen to a society who had never known darkness at night. You don't really find out. Because we skip over everything that happens at night, it's difficult to suspend our disbelief for Daybreak. Really? One 18 hour period of darkness is enough to completely collapse society? Everyone goes insane? Are you sure? The characters, while flawed in their own way, aren't very relate-able, and we don't care about any of them. Don't even get me started on the sole female character, who starts as a "I am a strong independent work driven woman don't need no man" stereotype to the romantic interest of the reporter to his loving sidekick.
Not the best book I've ever read, but it only too me a few days to read, so it gets a pass for not wasting too much of my time. The short story in itself (the Nightfall segment of the book) was more than enough of the story, the rest of the novel is just exposition, and boring exposition at that.

Next time, we'll be looking at Mad Max: Fury Road, and discussing why I love it now despite being so disappointed at my first showing. I promise one day I will shift away from sci-fi. But today is not that day, nor is tomorrow. In fact, you should just make yourself comfortable.
~Sassa