fbpx

Tag Archive for film

Atomic Blonde and My Childhood Nihilism

Good goddamn, Atomic Blonde was something else.  With Charlize Theron as an unreliable narrator and James McAvoy as good-guy douchebag-gone-native this may be in my top-ten favorite cold-war spy films ever.  It’s a “genre” film, make no mistake about that, but if you have ever been a fan of ’70’s/80’s spy fiction, this is going to be right in your wheelhouse.

I grew up during the cold war.  I was probably in 4th grade when it finally hit home that if the PTB’s pissing matches ever went past the point of no return, I was going to be one of the lucky ones who was vaporized on impact.  It was… unsettling at the time.  When your formative years involve regular reminders that all it would take was a bad transistor, or a flock of pigeons, or a bright red balloon in the wrong airspace at the wrong time, to end the world as you know it, you’re looking at a certain embrace of your inevitable radiation-fueled disintegration.

On older family member once remarked that my generation had no fear.  That the comfort and security of a regular paycheck and well-defined working hours didn’t seem to hold as much attraction for us.  But when you grow up with the complete destruction of humanity as a very possible outcome before you even make it out of puberty, what the hell else can they do to you?  This sense that, we’re all just shuttling around behind the scenes while the facades of our major players keep shouting rhetoric at each other onscreen is one of the key drivers in this film.  While posturing is going on, there is “real work” being done behind the scenes and that idea is one of the most attractive things about the cold war genre. There are people out there taking actual actions.  Not superheroes, not billionaire playboys, just someone who has a job to do.  Anyone can save the world.  They just have to be in the right place at the right time.

For me, there were a lot of things to love about Atomic Blonde.  Charlize Theron absolutely makes you believe that she is physically capable of pulling off every one of those moves.  They do the Actor the service (and, yes, this is a service) of allowing her character to get bruised, spit blood, stomp around town in a stylish coat and a black eye.  They (and likely Ms. Theron bought into this) are not interested in keeping her “pretty”.  None of this is “pretty”, none of it is glorified.  It is death, betrayal and mayhem on an intimate, fingernail-peeling, scale.  The fight scenes are gorgeous and brutal in a way that has only recently become fashionable.  They make every single hit hard work for both Lorraine (Theron) and her opponents.  These fights are first and foremost about endurance.  Who can get up again the quickest.

The story itself, the narrative that strings all of these fight sequences together is incomplete, but not for the reasons you might thing.  This film was written and filmed for us “Cold War kids”.  This means there is a lot of “generational canon” here that, unless your own memories of the cold war get brought to the fore by the sound and imagery, you’re going to miss.  If anything, the filmmakers are guilty of going too far into “show, don’t tell” land. The current crop of 20-something moviegoers simply aren’t going to have all the references to hand.  (I’m reminded of when The Two Jakes, the 1990 sequel to the 1974 Chinatown was released.  After 16 years, the experience base of the moviegoers had changed and the new generation just didn’t respond quite as strongly as their parents).

Atomic Blonde reads very much like the plot of so many post WW2 and early cold war spy films, gems like Enigma where the feeling of an operative working in informational darkness is only enhanced by the viewer being kept in the darkness alongside them.  This was standard fare in many stories of the time. If you are a fan of the genre, Atomic Blonde will fit right in there alongside the original Bourne Identity or Flight of the Condor.

Still beating my head against the wall of understanding…

See, now I’m stuck on this subject.  I really want to understand just *what* it is about our industries that makes us so “different”.  A number of the game people I talk to say “on, no, we have nothing in common with the movie industry” and many of the literary people I talk with say “no, we don’t have anything in common with games”.  The movie people, well they don’t talk much, I leave a lot of voice messages for them.

In all three cases, the initial idea, the primary concept, starts with a single creative type.  For this example, I am going with Game Designer, the Author or the Screenwriter.  In all 3 industries the core idea can come from a producer/editor/agent/actor/programmer or some place else, but there is almost always a single entity at the start of the project.

That person develops the idea, they pitch it, they bring in people to create content to prove the worthiness of the project.  Then they either sell the idea (to a game publisher/book publisher/film studio) for production or they put together their own team and go indie.

In all three cases, this is around the point at which the single entity goes to a “team” dynamic.  A film or TV show acquires writers/storyboarders/concept artists/designers.   A Game acquires writers/storyboarders/concept artists/designers.  A Book acquires an editor/jacket artist/proofreader/marketing guru.

Strangely enough, in a “middle-of-the-road” situation, it seems to take almost the same amount of time for all three types of projects to get completed.  An average (no, not AAA like Bioshock2) game takes about 2 years to hit the shelves.  An average TV show seems to take about 2 years to pilot, produce, find a timeslot, etc.  An average book seems to take about years to get edited, proofed, typeset, designed and printed, etc.

In all three cases we have 1. An idea guy/gal.  2.  A publisher/Producer who fronts the money to make it happen.  3. A team of people who make it a reality.

In all three cases you can have that idea bought or taken away from the creator, run through a committee or “focus group” and churned out as something completely different from what went in (though I think this may be harder in Lit, where the single creator keeps a hand in through the entire process).

In all three cases, you have the money-fronting entity taking the lion’s share of the revenue.

In all three cases you have a “team” that needs to be paid above and beyond what the original creative type negotiated for their share.

In all three cases we are looking at the buying and selling of an idea.  Of a story.  Of an IP rather than a single, concrete physical product (though a the end of the process the IP has been turned into some sort of warehouseable products).

In all three cases you have the money-fronting entity trying to own the entire IP across all types of media (film, TV, Lit, Game, video, etc. etc.) in exchange for fronting the money.

So it seems the devil (as it so often is) is in the details.  Do the differences lie in the structure of the organizations?  The way the deals are cut?  The distribution and marketing?  Am I missing some crucial detail here?  If you know, post away!  I’m asking these things (and blogging away) because I genuinely want to see what everyone else seems to be seeing.