![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
selenakMy Astonishing X-Men 6 finally arrived, which made me happy. Unfortunately, due to lack of familiarity with Kitty and Pjotr other than through their movieverse cameos before this saga means somewhat less emotional impact than I imagine X-Men comicverse aficiniados get from his return and them being together. So my favourite scene was the quiet conversation between Scott and Hank. I do have a soft spot for the "conversation between two old friends who have been through a lot", plus it showcases the huge impact the "cure" had and continues to have on Hank, and how giving this up isn't easy for him, but nonetheless is his decision. It also shows why Scott is a good leader and friend - he doesn't push, he's not lecturing, he lets Hank work through it.
(Note to self: Must reread![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif)
penknife's stories featuring Scott and Hank.)
My guess about the big cliffhanger showing Emma in ominous conversation with an unseen party: that's not the Possessed!Cordy killing Lilah kind of cliffhanger, but the Has-Angel-Gone-Evil? cliffhanger (a la Reprise and the last but one episode of season 5). Meaning we're supposed to worry and suspect, especially given Emma's villainous past and her less than amiable relationship with Kitty, but it will turn out that whatever agenda she's pursuing is actually going to serve the greater good. (Though probably in a ruthless fashion which, say, Scott wouldn't condone. See also Angel in the final episodes of season 5.) .
In other news, I've watched The Manchurian Candidate, i.e. the remake. Which was well-made and interesting, but flawed. The basic problem, imo, is that given the extent in which big business already influences politics, one wonders why an organization likeHalliburton Manchurian Global would bother with this incredible elaborate scheme. I mean, it's not like a brainwashed candidate can give them anything they haven't gotten already, or if there is, the movie didn't make it clear. One of the many things I appreciate about JMS' Earth storyline in Babylon 5 that that various influential parties don't support Clark's path from Vice President to President to Dictator because they're villains and thus obliged to do so. The Shadows help Clark as a part of their greater agenda, stirring up wars in the galaxy. Psi Corps initially supports Clark because they expect more concrete legal power out of it, then splits into at least two factions once Clark's deal with the Shadows becomes clear because, as Bester frankly puts it to Ivanova, "we can't be on top if these Aliens get there first". And so on.
Other than the lack of just what Manchurian Global expects to gain from a Shaw presidency which they haven't already got, the other complaint I have is that even for a satire, Meryl Streep's Eleanor Prentiss Shaw is over the top. I guess she's supposed to make sure the paranoia of the film is bi-partison, because if Manchurian Global stands in for Halliburton, Eleanor Prentiss Shaw is the demonized version of Hillary Clinton dear to many a right-wing journalist's heart. (Looking at you, William Safire.) They even gave her the same hair style. Now I don't have a problem with female villains, or Evil Female Politicians. (Servalan, Winn, you know I love you dearly.) But Eleanor was such an assemply of clichés - the demon (incestous) mother, the black widow, the power-hungry string puller. She's the version of Indira Gandhi Salman Rushdie offers in Midnight's Children, but Rushdie makes Indira-as-Kali exuding a dark fascination Eleanor lacks.
On the other hand, I liked all of the other performances. Denzel Washington as Ben Marco is a tortured man who never turns into the typical thriller action hero, and you can see why the army regards him as unhinged, and why he'd be such a perfect candidate for the lone assassin cliché. Speaking of which, I do appreciate that finally, we have a movie where it makes sense that the villains don't kill the hero who could expose them despite having the chance various times.
And then there's Liev Schreiber, who played a very believable Orson Welles a while ago on TV. He's very good as Raymond Shaw, both in Politician!mood, as the programmed puppet, and as the tormented man within slowly awakening to the truth. The climax of the film is somewhat ambiguous, but my interpretion is that Raymond could break his conditioning enough to deliberately take the President-elect's place as the victim. Hence stepping on the red star as opposed to his mother's orders, and his repeated looks to Ben Marco. And of course, the deliberate pulling his mother close for a dance, and for her death. Going back to the earlier scene in which Ben Marco told Raymond that there was something within both of them which the brainwashing couldn't reach, this lends the climax a pathos and sadness, yet an affirmation of humanity. .
Now:penknife has posted a series of drabbles ficlets which I love, the one about Mystique and the Picard/Crusher one most of all. Go, read, admire!
(Note to self: Must reread
penknife's stories featuring Scott and Hank.)My guess about the big cliffhanger showing Emma in ominous conversation with an unseen party: that's not the Possessed!Cordy killing Lilah kind of cliffhanger, but the Has-Angel-Gone-Evil? cliffhanger (a la Reprise and the last but one episode of season 5). Meaning we're supposed to worry and suspect, especially given Emma's villainous past and her less than amiable relationship with Kitty, but it will turn out that whatever agenda she's pursuing is actually going to serve the greater good. (Though probably in a ruthless fashion which, say, Scott wouldn't condone. See also Angel in the final episodes of season 5.) .
In other news, I've watched The Manchurian Candidate, i.e. the remake. Which was well-made and interesting, but flawed. The basic problem, imo, is that given the extent in which big business already influences politics, one wonders why an organization like
Other than the lack of just what Manchurian Global expects to gain from a Shaw presidency which they haven't already got, the other complaint I have is that even for a satire, Meryl Streep's Eleanor Prentiss Shaw is over the top. I guess she's supposed to make sure the paranoia of the film is bi-partison, because if Manchurian Global stands in for Halliburton, Eleanor Prentiss Shaw is the demonized version of Hillary Clinton dear to many a right-wing journalist's heart. (Looking at you, William Safire.) They even gave her the same hair style. Now I don't have a problem with female villains, or Evil Female Politicians. (Servalan, Winn, you know I love you dearly.) But Eleanor was such an assemply of clichés - the demon (incestous) mother, the black widow, the power-hungry string puller. She's the version of Indira Gandhi Salman Rushdie offers in Midnight's Children, but Rushdie makes Indira-as-Kali exuding a dark fascination Eleanor lacks.
On the other hand, I liked all of the other performances. Denzel Washington as Ben Marco is a tortured man who never turns into the typical thriller action hero, and you can see why the army regards him as unhinged, and why he'd be such a perfect candidate for the lone assassin cliché. Speaking of which, I do appreciate that finally, we have a movie where it makes sense that the villains don't kill the hero who could expose them despite having the chance various times.
And then there's Liev Schreiber, who played a very believable Orson Welles a while ago on TV. He's very good as Raymond Shaw, both in Politician!mood, as the programmed puppet, and as the tormented man within slowly awakening to the truth. The climax of the film is somewhat ambiguous, but my interpretion is that Raymond could break his conditioning enough to deliberately take the President-elect's place as the victim. Hence stepping on the red star as opposed to his mother's orders, and his repeated looks to Ben Marco. And of course, the deliberate pulling his mother close for a dance, and for her death. Going back to the earlier scene in which Ben Marco told Raymond that there was something within both of them which the brainwashing couldn't reach, this lends the climax a pathos and sadness, yet an affirmation of humanity. .
Now:
penknife has posted a series of 
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 11:18 am (UTC)EXACTLY! It's just not thought through. My favorite unintentionally- hilarious moment in the film is that when Marco goes to do research on Manchurian, he looks in the business page of the New York Times. And then he goes online and finds the evil scientists explaining their evil schemes. It may be a better satire than it intends to be -- that the real evil is all this stuff going on and the public acting like they are brainwashed, without even needing to be brainwashed! Re: Streep -- it's pretty hard to imagine an American political party today that would encompass both her and Senator Jordan. I guess you have Arlen Specter, but he's not exactly got the Bushies quaking in their boots. Whereas the Republican party of the 50s (note the milieu of the original film) had its McCarthys (Iselin, Raymond's stepfather in the original), its Goldwaters, and its Rockefellers. So that satire made sense, this one doesn't.
I have more to say on this but I can't recommend the original enough. George Axelrod's screenplay is an absolute model of exposition and story development, and it has some of the most bizarre dialogue ever filmed. (The violence done to the train scene in the remake made me weep).
The good side of the remake is that Liev Schrieber is one of my favorite actors, and, as Angel says, "Denzel's always great." Raymond/Marco slash? Shiny.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 11:48 am (UTC)Here they are: http://www.newamericancentury.org/
On the International Criminal Court: http://www.newamericancentury.org/global0201.htm
On the rationale for the upcoming war in Iran: http://www.newamericancentury.org/iran-20040224.htm
On relations with the European Union: http://www.newamericancentury.org/kagan-20020520.htm
Nothing secret about it!
no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 12:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 01:00 pm (UTC)AXM #6
Date: 2004-11-29 11:42 am (UTC)As for the Kitty/Piotr, I'm in the same boat as you in familiarity with the characters but I took their conversation in #5 to be the one Buffy would have had with Spike if she had shown up early in AtS s5, and then found it very satisfying indeed.
Re: AXM #6
Date: 2004-11-29 01:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 01:12 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 02:31 pm (UTC)Yup, that's my problem exactly. And I'm completely with you about the Scott/Hank conversation. I hope you're right about Emma as I :::whispers softly::: like her better than Kitty. I was finding Kitty very interesting and likeable at the start of the saga and then I felt that Joss almost overdid the love (shades of Willow) and I lost interest in her. I suspect this is a terrible heresy to readers with a better knowledge of the X-men comicverse!
Have you seen the original Manchurian Candidate? It's years since I did but I remember it being a hugely powerful film with an amazing performance by Angela Lansbury
no subject
Date: 2004-11-29 10:44 pm (UTC)No, I haven't seen the original Manchurian Candidate yet, alas.
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:10 am (UTC)& ;-)
http://www.livejournal.com/community/alias_icons/789514.html?view=4332042#t4332042
There was a Jack one, too, somewhere....
no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:14 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:16 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:19 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2004-11-30 07:22 am (UTC)And look at the new wealth of Sloancons!
http://www.livejournal.com/users/to_babou/9880.html#cutid1
no subject
Date: 2004-12-01 09:49 am (UTC)My thoughts on the cliffhanger pretty much match yours, although there is a part of me that is afraid she will turn out to be evil and if she did it would be a shame because while I love Colossus, Emma is by far the most interesting member of the team.