Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy- My 2 cents.

On Thursday night, at the Metreon's midnight show, I saw the Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

The theater wasn't crowded. There were about 60 people total, about 10 of which were die hard fans who grumbled every time something new or cheesy happened (they came carrying towels, and two of them were wearing bathrobes). A guy sitting in front of me would violently punch himself in the head anytime anything particularly contrary to the other adaptations of the story happened. The guy behind me was reciting lines right along with the movie. It was that kind of crowd. I was also very tired. These conditions undoubtedly influenced my opinion of the film.

I thought Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy was an okay adaptation of the existing material. Not outstanding, and not particularly bad. As movies go, it was nothing groundbreaking. As adaptations go it was typical Hollywood. Sure it had all the campy highbrow humor of Douglas Adams, but the filmmakers added a cheesy love thing that became the driving motivation for Arthur throughout the movie- a love thing that seemed as believable as Anakin and Padme's romance in Attack of the Clones- just kinda pasted in there. I'm disappointed that the filmmakers felt they had to pander to mass audience appeal (by inserting cheesy romance) instead of trusting the strength of the source material to carry the movie to a new generation of potential Hitchhiker fans.

It was fun to see some of the Hitchhiker concepts brought to life with a bigger budget, but actually, the cheesy BBC tv series was more satisfying for my tastes. The cheese and low production values of the tv show matched the pacing and the style of Adam's humor. The look of the film was typical Hollywood. I was expecting something more along the lines of Brazil, or City of Lost Children. The scenery and the cinematography was just too mainstream... too realistic for the characters it was meant to support. I wonder how the film would have turned out if Terry Gilliam had directed (a friend and colleague of Douglas Adams).

Some other things that bugged me about the film were an added character (Humma Kavula) played by John Malkovich that just goes nowhere. I don't know if I fell asleep and missed something while I was watching, but I don't remember that storyline going anywhere. As far as I can remember, they just dropped it. Perhaps Mr. Kavula is being saved for a sequel- whose pending production is painfully obvious at the end of this film (movies created as advertisements for their sequels is a pet peeve of mine).

So what was good about the film? I thought the casting was excellent- Everyone fit their characters. Martin Freeman was the perfect Arthur Dent, Mos Def was great as Ford Prefect, and the new Marvin design is much more appealing than the TV series incarnation. The Jim Henson Company's Vogon puppets were outstanding- the practical creature work brought a credibility missing from most CG character films. I also enjoyed the homages to the previous HHGTTG incarnations (the music, the voice of the book), and the cameo appearances by Simon Jones and the BBC Marvin.

As of right now, I'd give it a 3/5... The film is 75% there, and maybe a recutting would help it out a bit. I think I'll go see it again sometime when I'm more alert. And the next time, I'll remember to bring my 3D glasses with me to see Simon Jones in stupendous anaglyphic 3D.

A Language Re(de)fined

After watching the film "12 Angry Men" a couple weeks ago, I was reminded of a theory Sean had that has stuck with me. He mentioned one time (and please correct me if I'm wrong, Sean) that if you took these old "tacky" black and white movies and just edited them to be a bit faster for today's audiences, they would still be very accessible to the modern viewer. (This obviously won't work with some movies that were already very poor at the time.)

"12 Angry Men" is a perfect example. It's only flaw is that the film language is faster now. The acting is great, the setting, lighting, etc are all great, but we understand all the cutting cues much faster than when it was brand new. It's like how language changes. If you read an old book sometimes the only problem is with it's redundancy. It takes a while to make a small point. The other problem with old books can be its terms, which change over time. I think this is less of an issue with film, because the terms are largely visual, and almost never change.

Last week the New York Times published an adapted excerpt of Steven Johnson's new book: "Everything Bad Is Good for You: How Today's Popular Culture Is Actually Making Us Smarter." In his article Mr. Johnson deals with exactly what Sean was talking about, how these dialogue and editing cues have just gotten tighter and less conspicuous. Although I don't believe it's making anyone smarter, it's just changing. (As for the "new" necessity to pick up tiny plot details, did Mr. Johnson take into consideration a labyrinthine film noir like "The Big Sleep" or my favorite, "Out of The Past"?)

As for color, I'm not sure if color is more acceptable now than b/w. Although I'd like to think given the right circumstance they are equals, but color certainly gives a lot more information on the screen than b/w, and modern b/w has to compensate. "Sin City" is a great example of a modern film that uses b/w cinematography just as well as any all-color movie.

"Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" are two fantastic examples tightening up an old popular genre, the serial, and making it relevant to the modern viewer. I'm not sure if Mr. Lucas set out to change our movie-going experience, but he did set out to take the old outdated serial he enjoyed as a kid and update it. To do that he had to not only edit tighter, but he also had make the film's world more accessible. All of the model work couldn't be in long shot, they had to act like vehicles in modern movies by having a dramatic spatial relationship to the viewer. For example, moving ships closer and farther away from the camera with a wide angle lens. In the film, definitions for strange things should be taken for granted, as in real life. Cut out the fluff (like exposition on how a lightsaber works) and get to the point. By paying special attention to the clarity of drama in the way the story was told, he kept the film in the exact spirit of the old story-style. It drew the attention closer to the drama that was always there, and in turn updated the movie-going experience.

So I suppose in conclusion: there are some great ideas out there that just happen to be told in an older language.

HHGTTG: The Movie

Well, I'm excited. I just bought tickets to go see The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy at tonight's midnight show at the Metreon.

Mike and I saw a great presentation at this year's Wondercon by executive producer Robby Stamp that got me all amped up to see the film. NPR has an interview with Robby Stamp with much of the same information that was given in the lecture at Wondercon. Check it out here.

I'll be back tomorrow with a full report.

Aquabats and Gargon, together at last.

The Aquabats announce 2005 tour!

"Teenage Pajamas From Outer Space!"



Check out the official Aquabats site, and click on "News" for details!

theaquabats.com