How Not to Make a Movie 101: Directors Showcase - Zack Snyder

 

        Welcome back to class, my beautiful readers.

Today’s lesson is going to be a little different. Rather than examine a single film, we’re going to take an extensive look at the works, styles, and preferences of a particular director. While movies are made of several different parts all working together to create a cinematic experience, the director is one of the most prominent and, arguably, the more popular and glamorous of the filmmaking roles. Some directors are able to maintain the sense of collaboration with their fellow artists and find the flow of creativity when things don’t go as planned, often finding things they hadn’t yet considered better than what they initially envisioned; while some directors can be so insistent and demanding that their vision be exactly as they see it with no deviations. Sometimes the latter behavior can pay off, other times it falls apart. 

Our first subject for examination is none other than the king of slow motion himself, Zack Snyder. A filmmaker of such unusual talent (albeit severely limited), and a penchant for creating a whole new meaning to the term “Directors Cut,” Snyder seems to have created an entire new class of filmmakers, one that, while somewhat understandable, is not incredibly sustainable. While there is no denying that the man has made at least a few well crafted works of cinema, if only by accident (more on that later), Zack Snyder is the kind of artist you would find in the same class as the notorious comic book artist/writer, Rob Liefeld: someone who grew up with incredible works of art in their chosen field, took all the wrong lessons from them, and tried to build an entirely new standard of art based on their surface-level understanding of what came before. 

Class is now in session! 

Lesson 1: 

Education Over Conformity

One of the issues I have with Zack Snyder as a director is his apparent inability to completely understand the stories he is tasked with telling, preferring to merely slap his extreme style onto it; under the false impression that no further work is needed. In the world of music, Snyder could be described as a three-note artist: someone who is only able to hit three notes, but hits them so incredibly well and with such massive commitment, that it can feel more profound than it actually is. While some three-note artists have managed to skate by on repeating those notes, and a few others have actually succeeded in expanding their horizons over time, Zack Snyder does not appear to have hit that point just yet. 

As an example, take a look at his run with the D.C. Comics characters, Superman and Batman, in both Man of Steel, and Batman v. Superman: Dawn of Justice. In both cases, Snyder and his team referred to those works as “deconstructions” of the characters: stories that dissect the characters essence and place them in an extreme situation, showcasing the inherent convictions and, for want of a better word, “soul” of the character. This can be a fantastic way to examine and demonstrate a characters tangibility, so long as the deconstruction is performed by someone who has a genuine and wholehearted understanding of the characters, which, sadly, Zack Snyder did not possess, at least not at the time. 

A more accurate description of Snyder’s work on the films Man of Steel and Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice would be a “reimagining” of the characters. Unlike deconstruction where the true essence of a character is thoroughly examined and presented under extreme circumstances, a reimagining is entirely different, wherein a character of a specific style and genre is used in a completely different presentation, that essentially breaks down to a “what if…” situation: stories that completely reinterpret a character and setting as a means of offering a different perspective and philosophy, typically based on the preferences of the storyteller. 

For example, Tim Burton’s “remake” of Planet of the Apes from 2001 (ah, I see what you did there) is largely understood more as a reimagining of a classic film, albeit not a particularly good one. It was an example of a filmmaker doing what they would have done with the material, had they been given the opportunity at the time. It can be a useful and, at times, fun chance for a filmmaker to completely demonstrate their voice and, at the same time, bring a whole new perspective to classic stories. 

The problem with most reimagining is that they also give the impression that the filmmaker/storyteller, is possibly incapable or unwilling to properly examine the material they are working with, and would prefer to conform said material to their personal preferences and styles. Essentially, it comes across less like a different artists interpretation, and more like an artists refusal to educate themselves on something different from their own experiences. 

Zack Snyder’s Man of Steel and Batman V. Superman: Dawn of Justice are not deconstructions of classic characters; they are massive misunderstandings masquerading as deconstructions of classic characters. While many people would argue that his takes on Superman and Batman were meant to be “modern” and “realistic,” which is completely understandable, I would argue that fictional works can still feel real without being realistic; Snyder does not seem to understand the difference, and his works with both of these classic characters demonstrate that lack of knowledge, and his apparent unwillingness to step out of his comfort zone. 

In life, as in art, we will always face situations and circumstances, wherein we must consider sacrificing a particular belief or preference, for the betterment of ourselves, our loved ones, and the material we may be tasked to work with. If we do not possess the strength and courage to consider such a task, then we have no business tackling it in the first place, and must recognize when to pass it along to someone who does. 

Furthermore, if you want to see what a proper deconstruction of a classic character looks like, check out the animated film Superman Vs. The Elite from 2012. 

Lesson 2: 

Substance Over Style

Another issue I have with Zack Snyder as a director, is his insistence on prioritizing his sense of style and favorite filmmaking techniques, at the expense of proper narrative engagement. Some of the most famous filmmakers have a signature of some kind that denotes their particular style and artistic preferences. For example, Spike Lee has his signature dolly shot, where a character appears to be moving forward in the frame despite them not actually moving at all. Another example is Alfred Hitchcock’s cameos in his movies. These signatures are something to look forward to when watching a film from any given director, and they can be fun to see how they will use it in the story they are telling, because any filmmaker worth their salt knows if a technique is used too often and unjustified, it can loose its intended impact. 

Which is exactly what happens in nearly all of Zack Snyder’s films! 

Snyder’s signatures include high contrast and undersaturated color pallets regardless of the content, extreme emphasis on exaggerated male physiques (along with a few phallic symbols here and there), and the use of slow motion that is so excessive, that if you were to play a drinking game wherein you take a shot every time he uses it, you would end up at the Hospital within the hour! 

These stylistic choices are fine in and of themselves; there is no real rule that dictates when and how they may be used. However, there is an unwritten rule in filmmaking that says signature techniques, regardless of ones passion for them, are best utilized in small doses and when they may provide the best intended impact. Zack Snyder does not appear to have learned that lesson, and insists upon implementing all of his preferences and style choices as often as humanly possible, regardless of how they may serve the narrative nor not. 

Perhaps one of the few instances that Zack Snyder’s style was best utilized, was in his 2009 adaptation of the classic Alan Moore graphic novel, Watchmen. Setting aside how the film mostly worked because Zack Snyder didn’t understand that the book was a satire (allegedly), his prioritization of extreme visual style and personal favorite techniques were a perfect fit for the adaptation. Zack Snyder bent over backwards to recreate the book on screen as much as humanly possible, going so far as to use the original book as storyboards. His joy for slow motion helped emphasize the comic book origin of the images; allowing him to successfully recreate the books visuals. Even though the film flopped at the box office and received less-than-favorable reviews, it is widely regarded as the best possible adaptation of the graphic novel anyone could have asked for, even with all the minor changes and omissions made by the screenwriters. 

Zack Snyder is so overtly obsessed with his visual voice that he seems to ignore, or even forget, how they may best serve the narrative, which must always be a filmmakers priority. While I do not deny Snyder’s enthusiasm and genuine talent in some areas, I have yet to see what he can do when he seriously takes the time to examine the narrative he is working with, rather than slap his signatures all over everything and call it a day. He seems to retain a mere surface-level understanding of the scripts he makes and doesn’t seem willing nor capable of expanding his horizons. Which, incidentally, leads me to…

Lesson 3:

Push Yourself

As I mentioned before, Zack Snyder apparently didn’t realize the Watchman was a satire when he made the film, and that’s likely because he’s one of those people who grew up in what is commonly known as the dark ages of comics, and became one of those comic fans who never grew past their surface-level appreciation for the art form. 

Allow me to elaborate. 

The 1980s was a fantastic age for comic books, both for creators and readers. In addition to Alan Moore’s Watchmen, he also penned other classics like V for Vendetta and a couple memorable runs of Swamp Thing. At the same time, we also had superhero comics from D.C. and Marvel taking risks with their signature characters aiming to push the readership of comics, such as Frank Miller’s Batman: The Dark Knight Returns and Chris Claremont’s run with the X-Men; trying to break out of the perception of being regarded as merely children’s entertainment. This lead to superhero stories that tackled dark and mature themes like societal corruption, trauma, and the many morally grey areas of being a hero. Most or these stories were tackled by talented and intelligent writers who knew how to craft a narrative, combined with memorable art, to create something more unexpected and nuanced than anyone could have imagined. It was the beginning of a new age. 

And then, in the 1990s, it got completely overshadowed and nearly destroyed by fans who lacked any of the proper knowledge and talent to understand, let alone recreate, any of the nuances presented in these classic comics. One of these fans would go on to start his own comic book company and regularly churn out meaningless arrogant slop pretending to be cool. I am, of course, referring to none other than the undeserving king of 90s comics, Rob Liefeld. 

For those of you who may not know or would appreciate a refresher, Rob Liefeld was a comic book “writer” and “artist” in the 90s, who founded Image Comics and “created” many comic book characters (most of which were merely ripoffs of Marvel’s Wolverine) and storylines that would go on to reshape the comics world, for better and for worse. Like many comic fans, he grew up reading the aforementioned classics that attempted to push the boundaries of comic book storytelling. The only problem is he, and many other readers, didn’t understand that. 

Rather than take in the intelligent and mature nuances of all those stories, Liefeld, and by extension most comic readers of the time, saw the darker and seemingly bad-ass aesthetics and attitudes of the characters, and prioritized that over everything else. They thought making characters who were gritty, angry, cold, and as excessively macho as possible was all that was needed to create nuance. In short, Liefeld never grew passed his surface-level understanding of the characters and stories that inspired him in the first place, and spend most of his career rinsing and repeating his “style” with no variation or greater understanding. 

Zack Snyder is very similar to Rob Liefeld, in that the vast majority of his works showcases his refusal to evolve past the initial impressions of his early inspirations, and, for want of a better phrase, grow up! Even the few films he made that attempted to go deeper into mature and nuanced themes, such as Sucker Punch and Legend of the Guardians: The Owls of Ga’Hoole, can’t surpass Snyder’s perpetual adolescence. His works are equal to that of those fantasy-themed air brush paintings seen on many a camper van: visually stunning; ultimately meaningless. 

Conclusion: 

Zack Snyder is what happens when a three-note talent is given too much leeway and no serious challenge (either from himself or others) to evolve. While his works are fantastical and visually striking in their own unique ways, they cannot escape the sad fact that they are, ultimately, hollow efforts attempting and failing to be compelling stories. I may enjoy and appreciate Watchmen, and I don’t deny that his four hour epic Justice League was vastly superior to the theatrical version, but I do not see myself becoming a regular fan of his work. I can only enjoy watching a three-note artist hit those same three notes so well for so long before I never want to hear them ever again! 

Class dismissed. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Crime 101 - Modern Classic

 

Streaming on Amazon Prime

When you think of classic crime stories in cinema, what films come to mind? Some think of John Huston’s The Maltese Falcon from 1941, William Friedkin’s The French Connection from 1971, and Michael Mann’s Heat from 1995; all of which are staples of the film noir and crime story genre. While many other films have tried to emulate or even recreate those classics, most of them couldn’t quite make the cut, either because they forgot to include some kind of likable and tangible quality to some of the criminal characters, or they hire a screenwriter who mistakes dropping a ton of “F” bombs for mature authenticity (the latter of which is featured in today’s subject, but better utilized). 

Bart Layton’s Crime 101 from 2026 succeeds in both taking notes from its classic contemporaries, while maintaining its own individuality. A few scenes may drag on a bit too long here and there, but never to the point of feeling monotonous. It is just enough of a slow burn to feel appropriately moody without feeling pretentious. Plus, it gets bonus points for its subtle commentary on the lack of proper mental health care in this country (more on that in a minute). 

Based on the novella by Don Winslow, the story follows an elite thief named Davis (Chris Hemsworth), who is suddenly dealing with a heist that didn’t go as smoothly as he planned. While he takes some time off to clear his head, Davis starts up an unexpected relationship with a bright girl named Maya (Monica Barbaro), and he seems to want to leave his present life to start a new one with her. All the while dealing with a Detective Lou (Mark Ruffalo) on his case, scouting the potential usefulness of an disgruntled insurance agent named Sharon (Halle Berry), and evading the prying eyes of a loose canon rival named Ormon (Barry Keoghan). All these characters eventually find themselves intertwined in the most unexpected turn of events. 

This film is a fine depiction of a morally ambiguous story that succeeds in reminding audiences the fine line between right and wrong, without preaching or insisting upon any particular ideology; Crime 101 fully understands what makes its genre so intriguing, and present said elements in a fresh yet familiar manner. Even though some aspects of the film have been done before in other movies, especially the ones mentioned earlier, nothing ever feels ripped off or carbon copied. You see the inspiration, but the film still stands on its own. 

The cast is especially fun to watch. Chris Hemsworth gets the opportunity to explore his range as an actor, which Hollywood hasn’t given him much opportunity to do. He demonstrates his ability to play quietly and subtly incredibly well, and does a remarkable job at conveying the characters desire to connect with people, despite lacking an understanding of how such connections can work, likely due to an undiagnosed mental and emotional difference of some kind; something that could have been noticed and better understood in different circumstances, which the film does a remarkable job at highlighting without hitting you over the head. 

The MVP award goes to Halle Berry for reminding us all how much of a powerhouse she still is. She gets the most amount of performance range in the film and she uses every second of her screen time to its fullest potential. Like many great performers, Halle Berry has had a few rough patches (*cough* Catwoman *cough*), but she seems to know how to bounce back and remind us why we enjoy her talent. 

Crime 101 may not be the most “original” of stories, but it is different and well executed enough to earn its place amongst the classics. Don’t let its slow burn pace turn you away; it knows what it’s doing at all times and it likely won’t disappoint. 

Give it a shot. 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

The Magic is Gone - My Feelings on the Upcoming Harry Potter Series on HBO Max

 

The Wizarding World of Harry Potter is one of those things from my youth that I never gravitated toward but greatly appreciated for many reasons, not the least of which was getting kids excited about reading and literacy. I myself have read the first two books and seen all the movies (the third one is still the best). But then the franchise went down hill hard with their prequel and spin-off movies that devolved into uninteresting and pretentious concepts about family lines, civil wars, and performance art masquerading as representation. Not to mention the inhumane and horrific personification of hate and bigotry that is J.K. Rowling. I suppose it would be apt to say that we were into Harry Potter back when it was actually fun; before we learned how much of a nazi the original author is. 

Still, this is one of the many reasons I have always advocated for the separation of art from the artist; works of art in all forms must be judged on their own merits, not the merits of their creators or lack thereof. Whatever else can be said about the author, there is no denying that her creation spawned a positive influence on people, especially younger people, that exploded with wonder and a kind of magic all on its own. 

Having said that, what the hell is Warner Bros. doing wasting everyones time with a Harry Potter reboot series? 

Setting aside the obvious desire to cash in on what is now a nostalgic property (the first book in the series was published in 1997), what about the Harry Potter series is there to explore that hasn’t already been played with? Sure, there may be a few nuances and minor details that were initially left out of the original movies, and older fans of the series might be excited at the prospect of a new iteration of their childhood treasures, but aside from all that, what value is there in spending the time, energy, and money to retread old grounds that have already been so thoroughly explored? The easy answer is nostalgic cash grab, of course, but I’m more interested in the answer besides the obvious; and the best I can come up with is…laziness! 

Setting aside all of the expected and understandable talking points (the controversy around the original author, the original movie series already covering this storyline, the wasted time and money, etc.), there is a much more significant and easy to address issue at play with this upcoming retread of familiar ground; symptomatic of the inevitable downfall of the Hollywood system as we once knew it, and the unavoidable reality regarding mainstream entertainment we all must come to terms with: they don’t care! 

Corporate “entertainment” is not about telling compelling stories, creating enriching escapism experiences, or bringing meaningful and fantastical concepts to life for our enjoyment; they are about selling products for mass consumption to maximize profit, while putting in the least amount of effort required for artistic creation. This isn’t an effort to enhance an older property, provide an opportunity for newer fans of a series, or even a chance at doing justice by past creators: this is filmmaking by accountants in its most egregious and aggressive form! 

I understand how I may come across as an angry bitter old man yelling at the clouds, a frustrated artist complaining about the imbalances and injustices of the system, or as a whiny petulant child throwing a tantrum like our Toddler-In-Chief does on a regular basis. And while there may be some truth to at least one of those things, the fact is that these massive conglomerates have the power and the money to do literally anything else with their time and resources. Warner Bros. and HBO Max could have put the energy, time, and money that they are wasting with this shiny new Harry Potter series, which I guarantee no one will watch, on at least five original screenplays sitting on the sidelines, waiting for their opportunity to become the next big property to sweep the world. But alas, if anything you create isn’t directly linked to a “pre-existing property,” it might as well be invisible! 

Modern mainstream “entertainment” isn’t here to enrich your lives; they want your money and they don’t care how much it hurts to yank it away from you! This is a desperate attempt by Warner Bros. to salvage themselves from too many corporate buyouts, misguided decisions, and incompetent leadership, and they are under the delusion that we, the audience, are too stupid to recognize that, and will blindly flock to whatever nostalgic property they throw at us. 

If you have any desire for better creations than this, do yourself and your loved ones a favor and refuse to watch this series; cancel your HBO Max subscription (if only temporarily) if you have to! Because Hollywood, and all of its affiliates, will NEVER change unless we make our voices heard with our wallets! They don’t listen to petitions, protests, or even well-written letters; they only listen to money! If you seriously want something better, put your money, attention, and effort toward finding and funding the ones who are actually trying! 

Ladies & gentlemen, I amTheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

Project Hail Mary - Out of This World

 

In 2011, an up and coming author named Andy Weir self-published a little story titled The Martian: the story of an astronaut accidentally stranded alone on the planet Mars; chronicling his efforts to survive and find a way back home. The book was adapted into a successful and enjoyably entertaining film starring Matt Damon and directed by Ridley Scott released in 2015. Despite concerns from fans of the book, the film adaptation was as accurate and respectful to the original book as possible, earning many praises from readers and film enthusiasts alike, including Dominic Noble, host of the YouTube show, Lost in Adaptation. Not only was it a good story, the film was a fantastically engaging ride with lots of well placed humor, scientific challenges, and invigorating explorations on the human condition. Not to mention many great jokes about potatoes and how they’re grown in Space. 

Now, over a decade later, Andy Weir has come charging back into the Hollywood game with an adaptation of his follow up novel, Project Hail Mary, starring Ryan Gosling and directed by Miller & Lord; you know, the guys who were fired by Disney for permitting too much improv while filming Solo: A Star Wars Story. 

That incident may have put them in directors jail for a while, but it looks like they’ve been given another well-deserved shot at the directors chair, and they have hit it out of the park! 

Project Hail Mary may very well be the first truly great feel-good movie of the year! Not only does it feature some great acting, splendid imagery, and well-crafted direction, it has the most heart I have seen out of any modern Hollywood movie this decade so far. I eagerly await the opportunity to watch this movie again! 

Based on the book of the same title, the story follows an elementary school teacher named Dr. Ryland Grace (Ryan Gosling) who is approached by the government to solve a mystery most of the worlds top scientists can’t put their finger on. It turns out some mysterious cosmic phenomenon is causing the Sun, and many other stars in the known Universe, to shrink, which will eventually lead to galactic catastrophe and extinction level events. However, there is one star that appears to be unaffected by the phenomenon, located some eleven lightyears away, and their only hope is to start a special shuttle launch, using extremely powerful and experimental technology, to travel to the unaffected star, determine the reason for its immunity, and hopefully use its advantage to save the rest of the dying stars. Grace, rather reluctantly, sets out on the mission. 

There are a few more aspects of the story that I am deliberately leaving out, despite the possibility that you may have already learned about it in the trailers. But on the off chance that you have not yet seen any of the trailers, I promise you will have a significantly more satisfying experience if you go see the movie only knowing what I have described here. 

This movie is, hands down, my present favorite contender for potentially the best film of the year so far! Throughout the entire runtime, I found myself in awe with the characters, the commitment to intelligent storytelling, and especially the technical aspects of the filmmaking (how did they make the lens flairs do that?). What sells the entire story so well is the remarkable chemistry between the two main characters (you’ll see what I mean), and the unique friendship they form, which feels more tangible and relatable than I might have imagined. 

Project Hail Mary is an experience the likes of which only comes around, pardon the pun, when the stars are perfectly aligned. This film is as genuine, intelligent, and heartfelt as you can ever hope for, so please stop reading this and go see it immediately. I will not be offended, and you will be in for one heck of a ride!

Absolutely go see it! 

Ladies and gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading. 

My Reaction to Timothée Chalamet's Comments About the Arts

 

🥰 Beautiful 🥰

        One thing about the modern age that has often troubled me is how overly reactive of a society we have become. On the one hand, I appreciate that more and more people are paying attention to things that have, historically, not had enough attention or advocacy given to them, such as the need for better mental healthcare and the injustices of many still-oppressed people to this day. But, on the other hand, I don’t appreciate how too many people appear to leap to conclusions whenever someone makes a comment or a statement that, while sounding controversial and inappropriate in the moment, may not be what was intended, yet people are quick to judge, ridicule, and criticize. This isn’t to say that such reactions aren’t valid or justified (they often are), but there are times when it benefits everyone to take a breath before responding to something on social media. Yes, I’m guilty of this myself, and yes, I’m also trying to do better. 

The most recent example of this unusual situation is a comment made by the young actor, Timothée Chalamet, late of the Dune remake, the prequel to Willy Wonka, and one of this years Oscar contenders in Marty Supreme, about the arts as a whole in the age of streaming and TikTok. While I cannot proclaim to understand what his intentions may have been with his comments, I can say that I understand why many people would be upset about them. I can also understand that, to a degree, I get where he was likely coming from, and I do believe that he could have phrased his comments in a better way. Plus, we could have taken a moment to contemplate before expressing our distain. 

If you please; hear me out. 

For those of you who may have missed this story (like I did), during an interview on CNN’s Variety, Timothée Chalamet commented on the movement to support movie theaters in the modern age, given their massive decline due to aggressive competition from streaming platforms and the like. This topic caused Chalamet to say, “I don’t want to be working in ballet or opera. Things where it’s like, ‘Hey, keep this thing alive, even though no one cares about this any more.’” Shortly after, he would attempt to clarify his comments by saying, “All respect to all the ballet and opera people out there…” but the damage had already been done, and the internet screamed as it typically does, albeit for understandable reasons. 

Now, despite how this sounds on the surface, there are a few ways this comment may be interpreted: one, he may have intended to comment on the perception of how seemingly not enough people care about the arts as they should, which is a valid observation and genuine concern for the modern age; two, he may have indeed intended to dismiss the arts as a dying aspect of modern culture, which is indeed worthy of retort; or three, he may have been looking to start a little controversy for some extra publicity during award season, which, while distasteful, isn’t anything new in Hollywood. 

In case you’re wondering, no, I do not agree with Chalamet’s comments, regardless of what he may or may not have intended! While I myself may not attend Ballet shows or the Opera as often as many others do, I find great value in their artistic expression, cultural significance, and contribution to the human condition as a whole. As an actor, filmmaker, and author, I’d like to think that I have a firm understanding and appreciation for all art forms, regardless of popularity or lack thereof. 

Having said that, while I’m not prepared to defend Chalamet’s comments, I am prepared to suggest that we take a step back and reevaluate our initial reactions. 

The part of me that still believes in the milk of human kindness, wants to believe that Chalamet was coming from a place of concern rather than apathy. Given Chalamet’s background growing up with his Ballet-teaching mother, I find it challenging to believe that he doesn’t have, at least, a little respect for the arts. But, the part of me that also recognizes the brain-rotting parasite known as the Hollywood experience, can easily suspect that Chalamet’s rise to stardom has caused his perceptions to be warped in the most unhealthiest of ways; giving himself a false sense of entitlement and superiority. The later is incredibly indicative of the Hollywood experience to this day. 

If there is one lesson we should all take away from this incident, let it be this: the arts are as necessary for a functioning society as proper governance and neighborly helpfulness. Human expression comes in many forms, some maybe more popular than others, but equally valid in their importance and contributions to the human condition. So, before we continue spending our energy screaming at a 30-year-old performer, who, admittedly, wasn't as mindful as he probably should have been, let us now redirect that energy toward proving said performer wrong; let us support and create our chosen filed of the arts, and share it with all those who may choose to join. 

“So long as men can breathe, or eyes can see, so long lives this, and this gives life to thee.” 

-William Shakespeare 

Ladies & gentlemen, I am TheNorm; thank you all for reading.