Not my usual fare, but my friends’ band (Cosmonaut Radio) is going on tour, and they made a Snapchat to document their travels. If y'all like music, travel, and sexy men, you should give them a follow!

In response to the game around the fountain: "It looks like they're playing some weird s&m game"

My friend: "That's what I do with Christan Borle in my free time"

The moral of the story is don’t fuck Nazis

~ My friend describing the Sound of Music (via abovetherisingfalls)

State Of Mind: What Makes A Hipster?

For whatever reason (I can’t exactly pinpoint why), I’ve been very intrigued lately by the concept of the hipster. More to the point, I’ve been wondering what makes someone a hipster. Is it clothes? Taste in music/TV/movies? Personality? Lifestyle? I know that there are bits and pieces of all of those things that come into play, but I want to dig a bit deeper than that. I want to know exactly what divides a normal person with some odd and obscure tastes and tendencies and an out-and-out hipster.

(A note before we really dig in: I’ve been thinking about this in terms of me, so, if it comes across as me asking questions about myself, that’s probably why. I will use myself as an example for a lot of these arguments, just for the sake of having a real world example without having to implicate any of my friends, but I’ll try to keep it as hypothetical and objective as possible. Feel free to throw in your two cents with by inboxing me or reblogging this with some thoughts attached. For the record, though, I don’t consider myself a hipster.)

Now, the first thing that a lot of people think of when they think of a hipster is a sense of pretension. Hipsters tend to look down upon things that aren’t traditionally hipster as “too mainstream” and beneath them. What if someone liked very similar things and didn’t have that sense of pretension, though? For example, I love cult classic and so-bad-it’s-good movies and TV so much that I would consider myself something of a connoisseur in that regard. However, I would never look down upon someone just because they didn’t like a movie that I liked or because we don’t have the same tastes. Does that automatically exclude me from being a hipster?

Another important aspect to the hipster lifestyle is the aesthetic. Unneeded glasses, bright colors, ironic shirts, and various other fashion statements have all become staples of hipster closets, and antique, out-of-date possessions have become mainstays of hipster living spaces. It is said that this style developed from people appropriating things from other subcultures and using them for themselves. The end product is both a form of artistic and ironic expression. What if you do all of these things without a sense of ironic detachment, though? I’ve been wearing ridiculous T-shirts and bright, clashing colors just because I like the way that it looks. I’ve also been known to wear fake glasses simply because I’ve wanted to wear glasses since I was about 6-years-old. I also have records pinned to my bedroom wall, and I’ve been trying to find space for some old film reels, a foghorn-like speaker, an old music mixer, and a mini record player. I don’t have all of this stuff because I don’t like listening to the man or mainstream culture; it’s because I honestly think that it’s cool and interesting looking.

Last up (at least for the purposes of this thought piece) is the hipster personality and lifestyle. Like I said before, hipsters are known for their condescension and ironic detachment. This applies to their taste in music, movies, clothing, humor, etc. However, does enjoying irony automatically add points to someone’s hipster score? Irony is the source of almost all comedy. What kind of irony, then, is exclusive to hipsters? Does it have to be mean-spirited? Can a hipster enjoy some unironically? I always make extremely racist, misogynist, homophobic, and generally nihilistic jokes with my friends, but I always do it with a metaphorical winking eye and lack of any mean intentions. (This relates to my beliefs about political correctness, both in general and how it is filtered through comedy, but that’s a topic for another thought piece.) Where, then, does that type of well-intentioned ironic humor fall on the hipster humor spectrum? Is it less hipster for not being mean, or is it just as hipster because it’s irony pointed at social norms?

The lifestyle is probably what I have the least to say about, since it involves having money and being over 21 (neither of which apply to me). From what I understand, it involves being somewhat aimless after college and basically living in certain types of bars/restaurants/record stores and at concerts. While I can admit that my life after college will be somewhat aimless (simply because what I’m studying doesn’t really match up to what I really want to do with my life), I can’t say for sure until I get there, so I guess my stake in this article is over.

Reading it over now, I realize how much this whole thing comes off as me either really trying to prove my hipsterdom or trying way too hard to disprove it. You know what, though? So be it. I just really wanted to write something like this and get it off of my chest. Am I a hipster because I listen to some bands that no one has heard of? Because I dress weird? Because I like certain types of movies and TV? Because I like a retro aesthetic? Because I have an ironic sense of humor? I can’t say for sure, and everyone has a different opinion on what makes a hipster. I just know that, no matter what, I would never put someone else down for not liking the things that I do or lord my tastes and opinions over other people. Negativity begets negativity, and isn’t there enough of that in the world? And maybe my positivity and enthusiasm is the only thing keeping me from truly being a hipster. I don’t care. I’m going to do what I like because I like it, with or without a label.

I realized that I might have been a bit hasty in that last post. After talking it over with one of my friends, I realized that I could just post links to the reviews on the other website here. It means that you guys could still get reviews with some measure of consistency. So, here's the first (of hopefully many) of my reviews for The Trendy Spoon: Community, "Conventions of Space and Time".

The End...

Hey, everyone who follows this blog. I just wanted to thank the few of you who followed me consistently, threw some asks at me, and enjoyed my ramblings. I'm posting this to say that I got an internship writing reviews for a website called The Trendy Spoon. Because of that, my reviews and thought pieces here will probably be considerably less frequent, if not nonexistent. I won't take down the blog, just in case someone wanted to reread a review or something, but there probably won't be much new content. You are always welcome to continue asking me things and following me over at The Trendy Spoon. They're still my thoughts on things, just less rambly and formatted differently. Thanks again for your support. It was these articles that got me the job there in the first place!

A Review: The 2012 "Les Miserables" Film

As a huge fan of musical theater, I think it goes without saying that I was extremely excited for the new "Les Miserables" movie. The closer the release date came, the more excited I got. Even if some of the reviews and production choices made me a bit wary, I was still hopeful that this movie would rock. So, did it?

"Les Miserables", based on the musical of the same name based on the Victor Hugo novel of the same name, follows Jean Valjean, a convict who reforms his ways to become a wealthy man and mayor of a town in France. He is followed by Inspector Javert, a policeman who believes that a criminal can never truly change their ways. The movie/musical/book follows their exploits, the people whose lives these two affect, and the growth (or lack thereof) that these men go through. This is all set against the backdrop of a student revolution occurring in France at the time.

One of the most eye-catching things about this movie is the huge cast made up almost completely of big name actors. Jean Valjean is played by Hugh Jackman. Valjean is a famously difficult role to play, both in terms of acting and singing. Jackman does fine in the film, but not quite as well as I was expecting. His singing is oddly annoying, though he does a good job of nailing the more difficult songs (I was impressed by his renditions of "Valjean's Soliloquy" and "Who Am I?"). His acting is very good, if a bit overwrought at times. He’ll probably get nominated for an Oscar (he does an obscene amount of crying in this role), but I don’t think he’ll win. He definitely wasn’t my favorite performance in this movie.

Anne Hathaway plays Fantine, the endlessly unlucky single mother of a girl that ends up being adopted by Valjean. She plays the part for all its worth, making the most of her rather meager screen time. Her rendition of "I Dreamed a Dream" is simultaneously heartbreaking and well-acted. Her singing is also very good (well, as good as possible considering that she's sobbing her way through every song). This will probably go down as one of the defining performances in this role, and I predict that an Oscar will soon be in the hands of Ms. Hathaway.

Sasha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter play the Thenardiers, the opportunistic couple that takes in Fantine’s daughter. These two are delightful. They are a joy to watch whenever they are onscreen. Most of their despicable antics are played for laughs, and it almost always works. Some may take issue with the fact that the Thenardiers are portrayed as villainously as they sometimes are in other productions. I, on the other hand, think that “Les Miserables” can use any comic relief it can get, as long as it works as well as it does here. I welcome the Thenardiers both as villains and as clowns.

Eddie Redmayne plays Marius, a rich schoolboy who renounces his wealth to join the revolutionaries. Marius isn’t the most interesting characters, defined mostly (if not entirely) by his renouncement of his wealth, his position as a revolutionary, and his love for Cosette. Redmayne does well with what he is given, however. He gives Marius a kind of wide-eyed idealism and naivete that at least begins to get at a bit of a characterization. His performance of “Empty Chairs at Empty Tables” is affecting and very well-performed. I was surprised by how well Redmayne sang. However, he does sometimes sound as though he’s trying to force an operatic voice that is only sometimes there. Other times, he ends up sounding a bit like Kermit the Frog. He also does this thing where he shakes his head when he vibratos. It’s probably just me, but it bugged me when he did that during songs like “Red and Black”. Overall, though, he takes a character that can very easily be flat and boring and makes him interesting and a pleasure to watch.

Amanda Seyfried plays Cosette. If Marius has a bland character, Cosette has no character at all. Serving as more of a symbol of love than a character, Cosette is defined almost completely by her love of Marius (and, to a much lesser extent, Valjean). Seyfriend does her best with the very little she is given to do. She acts the part fine, but she’s not onscreen for much longer than Hathaway, and she’s has much less to work with. She doesn’t quite have the voice for Cosette, either. This is one of the ultimate soprano roles in musical theater. Seyfried sounds fine, but she’s not powerful enough. She lightly chirps and trills her way through the score like a songbird, but she tends to get drowned out when other people are singing with her. It doesn’t sound bad, but it doesn’t sound great either. Seyfried does a fine job, but her limited screen time and character mean that she doesn’t really stand out.

Samantha Barks plays Eponine, the daughter of the Thenardiers who is hopelessly (and one-sidedly) in love with Marius. As one of the lesser known stars in the film, Barks was picked because she had played this role numerous times before. It shows. She has this role down. She perfectly portrays Eponine’s coy friendship with Marius and her hopeless and unrequited devotion to him. Her singing is pretty, and her acting is superb. She probably understands her character the most out of anyone in the film, and turns in great, layered work because of it. It may not be the showiest role in the film, but I personally enjoyed this performance the most.

Aaron Tveit plays Enjolras, the leader of the revolutionaries. In the right hands and in the right production, Enjolras can be a real scene stealer (for proof, see the 25th anniversary concert). However, he isn’t given a lot of screentime in this production. With more things to do, I think that Tveit could have been great in this role (I know he’s capable of great things), but this movie somewhat shortchanges Enjolras. He does fine with what he has, but he’s generally unmemorable. I understand that things had to be cut for time’s sake (especially with a story as long and packed as “Les Miserables”), but it’s still a shame.

Russell Crowe plays Javert. This was almost definitely the most divisive casting choice of them all. In the end, I didn’t hate him in the role. He’s definitely the weakest singer, always sounding as though his mouth is full of cotton balls. His acting is fine, I guess, but I’ve seen Javerts that imbue him with so much more emotion, presence, and power (once again, see the 25th anniversary concert) that I was disappointed. Personally, I didn’t think that he ruined the movie or anything, but I do think that there were better casting choices that could have been made. Honestly, I liked him more than I thought I would. It does bear mentioning, though, that his renditions of Javert’s two big solos (“Stars” and “Javert’s Suicide”) are quite weak, especially when compared to the other major solos in the movie.

This movie is great to look at. The film’s main aesthetic goal was obviously to combine grand and grimy. The film succeeds in its pursuit of planned ugliness, making its cast decidedly unappealing, as they sing covered in layers of filth, blood, tears, and, at one point, literal crap. It’s an effective device to hammer home the destitution, poverty, and hopelessness of these people. These aesthetic choices also extend to the singing, in which acting and emotion is valued over sounding pretty. Almost everyone sings while crying, so pitch and lyrics are sometimes sacrificed in favor of dramatic line readings and sobs. It doesn’t sound bad, and some of the actors still manage to sound fine, but it does make listening to the music without the visual of the person acting a bit awkward. I still think that that was the right choice to make, though, considering the needs of a film versus the needs of a stage musical.

Another thing that has been quite divisive was the direction of Tom Hooper. For this film, he seemed to have two shots in his repertoire: extremely long close-ups and extremely shorts and scattered shots. The long close-ups are reserved for major solos (“I Dreamed a Dream” and most of “Valjean’s Soliloquy” are done in one continuous shot), while the short and scattered shots are meant for crowd scenes (Hooper’s goal during “At the End of the Day” seemed to be to give each citizen of France their own two millisecond close-up). It’s not terrible, but it can be, at different times, both boring and distracting. The longer shots sometimes go on too long, and the staging for them can be awkward. The shorter shots tend to be all over the place, to the point that I was sometimes confused as to what was supposed to be going on in the 27 shots that occupied the last two seconds of screen time. Some shots are great (my personal favorite is the slow motion shot of furniture falling out of windows to form the barricade), but too many are redundant or distracting. I wish that we had just gotten a bit more room in some of the shots (the aerial and panoramic shots that we do get are great, particularly when it comes to the finale) and a bit more time to breathe (Fantine dies, and, a second later, Javert has teleported into the room to kill Valjean). I understand that, with this material, there’s a lot of ground to cover in not a lot of time, but I think a few more establishing shots and couple more seconds for emotional beats would’ve done this movie some good. Once again, the direction isn’t terrible, but it is very flawed. Good direction should inform and add to what happening onscreen, not distract from it.

Overall, I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. It’s not a perfect adaptation (I don’t know if that’s possible with this material), but I think it’s worthy of the “Les Miserables” name and legacy. There are many flaws and perplexing choices, but the good very much outweighs the bad. It is almost guaranteed to be a big player at the Oscars this year and rightfully so. This movie is worth seeing if only for the great cast and outstanding performances. I say go see it, and don’t wait one day more. (Yay! Forced musical theater humor!)

P.S. My favorite numbers were the finale reprise of "Do You Hear the People Sing" and "At the End of the Day" (I really liked the group numbers in this movie).

P.P.S. I know that more casts exist than just the 25th anniversary concert cast, but I really liked their Enjolras and Javert. Also, it's easily used as a reference point because the entire thing is on YouTube. Their Valjean is amazing, too. 

P.P.P.S. I wasn't crazy about the new song. In a movie that already felt like it had a lot to get through, the new song felt unnecessary and obviously put there to give the movie a shot at the Best Original Song Oscar. 

State Of Mind: "Final Fantasy XII"

People who know me know that I make no secret that this might be my favorite in the "Final Fantasy" series of games. However, this seems to be among the most divisive entries for some reason. I'd like to examine why I love it when other hate it.

"Final Fantasy XII" follows the story of a rebellion attempting to put the proper princess, a young woman named Ashe, back into power during a major war between two large countries. There's a lot more to the story than that, including magical crystals (when aren't there magical crystals?), a war against the gods, and several plot twists and reveals. I never quite understood the story. It starts out simply enough, with the story being told from the perspective of street rat Vaan, who lives in the country in between the two warring ones. However, it quickly becomes tangled, as many more characters are introduced and plot elements begin piling up. You find out that this was never really Vaan's story, the bad guy isn't actually the bad guy (this actually happens several times), the war has more motives than originally thought, and something about the gods seeing the future and controlling minds. It all becomes really hard to follow, especially on a first play through.

In addition to the muddled story, the characters are also pretty forgettable. After X did such a great job of creating colorful and interesting characters, it was disappointing to see XII take a step backward in that regard. None of the characters really have any real personalities. They are all pretty much just serious, strong, goal-oriented blank slates that aren't given any defining characteristics apart from whatever goal it is that they are trying to achieve. There are two exceptions, though they are on opposite ends of the spectrum: Penelo, Vaan's childhoos friend, and Balthier, a sky pirate. Penelo, I can only assume, was supposed to be the perky young girl archetype, a role previously filled be characters like Yuffie In VII and Rikku in X. However, to match the game's atmopshere, her "perkiness" is severely toned down, so it ends up just coming off as a couple of random quips and stupid questions throughout the game. To make matters worse, she has absolutely nothing to do with the plot of the game. She is there for no other reason than to give you a sixth party member. It's even worse than the also superfluous Vaan, since he at least has the excuse of avenging his soldier brother. (The original lead character was supposed to be a soldier named Basch, who, while still a major character and party member, had the focus taken away from him when it was thought that a more relatable protagonist was needed.) Penelo is, by far, my least favorite character in the game, both for her "personality" and her complete irrelevance to the plot. On the other hand, there's Balthier. In a game with so few good characters, Balthier is so memorable that it almost makes up for the general lameness of the rest of the party. He is an arrogant, but secretly caring, sky pirate who insists that he is "the leading man" of this story. He's a funny, compelling, well-designed character with an interesting backstory. Plus, in a story where half of the party is along for the ride for no adequately explained reason, he is actually pretty deeply intertwined with the matters at hand (for reasons both obvious and secret). In addition to his countless comedic scenes, he also gets some good tearjerker scenes and some show-stealing moments of heroic badassery. He is easily one of my favorite "Final Fantasy" characters of all time.

So, why do I love the "Final Fantasy" with the confusing story and forgettable characters (Balthier aside)? It's all about the world and the gameplay for me. Ivalice is enormous. You can spend all day just adventuring to all of the corners of the world and still probably miss a ton of stuff. Every corner is teeming with life, both friendly and malicious. There is a well-defined government, environment, social system, and mythos. There are tons of places to go and things to see. You can go somewhere a hundred times, and there's still a chance that you haven't seen everything that there is to see there. I spent over 100 hours on this game, and I still wasn't nearly done with everything it had to offer. Ivalice is a textbook example of building a complete and vivid world.

I may be alone in this boat, but I also love the battle system. I was wary at first, since this was the first "Final Fantasy" I had played without a clear turn-based system. I also feel as though other people hate it because it's so far removed from any previous battle system that the series has used (except maybe XI, which I never played). It definitely took some getting used to, but I ended up finding the new MMORPG-like system very deep and interesting. I loved being able to run around, see enemies on the field, and kill them as they appeared. It helped add to the world that they were trying to build, and it made it feel slightly more real when battles weren't taking place in some random dimension apparently reserved only for stabbing things in the face. Granted, I've heard some people say the opposite, saying that running away wasn't as effective as it would be in reality and that things could hit you when you were obviously far outside of their attack range. I guess those were all just covered by willing suspension of disbelief for me, that and the understanding that that was necessary in order to create a more balanced and challenging battle system. By the end of the game, I loved just running through earlier areas and killing things in one hit, racking up tons of LP as I went. One surefire way of gauging my enjoyment of an RPG is by how much I enjoy grinding in it. By that standard, XII gets a huge thumbs up from me.

So, there you have it. That's why I love one of the most divisive and detested games in the "Final Fantasy" oeuvre. Mind you, I sometimes go back and forth between this, X, and VI, but this one ends up on top more often than not. I love the world, the hunts, the Balthier, and the battle system enough to vastly outweigh any negative thoughts I may have toward this game. So, go forth, and happy hunting!

11 of the dwarves' actors from "The Hobbit" (taken at an advanced screening of the movie)