[Population: One] <A HREF="http://popone.innocence.com/ar

[bryant]

I am firmly dedicated to seeing as many 2004 movies as possible before I crank out a best of list, which means that I won't be doing mine until mid-January. Maybe late January, since the Brattle has that Zhang Ziyi flick I wanna see. However: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow, Closer, Life Aquatic, Kinsey, The Incredibles, Gozu, Last Life in the Universe, Zatoichi, Eternal Sunshine, Spider-Man 2, aw crap that's ten already? This is gonna be tough.

Comments

[animated-max.livejournal.com]

When I was younger, I might have tried to change your mind. Now, I can accept that people like different things -- tastes are subjective.

However...

I grew up with pulp. I like to think I know a little bit about pulp. Sky Captain was not pulp. At least not Doc Savage/Avenger/Spider/Shadow pulp. Pulp heroes let their actions speak for them. But not just any actions -- successful, competent actions.

Read a Doc Savage story, and what comes across most strongly is Doc's competence. Read an Avenger story, and you know that once Richard Benson enters the action, things are going to get fixed in a hurry.

When I watch Sky Captain, I just don't feel Joe has anything really going for him. he doesn't seem utterly determined, or driven, or particularly bright, or even basically comptent. He's just a guy with a plane.

You mention that (in pulps) "the humor is always confined to the sidekicks, and the sidekicks also get plenty of spotlight time." Agreed -- since pulp heroes aren't really a part of human society (either by choice or by circumstance), making the sidekicks funny keeps the reader emotionally involved. So why is Joe given funny things to say?

You wrote: "I also continue to be somewhat shocked at the reaction to Polly Perkins. I find it deeply hostile, and I am completely serious about that. Her motivations aren't the same as Joe's, but I see absolutely no reason why she shouldn't have the right to have different motivations."

She has the right to have different motivations. I just question her morality, and her intelligence.

She gets vital information that could save save the Earth from doom -- and keeps it secret for the sake of her story.

She sabotages Joe's plane. Joe could have been killed from that little trick, but she seems to think it justified.

You also wrote: "She risks her neck more than a little, but she does it in order to get the story, which is clearly the most important thing in her life."

Great! She wants to risk her life for her story, that's fine -- it's when she risks all of humanity that I get a little peeved.

You go on to say: "What -- women aren't supposed to be career-oriented? I seriously get the impression that people would have been happier with the movie if Polly had thrown away her newspaper career and followed Joe like a docile schoolgirl."

Come off it, Bryant. No one (at least no one I know) has an issue with strong, independent women. I think people would have been happier if Polly showed more competence, and followed Joe around less -- it seems to me that for almost the whole movie she just followed Joe around, despite the fact that he wasn't getting very much accomplished. A better movie (to me) would have been one in which they followed different, intersecting paths to the same destination, or one in which he kept following her.

I didn't hate Sky Captain. I thought it looked great and I enjoyed watching it. I thought the story was too weak and the characters too non-pulpy for a "best of" list, though.

But that's just my opinion.

Also: I like Paltrow. I don't get people not liking her, either.

[bryant]

She sabotages Joe's plane. Joe could have been killed from that little trick, but she seems to think it justified.

You lost me right there. You don't know what the situation was in Shanghai. You don't know how Joe wound up in enemy hands. (You do know Joe was sleeping with another woman and lying to Polly at the time, mind you.) You just know that Polly sabotaged his plane... but without knowing any of the circumstances, you've decided that she must have made an amoral decision.

Sorry, but I'm sticking with my comment about people being happier if Polly had been meek and mild as long as people keep assuming that she was in the wrong in Shanghai based on Joe's accusations.

[animated-max.livejournal.com]

A couple more points, then I'll drop this. If someone were to object to my putting The Incredibles on a "Best of" list, I'd listen politely, but not change my mind, and there'd be no point in having too long a discussion on it. Similarly, there's no way I'm changing your mind on this.

Sorry, but I'm sticking with my comment about people being happier if Polly had been meek and mild as long as people keep assuming that she was in the wrong in Shanghai based on Joe's accusations

What do we know about Shanghai?
1. Polly was suspicious, but had no proof.
2. Polly sabotaged Joe's plane.

Now, considering Joe's overall cluelessness, I consider Polly sabotaging his plane to be attempted murder. (It should be noted at this time that I think airplanes are dangerous, tricky machines. Someone with more faith in either technology or Joe's ability to handle a plane-related emergency might see Polly's actions as less drastic.)

So, to me, Polly tried to kill Joe because she suspected he was violating her trust. This seems like a morally questionable decision to me, especially when she later goes on to violate his trust.

On "people" (not me) wanting Polly to be meek and mild: Isn't that what she does? At the start of the film, she acts strongly, independently. Then Joe shows up and all she does for most of the rest of the film is follow him around. Ick. Compare this to Frankie, who doesn't follow Joe around, who isn't meek or mild -- and who people cheered (at least in the theatre in which I saw the film). I want Polly to be stronger, more independent. I wanted her to lead, not follow. Especially not follow Joe. (Polly might have her faults, but Joe was the big disappointment to me.)

[bryant]

I consider Polly sabotaging his plane to be attempted murder.

Which contains the implicit assumption that she sabotaged it in a way which would only take affect in the air. For your statement to be accurate, she can't have, say... pulled out the distributor cap or equivalent.

Again: it baffles me, because I see almost everyone I know making those kinds of assumptions. Whenever someone has to guess at the circumstances, the guess always winds up being whatever puts Polly in the worst light. Very perplexing.

[animated-max.livejournal.com]

Whenever someone has to guess at the circumstances, the guess always winds up being whatever puts Polly in the worst light. Very perplexing.

Perplexing, indeed.

Despite my belief that I am (relatively) unbiased towards or against Polly, I definitely have the idea in my head that she didn't just disable the plane, that she deliberately and knowingly put Joe's life at risk. Where this idea came from, I do not know.

In light of this, I think I'll start actively suporting Polly.

Give Polly a Break! Give Polly a Break!