"Ex-Machina was great. Annihilation was crap." ~ Peter Gelderloos
"His directorial debut Ex Machina was did well for a small budget sci-fi, but hardly made him Hollywood royalty. His 2018 Annihilation, which I think is one of the best American films of the 21st century, got declared unmarketably weird by its studio, got a small release stateside and went direct to Netflix in the rest of the world." ~ Vicky Osterweil (https://all-cats-are-beautiful.ghost.io/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-civil-war/)
I'd love to know what Vicky liked about Annihilation!
I think the underlying thread in all three of these films is that Garland is a very talented filmmaker but he's not very perceptive or informed about the world he's living in. Ex Machina is great because the idea of a technology or a property that becomes a sentient, alien life form is a brutal basis for a story, and Garland gives that story an excellent rendition. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know anything about AI, given that most AI experts don't know anything about consciousness (in fact the accepted scientific paradigm for consciousness is facing serious challenges). Regardless of how a machine that can perfectly imitate a human attains consciousness, the how becomes a minor detail if the story is done well.
The fact that Civil War is a great movie... still perplexes me. Garland has solid technique, but I don't understand how he can watch his own movie and say it's a story about journalists being heroes. They accomplish nothing useful, and they are clearly portrayed as adrenaline junkies who go into a sociopathic state when they're working. The only decent things that any journalists in the film accomplish are very dramatically the moments when they put down their cameras, to the point that the older protagonist gives up on being a journalist, and the younger protagonist accelerates her descent into sociopathy as she becomes a journalist. I think this just speaks to how people like Garland who really believe in democracy have to be delusional, they have to be able to look at a horrifying thing and say, "gee, isn't this wonderful?"
As for Annihilation, it is clear that Garland doesn't understand anything about genetics, or evolution, or prisms, but unlike Ex Machina, that ignorance is put on an ever more garish display as the movie continues, and unlike Civil War, he doesn't accidentally flip the movie into its opposite: Annihilation never becomes an intelligent albeit accidental parody of people with socially conservative misconceptions of evolution. It's just tacky and ignorant.
I would suspect that Vicky maybe really enjoys camp thrillers/horror, like my brother does (the only other person whose taste in movies I respect who really liked Annihilation). If anyone reading this knows Vicky, I'd be really curious to know!
Now there's a crap movie. That is Garland somehow tackling gender issue and maybe stalking? We dunno, but at any rate he is making a complete fool of himself.
Then again, I also hated Civil War - with a passion. It may well be because i saw Garland giving interviews before watching the movie and knew that he had bothsides-ed the issue. As he would. His politics are and have always been sucky.
However, i admit that i loved Annihilation. Very much so even. Had missed the movie at the time of its release, but i only watched it after i read Osterweil raving about it, hmm. I did not watch it for the accurate rendition of evolution or genetics, but enjoyed it as a fantasy and allowed myself to get wow'ed by the trippy colors and imaginative renditions.
But another topic in regards to movies is much more political.
What really sucks for me as a chronically ill and immunocompromised person is how movie and the hypes surrounding them are instrumental in the normalization of the ongoing pandemic. Suddenly there are only theater-release again, streaming pushed back, and those of us who can't go to movie theaters where almost no one wears a mask anymore, have to sit it out and wait for months and months while everyone is raving about crap films like Barbie and Oppenheimer and now Civil War. Gee thanks guys.
This is a part of how the train us to become well-behaved consumers again.
With Civil War it pissed me off so much that i went ahead and watched an actual screener. And after watching it i was mostly glad that i had not risked my health by going to a movie theater for this centrist propaganda and honey pot for consumerism.
Thanks for sharing this article. I don't entirely disagree with your analysis of the climate movement -- despite/because of my own participation in climate activism. I'd be curious to hear what you think about groups like "Extinction Rebellion" and "Climate Defiance" that explicitly claim non-reformist goals and strategies. From your point of view, do you think they're achieving this, or just presenting an image of radical action? From my position, it's not so clear. Hope you're doing well today!
"Ex-Machina was great. Annihilation was crap." ~ Peter Gelderloos
"His directorial debut Ex Machina was did well for a small budget sci-fi, but hardly made him Hollywood royalty. His 2018 Annihilation, which I think is one of the best American films of the 21st century, got declared unmarketably weird by its studio, got a small release stateside and went direct to Netflix in the rest of the world." ~ Vicky Osterweil (https://all-cats-are-beautiful.ghost.io/how-i-learned-to-stop-worrying-and-love-the-civil-war/)
Now discuss, please.
I'd love to know what Vicky liked about Annihilation!
I think the underlying thread in all three of these films is that Garland is a very talented filmmaker but he's not very perceptive or informed about the world he's living in. Ex Machina is great because the idea of a technology or a property that becomes a sentient, alien life form is a brutal basis for a story, and Garland gives that story an excellent rendition. It doesn't matter that he doesn't know anything about AI, given that most AI experts don't know anything about consciousness (in fact the accepted scientific paradigm for consciousness is facing serious challenges). Regardless of how a machine that can perfectly imitate a human attains consciousness, the how becomes a minor detail if the story is done well.
The fact that Civil War is a great movie... still perplexes me. Garland has solid technique, but I don't understand how he can watch his own movie and say it's a story about journalists being heroes. They accomplish nothing useful, and they are clearly portrayed as adrenaline junkies who go into a sociopathic state when they're working. The only decent things that any journalists in the film accomplish are very dramatically the moments when they put down their cameras, to the point that the older protagonist gives up on being a journalist, and the younger protagonist accelerates her descent into sociopathy as she becomes a journalist. I think this just speaks to how people like Garland who really believe in democracy have to be delusional, they have to be able to look at a horrifying thing and say, "gee, isn't this wonderful?"
As for Annihilation, it is clear that Garland doesn't understand anything about genetics, or evolution, or prisms, but unlike Ex Machina, that ignorance is put on an ever more garish display as the movie continues, and unlike Civil War, he doesn't accidentally flip the movie into its opposite: Annihilation never becomes an intelligent albeit accidental parody of people with socially conservative misconceptions of evolution. It's just tacky and ignorant.
I would suspect that Vicky maybe really enjoys camp thrillers/horror, like my brother does (the only other person whose taste in movies I respect who really liked Annihilation). If anyone reading this knows Vicky, I'd be really curious to know!
And what about Men?
Now there's a crap movie. That is Garland somehow tackling gender issue and maybe stalking? We dunno, but at any rate he is making a complete fool of himself.
Then again, I also hated Civil War - with a passion. It may well be because i saw Garland giving interviews before watching the movie and knew that he had bothsides-ed the issue. As he would. His politics are and have always been sucky.
However, i admit that i loved Annihilation. Very much so even. Had missed the movie at the time of its release, but i only watched it after i read Osterweil raving about it, hmm. I did not watch it for the accurate rendition of evolution or genetics, but enjoyed it as a fantasy and allowed myself to get wow'ed by the trippy colors and imaginative renditions.
But another topic in regards to movies is much more political.
What really sucks for me as a chronically ill and immunocompromised person is how movie and the hypes surrounding them are instrumental in the normalization of the ongoing pandemic. Suddenly there are only theater-release again, streaming pushed back, and those of us who can't go to movie theaters where almost no one wears a mask anymore, have to sit it out and wait for months and months while everyone is raving about crap films like Barbie and Oppenheimer and now Civil War. Gee thanks guys.
This is a part of how the train us to become well-behaved consumers again.
With Civil War it pissed me off so much that i went ahead and watched an actual screener. And after watching it i was mostly glad that i had not risked my health by going to a movie theater for this centrist propaganda and honey pot for consumerism.
Thanks for sharing this article. I don't entirely disagree with your analysis of the climate movement -- despite/because of my own participation in climate activism. I'd be curious to hear what you think about groups like "Extinction Rebellion" and "Climate Defiance" that explicitly claim non-reformist goals and strategies. From your point of view, do you think they're achieving this, or just presenting an image of radical action? From my position, it's not so clear. Hope you're doing well today!