Predator
This is only the second time I’ve seen the film – and the first time was last year. I don’t even remember how it came up, then, that I had never seen it – and my darling was horrified and I think we were watching it 60 seconds later. Thus I am still having some early reactions to the film!
My near-stream of consciousness notes:
- America in Central America, 1987: what a time.
- I didn’t recognise Arnie for a moment; he’s so small!
- I’m way more interested in Carl Weathers.
- I really enjoy the way these 1980s action films set up the caricatures within the team. Dutch is the leader, refuses jobs that don’t fit his remit (we’re a rescue team); there’s a Latino, a geek (white, obvs), a scary black guy, a Native American (I assume; after all, they use him as a tracker, and it’s the 1980s – and he’s played by a actor descending from Cherokee and Seminole nations), a tough white guy – and those really are their characters.
- Also, the “jokes” very much … of their time.
- I like the way the cinematography emphasises the claustrophobic nature of the jungle, with plants right in the fore of early shots.
- The skinned bodies are probably more graphic than a run-of-the-mill action film would include today.
- The introduction of the Predator’s IR vision is magnificent. Using first-person is inspired.
- It’s a more clever narrative than I initially expected: the rescue mission – which itself isn’t at all straightforward – and then the Predator as a completely seperate issue.
- It’s very violent. Honestly, the extended fire fight against the guerrillas is quite boring.
- Random woman as a hostage… doesn’t really serve much purpose except to slow them down. She seems like a mostly pointless inclusion, except that she gets to witness Geek Boy’s death. (And probably providing an inspiration for Prey.)
- The (non)-appearance of the Predator is also fantastic; and then the first time we actually see the Predator, he’s fixing a wound.
- Scary Black Guy Mack’s sudden emotional reaction to the Tough White Guy’s death feels weirdly out of place – for the character, and for the film.
- “If it bleeds, we can kill it.”
- OK, Anna isn’t so pointless after all. She’s cool.
- Scary Black Guy becomes Loony Black Guy. Yay terrible caricatures.
- Why does Carl Weathers have his shirt off? It’s really not clear.
- Last Stand of the Brave but Loony Native American. Yeesh.
- I do like the Smart Action Hero Arnie gets to play here: using Anna rather than seeing her as useless; realising the Predator comes through the trees, and that the Clever hides him; setting traps.
- Although setting a fire in the evening does rather defeat the “it hunts using IR” realisation. Atmospheric, though.
- The film would have been better to be about 10 minutes shorter. The extended fight scenes are just too much.
- The removal of the Predator’s helmet? Amazing. It is truly an exceptionally designed creature.
- Ah, the final fight, hand to hand, like true warriors.
- There’s no reason for the Predator to understand, let alone use, evil laughter.
- “Arnie in the mist.”
- I really like that no explanation is given for the Predator.
His notes:
- Opening sequence, spaceship on a stick… worse than Star Wars … but 10 years later.
- The arm wrestle… the making of many a meme.
- Choppers into the jungle, what could go wrong…
- Those ‘jokes’!
- Nothing says 80s action like underslung grenade launchers and shooting from the hip, despite this being 100% unrealistic.
- We start with war paint, we end with war paint (mud)
My thoughts overall: I really like this film. It’s completely of its time, it’s clearly one of the inspirations for The Expendables, it’s mostly a vehicle for Arnie but basically rises above that. Worth watching!
John McTiernan
On a recent re-watch of The Hunt for Red October, I realised that the director was John McTiernan – who also directed Die Hard. I am not someone who pays much attention to directors, with a few very famous exceptions. So I was curious what else he had directed. And thus I came across the list:
- Nomads
- Predator
- Die Hard
- Hunt for Red October
- Medicine Man
- Last Action Hero
- Die Hard: With a Vengeance
- Thomas Crown Affair
- the 13th Warrior
- Rollerball
- Basic
Nomads we decided looked a bit too horror for our tastes. Neither of the last two films are available on streaming and the Rotten Tomatoes statistics for each of them are beyond woeful. But that still leaves an intriguing eight films…
(Last Action Hero is also not on streaming! And nor is The Thomas Crown Affair! Those just seem weird but also I don’t mind spending $5 renting them.)
The Lord of the Rings: a(nother) re-read
The year I turned 12, I had an extended reading competition with a friend. It was determined by both number of books (so I read lots of Babysitter Club books, which dates this competition to some degree), and also page numbers. This enormous, tape-mended book was on the shelf, so I thought: The Lord of the Rings. Why not?
For a while, in adolescence and early 20s, I was indeed one of those people who read LOTR every year. I think I’ve read it ten times? I haven’t read it since 2017, although I’ve watched the films almost every year for at least the last decade.
This year, though, there are several LOTR re-reads being blogged around the place, so… I felt like it was time to dive back in. I am not going to write about it as thoroughly as Abigail Nussbaum, and I don’t have the deep knowledge and analytical skills to come anywhere near what Nick Hubble is doing, although I’m following along closely and learning a lot.
So: I have just finished Book 1. And the truth is – the reality is – I still love it. I’m one of those people who enjoys the wandering in the wilderness, and finds the place descriptions evocative and delightful. Partly this is nostalgia for the first time I read it, when I was absolutely captivated… but I do just like it.
Some other thoughts:
- I had forgotten how organised Merry was, and what a lead he takes in getting things done. I like it.
- I enjoy Tom Bombadil, and I’m not going to apologise. He and Goldberry are a fascinating diversion into aspects of Middle-Earth we just don’t see much elsewhere in this novel, and I appreciate the depth and breadth they provide.
- I have always felt uncomfortable about the “master” language from Sam. Even as an adolescent. It’s still not something I particularly like. Having read a lot of Biggles novels etc, I eventually came around to reading their relationship as being like an officer / batman one, and I can place it in an historical context. But I don’t have to like it.
- Farmer and Mrs Maggot are wonderful.
- Barliman Butterbur is poorly treated by the film (I mean, I love those films but I am very aware of the ways in which they Not The Novels).
- Nick Hubble makes some interesting points about reading Fellowship in particular as a sequel to The Hobbit, and I was very aware of that as I read it this time. The structure, and the language – at this halfway point it’s easy to imagine the story being finished in another 200 pages or so.
My main struggle from here is going to be making sure I don’t just keep reading this. There are other books I have committed to reading!
Considering The Female Man by Joanna Russ (Farah Mendlesohn)
First, (re-)read The Female Man. I think that really is necessary. Then you’ll be fresh and able to really get into the points that Mendlesohn is making in this compact and insightful book.
While I’ve read a bit of Russ criticism – including some of Mendlesohn’s previous work – I’m not claiming to be an expert. So one of the things I appreciated about this book was Mendlesohn touching on some of the previous work done on Russ in general and The Female Man in particular, to give context to this particular book. I was interested to see some of the ways that attitudes have changed, and some of the aspects that haven’t previously been explored in much depth: in particular, here, how Russ’ Jewish identity impacted on the structure of the novel, as well as the story.
It really is a wee book: 169 pages, and a tiny package. But Mendlesohn packs a lot in! There’s an introduction to both Russ and the novel – historical context, cultural and literary context, feminist context – which doesn’t shy away from the fact that Russ in the 1970s was decidedly TERF (acknowledging that she did change her views, which is the only reason I can still come at reading the book – but YMMV!). Then, three chapters going deep in literary analysis: Character; Structure; Argument. How “the Js” work as individual characters as well as aspects of, perhaps, one whole; how what feels initially like a convoluted maybe-not-really-a-narrative-at-all actually works, and why Russ wrote it that way; and how the novel presents Jewishness, anger, and humour. And an epilogue about the epilogue, which is so meta I think Russ would have approved.
I’ve read The Female Man a few times, and I always get more out of it. There are definitely things I had never noticed before – because my cultural, historical, and literary context are very different from Russ’s, there are things that just did not click for me, but which Mendlesohn has pointed out. In particular, I think, there’s the discussion about how the characters function across the story, with and against one another – their attitudes have always been what I found most fascinating, and that’s just been deepened.
One thing I will note: there are a few typos in the copy I read (eg Jael is Jane once, and Joel another time).
Highly recommended to those looking to further appreciate Joanna Russ and her work. You can get it here.
Randomly Yours, Alex 