“The aesthetic disposition which tends to bracket off the nature and function of the object represented and to exclude any naive reaction--horror at the horrible, desire for the desirable--along with all purely ethical responses, in order to concentrate solely upon the mode of representation...is one dimension of a total relation to the world and to others, a life-style, in which the effects of particular conditions of existence are expressed in a mis-recognizable form...[this] can only be constituted within an experience of the world freed from urgency and through the practice of activities which are an end in themselves, such as scholastic exercises or the contemplation of works of art.” (Bourdieu, “Aristocracy of Culture” 251)
What the hell does all of that mean? It’s not a bad question. What I’m going to explore here is the question of JCVD as high or low art, and whether or not such a delineation should even be considered in our JCVD project.
I was reading Bourdieu (obviously) and I couldn’t help but think of Kate and I’s little project here. There are those that have expressed shock and dismay at our goal, and there are some that mocked us until they saw us in action--we are impressive deconstructionists I do have to say (if you only knew all the observations that don’t make it to the final draft). But as I considered high art vs. low art, specifically the judgment passed immediately on a person based on the type of art they prefer, I began to be irritated by the either/or requirement of society’s approach.
That is to say, Mr. Bourdieu is pointing out above and in his article that society requires if one is to achieve an aesthetic disposition--the ability to engage and appreciate high art--the viewer must be able to appreciate form over meaning and to extract him or herself from a goal orientated approach. You watch an independent film, for example, and comment on the cinematography and lighting, but care nothing for the emotional response it elicits. A more popular example would be There Will Be Blood; aesthetically speaking it is a beautifully made movie. All the parts--the images, the words, the acting--are individually amazing, but for many popular movie-goers (i.e. those who prefer “low art”) the experience was unfulfilling and disheartening.
I would argue that in our society one is perceived to either like high art or low art. Those are the categories we try to shove people into: male or female, gay or straight, educated or not, tasteful and discerning or crass and ignorant. But why can’t particular works straddle the line? Specifically, why can’t particular works be used to demonstrate there is no line?
Take our JCVD movies; as we travel back in time to the “classics” there is a very different caliber of movie being made. But as Kate and I deconstruct the movies our goal doesn’t have to be a thinly veiled attempt at mocking “high art”. We aren’t engaging in a scholastic exercise or contemplation which is an end unto itself, nor are we sharing only our horror at the horrible parts and our desire for the desirable parts. Hopefully we’re doing both, or, at least, that is the idea. And this is worth considering, I would argue, because as a viewer a naive reaction can be enjoyed--it is exciting when JCVD takes off his shirt, does the splits and crotch-shots the bad guy--while simultaneously our aversion to particular female characters or their representations can be examined for embedded gender roles. A preference for a darker movie versus a lighter one can be considered in an aesthetic versus philosophical light: does one like sad endings because the pathos (emotional appeal) is more appealing or does one like sad endings because one has a deeply jaded and broken view of the world? Both of those questions are viable and worth answering, and both can be explored with high and low art.
And each JCVD movie, while entertaining and painful in its own right, has revealed the possibility for aesthetic detachment, noble education, and emotional enticement as existing in every work. Should students be taught JCVD instead of Shakespeare? Possibly not. But if a student wants to write an analysis paper on Bloodsport should s/he be denied only because it’s Bloodsport? If a viewer is incapable of recognizing why someone else would enjoy a JCVD movie, is that not just as much of a failure as someone who was incapable of enjoying anything else?
As the field of Pop Culture expands and explores the effects and social reinforcements of our “popular” entertainment there is the simultaneous pressure to present “scholarly academic work” while also remaining “entertaining.” We are serious academics, but it is popular culture after all. When the two are set up in opposition, however, an almost untenable tension is created that restricts movement back and forth between the two approaches. This tension also strengthens the cultural hierarchy of real art, meant to educate, from low ball stuff meant to entertain.
When I began watching the older movies with Kate, I had a slight panic attack. What in all of the known universe were we going to offer about Double Impact or Double Team? (Despite not having watched them yet, I just know those two are going to be rough.) JCVD was ripe with conversational possibilities but what could be garnered from Lionheart that wasn’t a dreadfully obvious attempt at forcing meaning? But then I read Bourdieu and I remembered: it isn’t about the themes, or the cinematography, or even the slightly dubious early acting of Mr. JCVD himself. It’s about being completely entertained by simplistic plots that don’t want to confuse you or upset you, and that simple entertainment (if we can call any entertainment simple) is not a waste of time.
In any experience of enjoyment or disappointment the possibility exists of examining one’s own personal ethical, moral, and aesthetic code. Low art can be used to achieve this as easily as, if not more effectively than, high art. It is easy to be distracted by the themes, metaphors, and allegories of high art, but low art leaves you nothing to think about or discuss outside yourself and your reactions. That can be disconcerting, annoying, and lonely, but it can also be revealing, entertaining, and humorous.
So I hope to bring an aspect of the pure gaze to our JCVD movies, an aesthetic appreciation if you will, but I hope neither the fun nor the aestheticism gets subsumed by the other.
JCVD wins!!
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Monday, September 21, 2009
Coming soon...
We will be reviewing another fabulously classic JCVD flick in the very near future. This has unfortunately been delayed due to my own shameful behavior the other night when I fell asleep before the end of the movie. I have made my personal amends to the movie gods, and I am sure we are all looking forward to the ensuing post!
Friday, September 18, 2009
Lionheart
Overall VD Rating: 6
This is our first foray into “classic” JCVD, and we want it understood that the standards for this film and the others like it will be slightly varied from the more artistic films like Wake of Death and JCVD. This is what a film connoisseur would label an “Action Film” and it should be remembered that when watching such wholesome entertainment if you aren’t cheering and clapping by the end, something has gone very wrong. No part of this film will be judged for artistry. (There was A LOT of saxophone.) (And roller-skates.) (And a kilt.)
JCVD Exposure: 8
We want to take a moment and first emphasize how well JCVD cries. He is an infallible crier; he never over does it or sobs, but holds your attention on the screen with giant, wet, sad eyes, and well placed tears tracing the well defined planes of his face. It should be pointed that Kate finds him most attractive while crying.
On a more personal level, this movie includes the finest gluteus maximus caught on film pre-300. JCVD should always put on a bathrobe by first exposing his backside. It is, actually, the only way to dress. The next scene included a fabulous dressing montage ala Pretty Woman featuring splendiferous styles from 1990; the scene became iconic when, for no discernable purpose, the camera panned down offering an aerial shot of JCVD in the dressing room wearing nothing but tightie-whities. He is not a small man.
It is good, on occasion, to give thanks to the movie gods.
Good rule for these movies: anytime he’s wet the first time you see him, you know you’re in for a good time. In this movie it was sweat, but he was sweaty a lot in a tight t-shirt, swinging a hammer, driving a post into the ground that--we don’t know why it needed to be in the ground, but we were thankful it did. He’s sweaty again shortly thereafter, artfully lit by a furnace, into which he is shoveling coal--shirtless. It was the best coal shoveling ever.
This movie also had the best worn wrestling singlet...EVER. A style made only hotter when he falls in the water becoming wet. Again.
And then there’s the JCVD swagger. You might not have noticed in your previous viewings, but in almost all the films he is shown walking around wherever he is. We feel the director makes this choice because JCVD is a HOT walker. The man swaggers like a veritable badass and tempers his rough edges by speaking French sweetly to little girls and their school marms.
We had to deduct one point for no sexy time.
JCVD Boot to Face Action: 5
There were multiple slow motion shots of awesomeness. These included: jump knee to the back; jump roundhouse to the head (multiple); elbow to face for knockout; amazing hair flip out of water (bad guy, but it needed to be mentioned); crotch shot.
The fights were a little bit slow, however, and very obviously choreographed. It should be understood this was the technique of the time period, but the editing made the reaction times of the fighters so slow as to be unbelievable at times and greatly reduced the dramatic possibilities.
It is hard not to cry aloud when JCVD is getting the crap kicked out of him. We take these movies seriously.
The music was reasonably spectacular and 90’s fab. The saxophone led the way, its mournful tones seemed to dominate almost every scene and we both found ourselves waiting for a vampire to jump out of the alleyway and demand sexy time of JCVD. The final fight scene was intensified by good music use, though; starting with the theme in minor as Lionheart refuses to go down the theme changes back to major and the snare drum comes in sparking the march to the end and our hero valiantly destroys his opponent.
The Effect of Supporting Roles on JCVD’s Awesomeness: 5
We were hurting for a good villain here. The main villain was a woman we dubbed “Fish Lady” for her cold, dead eyes and little mouth opening and closing like a fish gasping out of water. We have no doubt had she been successful in her attempted seduction JCVD would have found himself at the fish market.
The sidekicks were truly spectacular. The kid was tre-awesome; she was almost so cute it hurt to watch. She was also a good actress which we’ve grown to truly appreciate in our JCVD movies. Joshua, his “manager” was the broken man whose soul is redeemed by Lionheart’s indefatigable nobility. Joshua, a down on his luck black man, appears to be nothing but an action film stereotype upon first meeting; he uses words like “jive,” eats KFC, and is pimped out in a three piece suit, but the movie allows him to blossom into a three dimensional character that wins the viewers hearts and offers an emotional sincerity to the film that was unexpected. He could be argued to be the best part of the film. If JCVD didn’t get naked.
Surprising Themes That Must Needs Be Mentioned
Madonna/Whore Complex: Villain = bad lady, over sexualized, sexually aggressive, surrounded by men. Heroine = good lady, mousy, mother, no male companion or demonstrated sexuality, old lady shoes. Probably Naturalizers. It got a bit aggrandizing at times.
Lionheart = Jesus Christ: We offer this point under protest because it isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but there are enough elements we would be remiss if we didn’t touch on it. He wanders in the desert; he forgives everyone and restores their faith and goodwill through said forgiveness. He is the redemption of Joshua (name means follower of Christ) who betrays him in the eleventh hour; he receives a wound to the side indicative of a spear wound. Following the steps of the hero quest, JCVD dies, is reborn, and redeems those around him.
Memorable Mentions: There is a man with a handlebar mustache. There are random people on roller-skates. There is a man that fights in a kilt. There is unfortunate denim wearage.
Lionheart is a hero for the ages. He’s a man of great strength and no wasted effort. There is no more physical action or spoken words than necessary. He suffers and wins in silence. These qualities mark him as noble and heroic, supported by his constant vigilance of those around him, even those he fights.
We cheered at the end of this movie. Cheered we tell you.
This is our first foray into “classic” JCVD, and we want it understood that the standards for this film and the others like it will be slightly varied from the more artistic films like Wake of Death and JCVD. This is what a film connoisseur would label an “Action Film” and it should be remembered that when watching such wholesome entertainment if you aren’t cheering and clapping by the end, something has gone very wrong. No part of this film will be judged for artistry. (There was A LOT of saxophone.) (And roller-skates.) (And a kilt.)
JCVD Exposure: 8
We want to take a moment and first emphasize how well JCVD cries. He is an infallible crier; he never over does it or sobs, but holds your attention on the screen with giant, wet, sad eyes, and well placed tears tracing the well defined planes of his face. It should be pointed that Kate finds him most attractive while crying.
On a more personal level, this movie includes the finest gluteus maximus caught on film pre-300. JCVD should always put on a bathrobe by first exposing his backside. It is, actually, the only way to dress. The next scene included a fabulous dressing montage ala Pretty Woman featuring splendiferous styles from 1990; the scene became iconic when, for no discernable purpose, the camera panned down offering an aerial shot of JCVD in the dressing room wearing nothing but tightie-whities. He is not a small man.
It is good, on occasion, to give thanks to the movie gods.
Good rule for these movies: anytime he’s wet the first time you see him, you know you’re in for a good time. In this movie it was sweat, but he was sweaty a lot in a tight t-shirt, swinging a hammer, driving a post into the ground that--we don’t know why it needed to be in the ground, but we were thankful it did. He’s sweaty again shortly thereafter, artfully lit by a furnace, into which he is shoveling coal--shirtless. It was the best coal shoveling ever.
This movie also had the best worn wrestling singlet...EVER. A style made only hotter when he falls in the water becoming wet. Again.
And then there’s the JCVD swagger. You might not have noticed in your previous viewings, but in almost all the films he is shown walking around wherever he is. We feel the director makes this choice because JCVD is a HOT walker. The man swaggers like a veritable badass and tempers his rough edges by speaking French sweetly to little girls and their school marms.
We had to deduct one point for no sexy time.
JCVD Boot to Face Action: 5
There were multiple slow motion shots of awesomeness. These included: jump knee to the back; jump roundhouse to the head (multiple); elbow to face for knockout; amazing hair flip out of water (bad guy, but it needed to be mentioned); crotch shot.
The fights were a little bit slow, however, and very obviously choreographed. It should be understood this was the technique of the time period, but the editing made the reaction times of the fighters so slow as to be unbelievable at times and greatly reduced the dramatic possibilities.
It is hard not to cry aloud when JCVD is getting the crap kicked out of him. We take these movies seriously.
The music was reasonably spectacular and 90’s fab. The saxophone led the way, its mournful tones seemed to dominate almost every scene and we both found ourselves waiting for a vampire to jump out of the alleyway and demand sexy time of JCVD. The final fight scene was intensified by good music use, though; starting with the theme in minor as Lionheart refuses to go down the theme changes back to major and the snare drum comes in sparking the march to the end and our hero valiantly destroys his opponent.
The Effect of Supporting Roles on JCVD’s Awesomeness: 5
We were hurting for a good villain here. The main villain was a woman we dubbed “Fish Lady” for her cold, dead eyes and little mouth opening and closing like a fish gasping out of water. We have no doubt had she been successful in her attempted seduction JCVD would have found himself at the fish market.
The sidekicks were truly spectacular. The kid was tre-awesome; she was almost so cute it hurt to watch. She was also a good actress which we’ve grown to truly appreciate in our JCVD movies. Joshua, his “manager” was the broken man whose soul is redeemed by Lionheart’s indefatigable nobility. Joshua, a down on his luck black man, appears to be nothing but an action film stereotype upon first meeting; he uses words like “jive,” eats KFC, and is pimped out in a three piece suit, but the movie allows him to blossom into a three dimensional character that wins the viewers hearts and offers an emotional sincerity to the film that was unexpected. He could be argued to be the best part of the film. If JCVD didn’t get naked.
Surprising Themes That Must Needs Be Mentioned
Madonna/Whore Complex: Villain = bad lady, over sexualized, sexually aggressive, surrounded by men. Heroine = good lady, mousy, mother, no male companion or demonstrated sexuality, old lady shoes. Probably Naturalizers. It got a bit aggrandizing at times.
Lionheart = Jesus Christ: We offer this point under protest because it isn’t a one-to-one comparison, but there are enough elements we would be remiss if we didn’t touch on it. He wanders in the desert; he forgives everyone and restores their faith and goodwill through said forgiveness. He is the redemption of Joshua (name means follower of Christ) who betrays him in the eleventh hour; he receives a wound to the side indicative of a spear wound. Following the steps of the hero quest, JCVD dies, is reborn, and redeems those around him.
Memorable Mentions: There is a man with a handlebar mustache. There are random people on roller-skates. There is a man that fights in a kilt. There is unfortunate denim wearage.
Lionheart is a hero for the ages. He’s a man of great strength and no wasted effort. There is no more physical action or spoken words than necessary. He suffers and wins in silence. These qualities mark him as noble and heroic, supported by his constant vigilance of those around him, even those he fights.
We cheered at the end of this movie. Cheered we tell you.
Wednesday, September 9, 2009
JCVD IS Santa Claus
Dear Kate:
Amazon.com has informed me that my order has shipped today. On Thursday I will receive: Universal Solider; the Jean-Claude Van Damme Action Pack (4 Movies); the Jean-Claude Van Damme Double Pack (2 movies). I wanted to let you know that Christmas came in September this year and I feel this is proof that JCVD is, in fact, Santa Claus. How else could he bring us 14 hours of blissful euphoria for all our hard work? Well, 12 hours if we subtract for the mullet, but even Christmas presents can’t do everything.
Sincerely and with deepest affection,
Jess
Amazon.com has informed me that my order has shipped today. On Thursday I will receive: Universal Solider; the Jean-Claude Van Damme Action Pack (4 Movies); the Jean-Claude Van Damme Double Pack (2 movies). I wanted to let you know that Christmas came in September this year and I feel this is proof that JCVD is, in fact, Santa Claus. How else could he bring us 14 hours of blissful euphoria for all our hard work? Well, 12 hours if we subtract for the mullet, but even Christmas presents can’t do everything.
Sincerely and with deepest affection,
Jess
JCVD Life Lesson #2: The Dissertation Attack
I was walking to class today pondering our JCVD project; like anything new I am excited about, it inevitably consumes my thoughts, and I find myself fixating on what I want to accomplish. Both Kate and I knew from the start that we wanted to talk not only about movies, but also about life, the universe, everything. While Douglas Adams has revealed the answer to be 42, I think I’ve been hoping a little bit that JCVD would unveil the question.
It occurred to me, though, as thoughts about my dissertation vied with thoughts about Van Damme in my head (it probably speaks to my potential as a scholar since my research has to compete with my musings on action movies) that Kate and I had created a methodology, explained it, and implemented it. Methodologies are tricky things; if you want to make up a word and argue that this word names a concept or social conception/construct that has, as of yet, gone unnoticed you have to present a methodology--the studious, critical approach you will take to define, reveal, and prove that your social observation is both correct and valid.
Think about whatever philosophy you’ve had to read in your life. At some point, usually the beginning, when the philosopher is discussing how s/he came about the insight s/he plans to spend the rest of the book fleshing out, there is a defining of terms and a creation of proof--as in mathematical proof. It isn’t exactly a mathematical proof obviously, but the idea here is that someone else can read your work and use your methodology to do their own study of the concept created.
Are you confused? Welcome to the world I have willingly chosen to make my life.
I have no idea (NO IDEA) how to go about writing something like this, or, at least, I didn’t. But on my walk to class today it occurred to me that I had already created a methodology. Our VD ratings system.
The Claim: That all JCVD movies can be evaluated against each other for merit and meaning
The Proof: Our criteria listed in the our Mission Statement.
The Result: The JCVD Project and whatever entertainment and or value it offers to those who read it.
We have established a set of criteria and defined them creating a structure for our theories of what makes a worthwhile JCVD movie and why. We have explicated our reasons for rating the movies we watch based upon said criteria. We have offered specific reasons for why doing this matters to us.
Basically what this means in simple terms is this: I’ve written something that almost precisely models what I will have to do for a Doctorate of Philosophy. And I’ve done it with Kate on Jean-Claude Van Damme movies.
Tell me you too recognize the ludicrousness of what has happened here.
But more than having stumbled upon an unplanned “writing practice” I’ve begun to engage in the exact activities I am constantly trying to teach to my students. When we study world literature I spend entire lectures attempting to demonstrate to them that they are already doing at home what they must in class. When they watch a movie or tv or whatever and then talk about it with their friends the thought process that is being engaged in is the same as the process required for education, work, and general self evaluation. Granted, often times it is a more simplistic and naive process, but that doesn’t change the significance of recognizing the two processes as similar.
Being able to justify an appreciation for JCVD is, at its core, the same thing as justifying an appreciation for Homer or Milton (I know, half my friends are cursing me right now and the other half are groaning because they realize I’m really not going to ever get a job and will, in fact, be living in their basements). You have to work harder for a justification of JCVD because a purely aesthetic argument, “I liked it cause shit blew up,” doesn’t justify it as worth anyone else’s time to think about, and many JCVD movies are lacking in the larger themes, never mind ubiquitous cultural context, of the texts studied in the classroom. But it can be done, and that’s the part that I feel is important. That’s also the part I feel we forget to make clear when we are teaching why thinking matters. Not Milton, not Shakespeare, not Chaucer or Dante--it’s the thinking that matters and the process of questioning why anything is worth reading or watching. The “classics” just lend themselves more obviously to the sorts of questions that need to be asked.
But just because it seems silly to examine human nature through the lens of JCVD doesn’t make it worthless. It might be unexpected and possibly even ridiculous, but no matter what any one person finds this to be in the end, the subject matter is inconsequential--it’s the process that counts. I think JCVD the action hero could appreciate that.
And I say “whatever” to how ludicrous this all sounds: JCVD is gonna help me graduate. That’s like a metaphysical roundhouse kick/groin shot combination.
It occurred to me, though, as thoughts about my dissertation vied with thoughts about Van Damme in my head (it probably speaks to my potential as a scholar since my research has to compete with my musings on action movies) that Kate and I had created a methodology, explained it, and implemented it. Methodologies are tricky things; if you want to make up a word and argue that this word names a concept or social conception/construct that has, as of yet, gone unnoticed you have to present a methodology--the studious, critical approach you will take to define, reveal, and prove that your social observation is both correct and valid.
Think about whatever philosophy you’ve had to read in your life. At some point, usually the beginning, when the philosopher is discussing how s/he came about the insight s/he plans to spend the rest of the book fleshing out, there is a defining of terms and a creation of proof--as in mathematical proof. It isn’t exactly a mathematical proof obviously, but the idea here is that someone else can read your work and use your methodology to do their own study of the concept created.
Are you confused? Welcome to the world I have willingly chosen to make my life.
I have no idea (NO IDEA) how to go about writing something like this, or, at least, I didn’t. But on my walk to class today it occurred to me that I had already created a methodology. Our VD ratings system.
The Claim: That all JCVD movies can be evaluated against each other for merit and meaning
The Proof: Our criteria listed in the our Mission Statement.
The Result: The JCVD Project and whatever entertainment and or value it offers to those who read it.
We have established a set of criteria and defined them creating a structure for our theories of what makes a worthwhile JCVD movie and why. We have explicated our reasons for rating the movies we watch based upon said criteria. We have offered specific reasons for why doing this matters to us.
Basically what this means in simple terms is this: I’ve written something that almost precisely models what I will have to do for a Doctorate of Philosophy. And I’ve done it with Kate on Jean-Claude Van Damme movies.
Tell me you too recognize the ludicrousness of what has happened here.
But more than having stumbled upon an unplanned “writing practice” I’ve begun to engage in the exact activities I am constantly trying to teach to my students. When we study world literature I spend entire lectures attempting to demonstrate to them that they are already doing at home what they must in class. When they watch a movie or tv or whatever and then talk about it with their friends the thought process that is being engaged in is the same as the process required for education, work, and general self evaluation. Granted, often times it is a more simplistic and naive process, but that doesn’t change the significance of recognizing the two processes as similar.
Being able to justify an appreciation for JCVD is, at its core, the same thing as justifying an appreciation for Homer or Milton (I know, half my friends are cursing me right now and the other half are groaning because they realize I’m really not going to ever get a job and will, in fact, be living in their basements). You have to work harder for a justification of JCVD because a purely aesthetic argument, “I liked it cause shit blew up,” doesn’t justify it as worth anyone else’s time to think about, and many JCVD movies are lacking in the larger themes, never mind ubiquitous cultural context, of the texts studied in the classroom. But it can be done, and that’s the part that I feel is important. That’s also the part I feel we forget to make clear when we are teaching why thinking matters. Not Milton, not Shakespeare, not Chaucer or Dante--it’s the thinking that matters and the process of questioning why anything is worth reading or watching. The “classics” just lend themselves more obviously to the sorts of questions that need to be asked.
But just because it seems silly to examine human nature through the lens of JCVD doesn’t make it worthless. It might be unexpected and possibly even ridiculous, but no matter what any one person finds this to be in the end, the subject matter is inconsequential--it’s the process that counts. I think JCVD the action hero could appreciate that.
And I say “whatever” to how ludicrous this all sounds: JCVD is gonna help me graduate. That’s like a metaphysical roundhouse kick/groin shot combination.
Tuesday, September 8, 2009
JCVD and Life Lessons
Believe it or not, we feel that JCVD does allow for some personal reflection, at times even helping us to take personal inventory of ourselves. The hero action movie genre in general offers many cliches and archetypes, but rarely offers applicable lessons in life. Or, at least, it would seem that way.
Currently, I am working on two important concepts that don't seem to have much to do with one another: detachment and acceptance. The problem I have with detachment is not letting others' attitudes or harsh words throw me off base. Acceptance is a difficult concept; it involves letting go of things that are out of my control.
Amazingly enough, these lessons can be seen in JCVD (the movie). Of course, it's easier to ponder on JCVD's (the actor) most existential and artistic performance, and I admit that this feat may not have been possible if considering a movie such as "Universal Soldier: The Return," but it still amazes me that JCVD is such an example in this movie. Here is another example of how he embodies the true hero in this movie, while at the same time the movie emphasizes his lack of action movie heroics.
JCVD must learn detachment. He must learn to love his daughter even though she doesn't want him near. He needs to learn how to let go of the Hollywood that almost took him down. He also must detach from others' judgments of him when they assume he is the perpetrator of the bank robbery. Instead of wallowing in this, JCVD owns it in a way that eventually helps to save the other hostages.
Just as I am learning, one must detach, but must do so in a loving, compassionate way. He does not hate his daughter or retaliate against the police. He simply does what has to be done without letting judgment affect his important role in the movie, which could be likened to his role in life. He hurts. He suffers. He is sad about what the world has done to him. But he doesn't let it defeat him. In fact, he proves something to himself: he is, in some way, the hero everyone thinks he is. Until this challenge, he hadn't seen himself in that way, couldn't understand why others could idolize him. However, he also knows that whatever others think of him is not attached to the true person inside.
Ultimately, detachment is connected to acceptance. When JCVD hears the unfair verdit incarcerating him for embezzlement, he does not comment. We never see him fight the charges, the media, even the cab driver's perception. He goes to jail, and when in jail, makes the best of his situation, teaching karate classes. And in the end, all of this detachment and acceptance does bring his daughter back, though we are left wondering what role she will play in his life.
More importantly, through detachment and acceptance, JCVD has a greater knowledge of himself, which perhaps includes more compassion for those he had thought did not understand him, as well as a renewed sense of a life's purpose. Though things may not have gone the way that he might have planned when he was in his early thirties and shooting "Universal Soldier," he is important as a man, as a human being.
Currently, I am working on two important concepts that don't seem to have much to do with one another: detachment and acceptance. The problem I have with detachment is not letting others' attitudes or harsh words throw me off base. Acceptance is a difficult concept; it involves letting go of things that are out of my control.
Amazingly enough, these lessons can be seen in JCVD (the movie). Of course, it's easier to ponder on JCVD's (the actor) most existential and artistic performance, and I admit that this feat may not have been possible if considering a movie such as "Universal Soldier: The Return," but it still amazes me that JCVD is such an example in this movie. Here is another example of how he embodies the true hero in this movie, while at the same time the movie emphasizes his lack of action movie heroics.
JCVD must learn detachment. He must learn to love his daughter even though she doesn't want him near. He needs to learn how to let go of the Hollywood that almost took him down. He also must detach from others' judgments of him when they assume he is the perpetrator of the bank robbery. Instead of wallowing in this, JCVD owns it in a way that eventually helps to save the other hostages.
Just as I am learning, one must detach, but must do so in a loving, compassionate way. He does not hate his daughter or retaliate against the police. He simply does what has to be done without letting judgment affect his important role in the movie, which could be likened to his role in life. He hurts. He suffers. He is sad about what the world has done to him. But he doesn't let it defeat him. In fact, he proves something to himself: he is, in some way, the hero everyone thinks he is. Until this challenge, he hadn't seen himself in that way, couldn't understand why others could idolize him. However, he also knows that whatever others think of him is not attached to the true person inside.
Ultimately, detachment is connected to acceptance. When JCVD hears the unfair verdit incarcerating him for embezzlement, he does not comment. We never see him fight the charges, the media, even the cab driver's perception. He goes to jail, and when in jail, makes the best of his situation, teaching karate classes. And in the end, all of this detachment and acceptance does bring his daughter back, though we are left wondering what role she will play in his life.
More importantly, through detachment and acceptance, JCVD has a greater knowledge of himself, which perhaps includes more compassion for those he had thought did not understand him, as well as a renewed sense of a life's purpose. Though things may not have gone the way that he might have planned when he was in his early thirties and shooting "Universal Soldier," he is important as a man, as a human being.
Universal Soldier: The Return
Overall VD Rating: 3
This movie was really friggin’ ridiculous.
JCVD Exposure: 1
Ultimately we rated this movie a 3 because his shirt never came off. Just about everyone takes their shirts off except for our main man. The bitchy love interest report, Jesse “The Body” Venture (Romeo) an entire army of Unisols (short for Universal Soldiers) and a throng of strippers all bare their chests. The verdict: too much boobage that isn’t JCVD’s. We award 1 point for the brief moment of excitement delivered when his outer shirt catches on fire and your loins hitch at the possibility of full shirt removal.
JCVD Boot to Face Contact: 5
Slow motion signature roundhouse kick; a roundhouse kick to the back of the head; evil Unisols coming down the ceiling to metal music; a roundhouse kick to the head of the evil computer turned man frozen by CO2 (not to be confused with T2 where he was frozen with liquid nitrogen).
If shit hadn’t blown up this movie would be worth nothing.
The Effect of Supporting Roles on JCVD’s Awesomeness: 0
All the women were like anorexic, unwashed harpies screeching across a chasm. If these women were told to “act like themselves” they would stand there, pop their gum, and ask what their motivation was. Women like this almost make me hate my vagina.
The only bright spot in this black hole of suck was Jesse “The Body” Ventura as, wait for it, Romeo. It’s been many a year since Predator, but Jesse showed he hadn’t forgotten how to fire a gun, rip his shirt off, and flex. He even bench pressed our very own JCVD. What saved him, and added what small enjoyment could be found in his catastrophe, was his obvious acknowledgment of the ludicrousness of the movie he was making. It wasn’t worth a point though.
We felt none of the supporting actors increased JCVD’s awesomeness...in fact they suffocated it. If he would have taken his shirt off we would have given it a 4. Call us shallow, but you gotta give a girl something.
Memorable Mentions: 3 Bonus Points
“Invented bio-agent neutralizing foam.” It would stop all the chemicals exploded in biological warfare. That would be handy.
“Sadaam-a-go-go”--a song listed in the credits. Classy.
These memorable mentions are included to remind you we are closely examining these movies for all possible worth and critical thought.
This movie was really friggin’ ridiculous.
JCVD Exposure: 1
Ultimately we rated this movie a 3 because his shirt never came off. Just about everyone takes their shirts off except for our main man. The bitchy love interest report, Jesse “The Body” Venture (Romeo) an entire army of Unisols (short for Universal Soldiers) and a throng of strippers all bare their chests. The verdict: too much boobage that isn’t JCVD’s. We award 1 point for the brief moment of excitement delivered when his outer shirt catches on fire and your loins hitch at the possibility of full shirt removal.
JCVD Boot to Face Contact: 5
Slow motion signature roundhouse kick; a roundhouse kick to the back of the head; evil Unisols coming down the ceiling to metal music; a roundhouse kick to the head of the evil computer turned man frozen by CO2 (not to be confused with T2 where he was frozen with liquid nitrogen).
If shit hadn’t blown up this movie would be worth nothing.
The Effect of Supporting Roles on JCVD’s Awesomeness: 0
All the women were like anorexic, unwashed harpies screeching across a chasm. If these women were told to “act like themselves” they would stand there, pop their gum, and ask what their motivation was. Women like this almost make me hate my vagina.
The only bright spot in this black hole of suck was Jesse “The Body” Ventura as, wait for it, Romeo. It’s been many a year since Predator, but Jesse showed he hadn’t forgotten how to fire a gun, rip his shirt off, and flex. He even bench pressed our very own JCVD. What saved him, and added what small enjoyment could be found in his catastrophe, was his obvious acknowledgment of the ludicrousness of the movie he was making. It wasn’t worth a point though.
We felt none of the supporting actors increased JCVD’s awesomeness...in fact they suffocated it. If he would have taken his shirt off we would have given it a 4. Call us shallow, but you gotta give a girl something.
Memorable Mentions: 3 Bonus Points
“Invented bio-agent neutralizing foam.” It would stop all the chemicals exploded in biological warfare. That would be handy.
“Sadaam-a-go-go”--a song listed in the credits. Classy.
These memorable mentions are included to remind you we are closely examining these movies for all possible worth and critical thought.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
