Series Review: Wet Hot American Summer: First Day Of Camp

It's pretty embarassing to admit this but I only recently watched the gem that is Wet Hot American Summer (2001), a sort of sleeper film that later became a cult favourite. I think it's one of those films that I've come across every now and then but never really got around to watching until my Paul Rudd obsession blew up. I've always liked Paul Rudd (let's be honest, who doesn't?) but after Ant-Man I started my Rudd phase as I do with all the middle-aged men I fall in love with: 1) download/stream any and every film or show he's ever done 2) watch all his interviews on YouTube 3) change the wallpaper on my laptop and phone to display his glorious ageless face. Naturally at some point I watched WHAS, loved it, heard there was a prequel, and flipped out.

The thing about WHAS is that if you know nothing of it, I can only tell you it's a film about a bunch of camp counselors on their last day at Camp Firewood. That's it. Is it a comedy? Yes. Is it a parody? Yes. Is it satire? Definitely. Is it a drama? You could say so. It's just this crazy, zany, weird, intelligent and completely delightful ride that you can only enjoy if you don't think too much of things like narrative and coherence, because those things aren't treated in this film the same way other films treat them. And that's the beauty of it. It's meant to be a film about one single day at camp, yet there are literally a thousand and one things happening, sometimes simultaneously, all in the space of those few hours.

Prequels and sequels aren't always well-received, especially when the original is really good. When I heard that there was going to be an eight-episode miniseries prequel for WHAS I was pretty skeptical, even with practically the entire original cast returning. Still, I waited anxiously for July 31, the day of the release of WHAS: First Day Of Camp, and naturally had to wait some more because the episodes were released on Netflix, which is a service I don't have access to, and thus had to get hold of the episodes from a, uh, different source. Anyway! Guess what?

I LOVED First Day Of Camp. Absolutely loved it. Had a blast.

I think the hilarity in First Day Of Camp is that it just keeps getting more and more ridiculous, which is what WHAS was all about. One bit that always gets me is when they reference their ages by clearly insisting that they are all "sixteen or seventeen" with their lives ahead of them while wearing outfits that display all manner of paunches and double chins. Even makeup can't hide the lines on their faces. Although there are exceptions to this - ie. Paul Rudd and Elizabeth Banks.

Paul Rudd as Andy honestly gets some of the best lines, like this one. The fact that Rudd is just about the nicest guy in Hollywood only makes his turn as the super-hot but super-douchebaggy Andy all the better. In WHAS, he was constantly cheating on girlfriend Katie (Marguerite Moreau) with Banks' character, Lindsay. In First Day Of Camp, we get to see how Andy and Katie got together, with Andy working hard to win Katie's heart. 

While the fun is largely in seeing beloved characters tell their story, there's also plenty of references to the original movie, as well as new characters to inject some fresh life into the camp. Not all the characters work, and some storylines could have been dropped, but overall it was the perfect thing to binge watch within a day. I'll let the gifs/screencaps do the talking:

Abby Bernstein before she hit puberty (which in itself is extremely entertaining) 

Lindsay on her Camp Firewood friends

Andy talking about his romantic side

Andy being late

Gene and the famous can of vegetables

Andy being a good counselor

Coop getting a gift from his girlfriend Donna

Acclaimed sleazeball of a theatre director Claude Dumet seducing Susie

This could go on for a long time. I should just end this by saying that I'm highly impressed that David Wain and Michael Showalter managed to make a prequel miniseries that lived up to and surpassed expectations, and if you haven't seen it yet, you really should. Start with the film, then watch the prequel episodes. It's worth it.

Live Tweet feat. If Walls Could Talk Vol. 5

Movie Review: Fantastic 4

On the 6th of August 2015, Fantastic 4 premiered in Malaysia. Not long afterwards a friend of mine offered me a free ticket to see the film courtesy of his company, which holds free movie screenings for their employees (and plus-ones) every month. I gladly accepted, and so made my way to eCurve, Damansara, on Friday, August 7 2015, for the 8.00 pm showing of Fantastic 4. 

Our seats were very close to the screen, somewhere in the fourth row or so. It was a decidedly packed hall, with most seats filled. I was slightly miffed when I realised that the man beside me had a bad case of the sniffles, causing him to breathe very heavily and most audibly throughout the entire film. I side-eyed him once and he immediately held his breath. I was highly amused, as well as pacified since he was clearly aware of his problem. There was also a slight kerfuffle when a group of young men squeezed past my friend and I to get to their seats and somehow managed to kick my slipper under Heavy Breather's seat, where it remained until I managed to retrieve it when the show ended.

Aside from the moviegoing experience, I would love to say that the movie itself was as fantastic as it should be. Sadly, it was not so. First of all, we can make comparisons to the first Fantastic Four movie, which came out in 2005.



A sequel was released in 2007, titled Fantastic Four: Rise of the Silver Surfer.

There is a vast chasm between the 2015 film and the first two. Fantastic Four and Rise of the Silver Surfer were undoubtedly silly and campy, filled with corny dialogue and stereotypical villains and heroes, but there was always an undercurrent of goofiness throughout - a sense that everyone was along for the ride, prepared to suspend belief for a while and have some fun. Fantastic 4, however, tries to be completely serious. The first act, which sets up the characters with plenty of background, was probably the most bearable part of the movie. We get to see Reed and Ben before they became Mr Fantastic and The Thing, when they were just curious schoolboys discovering teleportation. We see that Ben comes from an unhappy working-class home, while Reed is a lonely child. As teenagers, Reed's intelligence earns him an invitation from Professor Franklin Storm to join the Baxter Foundation, a research institute funded by the government. There, Reed meets Storm's daughter, Sue, who also works at the institute. Together with her wayward brother Johnny and Franklin's brilliant but troubled former protege, Victor Von Doom, they create a gateway that allows them to teleport to an unknown planet abundant in natural resources that can save Earth. The trouble begins when the boys, including Ben, make a forbidden trip to the planet and end up in an accident that gives them their powers. They are then forced to choose sides between aiding questionable government-propagated military "activities" or striking out on their own. The choice becomes more urgent when Victor, who was thought to have perished in the accident, returns with a vengeance and an agenda of his own.

The script was terrible, as was the acting, as was the plot. For starters, the feeble attempts to showcase the love triangle between Reed, Sue and Victor felt incredibly forced and too sudden. From the moment Sue and Reed meet, Sue shows little interest until one sudden day when she decides to engage with him in friendly, teasing conversation. Of course, Victor looks on jealously, his reflection mirrored in the door as he peers at them. Then there is the display of their powers: Sue Storm has the ability to turn invisible and create force fields that allow her to fly, yet when she does take flight it requires her to stick out her arms like an awkward scarecrow. Surely there was a better way to display her flying abilities.

As for the ending, anticlimax would be an understatement. Victor Von Doom, now known as Doom, has become all-powerful and wants to end Earth as we know it.

The Four attempt to take him down in a final battle but find his powers impossible to defeat separately. After some badly-choreographed fighting, Reed has a brainwave and tells everyone that they need to band together to take Doom down. They proceed to try and succeed so easily that one wonders what the point of showing Doom's powers was.

Once they destroy Doom, the world is saved... and that is all. 1 hour and 46 minutes of uninspired conflict is resolved so easily. The Four are recruited by the government to help them in future crises and are given headquarters of their own, which they deem so fantastic, it becomes their name. A more anti-climactic ending could not have been more yawn-inducing. Overall, the characters are too uninteresting for viewers to be really invested in. Professor Franklin's preachiness, perhaps meant to be some kind of redemption for these youngsters, falls flat as plainly overdone camp. The plot has a promising start but quickly becomes too convoluted and contrived at the same time. It is a pity that Fantastic 4 aims so high but ends up nowhere near the greatness of its name.

Play Review: The Tailor-Made Man

The Tailor-Made Man was a play staged by Acts Church at PJ Live Arts Centre from August 7-9, 2015. A friend of mine invited me to see it, and I accepted as I was intrigued by the write-up of the play, which included phrases such as "steam-punk influences". From the photographs, it seemed like an interesting rock-inspired retelling of the story of Joseph from the Bible. As someone who was raised in a Christian home, I have heard and even performed the story of Joseph more times than I can count. Hence the idea of a new version of the story sounded very appealing.

The tickets were priced at RM37 after tax. We purchased two seats for the Sunday matinee show, August 9, at 3.00 pm. The venue is not large, yet the lack in size does somewhat allow for a more intimate setting. We were seated on the far right, close to the back, which allowed for a semi-decent view of the stage. I would say about three quarters of the ground seats were filled, and perhaps a sprinkling of the upper level as well. Most of the audience was seated before the play began, save for a few latecomers.

If you are not familiar with the story of Joseph, here is a very simple version: there was once a young man named Joseph who had big dreams, dreams in which his father, mother and many brothers bowed down to him. Upon hearing about these dreams, Joseph's brothers become angry, especially as Joseph is their father's favourite son, and eventually sell him to a slave trader. Somehow Joseph ends up in the house of Potiphar, captain of Pharaoh's guard, and does so well for himself that he is made head of the household. Potiphar's wife tries to seduce him but fails, so she accuses him of rape and has him sent to prison. But even there, Joseph rises in the ranks and is summoned to help Pharaoh interpret a dream, which he does. From then on Joseph's star does nothing but continue to rise. The crux of the story comes when a terrible famine hits and Joseph's brothers have to buy supplies from Joseph, who is now essentially the Prime Minister of Egypt.

Now, one might think a retelling would have some otherworldly interpretation, which was what I was hoping for. Unfortunately, it was not so. It might well have been the exact story of Joseph, with exercises of creative license to accommodate budget and setting constraints, plus attempts to modernise the story. There were less brothers, for one thing, which was probably the right move seeing as how biblical Joseph had eleven brothers. Joseph's father, Jacob, was some sort of businessman who had annual business trips to Tokyo. This was fine, except that when the brothers had to get supplies, they called it "going to New Egypt" because they couldn't use their "reserve funds". If you live in a globalised world where Daddy flies to Tokyo every year and presumably makes other intercontinental flights too, surely you wouldn't have to go to "New Egypt" just because you don't have anymore food? As for reserve funds, if you're short on food, what are reserve funds for? There were also several dream sequences in which a tailor speaks to Joseph in riddles. The actor who played the tailor was good but his character didn't seem to do anything except give Joseph vague words of encouragement and dress him in garments that were supposed to match what he was going through. Think about the title of the play, and the role of the tailor becomes even more confusing. Is he supposed to be Jesus? But Jesus does not show up yet in that part of the Bible! Even if it is a reinterpretation, or if the tailor is just a random man in Joseph's dreams, what purpose does he serve to further Joseph's story? He literally doesn't help in any way.


(The Tailor with Joseph)

Then there were the costumes. Granted, they were interesting to look at; punk-rock influences were strong, with lots of black leather, chains dangling from shoulders, military-style jackets and gold face paint. I suppose they did bring an interesting new element to the story but I also wondered what they were supposed to mean, apart from looking rather striking. In the Bible, when Jacob gives Joseph a coat, it is supposed to be very colourful and lovely and special, but in this play, the coat Joseph received didn't look like much. I actually thought his brothers' jackets stood out more.


(Lots of characters here with Pharaoh's throne, which looks suspiciously like a certain famous throne from a show about thrones)

Speaking of Joseph, you would think a titular character should be somewhat likable or at least interesting enough to hold your attention. This Joseph was nothing of the sort. He was whiny and arrogant and stayed that way until the end of the play. I had no desire whatsoever to see him succeed or even to see him at all. In the early scenes, his brothers were portrayed as aggressive, revenge-seeking types wanting to pay Joseph back for being the favourite and for daring to dream, but Joseph himself was such a stuck-up brat, lording his dreams over his brothers and basking in Jacob's attention, that I really did not mind him being sold into slavery.






(Joseph in prison with other prisoners and a hilarious chief jailor who completely stole the scene)

The play lasted about two hours, with a short intermission, and I fell asleep twice. That probably already indicates how interesting it was. A little harsh, one might say, but my friend also found certain scenes draggy, especially when the actors screamed their lines so much so it was hard to understand what they were saying.



(The cast taking their bows)

Was it a good show? I would not say I hated it, but it certainly was not worth RM37. I think it would have been better if 1) they had presented it as a faithful adaptation of the biblical story, sans the modernisation, as that completely threw the plot off - a wealthy business-minded family does not suddenly fall prey to starvation in a globalised world, or 2) they had taken more extreme liberties with the narrative - maybe Josephine and her eleven sisters in a dystopian world? I would pay to watch that. Perhaps those who are less familiar with the story of Joseph might have enjoyed it more. For my friend and I, The Tailor-Made Man was far too frustrating, confusing and predictable.

A Quick Critique

             This newspaper critique will be looking at two articles that cover the recent updates on the missing Malaysia Airlines airplane, commonly known as Flight MH370. The first is titled, “Malaysia’s Statements on Flight 370 and Plane Debris Rekindle Relatives’ Grief and Anger”, from the New York Times (Forsynthe, 2015), and the second, “ Differing messages on 777 part frustrate Flight 370 families”, from The Huffington Post (Ng, 2015).

            These newspaper articles are written in relation to Flight MH370, which disappeared en route from Kuala Lumpur to Beijing on March 8, 2014. The New York Times largely covers the reactions of families whose relatives were on the flight, towards the discovery of part of a wing, known as a flaperon, which washed up on a remote island in the Indian Ocean. The flaperon has generated a large amount of interest due to the high possibility that it is part of the missing plane. The article includes comments from family members, expressing their frustration at contradictory statements made by official parties regarding the flaperon. It also touches on the actions of the Malaysian authorities since the flight went missing and the current affairs of the Malaysian Prime Minister, Najib Razak.

            Meanwhile, the Huffington Post also showcases the emotions and sentiments of the families, while providing some background to the discovery of the flaperon. The article shows how the mixed messages from Malaysian and French officials in particular, regarding identification of the flaperon, are most distressing to the families. It also mentions conspiracy theories in passing towards the end.

            With regards to the New York Times article, the focus is mostly on two things: the way in which the manhandling of MH370 and its related events have affected the families involved, and the suspicion towards Malaysian officials and their tarnished reputations. Direct quotes from three family members, all Chinese, are included in the article; there are also mentions of their demonstrations at the Malaysia Airlines and Boeing offices in Beijing, China. Several paragraphs have been devoted to discussing the newly discovered flaperon; it notes that Prime Minister Najib made his announcement confirming the origin of the flaperon as part of MH370 before the manufacturer of the plane did so. It also makes note of Najib’s involvement in the current Malaysian scandal regarding an enormous amount of money allegedly transferred into the Prime Minister’s personal accounts before the previous general election, as well as the rather misguided efforts by Malaysian authorities to find MH370 in the immediate aftermath of the missing jet.

            The article from the Huffington Post takes a slightly different, although not entirely opposed approach; it focuses on the disparity between statements made by Malaysian, French, Australian and American authorities regarding the flaperon found on Reunion Island. From the Malaysian side, Najib confirms that it is indeed from the missing plane, as does the Transportation Minister, Liow Tiong Lai. However, the Australian government, currently in charge of the seabed search for the plane, only admits to a high probability of the flaperon’s origins, and even suggests there is good reason to doubt the Malaysian statements. As for the French, officials have debunked Liow’s claims regarding new debris besides the flaperon, and are only affirming their dedication to analysing the flaperon for concrete proof.

            It is interesting that the New York Times article contains such emphasis on the grief of the Chinese families, a move that feels like an attempt to gain readers’ empathy. At times it feels like an effort to contain the focus on MH370, seeing as the plane disappeared more than a year ago. Perhaps the article hopes to gain undivided attention of its readers, some of whom may be desensitized to any news of the missing plane, considering the amount of coverage it has received since that eventful March day last year. The article also hints at the kinks in the leadership of Najib Razak, with sly nods to his alleged involvement in embezzling money, perhaps offering the suggestion that the search for the missing plane and now, the investigation of the flaperon, would be better conducted under a different person.

            The Huffington Post, meanwhile, discusses the contradictory statements made by authorities from all sides regarding the flaperon. It is a clear directive to readers that the facts are never quite facts, and the truth is a matter of circumstances and who delivers it. The Malaysian authorities are perceived as rather hasty in their remarks, possibly in a desperate attempt to gain closure and some semblance of dignity in the debacle that has been and is MH370. This is especially clear when posed against the cautious statements of French investigators. It seems there is no clear consensus on the matter, which only serves to deepen the sorrow and confusion of the families involved.

            In conclusion, there are many similarities between the two articles from the New York Times and the Huffington Post, albeit with a slightly different focus. Both articles are well-researched and contain enough details to clue in an uninformed reader, while posing new information to the seasoned follower of the missing flight MH370. One article showcases the real, uncontrolled side of a grief that has yet to find closure, while the other poses the facts of a case and leaves it open for interpretation. I cannot say one has an edge over the other – rather it is a choice on the reader’s part, to take in what he/she will, and decipher of it what she/he will.

Reference

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/huff-wires/20150806/missing-malaysian-plane/?utm_hp_ref=world&ir=world

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/07/world/asia/mh370-families-debris.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0